Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
HCD appreciates the hard work and dedication Karen Warner, the City’s consultant provided in preparation of the City’s housing element and looks forward to receiving the City’s adopted housing element. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Divya Sen,
of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougal
l
Senior Program Manager
ATTACHMENT 14-399
May 24, 2021
Burbank City Council
Burbank City Hall
275 E. Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 90512
Dear Councilmembers:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the housing element of Burbank’s general plan. We are writing on behalf ofAbundant Housing LAand YIMBY Law regarding Burbank’s 6th Cycle housing element update. Abundant Housing LA is a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis, andYIMBY Law’s mission is to make housing in California more accessible and affordable through enforcement of state housing law. We support more housing at all levels of affordability and reforms to land use and zoning codes, which are needed in order to make housing more affordable, improve access to jobs and transit, promote greater environmental sustainability, and advance racial and economic equity.
In October 2020, AHLA shareda letter with the City of Burbank, providing guidance on how the City should fulfill both the letter and the spirit of housing element law. We have reviewed the City’s draft Housing Element, and have major concerns about the City of Burbank’s willingness and ability to meet its state-mandated RHNA targets.The staff report and draft site inventory are inconsistent with HCD’s instructions and the requirement that housing element updates affirmatively further fair housing under Assembly Bill 686.
The following issues are of particular concern to us:
1. Planning’s process for selecting sites and assessing their capacity does not accurately estimate parcels’ likelihood of development or net new units if redeveloped.
Therefore, Planning has not identified enough sites where 8,750 homes will realistically be developed by 2029.
An accurate assessment of the site inventory’s housing capacity is necessary in order for the housing element to achieve sufficient housing production. The site capacity estimate should account for the following two factors:
● What is the likelihood that the site will be developed during the planning period? ● If the site were to be developed during the planning period, how many net new units of housing are likely to be built on it?
1 ATTACHMENT 14-400
These are the likelihood of development1 and net new units if developed2 factors, as required by HCD guidelines. The portion of the jurisdiction’s RHNA target that a site will realistically accommodate during the planning period is:
(likelihood of development) x (net new units if developed) = realistic capacity.
Planning’s analysis identifies 12 sites in Burbank’s Downtown and 7 sites in the Golden State Specific Plan, totaling 95.7 acres and containing theoretical zoned capacity for about 6,100 housing units. However, Planning does not estimate the likelihood of development for these parcels. Instead, Planning only provides a cursory discussion of why these sites may be good candidates for redevelopment, without providing quantitative evidence or analysis. Although Planning claims “property owner and/or developer interest in acquiring and assembling underdeveloped parcels into larger development sites”,3 Planning did not share any letters from property owners indicating their interest in selling or redeveloping these sites.
Per HCD guidelines, if a jurisdiction assigns more than 50% of its lower-income RHNA to nonvacant sites (as Burbank does), the jurisdiction must make findings supported by “substantial evidence” that the sites’ existing uses are “likely to be discontinued during the planning period.”4 Planning did not follow this instruction, which is a requirement under Assembly Bill 1397.
We disagree with Planning’s contention that all 19 sites will all be redeveloped by 2029. For example, the Site Assessment assumes that all four acres of Golden State Specific Plan block No. 1 (Lima/Avon) will be built out at the density of Downtown Burbank (84 units per acre), producing 334 homes.5 However, this block is entirely occupied by a variety of light industrial businesses, including the popular Lincoln Beer Company. Planning provided no evidence that the site is nonviable as industrial land, or that the various property owners intend to sell.6 Similarly:
● The owners of TOD 6 (Burbank Town Center) spent $60 million to renovate the property in 2018.7 It seems unlikely that the property will be redeveloped withany housing, much less the anticipated 1,020 new homes.
● TOD 7, the Civic Center parking lots, are owned by the City of Burbank. The City showed no interest in developing any city-owned land during the previous RHNA cycle, and provided no evidence that this stance will change during the 6th cycle. ● TOD 8 is fully occupied by a variety of small businesses. 7 https://www.burbanktowncenter.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/130/2018/10/BurbankRenovationsCostPlus_FINAL-1.pdf 6 https://www.lincolnbeercompany.com/
5 Draft Housing Element, pg. D-26
4 Gov’t Code 65583.2(g)(2), also HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 26-28. “when a city or county is relying on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.” 3 Burbank Draft Housing Element, pg. 1-71
2 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 21
1 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 20
2 ATTACHMENT 14-401
● GSSP 5 is the parking lot for a busy office complex which hosts Insomniac Games, a video game studio.
Housing production data from the 5th cycle further casts doubt on Planning’s implicit assumption that all 19 sites will be redeveloped by 2029. At the outset of the 5th cycle, Burbank claimed a theoretical capacity ofroughly 5,573 more housing units. Through 2019, Burbank permitted 501 housing units, which equates to 668 housing units permitted by the end of the 5th cycle (assuming that the same annual permitting pace continues through 2021). This implies that in Burbank, excess zoned capacity has a12% likelihood of being developed(668 actual units divided by 5,573 theoretical units).8
The City mustfairly estimate the likelihood of development for all parcels on the suitable sites inventory.The City of Sacramento’sdraft site inventoryprovided a high-quality, numerical analysis of the likelihood of their sites’ development through a “tiered classification system to classify the non-vacant underutilized sites”.9 Sacramento’s good approach offers a model for Burbank to build on.
Recommendations:
1.1 Provide a quantitative estimate of parcels’ development probabilities, and incorporate this factor into the estimate of sites’ realistic capacity.
1.2 Report the proportion of sites in the previous housing element's inventory that were developed during the planning period.
1.3 Share letters from owners of the site inventory parcels, indicating their interest in selling or redeveloping these properties during the 6th Cycle.
1.4 Remove parcels from the site inventory where redevelopment is unlikely to occur during the 6th Cycle.
1.5 Commit to a mid-cycle review to verify Planning’s assumptions about development probabilities. If it turns out that sites within a tier, or category, were developed at a lower-than-expected rate during the first half of the cycle, then the city should rezone for additional capacity or make other appropriate adjustments for the second half of the planning period.
1.6 If the City lacks enough suitable sites to achieve the RHNA target, rezone additional parcels where redevelopment is likely.
2. Planning assumes that 2,180 housing units that were approved or pending approval during the 5th Cycle will be built during the 6th Cycle, without accounting for the near-certainty that some projects will never be built.
The City counts 1,245 units in projects pending entitlement and 935 units in approved projects towards Burbank’s 6th cycle RHNA target, and assumes that all 2,180 units will ultimately be 9 Public Review Draft, City of Sacramento Housing Element 2021-2029, p. H-2-15 8 Burbank 5th Cycle Housing Element, pgs. 20, 48. Burbank's housing element claims a citywide capacity of 50,219 housing units under current zoning (pg. 48). Burbank had 44,646 units in 2010 (pg. 20). This suggests a citywide claimed capacity of 5,573 units.
3 ATTACHMENT 14-402
built. This is a faulty assumption: not every pending project gets approved, and not every approved project gets built. Although some of the projects listed here are currently under construction, like the First Street Village, most are not, and many may never be.
While the City may count permitted or entitled units towards its 6th Cycle RHNA goals, it must realistically estimate how many of these units will ultimately be built during the 6th Cycle, based on recent historical data. TheCity of Los Angeles’ Initial Studycounted active planning entitlements, approved planning entitlements with no building permit, and permitted projects that have not yet been completed towards its 6th Cycle RHNA goals, but discounted each category based on the share of proposed units expected to be built, using the City’s historical data.
Planning must incorporate a similar estimate into its Inventory Analysis.Using data from recent projects, the City of Los Angeles estimated that 37% of projects with pending entitlements, 45% of projects with approved entitlements, and 79% of permitted projects, are ultimately completed.10 Burbank, with more restrictive permitting and less than half the housing growth rate of Los Angeles, should discount the number of pending and approved entitlements counted toward its RHNA target by at least the same factors:
1,245 units pending entitlement x 37% chance of completion = 461 units 935 units entitled x 45% chance of completion = 421 units Thus, the City might reasonably claim 882 units from pending and entitled projects towards the RHNA target. Alternatively, Planning could use local data from recent projects to estimate these percentages. But Planning should certainly not count 2,180 units towards its 6th cycle RHNA goal.
Recommendation:
2.1 Provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and adjust the number of in-pipeline units counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target accordingly.
3. Planning makes overly optimistic forecasts of future ADU production which are unlikely to be achieved even with aggressive policies, without providing evidence to support this claim.
HCD has established two safe harbors for forecasting ADU production during the 6th Cycle11.
One option (“Option #1”) is to project forward the local trend in ADU construction since January 2018. The other, for use when no other data is available (“Option #2”), assumes ADU production at five times the local rate of production prior to 2018. 11 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
10 Initial Study, City of Los Angeles, pg. 21
4 ATTACHMENT 14-403
Burbank issued permits for 54 ADUs in 2018, 110 ADUs in 2019, and 112 ADUs in 2020. Under a correct calculation of HCD’s “Option #1”, Burbank would take the average of the ADU permitting trend between 2018 and 2020, and forecast that 92 ADUs will be permitted per year during the 6th Cycle. This would allow for a total 6th cycle forecast of 736 ADUs.
However, Planning counts 1,600 ADUs, or 200 ADUs per year, towards the City’s RHNA target.
Planning contends that a small reduction in processing fees, expedited application review, and pre-approved ADU plans will lead to a doubling in the number of ADUs permitted annually going forward.12 But Planning provides no tangible evidence that these relatively minor incentives will yield this outcome.
The housing element therefore significantly overstates the likely production of ADUs during the 6th cycle, possibly as a tactic to avoid rezoning.Planning must correct its calculation of the ADU safe harbor, and simply apply the average of annual ADU permits issued between 2018 and 2020, per HCD’s guidelines.
Recommendations:
3.1 Burbank must use HCD’s Option 1 safe harbor, and project that 736 ADUs will be permitted during the 6th Cycle.High-quality data is available on the local trend in ADU construction since January 2018, so this is the appropriate safe harbor to use. If the City believes that higher ADU production forecasts are warranted, it must provide well-grounded estimates, based on the pace of ADU production in neighboring jurisdictions, and must explain what programs or policy efforts it will adopt that would lead to higher ADU production than it currently observes.
3.2 Follow HCD’s recommendation to track ADU and JADU creation and affordability levels, and commit to a review at the planning cycle midpoint to evaluate if production estimates are being achieved.” 13 Burbank’s housing element should commit to mid-cycle rezoning if ADU production is lower than forecasted, and its midpoint review should be linked with immediate and automatic programs to increase housing production in the second half of the RHNA cycle. Our recommended approach is to incorporate by-right density bonuses on inventory sites, which would automatically take effect mid-cycle if the ADU target is not met. The density bonus should be large enough, and apply to enough parcels, to fully make up for any ADU production shortfall.
4. Planning did not propose adequate reforms to address the major constraints on redevelopment that exist in Burbank.
Building housing in Burbank is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. Development timelines are long, with an average time of 12-16 months for multifamily project approval.14 Mixed-use projects take even longer, requiring a 3-4 year approval process and a conditional use permit 14 Draft Housing Element, 1-59
13 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
12 Draft Housing Element, pg. 1-74
5 ATTACHMENT 14-404
(for which approval can take 12-16 months alone).15 This process is a major impediment to housing production.
Burbank’s housing stock only grew 0.7% between 2015 and 202016 (putting it 43rd out of 89 jurisdictions in Los Angeles County), despite extremely strong demand for housing as evidenced by high rents (the median renter household pays $1,555/month, 37rd-highest in Los Angeles County)17. Similarly, the ratio of home price to replacement cost is 2.6, one of the highest in the county.18 Per Professor Chris Elmendorf of the University of California, Davis and his co-authors ofSuperintending Local Constraints on Housing Development, the above data suggest that restrictive land use rules are making homebuilding difficult in Burbank, leading to continued shortage and high costs.
Housing element law requires cities to provide an analysis of constraints on housing development, as well as a program to mitigate or remove these constraints. While the Draft Housing Element discusses constraints in detail, including long approval timelines, strict limits on building size, high construction costs, and a lack of local funding for affordable housing production, the report does not commit to a strong enough program to remove policy constraints that deter housing production. Merely recommending “a program to review and update the City’s multi-family development standards, including re-evaluation of parking, setbacks, height and other standards to enable compact, well-designed multi-family product types”19 is inadequate:
the City must commit to specific policy changes and rapid implementation.
Other cities in California have successfully implemented process reforms that streamline housing production. The City of Los Angeles’ Transit Oriented Communities program approves qualifying projects by-right, leading to an average approval time of 6 months for by-right projects. Santa Monica recently made all new residential and mixed-use development project approvals by-right, and has gotten its approval time down to six months or less for most new development. But the best ordinance to emulate comes from Sacramento, where the Ministerial Housing Ordinance provides for ministerial approval of 2-150 unit mixed-use and multifamily projects within 60 days, and 151-200 unit mixed-use projects in 90 days. 20 This would dramatically streamline the process of building new housing, and reduce the administrative workload on city staff by reducing the number of unnecessary hearings and studies.
We urge Burbank to commit to major constraint removal policies in order to encourage strong housing growth at all levels of income.
Recommendations:
20 https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Planning/Major-Projects/Ministerial-Housing 19 Draft Housing Element, pg. 1-44
18 Elmendorf et al., Superintending Local Constraints on Housing Development, 2020 17 American Community Survey
16 California Department of Finance, Report E-5, 2020
15 Draft Housing Element, 1-59
6 ATTACHMENT 14-405
4.1 Establish a fast by-right review process for all new multifamily and mixed-use buildings which meet the zoning law and the General Plan.Sacramento’s Ministerial Housing Ordinance is an excellent model to follow.
4.2 Pre-approve standard ADU, small-scale “missing middle” multifamily and small lot subdivision housing plans, allowing developers to receive a permit quickly if they use a pre-approved design.
4.3 Eliminate the conditional use permit requirement for mixed-use projects.
4.4 Reduce restrictions on maximum height, floor-area ratio, and lot coverage.
5. The housing element does not promote new housing opportunities on parcels where apartments are currently banned, even near the planned NoHo-Pasadena busway.
Instead, it concentrates lower-income housing opportunities in areas with significant noise and air pollution exposure. This approach fails to affirmatively further fair housing and reverse existing patterns of residential segregation.
AB 686 (2018) requires housing element updates to “affirmatively further fair housing”, which is defined as “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and fosters inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” The City must address the issue of residential segregation by accommodating the lower-income RHNA targets in a way that conforms with AFFH requirements.
In April 2021, HCD issued anAFFH Guidance Memo, which establishes a number of important principles for promoting fair housing, including:
● A city’s AFFH analysis should reveal “current and historical spatial patterns of subsidized housing within and surrounding the jurisdiction, including emergency shelters, subsidized affordable housing, supportive housing, and usage of housing choice vouchers.”21 ● The distribution of housing-element inventory sites with lower or moderate income capacity must not be skewed toward lower-income neighborhoods. To demonstrate that the site inventory furthers fair housing, the city must calculate the percentage of households at lower, moderate, and above-moderate income levels in each census tract or “block group” in the city, and then do the same for the lower, moderate, and above-moderate-income RHNA units assigned to the tract or block group. The share of lower-income RHNA units assigned to tracts (or block groups) with a higher-than-average share of lower-income households should be less than the current share of lower-income households in those tracts.22
● The housing element must benchmark the citywide distribution of household incomes against the distribution in the county or region, and state. The AFFH program of a predominantly high-income city, like Burbank, must break down barriers that keep lower income and minority households from accessing housing in the city.23 ● “Goals, policies, and actions” to further fair housing must be “aggressively set to overcome ... contributing factors [to fair housing problems, and thus] to meet the 23 AFFH Guidance Memo, pp. 15, 32-34, 77
22 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 47
21 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 46
7 ATTACHMENT 14-406
‘meaningful impact’ requirement in statute.”24 The list of actions shall include concrete timeframes for implementation, measurable outcomes, explicit prioritization (“high,” “medium,” or “low”), and “must be created with the intention to have a significant impact, well beyond a continuation of past actions.”25
● “The schedule of actions generally must” (1) enhance the mobility of low-income and minority communities, (2) encourage the development of new affordable housing in high-opportunity areas, (3) protect existing residents from displacement, and (4) invest in disadvantaged places.26
In our region, housing policy and land use regulations were once used to exclude members of minority groups. Redlining and restrictive covenants, which restricted where Black, Latino, and Asian Americans could live, were once common in Los Angeles County. Discrimination in housing takes other forms today: even afterde jure segregation was banned, opponents of neighborhood change in prosperous areas weaponized zoning policy to make apartment construction illegal in much of Los Angeles County, especially in high-income areas. Restrictive zoning has perpetuated historic patterns of segregation and exclusion, and continues to push housing opportunities for lower-income households away from high-cost, high-opportunity cities.
To this day, apartments are banned on80% of the residentially-zoned land in Burbank. The median home sale price in Burbank was $755,000 in 2018, and 54% of the city’s renters are “rent-burdened” (i.e. they spend more than 30% of their income on rent) 27. This denies historically disadvantaged groups housing opportunities near job centers, quality schools, and other public resources, a situation that persists today.
The City is obligated to promote fair housing opportunities and undo patterns of segregation. Burbank should follow HCD’s recommendation that cities distribute lower-income housing opportunities throughout the city, and recommends that cities first identify development potential for lower-income housing in high-opportunity neighborhoods.28 This would mean rezoning more parcels, including residential parcels currently zoned single-family only, to encourage enough housing growth to achieve the RHNA target in full.
However, the City’s proposed site inventory does not include enough parcels to make achievement of the RHNA target likely. The city proposes no rezoning on any R1-zoned parcels, even those that are near the forthcoming NoHo-Pasadena Metro Busway. This is a recipe for missing the RHNA target, which means that the housing element is unlikely to advance the goal of socioeconomic integration or greater housing affordability.
Also, by proposing to accommodate 75% of the lower-income RHNA target in the Downtown and Airport districts only, which are locations with significant exposure to noise and air pollution, and by failing to encourage housing growth in other residential neighborhoods, where 28 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 3
27 Abundant Housing LA letter to Burbank, October 2020
26 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 54
25 AFFH Guidance Memo pp. 52, 71
24 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 52
8 ATTACHMENT 14-407
environmental quality is significantly better, the City risks perpetuating the concentration of lower-income households in areas with poor environmental quality.
Burbank should promote additional housing opportunities, including housing for lower-income households, by allowing small apartment buildings and townhouses citywide. It is especially important for Burbank to legalize multifamily housing production near the NoHo-Pasadena Metro Busway. The line will serve most of Burbank’s major employers and destinations29, with stations planned at Hollywood Way/134 (Warner Bros., Burbank Studios), Alameda/Naomi (Providence-St Joseph, Disney, CBS), Olive/Verdugo, Olive/Lake (Nickelodeon Animation), Olive/San Fernando (Downtown Burbank), and Glenoaks/Alameda.30
But outside Downtown, the housing element does not encourage new housing growth near any of these stations, even though many sites near the stations are perfect for redevelopment. Most commercial buildings near the busway stations are squat one- and two-story buildings built after World War II, with large surface parking lots. For example, the block bracketed by Verdugo, Parish, Olive and Reese is 100 yards away from a planned busway station. Currently, it has a few squat commercial buildings and 2.3 acres of surface parking.
Squat commercial buildings with large surface parking lots line the busway corridor.
The other buildings along this corridor also present opportunities for new housing. For example, the Buena Vista Branch Library has an oversized 1.9 acre parking lot, and the Olive Rec Center has a 2.8 acre parking lot. The same is true of residential areas, which frequently contain older tract homes on large lots.
The commercial areas near the busway are mostly zoned C2 (Limited Commercial), while the residential areas are mostly zoned R1 (Single-Family Residential), with high mandatory parking requirements, broad setbacks, and limited density. This means that Burbank’s current zoning does not allow current and future residents to fully benefit from the busway. 30 http://media.metro.net/2021/4-1-21-NoHo-Pas-Community-Update-Meeting.pdf 29 Namely, Warner Bros., Disney, Providence-St Joseph, Deluxe, ABC, and Nickelodeon. 9 ATTACHMENT 14-408
Zoning map overlaid with planned Metro Busway stations.
The City should rezone all residential areas within a 10-minute walk of busway stations for apartments at Downtown densities, and rezone commercially-zoned land for mixed-use development, with loosened parking, setback, open space and height requirements. When rezoning, Burbank should emulate the City of Los Angeles’s Transit Oriented Communities program, which offers generous by-right density bonuses to developers who include affordable housing in new developments near mass transit. Transit Oriented Communities has led to theproposal of over 30,000 homes(of which 20% are deed-restricted affordable units) in Los Angeles, built at no cost to the taxpayer.
New housing and businesses near transit are good for everyone. They’re good for Burbank residents, particularly those who have been denied fair housing opportunities due to their race or income. They’re good for City finances, due to increased property and sales taxes (Redwood City analyzed the impact of new housing construction on its General Fund, and found that each new multifamily unit brought in additional net revenue of $254 per year).31 They’re good for Burbank merchants, because new residents mean new customers. They’re good for Burbank 31 https://meetings.redwoodcity.org/AgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=2245&doctype=1 10 ATTACHMENT 14-409
schools, which currently face declining enrollment due to the aging population.32 They’re good for the environment, because someone who lives and works in Burbank can walk, bike, or take the bus to work, instead of clogging the 134 freeway. And rezoning is good for current homeowners, because a parcel’s value increases if it’s legal to build more homes on that parcel.33
Recommendations:
5.1 Upzone parcels located near transit, job centers, schools, and parks in order to expand the supply of housing in Burbank’s highest-opportunity areas, including areas within a 10-minute walk of future busway stations. This should include R1 parcels where single-family detached homes are currently mandated by law.
5.2 Ensure that housing opportunities for lower-income households are not concentrated in neighborhoods with high concentrations of low and moderate income households, or in neighborhoods with significant exposure to noise or air pollution.
5.3 Enact a citywide small lot subdivision ordinance modeled on the policy in Los Angeles.
5.4 Introduce a density bonus program similar to Los Angeles’ Transit Oriented Communities program (with 50-80% density bonuses) to permit additional affordable housing to be built near mass transit.
5.5 Eliminate on-site minimum parking mandates, which drive up the cost of housing production and reinforce car dependency.
5.6 Identify new funding sources and public resources to encourage the production of affordable housing, such as reform of the City’s real estate transfer tax and introduction of congestion pricing.
5.7 Exempt parcels containing rent-restricted and de facto affordable housing units from rezoning.
***
The City of Burbank has a legal obligation to sufficiently plan to meet current and future residents’ housing needs, in a way that guarantees access to opportunity for Californians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. The issues that we’ve highlighted above suggest that the City is not on a path to fulfilling this legal obligation. We urge you to change course and actively embrace this opportunity to provide a variety of attainable housing options for Burbank’s residents and workers.
Finally, state law imposes penalties on jurisdictions that fail to adopt a compliant 6th Cycle housing element update by October 15, 2021. On that date, noncompliant jurisdictions will forfeit the right to deny residential projects on the basis of local zoning, so long as projects include at least a 20% set-aside for below market-rate units or are 100% moderate-rate projects 34. 34 California Government Code 65589.5(d)(5)
33 Upzoning Chicago: Impacts of a Zoning Reform on Property Values and Housing Construction 32 Draft Housing Element, 1-11
11 ATTACHMENT 14-410
Noncompliant jurisdictions may also lose the ability to issue building permits, potentially including permits for kitchen and bath renovations. Jurisdictions that want to maintain local control over new development should therefore plan to adopt a compliant housing element update on time.
We request the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to address the concerns raised in this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Anthony Dedousis
Director of Policy and Research
Abundant Housing LA
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
CC: Jason Elliott, Senior Counselor to Governor Gavin Newsom Assemblymember Laura Friedman, California State Assembly Assemblymember David Chiu, California State Assembly
Senator Scott Wiener, California State Senate
Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD 12 ATTACHMENT 14-411
ATTACHMENT 14-412
ATTACHMENT 14-413
ATTACHMENT 14-414
ATTACHMENT 14-415
Read about the coalition here
ATTACHMENT 14-416
August 27, 2021
Burbank City Council
Burbank City Hall
275 E. Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 90512
Dear Councilmembers:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the housing element of Burbank’s general plan. We are writing on behalf ofthe Our Future LA Coalitionregarding the 6th Cycle housing element update.
2 ATTACHMENT 14-417
Why does this matter?Because we face a cascade of housing crises in our region.And while nearly everyone in Los Angeles County feels the crush of our housing crisis, Black and Latino residents feel it more than most:
● Black households have 1.12% the wealth of white households, and Latino households less than 5% (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco)
● Black people make up 8% of the county population, but 33.7% of people experiencing homelessness (LAHSA)
● Even under COVID-related eviction moratoriums, Black and Latino neighborhoods face disproportionately higher eviction threats (Los Angeles Times, UCLA) These are the effects of decades of racist policies that we have not eradicated: Restrictive covenants, exclusionary zoning, and redlining made it impossible for Black families to build wealth through homeownership, and result in lower homeownership and higher rents today. The California Constitution’s Article 34 and local “crime-free housing” policies put roadblocks in the way of addressing racial divisions in Californians’ housing affordability and security.
This impact was felt devastatingly during the pandemic, when essential workers living in overcrowded housing were exposed to COVID at work and had no choice but to expose their families at home, leading to disproportionate deaths among Black and Latino people.
Neighborhoods in South and Southeast LA, where nearly 20% of homes are overcrowded (defined as more than one person per room) had COVID rates of roughly 14,000 cases per 100,000 people. Neighborhoods on the Westside, where less than 5% of homes are overcrowded, had rates well under 5,000 cases per 100,000 people.1 Death rates were similarly disproportionate -- at a time (January 2021) when the city of Beverly Hills was reporting 21 COVID deaths, and the neighborhood of Brentwood 9, the city of Compton reported 147, and the neighborhood of Westlake 202.2 In all, COVID-19 mortality rates in LA County were roughly twice as high for Black people (31 deaths/100,000 individuals) and Latinos (29/100K) as for whites (15/100K) (from CGLA).
Of the 3,007 counties in the United States, L.A. County ranks last in housing affordability, overcrowding, and unsheltered homelessness. We are not doing enough to preserve and create homes for working class and lower-income people. The affordable housing crisis, rampant speculation, and housing shortage have gotten so bad that lower-income Black and Latino families are being pushed out of their homes and communities at an alarming rate. At the rate we’re going, next generations won’t be able to live in Los Angeles County.
Los Angeles County is legally required to build 341,000 affordable homes by 2030.To truly address our needs, we need more than double that.At the rate we’re going today, we might build 25,000. That’s 7% of what’s needed. That kind of failure will fall hardest on Black and Latino families, who disproportionately face eviction, homelessness and having to choose between rent and food. Our Future LA demands we not let that happen. 2 “We Are Forced to Live in These Conditions’: In Los Angeles, Virus Ravages Overcrowded Homes”, NY Times, 1/23/21 1 “When coronavirus invaded their tiny apartment, children desperately tried to protect dad”, LA Times, 1/29/21 3 ATTACHMENT 14-418
In order to create a better housing future, we must make every neighborhood resource-rich so people can live where they want to live and don’t have to leave their community to find opportunity. We must also achieve equitable land use and zoning so that we open-up new areas to greater density and value capture, while also ensuring that areas already zoned for density are protected from environmental and spatial racism. As the region plans for growth, there must be no conversion of wildlife habitat to housing or further development in wildfire hazard areas, as identified by CalFire. We understand that the City cares deeply about these issues, and we hope to offer assistance in addressing them.
As it stands right now, the draft housing element will not meet Burbank’s goals around equity and affordability. We submit these comments in the spirit of collaboration in order to partner and provide research, grounded data to help in meeting housing needs. We are interested in having a meeting to discuss these comments more.
Our Future LA Housing Element Comments
1. Protections and preservation
A. The housing element must do more to prioritize rezoning in transit-rich, job-rich, and high-resource neighborhoods, including single-family zoned areas. This is necessary to expand affordable housing opportunities while minimizing the impact on existing renters in multifamily-zoned areas.
B. The housing element should expand just-cause eviction protections to cover all tenants and establish a corresponding enforcement program.
C. The housing element should implement a local RSO or strengthen/reduce the annual allowable rent increase for the existing RSO program.
D. The housing element should codify a tenant’s right to counsel in an eviction proceeding.
E. The housing element should strengthen its permanent tenant education program to inform tenants of their rights and how to access eviction defense resources.
F. The housing element should exclude parcels containing RSO housing units in the housing element’s site inventory.
G. The housing element should require that no net loss provisions apply to parcels in the site inventory and rezoning program with a monitoring and implementation program.
H. The housing element should institute local programs and funding sources for preservation of existing affordable housing.
4 ATTACHMENT 14-419
2. Prioritization of affordable housing
A. The housing element should utilize a value capture mechanism, such as inclusionary zoning, to locally fund and/or incentivize affordable housing.
B. The housing element should prioritize creation of affordable housing on public land.
C. The housing element should streamline affordable housing production.
D. The housing element should include programs for 100% affordable housing zoning overlays, and should ensure that these overlays apply to high-opportunity areas.
E. The housing element should include programs for 100% affordable housing zoning overlays, and should ensure that these overlays apply to high-opportunity areas currently zoned R1.
3. Site Capacity Assessment
A. The housing element should estimate and report both the likelihood of development and the net new units if developed of inventory sites, both vacant and nonvacant.
Comparison of claimed capacity vs. estimated realistic capacity Income
Category RHNA Target
Claimed
Capacity in
Draft HE
NNL Buffer
Estimated
Realistic
Capacity in
Draft HE
Recommended
Realistic
Capacity w/20%
NNL
Realistic
Capacity
Gap
VLI + LI 3,971 4,212 6% 505 4,765 -4,260
MI 1,409 1,512 7% 181 1,691 -1,509
AMI 3,392 4,219 24% 506 4,070 -3,564
Total 8,772 9,943 13% 1,193 10,526 -9,333
We estimate that the draft housing element will fall short of the RHNA goal, by 9,333 units of realistic capacity. The City mustfairly estimate the likelihood of development for all parcels on the suitable sites inventory.
B. The housing element should report the proportion of sites from the previous housing element’s inventory that were developed during the previous planning period, and HCD-recommended methodologies and data sources should be used in order to conduct a thorough “factors” analysis of sites’ realistic development capacity. 5 ATTACHMENT 14-420
C. The housing element assigns more than 50% of the lower-income RHNA target to nonvacant sites, but should use statistical methods (e.g. surveying a random sample of owners of nonvacant sites) to determine that the sites’ existing uses are likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
D. A buffer of at least 15-30% extra capacity should be included in the housing element site inventory. This capacity buffer is especially necessary in order to accommodate the lower-income RHNA target.
See No Net Loss (NNL) section of 3A.
E. The housing element should provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and should adjust the number of in-pipeline units counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target accordingly.
F. The housing element should commit to a mid-cycle review to verify the housing element’s assumptions about development probabilities.
4. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A. The housing element should meaningfully increase the concentration of lower-income households in areas of the city where the existing concentration of lower-income households is low.
B. The housing element should meaningfully reduce the concentration of lower-income households in areas with significant exposure to noise/pollution.
C. The housing element should include a thorough analysis of local patterns in socioeconomic/racial segregation and integration, including patterns of overt racial or ethnic discrimination in the housing and land development market.
D. The housing element should adequately prioritize high-opportunity census tracts and well-resourced areas (e.g. near transit, jobs, schools, parks, etc.) when selecting sites for lower-income housing opportunities.
E. The housing element should adequately identify funding sources, public resources, and density bonus programs to maximize the likelihood that projects with below-market-rate units are built.
F. The jurisdiction should adequately solicit public feedback and commentary on the housing element in a way that accurately reflects the jurisdiction’s socioeconomic makeup.
6 ATTACHMENT 14-421
5. Forecasts of ADU Development
A. The housing element should use an HCD-recommended safe harbor methodology for forecasting future ADU production.
B. The housing element should provide for mid-cycle adjustments if inventory sites are developed at lower rates, or lesser densities, than the housing element anticipated and if ADU production falls short of projections. Mid-cycle adjustments should automatically implement a by-right density bonus on inventory sites, starting mid-cycle, and be large enough to make up for an ADU shortfall.
C. The housing element should assess the affordability of forecasted ADUs using city-specific data; it instead uses a regional average. ***
We request the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to address the concerns raised in this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Our Future LA
Steering Committee Members
CC: Jason Elliott, Senior Counselor to Governor Gavin Newsom Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD 7 ATTACHMENT 14-422
September 29, 2021
Burbank City Council
Burbank City Hall
275 E. Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 90512
Dear Councilmembers:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the housing element of the City of Burbank’s general plan. We are writing on behalf ofAbundant Housing LAand YIMBY Law regarding the 6th Cycle housing element update.Abundant Housing LA is a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis andYIMBY Law’s mission is to make housing in California more accessible and affordable through enforcement of state housing law.
We support more housing at all levels of affordability and reforms to land use and zoning codes, which are needed in order to make housing more affordable, improve access to jobs and transit, promote greater environmental sustainability, and advance racial and economic equity.
In May 2021,we submitted a comment letterregarding the City’s draft housing element update.
In the letter, we highlighted significant inconsistencies with state housing element law, including the requirement that housing element updates affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), as well as inconsistencies with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)’s instructions regarding housing element design and implementation.
HCD’s recent comment letter on the City’s draft housing element update directly addresses many of the same deficiencies that our letter highlighted, and also states that “revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.”1 We have provided a brief summary below (Exhibit A) illustrating how HCD’s comments on the City’s draft housing element are largely congruent with our previous analysis.
These deficiencies must be addressed in the final version of the housing element update. We urge the City to swiftly adopt a legally compliant housing element that accommodates the City’s RHNA target and provides a variety of attainable housing options for the City’s residents and workers.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
1 August 17, 2021 HCD Letter to the City of Burbank, pg. 1 1 ATTACHMENT 14-423
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
CC: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD 2 ATTACHMENT 14-424
Exhibit A: Comparison of HCD Comment Letter and AHLA/YIMBY Law and Policy Recommendations Deficiency HCD Comment Letter Appendix AHLA/YIMBY Law
Comment Letter
AHLA/YIMBY Law
Policy Recommendations
Insufficient
AFFH analysis
and policy
reforms to
promote
integrated
neighborhoods
element must include a complete analysis
of AFFH. Based on the outcomes of that
analysis, the element must add or modify
programs. Furthermore, the element must
include metrics and milestones for
evaluating progress on programs,
actions, and fair housing results. For
example, Program 3: Preserve and Protect
Existing Tenants and Housing, states that
implementation will address tenant
protection. However, the program should
be expanded to describe why and how this
program will address inequities through
listing specific deliverables, objectives, and
metrics. All programs need to be reviewed
to incorporate meaningful actions.”
meaningful impact to overcome
contributing factors to fair housing issues.
[...] Currently, the element identifies
several programs to address fair housing
issues. However, to facilitate meaningful
change and address AFFH requirements,
the element will need to add or
revise/expand programs to demonstrate
how it addresses fair housing issues..”
Pages 1-2: “The element needs to include
complete local and regional data on
integration and segregation for the City
and analyze it for both local and regional
perpetuated historic patterns of
segregation and exclusion, and
continues to push housing
opportunities for lower-income
households away from high-cost,
high-opportunity cities.
To this day, apartments are banned
on 80% of the residentially-zoned
land in Burbank. The median home
sale price in Burbank was $755,000
in 2018, and 54% of the city’s
renters are “rent-burdened” (i.e. they
spend more than 30% of their
income on rent). This denies
historically disadvantaged groups
housing opportunities near job
centers, quality schools, and other
public resources, a situation that
persists today.
The City is obligated to promote fair
housing opportunities and undo
patterns of segregation. Burbank
should follow HCD’s
recommendation that cities
distribute lower-income housing
opportunities throughout the city,
and recommends that cities first
identify development potential for
lower-income housing in
high-opportunity neighborhoods.
The City should rezone all
residential areas within a 10-minute
walk of busway stations for
apartments at Downtown densities,
and rezone commercially-zoned
land for mixed-use development,
with loosened parking, setback,
open space and height
requirements.
Do more to reduce the concentration
of lower-income households in
neighborhoods with high
concentrations of low- and
moderate-income households.
Identify new funding sources and
public resources to encourage the
production and preservation of
affordable housing, such as a real
estate transfer tax, an introduction of
congestion pricing, creation of a
local density bonus program, and
active abatement of unhealthy
facilities, such as pumping stations,
incinerators, and other polluting
infrastructure.
Exempt parcels containing
rent-restricted and de facto
affordable housing units from
rezoning to prevent displacement of
vulnerable households.
3 ATTACHMENT 14-425
trends and patterns. [...] The element
needs to be revised to include local and
regional data on areas of affluence and
analyze this data for trends and patterns.
The element should also provide an
updated map and analysis on racial and
ethnic distribution and poverty.”
analysis shall also be reflective of housing
development at all income-levels and
evaluate the sites relative to
socio-economic patterns. The site
inventory analysis should address how the
sites are identified to improve conditions
(or if sites exacerbate conditions, how a
program can mitigate the impact), whether
the sites are isolated by income group and
should be supported by local data and
knowledge.”
This would mean rezoning more
parcels, including residential parcels
currently zoned single-family only, to
encourage enough housing growth
to achieve the RHNA target in full.”
Ensure that “no net loss” provisions
apply to parcels in the site inventory
and rezoning program with an
annual and ongoing monitoring and
implementation program.
Prioritize the production of
affordable housing on
publicly-owned land, and offer that
land to nonprofit developers at no
cost as a lawful and bona fide
concession through state density
bonus law.
Create a 100% affordable housing
zoning overlay that encompasses
high-opportunity neighborhoods,
including R1 zoned parcels.
Poor site
suitability and
failure to
analyze
likelihood of
discontinuation
for nonvacant
sites
assumptions of buildout for sites
included in the inventory, it must also
provide support for these assumptions. For
example, the element should demonstrate
what specific trends, factors, and other
evidence led to the assumptions. The
estimate of the number of units for each
site must be adjusted as necessary, based
on the land use controls and site
improvements, typical densities of existing
or approved residential developments at a
similar affordability level in that jurisdiction,
and on the current or planned availability
and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer,
and dry utilities. The element also needs to
analyze the likelihood that the identified
units will be developed as noted in the
identifies 12 sites in Burbank’s
Downtown and 7 sites in the Golden
State Specific Plan, totaling 95.7
acres and containing theoretical
zoned capacity for about 6,100
housing units. However, Planning
does not estimate the likelihood of
development for these parcels.
Instead, Planning only provides a
cursory discussion of why these
sites may be good candidates for
redevelopment, without providing
quantitative evidence or analysis.
Although Planning claims “property
owner and/or developer interest in
acquiring and assembling
underdeveloped parcels into larger
Provide a quantitative estimate of
parcels’ development probabilities,
and incorporate this factor into the
estimate of sites’ realistic capacity.
Valid methodologies include the
Survey Method or the Historical
Redevelopment Rate Method.
Report the proportion of sites in the
previous housing element's
inventory that were developed
during the planning period.
Share letters from owners of the site
inventory parcels, indicating their
interest in selling or redeveloping
these properties during the 6th
Cycle.
4 ATTACHMENT 14-426
inventory in zones that allow nonresidential
uses (e.g., mixed-use)..”
clearly identify the degree of reliance on
nonvacant sites to accommodate the
housing need for lower-income
households. Please be aware that relying
on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50
percent or more of the housing needs for
lower-income households triggers
requirements to make findings based on
substantial evidence that the existing use
is not an impediment and will likely
discontinue in the planning period.”
sites to accommodate the City’s lower-
income RHNA. Sites smaller than a
half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to
accommodate housing for lower-income
households unless it is demonstrated, with
sufficient evidence, that sites are suitable
to accommodate housing for lower-income
households. The element should provide
specific examples with the densities,
affordability and, if applicable,
circumstances leading to consolidation,
such as common ownership. The element
should relate these examples to the sites
identified to accommodate the RHNA for
lower-income households to demonstrate
that these sites can adequately
accommodate the City’s lower-income
housing need. Based on a complete
analysis, the City should consider adding
or revising programs to include incentives
for facilitating development on small sites.”
development sites”, Planning did not
share any letters from property
owners indicating their interest in
selling or redeveloping these sites.
Per HCD guidelines, if a jurisdiction
assigns more than 50% of its
lower-income RHNA to nonvacant
sites (as Burbank does), the
jurisdiction must make findings
supported by “substantial evidence”
that the sites’ existing uses are
“likely to be discontinued during the
planning period.” Planning did not
follow this instruction, which is a
requirement under Assembly Bill
1397.”
from the 5th cycle further casts
doubt on Planning’s implicit
assumption that all 19 sites will be
redeveloped by 2029. At the outset
of the 5th cycle, Burbank claimed a
theoretical capacity of roughly 5,573
more housing units. Through 2019,
Burbank permitted 501 housing
units, which equates to 668 housing
units permitted by the end of the 5th
cycle (assuming that the same
annual permitting pace continues
through 2021). This implies that in
Burbank, excess zoned capacity has
a 12% likelihood of being developed
(668 actual units divided by 5,573
theoretical units).”
Remove parcels from the site
inventory where redevelopment is
unlikely to occur during the 6th
Cycle.
Commit to a mid-cycle review to
verify Planning’s assumptions about
development probabilities. If it turns
out that sites within a tier, or
category, were developed at a
lower-than-expected rate during the
first half of the cycle, then the city
should rezone for additional capacity
or make other appropriate
adjustments for the second half of
the planning period.
If the City lacks enough suitable
sites to achieve the RHNA target,
rezone additional parcels where
redevelopment is likely.
5 ATTACHMENT 14-427
element does not include a complete sites
inventory or analysis; as a result, the
adequacy of sites and zoning has not been
established. Based on the results of a
complete sites inventory and analysis,
programs may need to be added, or
revised, to address a shortfall of sites and
zoning for a variety of housing types.”
Failure to
estimate
realistic
capacity for
residential
development in
Specific Plan
areas
a large portion of its RHNA at all income
levels on nonvacant sites including sites
that will be rezoned to address the 6th
cycle shortfall (page 1-66). The analysis
mentioned a list of factors that were
considered to determine development
potential including age of structures and
degree of underutilization. However, the
element must include a complete analysis
demonstrating the potential for
redevelopment of nonvacant sites
including the extent to which existing uses
may constitute an impediment to additional
residential development. The element
could include the City’s past experience
with converting existing uses to higher
density residential development, the
current market demand for the existing
use, an analysis of any existing leases or
other contracts that would perpetuate the
existing use or prevent redevelopment of
the site for additional residential
development, development trends, market
conditions, and regulatory or other
incentives or standards to encourage
additional residential development on
these sites.”
Planning’s contention that all 19
sites will all be redeveloped by
2029. For example, the Site
Assessment assumes that all four
acres of Golden State Specific Plan
block No. 1 (Lima/Avon) will be built
out at the density of Downtown
Burbank (84 units per acre),
producing 334 homes. However,
this block is entirely occupied by a
variety of light industrial businesses,
including the popular Lincoln Beer
Company. Planning provided no
evidence that the site is nonviable
as industrial land, or that the various
property owners intend to sell.”
permitted or entitled units towards
its 6th Cycle RHNA goals, it must
realistically estimate how many of
these units will ultimately be built
during the 6th Cycle, based on
recent historical data. The City of
Los Angeles’ Initial Study counted
active planning entitlements,
approved planning entitlements with
no building permit, and permitted
Provide a quantitative estimate of
parcels’ development probabilities,
adjusted for the expected mix of
residential vs. commercial
development, and incorporate this
factor into the estimate of sites’
realistic capacity.
Provide a quantitative estimate of
the likelihood that in-pipeline
projects will be completed, based on
historical data, and adjust the
number of in-pipeline units counted
towards the 6th cycle RHNA target
accordingly. If the City does not
have these data, it should apply the
same discount as the City of Los
Angeles due to the close proximity
and microeconomic conditions that
exist there.
6 ATTACHMENT 14-428
projects that have not yet been
completed towards its 6th Cycle
RHNA goals, but discounted each
category based on the share of
proposed units expected to be built,
using the City’s historical data.
Planning must incorporate a similar
estimate into its Inventory Analysis.
Using data from recent projects, the
City of Los Angeles estimated that
37% of projects with pending
entitlements, 45% of projects with
approved entitlements, and 79% of
permitted projects, are ultimately
completed.”
Lack of
concrete
constraint
removal and
adequate
rezoning
program
element requires a complete analysis of
potential governmental constraints.
Depending upon the results of that
analysis, the City may need to revise or
add programs and address and remove or
mitigate any identified constraints.”
Pages 5-6: “[T]he City’s Growth
Management Ordinance includes
information on its purpose and analysis on
constraints (page 1-49). However, the
analysis should include the current number
of units vs. units built out considering the
RHNA. Furthermore, the element notes
“the maximum allowed number of
residential units beyond the approved
maximum build out in the 1988 Land Use
Element without voter approval” and that
City Council extended Measure 1 to
January 1, 2030. The Housing Crisis Act of
2019 (SB 330, 2019) [...] generally
Pages 5-6: “Building housing in
Burbank is difficult, expensive, and
time-consuming. Development
timelines are long, with an average
time of 12-16 months for multifamily
project approval. Mixed-use
projects take even longer, requiring
a 3-4 year approval process and a
conditional use permit (for which
approval can take 12-16 months
alone). This process is a major
impediment to housing production.
[...]
Housing element law requires cities
to provide an analysis of constraints
on housing development, as well as
a program to mitigate or remove
these constraints. While the Draft
Housing Element discusses
constraints in detail, including long
Create a high-quality local density
bonus program, which would also
apply to low-density parcels where
apartments are banned today.
Pre-approve standard accessory
dwelling unit (ADU), small-scale
“missing middle” multifamily and
small lot subdivision housing plans,
allowing developers to receive a
permit quickly if they use a
pre-approved design.
Speed up the timeline for ministerial
review, and expand ministerial
review to apply to more projects.
Eliminate on-site parking
requirements, instead allowing
property owners to decide how
much on-site parking is necessary.
7 ATTACHMENT 14-429
prohibits a locality from enacting a
development policy, standard or
condition that reduces intensity, imposes
moratoriums, enforces subjective design
standards, or implements any provision
that limits approvals or caps population.
[...] The City should evaluate consistency
with these requirements and if necessary,
immediately void or suspend the annual
growth cap.”
required fees for single family and
multifamily housing development, [...] and
then, the element must analyze their
impacts as potential constraints on housing
supply and affordability.”
Procedures: The element states that a
community meeting is required for
multifamily projects (page 1-58). The
element should describe
and analyze how this meeting relates to
the approval of the project, if the
community meeting is required for both
discretionary and non-discretionary
projects, and any impacts to the project in
terms of cost and approval certainty. In
addition, the element should describe the
City’s SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of
2017) streamline ministerial approval
process and application.
consolidated small sites to accommodate
the RHNA for lower-income households, it
should include a program(s) to facilitate lot
consolidation and development of housing
approval timelines, strict limits on
building size, high construction
costs, and a lack of local funding for
affordable housing production, the
report does not commit to a strong
enough program to remove policy
constraints that deter housing
production.”
Reduce restrictions on maximum
height, floor-area ratio, unit size,
setbacks, and lot coverage.
Rezone parcels located near transit,
job centers, schools, and parks in
order to expand the supply of
housing in high- and
highest-resource areas, including
R1 parcels where single-family
detached homes are currently
mandated by law.
Reduce fees on multifamily
residential development.
Eliminate the conditional use permit
requirement for mixed-use
development.
8 ATTACHMENT 14-430
on small sites. For example, the program
could commit to (1) granting density
bonuses above state density bonus law
(Gov. Code, § 65915.); (2) deferring fees
specifically for consolidation; (3) expediting
permit processing; (4) identifying and
targeting specific financial resources; and,
(5) modifying development standards.”
Unrealistic
forecast of
future ADU
development
buildout of 200 ADUs per year for a
potential buildout of 1,600 units within the
planning period. Given that the City has
permitted 54 ADUs in 2018, 110 in 2019,
97 in 2020, and 179 in the first 6 months of
2021 (for an average of 98 units per year),
it is not clear if a production level of 200
ADUs per year will be achievable over the
planning period. As a result, the element
should be updated to include a realistic
estimate of potential ADU production.
54 ADUs in 2018, 110 ADUs in
2019, and 112 ADUs in 2020. Under
a correct calculation of HCD’s
“Option #1”, Burbank would take the
average of the ADU permitting trend
between 2018 and 2020, and
forecast that 92 ADUs will be
permitted per year during the 6th
Cycle. This would allow for a total
6th cycle forecast of 736 ADUs.
However, Planning counts 1,600
ADUs, or 200 ADUs per year,
towards the City’s RHNA target.
Planning contends that a small
reduction in processing fees,
expedited application review, and
pre-approved ADU plans will lead to
a doubling in the number of ADUs
permitted annually going forward.
But Planning provides no tangible
evidence that these relatively minor
incentives will yield this outcome.”
Use HCD’s Option 1 safe harbor,
and project that 736 ADUs will be
permitted during the 6th Cycle.
Follow HCD’s recommendation to
track ADU and JADU creation and
affordability levels, and commit to a
review at the planning cycle
midpoint to evaluate if production
estimates are being achieved.
9 ATTACHMENT 14-431
December 16, 2021
Burbank City Council
Burbank City Hall
275 East Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 91502
Dear Councilmembers:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the housing element of Burbank’s general plan. We are writing on behalf ofAbundant Housing LAand YIMBY Law regarding the 6th Cycle housing element update.Abundant Housing LA is a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis, and YIMBY Law’s mission is to make housing in California more accessible and affordable through enforcement of state housing law.
We support more housing at all levels of affordability and reforms to land use and zoning codes, which are needed in order to make housing more affordable, improve access to jobs and transit, promote greater environmental sustainability, and advance racial and economic equity.
In May 2021, wesubmitted a comment letterregarding Burbank’s draft housing element update.
In the letter, we highlighted significant inconsistencies with state housing element law, including the requirement that housing element updates affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), as well as inconsistencies with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)’s instructions regarding housing element design and implementation.
In September 2021, we alsosubmitted a comment letterdemonstrating significant alignment between our May comments and HCD’s review of the City’s draft housing element update. Our September letter includes a brief summary (included in this letter as Appendix A) illustrating how HCD’s comments on the City’s draft housing element are largely congruent with our previous analysis. We agreed with HCD’s finding that “revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.”1
We are disappointed that the latest version of the City’s housing element update does not meaningfully fix the deficiencies identified in our earlier comments or in HCD’s review and comments. The City’s housing element is inconsistent with HCD’s instructions, does not comply with the requirement that housing element updates affirmatively further fair housing under Assembly Bill 686, and does not comply with Government Code Section 65583(c)’s requirement that housing elements include programs with concrete action steps to facilitate housing production.
1 HCD, Review of the City of Burbank’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element Update, 8/17/21, pg. 1 1 ATTACHMENT 14-432
The following issues that we raised earlier this year remain unaddressed:
1. Planning’s process for selecting sites and assessing their capacity does not accurately estimate parcels’ likelihood of development or net new units if redeveloped. Therefore, Planning has not identified enough sites where 8,750 homes will realistically be developed by 2029.
2. Planning assumes that 2,180 housing units that were approved or pending approval during the 5th Cycle will be built during the 6th Cycle, without accounting for the near-certainty that some projects will never be built.
3. Planning makes overly optimistic forecasts of future ADU production which are unlikely to be achieved even with aggressive policies, without providing evidence to support this claim.
4. Planning did not propose adequate reforms to address the major constraints on redevelopment that exist in Burbank.
5. The housing element does not promote new housing opportunities on parcels where apartments are currently banned, even near the planned NoHo-Pasadena busway. Instead, it concentrates lower-income housing opportunities in areas with significant noise and air pollution exposure. This approach fails to affirmatively further fair housing and reverse existing patterns of residential segregation.
We also wish to raise the following issues that are specific to this latest draft:
AB 1397 Compliance
Under Assembly Bill 1397, when cities allocate over 50% of their lower-income RHNA targets to nonvacant sites (as Burbank does), they must demonstrate throughsubstantial evidencethat the current use of these sites is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
While AB 1397 and HCD’s existing guidance require cities to provide substantial evidence of nonvacant sites’ likely discontinuation, cities have many options available to them forhow to assess nonvacant site capacity. For example, cities could communicate with the owners of site inventory parcels, to find out whether they plan to redevelop their property into housing. Cities can survey a random, representative sample of property owners to estimate the overall likelihood that a site’s existing use will discontinue in the near future. Cities can calculate the share of properties associated with permits for demolition, change of use, or redevelopment over the past few years, in order to estimate an overall likelihood of site discontinuation.
The proposed housing element relies on a relatively short list of 19 “Opportunity Sites” for most of the City’s anticipated housing growth during the 6th Cycle, many of which are zoned for commercial uses and currently host businesses. Given that some of these businesses may be operating under long-term leases, and given that commercially-zoned sites can be redeveloped into uses other than 100% residential structures, it’s especially important for cities to provide 2 ATTACHMENT 14-433
strong evidence that these sites are likely to be redeveloped into residential or mixed-use developments.
Unfortunately, the City does not provide this evidence, nor does it attempt to estimate a likelihood of discontinuation based on recent redevelopment trends. Appendix D of the housing element provides information about each of the 19 Opportunity Sites, including whether city staff has spoken to the property’s owners about their interest in redeveloping the site, the current building’s age and use, and the building’s current value relative to the value of the land.
While this information is useful for identifying sites that have a reasonable chance at being redeveloped in the future, this is not the same as providing firm evidence that redevelopment is likely to occur by 2029.Of course, planners are unable to predict with certainty whether a site will be redeveloped in the near future, which is why experts recommend that cities’ housing elements provide theoretical zoned capacity equivalent to a multiple of the RHNA target. This is the approach used in the City of Los Angeles’ housing element.
Additionally, the City has included multiple Opportunity Sites where redevelopment is far from likely. For example:
● TOD 3 (potential for 23 homes)is a collection of lots, including a large parcel owned by Caltrans, two restaurants, and a gas station. While City staff “has been engaged with Caltrans and the adjacent property owners about the viability of redeveloping these parcels as a cohesive mixed-use project”2, the housing element does not say when these discussions took place, or whether the owners of these properties are interested in selling their parcels to a single owner. Development projects that involve combining multiple parcels with different owners are often challenging, especially when the owner of the largest parcel is a state agency. While this project is certainly possible, it is far from a certainty.
● TOD 7 (potential for 379 homes)is the Civic Center’s parking lots, owned by the City of Burbank. The City has not made a clear commitment to allowing the redevelopment of these sites, and redevelopment of publicly-owned land, while certainly possible, should not be treated as a sure thing.
● TOD 8 (potential for 88 homes)is fully occupied by a variety of small businesses.
While the City states that “staff had previous discussions with the property owner about the redevelopment of this opportunity site as a residential/mixed use project”3, the City doesn’t say when these discussions took place, or whether the owner is interested in redevelopment.
The City must present solid evidence that the owners of site inventory parcels (especially those with existing businesses and leases) are interested in redevelopment, and must discount sites by their likelihood of discontinuation. The City must also include additional parcels on their site inventory in order to achieve the RHNA target, which will likely necessitate rezoning. 3 Burbank Housing Element, Appendix D, November 2021, pg. D-21 2 Burbank Housing Element, Appendix D, November 2021, pg. D-16 3 ATTACHMENT 14-434
Fair Housing Issues and AFFH Compliance
The latest version of the housing element provides additional detail on fair housing issues in Burbank, including segregation patterns, displacement risk, and major disparities in access to high-opportunity neighborhoods. This updated AFFH section includes detailed data, maps, and qualitative analysis explaining these issues and describing their impact in Burbank.
However, the housing element’s proposed actions to actually encourage more housing opportunities in high-resource areas, a necessary component for AFFH compliance, are weak.
As we described in Issue #1 of our May letter, the City’s proposed sites inventory does not provide “substantial evidence” that discontinuation of the sites’ existing uses is likely, does not provide evidence that the sites’ owners are interested in redevelopment, and includes several large commercial sites where residential redevelopment is far from a sure thing. As we described in Issue #4 of our May letter, the City’s housing element would do little to relieve the severe constraints on homebuilding (separate from restrictive zoning) that have made housing difficult to build in Burbank.
While the housing element includes a map of the sites inventory overlaid over census tracts’ TCAC designations, indicating that most sites inventory parcels are located in census tracts categorized as High Resource TCAC, this matters little if, as is likely, many of these sites are not redeveloped during the 6th cycle.
Additionally, the updated housing element failed to include policies that would encourage denser development on R1-zoned parcels, even near the future NoHo-Pasadena busway, a shortcoming that we raised in Issue #5 of our June letter. This helps to explain why only 3 out of the 19 Opportunity Sites are located in census tracts with Highest Resource TCAC designations,4 since R1 zoning predominates in these tracts.
Ending exclusionary zoning is necessary for the housing element to advance socioeconomic integration and greater housing affordability.The final housing element must make a stronger effort to affirmatively further fair housing by rezoning sites in low-density, high-resource areas of Burbank, particularly near transit corridors. This is necessary to ensure that sufficient housing opportunities, available at all levels of income, are created citywide, including in Highest Resource areas.
***
Once again, we remind you that Burbank has a legal obligation to sufficiently plan to meet current and future residents’ housing needs, in a way that guarantees access to opportunity for Californians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Concerned residents and equity advocates have consistently highlighted the above issues, and we believe that Burbank is not on a path to fulfilling its legal obligation.
4 Burbank Housing Element, Appendix B, November 2021, pg. B-45 4 ATTACHMENT 14-435
We urge the City to swiftly adopt a legally compliant housing element that accommodates the City’s RHNA target and provides a variety of attainable housing options for the City’s residents and workers.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
CC: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD 5 ATTACHMENT 14-436
Appendix A: Comparison of HCD Comment Letter and AHLA/YIMBY Law Comment Letter and Policy Recommendations Deficiency HCD Comment Letter Appendix AHLA/YIMBY Law
Comment Letter
AHLA/YIMBY Law
Policy Recommendations
Insufficient
AFFH analysis
and policy
reforms to
promote
integrated
neighborhoods
element must include a complete analysis
of AFFH. Based on the outcomes of that
analysis, the element must add or modify
programs. Furthermore, the element must
include metrics and milestones for
evaluating progress on programs,
actions, and fair housing results. For
example, Program 3: Preserve and Protect
Existing Tenants and Housing, states that
implementation will address tenant
protection. However, the program should
be expanded to describe why and how this
program will address inequities through
listing specific deliverables, objectives, and
metrics. All programs need to be reviewed
to incorporate meaningful actions.”
meaningful impact to overcome
contributing factors to fair housing issues.
[...] Currently, the element identifies
several programs to address fair housing
issues. However, to facilitate meaningful
change and address AFFH requirements,
the element will need to add or
revise/expand programs to demonstrate
how it addresses fair housing issues..”
Pages 1-2: “The element needs to include
complete local and regional data on
integration and segregation for the City
and analyze it for both local and regional
perpetuated historic patterns of
segregation and exclusion, and
continues to push housing
opportunities for lower-income
households away from high-cost,
high-opportunity cities.
To this day, apartments are banned
on 80% of the residentially-zoned
land in Burbank. The median home
sale price in Burbank was $755,000
in 2018, and 54% of the city’s
renters are “rent-burdened” (i.e. they
spend more than 30% of their
income on rent). This denies
historically disadvantaged groups
housing opportunities near job
centers, quality schools, and other
public resources, a situation that
persists today.
The City is obligated to promote fair
housing opportunities and undo
patterns of segregation. Burbank
should follow HCD’s
recommendation that cities
distribute lower-income housing
opportunities throughout the city,
and recommends that cities first
identify development potential for
lower-income housing in
high-opportunity neighborhoods.
The City should rezone all
residential areas within a 10-minute
walk of busway stations for
apartments at Downtown densities,
and rezone commercially-zoned
land for mixed-use development,
with loosened parking, setback,
open space and height
requirements.
Do more to reduce the concentration
of lower-income households in
neighborhoods with high
concentrations of low- and
moderate-income households.
Identify new funding sources and
public resources to encourage the
production and preservation of
affordable housing, such as a real
estate transfer tax, an introduction of
congestion pricing, creation of a
local density bonus program, and
active abatement of unhealthy
facilities, such as pumping stations,
incinerators, and other polluting
infrastructure.
Exempt parcels containing
rent-restricted and de facto
affordable housing units from
rezoning to prevent displacement of
vulnerable households.
6 ATTACHMENT 14-437
trends and patterns. [...] The element
needs to be revised to include local and
regional data on areas of affluence and
analyze this data for trends and patterns.
The element should also provide an
updated map and analysis on racial and
ethnic distribution and poverty.”
analysis shall also be reflective of housing
development at all income-levels and
evaluate the sites relative to
socio-economic patterns. The site
inventory analysis should address how the
sites are identified to improve conditions
(or if sites exacerbate conditions, how a
program can mitigate the impact), whether
the sites are isolated by income group and
should be supported by local data and
knowledge.”
This would mean rezoning more
parcels, including residential parcels
currently zoned single-family only, to
encourage enough housing growth
to achieve the RHNA target in full.”
Ensure that “no net loss” provisions
apply to parcels in the site inventory
and rezoning program with an
annual and ongoing monitoring and
implementation program.
Prioritize the production of
affordable housing on
publicly-owned land, and offer that
land to nonprofit developers at no
cost as a lawful and bona fide
concession through state density
bonus law.
Create a 100% affordable housing
zoning overlay that encompasses
high-opportunity neighborhoods,
including R1 zoned parcels.
Poor site
suitability and
failure to
analyze
likelihood of
discontinuation
for nonvacant
sites
assumptions of buildout for sites
included in the inventory, it must also
provide support for these assumptions. For
example, the element should demonstrate
what specific trends, factors, and other
evidence led to the assumptions. The
estimate of the number of units for each
site must be adjusted as necessary, based
on the land use controls and site
improvements, typical densities of existing
or approved residential developments at a
similar affordability level in that jurisdiction,
and on the current or planned availability
and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer,
and dry utilities. The element also needs to
analyze the likelihood that the identified
units will be developed as noted in the
identifies 12 sites in Burbank’s
Downtown and 7 sites in the Golden
State Specific Plan, totaling 95.7
acres and containing theoretical
zoned capacity for about 6,100
housing units. However, Planning
does not estimate the likelihood of
development for these parcels.
Instead, Planning only provides a
cursory discussion of why these
sites may be good candidates for
redevelopment, without providing
quantitative evidence or analysis.
Although Planning claims “property
owner and/or developer interest in
acquiring and assembling
underdeveloped parcels into larger
Provide a quantitative estimate of
parcels’ development probabilities,
and incorporate this factor into the
estimate of sites’ realistic capacity.
Valid methodologies include the
Survey Method or the Historical
Redevelopment Rate Method.
Report the proportion of sites in the
previous housing element's
inventory that were developed
during the planning period.
Share letters from owners of the site
inventory parcels, indicating their
interest in selling or redeveloping
these properties during the 6th
Cycle.
7 ATTACHMENT 14-438
inventory in zones that allow nonresidential
uses (e.g., mixed-use)..”
clearly identify the degree of reliance on
nonvacant sites to accommodate the
housing need for lower-income
households. Please be aware that relying
on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50
percent or more of the housing needs for
lower-income households triggers
requirements to make findings based on
substantial evidence that the existing use
is not an impediment and will likely
discontinue in the planning period.”
sites to accommodate the City’s lower-
income RHNA. Sites smaller than a
half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to
accommodate housing for lower-income
households unless it is demonstrated, with
sufficient evidence, that sites are suitable
to accommodate housing for lower-income
households. The element should provide
specific examples with the densities,
affordability and, if applicable,
circumstances leading to consolidation,
such as common ownership. The element
should relate these examples to the sites
identified to accommodate the RHNA for
lower-income households to demonstrate
that these sites can adequately
accommodate the City’s lower-income
housing need. Based on a complete
analysis, the City should consider adding
or revising programs to include incentives
for facilitating development on small sites.”
development sites”, Planning did not
share any letters from property
owners indicating their interest in
selling or redeveloping these sites.
Per HCD guidelines, if a jurisdiction
assigns more than 50% of its
lower-income RHNA to nonvacant
sites (as Burbank does), the
jurisdiction must make findings
supported by “substantial evidence”
that the sites’ existing uses are
“likely to be discontinued during the
planning period.” Planning did not
follow this instruction, which is a
requirement under Assembly Bill
1397.”
from the 5th cycle further casts
doubt on Planning’s implicit
assumption that all 19 sites will be
redeveloped by 2029. At the outset
of the 5th cycle, Burbank claimed a
theoretical capacity of roughly 5,573
more housing units. Through 2019,
Burbank permitted 501 housing
units, which equates to 668 housing
units permitted by the end of the 5th
cycle (assuming that the same
annual permitting pace continues
through 2021). This implies that in
Burbank, excess zoned capacity has
a 12% likelihood of being developed
(668 actual units divided by 5,573
theoretical units).”
Remove parcels from the site
inventory where redevelopment is
unlikely to occur during the 6th
Cycle.
Commit to a mid-cycle review to
verify Planning’s assumptions about
development probabilities. If it turns
out that sites within a tier, or
category, were developed at a
lower-than-expected rate during the
first half of the cycle, then the city
should rezone for additional capacity
or make other appropriate
adjustments for the second half of
the planning period.
If the City lacks enough suitable
sites to achieve the RHNA target,
rezone additional parcels where
redevelopment is likely.
8 ATTACHMENT 14-439
element does not include a complete sites
inventory or analysis; as a result, the
adequacy of sites and zoning has not been
established. Based on the results of a
complete sites inventory and analysis,
programs may need to be added, or
revised, to address a shortfall of sites and
zoning for a variety of housing types.”
Failure to
estimate
realistic
capacity for
residential
development in
Specific Plan
areas
a large portion of its RHNA at all income
levels on nonvacant sites including sites
that will be rezoned to address the 6th
cycle shortfall (page 1-66). The analysis
mentioned a list of factors that were
considered to determine development
potential including age of structures and
degree of underutilization. However, the
element must include a complete analysis
demonstrating the potential for
redevelopment of nonvacant sites
including the extent to which existing uses
may constitute an impediment to additional
residential development. The element
could include the City’s past experience
with converting existing uses to higher
density residential development, the
current market demand for the existing
use, an analysis of any existing leases or
other contracts that would perpetuate the
existing use or prevent redevelopment of
the site for additional residential
development, development trends, market
conditions, and regulatory or other
incentives or standards to encourage
additional residential development on
these sites.”
Planning’s contention that all 19
sites will all be redeveloped by
2029. For example, the Site
Assessment assumes that all four
acres of Golden State Specific Plan
block No. 1 (Lima/Avon) will be built
out at the density of Downtown
Burbank (84 units per acre),
producing 334 homes. However,
this block is entirely occupied by a
variety of light industrial businesses,
including the popular Lincoln Beer
Company. Planning provided no
evidence that the site is nonviable
as industrial land, or that the various
property owners intend to sell.”
permitted or entitled units towards
its 6th Cycle RHNA goals, it must
realistically estimate how many of
these units will ultimately be built
during the 6th Cycle, based on
recent historical data. The City of
Los Angeles’ Initial Study counted
active planning entitlements,
approved planning entitlements with
no building permit, and permitted
Provide a quantitative estimate of
parcels’ development probabilities,
adjusted for the expected mix of
residential vs. commercial
development, and incorporate this
factor into the estimate of sites’
realistic capacity.
Provide a quantitative estimate of
the likelihood that in-pipeline
projects will be completed, based on
historical data, and adjust the
number of in-pipeline units counted
towards the 6th cycle RHNA target
accordingly. If the City does not
have these data, it should apply the
same discount as the City of Los
Angeles due to the close proximity
and microeconomic conditions that
exist there.
9 ATTACHMENT 14-440
projects that have not yet been
completed towards its 6th Cycle
RHNA goals, but discounted each
category based on the share of
proposed units expected to be built,
using the City’s historical data.
Planning must incorporate a similar
estimate into its Inventory Analysis.
Using data from recent projects, the
City of Los Angeles estimated that
37% of projects with pending
entitlements, 45% of projects with
approved entitlements, and 79% of
permitted projects, are ultimately
completed.”
Lack of
concrete
constraint
removal and
adequate
rezoning
program
element requires a complete analysis of
potential governmental constraints.
Depending upon the results of that
analysis, the City may need to revise or
add programs and address and remove or
mitigate any identified constraints.”
Pages 5-6: “[T]he City’s Growth
Management Ordinance includes
information on its purpose and analysis on
constraints (page 1-49). However, the
analysis should include the current number
of units vs. units built out considering the
RHNA. Furthermore, the element notes
“the maximum allowed number of
residential units beyond the approved
maximum build out in the 1988 Land Use
Element without voter approval” and that
City Council extended Measure 1 to
January 1, 2030. The Housing Crisis Act of
2019 (SB 330, 2019) [...] generally
Pages 5-6: “Building housing in
Burbank is difficult, expensive, and
time-consuming. Development
timelines are long, with an average
time of 12-16 months for multifamily
project approval. Mixed-use
projects take even longer, requiring
a 3-4 year approval process and a
conditional use permit (for which
approval can take 12-16 months
alone). This process is a major
impediment to housing production.
[...]
Housing element law requires cities
to provide an analysis of constraints
on housing development, as well as
a program to mitigate or remove
these constraints. While the Draft
Housing Element discusses
constraints in detail, including long
Create a high-quality local density
bonus program, which would also
apply to low-density parcels where
apartments are banned today.
Pre-approve standard accessory
dwelling unit (ADU), small-scale
“missing middle” multifamily and
small lot subdivision housing plans,
allowing developers to receive a
permit quickly if they use a
pre-approved design.
Speed up the timeline for ministerial
review, and expand ministerial
review to apply to more projects.
Eliminate on-site parking
requirements, instead allowing
property owners to decide how
much on-site parking is necessary.
10 ATTACHMENT 14-441
prohibits a locality from enacting a
development policy, standard or
condition that reduces intensity, imposes
moratoriums, enforces subjective design
standards, or implements any provision
that limits approvals or caps population.
[...] The City should evaluate consistency
with these requirements and if necessary,
immediately void or suspend the annual
growth cap.”
required fees for single family and
multifamily housing development, [...] and
then, the element must analyze their
impacts as potential constraints on housing
supply and affordability.”
Procedures: The element states that a
community meeting is required for
multifamily projects (page 1-58). The
element should describe
and analyze how this meeting relates to
the approval of the project, if the
community meeting is required for both
discretionary and non-discretionary
projects, and any impacts to the project in
terms of cost and approval certainty. In
addition, the element should describe the
City’s SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of
2017) streamline ministerial approval
process and application.
consolidated small sites to accommodate
the RHNA for lower-income households, it
should include a program(s) to facilitate lot
consolidation and development of housing
approval timelines, strict limits on
building size, high construction
costs, and a lack of local funding for
affordable housing production, the
report does not commit to a strong
enough program to remove policy
constraints that deter housing
production.”
Reduce restrictions on maximum
height, floor-area ratio, unit size,
setbacks, and lot coverage.
Rezone parcels located near transit,
job centers, schools, and parks in
order to expand the supply of
housing in high- and
highest-resource areas, including
R1 parcels where single-family
detached homes are currently
mandated by law.
Reduce fees on multifamily
residential development.
Eliminate the conditional use permit
requirement for mixed-use
development.
11 ATTACHMENT 14-442
on small sites. For example, the program
could commit to (1) granting density
bonuses above state density bonus law
(Gov. Code, § 65915.); (2) deferring fees
specifically for consolidation; (3) expediting
permit processing; (4) identifying and
targeting specific financial resources; and,
(5) modifying development standards.”
Unrealistic
forecast of
future ADU
development
buildout of 200 ADUs per year for a
potential buildout of 1,600 units within the
planning period. Given that the City has
permitted 54 ADUs in 2018, 110 in 2019,
97 in 2020, and 179 in the first 6 months of
2021 (for an average of 98 units per year),
it is not clear if a production level of 200
ADUs per year will be achievable over the
planning period. As a result, the element
should be updated to include a realistic
estimate of potential ADU production.
54 ADUs in 2018, 110 ADUs in
2019, and 112 ADUs in 2020. Under
a correct calculation of HCD’s
“Option #1”, Burbank would take the
average of the ADU permitting trend
between 2018 and 2020, and
forecast that 92 ADUs will be
permitted per year during the 6th
Cycle. This would allow for a total
6th cycle forecast of 736 ADUs.
However, Planning counts 1,600
ADUs, or 200 ADUs per year,
towards the City’s RHNA target.
Planning contends that a small
reduction in processing fees,
expedited application review, and
pre-approved ADU plans will lead to
a doubling in the number of ADUs
permitted annually going forward.
But Planning provides no tangible
evidence that these relatively minor
incentives will yield this outcome.”
Use HCD’s Option 1 safe harbor,
and project that 736 ADUs will be
permitted during the 6th Cycle.
Follow HCD’s recommendation to
track ADU and JADU creation and
affordability levels, and commit to a
review at the planning cycle
midpoint to evaluate if production
estimates are being achieved.
12 ATTACHMENT 14-443
January 13, 2022
Divya Sen, Analyst
California Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Policy Division
Subject: Response to 3rd Party Comments on Revised draft Burbank Housing Element - Abundant Housing LA 12/16/21 Comment Letter
Dear Ms. Sen:
To assist in your review of Burbank’s revised Draft Housing Element submitted to HCD on December 3, 2021, we have prepared the following responses to comments raised by Abundant Housing LA in their December 16, 2021 comment letter on the Element.
Comment #1 (pg 2): Planning’s process for selecting sites and assessing their capacity does not accurately estimate parcels’ likelihood of development or net new units if redeveloped. Therefore, Planning has not identified enough sites where 8,750 homes will realistically be developed by 2029.
The opportunity sites in the draft housing element were selected based on site-specific factors that are supportive of redevelopment with housing during the 8-year planning period. The sites are also opportunity sites within the two major specific plan update projects (Golden State Specific Plan and the Downtown Burbank Transit Oriented Development TOD Specific Plan) currently underway in the City . Both specific plans are anticipated for consideration by the City Council within calendar year 2022. The approach taken to use opportunity sites from the specific plans as opportunity sites for the Housing Element is intended to establish consistency throughout the City’s long range planning documents . The timing of the Housing Element coinciding with the specific plan projects provides a unique opportunity to do so. Additionally, the sites themselves are optimal for facilitating new housing development given their size, status of the existing uses, proximity to two of the City’s major employment and transit centers (consistent with city, regional and state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions), and direct and ongoing communication from various developers and/or property owners indicating interest and intent to pursue housing.
The strategies being developed as part of the specific plans will be significant in increasing the likelihood of development on the housing element sites –and within the specific plan areas generally – by establishing objective development standards and streamlining project review. The Golden State Specific Plan also involves significant upzoning of residential density including on the opportunity sites. Additionally, the City recently received funds through SCAG’s Sustainable ATTACHMENT 14-444
Communities Program in addition to funds p reviously awarded through LEAP to update the existing Media District Specific Plan. This update is anticipated to occur in 2023 and would result in similar code and process improvements as those that will be established with the Golden State and Downtown TOD Specific Plans, and is noted in draft Housing Element Program #5.
In response to Abundant Housing’s prior comments, City staff has added descriptions of the suitability of each opportunity site by summarizing our knowledge of site-specific factors that support housing development beyond having the zoning /General Plan in place to do so.
Additionally, Housing Element Program #5 was revised to include a mid-cycle review with respect to development of housing on the opportunity sites . The mid-cycle review will be an opportunity to assess the City’s progress and, if necessary, make changes accordingly.
Comment #2 (pg 2): Planning assumes that 2,180 housing units that were approved or pending approval during the 5th Cycle will be built during the 6th Cycle, without accounting for the near- certainty that some projects will never be built.
The inclusion of housing units that are part of projects already -approved or pending approval is consistent with HCD sites inventory guidelines. Additionally, based on what the City has experienced with recent projects and the continued demand for housing we believe it’s reasonable to assume the approved and pending projects will be built. W ithin the last 6 years only one developer ultimately opted not to move forward with their entitlement. Of the four entitled projects identified in the draft Housing Element, one is under construction, one has been issued building permits, and two are in plan check review.
We recognize that housing production in the 5 th cycle was low . Since then, the City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Strategy and the goal of facilitating the building of 12,000 new homes through 2035 . City Council action in this regard has sent a positive message to the development community t hat the City is seeking to facilitate housing that helps to build neighborhoods and seeks to make positive inroads in our 3 to 1 jobs to housing imbalance. The 2,180 housing units in the pipeline reflects that policy and goal -setting at work . T he housing element and specific plans will help to further advance these goals. Furthermore, consistent with the City Council housing goal and the programs proposed in the Housing Element, the City Council affirmed its commitment to implementing these housing goals and programs by approving a mixed- use project of 862 rental dwelling units (including 69 deed-restricted units affordable to low-income households) at the former Fry’s Electronic Store at 2311 N. Hollywood Way. The project was approved on November 18, 2021, and is the largest mixed use residential unit approved by the City in the last 20 years. The developer of this project is the same one that is currently constructing a 573-unit mixed use project approved by the City Council for the site located at 777 N. Front Street (a noted pipeline project).
Comment #3 (pg 2): Planning makes overly optimistic forecasts of future ADU production which are unlikely to be achieved even with aggressive policies, without providing evidence to support this claim.
City staff continue to receive ADU applications, averaging about 5 – 10 submittals each week, and with the total number increasing each year since ADU regulations were updated by the State.
During the most recent three-year period (Jan 1, 2019 – Dec 31, 2021), the City has issued building ATTACHMENT 14-445
permits for 542 ADUs, an average of 180 ADU permits per year, with 322 ADU permit issued in 2021 alone. From the demand the City has been experiencing over the past three years, the City only sees ADU applications and perm itting increasing. It is staff’s assessment that our proposed numbers will be met as the City proposes new program initiatives as part of the Housing Update for the 6 th Cycle that will bolster ADU production (including reduced fees, reduced processing times for smaller ADUs, and creation of pre -approved ADU plans). Therefore, City staff and the consultant believe 200 ADUs per year for a total of 1,600 ADUs during the eight -year planning period is realistic and achievable.
Additionally, in response to Abundant Housing’s earlier comments, the Housing Element includes an explicit commitment to provide mid-cycle review of ADU production.
Comment #4 (pg 2): Planning did not propose adequate reforms to address the major constraints on redevelopment that exist in Burbank.
Many of the strategies recommended by Abundant Housing are included in the draft Housing Element as part of the proposed programs. Objective development standards and by -right review processes would be established through the two Specific Plans for qualifying projects including removal of the CUP requirement. Fine-tuning of the details for how this would work are being addressed through the development of the Specific Plans, with the potential to be replicated in other areas of the City including as part of the eventual update to the Media District Specific Plan.
Another separate program addresses updating the multifamily development standards , including parking, setbacks, height, and other standards to better enable compact, well-designed multi-family product types.
The proposed Housing Element update also includes a program to create pre-approved ADU plans, and to pursue zoning updates that facilitate infill development in the form of small lot subdivision and missing middle housing. In regards to pre -approved ADU plans, the City has been in discussion with firms such as YIMYADU, Inc. to discuss the possibly of one or more product types that could be pre-approved by the City to streamline review and shorter processing times for this housing type.
Comment #5 (pg 2): The housing element does not promote new housing opportunities on parcels where apartments are currently banned, even near the planned NoHo-Pasadena busway. Instead, it concentrates lower -income housing opportunities in areas with significant noise and air pollution exposure. This approach fails to affirmatively further fair housing and reverse existing patterns of residential segregation.
LA Metro’s North Hollywood (NoHo) to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor, scheduled to begin service in 2024, will extend 18 miles between the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, providing east-west transit service to link key activity centers to improve access to jobs, education and essential services. The NoHo-Pasadena busway will have six stops within the City of Burbank, exiting SR -134 to serv e the Burbank Media District and continuing along Olive Avenue to Glenoaks Boulevard. As depicted on the map which follows, two of these stops are in areas where the City is focusing future high density residential development: the station at Olive Avenue and N. San Fernando Boulevard is in the heart of Burbank’s downtown where the Downtown TOD Specific Plan is planning for over 3,400 units, and the station at Alameda Avenue and Hollywood ATTACHMENT 14-446
Way falls within the Media District Specific Plan which the City has received funding to update through SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Program to accommodate an estimated 2,000 new housing units.
In terms of the relationship of the 19 opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element to affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), sites are located predominately in High and Highest Resource census tracts, with just one site and two pending projects located in a Moderate Resource tract, per the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) maps (refer to Exhibit B-21 in Appendix B of the draft Housing Element).
The census tract to the immediate east of the Hollywood Burbank Airport within the Golden State district, where several opportunity sites are identified, is identified as a disadvantaged community per the CalEnviro Screen analysis conducted as part of the Environmental Justice component of the GP update, in that this area is exposed to relatively higher degree of exposure to noise and air pollution. Although the AFFH requirement is related to the TCAC maps for areas of opportunity, the Safety Element update being prepared in conjunction with the 6 th cycle Housing Element includes Environmental Justice policies aimed at addressing these environmental hazards by investing in infrastructure improvements through the Golden State Specific Plan; incorporating project design features such as fixed windows, open space, increased tree plantings and higher MERV rated air filtration systems; and making use of the City’s Complete Our Streets Plan to help evaluate streetscape design for new projects that considers all modes of transportation with the goal of providing safe and accessible travel to all individuals. The aforementioned 862 unit development at the former Fry’s Site (2311 N. Hollywood Way) is a real world example of this type of mixed use project approved by the City that includes many of the noted design features including MERV 13 filtration system, fixed windows, open space, tree plantings and a bike and pedestrian friendly paseo that provides a direct path from the lower income neighborhood south of the Metrolink rail line to the existing Metrolink Station on Vanowen Street.
ATTACHMENT 14-447
Comment #6 (pg 3): The City has included multiple Opportunity Sties where redevelopment is far from likely. For example:
TOD 3 (potential for 23 homes) is a collection of lots, including a large parcel owned by Caltrans, two restaurants, and a gas station. While City staff “has been engaged with Caltrans and the adjacent property owners about the viability of redeveloping these parcels as a cohesive mixed-use project”, the housing element does not say when these discussions took place, or whether the owners of these properties are interested in selling their parcels to a single owner.
Development projects that involve combining multiple parcels with different owners are often challenging, especially when the owner of the largest parcel is a state agency. While this project is certainly possible, it is far from a certainty.
This opportunity site inc ludes a 1960s IHOP restaurant, fast food eatery and gas station and adjacent 1.58-acre portion of land currently owned by Caltrans. Excluding the Caltrans parcel, the site has an improvement -to-land value ratio of just 0.17, indicating a strong potential for redevelopment with a higher value economic use. City staff has been engaged with Caltrans and the adjacent property owners about the viability of redeveloping these parcels as a cohesive mixed-use project including the introduction of affordable and market rate residential units in proximity to downtown. Redevelopment of the site is bein g evaluated as part of the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan. This site falls within the Housing Element program to allow for a by-right ministerial review process for projects within the specific plans that include 100 dwelling units or fewer. The existi ng zoning of the Project site will be updated as a part of the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan to include objective development standards making the project site more conducive for redevelopment. City Planning and Housing staff have initiated communication regarding relinquishment of this and other Caltrans property adjacent to street right of way in the City to facilitate land consolidation to build the projected 23 dwelling units at the proposed site. Furthermore, City’s Planning and Economic Development team have continued outreach with property owners of the San Fernando Blvd. fronting properties to facilitate redevelopment including new housing opportunities at this TOD 3 site consistent with the Housing Element and subject to the development standar ds being developed as part of the upcoming Downtown Burbank Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan.
TOD 7 (potential for 379 homes) is the Civic Center’s parking lots, owned by the City of Burbank. The City has not made a clear commitment to al lowing the redevelopment of these sites, and redevelopment of publicly-owned land, while certainly possible, should not be treated as a sure thing.
The Civic Center site currently has no allowable residential density under the Institutional General Plan l and use designation. As part of the Downtown TOD Specific Plan and Housing Element implementation, the site’s density will be increased to allow up to 87 dwelling units per acre. This effort will help facilitate the planning and visioning process that the City is currently undertaking with the community and City decision makers to consider redevelopment of City - owned properties within this opportunity site to include a new library, affordable and workforce housing, new office space, shared parking facilities, a transit plaza, and new public open spaces.
The existing City Hall building will remain. As part of the development of the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan, the City is developing a general concept for the Civic Center opportunity site that will consider the development of a Public-Private-Partnership (“P3”) to help ATTACHMENT 14-448
facilitate the development of the project during the 2021 -2029 planning period. The proposed land uses, including residential, will be evaluated as part of the Specific Plan’s Program EIR with the intent to facilitate streamlined review of future development. The Specific Plan will also consider the potential use of transfer development rights, to allow transfer of unused density to other parcels within the Civic Center site. As of January 2022, the consultant team of economists and land use planners have been selected to assist the City in analyzing the site’s potential for redeveloping a mix of uses including 379 housing units.
TOD 8 (potential for 88 homes) is fully occupied by a variety of small businesses. While the City states that “staff had previous discussions with the property owner about the redevelopment of this opportunity site as a residential/mixed use project”, the City doesn’t say when these discussions took place, or whether the owner is interested in redevelopment.
City staff had previous discussions with the property owner about the redevelopment of this opportunity site as a residential/mixed use project. The site currently contains multi-tenant office buildings in the City’s Downtown. Most of the buildings on the site were constructed prior to 1980. The site itself is near the City’s downtown adjacent to a Los Angeles County Courthouse and across the street from the City’s Civic Center. The site is approximately half a mile from the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Train Station, within a High-Quality Transit Area. Per the TCAC Opportunity Map, the site is within a high resource area. The redevelopment effort is focused on facilitating a mixed -use project that combines the potential for new office space with new housing in a major employment and transportation hub. In additi on, this site falls within the Housing Element program to allow for by -right ministerial review process for projects within the specific plans that include 100 dwelling units or fewer. The existing zoning of the Project site will be updated as a part of the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan to include objective development standards making the project site more conducive for redevelopment. The City’s Planning and Economic Development team have continued outreach with property owners and prospective develop ers of the subject site to facilitate redevelopment including new housing opportunities consistent with the Housing Element and subject to the development standards being developed as part of the upcoming Downtown Burbank Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan.
Comment #7 (pg 4): The housing element fails to include policies that would encourage denser development on R-1 parcels.
The City’s primary focus to accommodating future housing growth is to concentrate densities near employment and high quality transit , while preserving and enhancing existing neighborhoods.
This is exemplified by the Golden State and Downtown TOD Specific Plans that will provide for over 6,000 additional high density housing units, as well as Me dia District which is projected to accommodate 2,000 new units. Within Burbank’s single -family districts, more limited infill opportunities will be provided through the following:
Senate Bill 9, effective January 1, 2022, allows property owners to split a single-family zoned lot into two lots and/or place up to two housing units on a single-family zoned lot. The City is currently working on a Code update to implement the provisions of SB 9, expanding opportunities for residential infill in high resource single-family zones.
ATTACHMENT 14-449
The City is also in the process of updating development standards for R-1 and R-1-H single family residential zones to facilitate development of single -family r esidential units by incorporating objective standards and eliminating the existing discretionary review process for development of single-family homes. The proposed update to single-family standards, in conjunction with existing regulations that facilitate the provision of ADUs and JADUs , will facilitate development on R-1 parcels.
Additionally, compliant with State law, the City updated its Code to permit transitional and supportive housing in R -1 and R -1-H single -family zones, expanding the variety of by-right housing options in single-family zones.
Appendix A (pgs 6-12) Policy Recommendations:
Identify new funding sources and public resources to encourage the production and preservation of affordable housing.
As stated in Program 14, the City will be evaluating establishing an impact fee on non-residential development to provide an additional source of revenue for the Housing Trust Fund, similar to the City of Glendale. The City’s Housing and Grants Division, along with the Burbank Housing Corporation, actively pursues funding sources in support of affordable housing, and as indicated in the AFFH, has secured Permanent Local Housing Allocation funds, and will be pursuing round 2 Project Homekey funds from the State.
Exempt parcels containing rent -restricted and de facto affordable housing from rezoning to prevent displacement of vulnerable households.
In contrast to Burbank’s 5 th cycle Housing Element which focused new housing growth on underutilized residential parcels, the 19 Housing Opportunity Sites in the 6th cycle Housing Element are located entirely in non-residential districts, thereby minimizing any potential residential displacement. In addition, the City adheres to AB 1397, which requires development on Housing Element sites occupied by lower income households within the last five years to be replaced with affordable units.
Ensure that “no net loss” provisions apply to parcels in the site inventory and rezoning program with an annual and ongoing monitoring and implementation program.
To ensure the City’s monitors its compliance with SB 166 (No Net Loss), P rogram 7 has been added to the Housing Element to develop a procedure to monitor the development of sites in the Housing Element and remaining capacity to address the RHNA by income category.
Prioritize the production of affordable housing on City -owned land, and offer that land to nonprofit developers at no cost as a lawful and bona fide concession under state density bonus law.
Approximately six acres within the Civic Center have been identified as an opportunity site in the Housing Element sites inventory. The City is currently undertaking a visioning process to evaluate redevelopment of City-owned properties within the Civic Center to include the integration of an ATTACHMENT 14-450
estimated 379 units of affordable and workforce housing. The TOD Specific Plan is incorporating concept planning for the Civic Center opportunity site to include a Public-Private Partnership (P3) to help facilitate development of the projects during the 2021-2029 planning period.
Commit to mid-cycle review to verify Planning’s assumptions about development probabilities. If it turns out that sites were developed at a lower-than-expected rate, rezone for additional capacity or make other appropriate adjustments.
Program 5 commits the City to c onduct a mid-cycle review (2025) to evaluate production levels in comparison to the RHNA, and if falling significantly short, to rezone additional sites to increase capacity.
Provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and adjust the number of in -pipeline units counted towards the RHNA accordingly. If the City doesn’t have this data, it should apply the same discount as the City of Los Angeles due to the close proximity and microeconomic conditions that exist there.
The following table presents an update of the status of projects with development entitlements. As shown, all projects are moving forward. In addition, the former Fry’s Electronics site which was identified as a pending project in the Draft Housing Element received its planning entitlements in November 2021. Within the last six years only one developer ultimately opted not to move forward with their entitlement.
The eight pending projects totaling 626 units identified in the Housing Element are all in various stages of entitlement (excluding the former Fry’s site since it is now entitled) . Even if one or two Projects with
Entitlements Description Zoning Acres
#
Units
Afford-
ability
Project Status
(as of Jan 2022)
La Terra
777 Front St
Mixed Use
(573 apt. units,
307-room hotel,
1,067 sf retail)
Rezoned from
AD (Auto
Dealership) to
PD 17-01
7 acres 573 Mod: 69
AMod: 504
Project currently
undergoing plan check
process to obtain
building permits
First Street
Village
315 N. First St
Mixed Use
(275 apt units,
21,265 sf retail/
restaurant)
Rezoned from
BCC-2 to PD
14-01
2.99 acres
275 Mod: 14
AMod: 261
Phase 1 of the project is
under construction.
Applicant undergoing
plan check process to
obtain building permits
for Phase 2.
601-615 E. Cedar
Ave.
MF residential R-4, High
Density
Residential
0.8 acres
46 Very Low: 3
Low: 5
AMod: 24
Building Permits for the
project were issued 4th
Quarter of 2021
624-628 San
Fernando Blvd
Mixed use
(42 apt units and
14,800 sf
commercial use)
BCC-3 0.71
acres
42 Very Low: 4
Low: 1
AMod: 37
Project currently
undergoing plan check
process to obtain
building permits
Former Fry’s
Electronics Site
2311 N.
Hollywood Way
Mixed Use
(862 units,
151,800 sf office,
9,700 sf
commercial uses)
C-3 10.43
acres
862 Very Low: 80
AMod: 782
Received Planning
entitlements November
2021. Applicant will
initiate the plan check
process soon.
ATTACHMENT 14-451
of these projects ultimately don’t end up moving forward , the City has two recent SB 35 applications (see Table below) for a total of 471 units that would more than offset any losses. In summary, the market demand for residential development in Burbank is extremely robust, and the inclusion of entitled and pending projects in the sites inventory is warranted based on the City’s experience with recent projects.
Should you have any questions regarding our responses to these comments , please contact me at [email protected] or 818-238-5250.
Regards,
Federico “Fred” Ramirez
Assistant Community Development Director, Planning Division
cc:
Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Anthony Dedousis, Director of Policy and Research – Abundant Housing LA Leonora Camner, Executive Director – Abundant Housing LA
Recent Project
Applications Description Zoning Acres
#
Units
Afford-
ability
Project Status
(as of Jan 2022)
3000 Empire Ave. 340-unit
residential
building
M-2 (General
Industrial)
1.97 acres
340
units
Low: 271
Mod: 68
AMod:1
SB-35 application (notice
of intent filed), SB 330
preliminary application.
3001 Empire Ave.
131-unit
residential
building
M-2 (General
Industrial)
0.68 acres
131 Low: 104
Mod: 26
AMod: 1
SB-35 application (notice
of intent filed), SB 330
preliminary application.
ATTACHMENT 14-452
May 13, 2022
Gustavo Velasquez, Director
California Department of Housing & Community Development 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
Dear Director Velasquez:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the Housing Element of Burbank’s general plan. We are writing on behalf of Abundant Housing LA (AHLA) and YIMBY Law regarding Burbank’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (HEU). Abundant Housing LA is a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis, and YIMBY Law’s mission is to make housing in California more accessible and affordable through enforcement of state housing law.
We support reforms to legalize more homes, make homes easier to build, increase funding for affordable housing, and protect tenants, which are all needed to make housing more affordable, improve access to jobs and transit, promote greater environmental sustainability, and advance racial and economic equity.
On 5/24/2021, 9/29/2021 and 12/16/2021, AHLA shared letters with Burbank and HCD, regarding drafts of the HEU, providing comments on how Burbank should fulfill both the letter and the spirit of housing element law.
On 2/1/2022, HCD sent aletter to Burbank regarding an earlier draft of the housing element, identifying corrections that need to be made to obtain certification of the plan. A subsequent draft Housing Element was received by HCD for review on 4/4/2022. The purpose of this letter is to provide our comments on the subsequent draft HEU.
We have reviewed the City’s subsequent draft HEU received by HCD on 4/4/2022, and continue to have major concerns about Burbank’s ability to meet its state-mandated RHNA targets.
On 12/16/2021, MapCraft Labs publishedan analysis1 of an earlier draft of the HEU, which was commissioned by AHLA. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate Burbank’s sites inventory to assess its likely impact on housing production. The analysis found a capacity shortall of between approximately 1,100 and 2,300 units and made several recommendations for improving the Housing Element, which are summarized below.
The 2/1/2021 HCD review letter identified deficiencies in the previous draft HEU. This letter concludes by highlighting common themes in AHLA and HCD’s comments. 1 MapCraft Labs (2021). “Burbank Housing Element Analysis Results” page 1.
ATTACHMENT 14-453
Discussion of issues that AHLA raised previously:
Comment 1: “Planning’s process for selecting sites and assessing their capacity does not accurately estimate parcels’ likelihood of development or net new units if redeveloped.
Therefore, Planning has not identified enough sites where [8,772] homes will realistically be developed by 2029.”
The HEU relies on just 19 sites to accommodate a large portion of the RHNA. Many of these sites have substantial constraints to housing in the form of existing structures and environmental factors. For example, a major grouping of seven housing opportunity sites is located in the Golden State Specific Plan (GSSP) area, which is in close proximity to the Hollywood Burbank Airport and characterized by existing industrial uses. These factors raise concerns about future residents’ exposure to noise and pollution from existing uses and related questions about how these environmental conditions may deter developers from building housing. One of the sites, “GSSP 3 - Valhalla”, which is supposed to accommodate 678 homes, is located in the airport influence area, and may face additional development constraints, such as on building height, which should be analyzed2. On another site, “GSSP 7 - Empire”, Burbank claims capacity for 510 homes, but the aerial image provided shows a substantial portion of the site is covered with existing buildings3. While redevelopment of this site may be technically possible, the plan should include an analysis of likely constraints to that redevelopment, such as existing leases, so that the likelihood of redevelopment during the planning period can be properly accounted for.
Furthermore, the sites inventory is required to specify the projected number of units at each affordability level for each site, per HCD’s standard form4, yet this information is missing in the sites inventory5. Burbank has an obligation to present substantial evidence that existing uses will discontinue during the planning period because non-vacant sites are accommodating over half of the lower-income RHNA6, but it is not clear exactly where the lower-income RHNA would be accommodated. This issue is especially relevant because Burbank saw only 26% of its 5th cycle RHNA actually built, with significant shortfalls of housing affordable to moderate, low and very low income households7. The 6th cycle RHNA numbers are significantly higher, meaning more effort will be required to meet them.
In the Downton TOD Specific Plan area, analysis of existing leases to assess realistic development potential is critical. For example, on site “TOD 6 - Burbank Town Center” Burbank claims capacity for 1,020 homes, and states that the property was purchased by a firm interested in redevelopment8. However, the site is developed with a large indoor mall where many existing leases could constrain redevelopment over the next eight years. Perhaps a developer could buy out those leases, but that would increase the cost and affect the feasibility 8 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element Appendices, page D-19. 7 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element Appendices, page C-13. 6 California Government Code Section 65583.2.(g)(3)
5 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element Appendices, pages D-8 - D-13. 4 California Government Code Section 65583.3.
3 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element Appendices, page D-24. 2 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page 1-80.
2 ATTACHMENT 14-454
of any potential redevelopment, and particularly of any below market rate units that may be included in such a development, as Burbank’s inclusionary zoning ordinance would require. This is the site with the largest claimed capacity for new housing in the plan (about 12% of the RHNA), and the assumptions around realistic development capacity here must be better supported.
Comment 2: “Planning assumes that 2,180 housing units that were approved or pending approval during the 5th Cycle will be built during the 6th Cycle, without accounting for the near-certainty that some projects will never be built.” The sites inventory now claims 2,431 units from entitled or “pending” projects9. However, it is not legitimate to assume that 100% of proposed, entitled, or even permitted units will actually be built. In all of these scenarios there is some probability that the project will not be completed.
Burbank can and should report and assess what these probabilities are with reference to its own historical experience with past projects and discount the number of units claimed as in pipeline appropriately. Furthermore, the number of units claimed must be specified at each affordability level.
Comment 3: “Planning makes overly optimistic forecasts of future ADU production which are unlikely to be achieved even with aggressive policies, without providing evidence to support this claim.”
The plan states that 181 ADUs were permitted annually between 2019 and 2021 and then projects 200 ADUs per year over the planning period. HCD lays out a safe harbor option for projecting ADUs based on permitting trends since 201810. While it is conceivable that programs to promote ADUs could result in production during the planning period exceeding the historical average, we recommend adhering to the historical average since 2018 for purposes of projections to account for factors that could depress ADU production during the planning period, such as a recession. A conservative ADU forecast also creates an additional buffer in case the plan’s expectations on other sites are not met, as seems probable (see discussion above under Comment 1).
Comment 4: “Planning did not propose adequate reforms to address the major constraints on redevelopment that exist in Burbank.”
Program 1011 includes evaluating Burbank’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance and should include specific reform commitments to make it less burdensome and more effective at producing housing at all income levels. For rental housing developments the ordinance currently requires 10% of homes to be affordable for lower-income households and 5% to be affordable for very low income households. This framing is not well aligned with the state density bonus law 11 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page 1-107. 10 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, page 31.
9 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element Appendices, page D-7. 3 ATTACHMENT 14-455
because that law requires the granting of one density bonus for qualifying projects12. Burbank’s requirements for low income and very low income units each would individually trigger a state density bonus, but those bonuses do not “stack” as a matter of state law. It would be better to specify a menu of options at different affordability levels, at the lower end of what triggers a state density bonus. For example requiring 10% of units for low-income households or 5% for very low income households, instead of requiring both. In this manner a homebuilder would qualify for a state density bonus to offset the feasibility challenges that can come with requiring affordable units. Of course, a builder could always choose to exceed the minimum affordability requirements, if incentives are properly structured so that pathway is feasible.
Program 5 discusses revisions to parking requirements consistent with state density bonus law.
Parking requirements increase the cost of housing, reduce the density of development, and exacerbate environmental problems, and we advocate for their abolition at the state and local level. State density bonus law lays out three different scenarios whereby parking requirements may be reduced, and different reductions, based on the level of affordability and other factors13.
Since Burbank has an inclusionary zoning ordinance that triggers state density bonuses, projects will qualify for this parking relief regardless of what Burbank does to change parking requirements in its municipal code. A more meaningful action would be to propose eliminating residential parking requirements or at least reducing them to levels below what state density bonus law makes available.
The plan makes the problematic decision to steer development away from areas zoned single-family residential, instead directing it to the Downtown TOD Specific Plan Area and Golden State Specific Plan Area. Single-family zoning is a significant constraint to housing production, and particularly the production of affordable housing. While the plan does include some positive programs around ADUs, such as pre-approved plans and reduced fees, the plan should go farther to promote housing opportunities in exclusionary areas. Cities are required to permit ADUs and SB 9 duplexes and lot splits by state law. Burbank should go beyond strategies that are driven by state law and legalize bungalow courts, townhomes, and small apartment buildings in all residential neighborhoods, with reasonable public safety exceptions such as for high fire hazard severity zones.
The lack of funding for affordable housing as a constraint merits further consideration. For example, Program 1a discusses using $5 million in redevelopment successor agency funding to purchase ten market rate units and preserve them as affordable 14. The analysis of the inclusionary zoning ordinance does not make clear how much money it has raised in in-lieu fees or how many affordable units have been built under its provisions, if any. Given the scarcity of available funding, it is critical that Burbank commit to raising more funding locally and aligning its affordable housing incentives and mandates well with the state density bonus law, as discussed above.
14 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page 1-101. 13 California Government Code Section 65915.(p)
12 California Government Code Section 65915.(b)(1)
4 ATTACHMENT 14-456
Per HCD’s review letter, the HEU in Program 715 commits to rezoning certain sites identified but not redeveloped in prior planning periods for 20% affordable projects to be approved by right.
However, we recommend extending by right approval to all 20% affordable projects, or even more broadly (where not already covered by other ministerial approval programs), because this standard would be easier to track and administer and is more supportive of housing construction than the minimum standard in state law.
Comment 5: “The housing element does not promote new housing opportunities on parcels where apartments are currently banned, even near the planned NoHo-Pasadena busway.
Instead, it concentrates lower-income housing opportunities in areas with significant noise and air pollution exposure. This approach fails to affirmatively further fair housing and reverse existing patterns of residential segregation.”
With regard to affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH), Exhibit B-2516, which shows the sites inventory overlaid on a map of low to moderate income population, is concerning. The map shows that the vast majority of opportunity sites are located in areas with the highest concentrations of low to moderate income households. This means that the HEU is unlikely to reverse patterns of socioeconomic segregation in Burbank, which is essential to AFFH.
Furthermore, Exhibit B-2717, shows a significant proportion of opportunity sites are located in areas that are designated as susceptible to displacement or areas of ongoing displacement. To some extent this approach is justified, since this is the area where Downtown Burbank is located, and a place where future residents would have good access to jobs and transit.
However, it is critical to strengthen programs to protect residential tenants. Program 318, on this subject, mainly references compliance with existing state laws, but Burbank should go further, for example by establishing a robust right to compensation in a no-fault eviction for redevelopment and a right to return at the previous rent for some period of time. Policies such as these would help steer investment to areas where fewer tenants would be displaced.
However, this must be accompanied by strong policies to create more housing opportunities in other parts of the city, particularly in areas zoned single-family residential.
As discussed above in Program 1, a significant portion of the sites inventory is located in the Golden State Specific Plan area, where existing industrial uses and the airport not only constrain redevelopment, but also raise environmental justice concerns for future residents of the area.
The planned North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Project would run through southern Burbank along Olive Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard, with a connection to the Downtown Burbank Metrolink station. Although the plan references some future rezoning of the Media District in Program 519, the commitment is somewhat vague and this area is not part of 19 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page 1-103. 18 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page 1-102. 17 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page B-60
16 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page B-57
15 Burbank Subsequent Draft Housing Element, page 115.
5 ATTACHMENT 14-457
the sites inventory. The HEU should take full advantage of the opportunity to plan for more homes at all income levels near high-quality transit, which allows people to lower their transportation costs and live more sustainably.
Rezoning Deadline
California Government Code Section 65583.(c)(1)(A) states in part “a local government that fails to adopt a housing element that the department has found to be in substantial compliance with this article within 120 days of the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element, rezoning of those sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element.” The statutory deadline for jurisdictions in the SCAG region, such as Burbank, was 10/15/2021. Per HCD’s website, the subsequent draft HEU was received for review on 4/4/2022, after the 120 day grace period had elapsed.
Some of the programs (e.g. Programs 12, 14, 18) to rezone and adopt supportive development standards, target implementation dates after the one-year rezoning deadline of 10/15/2022.
However, this schedule is not available to jurisdictions that fail to obtain certification of their housing elements in a timely manner, as described above. Therefore, HCD should clarify that compliance with the one-year rezoning deadline is required.
MapCraft Analysis:
The MapCraft analysis of the HEU commissioned by AHLA found that the capacity claimed in the sites inventory could fall short by approximately 1,100 to 2,300 units. The finding lends support to our conclusion that the sites inventory is not adequately considering realistic development capacity of non-vacant sites. The analysis considered historic development scale and financial feasibility analysis under different parking requirements scenarios. The analysis makes the following recommendations:
1. “Right-sizing claimed capacity on sites in the current site inventory, both by reducing expectations on many sites and being more ambitious in upzoning other sites. The city could revisit additional opportunities to rezone more parcels in the inventory, particularly in areas like Downtown and along commercial corridors like West Olive Avenue.”
2. “Adding more sites to the site inventory and evaluating rezoning of those sites. Excluding ADUs, the inventory addresses only 3.5% of the city’s 4,200 parcels, so there are many places that could be explored further to address this potential shortfall.”
3. “Reducing or eliminating parking requirements and promoting automobile alternatives to reduce households’ demand for parking. If developers could meet household demand with fewer on-site parking stalls, it could make multifamily development in many parts of the City more economically feasible.”
4. “Introducing new economic incentives to increase the financial feasibility of redevelopment, especially for projects that include below-market-rate units.” 6 ATTACHMENT 14-458
5. “Consider establishing development minimums to ensure high utilization of sites with feasible housing capacity.”
Comparison of HCD Comment Letter and AHLA/YIMBY Law Comment Letter:
The table below lists the comment numbers that are relevant to the categories of deficiencies identified, along with a summary of key AHLA and YIMBY Law policy recommendations for each category.
Deficiency
AHLA/YIMBY
Law Comment
Letter
HCD
Comment
Letter
Key AHLA/YIMBY Law Policy
Recommendations
Sites Inventory 1, 2, 3 A2
Improve analysis of constraints to
housing production such as
environmental factors in the GSSP
area, and existing leases.
Inventory must project units at each
affordability level for each site.
Adjust the number of units
expected from in-pipeline projects
to reflect the reality that not all
projects will be built, based on
historical trends in Burbank.
Use the HCD ADU forecast safe
harbor based on permitting trends
since 2018.
Funding and
Promoting
Affordable
Housing and
Housing for
Special-Needs
Groups
4 B2
Commit to raising local funds to
fund affordable housing and better
align inclusionary zoning ordinance
with state density bonus law.
Governmental
Constraint
Removal
4 A3, B1, B3
Better align the inclusionary zoning
ordinance with state density bonus
law.
Eliminate parking requirements or
at least reduce them beyond what
state density bonus law already
accomplishes.
Upzone single-family areas to allow
7 ATTACHMENT 14-459
a balanced mixture of housing
types going beyond state ADU law
and SB 9.
AFFH Analysis
and Programs to
Promote
Integrated
Neighborhoods
5 A1, B4
Upzone single-family areas to allow
a balanced mixture of housing
types going beyond state ADU law
and SB 9.
Strengthen anti-displacement
policies, including a robust right to
compensation for a no-fault eviction
and right to return at previous rent
for some period of time.
GSSP sites are problematic due to
existing industrial uses and the
airport raising environmental justice
concerns.
Take advantage of the opportunity
to allow more housing at all income
levels near planned BRT stations.
Public
Participation
We concur with
HCD’s
comment
C
Improve outreach methods to lower
income and special-needs
households.
We request the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to address the concerns raised in this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Le n a C n Son us
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
CC: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD Divya Sen, HCD
Burbank Planning Department
8 ATTACHMENT 14-460
ATTACHMENT 14-461
ATTACHMENT 14-462
ATTACHMENT 14-463
ATTACHMENT 14-464
ATTACHMENT 14-465
ATTACHMENT 14-466
ATTACHMENT 14-467
ATTACHMENT 14-468
ATTACHMENT 14-469
ATTACHMENT 14-470
Date: August 4, 2022
To: Shipra Rajesh, City of Burbank
Project: 20-09082 Burbank Housing Element and EIR
From: Sarah Howland, Lexi Journey
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; Re: Policy Revisions for the General Plan Update and Safety Element Update The purpose of this memo is to identify revisions to the General Plan, including the Safety Element, to be compliant with current State law. This memo provides an overview of applicable regulations and guidance and the newly revised policies and implementation actions based on new requirements. The memo also identifies revisions to incorporate Environmental Justice goals, policies, and objectives into the General Plan pursuant to SB 1000.
Overview of Applicable Regulation and Guidance
Assembly Bill 747. Evacuation Routes
Beginning January 1, 2022, AB 747 requires all cities and counties to identify evacuation routes in the safety elements of their general plans either as part of an update to their Local Hazard Mitigation Plan or after that update occurs. The bill requires evaluation of evacuations route capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios. The bill allows cities or counties with an adopted local hazard mitigation plan, emergency operation plan, or other document that fulfills commensurate goals and objectives, to summarize or incorporate the information from these plans or documents in the safety element to comply with this requirement.
ATTACHMENT 14-471
Senate Bill 99. Residential Emergency Evacuation Routes SB 99 requires all cities and counties, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2020, to update the safety element to include information identifying residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes.
Senate Bill 379. Climate Change Adaptation
SB 379 requires all cities and counties to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the safety elements of their general plans upon the next revision beginning January 1, 2017. The bill requires the climate adaptation update to include a set of goals, policies, and objectives for their communities based on the vulnerability assessment, as well as implementation measures, including the conservation and implementation of natural infrastructure that may be used in adaptation projects.
Assembly Bill 2140. Integration of Local Hazard Mitigation Plan AB 2140 authorizes a city, county, or a city and county to adopt a federally specified local hazard mitigation plan along with its Safety Element Update. Incorporation of the local hazard mitigation plan in the safety element makes the jurisdiction eligible to be considered for part or all of its local- share costs on eligible Public Assistance funding to be provided by the state through the California Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA). The local hazard mitigation plan must be approved by FEMA and the Office of Emergency Services to qualify jurisdictions for federal financial assistance.
Senate Bill 1241. State Responsibility Areas and Very High Fire Severity Zones SB 1241 revises the safety element requirements for state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones and require review and update of the safety element, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2014, as necessary to address the risk of fire in state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones.
Senate Bill 1000. Environmental Justice
SB 1000 states that revisions or adoption of two or more elements of a general plan on or after January 1, 2018 trigger a requirement to “adopt or review the environmental justice Element, or the environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements.” Per Government Code §65040.12(e), environmental justice is “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives must aim to reduce health risks to disadvantaged communities (DACs), promote civil engagement, and prioritize the needs of these communities.
Per SB 1000, the California EPA uses CalEnviroScreen, a mapping tool to identify disadvantaged communities throughout the State. CalEnviroScreen uses a variety of statewide indicators to characterize pollution burden (the average of exposures and environmental effects) and population characteristics (the average of sensitive populations and socioeconomic factors). The model scores each of the indicators using percentiles and combines the scores to determine a CalEnviroScreen score for a given census tract relative to others in the state. Figure 1 and ATTACHMENT 14-472
Table 1, provided below, display CalEnviroScreen results for Burbank. Seven census tracts in central, northwest, and southeast Burbank (see Figure 1 and
ATTACHMENT 14-473
Table 1) have a combined DAC score of 75% or higher, thus exceeding the minimum criterion for DAC designation. As mandated under SB 1000, the Safety Element update must consider strategies to create economic and fair housing opportunities and avoid discrimination for all socio-economic groups.
Figure 1 City of Burbank CalEnviroScreen Results1
1 The higher the score, the more disadvantaged the community based on pollution burden and population characteristics.
ATTACHMENT 14-474
Table 1 City of Burbank CalEnviroScreen Overall Scores
Census Tract
Overall Score Percentile
Range Pollution Burden Population Characteristics
6037310100 30-35% 94 10
6037310300 25-30% 70 16
6037310201 45-50% 66 36
6037310202 60-65% 65 50
6037310400 65-70% 98 36
6037310602 55-60% 92 33
6037310701 75-80% 98 43
6037310702 70-75% 99 36
6037310703 90-95% 100 56
6037310601 80-85% 98 55
6037310501 90-95% 98 71
6037310900 55-60% 99 23
6037310800 75-80% 99 39
6037311802 85-90% 100 55
6037311801 90-95% 100 60
6037311000 55-60% 94 28
6037311700 55-60% 99 25
6037311100 65-70% 96 38
6037311200 50-55% 70 37
6037311300 40-45% 66 31
6037311500 60-65% 83 44
6037311600 60-65% 93 33
6037311400 60-65% 80 42
Light orange shading corresponds to CalEnviroScreen scores between 71% and 80%, dark orange corresponds to scores between 81% and 90%, and light red corresponds to scores between 91% and 100% Source: OEHHA 2018
Policy Revisions
Key areas of the Burbank Safety Element that were updated include flooding and fire hazards as well as emergency response and preparedness, especially as they relate to the City’s projected climate change exposure, vulnerability, and environmental justice issues. Table 2 displays revised and new policies for the Safety Element Update and other Elements. Since the City already has a Climate Change Element, climate change policies are placed in the Climate Change Element and referenced in the Safety Element. Table 3 and Table 4 displays revised existing environmental justice policies in the Land Use, Mobility, Noise, and Open Space and Conservation Elements. These policies are related to prioritizing decision making and therefore implementation actions are not included.
Table 4 identifies the revisions to existing environmental justice policies that are included throughout the General Plan. All new text is underlined.
ATTACHMENT 14-475
Table 2 Safety Element Updates
Chapter &
Goal
New Policy or Revisions
(new text underlined)
Implementation
Air Quality
and Climate
Change New Policy – Policy 4.3 Consider climate
change vulnerability in planning decisions,
including those involving new public facilities
and private development.
As part of the current and future updates to
City’s planning documents related to climate
change vulnerability and adaptation (e.g. Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan, Emergency Operations
Plan, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan etc.)
revise applicable vulnerability and adaptative
capacity as well as mitigation and adaptation
strategies, as new data and approaches become
available.
Safety –
Emergency
Response and
Preparedness
Policy 1.1 Regularly update all hazard
mitigation plans, disaster preparedness and
emergency response plans.
Update all disaster preparedness and
emergency response plans every 5 years, when
the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
is required. Include the latest climate change
projections for each climate-related risk and
focus on the most vulnerable populations.
Policy 1.5 Establish designated emergency
response and evacuation routes throughout
the city, for each climate hazard (e.g.,
flooding, fire, etc.), focusing on the most
vulnerable populations.
Describe emergency response documents and
evacuation routes in related City policy
documents such as Hazard Mitigation Plan, and
other disaster and emergency response plans.
Safety – Fire
Protection
Policy 4.6 Reduce fire hazards associated
with older buildings, multi-story structures,
and industrial facilities. Increase the
resilience of existing development in high-
risk areas built prior to modern fire safety
codes or wildfire hazard mitigation guidance.
Update building codes in high fire hazard
severity areas to meet or exceed hardening2
requirements in Chapter 7A of the California
Building Code or other applicable codes.
Investigate the need for an outreach program
to residents in houses located in the VHFHSZ.
Outreach could include providing workshops or
seminars related to:
1. Creating defensible space
2. Hardening homes
3. Improving landscaping with more fire-
resistant plants
4. Inspecting homes for fire hazards
5. Develop an evacuation plans for individual
homes/neighborhoods
New Policy – Policy 4.8 Use public funding,
where available, to the greatest extent
practical to assist private landowners in
implementing defensible space and building
retrofits to achieve a low risk condition.
Investigate federal, state, and private funding
available to conduct outreach to residences
located in the VHFHSZ.
New Policy – Policy 4.9 Ensure that all new
residential development, located in any
hazard area, has at least two emergency
evacuation routes.
The City’s Fire Department will review all new
residential planned development projects to
ensure development contains at least two
viable emergency evacuation routes.
New Policy – Policy 4.10 Continue annual
brush inspections and enforce clearance
2 Repairing the vulnerabilities that make a home susceptible to wildfire by reducing the chance of ignition from flying embers.
ATTACHMENT 14-476
Chapter &
Goal
New Policy or Revisions
(new text underlined)
Implementation
requirements on public and private property
within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone (VHFHSZ), as dictated by Cal Fire, in
accordance with the Board of Forestry and
Fire Protection Fire Safe Regulations,
California Building Standards Code, and
Burbank Municipal Code related to ongoing
maintenance of vegetation clearance on
public and private roads, roadside fuel
reduction plan, and defensible space
clearances.
New Policy – Policy 4.11 Continue to
sponsor and support public education
programs, such as neighborhood events, the
Burbank Fire Department websites and
social media contents, and printed
educational materials to promote defensible
space and emergency evacuation. Prioritize
outreach and public education programs for
vulnerable populations, as identified by
CalEnviroScreen.
New Policy – Policy 4.12 Increase the
resilience of new development in very high
fire severity zones in compliance with the
Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire
Safe Regulations, California Building
Standards Code, and Burbank Municipal
Code.
New Policy – Policy 4.13 Increase the
resilience of existing development in very
high fire severity zones built prior to modern
fire safety codes or wildfire hazard
mitigation guidance in compliance with the
Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire
Safe Regulations, California Building
Standards Code, and Burbank Municipal
Code.
New Policy – Policy 4.14 Require
development of new public facilities, when
feasible, to be located outside of very high
fire severity zone to ensure critical
infrastructure is fire resilient.
Safety –
Seismic
Safety
Policy 5.2 Require geotechnical reports for
new development projects in areas with the
potential for liquefaction or landslide.
Include projected climate change impacts of
slope stability changes after wildfires and
develop mitigation strategies for areas
deemed at risk to slope instability.
Update City codes and policies to assess
geotechnical hazards and require geotechnical
reports for new development projects in areas
with the potential for liquefaction or landslide.
These reports should address the degree of
hazard, design parameters for the project based
on the hazard, and appropriate risk reduction
measures.
New Policy – Policy 5.6 Ensure that water
supplies are not interrupted by seismic
events such as surface rupture, ground
As part of the next Urban Water Management
Plan update, address peak load water supply
requirements through a seismic vulnerability
ATTACHMENT 14-477
Chapter &
Goal
New Policy or Revisions
(new text underlined)
Implementation
shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, or
dam failure.
risk assessment of current water supply
systems. If the vulnerability assessment
indicates insufficient water supply due to
damage from a seismic event, designate
emergency sources of water.
Safety –
Flood Safety
Policy 6.1 Inform applicants of flood risks
and development requirements within the
100‐year, 200‐year, or 500‐year floodplains
or in other high‐risk inundation areas and
require incorporation of risk reduction
measures to achieve an acceptable level of
risk from potential flooding hazards.
Recommend hazard mitigation where
possible. Mitigation measures should
include the projected impacts from climate
change.
None required as this policy update would be
consistent with 9-1-2-G103.10 of the Burbank
Municipal Code.
Policy 6.3 Continue to maintain and upgrade
the City-operated flood control system to
ensure the system is capable of protecting
existing and planned development. Include
evaluation of the system under projected
changes in storm frequency and intensity.
Policy 6.4 Consult with Los Angeles County and
other agencies to maintain and improve
capacity of local and regional flood control
systems. As part of the development of a
stormwater master plan, evaluate capacity of
local and regional flood control systems based
on current and projected changes in storm
frequency and intensity.
Policy 6.6 Prepare and update a stormwater
master plan to Ensure proper maintenance
and improvements to storm drainage
facilities. Evaluate maintenance and
improvements to storm drainage facilities
based on projected changes to storm
frequencies and intensity.
Develop and maintain a stormwater master
plan that addresses regulatory requirements,
stormwater collection systems in the City,
potential climate change impacts, operations
and maintenance, financial considerations, and
funding strategies.
New Policy – Policy 6.8 Whenever feasible,
locate new essential public facilities,
including health care facilities, emergency
shelters, fire stations, emergency command
centers, and emergency communications
facilities, outside flood hazard zones.
None required as this policy update would be
consistent with 9-1-2-G103.10 of the Burbank
Municipal Code.
Safety-
Airport
Hazards
Policy 7.2 Ensure that land uses, densities,
and building heights within Airport Land Use
Compatibility Zones, including those in
disadvantaged communities, are compatible
with safe operation of Bob Hope (Hollywood
Burbank) Airport.
None required.
Safety –
Hazardous
Materials
Policy 8.3 Distribute information and use
incentives and disincentives to reduce or
eliminate the use of hazardous materials
where feasible. Encourage and promote
practices that will reduce the use of
hazardous materials and the generation of
hazardous waste at its source, recycle the
remaining hazardous wastes for reuse, and
treat those wastes that cannot be reduced
at the source or recycled.
Utilize LA County’s resource guides for proper
hazardous waste disposal for homes and
businesses in the City. Implementation of this
guide would be completed in cooperation and
coordination with the Los Angeles County Fire
Health HazMat Division, LA County Department
of Public Health Environmental Health Services
Division, and Burbank Fire Department.
ATTACHMENT 14-478
Chapter &
Goal
New Policy or Revisions
(new text underlined)
Implementation
New Policy – Policy 8.9 Reduce the loss of
life, property, and injures incurred as a result
of hazardous materials spills by offering
comprehensive spill prevention information
to businesses using hazardous materials,
public education, and emergency response
programs. Focus outreach and emergency
response on vulnerable populations.
As part of the next Hazard Mitigation Plan
update, develop public education materials,
prevention plans, and emergency response
plans for hazardous materials spills in
coordination with the Los Angeles County Fire
Health HazMat Division, LA County Department
of Public Health Environmental Health Services
Division, and Burbank Fire Department.
The following tables show the City’s current environmental justice policies, new policies, and new implementation actions in the Air Quality and Climate Change and Safety Elements. All new text is underlined. To comply with SB 1000, Burbank should seek to reduce pollution exposure, promote public facilities, promote food access, promote safe and sanitary homes, promote physical activity, reduce unique or compounded health risks, promote civic engagement, and prioritize the needs of disadvantaged communities. A number of the existing policies below have been revised to focus on the needs of disadvantaged communities in Burbank (Census Tracts: 6037310701, 6037310703, 6037310601, 6037310501, 6037310800, 6037311802, and 6037311801).
Implementation of policies that aim to increase civic engagement of vulnerable populations should include partnering with local community-based organizations, advocacy groups, and trusted leaders that work in the identified DACs. Additionally, it will be critical for the City to continue removing barriers to participation such as timing, transportation, childcare, use of jargon, meeting format, power dynamics, and level of prior knowledge regarding the planning process. Increasing accessibility of information could include providing bilingual documentation since some of the DACs in the City are majority Hispanic (Census Tracts: 6037310501 and 6037311802).
Table 3 Environmental Justice Policies and Implementation for the Air Quality and Climate Change and Safety Elements
Chapter &
Section
New Policy or Revisions
(new text underlined)
Implementation
Air Quality
and
Climate
Change
Policy 1.12 Provide public information describing
air quality standards, health effects, and efforts
that residents and businesses can make to
improve regional air quality, especially for
disadvantaged populations. Encourage
businesses and residents to participate in
SCAQMD’s public education programs.
Use CalEnviroScreen and the California
Healthy Places Index tool to focus outreach
and education to the Census Tracts with the
poorest air quality. Provide all education
materials in English, Spanish, and Armenian.
Policy 2.2 Separate sensitive uses such as
residences, schools, parks, and day care facilities
from sources of air pollution and toxic chemicals.
Provide proper site planning and design features
to buffer and protect when physical separation of
these uses is not feasible. Focus resources and
planning efforts in the most disadvantaged
communities first.
Policy 2.5 already requires the use of the use of
recommendations from the California Air
Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook to guide decisions regarding location
of sensitive land uses. To supplement this, the
additional implementation action is proposed:
Utilize the City’s Complete Streets Plan when
developing and evaluating streetscape design
and design of new projects. Consider additional
project design features such as fixed windows,
open space, trees, and the latest
recommendation for MERV rating air filtration
ATTACHMENT 14-479
systems (specifically for developments in
proximity to freeways). Also, use
CalEnviroScreen, the California Healthy Places
Index tool, and the California Water Boards’
GeoTracker tool to focus resources and
planning efforts to the Census tracts with the
poorest air quality and those closest to sources
of toxic chemicals.
Policy 2.4 Reduce the effects of air pollution, poor
ambient air quality, and urban heat island effect
with increased tree planting in public and private
spaces, especially in disadvantaged communities.
Explore federal, state, and private funding to
support tree-planting efforts in disadvantaged
communities. Use the California Healthy Places
Index to increase tree planting in
neighborhoods with the least amount of tree
canopy (tracts 3107.01, 3017.02, 3118.02 and
3118.01) and park access (including but not
limited to Census tracts 3106.02, 3112.00,
3113.00, and 3115.00).
Policy 3.4 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
new development, including housing for very low,
low and moderate income households, by
promoting water conservation and recycling;
promoting development that is compact, mixed‐
use, pedestrian‐friendly, and transit‐oriented;
promoting energy‐efficient building design and site
planning; and improving the jobs/housing ratio.
Focus resources to help facilitate sustainability
planning and design in the most disadvantaged
communities.
Explore federal, state, and private funding to
facilitate sustainability planning and design for
development in disadvantage communities
(census tracts: 6037310701, 6037310703,
6037310601, 6037310501, 6037310800,
6037311802, and 6037311801).
Policy 3.6 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
encouraging the retrofit of older, energy inefficient
buildings, focusing retrofits in the most
disadvantaged communities first.
Explore federal, state, and private funding to
support building retrofits in disadvantaged
communities.
Policy 3.8 Facilitate the Ttransition of all economic
sectors, new development, and existing
infrastructure and development to low‐ or zero‐
carbon energy sources. Encourage implementation
and provide incentives for low‐ or zero‐carbon
energy sources. Focus transition and incentives for
low- or zero-carbon energy sources in
disadvantaged communities first.
Explore federal, state, and private funding to
support building retrofits in disadvantaged
communities.
Policy 4.1 Evaluate the potential effects of climate
change on Burbank’s human and natural systems
and prepare strategies that allow the City to
appropriately respond. Focus on the most
disadvantaged communities first.
As part of the current and future updates to
City’s planning documents related to climate
change vulnerability and adaptation (e.g. Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan, Emergency Operations
Plan, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan etc.)
revise applicable vulnerability and adaptative
capacity as well as mitigation and adaptation
strategies with the most vulnerable
communities as high priorities (as described in
the Cal OES Adaptation Planning Guide).
Safety Policy 1.3 Sponsor and support public education
programs for emergency preparedness and
disaster response.
Provide outreach information in English,
Spanish and Armenian and focus efforts in
communities most at risk to disasters, for
example, those in high fire hazard areas.
ATTACHMENT 14-480
Table 4 displays revised existing environmental justice policies in the Land Use, Mobility, Noise, and Open Space and Conservation Elements. These policies are related to prioritizing decision making and therefore implementation actions are not included.
Table 4 Environmental Justice Policies in the Land Use, Mobility, Noise, and Open Space and Conservation Elements
Chapter &
Section
New Policy or Revisions
(new text underlined)
Land Use Policy 1.5 Carefully review and consider non‐residential uses with the potential to degrade quality of life, especially focusing on discouraging generators of high levels of air pollution, including toxic air contaminants that would further harm disadvantaged communities.
Policy 2.6 Design new buildings to minimize the consumption of energy, water, and other natural resources. Develop incentives to retrofit existing buildings for a net reduction in energy consumption, water consumption, and stormwater runoff. Focus incentives in disadvantaged communities.
Policy 2.8 Support the development of urban agriculture and community gardens in public and private spaces, with a focus on disadvantaged communities.
Policy 4.7 Encourage artists, craftspeople, architects, and landscape architects to play key roles in designing and improving public spaces, especially in disadvantaged communities.
Policy 4.9 Improve parking lot aesthetics and reduce the urban heat island effect by providing ample shade, low‐water landscaping, and trees, especially in disadvantaged communities.
Policy 4.11 Ensure that public infrastructure meets high‐quality urban design and architecture standards. Remove, relocate, or improve the appearance of existing infrastructure elements that are unsightly or visually disruptive, especially in disadvantaged communities.
Policy 5.5 Provide options for more people to live near work and public transit by allowing facilitating higher residential densities and increased affordable housing development opportunities in employment centers such as Downtown Burbank, and the Media District, and the Golden State area.
Policy 6.1 Recruit and attract new businesses. Use these businesses to act as catalysts to attract other businesses. Continue to utilize public‐private partnerships and other incentives to enhance economic vitality, especially in disadvantaged communities.
Policy 7.2 Provide clear, easily understandable, and accessible information to promote community involvement in the planning process. Outreach efforts should involve all residents and businesses, including disadvantaged communities that have not historically been engaged in City decision making.
Policy 7.3 Consistently seek direct public involvement in the planning process for new projects and plans, as well as for everyday planning matters. Engagement efforts should involve all residents and businesses, including disadvantaged communities that have not historically been engaged in City decision making.
Policy 7.4 Hold community meetings, workshops, charrettes, etc., and provide other opportunities for input on different days and times and at various locations throughout the city, including in disadvantaged communities, to maximize opportunity for public input.
Policy 7.5 Continually expand the use of technology to disseminate planning information and solicit input from the public. Use technology and other methods to provide opportunities for the planning process to become less formal and more inclusive of disadvantaged communities, such as providing planning information in multiple languages such as Spanish and Armenian.
Policy 8.3 Require that building envelopes preserve access to light and air, provide adequate open space, and maintain appropriate setbacks, especially in disadvantaged communities.
Ensure that privacy is respected to the extent feasible in an urban environment.
ATTACHMENT 14-481
Policy 8.5 Ensure that second accessory dwelling units, child day‐care facilities, and group living facilities are allowed, as required by and consistent with state and federal laws. Regulate such uses to the extent allowed by law to prevent unintended effects on any disadvantaged community the neighborhood and to avoid a proliferation of such uses in one neighborhood.
Policy 9.1 Provide opportunities to create neighborhoods with easy walking access to daily needs. Allow for small non‐residential uses that provide service and convenience for neighborhood residents, if such uses would not adversely affect residents, especially those in disadvantaged communities.
Policy 10.8 To the extent allowed by State law, Ffuture development projects with housing shall be subject to a discretionary reviewed process to ensure compatibility with nearby neighborhoods. Within the Airport Influence Area, which includes disadvantaged communities, projects with housing must meet all safety and noise policies in the adopted Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan.
Policy 12.1 Direct heavy industrial uses and other uses with potential adverse effects to locate in appropriate areas away from residential areas, disadvantaged communities, and other sensitive uses.
Policy 13.1 Ensure that public facilities meet the needs of the community and effectively and equitably provide service to the entire City, including disadvantaged communities.
Policy 13.2 Ensure that public facilities maintain compatibility with surrounding land uses and minimize negative effects on neighboring uses and disadvantaged communities.
Policy 14.1 Provide parks for the use and benefit of the general public, including disadvantaged communities. Allow retail and other ancillary uses only when directly related to the primary park and recreational use.
Policy 14.3 Design expansions or enhancements to existing park facilities to minimize effects on the surrounding neighborhood and disadvantaged communities.
Mobility Policy 1.1 Consider economic growth, transportation demands, and neighborhood character in developing a comprehensive transportation system that meets Burbank’s needs. Ensure that transportation is available and connects to the most disadvantaged communities.
Policy 2.2 Weigh the benefits of transportation improvements, policies, and programs against the likely external costs. As appropriate, focus transportation improvements in disadvantaged communities where there would be the most benefit.
Policy 2.3 Prioritize investments in transportation projects and programs that support viable alternatives to automobile use and, as appropriate, that improve transportation systems serving disadvantaged communities.
Policy 4.1 Ensure that local transit service is reliable, safe, and provides high‐quality service to major employment centers, shopping districts, regional transit centers, residential areas, and disadvantaged communities.
Policy 4.2 Use best‐available transit technology to better link local destinations and improve rider convenience and safety, including specialized services for people living with disabilities, youth and the elderly.
Policy 4.4 Advocate for improved regional bus transit, bus rapid transit, light rail, or heavy rail services linking Burbank’s employment, residential centers, and disadvantaged communities to the rest of the region.
Policy 4.7 Integrate transit nodes and connection points with adjacent land uses and public pedestrian spaces to make them more convenient to transit users, especially in disadvantaged communities.
Policy 6.3 Pursue comprehensive neighborhood protection programs to avoid diverting unwanted traffic to adjacent streets, neighborhoods, or disadvantaged communities.
Policy 9.3 Provide access to transportation alternatives for all users, including senior, disabled, youth, disadvantaged, and other transit‐dependent residents.
ATTACHMENT 14-482
Noise Policy 1.4 Maintain acceptable noise levels at existing noise-sensitive land uses, including disadvantaged communities.
Policy 1.5 Reduce noise from activity centers located near residential areas and disadvantaged communities, in cases where noise standards are exceeded.
Policy 3.2 Encourage coordinated site planning and traffic management that minimize traffic noise affecting noise-sensitive land uses and disadvantaged communities.
Policy 3.5 Monitor Assess noise level impacts in residential neighborhoods, including disadvantaged communities, and reduce traffic noise exposure through implementation of the neighborhood protection plans.
Policy 3.8 Within the Airport Influence Area, seek to inform residential property owners, including those in disadvantaged communities, of airport-generated noise and any land use restrictions associated with high noise exposure. (same as Policy 5.4) Policy 3.6 Prohibit heavy trucks from driving through residential neighborhoods and disadvantaged communities.
Policy 3.7 Where feasible, employ noise-cancelling technologies such as rubberized asphalt, fronting homes to the roadway, or sound walls to reduce the effects of roadway noise on sensitive receptors. Focus implementation of noise-cancelling technologies in disadvantaged communities most burdened by roadway noise.
Policy 3.8 Policy 5.4 Within the Airport Influence Area, seek to inform residential property owners, including those in disadvantaged communities, of airport-generated noise and any land use restrictions associated with high noise exposure.
Policy 5.2 Work with regional, state, and federal agencies, including officials at Bob Hope (Hollywood Burbank) Airport, to implement noise reduction measures and to monitor and reduce noise associated with aircraft, particularly as it affects noise-sensitive uses and disadvantaged communities.
Policy 5.4 Within the Airport Influence Area, seek to inform residential property owners, including those in disadvantaged communities, of airport-generated noise and any land use restrictions associated with high noise exposure. (Same as Policy 3.8) Open Space
and
Conservation
Policy 1.1 Encourage inclusive citizen interest and participation in open space management and development. To ensure equity, seek participation in disadvantaged communities.
Policy 1.4 Facilitate a continuing program of environmental resource presentations, surveys, and workshops to educate and inform the public. Include programming in disadvantaged communities with less access to green space.
Policy 2.4 Seek opportunities to develop additional parks and open space in under-resourced areas where needed, including pocket parks, dog parks, athletic fields, amphitheaters, gardens, and shared facilities.
Policy 3.1 Improve and rehabilitate existing parks and recreation facilities equitably. As appropriate, focus improvements in disadvantaged communities.
Policy 3.7 Ensure that the public transit system connects parks and recreation facilities to the rest of the City, including disadvantaged communities.
Policy 4.1 Provide a variety of arts, cultural, historical, fitness, and environmental education programs at parks and recreation facilities. Ensure that programming is aimed at all areas of the city, including disadvantaged communities.
Policy 4.2 Enhance and expand existing recreation programs in response to community demographics and needs. As appropriate, focus enhancements and expansions in under- resourced communities.
Policy 9.4 Pursue infrastructure improvements that would expand communitywide use of recycled water. Such improvements shall be pursued equitably throughout the City.
Policy 10.5 Promote technologies that reduce use of non‐renewable energy resources. As appropriate, provide incentives for such improvements equitably throughout the city.
ATTACHMENT 14-483
ATTACHMENT 14-484
INTRODUCTION
Protecting What Matters
Burbank is a safe community with high -quality
emergency services and a high level of emergency
preparedness. The Safety Element offers tools to
address threats like natural and human -caused
hazards, crime, and homeland security. Future
planning decisions must be considered in the context
of na tural hazards such as earthquakes and floods,
and provision of police, fire, and emergency medical
services.
Purpose and Statutory Requirements
The Safety Element satisfies the requirements of state planning law and is a mandated component of Burbank2035. Section 65302(g) of the California Government Code sets forth the following list of hazards that the element must cover, if the se hazards pertain to conditions in the city: seismically induced conditions including ground shaking, surface rupture, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction, and other geologic hazards; flooding; wildland and urban fires; and evacuation routes; and climate change. State law allows communities to address additional safety issues. The following additional issues are addressed in th is Safety Element: police protection , fire protection, emergency response and preparedness , airport safety, and hazardous materials.
Relationship to Other Elements
The Safety Element identifies areas prone to natural hazards, which must be considered in the designation of land uses in the Land Use Element. For example, proposed land uses must comply with the land use compatibility standards contained in this element for various types of hazards. Traffic - calming goals and policies in the Mobility Element may have implications for emergency response, and recommendations for evacuation and emergency access routes in the Safety Element affect the Mobility Element. The Open Space and Conservation Element is also linked to the Safety Element, because open
The City develops and supports programs that take a bite out of crime.
(Special Note to the Reader: All updates to the Safety Element are noted as text that is underlined and/or strikethrough.)
ATTACHMENT 14-485
space zones and allowable uses are often related to hazard -prone locations. For example, areas prone to land sliding hazards are often set aside as open space because their steep slopes limit other uses.
Relationship to All-Hazard Mitigation Plan
California Assembly Bill 2140 (2006) allowed cities and counties to adopt a local hazard mitigation plan (HMP), specified in the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as a part of their safety elements. The bill limits funds from the California Disaster Assistance Act for jurisdictions that have not adopted a Hazard Mitigation Plan as part of their Safety Element. Specifically, Section 8685.9 of the California Government Code states, “the state share shall not exceed 75% of total state eligible costs unless the local agency is located within a city, county, or city and county that has adopted a local hazard mitigation plan in accordance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 … as part of the safety element of its general plan.” If a jurisdiction has adopted a HMP as part of its Safety Element then the legislature may provide a state share of costs in excess of 75%.
Burbank’s All-Hazard Mitigation Plan was first adopted by the City Council in 2005 in compliance with federal regulations. The purpose of the All -Hazard Mitigation Plan is to integrate hazard mitigation strategies into the City’s daily activities and programs. The All-Hazard Mitigation Plan assesses risk from earthquakes, transportation accidents, transportation loss, wild land/urban interface fires, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, utility loss or disruption, water and wastewater disruption, hazardous materials incidents, aviation disasters, information technology loss or disruption, severe weather, explosions, economic disruption, floods, drought, dam failure, sinkholes, volcanic activity, and special events.
The All-Hazard Mitigation Plan as amended by the Burbank City Council from time to time is hereby incorporated into the Burbank2035 Safety Element by reference as though it were fully set forth herein.
In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the All-Hazard Mitigation Plan and the provisions of Burbank2035, the provisions of the All-Hazard Mitigation Plan shall control. A copy of the All-Hazard Mitigation Plan is on file in the Community Development Department for use and examination by the public.
SAFETY GOALS AND POLICIES
The goals and policies contained in this Safety Element provide Burbank with a framework for keeping residents, businesses, and visitors safe from natural and human hazards. They also provide increased safety for the City’s emergency response personnel. Where the policies below refer to location -based hazards, those hazards are as illustrated in the Safety Plan.
GOAL 1 EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND PREPARATION
Burbank is prepared to respond to emergency situations.
Policy 1.1 Regularly update all hazard mitigation plans, disaster preparedness and emergency response plans.
Policy 1.2 Coordinate disaster preparedness and emergency response with appropriate agencies, neighboring cities, and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority.
Policy 1.3 Sponsor and support public education programs for emergency preparedness and disaster response.
ATTACHMENT 14-486
Policy 1.4 Promote the development of community or neighborhood disaster relief groups and workplace self-help groups to improve the effectiveness of local emergency response teams.
Policy 1.5 Establish designated emergency response and evacuation routes throughout the city, for each climate hazard (e.g., flooding, fire, etc.), focusing on the most vulnerable populations.
Goal 2 Police Protection
Burbank provides high-quality police protection services to residents and visitors.
Policy 2.1 Maintain an average police response time of less than 4 minutes to emergency calls for service.
Policy 2.2 Ensure adequate staffing, facilities, equipment, technology, and funding for the Burbank Police Department to meet existing and projected service demands and response times.
Policy 2.3 Provide and use up-to-date technology to improve crime prevention.
Policy 2.4 Develop and support crime prevention programs throughout the city, including the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and Neighborhood Watch programs.
Policy 2.5 Provide public education for neighborhood safety programs to encourage active participation by Burbank residents and businesses.
GOAL 3 CRIME PREVENTION
Burbank is protected from the threat of civil disturbances and terrorism and is prepared to a chieve and maintain a safe and secure environment to reduce the number of li ves lost, injuries , and amount of property damage.
Policy 3.1 Adapt to the changing safety needs of the community.
Policy 3.2 Reduce opportunities for criminal activity through physical design standards such as CPTED and youth programs, recreation opportunities, educational programs, and counseling services.
GOAL 4 FIRE PROTECTION
Burbank provides high-quality fire protection services to residents and visitors. T hreats to public safety are reduced and property is protected from wildland and urban fire hazards.
Policy 4.1 Maintain a maximum response time of 5 minutes for fire suppression services. Require new development to ensure that fire response times and service standards are maintained.
Policy 4.2 Provide adequate staffing, equipment, technology, and funding for the Burbank Fire Department to meet existing and projected service demands and response times.
Policy 4.3 Implement fire prevention and suppression programs in areas of high fire hazard risk, including both urban and wildland areas.
ATTACHMENT 14-487
Policy 4.4 Maintain adequate fire breaks in areas within and adjacent to areas of high wildfire risk.
Policy 4.5 Coordinate firefighting efforts with local, state, and federal agencies.
Policy 4.6 Increase the resilience of existing development in high-risk areas built prior to modern fire safety codes or wildfire hazard mitigation guidance. Reduce fire hazards associated with older buildings, multi-story structures, and industrial facilities.
Policy 4.7 Maintain adequate fire suppression capability in areas of intensifying urban development, as well as areas where urban uses and open spaces mix.
Policy 4.8 Use public funding, where available, to the greatest extent practical to assist private landowners in implementing defensible space and building retrofits to achieve a low- risk condition.
Policy 4.9 Ensure that all new residential development, located in any hazard area, has at least two emergency evacuation routes.
Policy 4.10 Continue annual brush inspections and enforce clearance requirements on public and private property within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as dictated by Cal Fire, in accordance with the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Safe Regulations, California Building Standards Code, and Burbank Municipal Code related to ongoing maintenance of vegetation clearance on public and private roads, roadside fuel reduction plan, and defensible space clearances.
Policy 4.11 Continue to sponsor and support public education programs, such as neighborhood events, the Burbank Fire Department websites and social media contents, and printed educational materials to promote defensible space and emergency evacuation.
Prioritize outreach and public education programs for vulnerable populations, as identified by CalEnviroScreen.
Policy 4.12 Increase the resilience of new development in very high fire severity zones in compliance with the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Safe Regulations, California Building Standards Code, and Burbank Municipal Code.
Policy 4.13 Increase the resilience of existing development in very high fire severity zones built prior to modern fire safety codes or wildfire hazard mitigation guidance in compliance with the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Safe Regulations, California Building Standards Code, and Burbank Municipal Code.
Policy 4.14 Require development of new public facilities, when feasible, to be located outside of very high fire severity zone to ensure critical infrastructure is fire resilient.
GOAL 5 SEISMIC SAFETY
Injuries and loss of life are prevented, critical facilities function, and property loss and damage is minimized during seismic events.
Policy 5.1 Require geotechnical reports for development within a fault area that may be subject to risks associated with surface rupture.
ATTACHMENT 14-488
Policy 5.2 Require geotechnical reports for new development projects in areas with the potential for liquefaction or landslide. Include projected climate change impacts of slope stability changes after wildfires and develop mitigation strategies for areas deemed at risk to slope instability.
Policy 5.3 Enforce seismic design provisions of the current California Building Standards Code related to geologic, seismic, and slope hazards.
Policy 5.4 Encourage and facilitate retrofits of seismically high-risk buildings to reduce risks from seismic ground shaking.
Policy 5.5 Facilitate the retrofitting of bridges and highway structures in the city to reduce risks associated with seismic ground shaking.
Policy 5.6 Ensure that water supplies are not interrupted by seismic events such as surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, or dam failure.
GOAL 6 FLOOD SAFETY
Potential risks—such as injury, loss of life and property, and economic and social disruption—caused by flood and inundation are minimized.
Policy 6.1 Inform applicants of flood risks and development requirements within the 100-year, 200-year, or 500-year floodplains or in other high-risk inundation areas and require incorporation of risk reduction measures to achieve an acceptable level of risk from potential flooding hazards. Mitigation measures should include the projected impacts from climate change. Recommend hazard mitigation where possible.
Policy 6.2 Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program to ensure that flood insurance will be available to individuals in the community. Publicize the availability of flood insurance to Burbank residents and business owners.
Policy 6.3 Continue to maintain and upgrade the City-operated flood control system to ensure the system is capable of protecting existing and planned development. Include evaluation of the system under projected changes in storm frequency and intensity.
Policy 6.4 Consult with Los Angeles County and other agencies to maintain and improve capacity of local and regional flood control systems.
Policy 6.5 Enforce regulations prohibiting the draining of rainwater into the sewer system.
Policy 6.6 Prepare and update a stormwater master plan to Ensure proper maintenance and improvements to storm drainage facilities. Evaluate maintenance and improvements to storm drainage facilities based on projected changes to storm frequencies and intensity.
Policy 6.7 Employ strategies and design features to reduce the area of impervious surface in new development projects.
Policy 6.8 Whenever feasible, locate new essential public facilities, including health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities, outside flood hazard zones.
ATTACHMENT 14-489
GOAL 7 AIRPORT HAZARDS
Threats to public safety, lives, and property resulting from an airport-related incident are reduced.
Policy 7.1 Maintain consistency with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan as it pertains to Bob Hope Airport.
Policy 7.2 Ensure that land uses, densities, and building heights within Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones, including those in disadvantaged communities, are compatible with safe operation of Bob Hope (Hollywood Burbank) Airport.
Policy 7.3 Review and update City procedures for responding to airport and aircraft-related emergencies.
Policy 7.4 Coordinate disaster response with the Bob Hope Hollywood Burbank Airport Fire Department.
GOAL 8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous materials threats to public health and safety are reduced.
Policy 8.1 Review proposed projects involving the use or storage of hazardous materials.
Policy 8.2 Encourage businesses and organizations that store and use hazardous materials to improve planning and management procedures.
Policy 8.3 Encourage and promote practices that will reduce the use of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous waste at its source, recycle the remaining hazardous wastes for reuse, and treat those wastes that cannot be reduced at the source or recycled. Distribute information and use incentives and disincentives to reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous materials where feasible.
Policy 8.4 Maintain a hazardous materials response capability that will adequately handle Burbank's hazardous materials safety needs.
Policy 8.5 Consult with appropriate agencies regarding hazardous materials regulations.
Policy 8.6 Provide the residents of Burbank with information on the proper storage and disposal of hazardous materials and e-waste and encourage the use of City disposal facilities.
Policy 8.7 Include information on soil contamination and storage of hazardous materials in the City's Geographic Information System.
Policy 8.8 Advocate the continued review and mitigation of the effects of operation of natural gas and petroleum pipelines, and other pipelines used to transport hazardous substances.
Policy 8.9 Reduce the loss of life, property, and injures incurred as a result of hazardous materials spills by offering comprehensive spill prevention information to businesses using hazardous materials, public education, and emergency response programs. Focus outreach and emergency response on vulnerable populations.
SAFETY PLAN
As in all communities, human activities and natural conditions in Burbank affect residents’ quality of life.
It is essential to provide an environment where businesses and residents can not only prosper and feel ATTACHMENT 14-490
safe, but also be prepared for emergency situations. The City can minimize hazards and protect public health and privat e property through a combination of appropriate land use planning , development review, and emergency preparedness planning.
Emergency Services and Safety
Achieving ideal response levels from law enforcement and emergency service providers requires coordination between the City and the community. The Burbank Police and Fire Departments work with the community to identify the levels of service desired and continually assess services, facilities, equipment, and personnel to determine their ability to meet current and future demands. The locations of Burbank’s existing emergency service facilities , including fire ser vices and police services, are dispersed throughout the community to adequately respond to and serve all areas, including SRAs or VHFHSZs. Fire Station 16 (1600 North Bel Aire Drive) is located in the northeastern fire zone and Fire Station 11 (311 East Orange Grove Avenue), although not in the northeastern fire zone, also serves the area. Fire Station 12 (644 North Hollywood Way) is not located in the fire zone but serves the southern fire zone in the city.
The Police and Fire Departments will continue to use public outreach and education to increase community awareness regarding hazards, emergency response, and homeland security in Burbank. In addition, the City will support programs that address crime and fire prevention activities. The Burbank Police and Fire Departments will continue proactive training and planning programs, and will use state- of-the-art technology to improve response and increase public safety.
Police Services
The Burbank Police Department responds to emergency situations and patrols neighborhoods and commercial areas of the city to promote a safe environment. The staff maintains official criminal records, investigates crime, and, in an emergency, assesses the situation and quickly dispatches appropriate emergency responders. The Police Department operates five facilities: Police Headquarters located at 200 North Third Street, the animal shelter at 1150 North Victory Place, a police pistol range at 2244 Wildwood Canyon, the City Jail, and a heliport in Sun Valley.
The Police Department uses 11 patrol beats to provide services to all portions of the city and respond to calls outside of Burbank, if needed. The average response time for emergency calls in 2009 was 3 minutes, 12 seconds, and the average response time for non-emergency calls was 16 minutes.
The Burbank Police Department maintains mutual aid agreements with the police departments for the Cities of Los Angeles, San Fernando, Glendale, and Pasadena, and share s resources and receive s assistance from those departments, if needed. In addition, as part of the State Emergency Aid System, the Police Department will provide a specified number of officers and equipment to other jurisdictions in the event of an incident. The department can also request aid from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department or the California Emergency Management Agency.
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
Burbank values environmental design as a tool to help prevent crime. The concepts of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) offer non-invasive and permanent measures to prevent crime in the city. CPTED includes the following five concepts: territoriality, natural surveillance, activity support, access control, and maintenance.
Territoriality: Demarcating the boundary of a property or an area through walls and fences can discourage intrusion. People tend to protect territory that they feel is their own and to respect the ATTACHMENT 14-491
territory of others. Low decorative fences, artistic pavement treatments, well -designed signs, good property maintenance, and high -quality landscaping express pride in ownership and identify personal space.
Natural Surveillance: Arranging populated functions or rooms in homes and businesses to face the street allows easy surveillance by residents and employees. Crime is discouraged by designing and orienting buildings and public spaces, and placing physical features, activity centers, and people , in ways that maximize the ability of others to see what is going on. Conversely, barriers such as bushes, sheds, or shadows make observing activities difficult. Windows or doors oriented to streets and public areas, in conjunction with landscaping and lighting that promote natural surveillance from inside a home or building and from the outside by neighbors, are effective means of passive crime prevention.
Access Control: Circulation and access to sites and buildings can be controlled by designating paths and placing bollards or fences to limit access.
Activity Support: Supporting activities on the street attracts people and encourages natural surveillance.
Encouraging legitimate activity in public spaces helps discourage crime. Improvements such as a basketball court in a public park and community activities such as a clean-up day, block party, or civic or cultural event bring people out, get them invol ved, and help discourage vagrancy and potential illegal acts. Providing a mix of land uses, types of residential development, and public or quasi -public spaces encourages diverse households and patterns of activity . The resulting round-the-clock activity a nd increase in eyes on the street raises the level of security.
Maintenance: Maintaining sidewalks, street trees, lighting, and private property discourages negative behavior such as littering and vandalism.
CPTED concepts enable developers and designers to incorporate crime prevention measures into building design. Territoriality can be achieved by demarcating boundaries with various surface treatments and careful design to make intrusion and suspicious activities easy to identify. Building orientations that face the street, window placements and size, and provision of lighting allow neighbors to survey their neighborhood and discourage intrusion. Pathways and obstructions such as walls and gates allow property owners and the City to control access.
Crime prevention relies on programs implemented by government agencies. To reduce crime, the City will emphasize the need for well-lighted community areas and extra surveillance in areas susceptible to high crime rates, such as parking lots. Complementary uses within mixed-use areas will be encouraged to reduce crime. Activity support is strengthened by intentionally placing programs and activities in areas that improve the perception of safety and discourage potential offenders.
The success of CPTED depends on maintenance of all these programs. Maintaining streets, lighting, and landscaping facilitate natural surveillance and access control. Maintaining private and public properties requires participation from property owners and City departments. Continu ing and monitoring CPTED programs will help to promote safety in Burbank neighborhoods.
Fire Services
The Burbank Fire Department consists of six divisions: Fire Prevention, Suppression, Emergency Medical Services, Disaster Preparedness, Equipment Maintenance, a nd Training and Safety. These divisions function in a manner that allows the Fire Department to effectively serve the community in emergency and nonemergency situations.
ATTACHMENT 14-492
The Burbank Fire Department operates six fire stations, as listed below and a Fire Training Center:
Station 11—311 East Orange Grove Avenue
Station 12—644 North Hollywood Way
Station 13—2713 West Thornton Avenue
Station 14—2305 West Burbank Boulevard
Station 15—1420 West Verdugo Avenue
Station 16—1600 North Bel Aire Drive
Fire Training Center—1845 North Ontario Street
The Fire Training Center is used both for training
purposes and as an Emergency Operations Center in
times of emergency.
The Fire Department has jurisdiction over all fires and life -threatening incidents in the city. Even when private companies have their own trained firefighting personnel and equipment who respond first to a fire emergency, the Fire Department ta kes over control of the scene. The only exception to this is on interstate and state highways, where the California Highway Patrol has ultimate responsibility.
The Burbank Fire Department is a member of the Verdugo Fire Communications Center, a regional communications center that fields calls for service for the Cities of Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, Alhambra, Arcadia, Monrovia, Montebello, Monterey Park, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, and South Pasadena. The communication s center was established b y the Cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena under a “no borders” agreement in which the closest fire station to a reported incident responds to the call, regardless of jurisdiction. The remaining nine jurisdictions subsequently joined the Communications Center.
Because no community has resources sufficient to
cope with all emergencies that could o ccur, a
statewide system of mutual aid provides assistance.
Mutual aid requests are processed through the
California Emergency Management Agency . Under
this system, each jurisdiction relies on its own
and/or the neighboring jurisdiction's resources to
deal with a disaster before calling for outside
assistance.
The Burbank Fire Department also operates a multi-
faceted public education program, aimed at
students, businesses, senior citizens, scouts and
other clubs, and the city's residents at large. These
programs are an important part of the Fire
Department’s efforts to prevent fire and other disasters in the community. Among the Fire Department’s public education efforts are public school demonstrations, safety talks, annual events (e.g., Disaster Preparedness Fair, Fire Prevention Week, Fire Service Day), and informational inserts in utility bills.
Fire Hazards
Fire is a safety concern both within the urban area of Burbank and in hillside areas. Urban fire risks are reduced by enforcing code provisions and maintaining a high-quality fire department. Wildland fires are
Burbank’s Fire Department operates from six fire
stations distributed throughout the city.
The headquarters building for both the Burbank Police
and Fire Departments is located at the intersection of
North Third Street and Orange Grove Avenue.
ATTACHMENT 14-493
most problematic along the developed residential fringes of the hillsides. Dry vegetation, seasonal swings in precipitation, and wind conditions combine to increase the potential for wildfires.
Wildland Fires
Like any urban environment, Burbank is subject to fire hazards. In particular, Burbank’s location adjacent to the Verdugo Mountains and the Hollywood Hills makes the city susceptible to loss from fire in the urban-wildland interface, where urban uses begin to mix with undeveloped land in its natural state. The hills are already at risk of wildfire because of their vegetation and climate; where the city’s urban uses extend into the hills, this risk combine s with additional s ources of fire and special difficulties in firefighting in these areas (which have steep slopes and fewer access points).
Two Mountain Fire Zones, as illustrated in Exhibit S-1, are designated by the Burbank Fire Department.
One zone is located along the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains in northeast Burbank, and the other is located in southwestern portion of the city adjacent to the Warner Bros. Studios. The Fire Department’s mission during a wildland fire is to protect life, property, and the environment. All available personnel and equipment are used to protect structures and provide perimeter control within the urban-wildland interface. See Exhibit S-2 for the City’s Very High Fire Severity Zones, Public Services and Zoning.
Fire Responsibility and Planning
The City will continue to reduce the potential for dangerous fires by operating the focused divisions within the Burbank Fire Department to implement fire hazard education, fire protection, and fuel modification programs, and to make sure that the city maintains sufficient emergency capacity, as described in the 2011 Burbank All -Hazard Mitigation Plan, Burbank Fire Hazard Reduction Program (Brush Clearance) and the 2019 County of Los Angeles All-Hazards Mitigation covering Los Angeles County, California. These include the Fire Prevention Bureau, the Fire Film Safety Office, the Fire Suppression Division, Emergency Medical Services, and Emergency Management. In addition, the City will work closely with the local water districts and the County to ensure that water pressure is adequate for fire -fighting purposes. Development proposals within high fire areas will be required to provide appropriate and adequate safeguards and response capabilities to prevent the loss of structures and to ensure established development does not experience reduced service. New development may be required to pay development impact fees toward this end, subject to a nexus study and assurance as to the rough proportionality of project impacts to the demands for required new fire facilities and/or equipment.
ATTACHMENT 14-494
Source: City of Burbank 2010, CASIL 1990
Exhibit S-1. Fire Zones
ATTACHMENT 14-495
Source: City of Burbank, 2022
Exhibit S-2. Very High Fire Hazard Zones , Public Services, and Zoning
ATTACHMENT 14-496
Urban Fires
While wildland fires pose a serious threat in areas located within and adjacent to the Verdugo Mountains, the rest of the city is susceptible to the threat of urban fires. Structure fires and grass fires present a safety hazard for Burbank’s residents, vis itors, and properties. Burbank contains some land uses that may be more susceptible than others to property damage and/or loss of life (e.g., the Media Studios, high-rise buildings, and Bob Hope Airport).
Most fire protection services are provided by the Burbank Fire Department, which also provides emergency medical services, fire prevention services, and disaster preparedness services throughout the city. Bob Hope Airport has its own fire department, which responds to fire incidents at the airport.
Warner Bros. Studios also has its own fire department to respond to incidents that may occur on studio property.
Disaster and Emergency Preparedness
Being prepared and knowing what courses of action to take in case of emergencies reduces the chance of injury and damage. Educating staff members and the public about hazards prepares them mentally and physically, leading to quick and appropriate responses. The City will initiate and support the practice of emergency evacuation measures at home, at work , and in schools to reduce the effects of emergencies on everyday life.
All-Hazard Mitigation Plan and Multi-Hazard Functional Plan Burbank’s All-Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies and characterizes hazards facing the city, ranging from earthquakes to floods to information technology disruptions. The plan identifies strategies and mitigation actions to reduce the risks posed by these hazards. The City also has a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, which addresses the City's planned response to extraordinary emergen cy situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies.
Emergency Operations
When a major emergency or disaster occurs, the City's Emergency Operations Center is activated to coordinate response by staff members and representatives from various City departments who are assigned emergency management responsibilities. The Disaster Preparedness Division of the Burbank Fire Department coordinates most disaster response in the city. The Police Department assists in many phases of disaster response, especially traffic control and controlling civil disturbances.
Emergency Access and Evacuation
Emergency vehicles primarily use main streets during an emergency . In the event of an citywide evacuation, the primary r outes used , if available, are Glenoaks Boulevard, San Fernando Boulevard, Burbank Boulevard, and Victory Boulevard (Exhibit S -23). Most areas of the City have at least two evacuation routes. The only two locations with only one evacuation route are Country Club Drive above N. Sunset Canyon Drive and Hamline Place, a cul -de-sac at the end of Groton Drive. Both locations are in the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains in the eastern portion of the City and development of additional evacuation routes is not feasible for either.
The City promotes the use and maintenance of back -up power generators in critical facilities such as group care homes, day care centers, hospitals, and other health care facilities, and in emergency and high-risk facilities such as Bob Hope Airport, schools, and other sites that are likely to be used as shelters.
As of 2011, the City is equipped to provide facilities for evacuees at the Tuttle Adult Center, Robert Ovrom Community Center, and Olive Recreation Center. The Joslyn Adult Center may also be used as an ATTACHMENT 14-497
evacuation center for senior citizens. However, none of these facilities currently have the amenities needed to use thes e facilities as overnight stay locations. The McCambr idge Recreation Center and Verdugo Recreation Center can accommodate overnight stays in the event of an emergency. Additional facilities may be added in the future based on need.
Source: City of Burbank 2010
Exhibit S-23. Evacuation Routes
ATTACHMENT 14-498
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
As in other communities in the Los Angeles region, seismic hazards are the most substantial environmental hazards affecting land uses in Burbank. Earthquakes and their related effects (se ismic shaking, surface rupture, liquefaction, landslides, and subsidence) have the greatest potential to affect a large portion of the city’s population. Sound planning practices and continued improvements to buildings and structures will minimize risks from seismic hazards.
Earthquakes
An earthquake is a manifestation of the constant movement and shifting of the earth’s surface.
Movement occurs along fractures or faults, which represent the contact point between two or more geologic units. Earth movement, known as seismic activity, causes pressure to build up along a fault, and the release of pressure results in the ground -shaking effects that are known as an earthquake.
Earthquakes can cause damage through surface fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefacti on, and landslides. These topics are described in more detail below.
Surface Fault Rupture
Surface fault rupture is an actual cracking or breaking of the ground along a fault during an earthquake.
Structures built over an active fault can be torn apart if the ground ruptures. The potential for surface fault rupture exists along the traces of active faults and is generally limited to a linear zone a few yards wide. Burbank contains one active fault, the Verdugo Fault, located just south of the Verdugo Mountains. Other active faults exist in the region, but they are not located within Burbank, so t hose faults do not pose the risk of surface fault rupture in the city. Exhibit S-34 illustrates faults in the city and nearby vicinity.
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requires the State of California to map areas with high risk for surface f ault rupture. This law prohibits locating structures designed for human occupancy on top of the surface traces of active faults, thereby reducing the loss of life and property from an earthquake. No Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone has been designated in Burbank.
Ground Shaking
Ground shaking is motion that occurs as a result of energy released during an earthquake. Ground shaking could damage or destroy buildings, bridges, and pipelines, depending on the magnitude of the earthquake, the location of the epicenter, and the character and duration of the ground motion. The characteristics of the underlying soil and rock and, where structures exist, the building materials used and the workmanship of the structures are important details to consider when determining the potential effect of seismic ground shaking.
In addition to the Verdugo Fault, several other active faults have the potential to cause ground shaking that would affect Burbank. These faults are the San Fernando Fault (northwest of Burbank), Sierra Madre Fault (at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains east of Burbank), Hollywood Fault (south of Burbank), Newport-Inglewood Fault (12.5 miles southwest of Burbank), and the Raymond Fault (6 miles southeast of Burbank). The San Andreas Fault, a large fault that runs nearly the entire length of California, is located approximately 27 miles to the northwest . Although these faults would not cause a surface rupture in Burbank, a seismic event on any of these faults could cause ground shaking that could damage structures and facilities in the city.
ATTACHMENT 14-499
Source: City of Burbank 2010, CASIL 1990
Exhibit S-34. Fault Locations
ATTACHMENT 14-500
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a destructive side
effect of seismic shaking.
Liquefaction happens when
shaking increase s pore water
pressure and causes the soil to
lose its strength and behave as a
liquid. The excess pore pressures
are often pushed upw ard
through fissures and soil cracks ,
which causes water-soil slurry to
bubble onto the ground surface.
Liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated and loose, fine- to-medium-grained soils, in areas where the groundwater table lies within 50 feet of the surface.
As illustrated in Exhibit S -45, m uch of Burbank is located atop soils susceptible to liquefaction, particularly in areas west of the Golden State Freeway (I-5). In general, soils in these areas are recently deposited sediments that may include potent ially liquefiable layers. Except in some areas along the Ventura Freeway ( SR 134) in t he southwestern portion of the city, most groundwater underlying Burbank is deeper than 100 feet below the ground surface . Groundwater levels have been dropping because of pumping in water wells. As long as groundwater continues to be extracted in the upper Los Angeles River area and annual rainfall remains at normal l evels, groundwater levels in Burbank can be expected to remain deeper than 50 feet, resulting in a low risk of liquefaction for most of the city.
Landslides and Mudslides
Landslide hazards are related to both slope and to seismic activity. Mudslide hazards are related to storm events, especially following long dry periods or fires that have reduced hillside vegetation. The City will work to mitigate mudslide and landslide hazards for both existing and new development.
A landslide is the downhill movement of masses of earth material under the force of gravity. Factors contributing to landslide potential are steep slopes, unstable terrain, and proximity to earthquake faults.
The process of landsliding typically involves the surface soil and an upper portion of the underlying bedrock. Movement may be very rapid, or so slow that a change of position is noticed only over a period of weeks or years. The size of a landslide can range from several squar e feet to several square miles.
Mudflows consist of rivers of rock, earth, and other debris saturated with water. Flows develop when water rapidly accumulates in the ground during heavy rainfall, changing the earth into a flowing river of mud or slurry. These mudflows can strik e with little or no warning at avalanche sp eeds. Mudslide potential exist s in the hillside portions of Burbank during heavy rains, especially in areas recently affected by fire.
In Burbank, hazards from landslides and mudslides are limited to properties at the base of undeveloped or unimproved slopes in the Verdugo Mountains, north of Sunset Canyon Drive. Exhibit S-56 illustrates locations that are subject to landslide hazards.
Flood Hazards
Flooding may occur in Burbank when streams and channels overflow as a result of excessive precipitation, storm runoff, or inadequate, undersized, or unmaintained storm drainage infrastructure.
Flood zones, including areas with f lood hazards from potential overflow from drainage channels, are shown in Exhibit S-67.
Steep slopes, such as those in the Verdugo Mountains in the northern part of Burbank, are subject to landslide hazards.
ATTACHMENT 14-501
Source: City of Burbank 2010, CASIL 1990
Exhibit S-45. Liquefaction Zones
ATTACHMENT 14-502
Source: City of Burbank 2010, CASIL 1990
Exhibit S-56. Earthquake-Induced Landslide Zones
ATTACHMENT 14-503
Source: AECOM 2010, FEMA 1996
Exhibit S-67. FEMA Flood Zone Areas
ATTACHMENT 14-504
Flood hazards related to storm events generally are described in terms of the “100-year flood,” which is the largest flood event that may be expected to occur within 100 years. This flood is considered a severe flood, but one that can be reasonably predicted and thus reasonably mitigated. The “500-year flood” is the largest flood event that may be expected to occur within 500 years. Other areas of Burbank may be affected by smaller storm events, such as the 10-year storm event.
Burbank’s stormwater is managed by the storm drainage system, including surface stormwater channels. The City is studying the storm drainage system to determine the condition of the entire system and the need for new and/or updated facilities. The City’s storm drain master plan describes necessary improvements to the stormwater drainage system to accommodate growth anticipated as a result of Burbank2035.
Dam Inundation Hazards
Dam inundation describes flooding that could result from the structural failure of a dam, generally caused by seismic activity. Seismic activity may also cause inundation by a seismically induced wave, called a seiche, that overtops the dam without also causing dam failure. Landslides flowing into a reservoir could also cause dam failure or overtopping.
Three reservoirs upstream from Burbank, Reservoirs #1, #4, and #5, are classified as dams by the California Department of Water Resources. Though small, these reservoirs impound more than 50 acre-feet of water. However, these reservoirs are not large enough to result in considerable risk of inundation in Burbank that would result from failure of any of the facilities.
Airport Operations
Bob Hope Airport is located in the northwestern corner
of the city. The airport serves commercial airlines and the needs of military aviation and general aviation. The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority runs the
airport and maintains a contract with Airport Group
International, Inc., to provide daily operations and
maintenance. In 2009 , approximately 4.6 million
passengers used Bob Hope A irport, for an average of
about 12,600 passengers per day.
Although hazardous incidents associated with air
transportation are extremely rare, aircraft accidents
have the potential to be severe. The City works in
consultation with the Burbank -Glendale-Pasadena
Airport Authority to minimize hazards associated with air trans portation and plan for a coordinated response to any potential incident.
Air Crash Hazards
An "aircraft emergency" is any crash, accident, fire , or other disaster involving aircraft or any potential mishap for which standby equipment has been alerted by the Burbank Air Traffic Control Tower. An airport disaster has the potential to affect almost any part of Burbank because virtually all populated areas of the city are within the perimeter of building height limitations imposed by Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Numerous secondary hazards could result from an airport -related disaster, such as fires, hazardous materials incidents, traffic disruption, and loss of utilities.
Bob Hope Airport, run by the Burbank-Glendale-
Pasadena Airport Authority, served approximately
4.6 million passengers in 2009.
ATTACHMENT 14-505
Bob Hope Airport has a Federal Aviation Administration –approved Airport Emergency Plan. This plan establishes actions that responsible agencies should take to respond promptly to emergencies, minimizing the possibility and extent of personal injury and property damage around the airport. The Airport Fire Department is the first responder to all airport emergencies, but the Burbank Fire Department has ultimate responsibility for all incidents in the city.
The Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission has adopted an Airport Influence Area for Bob Hope Airport. This describes the area in which noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses , as determined by the Airport Land Use Commission. The Airport Influence Area (shown in Exhibit N-3) is generally defined by the 65-dBA CNEL noise contour (described in the Noise Element). In accordance with state regulations (Section 11010 of the Business and Professions Code and Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353 of the C ivil Code), the seller of a property in the Airport Influence Area must provide the purchaser with a Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement that includes a “Notice of Airport in Vicinity ,” indicating that the property is located in an Airport Influence Area.
The Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan identifies two safety zones within the planning boundaries of the airport: the Approach Surface and the Runway Protection Zone. The Approach Surface governs the height of objects on or near the airport. This surface is an imaginary inclined plane that extends from the end of the runway surface to an outward distance that is dependent on runway use. The width and slope of the Approach Surface also depend on runway use. Generally, objects are not allowed to extend above this imaginary plane. If one does, it must be marked or removed.
The Runway Protection Zone is the ground-level area that provides for unobstructed passage of landing aircraft through the airspace above. This zone begins at the end of the runway surface, and its size is dependent on the designated use of the runway. This area should be kept free of all obstructions; no structure should be permitted or people allowed to congregate in this zone.
Hazardous Materials and Human-Caused Hazards
Manufacturing, transporting, and storing hazardous materials in an urban environment can pose threats to the safety of workers, and to the safety of businesses and residences located near these mater ials.
The City recognizes the importance of identifying and regulating the use, production, and transportation of hazardous materials and making planning decisions to minimize exposure to hazards. Hazardous materials—cleaning products, paints, solvents, an d fuels —are commonly used and found in small quantities throughout Burbank.
Transport of Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials are transported through Burbank on roadways (highways and city streets), by rail, by pipeline, and in the air. Types of hazardous cargo regularly transported into, out of, and through the city consist of flammable liquids, corrosive materials, compressed and/or poisonous gases, explosives, flammable solids, and irritating materials.
Accidents on major roadways could result in rel eases of hazardous materials. The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates the transport of hazardous materials on city streets, I-5, and SR 134. When acutely toxic hazardous materials are transported, the California Highway Patrol must be notified. If city streets are used, the Burbank Police Department must be notified. The City does not designate specific haul routes for hazardous materials, because the handlers and users of hazardous materials are dispersed throughout the city.
ATTACHMENT 14-506
The Southern Pacific Railroad operates several miles of rail lines in the city that may be used to transport hazardous materials. The B urbank Fire Department tracks real -time incident data for hazardous materials transport and passenger railroad travel. The Fire Department also maintains an inventory of the loads of hazardous materials shipped through the city.
A hazardous materials incident involving aircraft traveling to or from Bob Hope Airport is less likely than an incident involving another mode of transport. The Airport Fire Department would be the first to respond to an incident occurring at the airport , and the Burbank Fire Department would assume command after arriving at the site. If an incident were to occur outs ide of the airport property, the Airport Fire Department could assist the Burbank Fire Department or other agencies as necessary.
Former Landfills
Areas formerly used as landfills contain wastes that can release toxins into the air or contaminate groundwater. The City operates one active landfill, Burbank Landfill, located in the Verdugo Mountains.
The Burbank Recycling Center, located approximately five minutes from Downtown, is a private/public partnership that houses a materials recovery facility, buyback drop-off center, used-oil center, compost corner, and learning center. This facility collects and diverts wastes that contribute to landfill capacity.
In addition, two former landfill sites are located in the city. The former Stough Park Landfill is located in Stough Park near the Starlight Bowl and DeBell Golf Course. This facility was closed and solid waste was then transported to Burbank Landfill, located nearby. This site is monitored and inspected regularly by the Los Angeles County Environmental Health Department. Other former landfill sites include the former Sunset Canyon Dump, located at the edge of the Verdugo Mountains near the entrance to Stough Park.
This site has been developed with residential uses, but is still monitored by the Los Angeles County Environmental Health Department to ensure that the former landfill uses do not result in potential public safety issues.
Pipelines
Underground pipelines that transport and deliver natural gas, liquid petroleum, and other products can be found throug hout Burbank. Most homes and businesses require small pipelines to deliver these products. Larger transmission pipelines are less common in urbanized areas, but they pose the greatest threat in the event of upset.
Several large pipelines are located in th e city. I f any of these pipelines crack or are broken, major hazardous materials incidents may result . These underground pipelines , typically located 42 inches below the ground surface, include gas fuel supply lines and crude-oil shipping lines. The Pacific Pipeline System, Inc., has a 20-inch crude-oil pipeline that runs parallel to the Southern Pacific Railroad’s right- of-way. The Four Corners Pipeline Company has a 14 -inch petroleum pipeline that runs from north to south following Glenoaks Boulevard to Tulare Avenue, traveling south on Sixth Street to Glendale. A 30- inch Southern California Gas Company natural gas pipeline runs south on Glenoaks Boulevard to Glendale. Other smaller pipelines that also contain natural gas follow Hollywood Way, Verdugo Avenue, and Burbank Boulevard. The Burbank Fire Department maintains a list of the major pipelines in the city.
Underground Storage Tanks
Underground storage tanks (USTs) are used to store a variety of materials, including hazardous chemicals. Some of the most common UST contents are gasoline, diesel, other petroleum fuels, and solvents.
ATTACHMENT 14-507
The Health Hazardous Materials Division of the Los Angeles County Fire Department is the Certified Uniform Program Agency for Burbank. The Burbank Fire Department serv es as a Participating Agency that implements some requirements of the Certified Uniform Program Agency , including disclosure of hazardous materials and UST regulation requirements. The overall purpose of t he UST program is to protect public health and safety and the environment from releases of petroleum and other hazardous substances from tanks. The program includes requirements for tank installation, construction, testing, leak detection, spill containment, and overfill protection. Cleanup of leaking tanks often requires a soil and groundwater investigation and remediation under the direction of a regulatory agency.
ATTACHMENT 14-508
Burbank in 2035: Drawing by Camila Salas of Miller Elementary School ATTACHMENT 14-509
Table of Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 7-1 Protecting What Matters ........................................................................ 7-1 Purpose and Statutory Requirements ................................................... 7-1 Relationship to All-Hazard Mitigation Plan ........................................... 7-2 Safety Goals and Policies ................................................................................ 7-2 Safety Plan ......................................................................................................... 7-6 Emergency Services and Safety ........................................................... 7-7 Fire Hazards .............................................................................................. 7-9 Disaster and Emergency Preparedness ............................................. 7-13 Geologic and Seismic Hazards ........................................................... 7-15 Dam Inundation Hazards ..................................................................... 7-21 Airport Operations ................................................................................ 7-21 Hazardous Materials and Human-Caused Hazards ......................... 7-22
Exhibits
Exhibit S-1. Fire Zones ...................................................................................... 7-11 Exhibit S-2. Very High Fire Hazard Zones, Public Services, and Zoning ..... 7-12 Exhibit S-23. Evacuation Routes ..................................................................... 7-14 Exhibit S-34. Fault Locations ........................................................................... 7-16 Exhibit S-45. Liquefaction Zones .................................................................... 7-18 Exhibit S-56. Earthquake-Induced Landslide Zones .................................... 7-19 Exhibit S-67. FEMA Flood Zone Areas ............................................................ 7-20
ATTACHMENT 14-510
ATTACHMENT 14-511
ATTACHMENT 14-512
2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
This section includes comments received during the circulation of the 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 Draft EIR was circulated for a 65-day public review period that began on January 26, 2022, and ended on March 31, 2022. The City of Burbank received 143 comment letters on the Draft EIR. The commenters and the page number on which each commenter’s letter appear are listed below.
Responses to oral comments received during the Planning Board meeting held on March 14, 2022, are provided under the Planning Board (P) and Speaker (S) sections as identified below. Among the letters received by Organizations, one separate commenter (i.e., Mitchell M. Tsai) 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, this letter is addressed first to maintain the focus on the Draft EIR prepared for the proposed Project.
In addition, the Project Description, Biological Resources, and Utilities/Service Systems sections of the Draft EIR were recirculated for a 47-day review period that began on July 22, 2022. Responses to comments received on the Recirculated Draft EIR, including oral comments during the Planning Board meeting held on August 22, 2022, are provided in Section 3 of the Final EIR.
Table 2-1 List of Commenters on the Draft EIR
Letter No. and Commenter Page No.
Agencies (A)
A-1 Andrew Salas , Chairman, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (January 31, 2022)
2-6
A-2 Miya Edmonson, LDR/CEQA Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation (March 16, 2022)
2-7
A-3 Erinn Wilson-Olgin, Environmental Program Manager I – South Coast Region, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (March 18, 2022) 2-9
A-4 Dianne Doesserich, Team Manager, Environmental Planning Section, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (March 30, 2022)
2-14
Organizations (O)
O-1 Mitchel l M. Tsai, Attorney, on behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (March 14, 2022)
2-16
O-2 Enrique Apodaca, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-3 Shaun Mieure, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-4 Herbert Hardy, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-5 Joel Perez, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-6 Ivan Burgara, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-7 Eric Valles, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-8 Adrian Gudino, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-9 Blake Powell, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-10 Peter Rodriguez, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 ATTACHMENT 14-513
Letter No. and Commenter Page No.
O-11, O-117 Steven McC lenthen, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022; March 28, 2022)
2-18
O-12 Dan Langford, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-13 Victor Camposeco, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-14 Daniel Ayala, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-15 Thomas Cummings, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-16 Jose Salcedo, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-17 Leo Serrano, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 13, 2022) 2-18 O-18 David A Benzie, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-19 Alberto Garcia, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-20 Josue Solis Quinones, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-21 Daniel Hackler, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-22 Marco Saucedo, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-23, O-131 Nicolas Reyes, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022; March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-24 Sean Mann, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-25 Brandon Alexander Solorzano, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-26 Michael Zamora, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-27 Jason Green, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-28 Alejandro Casillas, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-29 Daniel Velarde, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-30 Erick Villavicencio, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-31 Michael Zamora, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-32 Harm Veen, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-33 Edgardo Franco, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-34 Adam Abdalla, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-35 Eliezer Roldan, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-36 Kamran Sepanlou, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-37 Alberto Sandobal Ruiz, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-38 Luis Ochoa, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-39 Michael Alfaro, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-40 Draven Medina, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-41 Celestino Rodriguez, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-42 Gustavo Ramirez Guerrero, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-43 Matthew Rodriguez, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-44 Salvador Camacho, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-45 Abdul Ashfaq, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-46 Alejandro Porcayo, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-47 Carlos Perez, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-48 Jeremy Diaz, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-49 Freddy Fernandez, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-50 Kevin Jimenez, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-51 William Galindo, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 ATTACHMENT 14-514
Letter No. and Commenter Page No.
O-52 Magdalen o Martinez, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-53 Anthony Tamayo, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-54 Jonathan Cordova, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-55 Manuel Aguirre, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-56, O-128 Carlos Carbajal, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022; March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-57 Emilio Sandoval, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-58 Roberto Reyes, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-59 Mitch Cutts, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-60 Eduardo Diaz, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-61 Martin Arzola, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-62 Dmitri Turner, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-63 Josh Trejo, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-64 Joseph Fuchs, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-65 Jesus Gamez, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 14, 2022) 2-18 O-66 Anthony Perez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-67 Emmanuel Vazquez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-68 Hector Aguilar on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-69 Fredy Martinez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-70 Ian Letelier on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-71 Robert Acedo on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-72 Veronica Letelier on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-73 Anthony Nilo on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-74 Frankie March on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-75 Chuck Powell on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-76 Cristian Garcia on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-77, O-94 Alex Hackler on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022; March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-78, O-97 Josue Solis Quinones on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022; March 28, 2022)
2-18
O-79, O-96 Edward Bencomo on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022; March 28, 2022)
2-18
O-80, O-98 Gabriel Castaneda on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022; March 28, 2022)
2-18
O-81, O-95 Jonathan Peraza on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022; March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-82, O-99 Alvaro Aguilera on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022; March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-83, O-101 Jose Resendiz on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022; March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-84 Rudy Ramirez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-85 Bryan De Leon on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-86 Jose Cardona on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-87 Gianni Rossi on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-88 Franklin Rivera on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-89 Carolina Corona on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-90 Kory Smith on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 O-91 Justin Hardy on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 24, 2022) 2-18 ATTACHMENT 14-515
Letter No. and Commenter Page No.
O-92 Jerred L angford on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 27, 2022) 2-18 O-93 Crispin Carrasco on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-100 Emmanuel Milian on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-102 Gregory Ceja on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-103 Rudy Martinez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-104 Jonathen Hays on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-105 Noah Iglesias on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-106 Bonifasio Rojas on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-107 Diana Camarillo on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-108 Jose Reyes on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-109 Paris Jernigan on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-110 Andres Cabrera on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-111 Daniel Ochoa on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-112 David Lopez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-113 George Rodarte on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-114 Brenden Cates on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-115 John Strickler on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-116 Ricardo Trejo on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-118 Angel Andrade on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-119 Javier Rodriguez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-120 Luis Rosales on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-121 Richard Arellano on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-122 Elvis Guzman on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-123 Mauricio Palmero on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-124 Oscar Jimenez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-125 Ricardo Vela on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-126 Walter Perrine on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-127 Anthony Vela on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-129 Emmanuel Delgado on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-130 Ruben Granillo on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 28, 2022) 2-18 O-132 Jesus Sandoval on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (March 29, 2022) 2-18 Individuals (I)
I-1 Emily Gabel-Luddy (March 31, 2022) 2-19
I-2 Susan O’Carroll (March 31, 2022) 2-35
Planning Board Meeting – March 14, 2022
(P) Planning Board Member
(S) Public Speaker
P-1 Christ opher Rizzotti, Planning Board Chair 2-38
P-2 Bob Monaco, Planning Board Member 2-41
S-1 Sean Mann, Union Member, on behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters 2-42 S-2 Michael McCarron, Union Member, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 2-42 S-3 Jerred Langford, Union Member, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 2-42 ATTACHMENT 14-516
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).
Any changes made to the text of the Draft EIR correcting information, data, or intent, other tha n
minor typographical corrections or minor working changes, are noted in the Final EIR as changes from the Draft EIR. Where a comment results in a change to the Draft EIR text, a notation is made in the response indicating that the text is revised. Changes in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeouts) where text is removed and by underlined font (underlined font) where text is added. All revisions to the Draft EIR can be found in Section 4, Errata, of the Final EIR.
ATTACHMENT 14-517
Letter A-1
COMMENTER: Andrew Salas, Chairman, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation DATE: January 31, 2022
Response A-1.1
The commenter states that the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation are in agreement with the Housing Element Update and requests consultation for any and all future projects within Burbank that include ground disturbance.
The comment is noted, but does not raise specific concerns that pertain to the adequacy of the EIR.
All future projects requiring ground disturbance within Burbank will provide a request for consultation to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.
ATTACHMENT 14-518
Letter A-2
COMMENTER: Miya Edmonson, LDR/CEQA Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation
DATE: March 16, 2022
Response A-2.1
The commenter provides a description of the Project and states that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts for all future development projects.
The Project complies with CEQA’s requirements for transportation analyses because VMT was used as the primary metric in identifying the Project’s potential transportation impacts in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the Draft EIR.
Response A-2.2
The commenter states that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) supports the implementation of complete streets and pedestrian safety measures and that the EIR should ensure all modes of travel are served well by planning and development activities.
Caltrans’ support for implementation of complete streets and pedestrian safety measures is noted.
As discussed under Impact TRA-3 in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, reasonably foreseeable development accommodated under the Housing Element Update would be reviewed by the appropriate City staff to ensure consistency with all applicable City and State design standards, including standards for project access points, location, and design, sight lines, roadway modifications, and provisions for bicycle and pedestrian transportation connections.
Response A-2.3
The commenter encourages the City to evaluate the potential of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications in order to better manage the transportation network, as well as transit service and bicycle or pedestrian connectivity improvements.
As discussed in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, the City of Burbank has an ITS that allows the monitoring and control of traffic signals from a central operations center. City staff can manually adjust traffic signals remotely from the central operations center to respond to collisions, weather, special events, and other major incidents. The City’s ITS is interconnected with the Los Angeles County traffic signal Information Exchange Network and shares information with Los Angeles City and County, and the cities of Glendale and Pasadena. In addition, traffic signal timing is also coordinated with Caltrans.
The Draft EIR discusses potential TDM strategies in Section 4.11, Transportation, to address the VMT per employee and VMT per service population impacts but concludes that enacting TDM measures at an employer location or to address service population impacts is generally beyond the scope of the Housing Element. Therefore, it is infeasible to mitigate the VMT per employee and VMT per service population impacts. However, as each individual project is processed through the entitlement process, VMT impacts will be addressed and mitigated where feasible.
ATTACHMENT 14-519
Response A-2.4
The commenter encourages the preparation of traffic safety impact analysis for all developments in the CEQA review process.
The comment is noted, but does not raise specific concerns that pertain to the adequacy of the EIR.
The Housing Element is a land use plan and as such does not grant entitlement for any specific project or future development. All development projects under the CEQA review process would be required to assess the project’s impacts on transportation, including whether the project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b); or substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. The Draft EIR also discusses both bicycle and pedestrian safety at a citywide level from a plan/policy consistency perspective.
Response A-2.5
The commenter replicates the information provided in the Draft EIR on page 4.11-16, acknowledging that the information provided in the Draft EIR is correct.
The comment is noted. No further response is required.
Response A-2.6
The commenter recommends preparation of a post-development VMT analysis for each individual development project within the Plan Area that includes mitigation measures to reduce any significant traffic impacts.
Implementation of the requirement to conduct a post development VMT analysis for each development project in the Housing Element plan area (which is the entire City) is beyond the scope of the EIR, is not a requirement of CEQA, and is not currently required as a process that has been adopted by the City of Burbank. Requiring a post development VMT analysis as described in the comment would be unduly burdensome to housing developers and the City of Burbank, and could add an additional impediment to housing production. Projects requiring subsequent environmental analysis where that analysis identifies a VMT impact, and proposes VMT mitigation measures, would be required by the City to adhere to a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure that when mitigation measures are implemented, they can demonstrate the ability to reduce the project’s VMT impact to less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 14-520
Letter A-3
COMMENTER: Erinn Wilson-Olgin, Environmental Program Manager I – South Coast Region, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
DATE: March 18, 2022
Response A-3.1
CDFW thanked the City for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the project that may affect fish and wildlife and actions for which they may have regulatory authority.
This comment does not address a deficiency in the Draft EIR. This comment has been noted but no response is necessary.
Response A-3.2
The comment provides an overview of CDFW and its roles as trustee agency and responsible agency under CEQA.
This comment indicates that the CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including Section 1600 et. seq. (lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority), Section 2050 et. seq. (“take” of species protected under the California Endangered Species Act [CESA]), and Section 1900 et. seq. (CESA-listed rare plants pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act). The comment recommends that the Project proponent obtain appropriate authorization under the Fish and Game Code.
The comments and recommendations for species protected under CESA have been incorporated as stated in Response A-3.3, below, and in the Biological Resources section of the Recirculated Draft EIR. With the modification to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, we do not anticipate “take” or need for a lake and streambed alteration agreement for development under the Housing Element Update.
Response A-3.3
The comment provides a summary of the proposed project and summarizes recommendations to assist the City in adequately identifying, avoiding, and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife resources. In addition, the comment suggests recommended measures or revisions in later comments be included in a science- based monitoring program that contains adaptive management strategies as part of the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Individual responses regarding the CDFW’s concerns on environmental impacts are addressed below in Responses A-3.4 through A-3.10. A MMRP will be published with the Final EIR to assist the City in implementing the mitigation stipulated in the EIR and as reflected in the Recirculated Draft EIR. No revisions are necessary relative to this comment.
ATTACHMENT 14-521
Response A-3.4
The comment suggests that the Project may result in adverse impacts to least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), a federally and State-listed Endangered species, by causing nest abandonment, reproductive suppression, or incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings.
On April 20, 2022, City staff had a call with CDFW staff to discuss the March 18, 2022 comment letter. Based on the discussion, the following revisions have been made to Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, which has been included in the Recirculated Draft EIR that was released for a 47-day public review period on July 22, 2022.
The revisions to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 addresses CDFW’s concerns regarding potential impacts to least Bell’s vireo, bat species, or monarch butterflies. Related edits to the biological resources analysis are also shown in the Recirculated Draft EIR.
BIO-1 Biological Resources Avoidance
For individual housing developments that will include disturbance of vegetation, trees, structures, or other areas where biological resources could be present, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to conduct an initial site assessment that will include review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and iNaturalist maps to determine where sightings have occurred or habitats for the least Bell’s vireo, bat species, or monarch butterflies have previously been identified.
If construction activities or other disturbances occur in areas within 500 feet of a previously identified habitat or observation according to CNDDB or iNaturalist, the following measures shall be implemented:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the project applicant to conduct a biological resources reconnaissance of the site. The qualified biologist shall thoroughly report on the biological resources present on a project site and submitted to the City.
If the biologist determines that special-status species may occur, focused surveys for special-status plants shall be completed in accordance with Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW], March 20, 2018) and Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS, September 23, 1996). If it is determined that the project site has suitable habitat for special-status wildlife, focused surveys shall be conducted to determined presence/absence including species-specific surveys in accordance with CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocols for State or federally listed species, respectively, that may occur. If it is determined that a special-status species may be impacted by a specific project, consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW shall occur prior to issuance of a development permit from the City to determine measures to address impacts, such as avoidance, minimization, or take authorization and mitigation. The report shall include a list of special- status plants and wildlife that may occur on the project site and/or adjacent area.
If construction activities or other disturbances occur during the bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31), prior to issuance of grading permits for individual housing developments that will include disturbance of vegetation, structures, or other areas where bird nests could be present, the following requirements shall be implemented:
ATTACHMENT 14-522
Applicant shall submit a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of grading or construction activities. The nesting bird pre- construction survey shall be conducted on foot on the construction site, including a 100-foot buffer, and in inaccessible areas (e.g., private lands) from afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California and a copy of the study shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and Building and Safety Division. The cost to hire a qualified biologist shall be borne entirely by the developer/project applicant.
If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No parking, storage of materials, or construction activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest.
Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. A survey report shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting and verifying compliance with the above requirements and applicable State and Federal regulations protecting birds that shall be submitted to the City of Burbank. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities would occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests would occur.
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 A-3.5
The comment states that the Project may result in impacts to bat species, such as pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), big free tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), which are designated as Species of Special Concern (SSC). The Draft EIR does not provide avoidance or mitigation measures to reduce impacts to bat species within the Project site. The comment suggests that the Project may result in direct impacts to bat species, including removal of trees, vegetation, and/or structures that provide roosting habitat, and therefore has the potential for the direct loss of bats. The comment also suggests that indirect impacts from future housing developments may result from increased noise disturbances, human activity, dust, ground disturbing activities, and vibrations caused by heavy equipment.
The comment states that bats are considered non-game mammals and are afforded protection by State law from take and/or harassment (Fish and Game Code Section 4150; California Code of Regulations Section 251.1). In addition, the comment noted that several bat species known to occur within the Project vicinity are considered SSC and take would be considered a significant impact.
The revisions to Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of th e Draft EIR address CDFW’s concerns
regarding potential impacts to least bat species. Refer to Response A-3.4.
ATTACHMENT 14-523
Response A-3.6
The comment states that the Project may result in impacts to monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) and monarch butterfly overwintering habitat through vegetation removal and tree trimming associated with future housing development. The agency states that there are 65 observations of monarch butterflies within the city recorded in iNaturalist and that there are numerous eucalyptus trees within the Project site that potentially provide overwintering habitat for the species. If eucalyptus trees are removed during the overwintering period, direct impacts such as injury or mortality, reduced health and vigor, and reduced success during spring and summer migration may occur. The comment states that the Draft EIR does not provide avoidance or mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the monarch butterfly within the Project site.
The comment states that monarch butterflies are a federal candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act, is included on CDFW’s Terrestrial and Vernal Pool Invertebrates of Conservation Priority list, and identified as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in California’s State Wildlife Action Plan. In addition, Fish and Game Code Section 1002 prohibits the take or possession of wildlife without a valid Scientific Collection Permit issued by CDFW, which applied to handling monarchs, removing them from the wild, or otherwise taking them for scientific or propagation purposes. Lastly, the comment states that Fish and Game Code Section 1374 directs the Monarch Butterfly and Pollinator Rescue Program to recover and sustain populations of monarch butterflies. The comment states that impacts to the monarch butterfly may require a mandatory finding of significance because the Project would potentially directly or indirectly reduce the number of monarch butterflies through habitat loss. The comment includes recommendations that the Draft EIR require future project proponents to avoid and minimize impacts to monarch butterflies by enhancing native, insecticide-free nectar sources, avoid planting additional tropical milkweeds, and avoid using pesticides, insecticides, and soils fumigants.
The revisions to Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of th e Draft EIR address CDFW’s concerns
regarding potential impacts to monarch butterflies. Refer to Response A-3.4.
Response A-3.7
The comment requests that all occurrences of special status species on the project site be documented via the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Field Survey Forms and that the Final EIR include measures where lead agencies of individual projects tiering from the Final EIR report any special status species detected during preparation of project-level environmental impact analyses/environmental documents.
The revisions to Section 4.2, Biological Resources, of t he Draft EIR address CDFW’s concerns
regarding potential impacts to special status species. Refer to Response A-3.4.
Response A-3.8
The comment includes recommendations that the City update the Project’s proposed biological mitigation measures and condition the environmental document to include mitigation measures recommended in their letter. This comment reiterates comments provided in the letter.
Field surveys will be conducted as necessary and in conjunction with a proposed specific development project under the Housing Element Update. The mitigation measures and recommendations provided by the agency are addressed in Response A-3.4. Section 5, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, of the Final EIR incorporates the revised mitigation measure outlined in Response A-3.4. The MMRP is intended to track and ensure compliance with adopted ATTACHMENT 14-524
mitigation measures during the Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update implementation phase. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Final EIR for the Project, specifications are made in the MMRP that identify the action required, the monitoring that must occur, and the agency or department responsible for oversight.
Response A-3.9
The commenter summarizes the CDFW filing fee requirements.
Comment noted. The CDFW filing fee will be paid along with the County fee for the filing of the Notice of Determination.
Response A-3.10
The commenter appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City of Burbank in adequately analyzing and minimizing/mitigating impacts to biological resources. The comment requests an opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to their comments and to receive notification of any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the project.
As required under CEQA, the agency will be provided notice of the Final EIR and any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the project.
ATTACHMENT 14-525
Letter A-4
COMMENTER: Dianne Doesserich, Team Manager, Environmental Planning Section, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
DATE: March 30, 2022
Response A-4.1
The commenter provides a description of the Project and provides background information on the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan).
The comment is noted. Individual responses to Metropolitan’s comments are provided below.
Response A-4.2
The commenter states that implementation of the Project could result in potential impacts to Metropolitan’s Santa Monica Feeder and East Valley Feeder pipelines and appurtenant. The comment also notes a map of the facilities in relation to the Project has been attached to the letter and states that it will be necessary for the City to consider these facilities in its project planning.
The comment is noted, but does not raise specific concerns that pertain to the adequacy of the EIR.
Individual development projects accommodated under the Housing Element Update will be evaluated to determine proximity to these facilities and whether the proposed projects could result in potential impacts to these facilities.
Response A-4.3
The commenter states that Metropolitan requires that any future design plans for development accommodated under the Project that are located in the area of Metropolitan’s pipelines be submitted to Metropolitan for review and written approval. The comment also provides information to assist applicants with preparing project plans that are compatible with Metropolitan’s facilities and easements, including the “Guidelines for Improvements and Construction Projects Proposed in the Area of Metropolitan’s Facilities and Rights-of-Way,” which is attached to the letter.
The comment is noted, but does not raise specific concerns that pertain to the adequacy of the EIR.
Metropolitan is currently on the City’s list of agencies to contact for all CEQA documents and therefore, will have the opportunity to review all future projects going through the CEQA process.
The attachment detailing information to assist applicants with preparing project plans that are compatible with Metropolitan’s facilities and easements is acknowledged but is not relevant to the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
Response A-4.4
The commenter encourages individual projects under the Housing Element Update to use mitigation measures, such as using water efficient fixtures, drought-tolerant landscaping, and reclaimed water, to offset any increase in water use associated with the project.
Policy 3.9 of the Housing Element encourages the use of sustainable and green building design features in new and existing housing, such as working with Burbank Water and Power, and other partners, on energy retrofit programs.
ATTACHMENT 14-526
Response A-4.5
The commenter notes their appreciation to provide input in the planning process and looks forward to receiving future documentation and plans for this project.
This comment does not pertain to the analysis and findings of the Draft EIR. As required under CEQA, the agency will be provided notice of the Final EIR and any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the project.
ATTACHMENT 14-527
Letter O-1
COMMENTER: Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney, on behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC)
DATE: March 14, 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.
ATTACHMENT 14-528
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.
ATTACHMENT 14-529
Letters O-2 through O-132
COMMENTER: Refer to individuals O-2 through O-132 listed in Error! Reference source not found..
DATE: March 13, 2022 – March 29, 2022
Response for Letters O-2 through O-132
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.
ATTACHMENT 14-530
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.
ATTACHMENT 14-531
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 ATTACHMENT 14-532
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.
ATTACHMENT 14-533
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.
ATTACHMENT 14-534
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.
ATTACHMENT 14-535
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.
ATTACHMENT 14-536
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 ATTACHMENT 14-537
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 ATTACHMENT 14-538
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 ATTACHMENT 14-539
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 ATTACHMENT 14-540
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.
Reasonab
ly 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 sha
de
trees for each new single-family res
idential 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 10,456 additi
onal 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.
ATTACHMENT 14-541
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.
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 within neighboring cities. As discussed under Section 4.12.4, Cumulative Impacts, of the Draft EIR, future housing development facilitated by the Housing Element Update, in conjunction with cumulative development citywide and within neighboring cities that are also served by the respective service areas, would increase demands for utilities that could require facility expansion or construction. Potential impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the proposed Project. 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 ATTACHMENT 14-542
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.
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 wastewater.
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.
ATTACHMENT 14-543
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 B urbank 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 rega rding 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, I 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, ATTACHMENT 14-544
eligible households are matched to available units. If 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.
ATTACHMENT 14-545
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." ATTACHMENT 14-546
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.
ATTACHMENT 14-547
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 within neighboring cities. 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.
ATTACHMENT 14-548
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.
ATTACHMENT 14-549
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
ATTACHMENT 14-550
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 6
th 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.
ATTACHMENT 14-551
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.
ATTACHMENT 14-552
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.
ATTACHMENT 14-553
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.
ATTACHMENT 14-554
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report
prepared by
City of Burbank
Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Contact: Shipra Rajesh, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East First Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
July 2022
ATTACHMENT 14-555
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report
prepared by
City of Burbank
Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Contact: Shipra Rajesh, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East First Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
July 2022
ATTACHMENT 14-556
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
ATTACHMENT 14-557
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background ................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority ....................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Summary of the Recirculated Draft EIR ....................................................................... 1-3
1.4 Environmental Review Process .................................................................................... 1-3 2 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Proponent ........................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Lead Agency Contact Person ....................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Existing Area Characteristics ........................................................................................ 2-4
2.4.1 Current Land Use Designation and Zoning ..................................................... 2-4
2.4.2 Land Uses in Surrounding Cities ..................................................................... 2-4
2.5 Project Characteristics ................................................................................................. 2-4
2.5.1 Housing Element Update ................................................................................ 2-5
2.5.2 RHNA Allocation ............................................................................................. 2-5
2.5.3 Safety Element Update ................................................................................. 2-13
2.5.4 Environmental Justice Update ...................................................................... 2-13
2.6 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................... 2-15
2.7 Required Approvals ................................................................................................... 2-15
4.2 Biological Resources ................................................................................................. 4.2-1
4.2.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.2-1
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-2
4.2.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.2-4
4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4.2-7
4.12 Utilities/Service Systems ........................................................................................ 4.12-1
4.12.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.12-4
4.12.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.12-21
4.12.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.12-39 Tables
Table 2-1 RHNA Percentage of Income Distribution ................................................................ 2-5 Table 2-2 Estimated Net Housing Units for the City of Burbank .............................................. 2-6 Table 2-3 Projected Specific Plan Units .................................................................................... 2-6 Table 2-4 Rezoning in Housing Opportunity Sites .................................................................... 2-7 Table 4.12-1 Burbank Water Supplies – Current and Projected ............................................ 4.12-31 Table 4.12-2 Metropolitan Wholesale Supply Allocation for Burbank .................................. 4.12-32 Table 4.12-3 BWP Normal Year Supply and Demand ............................................................. 4.12-32 Table 4.12-4 BWP Single Dry Year Supply and Demand ......................................................... 4.12-33 Table 4.12-5 LVMWD Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand ............................................... 4.12-33 ATTACHMENT 14-558
Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location ..................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 City of Burbank ......................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 Specific Plan and Housing Opportunity Locations .................................................. 2-11 Figure 2-4 CalEnviroScreen – Disadvantaged Communities .................................................... 2-14 ATTACHMENT 14-559
1 Introduction
This document is the focused Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (Recirculated Draft EIR) for the Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update (hereafter referred to as the “Housing and Safety Element Update” or “Project”), which would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank. The proposed Project involves an update to the Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period, along with minor updates to the Safety, Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change, Noise, and Mobility Elements, and the incorporation of environmental justice policies into the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan.
The Housing and Safety Element Update establishes programs, policies and actions to further the goal of meeting the existing and projected housing needs of all household income levels of the community, provides evidence of the City’s ability to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation through the year 2029, as established by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and identifies any rezoning program needed to reach the required housing capacity. The Project also includes necessary updates to the Safety Element triggered under State law by an update to the Housing Element.
The Housing Element Update would lay the foundation for achievement of the City’s fair share housing needs for approximately 10,456 additional units. Technical amendments would be made to the Safety Element to ensure consistency with the Housing Element Update and to achieve compliance with State, regional, and local policies and guidelines. The Safety Element Update includes measures to consider climate change, update hazard mitigation plans, updated flood hazard requirements. In addition, the Update to the Burbank2035 General Plan would consider environmental justice strategies to reduce pollution exposure, promote public facilities, promote food access, promote safe and sanitary homes, promote physical activity, reduce unique or compounded health risks, promote civic engagement, and prioritize the needs of disadvantaged communities. Therefore, the Project is subject to environmental review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of this document is to analyze disclose the revised and new mitigation measures associated with public comments received regarding the analyses for the Biological Resources and Utilities/Service Systems.
This section discusses: (1) the EIR background; (2) the purpose and legal authority for preparing a Recirculated Draft EIR; (3) the organization of the Recirculated Draft EIR; and (4) the environmental review process.
1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background
In 2018, the City initially reviewed the proposed Project and prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Original Draft EIR”). A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft EIR was prepared in compliance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines by the Community Development Department and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research, responsible agencies and other interested parties on February 22, 2021. The NOP for the Original Draft EIR was circulated for 30 days, until March 23, 2021. In addition, the City distributed a recirculated NOP of the EIR for an extended the review period to April 15, 2021.The original NOP stated that the EIR would analyze the addition of 8,800 units under the RHNA that was conducted for the Housing Element Update. However, it was determined that the EIR would analyze 10,456 units to account for the 2029 interpolated housing growth assumed under the two Specific ATTACHMENT 14-560
Plans along with the City’s RHNA allocation. Therefore, the NOP was recirculated on March 17, 2021, with the higher number. Appendix A of the Original Draft EIR contain copies of the two NOPs, along with the written responses to the NOPs.
The Original Draft EIR was released for public review on January 26, 2022 and was available for review and comments until March 31, 2022. A Final EIR has not yet been prepared for the proposed project because, based on issues raised in comments on the Draft EIR, sections to the Original Draft EIR have been revised and recirculated.
The Recirculated Draft EIR includes revisions to three sections of the Original Draft EIR, consisting of Section 2, Project Description; Section 4.2, Biological Resources; and Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems.
As discussed in detail below, the City is recirculating the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, Subdivisions a(1), a(3) and (c), which require the modified or new sections of an EIR to be circulated in certain circumstances. The full Original Draft EIR is available for public viewing at the Community Services Building located at 150 North Third Street, 1 st Floor, Burbank, CA 91510,
and on the City’s website using the following link: https://www.burbankhousingelement.com/
1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires that a lead agency recirculate an EIR, or portions of an EIR, when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice for public review of the Draft EIR, but prior to certification. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project, or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponent has declined to implement.
“Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, subdivisions (a)[1]-[4])
In this case, new information requiring recirculation includes modifications to the following Draft EIR sections: Project Description, Biological Resources, and Utilities/Service Systems.
Under CEQA, if the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the Draft EIR, the lead agency only needs to recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, subdivisions (c)). Recirculation of a Draft EIR requires notice pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15087 and consultation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15086.
ATTACHMENT 14-561
1.3 Summary of the Recirculated Draft EIR
In accordance with State mandates, the City has prepared this Recirculated Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, Subdivision (g). To help the reader locate information of particular interest, the following is a brief summary of the contents of each chapter of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Refer to the Original Draft EIR for the chapters and sections that are not included in the Recirculated Draft EIR.
Introduction. This section provides introductory information, background information regarding the Original EIR, purpose and legal authority of the Recirculated Draft EIR, and describes the environmental review process for the Recirculated Draft EIR. Section 2: Project Description. This section identifies the project location, summarizes the proposed Project (including a change since the Original Draft EIR was published), identifies Project characteristics and associated anticipated development, and outlines the Project objectives.
Section 4: Environmental Impact Analysis (Biological Resources and Utilities/Service Systems).
This section contains the two revised environmental impact sections that supersede the corresponding sections of the Original Draft EIR.
The proposed Project for the Recirculated Draft EIR consists of the same development and land uses described in Section 2, Project Description, and includes a revision to the Housing Element Update based on public comments received regarding workforce training and prevailing wages. The Biological Resources section has been revised based on comments provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on the Draft EIR, which indicate that development under the proposed Project may result in adverse impacts to the least Bell’s vireo, bat species, and monarch butterflies through vegetation and tree removal. As such, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been revised to address these potential impacts. In addition, the Utilities/Service Systems section still deems the impacts associated with the City’s wastewater conveyance system as significant and unavoidable; however, the revised analysis provides additional mitigation measures noted therein as Mitigation Measures UTIL-3a through UTIL-3d that would reduce the short-term impacts and require the preparation of plans and implementation of infrastructure capacity and conveyance expansion and upgrades as needed by the infrastructure plans for long-term solutions.
1.4 Environmental Review Process
The Recirculated Draft EIR is being circulated for a 47-day review period during which written comments on the scope and adequacy of the document can be submitted to the City Community Development Department. The public review period is from July 22, 2022, until September 6, 2022.
All comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR should be sent to the following City contact by September 6
th:
Shipra Rajesh, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Division
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91510
ATTACHMENT 14-562
As CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, Subdivision (f)(2) permits, the City requests that reviewers limit the scope of their comments to the revised sections included in the Recirculated Draft EIR.
Following the 47-day public review period, the City will prepare responses to the written comments received during the recirculation period that relate to the revised and recirculated portions of the Recirculated Draft EIR, as well as written comments previously received during the initial circulation period that relate to the portions of the Original Draft EIR that have not been recirculated and will compile the comments and responses into a Final EIR, which will consist of the following:
Comments and Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR, received during the 47-day public comment period (responses to comments related to recirculated sections included in the Recirculated Draft EIR only);
Comments and Responses to Comments on all sections of the Original Draft EIR received during the original 65-day public comment period;
Corrections or additions to the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR, if any; and The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The Final EIR will provide the basis for City decision-makers, such as the City Planning Commission and City Council to consider the environmental implications of the proposed project as well as possible ways to mitigate any potential significant environmental impacts. Prior to planning on the proposed project, the City must certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and was presented to the City’s decision-making body, that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the proposed project, and that the Final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
ATTACHMENT 14-563
2 Project Description
This section describes the proposed Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update1 (hereafter referred to as “Housing and Safety Element Update” or “Project”), including the Project applicant, the Project area and existing land uses, major Project characteristics, Project objectives, and the discretionary actions needed for approval.
2.1 Project Proponent
City of Burbank - Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
2.2 Lead Agency Contact Person
Shipra Rajesh, Senior Planner
City of Burbank
Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
(818) 238-5250
2.3 Project Location
The Housing and Safety Element Update would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank, which encompasses 17.1 square miles. Burbank is located in the central portion of Los Angeles County, approximately 12 miles north of downtown Los Angeles.
The City is generally bounded by the Verdugo Mountains to the northeast, the City of Glendale to the southeast, the City of Los Angeles to the south and west. The City is bisected by the Interstate 5 (I-5) Freeway and the Metrolink Commuter Rail. Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2, below, illustrate the location of the City in a regional and local context.
1 The proposed Project will also include updates to the Safety Element and the various other elements of the General Plan to incorporate the goals, policies and objectives related to Environmental Justice. These updates are required for compliance with State law and to ensure consistency with the updated Housing Element. The title of the proposed Project is “Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update.”
ATTACHMENT 14-564
Figure 2-1 Regional Location
ATTACHMENT 14-565
Figure 2-2 City of Burbank
ATTACHMENT 14-566
2.4 Existing Area Characteristics
2.4.1 Current Land Use Designation and Zoning
The Burbank2035 General Plan includes a variety of land use designations, including Low, Medium, and High Density Residential; Corridor and Regional Commercial; four specific plan commercial areas and two commercial/industrial areas; Open Space; Institutional; and Airport. Land uses in Burbank’s various neighborhoods and commercial areas include single-family and multi-family residential housing, mixed-use development, public spaces like parks and playgrounds, and some industrial land uses. The Zoning Code includes various zones that correspond to the GP land uses, including residential, commercial, media district, business, auto dealership, industrial, airport, railroad, cemetery, and open space.
2.4.2 Land Uses in Surrounding Cities
The City is generally bounded by the Verdugo Mountains to the northeast, the City of Glendale to the southeast, the City of Los Angeles to the south and the west. The Verdugo Mountains consist of largely open space with parks and trails for recreational activities. The City of Glendale is a suburban city with large residential areas and regional commercial sites. Directly south in the City of Los Angeles is the neighborhood of Hollywood with residences, commercial areas, and recreational facilities such as Griffith Park, golf courses, and public parks. To the west is the San Fernando Valley area of the City of Los Angeles. This area consists of suburban neighborhoods with commercial areas and residences.
2.5 Project Characteristics
The Housing and Safety Element Update would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank, which encompasses 17.1 square miles. The Project would involve an update to the Housing Element of the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan for the 2021-2029 planning period, along with minor updates to the Safety, Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change, Noise, and Mobility Elements, and the incorporation of environmental justice policies into the Burbank2035 General Plan as required by State law. The proposed Housing Element Update establishes programs, policies, and actions to further the goal of meeting the existing and projected housing needs of all household income levels of the community; provides evidence of the City’s ability to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation through the year 2029, as established by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); and identifies any rezoning program needed to reach the required housing capacity. The Safety Element update is triggered by various new provisions of State law, and the environmental justice policies would be added pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000) which requires that revisions or adoption of two or more elements of a general plan on or after January 1, 2018 “adopt or review the Environmental Justice Element, or the environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements” to focus on the inclusion of disadvantaged communities (DACs) in decision making procedures as well as increasing protections for these communities.
ATTACHMENT 14-567
2.5.1 Housing Element Update
The Housing Element is comprised of the following major components:
Review of effectiveness of existing Housing Element
Assessment of existing and projected housing needs
Identification of resources – financial, land, administrative Evaluation of constraints to the development of housing Housing Plan – goals, policies, and programs 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 developments
The Housing Element Update would provide a framework for accommodating new housing at all levels of affordability that is within access to transit, jobs, services, and open spaces within the 8- year planning period of October 2021-October 2029. New housing units may occur anywhere in the City where residential uses are permitted, as well as in areas that may be rezoned in the future to allow for multi-family residential and mixed-use residential of adequate density to meet State- required housing production and affordability targets as discussed below.
2.5.2 RHNA Allocation
SCAG has allocated the region’s 1,341,827 housing unit growth needs to each city and county through a process called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The RHNA represents the minimum number of housing units that the City is required to plan for in its housing element by providing “adequate sites” through the Burbank2035 General Plan and zoning residential capacity. As shown in Table 2-1, Burbank’s RHNA allocation for the 2021-2029 planning period (6
th RHNA cycle) is 8,772 units, which is distributed among four income categories (HCD 2020). Additionally, the City is required to provide a sufficient buffer beyond that required by the RHNA to ensure that adequate site capacity exists throughout the eight-year planning period.
Table 2-1 RHNA Percentage of Income Distribution
Income Level Percent of Area Median Income (AMI) Units Percent Very Low 0-50% 2,553 29%
Lo
w 51-80% 1,418 16%
Moderate 81-120% 1,409 16%
Above Moderate >120% 3,392 39%
Total -- 8,772 100%
Source: SCAG 2021
Table 2-2 shows the estimated number and affordability level of housing units to accommodate the City’s RHNA under the existing General Plan and zoning, including projects that are entitled and pending entitlement, specified housing opportunity sites, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) expected to be developed over the course of the planning period, and units produced through the City’s committed assistance program. As shown in Table 2-2, these sources total 7,569, which falls short of the RHNA allocation by 1,203 units.
ATTACHMENT 14-568
Table 2-2 Estimated Net Housing Units for the City of Burbank Sites/Projects Total Net Units
Income Distribution
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
2021 – 2029 RHNA Targets 8,772 2,553 1,418 1,409 3,392
Entitled Projects 1,845 91 6 83 1,665
Pending Entitlement 490 27 138 29 296
Opportunity Sites (Zoning in place) 3,624 1,995 1,072 280 277 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)1 1,600 384 704 32 480
Committed Assistance2 10 10 0 0 0
Total Site Capacity 7,569 4,427 424 2,718
RHNA Surplus/(Shortfall) (1,203) +456 (985) (674)
1 ADUs are small backyard units that are either attached or detached from a single-family home. 2 Committed Assistance units are units that the City has provided a legally enforceable agreement to provide. This is through an ongoing partnership with the Burbank Housing Corporation. See the Housing Element for further discussion.
To make up for this shortfall of 1,203 units, the Housing Element includes a housing program to rezone additional opportunity sites through adoption of two specific plan projects: the Downtown Transit-Oriented-Development Specific Plan (Downtown TOD) and the Golden State Specific Plan (GSSP) (see Figure 2-3 for the Specific Plan locations and opportunity sites). Adoption of these Specific Plans will provide the necessary zoning, objective development standards, and processing procedures to facilitate the production of the shortfall of housing units required to accommodate the City’s RHNA during the Housing Element planning period. The zone changes required by these Specific Plans will be adopted in 2022-2023, or within three years of the start of the planning period as required by State law.
Table 2-3 shows the number of units expected from the rezoning of the Specific Plan areas. With the additional rezone sites the City would exceed the RHNA requirement by 1,239 units with an additional 2,442 units accommodated. The State requires jurisdictions to create a sufficient buffer in the Housing Element sites inventory beyond that required by the RHNA to ensure that adequate site capacity exists throughout the eight-year planning period. The Notice of Preparation that was circulated on March 17, 2021 for the proposed Project included an estimated growth of 10,088 housing units based on the City’s RHNA allocation and 15 percent buffer. However, the estimated growth for the purpose of this analysis was changed to 10,456 housing units to account for the 2029 interpolated housing growth assumed under the two Specific Plans along with the City’s RHNA allocation.
Table 2-3 Projected Specific Plan Units
Specific Plan Total Net Units
Downtown TOD rezone si tes 627
Golden State Specific Plan rezone sites 1,815
Total 2,442
Existing GP Units (from Table 2-2) 7,569
New Total with Specific Plans,
Entitled/Pending Projects and ADUs
10,011
RHNA Surplus/(Shortfall) 1,239
ATTACHMENT 14-569
Housing Element Opportunity Sites
The opportunity sites summarized in Table 2-3 include 19 locations that have the greatest potential to accommodate the RHNA’s housing growth allocated for Burbank. Twelve of the opportunity sites are located in the proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan area and seven sites are located in the proposed Golden State Specific Plan area. The locations of these sites are shown in Figure 2-3. The zone changes, where applicable, are shown on Table 2-4.
Table 2-4 Rezoning in Housing Opportunity Sites
Project APNs
Gross
Acres
Current Zoning
District
Current
Residential
Density
Units/Acre Proposed Zoning Uses Rezone?
TOD Plan Projects
1 TOD-1
Car
l’s Jr
2460-010-010
2460-010-011
2460-010-012
2460-010-013
0.31 NSFC (North San
Fernando
Commercial)
43 Residential (max. 43
du/acre)
No
2460-010-014
2460-010-033
2460-010-036
0.98 NSFC (North San
Fernando
Commercial)
27 Residential (max. 27
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 1.0
FAR)
No
Total 1.29
2 TOD-2 Kmart 2460-006-045
2460-007-036
6.43 NSFC (North San
Fernando
Commercial)
27 Residential (max. 27
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 1.0
FAR)
No
3 TOD-3
Caltrans/IHOP
2460-021-017
2460-021-018
2460-021-019
2460-021-020
2460-021-027
2460-021-028
2.87 NSFC (North San
Fernando
Commercial)
27 Residential (max. 27
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 1.0
FAR)
No
4 TOD-4
Old Ikea
2460-023-044
2460-023-045
2460-023-046
2460-023-047
2460-023-060
12.06 PD (Planned
Development)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
2460-031-007
2460-031-008
2460-031-016
2460-031-018
2460-031-019
2460-031-029
2460-031-044
2460-031-045
1.74 BCC-2 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
Limited
Business)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
Total 13.80
5 TOD-5 Ashley
Home/El
Pollo
2460-023-056
2460-023-057
2.71 PD (Planned
Development)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
ATTACHMENT 14-570
Project APNs
Gross
Acres
Current Zoning
District
Current
Residential
Density
Units/Acre Proposed Zoning Uses Rezone?
6 TOD-6
Burbank
Town Center
2460-023-048
2460-023-049
2460-023-050
2460-023-052
2460-023-054
2460-023-063
2460-023-064
2460-023-996
16.75 PD (Planned
Development)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
7 TOD-7 Civic
Center
2453-008-900
2453-009-902
2453-008-903
2453-008-905
2453-008-908
2453-008-910
2453-008-911
2453-008-912
4.68 PD (Planned
Development)
0 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
Yes
2455-021-906 1.56 R-4 (Residential
Multiple
Medium
Density) and C-3
Commercial
General
Business
0 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
Yes
Total 6.24
8 TOD-8 Olive/
Glenoaks
2453-014-002
2453-014-003
2453-014-008
2453-014-024
2453-014-025
0.50 BCC-3 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
General
Business)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
2453-014-012
2453-014-014
2453-014-022
2453-014-023
2453-014-026
2453-014-029
1.05 BCC-2 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
Limited
Business)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
Total 1.55
9 TOD-9 Fosters
Freeze/ Boys
and Girls Club
2453-021-026
2453-021-027
2453-021-029
2453-021-030
0.74 BCC-3 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
General
Business)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
2453-021-032
2453-021-033
2453-021-035
2453-021-041
2453-021-046
2453-021-062
1.20 BCC-2 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
Limited
Business)
43 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
Yes
Total 1.94
ATTACHMENT 14-571
Project APNs
Gross
Acres
Current Zoning
District
Current
Residential
Density
Units/Acre Proposed Zoning Uses Rezone?
10 TOD-10
BJs/Black
Angus
2453-011-029
2453-018-017
3.83 BCC-2 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
Limited
Business)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
11 TOD-11
Victory/Olive
2451-016-011
2451-016-012
2451-016-013
2451-016-014
2.88 BCCM (Burbank
Center
Commercial
Manufacturing)
27 Residential (max. 27
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 1.0
FAR)
No
12 TOD-12 YMCA 2460-034-021
2460-035-005
2460-035-007
2460-035-008
0.88 BCC-2 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
Limited
Business)
87 Yes
2460-035-001
2460-035-003
1.07 BCC-3 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
General
Business)
87 Yes
2460-035-014
2460-035-016
2460-035-017
2460-035-018
1.50 PD (Planned
Development)
87 Yes
Total 2.66
GSSP Projects
A GSSP-1
Lima/Avon
2466-001-015
2466-001-016
2466-001-022
2466-001 023
2466-001-024
2466-001-025
2466-001-026
2466-001-029
2466-001-030
2466-001 045
2466-001-046
2466-001-063
2466-001-064
2466-001-077
2466-001-081
4.00 M-2
(Manufacturing
General
Industries)
27 1.25 FAR
Residential (max. 120
du/acre)
Commercial (2.0 FAR)
Yes
ATTACHMENT 14-572
Project APNs
Gross
Acres
Current Zoning
District
Current
Residential
Density
Units/Acre Proposed Zoning Uses Rezone?
B GSSP-2 North
Hollywood
Way
2466-005-003
2466-005 013
2466-005 017
2466-005 018
2466-005-024
2466-005-025
2466-006-002
2466-006-003
2466-006-004
2466-006-005
2466-006-006
2466-006-007
2466-006-008
2466-006-009
2466-006-010
2466-006-011
5.28 M-2
(Manufacturing
General
Industries)
27 1.25 FAR
Residential (max. 120
du/acre)
Commercial (4.5 FAR)
Yes
C GSSP-3
Valhalla
2463-001-005
2463-001-006
2463-001-007
2463-001-008
2463-001-011
2463-001-012
8.10 M-1
(Manufacturing
Limited
Industries)
27 1.25 FAR
Residential (max. 120
du/acre)
Commercial (2.0 FAR)
Yes
D GSSP-4 Logix 2463-010-001 4.46 M-2
(Manufacturing
General
Industries)
27 1.25 FAR
Residential (max. 120
du/acre)
Commercial (2.0 FAR)
Yes
E GSSP-5
Fairview
2464-006-045 0.65 M-2
(Manufacturing
General
Industries)
58 1.25 FAR
Residential (max. 58
du/acre)
Commercial (1.25 FAR)
No
F GSSP-6
Ontario
2464-004-036 1.73 PD (Planned
Development)
58 1.25 FAR
Residential (max. 120
du/acre)
Commercial (3.0 FAR)
Yes
G GSSP-7
Empire
2464-001-002
2464-001-003
2464-001-007
2464-001-015
2464-001-019
2464-001-020
2464-001-021
6.33 M-2
(Manufacturing
General
Industries)
58 1.25 FAR
Residential (max. 58
du/acre)
Commercial (2.0 FAR)
Yes
2464-001-906 0.06 RR (Railroad) 0 Residential (max. 100 du/acre)
Commercial (2.0 FAR)
Yes
Total 6.39
Note: As part of the rezoning and resulting 6,066 units in the TOD and GSSP specific plans (net increase of 2,442 additional units under current General Plan), the City included a projection of 1.4 million square feet of new commercial space.
ATTACHMENT 14-573
Figure 2-3 Specific Plan and Housing Opportunity Locations
ATTACHMENT 14-574
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 14-575
2.5.3 Safety Element Update
The Safety Element Update will ensure consistency with the Housing Element Update and will comply with recent State legislation and guidelines (including Assembly Bill 162, Senate Bill 1241, Senate Bill 99, Assembly Bill 747, Senate Bill 1035 and Senate Bill 379). Amendments incorporate data and maps, address vulnerability to climate change, incorporate policies and programs from the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, as well as partial or full integration of other City documents and programs (including but not limited to: Ready Burbank and the Emergency Survival Program). Key areas of the Burbank Safety Element Update include updated flooding and fire hazard maps, emergency response and preparedness, especially as they relate to the City’s projected climate change exposure, and vulnerability. The Safety Element amendments will be submitted to the California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) for review.
2.5.4 Environmental Justice Update
SB 1000 states that revisions to or adoption of two or more elements of a general plan on or after January 1, 2018 trigger a requirement to “adopt or review the Environmental Justice Element, or the environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements.” Environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives must aim to reduce health risks to DACs, promote civic engagement, and prioritize the needs of these communities. The Project also includes minor updates to policies and implementation measures for the Safety, Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change, Noise, and Mobility Elements of the Burbank2035 General Plan. These updates focus on the inclusion of disadvantaged communities in decision making procedures as well as increasing protections for these communities. Figure 2-4, provided below, displays CalEnviroScreen results for Burbank. There are several designated DACs identified in central, northwest, and southeast Burbank. These seven census tracts have overall scores that meet or exceed the minimum criteria for DAC designation based on pollution burden and population characteristics.
ATTACHMENT 14-576
Figure 2-4 CalEnviroScreen – Disadvantaged Communities
ATTACHMENT 14-577
2.6 Project Objectives
Meet the City’s fair share, plus a reasonable buffer, of the regional housing need to accommodate projected population growth within the City and region consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation
Conserve and enhance the quality of existing housing and neighborhoods Provide housing sites that accommodate a range of housing types to meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents
Continue to facilitate the development of housing affordable for all economic segments of the community and make inroads in addressing the City’s jobs-to-housing imbalance Focus on removing governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing
Promote non-discrimination and fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons
2.7 Required Approvals
The Project would require the following discretionary approvals:
Certification of this EIR prepared for the proposed Project Adoption of the Housing Element Update for the 2021-2029 planning period Adoption of updates to the Safety Element
Adoption of updates to other Burbank2035 General Plan elements to incorporate environmental justice policies
Rezoning of opportunity sites within the Specific Plan areas After adoption by the City Council, the updated Housing Element will be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for certification. The Safety Element updates will be submitted to CalFire for their review and approval.
ATTACHMENT 14-578
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 14-579
4.2 Biological Resources
This section assesses potential impacts to biological resources. The urbanized environment in the City of Burbank (City) limits the abundance and diversity of biological resources that are present and those that may be affected by the proposed project. As such, the biological resources addressed in this section are limited to nesting birds, bats, raptors, and their habitats. Moreover, the Initial Study (Appendix B of the Original Draft EIR) concludes that reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update (proposed Project) would not have the potential to result in significant effects related to other biological resource topics, such as wetlands, streams, rivers, and riparian habitat; wildlife movement; Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs); and other applicable plans, policies, and ordinances intended to preserve and/or protect biological resources. Thus, these topics are not further addressed herein.
4.2.1 Environmental Setting
a. Regional Setting
The City of Burbank, where development resulting from the Housing and Safety Element Update would occur, lies in Los Angeles County, which encompasses approximately 4,084 square miles. The County borders 70 miles of coast on the Pacific Ocean and extends west to the Mojave Desert. The County is divided west-to-east by the San Gabriel Mountains, which are part of the Transverse Ranges of southern California. The region’s climate is characteristic of a Mediterranean climate system with hot, dry summers and cooler, wetter winters. b. Project Setting
The Housing Element and Safety Update would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank, which encompasses 17.1 square miles. Burbank is located in the central portion of Los Angeles County, approximately 12 miles north of downtown Los Angeles.
The northeastern part of the City is located along the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains and the western edge of the City is located near the eastern part of the San Fernando Valley. The City is bisected by the Interstate 5 (I-5) and is adjacent to the developed areas of the cities of Los Angeles and Glendale.
Burbank is comprised mainly of residential and commercial land uses, but also contains various patches of open space. Three types of open space, totaling approximately 2,700 acres, occur throughout the City: public parks, public and private open space areas and cemeteries. Multiple public parks are located throughout the City. Private open spaces areas include the Lakeside Country Club at the south end and the Valhalla Cemetery south of Hollywood Burbank Airport. The Verdugo Mountains provide important habitat connectivity for many plant and animal species.
Open space areas in the City are meant to be preserved, with only minimal structures and improvements that are necessary and complementary to the open space use. Per Policy 8.1 of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan, development that diminishes sensitive or protected plant and animal communities is prohibited (City of Burbank 2013a). Of the 732 acres of parks in Burbank, approximately 603 acres are on the edge of the City, near the Verdugo Mountains. Urbanization in the City has substantially reduced the abundance and diversity of biological resources, though landscaped areas such as street medians, parkways, and other green areas are located throughout the City and provide habitat for nesting birds and potentially other wildlife (City of Burbank 2013a).
ATTACHMENT 14-580
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
Under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA or FESA), authorization is required to “take” a listed species. Take is defined under Section 3 of the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Under federal regulation (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Sections 17.3, 222.102), “harm” is further defined to include habitat modification or degradation where it would be expected to result in death or injury to listed wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Critical habitat is a specific geographic area(s) that is essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection.
Critical habitat may include an area that is not currently occupied by the species but that will be needed for its recovery. Section 7 of the ESA outlines procedures for federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and designated critical habitat.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and its implementing regulations require federal agencies to consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. For projects where federal action is not involved and take of a listed species may occur, the project proponent may seek to obtain an incidental take permit under Section 10(a) of the ESA.
Section 10(a) allows USFWS to permit the incidental take of listed species if such take is accompanied by a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that includes components to minimize and mitigate impacts associated with the take.
The USFWS and NMFS share responsibility and regulatory authority for implementing the ESA (7 United States Code [USC] Section 136, 16 USC Section 1531 et seq.).
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds, and prohibits the removal of nests occupied by migratory birds. The USFWS administers the MBTA.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC §§ 668 – 668d) The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act makes it illegal to possess, sell, or hunt bald and golden eagles, including their feathers, nests, eggs, or body parts. b. State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is responsible for administration of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). For projects that may affect both a State and federal listed species, compliance with the FESA will satisfy the CESA, provided the CDFW determines that the federal incidental take authorization is consistent with the CESA.
ATTACHMENT 14-581
Take is defined in the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities under CFGC Section 2081. Project proponents wishing to obtain incidental take permits are able to do so through a permitting process outlined in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 783.
Projects that may result in a take of a California listed species require a take permit under the CESA.
The federal and State acts lend protection to species considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or den locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat. Unlike the FESA, the CESA prohibits the take of not just listed endangered or threatened species, but also candidate species (species petitioned for listing).
The CESA defines an endangered species as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.
A threatened species is defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985 is a threatened species.
Candidate species are defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.
Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Article 3, Sections 2080 through 2085, of the CESA addresses the taking of threatened or endangered species by stating:
…no person shall import into this State, export out of this State, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this State, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided.
Fully Protected Species (CFGC §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515) California Fully Protected Species designation protects wildlife species that are rare or face possible extinction. Fully Protected Species include designated birds (Section 3511), mammals (Section 4700), reptiles and amphibians (Section 5050), and fish (Section 5515).
ATTACHMENT 14-582
Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act
The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act was established by the California Legislature, is directed by the CDFW, and is implemented by the State, as well as public and private partnerships to protect habitat in California. The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act takes a regional approach to preserving habitat. A Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) identifies and provides for the regional protection of plants, animals and their habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. Once an NCCP has been approved, CDFW may provide take authorization for all covered species, including fully protected species, Section 2835 of the CFGC.
Nesting Bird Protection (CFGC §§ 3503, 3503.5, 3513, 3800) According to CFGC Section 3503 it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird [except English sparrows (Passer domesticus) and European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)]. Sections 3503 and 3513 prohibit the taking of specific birds, their nests, eggs, or any portion thereof during the nesting season. Section 3503.5 specifically protects birds in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3513 essentially overlaps with the federal MBTA, prohibiting the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird. Section 3800 states that all birds occurring naturally in California that are not resident game birds, migratory game birds, or fully protected birds are nongame birds.
c. Local Regulations
Burbank2035 General Plan Goal and Policies
Goal 6: Open Space Resources. Burbank’s open space areas and mountain ranges are protected spaces supporting important habitat, recreation, and resource conservation.
Policy 6.2: Protect the ecological integrity of open spaces and maintain and restore natural habitats and native plant communities.
Goal 8: Biological Resources. Burbank’s high-quality biological communities are sustained Policy 8.1: Prohibit development that jeopardizes or diminishes the integrity of sensitive or protected plant and animal communities.
Policy 8.2: Improve ecological and biological conditions in urban and natural environments when reviewing proposals for site development, as well as when making public improvements.
4.2.3 Impact Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of significance are based on the Biological Resources questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix B of the Original Draft EIR) determined that a potentially significant impact might occur under the following threshold and therefore will be analyzed in this section of the EIR.
1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service ATTACHMENT 14-583
The Initial Study (Appendix B of the Original Draft EIR) determined that the Project could result in potentially significant impacts related to nesting birds under Threshold 1. As such, an analysis of this issue is included in this section of the EIR. The Initial Study found no potentially significant impacts related to special status species (Threshold 1), riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities (Threshold 2), state or federally protected wetlands (Threshold 3), wildlife movement (Threshold 4), local biological resource policies or ordinances (Threshold 5), or habitat conservation plans (Threshold 6). However, due to comments received by the CDFW, the potential impacts to special status species, including bats, raptors, and butterflies, are included in under the Threshold 1 analysis.
1. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service
2. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means
3. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites
4. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
5. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan b. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Impact BIO-1 THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN DIRECT OR INDIRECT IMPACTS TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES THROUGH VEGETATION REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Development would be prioritized on infill sites in urbanized areas of the City. Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would be primarily concentrated on underutilized sites that have been previously developed and disturbed, but that may still contain vegetation or structures suitable to support nesting birds. The Housing Element Update includes 19 rezoning sites, 12 of which are concentrated in the urban downtown region of Burbank and 7 of which are located in urban areas near the Hollywood Burbank Airport. Although these rezoning sites are urban and developed, the existing buildings and associated ornamental vegetation may provide suitable habitat for nesting birds and raptors. For example, the Downtown BJs/ Black Angus housing opportunity site has multiple trees surrounding the existing buildings that could support nests. As a result, development under the Housing Element Update could directly and indirectly affect nesting birds, which, as described in the Environmental Setting, are protected under CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, as well as the MBTA. CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 identify take, possession, or destruction of native birds, nests, and eggs as unlawful. Section 3503.5 of the Code ATTACHMENT 14-584
protects all birds-of-prey and their eggs and nests against take, possession, or destruction. Section 3515 makes it a State-level offense to take any bird in violation of the federal MBTA. Violation of these provisions would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Construction of reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project could potentially occur during the bird nesting season, which is generally from March 1 through August 31 and begins as early as February 1 for raptors. As such, potential construction impacts resulting in vegetation trimming or removal during the nesting season would have the potential to disturb active nests, either directly (e.g., injury, mortality, or disruption of normal nesting behaviors) or indirectly (e.g., construction noise, dust, and vibration from equipment). In addition, based on comments provided by the CDFW on the Draft EIR, development under the proposed Project may result in adverse impacts to the following biological resources: least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), a federally and State-listed Endangered species, by causing nest abandonment, reproductive suppression, or incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings if development occurs during the breeding and nesting season; bat species, such as pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), big free tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), which are designated as Species of Special Concern (SSC), by removal of trees, vegetation and/or structures that may provide roosting habitats; and monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) and monarch butterfly overwintering habitat through vegetation and tree removal. Therefore, construction activities have the potential to disturb biological resources, which would be a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure requires an initial site assessment for biological resources. Surveys may be required for sites that are in proximity to previously identified areas where habitats for the least Bell’s vireo, bat species, or monarch butterflies have previously been identified, and for development activities that would occur during the nesting season.
BIO-1 Biological Resources Avoidance
For individual housing developments that will include disturbance of vegetation, trees, structures, or other areas where biological resources could be present, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to conduct an initial site assessment that will include review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and iNaturalist maps to determine where sightings have occurred or habitats for the least Bell’s vireo, bat species, or monarch butterflies have previously been identified.
If construction activities or other disturbances occur in areas within 500 feet of a previously identified habitat or observation according to CNDDB or iNaturalist, the following measures shall be implemented:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the project applicant to conduct a biological resources reconnaissance of the site. The qualified biologist shall thoroughly report on the biological resources present on a project site and submitted to the City.
If the biologist determines that special-status species may occur, focused surveys for special- status plants shall be completed in accordance with Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW], March 20, 2018) and Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS, ATTACHMENT 14-585
September 23, 1996). If it is determined that the project site has suitable habitat for special- status wildlife, focused surveys shall be conducted to determined presence/absence including species-specific surveys in accordance with CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocols for State or federally listed species, respectively, that may occur. If it is determined that a special-status species may be impacted by a specific project, consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW shall occur prior to issuance of a development permit from the City to determine measures to address impacts, such as avoidance, minimization, or take authorization and mitigation. The report shall include a list of special-status plants and wildlife that may occur on the project site and/or adjacent area.
If construction activities or other disturbances occur during the bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31), prior to issuance of grading permits for individual housing developments that will include disturbance of vegetation, structures, or other areas where bird nests could be present, the following requirements shall be implemented:
Applicant shall submit a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of grading or construction activities. The nesting bird pre- construction survey shall be conducted on foot on the construction site, including a 100-foot buffer, and in inaccessible areas (e.g., private lands) from afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California and a copy of the study shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and Building and Safety Division. The cost to hire a qualified biologist shall be borne entirely by the developer/project applicant. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary.
All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No parking, storage of materials, or construction activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. A survey report shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting and verifying compliance with the above requirements and applicable State and Federal regulations protecting birds that shall be submitted to the City of Burbank. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities would occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests would occur.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that biological resources are identified and avoided, as necessary, which would avoid potential conflicts with the MBTA and CFGC.
4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
The area to analyze cumulative biological resource impacts includes the City limits. As defined in Section 3.3, vegetation, including trees, located in the City could potentially support nesting migratory birds, as well as bats, raptors, and butterflies. As discussed previously, the CFGC and MBTA protect migratory avian species when they are nesting. Compliance with the CFGC and MBTA by all reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would ATTACHMENT 14-586
ensure that cumulative impacts to migratory birds would not be significant. Such regulatory compliance, including implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, would ensure that the implementation of the proposed Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts related to nesting bird disturbance.
ATTACHMENT 14-587
4.12 Utilities/Service Systems
This section analyzes environmental impacts associated with the provision of infrastructure for water supply, wastewater conveyance, treatment, and disposal, solid waste disposal, and stormwater management, as well as telecommunications facilities, energy, and natural gas. The discussion and analysis contained herein is informed by outputs from the CalEEMod prepared for the proposed Project, as well as publicly available data and reports from the City of Burbank, Burbank Water and Power (BWP), and other publicly available sources of information, as cited throughout the discussions below.
4.12.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for infrastructure related to water supply, wastewater treatment conveyance and treatment, stormwater conveyance and treatment, solid waste conveyance and disposal, electricity and natural gas, and telecommunications, is described below. a. Water Supply
BWP provides domestic and potable water service in Burbank. The City’s water comes from two sources: water purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), a regional wholesaler and State Water Project (SWP) contractor, and local groundwater from the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin (San Fernando Basin). BWP also uses recycled water to meet some of its water needs such as outdoor irrigation and power plant cooling.
Water purchased from Metropolitan is imported from the Colorado River Aqueduct and the SWP.
Metropolitan is a regional wholesaler with no retail customers, which provides treated and untreated water directly to its 26 member agencies. Member agencies include 14 cities, 11 municipal water districts, and one county water authority (Metropolitan 2021). Each of Metropolitan’s qualifying member agencies, including BWP, is responsible for implementing its own Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP); see further discussion of UWMPs in Section 4.13.2(a).
BWP’s 2020 UWMP, adopted in June 2021, includes an assessment of past and future water supplies and demands, evaluation of the future reliability of the region’s water supplies over a 20-year planning horizon, discussion of demand management measures and Burbank’s water shortage contingency plan, discussion of the use and planned use of recycled water, and an evaluation of distribution system water losses (BWP 2021a).
BWP does not have ownership rights to the naturally occurring groundwater underneath the City, but BWP does have rights to pump groundwater through groundwater credits. Groundwater provided by BWP is managed in accordance with the Upper Los Angeles River Adjudication Judgment, administered by the Upper Los Angeles River Area Watermaster as the Watermaster. The adjudication Judgment limits production from the San Fernando Basin to ensure the long-term reliability of the basin. As with Metropolitan, BWP also maintains an UWMP that forecasts future water demands in Burbank under average and dry year conditions, identifies future water supply projects, and evaluates future supply reliability. The UWMP discusses the provider’s supply portfolio, including current and planned water conservation and recycling activities (BWP 2021a).
The Burbank Water Reclamation Plant (BWRP) produces a disinfected tertiary effluent that is approved for all uses, including full body contact, with the exception of human consumption. The BWRP produces up to 10,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water, which is available for reuse in any of the following three ways:
ATTACHMENT 14-588
Flowed via gravity pipeline to the BWP campus
Pumped into the recycled water distribution system
Discharged to the Burbank Wester Channel adjacent to the BWRP Recycled water produced at the BWRP is used for power production, landscape irrigation, and evaporative cooling (BWP 2021a). BWP has recently completed a feasibility study of both indirect and direct potable reuse of BWP’s excess recycled water. b. Wastewater
Wastewater generated in Burbank is collected and conveyed by approximately 230 miles of underground pipelines ranging in diameter from six inches to 30 inches. The City’s wastewater conveyance system also includes two pump stations and 19 diversion manholes. In addition, the Los Angeles 48-inch North Outfall Sewer (NOS) line runs from west to east through the southern portion of the City. A small number of flows go directly to the NOS.
Wastewater flows to the BWRP, which has a design capacity of 12.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently treats 8.5 mgd (BWP 2021a). The disinfected tertiary effluent produced by the BWRP is discharged to either the Burbank Western Channel or to the City’s recycled water distribution system for non-potable use. The discharged tertiary effluent meets discharge limitations identified in its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The BWRP’s effluent also meets the most stringent water quality criteria for recycled water, as defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 requirement as Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water. The City of Burbank Department of Public Works is responsible for maintaining, replacing, and upgrading the City’s sewer collection system.
The City of Burbank may divert wastewater to the Los Angeles sewer system, which is comprised of three systems: the Hyperion Sanitary Sewer System, the Terminal Island Water Reclamation Plant Sanitary Sewer System, and the Regional Sanitary Sewer System. Based on the Los Angeles Department of Public Works’ Sewer System Management Plan (2017), the Hyperion Sanitary Sewer System is the largest of the City’s three sanitary sewer systems. An average wastewater flow rate of approximately 300 million gallons per day (mgd) is treated by the system, which includes the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant and the Los Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant; this systems has a peak wet weather capacity of 800 mgd. The Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant services the area between Chatsworth and Van Nuys in the San Fernando Valley. The Los Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant is located in the San Fernando Valley and services the communities in east San Fernando Valley that are both within and outside of the City limits.
Approximately 60 mgd is treated at Donald C. Tillman and Los-Angeles Glendale Water Reclamation Plants. All other flows in the system, and the biosolids from the Donald C. Tillman and Los-Angeles Glendale Water Reclamation Plants which are returned to the collection system, are treated at the Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant (HWRP) located in Playa Del Rey. c. Stormwater
The City of Burbank Public Works Department (PWD) oversees stormwater management throughout the City. In 2012, the Los Angeles RWQCB adopted the Final Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County. Burbank is a co-permittee in fulfilling the requirements of the municipal storm water permit, which regulates discharges of stormwater and urban runoff from ATTACHMENT 14-589
storm drain systems. Furthermore, the City has an established Storm Water Quality Management Program that educates existing and future efforts relating to stormwater management across the City. The City’s existing stormwater pipeline system is comprised of 42-inch-wide reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that collects stormwater runoff from throughout the city and ultimately discharges it into the Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s (LACFCD) Burbank Western Channel and the Pacific Ocean.
d. Solid Waste
The Street and Solid Waste Division of the Burbank PWD is responsible for the collection of solid waste, green waste, recyclables, and bulky items in the City. City solid waste collection crews service all single-family residences, 50 percent of multifamily residences, and approximately 10 percent of the City’s commercial/industrial refuse customers. Businesses and larger multifamily residences can use City solid waste and recycling services as well or hire a private waste collection and hauling company (Burbank 2020).
Solid waste generated in Burbank is transported to and disposed of at any of seven southern California landfills including Burbank Landfill Site No. 3, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Puente Hills Landfill, Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center, and Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill (City of Burbank 2013).
The City owns and operates the Burbank Landfill, located in the Verdugo Hills at the eastern edge of Burbank. The facility is located on 86 acres, 48 of which are used for disposal. The landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 5,933,365 cy (CalRecycle 2019) and as of December 31, 2019, had a remaining capacity of 4,843,582 cy (approximately 82 percent of the maximum permitted capacity) (Los Angeles County 2020). The maximum permitted intake is 240 tons (436 cy) per operating day and average intake is approximately 123 tons (224 cy) per day. Burbank Landfill had an original expected closure year of 2053 but is now estimated to be open through 2150 (Los Angeles County 2020; Burbank Landfill 2021). Routine inspection for compliance with state minimum standards is conducted monthly. As of October 2021, the landfill’s best management practices (BMPs) were observed to be fully in place and the site looked to be in satisfactory condition (CalRecycle 2021).
One hundred percent of the intake at the landfill is from Burbank (City of Burbank 2013, Los Angeles County 2020). Residential trash collected by the City is deposed of at this facility, including trash collected by the City from all single-family residences, 50 percent of multifamily residences, and 10 percent of commercial/industrial refuse customers. Private waste haulers also collect trash from within the City, and serves the multifamily residential units and commercial/industrial users that are not otherwise served by the City. Solid waste collected by private waste haulers may be transported to any of the landfill facilities.
The City also owns the Burbank Recycle Center, which houses a materials recovery facility and buyback/drop off center, as well as a used oil center, composting information, and a learning center.
The Burbank Recycle Center is a private/public partnership with Burbank Recycling Inc. that collects and diverts wastes that contribute to the Burbank Landfill capacity (Burbank 2013).
Hazardous waste requiring disposal is sent to the Kettleman Hills Hazardous Waste Facility, a 1,600- acre hazardous waste and municipal solid waste disposal facility located southwest of Kettleman City in the western San Joaquin Valley. The facility is permitted for the direct landfill of California hazardous waste, Toxic Substances Control Act-regulated polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) wastes (that naturally meet treatment standards) (Waste Management 2015). The facility is regulated and inspected by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control ATTACHMENT 14-590
(DTSC), Central Valley RWQCB, Kings County Department of Public Health, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District (SJVAPD), and CalRecycle. It has a remaining capacity of six million cy. Permits are currently pending to expand the existing hazardous waste landfill to allow more years of disposal and to develop a new hazardous waste landfill on currently undeveloped land to open after the existing landfill reaches capacity (Waste Management 2018). e. Telecommunications, Electricity, and Natural Gas
Telecommunications services in Burbank are provided by private companies, including AT&T, EarthLink, and Spectrum, among others. The telecommunications provider used by residents and businesses in Burbank is subject to the user’s discretion. Telecommunications facilities are generally available throughout the City.
Electric power supply throughout the City is provided by BWP. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), in 2020 BWP had a total usage of 995.1 Gigawatt hours (GWh). Residential uses consisted of the second most energy intensive source (287.6 GWh) for BWP, behind commercial and building (507.8 GWh) (CEC 2020a). BWP’s power mix from the power content label (PCL), which shows total generation delivered for a calendar year, divided by retail sales (not renewable energy credits retired) for 2020 consisted of approximately 31percent renewable resources (wind, geothermal, biomass, solar, and small hydroelectric), 26 percent coal, 31 percent natural gas, eight percent nuclear, two percent hydroelectric, and the remainder from other sources (BWP 2020).
Burbank is in Southern California Gas Company’s (SCG) natural gas service area, which provides service to most of southern California (SCG 2021). SCG’s service area is equipped with approximately 5.9 million meters of gas transmission pipelines throughout the 24,000-square mile service area (SCG 2021). In 2019, SCG customers consumed a total of 5.2 billion therms of natural gas (CEC 2020b). Residential users accounted for approximately 46 percent of SCG’s natural gas consumption. Industrial and commercials users accounted for another 31 percent and 17 percent, respectively. The remainder was used for mining, construction, agricultural, and water pump accounts (CEC 2020). Natural gas is also addressed in Section 4.6, Energy.
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting
The regulatory setting for utilities is provided below, organized per the topics addressed in this section, including water supply; wastewater; stormwater; solid waste; telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas.
a. Water Supply
State Regulations
California Water Conservation Bill (Senate Bill X7-7)
The Water Conservation Bill, enacted in 2009, set an overall goal of reducing per capita urban water use in the State by 20 percent by December 31, 2020. Under this bill, the State was required make incremental progress toward the 2020 goal by reducing per capita water use by at least 10 percent by December 31, 2015. The bill also required urban water suppliers (such as the City of Burbank) to reduce per capita water use 20 percent by 2020, establish water conservation targets for the years 2015 and 2020, and include the following information in their water management plans: the baseline daily per capita water use; water use targets; interim water use targets; compliance daily per capita water use.
ATTACHMENT 14-591
Senate Bill 610
In 2001, California adopted Senate Bill (SB) 610, thereby amending California Water Code. Under this law, certain types of development projects are now required to provide detailed water supply assessments to planning agencies. Any project that is subject to CEQA and would demand more than 75 AFY of water, or an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling-unit project, is subject to SB 610 and is required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA). The primary purpose of a WSA is to determine whether the identified water supply or water supplier will be able to meet projected demands for the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, over a 20-year projection and with consideration to normal, dry, and multi-dry water years.
The Project is subject to CEQA and includes more than 500 dwelling units. However, the Housing Element is a planning document, not a development project, and it therefore does not directly trigger the need for a WSA as defined by California Water Code. Nonetheless, a WSA was prepared for the Housing Element to provide a well-informed analysis of potential impacts to water supply availability and reliability.
Senate Bill 221
SB 221 also addresses water supply in the land use planning process and focuses on new residential subdivisions in nonurban areas. SB 221 requires the provision of written verification from the water service provider indicating that sufficient water supply is available to serve a proposed subdivision or a finding by the local agency that sufficient water supplies are or will be available prior to completion of a project. SB 221 specifically applies to residential subdivisions of 500 units or more.
Government Code Section 66473.7(i) exempts “any residential project proposed for a site that is within an urbanized area and has been previously developed for urban uses, or where the immediate contiguous properties surrounding the residential project site are, or previously have been, developed for urban uses, or housing projects that are exclusively for very low and low- income households.”
The proposed Project involves the update of the Burbank General Plan and does not involve any development application. As such, it does not propose development of 500 or more dwelling units in a nonurban area and is not subject to SB 221.
Urban Water Management Act
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6, Sections 10610–10656) requires that all public water suppliers that provide municipal and industrial water to more than 3,000 customers, or supply more than 3,000 AFY of water, adopt an UWMP. An UWMP is intended to forecast future water demand and supply under normal and dry conditions.
The UWMP must include a description of existing and planned sources of water available to the water supplier; conservation efforts to reduce water demand; alternative sources of water; assessment of reliability and vulnerability of water supply; and water shortage contingency analysis.
It must be updated every five years and submitted to the DWR for review. Metropolitan and BWP both maintain UWMPs for their water systems. BWP’s 2020 UWMP was updated in June 2021 and is therefore used to inform this analysis.
The Urban Water Management Planning Act has been modified several times in response to the water shortages, droughts, and other factors. The Water Conservation Act of 2009 amended the Urban Water Management Planning Act to call for a statewide reduction of 20 percent in urban ATTACHMENT 14-592
water use by the year 2020. An amendment in 2014 requires water suppliers to provide narrative descriptions of their water demand management measures and account for system water losses.
California Code of Regulations
CCR Title 24, Part 5, establishes the California Plumbing Code (last updated in 2013) that became effective January 1, 2014. The California Plumbing Code sets forth efficiency standards (i.e., maximum flow rates) for all new federally regulated plumbing fittings and fixtures, including showerheads and lavatory faucets.
CCR Title 22 regulates production and use of recycled water in California by establishing three categories of recycled water: (1) primary effluent, which that typically includes grit removal and initial sedimentation or settling tanks; (2) adequately disinfected, oxidized effluent (secondary effluent), which that typically involves aeration and additional settling basins; and (3) adequately disinfected, oxidized, coagulated, clarified, filtered effluent (tertiary effluent), which typically involves filtration and chlorination. In addition to defining recycled water uses, Title 22 also defines requirements for sampling and analysis of effluent and requires specific design requirements for plants.
CCR Title 24, Part 11, establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. These provisions became effective January 1, 2011.
California Drought Update
In 2014, the governor issued a Drought Declaration and requested a voluntary 20 percent reduction in urban water use statewide, directing the State Board to adopt Emergency Regulations. As a result, the State Board adopted Emergency Regulations for Statewide Urban Water Conservation that were documented in CCR Title 23, Sections 863–865.
In 2015, the governor issued an Executive Order for mandatory statewide water reductions to reduce water usage by 25 percent. The Executive Order directed local water agencies to increase enforcement over wasteful use of water and invest in modern technologies that will make California more drought resilient. The Executive Order establishes several provisions for water saving and increased enforcement against wasteful water use:
The State Board shall impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25 percent reduction in potable urban water usage, compared to amount used in 2013, through February 28, 2016; The Department of Water Resources (DWR) shall lead a statewide initiative to replace 50 million sf of lawns and ornamental turf with drought tolerant landscapes; The CEC, jointly with the Department of the Water Board, shall implement a time-limited statewide appliance rebate program to replace inefficient household devices; The State Board shall impose restrictions to require that commercial, industrial, and institutional uses implement water efficiency measures to reduce potable water usage; The State Board shall prohibit irrigation with potable water of ornamental turf on public street medians;
The State Board shall prohibit irrigation with potable water outside of newly constructed homes/buildings that is not delivered by drip or microspray systems; and The State Board shall require urban water suppliers to provide monthly information on water usage, conservation, and enforcement on a permanent basis.
ATTACHMENT 14-593
Local Regulations
Metropolitan’s Integrated Water Resources Plan – 2015 Water Tomorrow Update The proposed Project is located within the services areas of BWP (discussed above) and Metropolitan. Metropolitan’s Integrated Water Resources Plan was first developed in 1996 to establish targets for a diversified portfolio of supply investments. The 2015 Water Tomorrow Update is a plan to provide water supplies under a wide range of potential future conditions and risks. It identifies supply actions including recycled water, seawater desalination, stormwater capture, conservation, and groundwater cleanup to ensure local water supply reliability. The 2015 Water Tomorrow Update was adopted by Metropolitan’s board of directors in January 2016 (Metropolitan 2016b). The 2015 Water Tomorrow Update is separate from Metropolitan’s UWMP and is incorporated by reference in the UWMP, as applicable.
Greater Los Angeles County Region IRWMP
The Greater Los Angeles County (GLAC) Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) is a regional plan designed to improve collaboration in water resources management. To make governance and stakeholder involvement manageable, the GLAC Region was organized into five Subregions which consider both geographic and demographic variations over the 2,058 square mile area. These Subregions include: Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers (Lower SG & LA); North Santa Monica Bay (North SM Bay); South Bay; Upper Los Angeles River Area (ULARA); Upper San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Rivers (Upper SG & RH). Of these regions, BWP is a member of the ULARA Steering Committee. The first IRWMP for the GLAC Region was published in 2006, following a multi- year collaborative effort between water retailers, wastewater agencies, stormwater and flood managers, watershed groups, businesses, tribes, the agriculture community, and non-profits. In 2014, the IRWM group updated the IRWMP to comply with new State integrated planning requirements and update the content (Leadership Committee of the GLAC IRWMP 2014). The IRWMP provides a mechanism for: 1) coordinating, refining, and integrating existing planning efforts within a comprehensive, regional context; 2) identifying specific regional and watershed-based priorities for implementation projects; and 3) providing funding support for the plans, programs, projects, and priorities of existing agencies and stakeholders.
Burbank 2035 General Plan
The Burbank2035 General Plan (adopted February 2013) is the primary mechanism for guiding future population growth and development in Burbank and provides a guide for land use decision- making. The General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element addresses the conservation and enhancement of open space, parks, recreation, and natural resources within the City. The goals and policies of the Open Space and Conservation Element are intended to protect natural resources including water resources (Burbank 2013). The goal and policies applicable to water resources are presented below:
Goal 9: Water Resources
Adequate sources of high-quality water provide for various uses within Burbank.
ATTACHMENT 14-594
Policy 9.1: Meet the goal of a 20 percent reduction in municipal water use by 2020.
Policy 9.2: Provide public information regarding the importance of water conservation and avoiding wasteful water habits.
Policy 9.3: Offer incentives for water conservation and explore other water conservation programs.
Policy 9.4: Pursue infrastructure improvements that would expand communitywide use of recycled water.
Policy 9.5: R
equire on-site dr
ainage improvements using native vegetation to capture and clean stormwater runoff
City of Bu
rbank Sustainable Use Ordinance
Section 8-2, Article 3, Sustainable Water Use Ordinance, of the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) established procedures for implementing and enforcing sustainable water use practices to mitigate the effect of a shortage of water resources. The ordinance establishes mandatory water use practices related to outdoor uses such as irrigation of outdoor landscaped areas, washing down of driveways and walkways, use of evaporative coolers (misters), and the filling or refilling of swimming pools and spas. The ordinance also establishes mandatory restrictions on service of drinking water at restaurants, hotels, and eating establishments if not requested by customers. The ordinance establishes six incremental stages of water use restrictions and penalties in order to discourage wasteful water use practices and achieve reduced water consumption and conservation during drought conditions.
b. Wastewater
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act (CWA)
The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters and maintain the integrity of wetlands. The CWA seeks to regulate point and nonpoint pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works (commonly known as wastewater treatment plants owned by a governmental agency for the improvement of wastewater treatment).
The CWA established the NPDES, which requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be developed and implemented for projects that disturb more than 0.5 acre of land. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine RWQCBs administer NPDES to regulate and monitor discharged waters and to ensure they meet water quality standards.
State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act), enacted by the State in 1969, includes provisions to address requirements of the CWA. The Porter-Cologne Act is broad in scope and addresses issues relating to the conservation, control, and utilization of the water resources of the State. The SWRCB and the RWQCBs are the State agencies with primary responsibility for the ATTACHMENT 14-595
coordination and control of water quality. Porter-Cologne grants the RWQCBs authority to implement and enforce water quality laws, regulations, and plans to protect the groundwater and surface waters.
In 2006, the SWRCB adopted the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for publicly owned sanitary sewer systems with greater than one mile in length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility in California. Under the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements, the owners of such systems must comply with the following requirements: (1) acquire an online account from the SWRCB and report all sanitary sewer overflows online; and (2) develop and implement a written Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) to control and mitigate sanitary sewer overflows and make it available to any member of the public upon request in writing.
SSMP requirements are modeled on proposed Federal capacity, management, operations, and maintenance plans. The SSMP policy requires dischargers to provide adequate capacity in the sewer collection system, take feasible steps to stop sewer overflows, identify and prioritize system deficiencies, and develop a plan for disposal of grease, among other requirements. In addition, wastewater providers must report sanitary sewer overflows to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, must keep internal records of these overflows, and must produce an annual report on overflows. Reporting of overflows from laterals on private property, if caused by an owner, is not required.
California Code of Regulations
The California Water Code requires the Department of Health Services (DHS) to establish water reclamation criteria. In 1975, the DHS prepared Title 22 to fulfill this requirement, regulating production/use of recycled water by establishing three categories of recycled water:
Primary effluent, that typically includes grit removal and initial sedimentation or settling tanks; Adequately disinfected, oxidized effluent (secondary effluent), that typically involves aeration and additional settling basins; and
Adequately disinfected, oxidized, coagulated, clarified, filtered effluent (tertiary effluent), that typically involves filtration and chlorination.
In addition to defining recycled water uses, Title 22 defines requirements for sampling and analysis of effluent and requires specific design requirements for plants.
CCR Title 24, Part 5, establishes the California Plumbing Code, which became effective January 1, 2014, and sets efficiency standards (i.e., maximum flow rates) for all new federally regulated plumbing fittings and fixtures, including showerheads and lavatory faucets. Accordingly, the maximum flow rate for showerheads is 2.0 gallons per minute (GPM) at 80 pounds per square inch (psi) and for lavatory faucets is 1.5 GPM at 60 psi. In addition, all water closets (i.e., flush toilets) are limited to 1.6 gallons per flush (GPF) and urinals are limited to 0.5 GPF. In addition, Section 1605.3(h) establishes State efficiency standards for non-federally regulated plumbing fittings, including commercial pre-rinse spray valves.
CCR Title 24, Part 11, establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. These provisions became effective January 1, 2011.
ATTACHMENT 14-596
Local Regulations
Burbank Sewer System Management Plan
In compliance with SWRCP Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, the City has adopted a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) that also include a Sanitary Sewer Overflow Emergency Response Plan.
The SSMP addresses the operation, maintenance, design, and performance of the City’s sewers and provides an overflow emergency response plan and a system evaluation and capacity assurance plan to reduce the frequency and volume of sanitary sewer overflows. Implementation of the SSMP, requires the City to (1) properly fund, manage, maintain, and operate its sanitary sewer systems to prevent sanitary sewer overflows; (2) construct and maintain the collection system using trained staff possessing adequate knowledge, skills, and abilities, as demonstrated through validated programs; and (3) fully comply with SWRCB Order No. 2006-003-DWQ.
Burbank Sewer System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan The City prepared a Sewer System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SSECAP) in 2006 (Chapter 8 of the Burbank Sewer System Management Plan). The SSECAP includes hydraulic modeling of the City’s existing wastewater system. The SSECAP also identifies areas of future study that are cost-effective and technically feasible to address both potential capacity and operational constraints and are coordinated with other improvement projects. The plan contains the following key objectives:
Properly fund, manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the wastewater collection system; Provide adequate capacity to convey peak sewer flows; Minimize the frequency of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs); and Construct and maintain the collection system using trained staff possessing adequate knowledge, skills, and abilities as demonstrated through a validated program.
The SSECAP and the City’s capital improvement plan (CIP) provide hydraulic capacity of key sanitary sewer system elements for peak flow conditions, to facilitate design of sufficient capacity to accommodate runoff from storm events.
Burbank Municipal Code (BMC)
Title 8, Chapter 1, Article 1, Sewers, of the BMC establishes regulatory compliance for discharges to the publicly owned treatment works (POTW), sewer system and storm drain system for the City and requires compliance with applicable State and Federal laws, including the CWA (33 United States Code 1251 et seq.) and the general pretreatment regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 403). Per BMC Section 8-1-301, to connect to the City’s main sewer line, an excavation permit and a sewer connection permit must be obtained from the Burbank Public Works Department. For sewer construction entirely on private property, the owner must obtain a plumbing permit from the Building Department, and an excavation permit from the Burbank PWD.
ATTACHMENT 14-597
c. Stormwater
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act (CWA)
The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the CWA, is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters and maintain the integrity of wetlands. The CWA seeks to regulate point and nonpoint pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works (commonly known as wastewater treatment plants owned by a governmental agency for the improvement of wastewater treatment).
The CWA established the NPDES, which requires a SWPPP to be developed and implemented for projects that disturb more than 0.5 acre of land. The SWRCB and the nine regional water quality control boards RWQCBs administer NPDES to regulate and monitor discharged waters and to ensure they meet water quality standards.
Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
Section 303(d) of the CWA (CWA, 33 USC 1250, et seq., at 1313(d)) requires states to identify “impaired” waterbodies as those which do not meet water quality standards. States are required to compile this information in a list and submit the list to the USEPA for review and approval. This list is known as the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. As part of this listing process, states are required to prioritize waters and watersheds for future development of total maximum daily loads (TMDL). The SWRCB and RWQCBs have ongoing efforts to monitor and assess water quality, to prepare the Section 303(d) list, and to develop TMDL requirements.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The Federal government also administers the NPDES permit program, which regulates discharges into surface waters. The primary regulatory control relevant to the protection of water quality is the NPDES permit administered by the SWRCB. The SWRCB establishes requirements prescribing the quality of point sources of discharge and water quality objectives. These objectives are established based on the designated beneficial uses (e.g., water supply, recreation, and habitat) for a particular surface water body or groundwater basin. The NPDES permits are issued to point source dischargers of pollutants to surface waters pursuant to Water Code Chapter 5.5, which implements the Federal CWA. Examples include, but are not limited to, public wastewater treatment facilities, industries, power plants, and groundwater cleanup programs discharging to surface waters (SWRCB, Title 23, Chapter 9, Section 2200). The RWQCB establishes and regulates discharge limits under the NPDES permits.
Projects that will disturb more than one acre of land during construction are required to file a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB to be covered under the NPDES Construction General Permit for discharges of stormwater associated with construction activity. The project proponent must develop measures that are consistent with the Construction General Permit. Furthermore, a SWPPP must be developed and implemented for each site covered under the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP describes the BMPs the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and reduce potential impacts on surface water quality through the construction period. The SWPPP must contain the following:
ATTACHMENT 14-598
A visual monitoring program;
A chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants (to be implemented if a BMP failure occurs); and
A sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body on the 303(d) list for sediment.
State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Porter-Cologne Act) established the SWRCB and divided the state into nine regional basins, each with a RWQCB. The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The SWRCB is the primary state agency with responsibility to protect surface water and groundwater quality. The Porter-Cologne Act authorizes the SWRCB to draft policies regarding water quality in accordance with CWA Section 303. In addition, the Porter-Cologne Act authorizes the SWRCB to issue waste discharge requirements for projects that would discharge to state waters. These requirements regulate discharges of waste to surface and groundwater, regulate waste disposal sites, and require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil or petroleum product.
The Porter-Cologne Act requires the SWRCB or the RWQCBs to adopt water quality control plans (basin plans) and policies for the protection of water quality. The Basin Plan must conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State Water Policy.
The Basin Plan must:
Identify beneficial uses for the water to be protected, Establish water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of the beneficial uses, and Establish an implementation program for achieving the water quality objectives.
Basin plans also provide the technical basis for determining waste discharge requirements, taking enforcement actions, and evaluating clean water grant proposals. Basin plans are updated and reviewed every 3 years in accordance with Article 3 of Porter-Cologne Act and CWA Section 303(c).
California Toxics Rule
The California Toxics Rule is a USEPA-issued federal regulation that provides water quality criteria for potentially toxic constituents in California surface waters with designated uses related to human health or aquatic life. The rule fills a gap in California water quality standards that was created in 1994 when a state court overturned the state’s water quality control plans containing water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants. These federal criteria are legally applicable in the State of California for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries for all purposes and programs under the CWA. The California Toxics Rule establishes two types of aquatic life criteria:
Acute criteria represent the highest concentration of a pollutant to which aquatic life can be exposed for a short period of time without harmful effects; and Chronic criteria equal the highest concentration to which aquatic life can be exposed for an extended period of time (4 days) without deleterious effects.
ATTACHMENT 14-599
Due to the intermittent nature of stormwater runoff (especially in southern California), the acute criteria are considered to be more applicable to stormwater conditions than chronic criteria.
State Antidegradation Policy
Under the State Antidegradation Policy, whenever the existing quality of waters is better than what is needed to protect present and future beneficial uses, such existing quality must be maintained.
This state policy has been adopted as a water quality objective in all the State’s Basin Plans. The State policy establishes a two-step process to determine if discharges with the potential to degrade the water quality of surface or groundwater will be allowed.
The first step requires that, where a discharge would degrade high-quality water, the discharge may be allowed only if any change in water quality would:
Be consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state; Not reasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses of such water; and Result in water quality that is not less than that prescribed in state policies (i.e., Basin Plans).
The second step states that any activity resulting in discharge to high-quality waters is required to use the best practicable treatment or control of the discharge necessary in order to avoid the occurrence of pollution or nuisance and to maintain the “highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state.” The State policy applies to both surface and groundwater, as well as to both existing and potential beneficial uses of the applicable waters.
In 1999, the SWRCB issued and subsequently amended the General Construction Stormwater Permit that governs discharges from construction sites that disturb 1 acre or more of surface area. Again, on September 2, 2009, the SWRCB adopted a new General Construction Permit that substantially alters the approach taken to regulate construction discharges through (1) requiring the determination of risk levels posed by a project’s construction discharges to water quality and (2) establishing numerical water quality thresholds that trigger permit violations. These new permit regulations took effect on July 1, 2010.
California Code of Regulations – Recycled Water Regulations (Titles 22 and 17) Titles 22 and 17 of the CCR include regulations for the various uses of recycled water within the state. According to the CCR, recycled water used for the following purposes shall be at least disinfected secondary-23 recycled water: (1) industrial boiler feed, (2) nonstructural firefighting, (3) backfill consolidation around non-potable piping, (4) soil compaction, (5) mixing concrete, (6) dust control on roads and streets, (7) cleaning roads, sidewalks and outdoor work areas, and (8) industrial process water that will not come into contact with workers. The CCR also requires that spray, mist, or runoff of recycled water does not enter dwellings, designated outdoor eating areas, or food handling facilities. Drinking water fountains must also be protected against contact with recycled water spray, mist, or runoff. No irrigation with, or impoundment of, disinfected secondary-
2.2 or disinfected secondary-2.3 recycled water can take place within 100 feet of any domestic water supply well.
ATTACHMENT 14-600
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
On November 8, 2012, the RWQCB adopted Order R4‐2012‐0175, the MS4 Permit. Order R4‐2012‐ 0175 became effective on December 28, 2013 and serves as the NPDES permit for coastal watershed stormwater and non‐stormwater discharges originating from the Los Angeles County region. The permit covers the land areas in the Los Angeles County Flood Control jurisdiction, unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, and 84 cities in the County. The City of Burbank is included in the MS4 Permit as a permittee under Order R4‐2012‐0175.
In coordination with permittees under MS4 Permit, RWQCB staff performs annual performance reviews and evaluations of the City’s stormwater management program and NPDES compliance activities.
Local Regulations
City of Burbank Low Impact Development (LID) Ordinance
On June 16, 2015, the Burbank City Council adopted a LID Ordinance in compliance with the requirements of the MS4 Permit. The City uses the LID Ordinance to review and permit development and redevelopment projects that qualify under the triggering requirements of the ordinance. Qualifying development projects are directed to control pollutants, pollutant loads, and runoff volume to the maximum extent feasible by minimizing impervious surface area and controlling runoff from impervious surfaces through infiltration, evapotranspiration, bioretention, and/or rainfall harvest and use. The intent of the LID ordinance is to retain stormwater runoff on site in a manner that is similar to predevelopment conditions.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual (2006) contains the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) that applies to development and re- development projects in Los Angeles County. The SUSMP is described in detail below. The Hydrology Manual also includes TMDLs for pollutants per Section 303 of the CWA and BMPs for managing stormwater quality during construction. As the holder of the MS4 Permit, the RWQCB is responsible for enforcing these BMPs.
Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) The SUSMP is a comprehensive stormwater quality program to manage urban stormwater and minimize pollution of the environment in Los Angeles County. The purpose of the SUSMP is to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater by outlining BMPs that must be incorporated into the design plans of new development and redevelopment. The SUSMP requirements contain a list of minimum BMPs that must be employed to infiltrate or treat stormwater runoff, control peak flow discharge, and reduce the post-Project discharge of pollutants from stormwater conveyance systems. The SUSMP requirements define, based upon land use type, the types of practices that must be included and issues that must be addressed as appropriate to the development type and size. The SUSMP requirements apply to all development and redevelopment projects that fall into one of the following categories:
Single-family hillside residences
One acre or more of impervious surface area for industrial/commercial developments Automotive service facilities
ATTACHMENT 14-601
Retail gasoline outlets
Restaurants
Ten or more residential units
Parking lots of 5,000 square feet or greater or with 25 or more spaces Projects located in or directly discharging to an Ecologically Sensitive Area The SUSMP requirements are administered, implemented, and enforced through the Community Development Department Building and Safety Division and final review would be conducted by the Chief Building Official. During the review process, individual development project plans are reviewed for compliance with stormwater requirements.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan) The County of Los Angeles is under the jurisdiction of RWQCB Region 4 (Los Angeles Region). The RWQCB provides permits for projects that may affect surface waters and groundwater locally, and is responsible for preparing the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan).
The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of water in the region and establishes narrative and numerical water quality objectives. Water quality objectives, as defined by the CWA Section 13050(h), are the “limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses or the prevention of nuisance within a specific area.” The State has developed TMDLs that are a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can have and still meet water quality objectives established by the region.
Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) Plan
Conditions of the MS4 Permit require that all permittees develop a watershed management plan on an individual or joint basis that will address water quality issues in the permitee’s jurisdictional area.
The City of Burbank is a member of the Los Angeles River Watershed Management Group’s EWMP.
The EWMP submitted its Revised EWMP Plan to the RWQCB for review in January 2016 and the Plan was approved in April 2016. The EWMP Plan, along with a Coordinated Monitoring Plan, serves as a guiding document for implementing water quality improving infrastructure, policies, and programs.
City of Burbank General Plan 2035
On February 19, 2013, the City of Burbank approved the updated elements of the Burbank2035 General Plan, except for the Housing Element which was adopted in January 2014. The General Plan is certified through 2035. The updates are intended to refine policies regarding long-term growth in the community through the year 2035 and to ensure that the General Plan reflects current State law (Burbank 2013). The goal and policies applicable to stormwater are presented below.
Goal 6: Flood Safety
Potential risks—such as injury, loss of life and property, and economic and social disruption—caused by flood and inundation are minimized.
Policy 6.5: Enforce regulations prohibiting the draining of rainwater into the sewer system.
Policy 6.6: Prepare and update a stormwater master plan to ensure proper maintenance and improvements to storm drainage facilities.
ATTACHMENT 14-602
Policy 6.7: Employ strategies and design features to reduce the area of impervious surface in new development projects.
Goal 9: Water Resources
Adequate sources of high-quality water provide for various uses within Burbank.
Policy 9.5: Require on‐site drainage improvements using native vegetation to capture and clean stormwater runoff
d. Solid Waste
State Regulations
Assembly Bill 1327
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 or Assembly Bill (AB) 1327, as amended, requires each local jurisdiction in the State to adopt an ordinance requiring commercial, industrial, or institutional buildings; marinas; or residential buildings having five or more living units to provide an adequate storage area for the collection and removal of recyclable materials. The City passed an ordinance in 1997.
Assembly Bill 939 and Senate Bill 1016
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or Assembly Bill (AB) 939, established the Integrated Waste Management Board, required the implementation of integrated waste management plans, and mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated (from 1990 levels), beginning January 1, 2000, and divert at least 75 percent by 2010. In 2006, SB 1016 updated the requirements. The updated per capita disposal and goal measurement system moves the emphasis from an estimated diversion measurement number to using an actual disposal measurement number as a factor, along with evaluating program implementation efforts.
These two factors will help determine each jurisdiction's progress toward achieving its AB 939 diversion goals. The 75 percent diversion requirement is now measured in terms of per-capita disposal expressed as pounds per person per day.
Assembly Bill 341
The purpose of AB 341 is to reduce GHG emissions by recycling commercial solid waste rather than diverting it for landfill disposal, and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in California. In addition to Mandatory Commercial Recycling, AB 341 sets a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020.
Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion Program Requirements (SB 1374)
In 2002, Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion Requirements (SB 1374) added California Public Resources Code Section 42912, requiring jurisdictions to include in their annual AB 939 report a summary of the progress made in diverting construction and demolition waste. The legislation also requires that CalRecycle adopt a model ordinance for diverting 50 to 75 percent of all construction and demolition waste from landfills.
ATTACHMENT 14-603
Zero Waste California
Zero Waste California is a State program launched by CalRecycle in 2002 to promote a new vision for the management of solid waste. Zero waste provides that wasting resources is inefficient and that the efficient use of natural resources should be achieved. The concept requires maximizing existing recycling and reuse efforts, while ensuring that products are designed for the environment and have the potential to be repaired, reused, or recycled. The Zero Waste California program promotes the goals of market development, recycled product procurement, and research and development of new and sustainable technologies.
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)
Effective January 1, 2017, the State’s Green Building Code requires developers of newly constructed buildings to develop a waste management plan to divert 60 percent of the construction waste generated by project construction. Builders or developers are required to submit a construction waste management plan to the appropriate jurisdiction’s enforcement agency. The City has adopted the 2019 CALGreen Code as part of its Municipal Code.
Local Regulations
County of Los Angeles Integrated Waste Management Plan
The County of Los Angeles Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP), approved by the CIWMB in 1999, sets forth a regional approach for the management of solid waste through source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and disposal. The CoIWMP ensures that the waste management practices of cities and other jurisdictions in the County are consistent with the solid waste diversion goals of AB 939 through source reduction, recycling and composting programs, household hazardous waste management programs, and public education awareness programs. The plan calls for the establishment of 50 years of in-County permitted landfill capacity, as well as the County’s support for the development of disposal facilities outside the County.
The County continually evaluates landfill needs and capacity through the preparation of the CoIWMP annual reports. Within each annual report, future landfill disposal needs over the next 15- year planning horizon are addressed, in part, by determining the available landfill capacity. The most recent annual report is the 2012 report, completed in August 2013.
As part of the CoIWMP, the County prepared the Countywide Siting Element which identified goals, policies, and strategies for the proper planning and siting of solid waste disposal and transformation facilities over 15 years, through year 2014. The latest Siting Element was approved by CalRecycle in 2016 and, as with the previous Siting Element, provides strategic planning over a 15-year horizon, through year 2031.
Burbank Municipal Code (BMC)
Title 4, Chapter 2, Article 1, Solid Waste Management, of the BMC establishes regulatory compliance for the collection, removal and disposal of garbage, solid waste, green waste, and recyclable material within the City.
ATTACHMENT 14-604
Burbank Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance The Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance was designed to meet the goals of the California Waste Management Act (SB 1374), which requires all cities and counties in the State to reduce the amount of waste materials deposited in landfills by 65 percent. The ordinance requires new building projects meeting specified size requirements to divert and recycle at least 65 percent of their construction and demolition debris. To obtain a building permit from the City, proponents for projects meeting specified size requirements must prepare and implement a Waste Management Plan (WMP) that outlines how much scrap and debris would be generated during construction, what proportion of this debris would be diverted and how, and the final destination for both the diverted and non-diverted components of construction debris (City of Burbank 2016).
City of Burbank Sustainability Action Plan and Zero Waste Policy In January 2008, the City Council adopted the Sustainability Action Plan to support the United Nations’ Urban Environmental Accords. The Sustainability Action Plan addresses the City’s efforts toward providing a clean, healthy, and safe environment. The Accords include 21 specific actions organized into seven urban themes designed to collectively address urban sustainability concerns.
The themes include energy, waste reduction, urban design, urban nature, transportation, environmental health, and water (City of Burbank 2008a). Action items related to waste include zero waste, manufacturer responsibility, and consumer responsibility. As part of the Sustainability Action Plan, the City adopted the Zero Waste Strategic Plan, which includes a goal to achieve zero waste by 2040. The Zero Waste Plan includes four basic strategies, with a priority placed on “upstream” solutions to eliminate waste before it is created. The plan also includes actions to build on the City’s traditional “downstream” recycling programs to fully utilize the existing waste diversion infrastructure (City of Burbank 2008b). The four basic strategies include:
Advocate for Manufacturer Responsibility for Product Waste and Support Elimination of Problem Materials
Adopt New Rules and Incentives to Reduce Waste
Expand and Improve Local and Regional Recycling and Composting Educate, Promote, and Advocate a Zero Waste Sustainability Agenda e. Telecommunications, Electricity, and Natural Gas
Federal Regulations
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. The FERC is an independent Agency. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave FERC additional responsibilities in its capacity. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states.
ATTACHMENT 14-605
State Regulations
California Public Utilities Commission
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates private and investor-owned electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies.
The CPUC regulates natural gas rates and natural gas services, including in-state transportation over the utilities' transmission and distribution pipeline systems, storage, procurement, metering, and billing.
California Energy Commission
The CEC regulates publicly owned utilities (POUS), like BWP, as it comes to compliance with state mandates. However, the City Council ensures the City’s compliance with regulations and reporting and compliance filings for Burbank Water and Power, as it relates to power supply, is regulated through the CEC. The CEC is the state’s primary energy policy and planning agency.
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulates electric utilities, including BWP, as it comes to compliance with emissions related activities. CARB manages the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Regulation which includes regulations that mandate GHG reporting for retail providers and operators. CARB also manages the Cap-and-Trade Program which is an offset tool to minimize State GHG emissions.
Senate Bill 100
SB 100 modifies the State Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and establishes robust clean energy goals. SB 100 modifies the RPS from requiring that 50 percent of electricity be procured by renewable electricity sources by 2030 (set by SB 350), to 60 percent by 2030. In addition, SB 100 sets a goal of a 100 percent zero-carbon resource portfolio by 2045.
Senate Bill 1368
SB 1368 also referred to as the Emissions Performance Standard, prohibits purchase arrangements for baseload energy for periods of longer than five years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. The purpose is to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California. Coal-fired plants cannot meet this standard because these plants emit roughly twice as much carbon as combined cycle natural gas power plants. SB 1368 effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State.
California Green Building Standards Code (2019), California Code of Regulations Title 24
California’s Green Building Code, referred to as CalGreen, was developed to reduce GHG emissions from buildings, promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work, reduce energy and water consumption, and respond to the environmental directives of the administration. The most recent version of CalGreen (January 2019) lays out the minimum requirements for newly constructed residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce GHG ATTACHMENT 14-606
emissions through improved efficiency and process improvements. It also includes voluntary tiers to encourage building practices that improve public health, safety, and general welfare by promoting a more sustainable design.
Local Regulations
Burbank2035 General Plan
The Burbank2035 General Plan includes an Air Quality and Climate Change Element as well as an Open Space and Conservation Element, both of which address energy efficiency and overall energy reduction the City. The goals and policies of each element are intended to increase the City’s overall energy efficiency and help achieve the City’s goal of using 100 percent clean energy. The goals and policies applicable to energy resources are presented below:
Burbank2035 Land Use Element
Goal 2: Sustainability
Burbank is committed to building and maintaining a community that meets today’s needs while providing a high quality of life for future generations. Development in Burbank Respects that environmental and conserves natural resources.
Policy 2.3: Require that new development pay its fair share for infrastructure improvements.
Ensure that needed infrastructure and services are available prior to or at project completion.
Burbank2035 Air Quality and Climate Change Element
Goal 3: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Burbank seeks a sustainable, energy-efficient future and complies with statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Policy 3.4: R
educe greenhouse gas emissions from new development by promoting water conservation and recycling; promoting development that is compact, mixed-use, ped estrian-
friendly
, and transit-oriented
; promoting energy-efficien
t building design and site planning; and
improving the jobs/housing ratio.
Policy 3.6: R
educe greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging the retrofit of older, energy inefficient buildings.
Policy 3.8: Tr
ansition all economic sectors, new development, and existing infrastructure and development to low- or zer
o-carbon
energy sources. Encourage implementation and provide
incentives for low- or zero-carbon e
nergy sources.
Policy 3.9: C
ontinue efforts to diversify Burbank Water and Power’s energy portfolio beyond 2020.
Burbank2035 Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal 9: Water Resources
Burbank seeks to provide adequate sources of high-quality water for uses throughout the City.
ATTACHMENT 14-607
Policy 9.1: Meet the goal of a 20 percent reduction in municipal water use by 2020.
Policy 9.2: Provide public information regarding the importance of water conservation and avoiding wasteful water habits.
Policy 9.3: Offer incentives for water conservation and explore other water conservation programs.
Policy 9.4: Pursue infrastructure improvements that would expand communitywide use of recycled water.
Policy 9.5: R
equire on-site dr
ainage improvements using native vegetation to capture and clean stormwater runoff.
Goal 10
: Energy Resources
Burbank conserves energy, uses renewable energy sources, zero-carbon energy sources and promotes sustainable energy practices that reduce pollution and fossil fuel consumption.
Policy 10.1: Incorporate energy conservation strategies in City projects.
Policy 10.2:
Promote energy-efficie
nt design features to reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling.
Policy 10.3:
Continue to acquire alternative fuel vehicles like hybrid, natural gas, electric, or hydrogen-powered v
ehicles when adding to the City’s vehicle fleet.
Policy 10.4:
Encourage residents and businesses to reduce vehicle use or to purchase alternative fuel vehicles.
Policy 10.5:
Promote technologies that reduce use of non-renewa
ble energy resources.
Policy 10.6:
Support private sources of sustainable, environmentally friendly energy supplies.
Policy 10.7: Encourage the use of solar energy systems in homes and commercial businesses as a form of renewable energy.
Burbank Municipal Code (BMC)
Title 8, Chapter 2, Utilities, of the BMC establishes regulatory compliance for rules, regulations, fees, charges, and other additional requirements related to energy and energy use within the City.
4.12.3 Impact Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
To determine whether a project would result in a significant impact related to Utilities and Service Systems, thresholds were developed based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The impact would be significant if the proposed Project would meet the criteria below.
Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years ATTACHMENT 14-608
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments
Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals Not comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste
The Initial Study (Appendix B of the Original Draft EIR) determined that the project would result in no impacts related to compliance with solid waste statutes and regulations; therefore, this issue is not studied further herein. The Initial Study also determined that potential impacts to energy and natural gas would be less than significant under the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist issue area for Energy; however, because the Initial Study also determined that impacts to energy and natural gas would be potentially significant under the issue area for Utilities and Service Systems, these topics are therefore addressed further herein for the purposes of this EIR.
b. Methodology
Impacts related to utilities and service systems were evaluated by forecasting utility demands associated with the proposed Project and comparing such demands to current and planned service system capacity. Utility and service system demands of the proposed Project were quantified where possible, based upon readily available public information and industry standards, with all assumptions identified in the analysis below. Where insufficient data was available to quantify utility and service system demands, such demands are discussed qualitatively in order to inform the impact analysis.
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact UTIL-1 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD
REQUIRE UTILITY SERVICE AND CONNECTIONS FOR WATER SUPPLY, WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE, AND STORMWATER CONVEYANCE, AS WELL AS TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICITY, AND NATURAL GAS. EXISTING
UTILITY SYSTEMS FOR WATER, ELECTRIC POWER, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN BURBANK HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO SERVE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, NEW
CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING OR EXPANDED WASTEWATER SERVICE SYSTEMS WOULD BE REQUIRED, AND SUCH CONNECTIONS COULD RESULT IN POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. NONETHELESS, IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would involve up to 10,456 new housing units by 2029. The Safety Element Update would not involve new development so would not affect utilities or service systems. Impacts associated with the Housing Element Update are discussed below. As mentioned under Thresholds of Significance, above, the topic of solid waste is not assessed herein because the Initial Study determined that potential impacts would be less than significant and therefore do not require further analysis.
ATTACHMENT 14-609
Water Supply
Construction activities associated with reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would require recycled water for dust suppression, concrete manufacturing, and such activities as washing wheels and equipment. Temporary construction recycled water would be trucked to active construction sites or produced from existing fire hydrants near the applicable site(s), with City approval. Temporary construction water demands would not require new connections or conveyance facilities, as existing or mobile facilities would be used.
New water supply connections and associated facilities would be required for future developments, to convey potable water supply to future housing developments. Such upgrades would occur within existing utility easements and would be located underground, primarily within existing roadways.
Housing development under the proposed Project would be located in previously developed areas that are either currently zoned for residential development or would be rezoned for residential development under the proposed Project. As shown in Figure 2-2 of Section 2, Project Description, the proposed Project area is previously disturbed and largely urbanized. Due to the built-up nature of this area, there are substantial existing utility rights-of-way previously established, largely within existing roadways, which are prevalent. New water service connections that may be required for development associated with the proposed Project would be conducted within previously disturbed areas and existing rights-of-way, and would be consistent with utility expansion in urbanized areas, such that minimal areas of new disturbance would occur. Although all parcels in Burbank have access to public utility infrastructure, in some cases the infrastructure is older and in need of replacement or insufficient to meet the needs of a particular project. Pursuant to General Plan Land Use Policy 2.3, new development is required to pay for their share of upgrading the utility infrastructure as needed to serve their project. This may include installing larger water mains, new water meters, and/or upgrades to existing facilities.
Developers are responsible for funding any infrastructure improvements that are required to mitigate project impacts and have not been previously identified as part of a capital improvement program covered by the development impact fees. Consistent with applicable State law, the City’s development fees will ensure that the developers pay the cost attributable to the increased demand for the affected public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to refurbish the existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service and achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the City’s General Plan (California Government Code Section 66001(g)).
As individual housing projects are proposed and considered for approval by the City, project proponents would be required to demonstrate that any identified system deficiencies reasonably related to the development project are adequately addressed by the responsible project proponent and future upgrades are designed in accordance with the BMC and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, the City requires applicants to coordinate with the Burbank Fire Department and City of Burbank Building and Safety Division to ensure that existing and planned fire hydrants provide sufficient fire flow pressure requirements. The City’s issuance of building permits is contingent upon review, testing, and approval that sufficient fire flow pressure is provided for the applicable site. Due to the existing built-up nature of the City, it is reasonably anticipated that future improvements for water supply and fire flow requirements would not disturb previously undisturbed areas and would be situated within existing utility rights-of-way, such as but not limited to within public roadways.
Water supply for new housing developments would be provided by BWP, which purchases imported surface water supplies from the SWP and the Colorado Aqueduct via Metropolitan, as well as local ATTACHMENT 14-610
groundwater supplies which are pumped by the City in accordance with groundwater credits consistent with the local Adjudication Judgment for the underlying groundwater basin. The availability and reliability of water supply for the proposed Project is addressed below, under Impact UTIL-2. Potential impacts related to relocation or construction of water supply facilities would be less than significant.
Wastewater
Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would require new connections for wastewater conveyance. As described in Section 4.13.1(b) above, wastewater conveyance in Burbank is provided by approximately 230 miles of City-owned and operated underground pipelines and associated pump stations. The Burbank Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance of the City’s sewer mainlines, while individual property owners are responsible for the maintenance of the sewer laterals that connect buildings to mainlines. All structures producing sewage or liquid waste in the City of Burbank must be connected to the sewer system mainline by sewer lateral lines, which require issuance of an excavation permit and a sewer connection permit from the Public Works Permit Section (Burbank 2021). All sewer connections are subject to a Sewer Service Charge (SSC). For residential developments such as those that would occur under the proposed Project, the SSC is not based on water usage rates, but rather on the actual costs associated with providing sewer services (Burbank 2021). The majority of wastewater generated in the City is conveyed to the BWRP for treatment prior to discharge in accordance with an existing NPDES permit. Project impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity at BWRP are discussed further under Impact UTIL-3.
Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would occur in compliance with the requirements of BMC Chapter 8-1, Sewers, which establishes City standards related to wastewater discharge, peak flow, and sewer capacity. New connections to the City sewer system, including the construction of new laterals connecting to the sewer mainline, would be subject to permitting approval by the City of Burbank Public Works Permit Section (Burbank 2021). To the extent that sewer pipeline upgrades may be necessary as reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project occur s, such upgrades would occur either within existing utility easements to the maximum extent practicable or when determined necessary through project sewer capacity analysis, the construction of new facilities and/or upgrades to existing ones, and any required upgrades resulting from the Project that are necessary to mitigate potential significant impacts to the City’s wastewater system. New wastewater conveyance connections are allowed and will be the responsibility of the private property owner to connect their private sewer lateral to the City sewer main provided that the appropriate permits are obtained, and sufficient capacity exists prior to construction. Although all parcels in Burbank have access to public utility infrastructure, in some cases the infrastr ucture is older and in need of replacement to meet the needs of a particular project.
Pursuant to Burbank2035 General Plan Land Use Policy 2.3, new development is required to pay for their share of upgrading the utility infrastructure as needed to serve th eir project. Based on project- specific conditions and General Plan policy related to ensuring sufficient wastewater infrastructure to support projects as envisioned through the Housing Element, a sewer capacity analysis would be required for individual pro jects to determine the applicable development fees and any physical improvements that would be needed to ensure the City’s wastewater system can adequately address the needs of these future developments envisioned under the proposed Project and continue to meet the needs of surrounding land uses within the Project area and the community as a whole. Based on the results of the sewer capacity analysis , these improvements may include, but not be limited to installing new or larger sewer lines and/or upgrading existing facilities.
ATTACHMENT 14-611
Developers are responsible for funding any infrastructure improvements that are required to mitigate project impacts as part of a capital improvement program covered by the development fees. Consistent with applicable State law, the City’s development fees would ensure that the developers pay the cost attributable to the increased demand for the affected public facilities reasonably related to the development project, such that existing facilities can maintain the necessary capacity to serve existing and future demand and achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the City’s General Plan (California Government Code Section 66001(g)). However, where sanitary sewer capital upgrades are needed because of new development, the developer would be responsible for payment of applicable sewer infrastructure fees and any physical improvements to the wastewater system that are necessary to serve the project as determined by the Director of Public Works prior to the proposed project’s construction.
Development under the proposed Project would be in previously developed areas that are either currently zoned for residential development or would be rezoned for residential development under the proposed Project. Due to the built-up nature of this area, there are substantial existing utility rights-of-way previously established, largely within existing roadways, which are prevalent. New wastewater service connections that may be required as a direct result of new development associated with the proposed Project would be conducted within previously disturbed areas, existing rights-of-way, and, in some cases, a new easement would be created. Nonetheless, these connections would be subject to City approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
While individual projects conducted under the Housing Element Update would require new wastewater conveyance connections, such connections would be designed and permitted on a project-specific basis. In addition, future project proponents have a legal obligation for all future wastewater upgrades to be designed in accordance with the BMC and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works or their designee. However, as noted above, where sanitary sewer capital upgrades are needed it is possible that a new development may require new or expanded facilities to serve the project prior to the proposed project’s construction (at cost to the developer).
Therefore, impacts to new or expanded wastewater conveyance associated with build-out of future housing development projects associated with the Housing Element would be potentially significant.
Stormwater
Reasonably foreseeable residential development under the Housing Element Update would not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces since it would be focused in urban infill areas already largely covered with impervious surfaces. Compliance with Sections 9-3-413 and 9-3-414 of the BMC would ensure that future development projects resulting from the Housing and Safety Element Update would be implemented with appropriately sized and sited stormwater conveyance facilities. In the long-term, redevelopment of properties in the City is anticipated to improve the quality of stormwater runoff by replacing older development with new development that incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) methods. LID methods include features such as stormwater detention basins and vegetated swales that slow the velocity of surface runoff and filter some water quality constituents before the runoff percolates to the underlying groundwater system or is conveyed through the City’s, or Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s (LACFCD), stormwater infrastructure. In accordance with the BMC, post-construction stormwater runoff from new projects must be captured and used to the maximum extent practicable, including through the implementation of on-site BMPs for stormwater management. Therefore, while individual housing developments would include site-specific stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities, such facilities would be designed and built in accordance with the BMC and BMPs for stormwater ATTACHMENT 14-612
management. Potential impacts related to relocation or construction of new wastewater conveyance facilities would be less than significant.
Telecommunications, Electricity, and Natural Gas
Telecommunications services are provided by private companies, at the discretion of the customer.
Electricity in Burbank is provided by BWP, and natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SCG). Each of these utility areas are addressed below, with respect to the potential of the proposed Project to result in impacts.
Telecommunications
The City is highly urbanized with existing above- and below-ground telecommunications infrastructure. Telecommunications services are provided by ONE Burbank, AT&T, EarthLink, Spectrum or other providers, at the discretion of current and future residents. Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would increase demand for existing telecommunications in the City. Individual telecommunication providers implement planned improvements throughout their service areas on an as-needed basis, which are typically limited to small-scale upgrades and new facilities in existing developed areas. Construction of additional telecommunications facilities or upgrades to existing facilities to meet demands from the proposed Project would be undertaken by private telecommunication service providers in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Telecommunications are generally available in the City and substantial upgrades to existing telecommunications facilities would not likely be necessary. Necessary facility upgrades to accommodate new service connections would be undertaken by individual telecommunication providers. No restrictions on the ability to provide adequate telecommunication service are present or anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed Project. In addition, due to the built-up nature of the City and the nature of telecommunication upgrades being small-scale and sited within the development footprint of new projects, potential impacts associated with new or expanded facilities would be less than significant.
Electricity
Electricity in Burbank is provided by BWP, which maintains a fully functional system of above- ground and underground electrical facilities, primarily found along roadways throughout the City of Burbank. In addition to electrical power conveyance lines, there are numerous electrical substations throughout the City, from which these conveyance lines flow. Future housing developments that would occur under the proposed Project would require electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. The services would be provided by BWP, through new future connections that would be implemented on a project-specific basis, and subject to the review and approval of BWP.
Numerous plans by BWP have shifted the generation of electric power to renewable sources of energy. The most recent plan, BWP’s 2019 Final Power Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), identifies a planning tool that is central to the continued reliability of the BWP power system while meeting all regulatory requirements through 2038 (BWP 2019). The 2019 IRP provides analysis of the State of California’s increased RPS, set by SB 100, of 60 percent renewable energy sources by 2030.
Achievement of the RPS includes expansion of local solar power generation, energy storage, and transportation electrification efforts over a 20-year horizon. In order to ultimately achieve a 100 percent zero-carbon resource portfolio as set by SB 100 by 2045, BWP is taking actions to reduce non-renewable energy sources, including the 2025 retirement of BWP’s share of the Intermountain ATTACHMENT 14-613
Power Project (IPP) coalfired generating plant in Utah. BWP is looking at several alternative energy options including implementing solar, wind, and batteries to help replace energy that has traditionally been sourced from the Utah IPP coal resource. BWP will procure resources that meet or exceed state clean energy standards, while maintaining reliability of the grid is a cost-effective manner.
To help achieve the City’s renewable energy source goals, BWP may integrate the following issues into future resource planning analysis:
Rate Design: Design time-varying rates that encourage customers to shift their consumption away from higher cost periods to lower cost periods
Demand Response (DR). Consider cost-effective BWP customer DR programs Beneficial Electrification. Enhance and extend BWP efforts to encourage growth in beneficial electrification that reduces GHG emissions, including electric vehicles. Disadvantaged Communities. Develop and implement a program to target disadvantaged communities with selected BWP energy efficiency, demand response, and beneficial electrification programs.
IPP Coal Replacement. Work with LADWP and other IPP participants to determine resources that will replace the IPP coal plant when it is retired in 2025. Transmission Delivery for Renewables. Identify options and costs for transmission delivery of large quantities of renewable energy resulting from SB 100. Solar Over-Generation. Work to mitigate the impact of solar generation (including morning and afternoon ramping, overgeneration, and instantaneous intermittency) such that reliability and affordability are maintained.
Resource Positioning. Position BWP’s resources to balance supply and demand on the grid ad increased renewable energy sources come online, thereby minimizing costs and maximizing energy reliability for Burbank. In this connection, evaluate further improvement in the operational flexibility of the Magnolia Power Project.
The City’s movement towards the contracting of new renewable energy sources, through Power Purchase Agreement, as discussed above, will further bolster the City’s ability to meet energy demands associated with future population growth. In addition, BWP is taking action to diversify energy generation sources, improve energy storage capabilities, and secure future energy reliability.
These efforts are implemented to address the challenges of the power grid’s baseload reliability, which can fluctuate with the introduction of many renewable energy sources to the grid. This fluctuation is directly tied to the fluctuating nature of energy captured; for example, solar energy is only accumulated during optimum sunlight hours, while energy is consumed 24 hours per day.
Therefore, diversification of energy sources is critical to providing reliably energy supply, when incorporating substantial new sources of renewable energy to a power grid. BWP’s efforts toward energy source diversification are consistent with the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) 2019-2020 Transmission Plan, which provides a comprehensive evaluation of the California energy transmission grid to identify upgrades needed to successfully meet California’s policy goals (CAISO 2019).
New connections for electrical power would be implemented on a project-by-project basis. As shown in Figure 2-2 of Section 2, Project Description, the proposed Project area is previously disturbed and largely urbanized. Due to the built-up nature of this area, there are substantial existing utility rights-of-way previously established, largely within existing roadways, which are ATTACHMENT 14-614
prevalent. New electricity service connections that may be required for development associated with the proposed Project would be conducted within previously disturbed areas and existing rights- of-way, and would be consistent with utility expansion in urbanized areas. Although all parcels in Burbank have access to public utility infrastructure, in some cases the infrastructure is older and in need of replacement or insufficient to meet the needs of a particular project. Pursuant to General Plan Land Use Policy 2.3, new development is required to pay for their share of upgrading the utility infrastructure as needed to serve their project. This may include new electrical transformers, new transmission lines and/or new substations.
Developers are responsible for funding any infrastructure improvements that are required to mitigate project impacts and have not been previously identified as part of a capital improvement program covered by the development impact fees. Consistent with applicable State law, the City’s development fees will ensure that the developers pay the cost attributable to the increased demand for the affected public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to refurbish the existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service and achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the City’s General Plan (California Government Code Section 66001(g)).
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
Natural gas infrastructure is located throughout Burbank, typically underground and beneath existing paved roadways. Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would increase the demand for natural gas and associated connections. Natural gas is provided by the SCG, which projects total gas demand to decline at an annual rate of approximately one percent per year from 2020 through 2035. The decline is due to modest economic growth, and CPUC mandates for energy efficiency (EE) standards and programs. Other factors that contribute to the downward trend are tighter standards created by revised Title 24 Codes and Standards, renewable electricity goals, a decline in core commercial and industrial demand, and conservation savings linked to Advanced Metering Infrastructure. Pursuant to the 2020 California Gas Report, SCG will meet its projected demand for natural gas resources through at least year 2026, as determined by modeled forecasts (SCG 2020).
Although development associated with the proposed Project would increase the number of natural gas connections in Burbank, all new development would be designed for consistency with the CPUC mandates for implementing EE standards and practices. In addition, as development of additional renewable energy sources for the City continues to expand as discussed above, it is reasonably inferred that demand for natural gas will decrease due to the increased diversity of the City’s energy supply portfolio. Therefore, although natural gas connections would likely increase under the proposed Project, the per capita demand for natural gas in the City is expected to continue decreasing, through compliance with CPUC mandates for EE standards and practices, and through the greater diversification of energy supplies to include a suite of renewable energy sources in addition to natural gas. New connections for natural gas would be implemented on a project-by- project basis and would be implemented within previously disturbed areas and existing rights-of- way. Potential impacts to natural gas would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure has been incorporated to identify any sewer service constraints and determine if there are any sewer capacity issues and necessary mitigations relative to each opportunity site identified in the Project.
ATTACHMENT 14-615
UTIL-1 Sewer Service Constraints Analysis
The City will conduct an analysis to identify any sewer service constraints to determine if there are any sewer capacity issues and any constraints in the City’s wastewater system including assessment of system capacity relative to the locations of opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element Update. The analysis will identify upgrades necessary to mitigate the constraints in the system to ensure that individual housing development projects implemented under the Housing Element can be completed and that sufficient capacity and conveyance in the wastewater system exists.
However, if a proposed development has a construction schedule that the City cannot accommodate, the developer may be responsible for performing the necessary sewer infrastructure upgrades per Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) 8-1-304.
Based on the constraints identified in the analysis, the City’s Public Works Department will prepare a nexus fee study to develop a fair share requirement in the form of a wastewater connection or similar project impact fee, which helps to pay for implementation of upgrades necessary to accommodate future development, including development of the opportunity sites where deficiencies in the system are identified to exist. Through the fee study, subsequent cost recovery fees applied to individual housing development projects will be based on a rough proportionality related to demands on the system reasonably attributed to the development project.
In the event it is determined that necessary upgrades to serve a project cannot be completed by the City prior to project completion, the City may require the developer to perform the necessary sewer infrastructure upgrades (Per BMC 8-1-304) at cost to the developer, or may choose to enter into a reimbursement agreement so that a developer may fund and construct the improvements within the necessary timeframe with subsequent partial reimbursement. If the City and Developer mutually agree to enter into reimbursement agreement (approved as to form by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council), it would be administered by the City’s Public Works Director on behalf of the City.
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would require a sewer service constraints analysis that would be developed by the Public Works Department. The subsequent analysis would provide the necessary information to allow the Public Works Department to initiate work on preparing a fee study to identify a wastewater connection fee that facilitates the recovery of City’s costs of future upgrades necessary to address identified constraints that are attributed to the type of development being proposed and proportional to the individual project’s impact to the City’s wastewater system. The development of a sewer service constraints analysis as designed and developed the Public Works Department (the plan for addressing existing and future demands), and the resulting wastewater connection fee, would be further bolstered by the City’s establishment of a process to allow reimbursement agreements (approved as to form by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council), between the City and the developer for projects that must construct improvements to serve the project ahead of the City’s implementation. The noted plan, cost recovery fee, and reimbursement agreement process collectively result in Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would reduce the noted potential significant impacts to the City’s wastewater conveyance system to less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 14-616
Threshold 2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Impact UTIL-2 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD
REQUIRE A TEMPORARY RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND A LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY DURING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. WATER SUPPLY WOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF BURBANK,
WHICH PURCHASES IMPORTED SURFACE WATER FROM THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA AND RECEIVES GROUNDWATER CREDITS TO SUPPLEMENT ITS PURCHASED WATER SUPPLY WITH LOCALLY PRODUCED GROUNDWATER. GROWTH UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE
CITY OF BURBANK URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, AS INFORMED BY THE GENERAL PLAN, AND SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLIES ARE AVAILABLE TO SERVE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT. POTENTIAL IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As discussed in Section 4.14.1, Setting, water supply in Burbank is provided by BWP, which purchases imported surface water supplies from Metropolitan. The City overlies the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin but does not have overlying landowner rights to produce groundwater because the basin is adjudicated and managed in accordance with Upper Los Angeles River Adjudication Judgment, administered by the Upper Los Angeles River Area Watermaster as the Watermaster. Although the City is not party to the Adjudication Judgment, it receives groundwater credits based upon the amount of water BWP imports to Burbank that eventually infiltrates through the ground surface to recharge the underlying groundwater basin (BWP 2021b). Accordingly, Burbank receives groundwater credits equivalent to 20 percent of the total water distributed in the City, including as recycled water (BWP 2021b). These groundwater credits allow BWP to produce groundwater from four City-owned wells, which the City treats to meet State and Federal drinking water standards.
Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would involve up to 10,456 new residential units, which may occur anywhere in the City where residential uses are currently permitted, as well as in areas that may be rezoned in the future to allow for multi-family residential and mixed use of adequate density. As discussed in Section 2.2, Land Use, of the City’s current (2020) UWMP, the City expects that new residential development will be predominantly multi-family (BWP 2021a), which is consistent with the Housing Element Update, as assessed herein.
The City’s 2020 UWMP also reports that 2020 potable water demand was 138 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), indicating a slight bounce-back after drought restrictions, but not returning to pre- drought levels. In addition, the City’s 2020 UWMP reports that water usage in the City is projected to increase to 150 gpcd in 2025, then gradually increase by 2045 to 170 gpcd. Burbank intends to maintain such trends in a sustainable manner through the continued implementation of drought- period conservation efforts as well as long-term plans and programs.
As discussed in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, the City of Burbank’s average household size is
2.45 individuals. Accordingly, the proposed Project’s increase of 10,456 residential units could generate a population increase of approximately 25,617 individuals. Assuming a per capita water demand of 170 gpcd in 2045, as discussed above, the additional population of 25,617 individuals (based on 10,456 new housing units) would increase potable water demand by 4,354,890 gallons per day, which equates to approximately 4,878 AFY. This represents approximately 22 percent of the City’s available water supply in 2045 under normal water year (non-drought) conditions, as shown in . The water supply availability information provided in was sourced from the City’s 2020 UWMP, which is informed by growth projections provided in the Housing Element, which has been updated with the current Housing Element Update, assessed herein.
ATTACHMENT 14-617
Therefore, as discussed above, the increased housing that would occur under the proposed Project would increase citywide water demand by up to 4,878 AFY, or approximately 22 percent of the City’s available water supply in 2045. In addition, although population growth has continued to increase, citywide water demand throughout Burbank has declined compared to the early 1970s due to efficient water use after major droughts in the 1970s, 1990s, and especially in response to the previous significant water shortage and closure of major industries (BWP 2021a). The Burbank2035 General Plan includes policies and programs in the Land Use Element as well as the Open Space and Conservation Element to address water resources and prepare Burbank for the possible consequences of climate change on water supply availability. Such policies include using native or drought
-tolerant
plants in landscaping, using recycled water in irrigation, and promoting all possible water conservation efforts (Burbank 2013). Conservation efforts would continue to be implemented and expanded as development associated with the proposed Project is constructed, and it is reasonably anticipated that conservation efforts will continue to be effective at reducing water demands.
As mention
ed above, the City of Burbank’s primary water supply is comprised of imported SWP and Colorado River water purchased by BWP from Metropolitan. The City also receives credits to use locally produced groundwater for 20 percent of all water supply distributed in the City because imported water supplies from outside the City ultimately recharge local groundwater through infiltration from landscaping, as well as through infiltration of recycled water produced at the BWRP. These groundwater credits diversify the City’s water supply portfolio and further bolster water supply reliability within the City. In addition, because the amount of groundwater credits received by the City is a factor of the total amount of water imported to the City, as water demands increase and the corresponding amount of water imported to the City increases, the amount of groundwater credits received by the City will also increase. Table 4.12-1 summarizes BWP’s current and projected water supplies, as provided in the City’s 2020 UWMP, and delineates both supplies purchased from Metropolitan as well as supplies available through groundwater credits (indicated as “Supplier-Produced Groundwater” and recycled water.
Table 4.12-1 Burbank Water Supplies – Current and Projected Water Supplies (acre-feet) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Potable
Metropolitan Treated Potable 6,165 7,407 9,722 10,714 11,012 11,310 Supplier-Produced Groundwater 9,997 10,655 10,658 10,672 10,700 10,700 Potable Total 16,162 18,062 20,380 21,386 21,712 22,010 Non-Potable
Metropolitan Replenishment 152 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 Recycled Water1 3,149 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540
Non-Potable Total 3,301 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 1 Recycled water is produced at the BWRP by treating wastewater conveyed from throughout the City.
Note: Recycled water includes proposed deliveries to Los Angeles in exchange for groundwater credits. The amounts estimated for untreated replenishment depend on these Los Angeles exchange amounts. If less recycled water is exchanged for groundwater credits, the difference must be made up by increased replenishment purchases.
Source: BWP 2021a
ATTACHMENT 14-618
As shown in Table 4.12-1, the City’s potable water demands are anticipated to increase between years 2020 and 2045. Burbank primarily sources its supply from Metropolitan, such that the City’s primary water supply is imported surface water purchased in amounts matching demand. BWP reports that citywide water demands have decreased compared to the 1970s even as population has increased. In addition, as shown in Table 4.12-1, the City’s non-potable water supplies are anticipated to increase between the years 2020 and 2045 due to the continued expansion of recycled water uses and programs throughout the City, specifically at the BWRP. As discussed above, the increased housing that would occur under the proposed Project would increase citywide water demand by up to 4,878 AFY, or approximately 22 percent of the City’s available water supply in 2045, which will continue to be sources primarily from Metropolitan.
Metropolitan’s projected supply allocations for Burbank are shown in Table 4.12-2, for comparison with the City of Burbank demand projections as shown in Table 4.12-1. Metropolitan estimates future water demands for Burbank and the entire region using its Econometric Demand Model, developed by the Brattle Group. BWP utilizes Metropolitan’s projections to provide the basis for dry-year (drought) water supply reliability planning.
Table 4.12-2 Metropolitan Wholesale Supply Allocation for Burbank Source 2020 (actual) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Treated Potable 6,165 7,407 9,722 10,714 11,012 11,310
Untreated Groundwater Replenishment 152 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 Notes: Units in acre-feet (AF)
MWD Replenishment supply was especially low in 2020 due to previous recharge of large quantities of surplus water through MWD’s cyclic storage program. Over the long term, Burbank projects the need to recharge approximately 6,800 AFY to balance groundwater inventory.
Source: BWP 2021a
Table 4.12-1 indicates that Metropolitan’s treated potable water supply allocation for the City of Burbank in 2020 was 6,165 AF. In comparison, Table 4.12-2 indicates that the City of Burbank purchased 6,165 acre-feet of treated potable water from Metropolitan in 2020. As such, the City’s demand for treated potable water in 2020 was equal to the demand projected by Metropolitan. The City’s demand and Metropolitan’s demand projections remain equal over time under all climatic conditions considered, and in the year 2045, the City’s demand for potable treated water is projected to be 11,310 AF, which is also the same as Metropolitan’s projection. Metropolitan further details supply and demand projections under normal water year conditions, singly dry year (drought) conditions, and multiple dry year (extended drought) conditions, as shown in Table 4.12-3 through Table 4.12-5 below.
Table 4.12-3 BWP Normal Year Suppl y and Demand
Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Potable
Normal Year Supply 18,062 20,380 21,386 21,712 22,010
Normal Year Demand 18,062 20,380 21,386 21,712 22,010
Non-Potable
Normal Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340
Normal Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340
Units in acre-feet (AF)
Source: BWP 2021
ATTACHMENT 14-619
Table 4.12-4 BWP Single Dry Year Supply and Demand
Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Potable
Single Dry Year Supply 17,989 20,298 21,300 21,625 21,922 Single Dry Year Demand 17,989 20,298 21,300 21,625 21,922 Non-Potable
Single Dry Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Single Dry Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Units in acre-feet (AF)
Source: BWP 2021
Table 4.12-5 LVMWD Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand
Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year- Potable
First Dry Year Supply 18,214 20,730 21,693 22,111 22,406 Fi
rst Dry Year Demand 18,214 20,730 21,693 22,111 22,406 First Year- Non-Potable
First Dry Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 F
irst Dry Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Second Year- Potable
Second Dry Year Supply 18,600 20,935 21,693 22,172 22,406 Se
cond Dry Year Demand 18,600 20,935 21,693 22,172 22,406 Second Year- Non-Potable
Second Dry Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Se
cond Dry Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Third Year- Potable
Third Dry Year Supply 18,986 21,139 21,693 22,232 22,406 Third Dry Year Demand 18,986 21,139 21,693 22,232 22,406 Third Year- Non-Potable
Third Dry Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 T
hird Dry Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Fourth Year- Potable
Fourth Dry Year Supply 19,373 21,344 21,891 22,293 22,406 Fo
urth Dry Year Demand 19,373 21,344 21,891 22,293 22,406 Fourth Year- Non-Potable
Fourth Dry Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Fo
urth Dry Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Fifth Year- Non-Potable
Fifth Dry Year Supply 19,759 21,549 21,958 22,354 22,406 Fi
fth Dry Year Demand 19,759 21,549 21,958 22,354 22,406
ATTACHMENT 14-620
Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Fifth Year- Non-Potable
Fifth Dry Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Fifth Dry Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Units in acre-feet (AF)
Source: BWP 2021
As shown above, Metropolitan projects that water supply will be equal to water demand under all climatic conditions considered, such that water supply reliability is 100 percent through the year 2045 (BWP 2021a). This is partly due to the effectiveness of conservation programs implemented throughout the planning period. The projections shown above for imported surface water supply availability from Metropolitan indicate that sufficient supplies are available to the City to meet projected demands. These projections are based upon the City’s 2020 UWMP which reflects population growth associated with the Housing Element Update, as well as additional supplies associated with expansion of the City’s current water supply portfolio through increased conservation and conjunctive use management efforts. Since BWP water demands are accounted for in the supply availability projections identified above, and with consideration to BWP’s access to local groundwater supplies and recycled water supplies, both of which are expected to increase over time, it is reasonably anticipated that sufficient water supply is available for the proposed Project demands.
As noted in the City’s UWMP, future development projects that meet the definition of “project” in the California Water Code as amended by Senate Bill 610 are required to develop a project-specific WSA. A WSA is required for several types of development projects, and specifically for residential developments of 500 or more units, or projects that would introduce a water demand equivalent to or greater than that of a 500-unit residential development. In accordance with California Water Code, a WSA is required to evaluate the availability and reliability of water supply over a 20-year projection and with consideration to varying climatic (drought) conditions, similar to the types of projections provided in the UWMP as shown in . Project-specific WSAs are subject to the review and approval of BWP, as the water supplier throughout Burbank, and WSAs will be considered in BWP supply planning documents, including future iterations of the UWMP. As discussed above, based upon the City’s 2020 UWMP and supply availability projections, as well as projected demands associated with the proposed Project, it is reasonably anticipated that sufficient water supply is available to meet future water demands in the City.
In addition to the anticipated sufficiency and reliability of existing and planned water supplies in Burbank, BWP and Metropolitan are actively developing and implementing water supply-related projects that further bolster the reliability of future water supplies. These projects include but are not limited to: an increase of up to 200 AFY of expanded water recycling activities at BWRP; development of North Hollywood Operable Unit wells for expanded potable reuse supplies at the Burbank Operable Unit; and a feasibility study to assess opportunities for indirect potable reuse / direct potable reuse, thereby further bolstering available future supplies (BWP 2021a). Through these efforts, BWP anticipates that recycled water will play an integral role in future water supplies.
In summary, regulatory orders and management agencies ensure the sustainability and reliability of water supplies currently used in the City of Burbank. In addition, BWP and Metropolitan have identified potential future supply sources to augment water supplies and further insulate the region from hydrological uncertainty. Therefore, sufficient water supplies are available to serve reasonably ATTACHMENT 14-621
foreseeable development under the proposed Project, including reasonably foreseeable future development during normal (water year), dry-year, and multiple-dry-year (drought) conditions.
Potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Threshold 3: Would t he project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Impact UTIL-3 WASTEWATER GENERATED IN THE CITY OF BURBANK IS CONVEYED TO AND TREATED AT THE BURBANK WATER RECLAMATION PLANT. REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INCREASE WASTEWATER GENERATION COMMENSURATE WITH THE INCREASED POPULATION.
SIGNIFICANT TREATMENT CAPACITY IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE AT THE BWRP TO TREAT INCREASED WASTEWATER GENERATED AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE SEWER GENERATION RATES THAT WERE CALCULATED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT, ALONG WITH CONSTRAINTS WITHIN THE CITY’S TREATMENT SYSTEM, POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS COULD RESULT ON A PROJECT-SPECIFIC BASIS. SHORT- AND LONG-TERM
MITIGATION MEASURES ARE REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND ENSURE UPGRADES TO THE SYSTEM. NONETHELESS, IMPACTS WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE UNTIL THE PLANS AND UPGRADES ARE IMPLEMENTED.
As discussed in Section 4.13.1(b), all wastewater generated in the City of Burbank is conveyed via sewer laterals to the sewer mainline, which conveys wastewater to the BWRP for treatment and reuse as applicable. The BWRP has a design capacity of 12.5 mgd and currently treats approximately
8.5 mgd (BWP 2021a). The BWRP produces a disinfected tertiary effluent that is discharged to either the Burbank Western Channel or the City’s recycled water distribution system for non-potable use, which is conducted in compliance with an existing NPDES permit issued by the Los Angeles RWQCB.
The City has substantially expanded its recycled water program through petitions filed with and approved by the SWRCB, to change the place of use and purpose of use for treated wastewater from the BWRP to the Burbank Western Channel, which flows to the Los Angeles River (SWRCB 2018). As such, average daily flow rates to BWRP have decreased in recent years due to the successful implementation of water conservation measures that have resulted in less wastewater generated per capita. Water usage is projected to increase to 150 gpcd for 2025, and then gradually increase by 2045 to 170 gpcd (BWP 2021a). Wastewater generation would be reduced by water reuse efforts and programs which are currently being expanded by BWP, such as reusing graywater for landscaping and other non-potable purposes.
The proposed Housing Element Update would increase wastewater generation and the amount of wastewater conveyed to the BWRP for treatment.
The estimated wastewater generated by the Project was calculated using the City’s Department of Public Works sewage generation rates, including a 2.5 peaking factor, to determine if the existing sewer system has the adequate capacity to convey sewage from the existing properties and the proposed developments.1 As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the estimated growth for the purpose of the EIR analysis is 10,456 housing units to account for the 2029 interpolated housing 1 City of Burbank Public Works Department sewage generation rates available at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/174714/1196790/Sewage+Generation+Rates.pdf/5a6181e4-4f22-906e-bc32- 9c29b18cb417?t=1618365964641.
ATTACHMENT 14-622
growth assumed under the two Specific Plans along with the City’s RHNA allocation. Furthermore, the City projects approximately 1.4 million square feet of new commercial space (with an allowance of up 10 percent of that to be restaurant space) as part of the Housing Element Update. Based on the City’s wastewater generation rates (and including a peaking factor of 2.5), the Project would generate an estimated 6.3 million gallons per day (mgd) (Burbank, N.d).2 As previously stated, the BWRP’s current available treatment capacity is 4 mgd, which would not be sufficient to accommodate the estimate of 6.3 mgd of wastewater generated by a full buildout of the proposed Housing Element Update.
The City of Burbank Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining, replacing, and upgrading the City’s sewer collection and treatment system. The Public Works Department conducts repairs and upgrades as necessary to accommodate the wastewater conveyance and treatment demands throughout the City. As specific development projects are proposed and evaluated, General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.3 would require developers to pay their fair share for infrastructure improvements as needed to serve their project, and ensure that needed infrastructure and services are available prior to or at project completion, this may include the requirement that the developer pays for and performs the necessary sewer infrastructure upgrades, per BMC 8-1-304. In addition, the projected wastewater generation rates identified herein do not account for the effectiveness of ongoing and future conservation programs at reducing water use rates and associated wastewater generation rates. Wastewater generation rates will likely be less than projected herein as water use efficiencies reduce water use rates and corresponding wastewater generation rates. However, as discussed in Impact UTIL-1, based on the City’s most recent analysis of the sewer system, constraints within the system could result from subsequent build out of housing development projects under the Project depending on location, timing, and size/scale of the project, and it cannot be assumed that necessary upgrades can always be completed prior to project completion based on the constraints. As a result, measures under Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 provide for an updated sewer service constraints analysis that identifies any such constraints and necessary mitigations relative to each opportunity site identified in the Project. The measure also requires an assessment of the need to prepare a cost of service and rate study to determine the updated sewer service charges and sewer facilities charges for the recovery of development fees for implementation of the upgrades necessary to address the identified constraints. This may also result in the creation of a process for reimbursement agreement (approved as to form by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council) for projects that must construct improvements to serve the project ahead of the City’s implementation. To reiterate, the developer may also be required to pay for and build improvements to the wastewater system as of result of their project impacts.
Although significant treatment capacity is currently available at the BWRP to treat wastewater generated because of the Project, the BWRP’s capacity is 4 mgd, which would not be sufficient to accommodate a conservative estimate of 6.3 mgd of wastewater generated by a full buildout of the Housing Element Update. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would result in potentially significant impacts to wastewater treatment capacity.
2 Per the City’s wastewater generation rates, multi-family apartment units generate 183 gallons per day (gpd) per unit, single-family residences generate 215 gpd per unit, restaurants generate 2,272.65 gpd per 1,000 sf, and commercial/retail uses generate 85.39 gpd per 1,000 sf. It is assumed that 10% of the mixed-use area is allocated to restaurants and 90% is allocated to retail. Therefore, based on these rates and a 2.5 peak factor, the Project will generate 6,275,625.16 gpd:
2.5 * [(5,385 multi-family units * 183 gpd/unit) + (5,071 single-family units * 215 gpd/unit) + (1,285,947 sf of commercial/retail use *
0.08539 gpd/sf) + (142,883 sf of restaurant use * 2.27265 gpd/sf)]
2.5 * [985,455 gpd + 1,090,265 gpd + 109,807.01 gpd + 324,723.05 gpd]
2.5 * 2,510,250.06 gpd = 6,275,625 gpd
ATTACHMENT 14-623
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures UTIL-1 and UTIL-3a through UTIL-3d 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 by the developer.
UTIL-3c Sewer Master Plan
The City shall prepare a new Sewer 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.
Significance After Mitigation
A residual impact associated with implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-3b that may occur due to the diversion of flows to the Los Angeles system would be a temporary reduction of recycled water that could be produced in the future at the BWRP. As discussed in this section under Water Supply, the BWRP produces up to 10,000 AFY of recycled water, which is used for power production, landscape irrigation, and evaporative cooling. This is an alternative water supply initiative intended ATTACHMENT 14-624
to supplement the imported surface water supplies purchased from Metropolitan, which the City receives credits based upon the total amount of water imported to the City. In addition, the water supply analysis found that sufficient water supplies are available to serve reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project and other projects in the cumulative scenario for water supply during normal year, dry year, and multiple dry-year conditions. Therefore, the temporary reduction of recycled water at the BWRP would not result in a significant impact to the City’s water supplies.
Regarding wastewater impacts, Public Works is currently working on a both Cost of Service/Rate Study and Needs Assessment for the BWRP. However, the Sewer Master Plan will take approximately one to two years to be completed, and the final recommendations will not be available at the time the Housing Element is scheduled to be approved. Therefore, no feasible mitigation measure is identified at the plan level to reduce impacts to wastewater treatment capacity associated with the Project and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Threshold 4: Would the p
roject generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Impact UTIL-4 SOLID WASTE CONVEYANCE AND DISPOSAL SERVICES IN BURBANK ARE PROVIDED BY
THE STREET AND SOLID WASTE DIVISION OF PUBLIC WORKS WHICH TRANSPORTS SOLID WASTE TO THE CITY- OWNED AND OPERATED BURBANK LANDFILL. SUFFICIENT CAPACITY IS AVAILABLE AT THE BURBANK LANDFILL
TO ACCOMMODATE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL VOLUMES ASSOCIATED WITH REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As described in Section 4.13.1, Setting, the Street and Solid Waste Division of Public Works is responsible for the collection of solid waste, green waste, recyclables, and bulky items. The City owns and operates the Burbank Landfill, located in the Verdugo Hills at the eastern edge of Burbank, which is expected to have an operational lifetime through year 2150. Solid waste received and processed at Burbank Landfill is 100 percent single family residential, and approximately 50 percent of multi-family and 10 percent commercial solid waste throughout the City. As of 2019, Burbank Landfill had a remaining capacity of 4,843,582 cy, or approximately 82 percent of the maximum permitted capacity of 5,933,365 cy (Los Angeles County 2020; CalRecycle 2019b). The maximum permitted intake to Burbank Landfill is 240 tons (436 cy) per operating day, while the average intake is approximately 123 tons (244 cy) per day, or approximately 51 percent of the permitted daily intake (Los Angeles County 2020). As such, Burbank Landfill has approximately 117 tons (192 cy) of its permitted daily intake available, or approximately 49 percent of the permitted daily intake.
Solid waste generation rates depend on the land use type, with multi-family residential units generating approximately four pounds per dwelling unit per day (lb/du/day), consistent with outputs from the CalEEMod prepared for the proposed Project. If all 10,456 new housing units included under the proposed Project are constructed as multi-family residential units, this equates to approximately 40,352 lb/day (20.2 tons) of solid waste. As stated above, the Burbank Landfill has average daily available permitted capacity of 117 tons (192 cy) per day, or approximately 49 percent of the permitted daily intake. Accordingly, sufficient solid waste disposal capacity is available at Burbank Landfill to meet the potential needs associated with reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project; although, new sources of solid waste will inevitably lower the overall lifespan of the Burbank Landfill. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.13.1(d), “Solid Waste,” multiple landfill facilities in southern California also accept and process solid waste from Burbank. In ATTACHMENT 14-625
addition to the Burbank Landfill, approximately 50 percent of new wastes from multi-family residential development generated in Burbank will be transported to and disposed of at seven other southern California landfills including Burbank Landfill Site No. 3, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Puente Hills Landfill, Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center, and Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill (Burbank 2013), which will lower their lifespans while still maintaining sufficient capacity. Therefore, potential impacts from future residential development projects facilitated by the Housing Element will be mitigated through payment of fees charged for new development commensurate with the cost to transport the waste out of the City; such fees are adjusted annually as needed to ensure cost recovery.
Based upon the existing capacity of landfills available to the City, the solid waste generated by reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would not require the development of new or expanded solid waste facilities but, over time, will contribute to the need as other municipalities expand their housing. The proposed Project would not generate solid waste is excess of State or local standards or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.12.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts may occur if impacts of the proposed Project combine with similar impacts of other projects in the geographic and temporal scope of cumulative analysis. The proposed Project, including future housing development facilitated by the proposed Project, in conjunction with cumulative development citywide and within neighboring cities that are also served by the respective service areas, would increase demands for utilities that could require facility expansion or construction. Potential impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by- case basis at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the proposed project. Each cumulative project would require separate review , which would address potential impacts to utilities and service systems, as well as the identification and implementation of project-specific mitigation measure as identified under UTIL-1, including conducting an updated sewer service constraints analysis to identify deficiencies in existing utility systems and a resulting update in City fees for new development projects to help offset the cost of any future necessary upgrades on a project-specific basis as deemed necessary. The geographic scope of analysis for utilities and service systems varies depending on the service addressed, as discussed below.
Water Supply
The geographic extent of cumulative analysis for the topic of water supply includes all of Metropolitan’s service territory because Metropolitan provides the primary water supply source to the City, as purchased imported surface water. As discussed in the impact analysis above, full buildout of the proposed Housing Element Update would increase water demands throughout the City. Past and ongoing trends indicate that while population increases, per capita water consumption rates decrease, likely due to the effectiveness of conservation and drought response programs. In addition, the City continues to develop alternative water supplies to supplement the imported surface water supplies purchased from Metropolitan, through recycled water at the BWRP as well as local groundwater, which the City receives credits to use based upon the total amount of water imported to the City. Other projects that are anticipated to occur during implementation of ATTACHMENT 14-626
projects under the Housing Element Update include non-residential developments, primarily in the form of commercial land uses. While these cumulative projects would also introduce new water demands, future development would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, which informs the City’s UWMP to project water supply availability and reliability, including as related to imported surface water from Metropolitan as well as locally developed water supplies including recycled water and groundwater. In addition, as with projects under the Housing Element Update, future projects in the cumulative scenario would be subject to the same regulatory orders and management agencies as the proposed Project that ensure the sustainability and reliability of water supplies currently used in the City of Burbank. In addition, BWP and Metropolitan have identified potential future supply sources to augment water supplies and further insulate the region from hydrological uncertainty. Therefore, sufficient water supplies are available to serve reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project and other projects in the cumulative scenario for water supply during normal year, dry year, and multiple dry-year conditions. Potential cumulative impacts associated with water supply would be less than significant.
Wastewater
The geographic extent of cumulative analysis for the topic of wastewater includes the Public Works Department’s service territory as wastewater conveyance and treatment throughout the City is conducted by the City’s Public Works Department. As discussed in the impact analysis above, new wastewater service connections would be installed as needed, on a project-specific basis; this would occur for non-residential developments within the cumulative scenario as it would for residential developments under the proposed Project. The Public Works Department conducts repairs and upgrades to the existing City-owned wastewater conveyance system throughout the City on an as- needed basis. However, as specific development projects are proposed and evaluated, General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.3 would require developers to pay their fair share for infrastructure improvements as needed to serve their project, and ensure that needed infrastructure and services are available prior to or at project completion, this may include the requirement that the developer pays for and performs the necessary sewer infrastructure upgrades, per BMC 8-1-304. With implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 (Sewer Service Constraints Analysis), cumulative impacts related to wastewater conveyance would be less than significant.
Wastewater generation for full buildout of the proposed Housing Element Update is estimated to be up to approximately 6.3 mgd, which is not within the City’s currently available treatment capacity of 4 mgd. Therefore, impacts would be, significant and unavoidable due to constraints within the sewer system and development under the proposed Project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact associated with wastewater generation.
Stormwater
The geographic extent of cumulative analysis for the topic of stormwater includes the entire City of Burbank because the Public Works Department and LACFCD operates and maintain the Citywide stormwater conveyance system. Non-residential projects in the cumulative scenario would introduce project-specific needs for stormwater conveyance that would be reviewed and permitted on a project-by-project basis by the City. Due to the extensive built-up nature of the City, new development is not anticipated to introduce substantial new areas of impervious surfaces, such that substantial expansion of existing stormwater conveyance infrastructure would be necessary.
Therefore, potential cumulative impacts associated with stormwater would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 14-627
Solid Waste
The geographic extent of cumulative analysis for solid waste is the entire City of Burbank as all solid waste within the City is collected and transported for landfill disposal at one of seven southern California landfills, including Burbank Landfill Site No. 3, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Puente Hills Landfill, Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center, and Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill (City of Burbank 2013).
The Street and Solid Waste Division of the Burbank PWD provides solid waste collection services for all single-family residences, 50 percent of multifamily residences, and approximately 10 percent of the City’s commercial/industrial refuse customers. All other uses are served by private solid waste hauling companies which also transfer solid waste from Burbank to one of the aforementioned landfill sites for disposal. The cumulative scenario for solid waste is characterized by non-residential developments that would require solid waste hauling and disposal; such developments would include commercial and industrial land uses, which are primarily served by private waste hauling companies. Based on the existing capacity of landfill sites in the vicinity of Burbank, including the Burbank Landfill which has a remaining disposal capacity of approximately 82 percent (of the maximum permitted capacity) and is estimated to remain operational through 2150, sufficient landfill disposal capacity is anticipated to be available to accommodate cumulative projects.
Therefore, potential cumulative impacts associated with solid waste would be less than significant.
Telecommunications, Electricity, and Natural Gas
The geographic extent of cumulative analysis for telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas includes the entire service territories of the providers for each of these utilities.
Telecommunications
Telecommunications services in Burbank are provided by private companies, including AT&T, EarthLink, and Spectrum, among others, and telecommunications facilities are generally available throughout the City. Connections for new telecommunications services are implemented on an as- needed basis, and the service provider used is generally at the discretion of the customer.
Cumulative projects will establish telecommunications service connections in the same manner as residential developments under the proposed Project. There are no anticipated limitations to the availability of telecommunications service. Potential cumulative impacts associated with telecommunications would be less than significant.
Electricity
Electric power supply throughout the City is provided by BWP. Residential uses in Burbank represent the second most energy intensive land use serviced by BWP (287.6 GWh), behind commercial and building (507.8 GWh). Future housing in the City would be implemented in accordance with the Housing Element Update assessed herein, such that projects in the cumulative scenario for energy are non-residential uses, which are generally more energy-intensive than residential uses such as would occur under the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, other projects in the cumulative scenario would require electric service and would be connected to electricity through BWP. BWP’s unaudited power mix from the PCL, which shows total generation delivered for a calendar year, divided by retail sales (not renewable energy credits retired) for 2020 consisted of approximately 31 percent renewable resources (wind, geothermal, biomass, solar, and small hydroelectric), 26 percent coal, 31 percent natural gas, eight percent nuclear, two percent hydroelectric, and the remainder from other sources (BWP 2020). As such, although electricity ATTACHMENT 14-628
usage within the City is anticipated to increase as cumulative projects are implemented, BWP has a diverse power supply portfolio that includes renewable resources as well as traditional power sources and electricity.
In addition, BWP has numerous plans that are being implemented to shift the generation of electric power to renewable sources of energy. The most recent plan, BWP’s 2019 Final Power Integrated Resource Plan, identifies a planning tool that is central to the continued reliability of the BWP power system while meeting all regulatory requirements through 2038 (BWP 2019). BWP is also looking at expanding several alternative energy options including implementing solar, wind, and batteries to help replace energy that has traditionally been sourced from the IPP coal resource. Through the continued expansion of alternative energy sources and compliance with the State’s RPS (discussed under Impact UTIL-1), sufficient power, including as electricity, will be available to meet future demands. Potential cumulative impacts associated with electricity would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
The City of Burbank receives natural gas from the Southern California Gas Company (SCG), which provides service to most of southern California (SCG 2021). In 2019, SCG’s residential customers accounted for approximately 46 percent of SCG’s natural gas consumption, while industrial and commercials customers accounted for another 31 percent and 17 percent, respectively. Projects in the cumulative scenario are anticipated to primarily consist of commercial and industrial developments, as residential developments would be implemented under the proposed Project; as such, cumulative projects will introduce a lower demand for natural gas than the proposed Project.
Given the extent of SCG’s service territory comprising the majority of southern California, sufficient infrastructure is anticipated to be present to accommodate future development under the cumulative scenario, with connections established on a project-by-project basis. In addition, as discussed above for Electricity, the City of Burbank is actively expanding its power supply portfolio, including as applicable to natural gas. Therefore, sufficient natural gas infrastructure and energy supply is available to development projects under the cumulative scenario. Potential cumulative impacts associated with natural gas would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
ATTACHMENT 14-629
5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
CEQA requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). This mitigation monitoring and reporting program is intended to track and ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update implementation phase. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Final EIR for the Project, specifications are made herein that identify the action required, the monitoring that must occur, and the agency or department responsible for oversight.
As a programmatic EIR, the mitigation measures included herein apply to individual projects, and as such, the cost for any studies and/or monitoring to implement the project-level mitigation measure shall be borne by the developer.
ATTACHMENT 14-630
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Air Quality
AQ-1 Construction Emissions Reduction
For projects that would include any of the following:
demolition of more 13,500 square feet of building
area, greater than 5,000 cubic yards of soil cut/fill,
greater than 5-acres of graded area, or use of more
than ten pieces of heavy-duty construction
equipment and 150 truck trips on any given day
during demolition, site clearing, or grading, prior to
issuance of a permit to construct and at the
expense of the project applicant, the City shall
retain a qualified air quality analyst to prepare an
Air Quality Impact Analysis to analyze construction
emissions. The air quality analysis shall demonstrate
that project emissions are less than applicable
SCAQMD regional and LST thresholds, and as
applicable may include, but is not limited to, the
following mitigations:
Off-road diesel-powered construction
equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall
meet the USEPA Tier 4 emission standards,
where available. In the event that Tier 4 engines
are not available for any off-road equipment
larger than 100 horsepower, that equipment
shall be equipped with a Tier 3 engine or an
engine that is equipped with retrofit controls to
reduce exhaust emissions of NO
x and DPM to no
more than Tier 3 levels unless certified by
engine manufacturers or the onsite air quality
construction mitigation manager that the use of
such devices is not practical for specific engine
types.
All construction equipment shall be outfitted
with best available control technology (BACT)
devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control
device used by the contractor shall achieve
emissions reductions that are no less
Verify retention of a
qualified air quality analyst
to evaluate project-specific
construction emissions in an
Air Quality Impact Analysis
for projects with
construction activities that
exceed the screening
criteria.
Review and approval of the
Air Quality Impact Analysis.
Prior to issuance of a
construction permit
Once City of
Burbank
Community
Development
Department
ATTACHMENT 14-631
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
AQ-1 Construction Emissions Reduction (cont’d)
than what could be achieved by a Level 3
diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly
sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
Consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403,
construction contractors shall identify and
implement best available dust control
measures during active construction
operations capable of generating dust.
AQ-2 Operations Emissions Reduction
For any project that would include more than 553
single-family residential units, 710 multi-family
residential units, or any equivalent combination
thereof, prior to issuance of a permit to construct,
and at the expense of the project applicant, the City
shall retain a qualified air quality analyst to prepare an Air Quality Impact Analysis to analyze
operational emissions The air quality analysis shall
demonstrate that project emissions are less than
applicable SCAQMD regional and LST thresholds,
and as applicable may include, but is not limited to,
the following mitigation:
Implementation of a Transportation Demand
Management Plan.
Installation of additional electric vehicle
charging stations
Public infrastructure improvements (e.g.,
bus stop shelter improvements)
Carpool or ridesharing programs
Subsidized transit costs
Unbundled parking costs
Bicycle amenities (storage, showers, lockers,
etc.)
Verify retention of a
qualified air quality analyst
to evaluate project-specific
operation emissions in an
Air Quality Impact Analysis
for projects with a
residential unit count that
exceeds the screening
criteria.
Review and approval of the
Air Quality Impact Analysis.
Prior to issuance of a
construction permit
Once City of
Burbank
Community
Development
Department
ATTACHMENT 14-632
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
AQ-2 Operations Emissions Reduction (cont’)
Use of all-electric appliances (i.e., elimination of
natural gas service)
Use solar or low emission water heaters that
exceed Title 24 requirements
Increased walls and attic insulation beyond Title
24 requirements
Required use of electric lawnmowers, leaf-
blowers, and chainsaws
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Biological Resources Avoidance
For individual housing developments that will
include disturbance of vegetation, trees, structures,
or other areas where biological resources could be
present, a qualified biologist shall be retained by
the applicant to conduct an initial site assessment
that will include review of the California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB) and iNaturalist maps to
determine where sightings have occurred or
habitats for the least Bell’s vireo, bat species, or
monarch butterflies have previously been
identified.
If construction activities or other disturbances occur
in areas within 500 feet of a previously identified
habitat or observation according to CNDDB or
iNaturalist, the following measures shall be
implemented:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a
qualified biologist shall be retained by the
project applicant to conduct a biological
resources reconnaissance of the site. The
qualified biologist shall thoroughly report on the
biological resources present on a project site
and submitted to the City.
Verification that the project
applicant has retained a
qualified biologist to
prepare an initial site
assessment.
If project construction/
disturbances occur within
500 feet of an identified
resource, verification that
the project applicant has
retained a qualified
biologist to report on the
site.
If qualified biologist
identifies the potential for
special-status species or
habitat for special-status
wildlife, verification that
focused surveys are
completed in accordance
with applicable protocols.
Review and approval of the
biological resources report.
Prior to the issuance of
a grading permit
Once City of
Burbank
Community
Development
Department
ATTACHMENT 14-633
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
BIO-1 Biological Resources Avoidance (cont’d)
If the biologist determines that special-status
species may occur, focused surveys for special-
status plants shall be completed in accordance
with Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating
Impacts to Special Status Native Plant
Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities
(California Department of Fish and Wildlife
[CDFW], March 20, 2018) and Guidelines for
Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories
for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate
Plants (USFWS, September 23, 1996). If it is
determined that the project site has suitable
habitat for special-status wildlife, focused
surveys shall be conducted to determined
presence/absence including species-specific
surveys in accordance with CDFW or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
protocols for State or federally listed species,
respectively, that may occur.
If it is determined that a special-status species
may be impacted by a specific project,
consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW shall
occur prior to issuance of a development permit
from the City to determine measures to address
impacts, such as avoidance, minimization, or
take authorization and mitigation. The report
shall include a list of special-status plants and
wildlife that may occur on the project site
and/or adjacent area.
If construction activities or other disturbances occur
during the bird nesting season (February 1 through
August 31), prior to issuance of grading permits for
individual housing developments that will include
disturbance of vegetation, structures, or other areas
where bird nests could be present, the following
requirements shall be implemented
If project will impact
special-status species,
verification that the USFWS
and CDFW is consulted
immediately to address
impacts.
Verification that the project
applicant has retained a
qualified biologist to
prepare a pre-construction
bird survey if project
construction/disturbances
occur within bird nesting
season (February 1 – August
31).
At latest, seven days
prior to initiation of
grading or
construction activities
Once Same as above
Review and approval of pre-
construction bird survey.
Prior to initiation of
grading or
construction activities
Once Same as above
If nests are found, field
verification that avoidance
buffers are demarcated and
enforced.
Upon discovery of
active nests
Continuous;
throughout
construction
activities near
active nests
Same as above
Review and approval of
survey report prepared by
qualified biologist.
Upon compliance with
requirements and
applicable State and
Federal regulations
Once Same as above
ATTACHMENT 14-634
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
BIO-1 Biological Resources Avoidance (cont’d)
Applicant shall submit a pre-construction
nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more
than seven days prior to initiation of grading or
construction activities. The nesting bird pre-
construction survey shall be conducted on foot
on the construction site, including a 100-foot
buffer, and in inaccessible areas (e.g., private
lands) from afar using binoculars to the extent
practical. The survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist familiar with the
identification of avian species known to occur in
southern California and a copy of the study shall
be submitted to the Community Development
Department and Building and Safety Division.
The cost to hire a qualified biologist shall be
borne entirely by the developer/project
applicant.
If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be
demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright
orange construction fencing, flagging,
construction lathe, or other means to mark the
boundary. All construction personnel shall be
notified as to the existence of the buffer zone
and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the
nesting season. No parking, storage of
materials, or construction activities shall occur
within this buffer until the biologist has
confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed,
and the young have fledged the nest.
Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at
the discretion of the qualified biologist.
A survey report shall be prepared by the
qualified biologist documenting and verifying
compliance with the above requirements and
applicable State and Federal regulations
protecting birds that shall be submitted to the
City of Burbank. The qualified biologist shall
ATTACHMENT 14-635
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
BIO-1 Biological Resources Avoidance (cont’d)
serve as a construction monitor during those
periods when construction activities would
occur near active nest areas to ensure that no
inadvertent impacts on these nests would occur.
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Historic Resource Protection
The project proponent shall either:
a) Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of
Burbank Community Development Department
that the project does not contain any historic
resources either due to the site being vacant,
age of the structures on the site, or due to the
result of the Program LU-4 Historic Preservation
Plan determination; or
b) For any structure determined to be eligible for
listing on a federal, State, or local registry, or
currently listed, as a historic resource (typically
determined as a result of the Program LU-4
Historic Preservation Plan process), project
activities shall comply with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties (Standards). During the project
planning phase (prior to any construction
activities), input shall be sought from a qualified
architectural historian or historic architect
meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards to ensure
project compliance with the Standards for
Rehabilitation. The cost of this assessment shall
be borne entirely by the project applicant. This
input will ensure the avoidance of any
direct/indirect physical changes to historical
resources. The findings
Verification that the project
applicant has adequately
demonstrated the project
does not contain historic
resources.
If project contains eligible or
currently listed historic
structure, verification that
the project applicant has
retained a qualified
architectural historian or
historic architect (meeting
the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards) to
assess the project.
Review and approval of
Standards Project Review
Memorandum and
recommendations.
Prior to project design
approval
Once City of
Burbank
Community
Development
Department
ATTACHMENT 14-636
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
CUL-1 Historic Resource Protection (cont’d)
and recommendations of the architectural historian
or historic architect shall be documented in a
Standards Project Review Memorandum at the
schematic design phase. This memorandum shall
analyze all project components for compliance with
the Standards for Rehabilitation. Project
components to be analyzed shall include direct and
indirect changes to historical resources and their
setting. should design modifications be necessary to
bring projects into compliance with the Standards
for Rehabilitation, the memorandum will document
those recommendations, which will then become
conditions of project approval. The report will be
submitted to the City for review and approval.
CUL-2(a) Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources Prior to the commencement of any ground-
disturbing activities, a qualified archaeologist shall
be retained to conduct a Worker’s Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP) training on
archaeological sensitivity for all construction
personnel. The training shall be conducted by an
archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary
of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for
archaeology. Archaeological sensitivity training will
include a description of the types of cultural
material that may be encountered, cultural
sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, and the proper
protocol for treatment of the materials in the event
of a find.
In the event of the unanticipated discovery of
archaeological materials, the project applicant shall
immediately cease all work activities in the area
(within approximately 100 feet) of the
Verification that the project
applicant has retained a
qualified archaeologist
(meeting the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards) to
conduct WEAP training.
Prior to the start of
construction activities
and during ground-
disturbing activities, as
needed
Continuous;
throughout
ground-
disturbing
activities
City of
Burbank
Community
Development
Department
If archaeological materials
are found, field verification
that all work activities
within 100 feet have
ceased.
Upon discovery of
archaeological
materials
Continuous;
throughout
ground-
disturbing
activities
Same as above
ATTACHMENT 14-637
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
CUL-2(a) Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources (cont’d) discovery until it can be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist. Construction shall not resume until
the qualified archaeologist has conferred with the
City on the significance of the resource. If it is
determined that the discovered archaeological
resource constitutes a historical resource or unique
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA,
avoidance and preservation in place shall be the
preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in
place maintains the important relationship between
artifacts and their archaeological context and also
serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the
resource. Preservation in place may be
accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance,
incorporating the resource into open space,
capping, or deeding the site into a permanent
conservation easement. In the event that
preservation in place is determined to be infeasible
and data recovery through excavation is the only
feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological
Resources Treatment Plan shall be prepared and
implemented by the qualified archaeologist in
consultation with the City that provides for the
adequate recovery of the scientifically
consequential information contained in the
archaeological resource. The City shall consult with
appropriate Native American representatives in
determining treatment for prehistoric or Native
American resources to ensure cultural values
ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is
scientifically important, are considered.
If archaeological materials
are found, consultation with
retained qualified
archaeologist to determine
treatment of resource.
If archaeological materials
of Native American origin
are found, consultation with
Native American
representatives to
determine treatment of
resource.
Upon discovery of
archaeological
materials
Continuous;
until
consultation is
complete
Same as above
If data recovery through
excavation is the only
feasible mitigation
available, review and
approval of Archaeological
Resources Treatment Plan.
Upon completion of
consultation
Once Same as above
ATTACHMENT 14-638
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
CUL-2(b) Archaeological and Native Monitors
During initial ground disturbing activities related to
the proposed project, both a qualified archaeologist
and a locally affiliated Native American monitor
shall monitor construction activities within the
project site in accordance with City of Burbank
Historic Resource Management Ordinance, Program
LU-4: Historic Preservation Plan. Initial ground
disturbance is defined as disturbance within
previously undisturbed native soils. If, during initial ground disturbance, the qualified archaeologist
determines that the construction activities have
little or no potential to impact cultural resources
(e.g., excavations are within previously disturbed,
non-native soils, or within soil formation not
expected to yield cultural resources deposits), the
qualified archaeologist may recommend that
monitoring be reduced or eliminated, in
consultation with the Native American monitor.
Verification that a qualified
archaeologist and a locally
affiliated Native American
monitor have been retained
to monitor construction
activities.
Prior to the start of
construction activities
Once City of
Burbank
Community
Development
Department
If qualified archaeologist
confirms little or no
potential to impact
resources, review and
approval of
recommendation that
monitoring be reduced or
eliminated.
During initial ground
disturbance
Once Same as above
Geology/Soils
GEO-1(a) Paleontological Resources Management
Housing development projects that require ground
disturbance (grading, trenching, foundation work,
and other excavations) beyond five feet below
ground surface (bgs) on a site located in an area
mapped as Quaternary young (Holocene) alluvial
fan deposits (Qyf, Qf) where it was not previously
excavated beyond five feet bgs, shall comply with
the following requirements prior to the
commencement of any construction activities:
The Developer shall retain a qualified
professional paleontologist to review project
plans to determine if underlying
paleontologically sensitive units (i.e., early
Holocene to Pleistocene age deposits [Qoa])
Verification that project
applicant has retained a
qualified paleontologist to
review plans and determine
underlying sensitivity for
projects requiring ground
disturbance beyond five
feet below surface in Qyf
and Qf areas.
If potential impacts are
identified, review and
approval of a PRMP that
includes WEAP training.
Prior to the start of
construction activities
Once City of
Burbank
Community
Development
Department
ATTACHMENT 14-639
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
GEO-1(a) Paleontological Resources Management (cont’d)
could be impacted. If potentially significant
impacts are identified, the qualified
professional paleontologist shall prepare and
implement a Paleontological Resources
Mitigation Plan (PRMP). The PRMP shall
describe mitigation recommendations,
including paleontological monitoring
procedures; communication protocols to be
followed in the event that an unanticipated
fossil discovery is made during project
development; and preparation, curation, and
reporting requirements.
As part of a PRMP, require the Qualified
Paleontologist or his or her designee to
conduct Worker Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP) training for the general
contractor, subcontractor(s), and all
construction workers participating in earth
disturbing activities, regarding the appearance
of fossils and the procedures for notifying
paleontological staff should fossils be
discovered by on-site personnel. The WEAP
shall be fulfilled at the time of a
preconstruction meeting. A training
acknowledgment form must be signed by all
workers who receive the training and retained
by the City. In the event a fossil is discovered
by construction personnel, all work in the
immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and
the qualified paleontologist shall be contacted
to evaluate the find before re-starting work in
the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is
(are) scientifically significant, the qualified
paleontologist shall complete the mitigation
outlined below (GEO-1[b]) to mitigate impacts
to significant fossil resources.
Review and retention of
WEAP training
acknowledgement form
signed by all trainees.
Prior to the start of
construction activities
and during ground-
disturbing activities,
as needed
Continuous;
throughout
ground-
disturbing
activities
Same as above
Verification that the project
applicant has retained a
qualified paleontologist to
conduct monitoring during
ground-disturbing activities
Prior to the start of
construction activities
Once Same as above
If a fossil is discovered, field
verification that all work in
the immediate vicinity of
the find is ceased and
qualified paleontologist
evaluates the find.
Upon discovery of
fossil(s)
Continuous;
throughout
ground-
disturbing
activities
Same as above
If qualified paleontologist
confirms full-time
monitoring is not
warranted, review and
approval of
recommendation that
monitoring be limited.
During initial ground
disturbance
Once Same as above
ATTACHMENT 14-640
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
GEO-1(a) Paleontological Resources Management (cont’d)
Conduct monitoring during ground construction
activities (i.e., grading, trenching, foundation
work, and other excavations). Monitoring shall
be conducted by a qualified paleontological
monitor, who is defined as an individual who
meets the minimum qualifications per standards
set forth by the SVP (2010), which includes a
B.S. or B.A. degree in geology or paleontology
with one year of monitoring experience and
knowledge of collection and salvage of
paleontological resources. The duration and
timing of the monitoring shall be determined by
the Qualified Paleontologist and the location
and extent of proposed ground disturbance. If
the Qualified Paleontologist determines that
full-time monitoring is no longer warranted,
based on the specific geologic conditions at the
surface or at depth, the Qualified Paleontologist
may recommend that monitoring be limited to
periodic spot-checking or cease entirely.