Burbank City Council
September 27, 2022

Appendix A
Glossary
ATTACHMENT 6-1
A-1
Appendix A: Glossary
This glossary is for ease of use of the Burbank Housing Element only; for full definitions related to the City of Burbank Municipal Code, please see Title 10. Zoning Regulations.

A. Abbreviations
ACS: American Community Survey
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act
ADU: Accessory Dwelling Unit
AFFH: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
AFH: Assessment of Fair Housing
AI: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
AMI: Area Median (Household) Income
APN: Assessors Parcel Number
BCP: Burbank Center Plan
BHA: Burbank Housing Authority
BHC Burbank Housing Corporation
BMP: Best Management Practices
CBC: California Building Code
CDBG: Community Development Block Grant
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
CHAS: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
CUP: Conditional Use Permit
DDS: California Department of Social Services
DOF: California Department of Finance
ECOA: Equal Credit Opportunity Act
EDD: California Employment Development Department
EIR: Environmental Impact Report
ELI: Extremely Low Income
FAR: Floor Area Ratio
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEHA: California Fair Employment and Housing Act
FHA: Fair Housing Act
FPV: Family Promise of the Verdugos
FSA: Family Service Agency
GHG: Greenhouse Gas
GSSP: Golden State Specific Plan
HCD: California Department of Housing and Community Development HMDA: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
ATTACHMENT 6-2

A-2

HOME: HOME Investment Partnership Program
HUD: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
NDVets: New Directions for Veterans
NEHRP: National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RATP: Residential Acoustical Treatment Program
R/ECAP: Racial and Ethnic Characteristics/Concentrations RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RPZ: Runway Protection Zones
SCS: Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments
SCPH: Southern California Presbyterian Homes
SERAF: Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds SRO: Single Room Occupancy
TCAC: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
TOD: Transit Oriented Development
UBC: Uniform Building Code
UWMP: Urban Water Management Plan

ATTACHMENT 6-3

A-3

B. Definitions

Accessory Dwelling Unit: An accessory dwelling unit (also known as second units or granny flats) is an attached or detached structure that provides independent living facilities for one or more persons and includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling unit.

Acreage: Gross acreage refers to the entire acreage of a site. Most communities calculate gross acreage to the centerline of proposed bounding streets and to the edge of the right- of-way of existing or dedicated streets. Net acreage refers to the portion of a site that can actually be built upon. Public or private road right-of-way, public open space, and flood ways are not included in the net acreage of a site.

Accessible Housing Unit: An accessible housing unit is designed and built to be usable to a person with physical disabilities.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): This new legislation requires all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021 contain an Assessment of Fair Housing to ensure that laws, policies, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing opportunities throughout the community for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familia l status, disability, and other characteristics protected by the Californi a Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Affordable Unit: A dwelling unit within a housing development which will be reserved for, and restricted to, income qualified households at an affordable rent or is reserved for sale to an income qualified household at an affordable purchase price.

Area Median Income: As used in State of California housing law with respect to income eligibility limits established by HUD. The Area Median Income referred to in this Housing Element is that of Los Angeles County.

At Risk: Deed-restricted affordable housing projects at risk of converting to market rate.

Burbank Housing Corporation (BHC): A non-profit housing developer actively involved in the purchase and management of affordable housing in the community.

By-Right Development: By right means the local government’s development review must not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval.

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) : The State agency that has principal responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households. HCD is responsible for reviewing Housing Element’s and determining whether they comply with State housing statutes.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A State law requiring State and local agencies to regulate activities with consideration for environmental protection.

Census: The official decennial enumeration of the population conducted by the federal government.

City Council: The City Council serves as the elected legislative and policy-making body of the City of Burbank, enacting all laws and directing any actions necessary to provide for the general welfare of the community through appropriate programs, services, and activities.

ATTACHMENT 6-4

A-4

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): A grant program administered by HUD on a formula basis for entitlement communities, such as the City of Burbank. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing and community development activities, including public facilities and economic development.

Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Conditional Use Permits are required for uses which may be suitable only in specific locations in a zoning district, or which require special consideration in their design, operation or layout to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses.

Condominium: A condominium consists of an undivided interest in common in a portion of real property coupled with a separate interest in space called a unit, the boundaries of which are described on a recorded final map, parcel map, or condominium plan in sufficient detail to locate all boundaries thereof.

Condominium Conversion: The conversion of existing real estate and/or structures to separate, salable condominium units, regardless of present or prior use and whether substantial improvements have been made to such structures.

Density Bonus: An increase in the density (number of dwelling units allowed per acre or parcel), above that normally allowed by the applicable zoning district, in exchange for the provision of a stated percentage of affordable units.

Development Fees: City imposed fees to partially cover the costs for processing and providing services and facilities; and fund capital improvements related to fire, police, parks, and libraries and correlate the increased demands on these services.

Dissimilarity Index: A measure of residential segregation is the dissimilarity index, which is a commonly used measure of community-level segregation.

Dwelling Unit: Any building or portion thereof which contains living facilities, including provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation, for not more than one family.

Emergency Shelter: An establishment operated by an Emergency Shelter Provider that provides homeless people with immediate, short-term housing for no more than six months in a 12-month period, where no person is denied occupancy because of inability to pay.

Environmental Impact Report (EIR): Required by CEQA, this document serves to inform governmental agencies and the public of a project's potential environmental impacts and provides mitigation measure if impacts are found to be significant.

Fair Market Rent: The rent, including utility allowances, determined by HUD for purposes of administering the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.

Family: A group of persons who maintain a single common household, but who otherwise are not a Community Care Facility.

General Plan: A statement of policies, including text and diagrams setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals, for the future physical development of the city or county (see Government Code Sections 65300 et seq.). California State law requires that a General Plan include elements dealing with seven subjects—circulation, conservation, housing, land use, noise, open space and safety—and specifies to various degrees the information to be incorporated in each element.

Growth Management (Measure One): Approved by Burbank voters in 1989, prohibits the City from increasing the maximum allowed number of residential units beyond the approved maximum build out ATTACHMENT 6-5

A-5

in the 1988 Land Use Element without voter approval. The purpose of the ordinance is to coordinate the rate of residential growth with the availability of public facilities and services.

Homeless: Persons and families who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. Includes those staying in temporary or emergency shelters or who are accommodated with friends or others with the understanding that shelter is being provided as a last resort. California Housing Element law requires all cities and counties to address the housing needs of the homeless.

Household: All persons living in a housing unit.

Householder: The head of a household.

Housing Element: One of the seven State-mandated elements of a local general plan, it assesses the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community, identifies potential sites adequate to provide the amount and kind of housing needed, and contains goals, policies, a nd implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: Adopted by the Burbank City Council in 2006, the City’s ordinance requires developers of housing with five or more units to provide at least 15 percent of the units as affordable to very low, low and moderate income households, or to pay an in-lieu housing fee.

Infill Development: Development of land (usually individual lots or left-over properties) within areas that are already largely developed.

Infrastructure: Public services and facilities, such as sewage-disposal systems, water-supply systems, other utility systems, and roads.

In Lieu Fee: A fee paid to the City in-lieu of a development requirement, such as required inclusionary units.

Land Use Regulation: A term encompassing the regulation of land in general and often used to mean those regulations incorporated in the General Plan, as distinct from zoning regulations (which are more specific).

Lot or Parcel: A portion of land shown as a unit on a recorded subdivision map or an approved minor subdivision map, parcel map or otherwise existing as of record with the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor.

Low Income Household: A household earning less than 80 percent of the Los Angeles County median income based on information provided by HCD/HUD.

Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home: A dwelling unit built in a factory in one or more sections, transported over the highways to a permanent occupancy site, and installed on the site either with or without a permanent foundation.

Mixed-use: The combination of various uses, such as office, retail and residential, in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design.

Moderate Income Household: A household earning 80% to 120% of the Los Angeles County median income based on information provided by HCD/HUD.

Multi-family Residential: Usually two or more dwelling units on a single site, which may be in the same or separate buildings.

Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county.

ATTACHMENT 6-6

A-6

Overcrowding: Household living in a dwelling unit where there are more than 1.01 persons per room, excluding kitchens, porches and hallways. Severe overcrowding is where there are more than 1.51 persons per room.

Overpayment: Housing overpayment occurs when a household spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs; severe overpayment refers to spending greater than 50 percent of income on housing.

Persons with Disability: A person with a long lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition that impairs their mobility, ability to work, or ability for self-care.

Planning Board: The Burbank Planning Board conducts public hearings and makes decisions on applications for discretionary projects, considers appeals of decisions by the Community Development Director, and serves as the advisory body to the Burbank City Council on planning issues.

Poverty Level: As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that provides a range of income cutoffs or “poverty thresholds” varying by size of family, number of children, and age of householder.

Reasonable Accommodation: The federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations in their zoning and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use a dwelling.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RNHA): A quantification by SCAG and HCD of existing and projected housing need -- the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs by household income group.

Rezoning: An amendment to the map and/or text of a zoning ordinance to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.

Section 8 Rental Assistance Program: A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is one of the main sources of federal housing assistance for low income households. The program operates by providing “housing assistance payments” to owners, developers, and public housing agencies to make up the difference between the “Fair Market Rent” of a unit (set by HUD) and the household’s contribution toward the rent, which is calculated at 30 percent of the household’s adjusted gross monthly income.

Senior Housing Projects: Defined by California Housing Element law as projects developed for, and put to use as, housing for senior citizens. Senior citizens are defined as persons at least 62 years of age.

Single-family Residential: A single dwelling unit on a building site.

Specific Plan: A plan addressing land use distribution, open space availability, infrastructure, and infrastructure financing for a portion of the community. Specific plans put the provisions of the local general plan into action.

Special Needs Population: Under Housing Element statutes, special needs populations include the elderly, persons with disabilities, female-headed households, large households, and the homeless.

Supportive Housing: Permanent affordable housing with no limit on length of stay that is linked to on- or off-site services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live, and where possible, work in the community.

ATTACHMENT 6-7

A-7

Transitional Housing: A dwelling unit or group of dwelling units for residents in immediate need of temporary housing. Transitional housing is configured as rental housing, but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined time, which shall be no less than six months.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): A cabinet-level department of the federal government that administers housing and community development programs.

Vacant: Lands or buildings that are not actively used for any purpose.

Very Low Income Household: A household with an annual income usually no greater than 50 percent of the area median family income, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by HCD/HUD.

Zoning Ordinance: Regulations adopted by the City which govern the use and development of land within its boundaries and implements policies of the General Plan.

Zoning District: A designated section of a city or county for which prescribed land use requirements and building and development standards are uniform.

ATTACHMENT 6-8

Appendix B
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

ATTACHMENT 6-9

B-1
Appendix B: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
In 2018, the California governor signed AB 686 (Housing Discrimination: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing) requiring that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021 , contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule . Under this state law, all California jurisdictions must ensure that laws, polic ies, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing opportunities throughout the community for all persons regard less of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familiar status, disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

The City of Burbank receives Community Development Bl ock Grant (CDBG) , HOME Investment Partnerships Act funds (HOME), and Section 8 funds each year from the federal government to support housing and community development activities that principally benefit low and moderate -income households. As a recipient of these funds, the City certifies that it will affirmatively further fair housing and utilize these funds to further the efforts of affordable housing in the City. To comply with federal law and the requirements of AB 686, the Burbank Housing Element 2021-2029 references information and analysis from the City of Burbank ’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2020-2025 (AI) to identify potential impediments to fair housing that are specific to Burbank. The Burbank AI is a review of impediments to fair housing choice in the public and private sectors , and involves: a comprehensive review of Burbank’s laws, regulations, and administrative policies, procedures, and practices ; an assessment of how those laws affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing; an assessment of conditions, both public and private, affecting fair housing choice; and, recommendations for addressing the identified fair housing impediments.

1. Community Outreach
Housing Element Public Participation Program
As required by State law, all economic segments of the community must be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the Housing Element. As part of the development of the Housing Element, which also requires revisions to the Safety Element and an analysis of environmental justice issues in the General Plan, the City implemented a public participation program. The public participation program includes the following components:
▪ Stakeholder Consultation Workshops. Two virtual stakeholder consultation workshops were conducted online via Zoom on August 27, 2020 . The first online stakeholder workshop was conducted for housing developers and the second workshop for housing service providers and housing advocates that se rve the lower income community and special needs groups. The purpose of the workshops was to review current and projected housing needs and receive feedback on what strategies can best meet the housing needs of the community . Key participating service providers included: Family Promise of the Verdugos, Housing Rights Center, Los Angeles Family Housing, and St. David’s Anglican Church. ▪ Community Workshops. Two virtual community workshops were conducted online via Zoom and on the Burbank YouTube Channel and local cable channel. The first virtual workshop was held on October 3, 2020 and included an informational presentation and discussion of housing and environmental justice issues facing the City in addition to opportunities for public input and questions on the Housing Element update. The second virtual community workshop on Housing ATTACHMENT 6-10

B-2
Element was held on February 27, 2021. The focus of this workshop highlighted the results of the online Housi ng Element survey, RHNA goals, housing opportunity sites, and potential housing programs. An example of one of the public comments related to fair housing was: How are new accessory dwelling unit (ADU) requirements accommodating disabled residents? ▪ Housing Element Survey. Housing Element survey ( administered through MetroQuest) was available online from September 30, 2020 to January 4, 2021 in Armenian, English, and Spanish.

There were a total of 227 survey respondents. Key survey questions related to fair housing included: ranking potential environmental justice programs and identifying disadvantaged communities.
▪ City Website. A website specifically for the Housing Element Update was establish to provide an overview of the Housing Element process, announcement of eve nts (i.e. workshops, survey), FAQs, and space to add public comments.
https://www.burbankhousingelement.com/
▪ Noticing of Workshops . Notices for the two community workshops were published in the Burbank Leader, posted on the City website and project webpage, and on the City’s Facebook and Twitter accounts. Direct invitation letters and emails were sent to local housing service providers and stakeholders that participated in the August stakeholder meetings. In addition, over 20,000 flyers were distributed in census tracts with the majority of Burbank’s lower and moderate - income areas. Announcements regarding the workshops were made at City Council, Planning Board, Senior Board, and Landlord Tenant Commissions meetings.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), any resident in need of special assistance to participate in these online workshops could contact the City Clerk ’s Office by phone or email and accommodations would be provided. There were no public requests for special assistance to participate in these workshops. Additionally, to involve as many participants as possible at the community workshops, Armenian and Spanish language interpreters were available for the presentations and public comments and responses.

Copies of the workshop presentations, notices, online survey and results, and public comments are included as Appendix F: Public Participation.

The Draft Housing Element was made available for public review on the City ’s website starting on April 27, 2021. The Draft Element and subsequent Element revisions have been provided to the public through email notification to the City’s extensive list of Housing Element stakeholders , including numerous organizations that represent lower income and special needs households, and through posting on Burbank’s social media platforms . The City has received five comment letters on the Draft Element (included in Appendix F), and has considered and as deemed appropriate, addressed these comments in the Element. The public will continue to have opportunities to provide comments on the Housing Element, EIR, and other General Plan elements at the Burbank Planning Board and City Council public hearings scheduled for August – September 2022.

Fair Housing Plan Outreach
As part of the development of Burbank’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and to better understand the fair housing issues facing its residents, the City implemented a community outreach program consisting of community advisory meetings, a resident survey, service provider interviews, and a City Council meeting.

ATTACHMENT 6-11

B-3
The City conducted two community advisory meetings (November 26, 2019 and December 3, 2019) and one stakeholder meeting on December 9, 2019. The meetings provided the Burbank community to gain awareness of fair housing laws and for residents and service agencies to share fair housing issues and concerns. To ensure that the fair housing concerns of low - and moderate -income and special nee ds residents were addressed, invitations were distributed via e -mail, if available, to agencies and organizations that serve these communities. Meetings were announced through social media outlets; the City’s five focus neighborhoods (predominately low -income neighborhoods); local non -profits; faith - based groups; and local committees/groups. Residents and housing advocates were invited to attend the meetings to gather their feedback.

To supplement the citizen advisory meetings, a fair housing survey (administered through SurveyMonkey) was made available to Burbank residents at City Hall and the City’s website: www.burbankca.gov. The survey was available in Armenian, English, and Spanish to reflect the diversity of Burbank’s residents.

During the eight-week survey period, 41 completed surveys were submitted by Burbank residents.

Public comments were solicited on the Draft AI during the public review period, but no written comments were received. In addition, the public was able to provide comments at th e Burbank City Council virtual public meeting held on July 28, 2020.

Fair Housing Services Outreach
The Housing Rights Center (HRC), a non -profit organization under contract with the City of Burbank , conducts extensive community outreach to promote fair housing choice awareness and knowledge of state and federal fair housing laws. This includes outreach to Burbank residents, real estate professionals, apartment owners/managers, medical professionals, and servi ce providers. HRC also conducts periodic trainings to the following agencies and organizations: Burbank Landlord -Tenant Commission; Burbank Advisory Council on Disabilities; Burbank Association of Realtors; Joslyn Adult Center (seniors); Burbank Unified School District; and the Burbank Housing Authority. Specific education and outreach activities include the following:
▪ Dissemination of fair housing literature on federal and state fair housing laws, familial status, persons with disabilities, landlord responsibilities, etc. ▪ Mailings to targeted groups such as the disabled, local landlords, property owners , and the local real estate community. Fair housing literature, including materials in English, Spanish, Armenian and Asian languages.
▪ Press releases, radio and television interviews to raise awareness of the needs of families and communities hardest hit by the economic downturn and foreclosure crisis, and the variety of implications for fair housing.
▪ Placement of newspaper advertisements promoting fair housing choice in a variety of periodicals including the Burbank Leader, La Opinion, La Voz Latina , and the San Fernand o Valley African American Chronicle News.
▪ Publication of articles in various housing trade magazines, distribution of a fair housing newsletter, and publication of opinion editorials in major newspapers to increase public awareness of key fair housing issues such as tenant evictions in foreclosed properties. ▪ Hosting of fair housing booths, trainings, and workshops at various fairs, conferences, and webinars. These events are aimed at educating housing providers, including property managers, landlords, real estate groups, fair housing testers, and local housing agencies.

ATTACHMENT 6-12

B-4
▪ Sponsorship of the annual Fair Housing Poster Contest through the Burbank Unified School District, Boys & Girls Club, YMCA, and Parks and Recreation Centers as part of National Fair Housing Month every April.

ATTACHMENT 6-13

B-5

2. Assessment to Fair Housing Issues
Local Fair Housing Issues
The information from the Housing Element Needs Assessment chapter, the public participation program, and the Burbank AI revealed numerous fair housing issues facing the City, including those summarized below:
▪ Affordable housing of various types for all Burbank’s residents. Available housing for Burbank’s growing low and moderate-income workforce is not being produced in the market. According to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), Burbank will need to accommodate 8,772 housing units during the 2021-2029 planning period; and of this total, 45 percent will be for lower- income households and 16 percent for moderate -income households. The cost burden has significant impacts on the special needs population.
▪ Public education of fair housing services and fair housing rights. There is a continuing need for public awareness of available housing ser vices and knowledge of fair housing laws for both tenants and landlords/property owners.
▪ Fair housing for the special needs population. The HRC investigates and responds to allegations of illegal housing discrimination. Between 2017 and 2019, the HRC handled 40 discrimination complaint inquiries in Burbank. Of these inquiries, only three rose to the level of a discrimination case with the HRC. Certain special needs groups experienced a high incidence of discrimination complaints. Housing for persons with physical disabilities continues to be the top discrimination complaint in Burbank, consistent with other areas in Los Angeles County served by the HRC. ▪ Availability of accessible housing. Through Housing Element community outreach effo rt, comments received included the shortage of housing designed to accommodate persons with disabilities. Building Code requirements (Title 24) for accessibility in new construction are insufficient to meet the need for accessible housing in the community, particularly with the City’s aging population.
▪ Neighborhood revitalization. There are neighborhoods in Burbank that require revitalization to improve the existing housing and economic conditions of the area; especially with the limited funds available for redevelopment. Two neighborhoods/census tracts in southeast Burbank have been designated as areas of “moderate” resources and opportunities by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) (refer to Tables B-3 and B-4).

Regional Fair Housing Issues
At the regional level, the Los Angeles County Analysis of Impediment to Fair Housing Choice also identified fair housing impediments in the urban areas of the county. The following were identified as private sector and public sector impediments to fair housing:

Private Sector Impediments
▪ Harassment of existing and potential renters
▪ Denial of available housing units in the rental market and home purchase market ▪ Refusal to accept rental applications or to rent
▪ Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges, or facilities relating to rental housing ▪ Failure to make reasonable accommodations or modifications ATTACHMENT 6-14

B-6
▪ Wrongful eviction
▪ Hesitancy to file complaints for fear of retaliation
▪ Failure to provide leasing documents in native languages ▪ Steering activities by rental housing agencies
▪ Preferences stated in advertisements for rental housing ▪ Steering, redlining, reverse redlining, and blockbusting activities ▪ Preferences given to persons not utilizing home buyer assistance programs ▪ Denial of home purchase loans
▪ Predatory lending in the home purchase market
▪ Failure to comply with accessibility requirements in construction of housing units ▪ Inequitable investment of Community Reinvestment Act resources ▪ Failure by housing consumers to actively participate in fair housing outreach including education sessions or AI public input opportunities
Public Sector Impediments
▪ Failure to establish compliant-based fair housing policies on the part of several participating cities ▪ Ineffective fair housing outreach and education efforts ▪ Failure to adequately enforce fair housing laws
▪ Onerous access to fair housing services
▪ Failure to make reasonable accommodation in the public housing market, including allowance of service animals
▪ Extortion and bribery activities in response to requests to be placed on housing assistance lists ▪ Land use and planning decisions and operational pra ctices resulting in unequal access to government services, such as transportation
▪ Historical establishment of policies and practices resulting in segregation of minority populations ▪ Insufficient establishment of building codes regarding special needs housing ▪ Lack of enforcement of codes, including health and safety codes and ADA codes ▪ Decisions regarding definitions of “family,” “dwelling units” and related terms ▪ Implementation of exclusionary policies
▪ Failure to engage in actions to affirmatively further fair housing and the AI process by government agencies
▪ Insufficient inclusion of persons adversely affected by housing discrimination as protected classes under federal or state law including domestic violence victims and the elderly Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity
Landlord-Tenant services are provided through the Housing Right Center (HRC), Burbank Housing Authority (BHA) , and the Landlord-Tenant Commission . The HRC provide s general counseling and referrals over the phone and via appointment regarding tenant/landlord issues, the BHA provides information and resources, and complaints requiring mediation are directed to the City’s Landlord-Tenant Commission.

ATTACHMENT 6-15
B-7
Housing Rights Center
Housing discrimination in the city is addressed by HRC under contract with the City of Burbank. HRC provides housing discrimination assistance and tenant/landlord information to Burbank residents, landlords, and property owners. Fair housing services provided by HRC include: investigation of allegations or complaints regarding unfair housing practices; community outreach and education; fair housing audits and testing; and, counseling or referrals to other agencies when individuals may have been victims of discrimination.

One of the primary roles of the HRC is to provide investigation and response to allegations of il legal housing discrimination. As discussed in the Burbank AI, b etween 2017 and 2019, the HRC handled 40 discrimination complaint inquir ies in Burbank. Of these inquiries, only three rose to the level of a discrimination case with the HRC. Certain special needs groups evidence a high incidence of discrimination complaints. Housing for persons with physical disabilities continues to be th e top discrimination complaint in Burbank, consistent with other areas in Los Angeles served by the HRC. The majority of these complaints pertain to the request for a property manager to make a reasonable modification to accommodate a tenant’s disability. Families with children (familial status) and persons with mental disabilities are the primary other protected classes facing alleged discrimination in Burbank.

Hate crimes is another issue related to housing discrimination. Hate crimes are committed because of a bias against race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability, gender, and /or gender identity. Based on Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hate crime statistics for 2016-2019, a total of 26 hate crimes were recorded in the City. During this four-year period, 13 recorded hate crimes were motivated by a bias against race and ethnicity, ten by religion, and three by sexual orientation.

In addition to fair housing complaints, HRC receives calls from Burbank residents request ing assistance with landlord/tenant issues. Between 2017 and 2019, the HRC handled complaints or requests for assistance involving 220 Burbank tenants or landlords . Of these tenant/landlord issues, calls related to notices were the most prevalent, followed by inquiries regarding substandard conditions and security deposits. HRC was able to resolve approximately two -thirds of the complainant’s issues, with the remainder of complainants referred to another agency or group.

In comparison, the Los Angeles County Service Area which includes 47 cities participating in the Urban County of the Community Development Commission of the County of Los Angeles (CDC), received a total of 2,610 fair housing complaints from 2008 through 2016 (based on HUD data). The most common basis for a complaint was for some form of disability, which accounted for more than one -third of the total complaints. The other basis of complaints included: race, familial status, retaliation, national origin, sex, religion, and color.

Burbank Housing Authority
Landlord-tenant services are also provided throug h BHA, which provides information and referrals over the phone regarding tenant/landlord issues. Any complaints requiring mediation are directed to the City’s Landlord-Tenant Commission.

In an effort to provide landlords and tenants information regarding their legal responsibilities and rights, the BHA and the Landlord-Tenant Commission has developed a handout that covers topics such as: leases, rental agreements, and d ocumentation; r ent control and rent increases; t ermination of lease and/or eviction; harassment, retaliation, and d iscrimination c oncerns; and foreclosure and legal m atters.

Furthermore, information on landlord and tenant resources, rights and responsibilities are posted on the City’s website and updated regularly.

ATTACHMENT 6-16

B-8
Burbank Landlord-Tenant Commission
The Burbank Landlord -Tenant Commissi on was established by the City for the purpose of mediating disputes between property owners/managers and tenants. The Commission addresses conflicts involving property maintenance, repairs, lease disagreements, and rent increases, while also promoting the rights and responsibilities of both tenants and landlords in Burbank.

According to the Burbank AI , during the 2017-2019 period there were 125 landlord -tenant disputes , representing less than one percent of Burbank’s rental housing. The disputes ranged from rent raises without proper notice to broken appliances and failures to adhere to building codes. The most prevalent issue tenants disputed pertained to rent increases and unjust seizures of security deposits.

Patterns of Integration and Segregation
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) The race and ethnic composition of a population influence fair housing issues to the extent that certain racial and ethnic groups may experience discrimination. These influences are due to factors such as color, language spoken, or other cultural factors, which can affect resident’s ability to find housing, obtain home financing, or have unrestricted access to housing of their choice. As presented in Table B-1, the majority of Burbank’s residents in 2018 were non-Hispanic White (57%), a slight decrease from 59 percent in 2000.

Hispanic residents in Burbank represent almost one-quarter (24%) of the total population. Although Asian residents represent a relatively smaller segment of the population, the share of Asian residents nearly quadrupled since 1980, increasing from three percent in 1980 to 12 percent in 2018. The City’s Black/African American population has remained relatively limited, rising from less than one percent in 1980 to three percent in 2018 . Although the Census does not identify Armenian residents, this is an important ethnic community in Burbank. According to the Armenian National Committee of America, it is estimated that over 16,000 Armenians reside in Burbank, or 15 percent of the City’s total population.

Unlike the racial/ethnic composition patterns of Burbank, in Los Angeles County the Hispanic population is the largest ethnic group, represents almost one -half (49%) of the total county res idents. The non - Hispanic White population is slightly over one-quarter (26%). Both the countywide Asian (14%) and Black (8%) populations account for larger proportions of Asians and Black residing in Burbank.

Table B-1
Racial and Ethnic Composition 2018
Racial/Ethnic Group1 Burbank Los Angeles County
Population Percent Population Percent
White 59,122 56.7% 2,659,052 26.3%
Hispanic 24,720 23.7% 4,893,603 48.5%
Asian 12,786 12.3% 1,451,560 14.4%
Black/African American 2,676 2.6% 795,505 7.9%
Native American 329 0.3% 20,307 0.2%
Other 4,642 4.5% 278,055 2.7%
TOTAL 104,275 100% 10,098,052 100%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 2014-2018
1 White, Asian, Black/African American, Native American, and Other racial/ethnic groups denote non-Hispanic.

ATTACHMENT 6-17

B-9
The degree of minority concentration in the City can also assist in determining the extent of fair housing impediments. Exhibit B-1 illustrates the overlap of Burbank ’s racial/ethnic distribution by block groups and poverty levels by census tracts. As the exhibit shows, Burbank’s minority residents -- in this case the non-White population -- was concentrated primarily in block groups immediately southwest of the I -5 corridor and in the vicinity of Hollywood Burbank Airport. Of the concentrated non-White (60-80%) areas, the three block groups located east of the airport, north Vanowen Street, and southwest of I-5 (combined as CT 3105.01), had the highest non -White concentration levels ranging from 74 percent to 77 percent and relatively low levels of poverty (10-20 percent of population). The highest level of poverty in the City was in CT 3107.03, located north of the I-5 at the City limits with Glendale. Over one-quarter (28%) of the population in this census tract had incomes below the poverty level. Exhibit B -3 also shows that areas west of the City had very high concentrations (80-100%) of non-White population and poverty level in the 20-30 percent range.

To meet the threshold of a racial/ethnic concentration area, the census trac t mus t have a non‐white population of 50 percent or more. The poverty threshold is a census tract with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. According to the HUD database used to create the map in Exhibit B-1, census tracts within Burbank do not meet the defined parameters for a R/ECAP designation.

Exhibit B-2 shows no R/ECAP census tract s in Burbank and the nearest R/ECAP areas to Burbank are located approximately five miles to the west in San Fernando Valley and nine miles to the south near Downtown Los Angeles.

Areas of Affluence
While the Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty has been the focus of Federal fair housing policies to address racial poverty and segregation, the AFFH is also required to examine the other side of the spectrum, which is the racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA ). According to a HUD policy paper, RCAA is defined as an affluent, White community. P atterns of segregation in the United States show that of all racial groups, Whites are the most severely segregated1. Therefore, this AFFH will examine the percentage of White population and median household income as an indicator of areas of affluence.

As mentioned above, based on the Census ACS 2014-2018 estimates presented in Table B-1, the majority (57%) of Burbank’s residents are non-Hispanic White (White), as compared to only 26 percent countywide.

The spatial distribution of predominantly White census tracts (greater than 50%) is shown in Exhibit B -3 for the City and the eastern San Fernando Valley/western San Gabriel Valley region. The map shows that the northern and southwestern areas of the City as well as downtown Burbank tend to have larger populations of White residents. From a regional perspective, Exhibit B -3 also shows sizable and predominantly White ar eas east of the City, while areas west of Burbank are primarily non -White and majority Hispanic.

1 “Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation” authored by Edward G. Goetz, Anthony Damiano, and Rashad A. Williams of the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota.

ATTACHMENT 6-18

B-10
Exhibit B-1
Racial and Ethnic Distribution and Poverty

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2014-2018 and 2015-2019) https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b38495 7d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

ATTACHMENT 6-19

B-11
Exhibit B-2
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP)

Source: HUD, 2021 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty

Burbank
R/ECAP Census
Tract
ATTACHMENT 6-20

B-12
Exhibit B-3
Prominent Racial/Ethnic Population

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2015-2019)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
ATTACHMENT 6-21

B-13
Median household income is another indicator of areas of affluence. As presented in Table B-2, Burbank’s 2018 median household income is estimated at $73,277, which is higher than the County ’s median household income of $64,251 . When examining the disparity between incomes of White s to total households for both Burbank and the County, the differences are pronounced. For Burbank, the Whi te median household income of $72,992 is lower than the Ci ty’s overall median income by a minus four percent. This is a city where the White population is the majority. In comparison to the County, the White median household income is significantly higher than the median income of the County by 31 percent. In the County, Whites only represent about one-quarter of the total population.

From a spatial perspective, Exhibit B-4 shows that higher median income census block groups (greater than $87,100 -- green and dark green shades) are located primarily in the north ern and southwestern areas of the City. There are 11 census block groups in the northern and southern areas of the City with median household incomes exceeding $125,000 (dark green shade). At the regional scale, income patterns to the east and southwest of the City are similar to those of Burbank, while to northwest of the City, the income patterns are generally lower.

In conclusion, the two exhibits show that predominant ly White areas of the City have higher median household incomes compared to the surrounding areas. Therefore, the overlap of these two indicators highlights the areas of the City that are considered racially concentrated areas of affluence.

Table B-2
Non-Hispanic White Median Household Income and Population – Burbank and Los Angeles County
Burbank Los Angeles County
Median HH Income
NH White Alone
All Households
$72,992
$73,277
$83,847
$64,251
% of NH White Population 57% 26%
Source: Census ACS 2014-2018 (S1903)

ATTACHMENT 6-22

B-14

Exhibit B-4
Median Income

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2015-2019)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
ATTACHMENT 6-23

B-15
Dissimilarity Index
A measure of residential segregation is the dissimilarity index, which is a commonly used measure of community-level segregation. As defined by HUD, the dissimilarity index represents the extent to which the distribution of any two groups (frequently racial or ethnic groups) differs across census tracts or block- groups. This means that levels of segregation between racial/ethnic groups and non -Hispanic Whites as measured by the percent of population that would need to move to achieve perfectly balance neighborhoods or complete integration. The values of the dissimilarity index range from 0 to 100, with a value of zero representing complete integration between the racial /ethnic groups and non -Hispanic Whites, and a value of 100 representing complete segregation. HUD indicates that a dissimilarity index of less than 40 is considered low segregation; 40-54 is considered moderate segregation and greater than 55 is considered high segregation.

Table B-3 presents the 2000 and 2010 dissimilarity indices of a racial/ethnic group to non-Hispanic White for the City of Burbank and the Los Angeles -Long Beach-Glendale Metropolitan Area. In 2010, the City was considered relatively integrated. All three minority groups (non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and non- Hispanic Asian) to non -Hispanic Whites in the City had dissimilarity indices of less than 40.0 -- the maximum index considered low segregation. The 2010 dissimilarity index for Blacks was 20.7, Hispanics was 27.7, and Asians was 9.6. This means that 27.7 percent of the Hispanic population would need to move into predominately White census tract areas to achieve perfect or complete integration. In comparison, Burbank was significantly less segregated (or more integrated) in comparison to the Metropolitan Area as a whole for all three minority groups. In 2010, the Metropolitan Area had a dissimilarity index of 65.0 for Blacks, 63.9 for Hispanic, and 55.6 for Asian -- all levels considered as high segregation.

Table B-3
Dissimilarity Index 2000 and 2010
Ethnic Group to Non-Hispanic
White
2000 2010
% of Total
Population
Dissimilarity
Index
% of Total
Population
Dissimilarity
Index
City of Burbank
Black/African American 2.3% 23.8 3.0% 20.7
Hispanic 24.9% 27.4 24.5% 27.7
Asian 10.2% 12.0 13.4% 9.6
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale Metropolitan Area
Black/African American 10.0% 67.4 8.9% 65.0
Hispanic 44.6% 63.1 47.7% 63.9
Asian 12.9% 48.2 14.9% 55.6
Source: U.S. Census 2000 and 2010; Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences at Brown University Notes: White, Asian, and Black groups denote non-Hispanic.

ATTACHMENT 6-24

B-16
Persons with Disabilities
A disability is defined as a long lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition that impairs an individual’s mobility, ability to work, or ability for self-care. The special housing needs of disabled persons result from limited and often fixed incomes; shortage of available group -living opportunities and accessible housing designs; higher health care costs; and proximity to services and transit. According to the Burbank AI, 36 of the total 40 discrimination inquiries to the Housing Rights Center (HRC) between 2017 and 2019 were related to physical or mental disabilities.

According to the Census ACS 2014 -2018 data, it was estimated that 11 percent of Burbank’s non- institutionalized population had some type o f disability, as compared to 10 percent countywide. In comparison to other neighboring cities, Burbank is higher than the City of La Ca ñada-Flintridge (7%), Los Angeles (10%), and Pasadena (10 %), but lower than the City of Glendale (14 %). For Burbank residents, the likelihood of having a dis ability varied by age -- from two percent of p eople under 18 years old, to seven percent of people 18 to 64 years old, and to 40 percent of those 65 and over. At the county level, seniors (age 65 and over), which was also the highest age group with a disability, accounted for 36 percent of the total non-institutionalized population.

Within Burbank, there are no areas of high concentration of persons with disabilities. As illustrated in Exhibit B-5, which is based on the Census ACS 2015 -2019 data, only one census tract (CT 3107.01) has a moderate (20-30%) concentration of persons with disabilities. According to the Census data, Census Tract 3107.01, which is located near Downtown Burbank north of the I-5, shows that 22 percent of the populations live with a disabi lity. Also, over one -half (54%) of this census tract ’s disabled population is over the age of 65 years. All the other census tracts in the City have a percentage of persons with disabilities of less than 20 percent. Exhibit B -5 also shows other areas in the eastern San Fernando Valley/western San Gabriel Valley region. At this regional perspective, census tracts with 30 -40 percent of its population with disabilities are highly concentrated in the Los Angeles City communities of Sylmar, Pacoima, and near Downtown Los Angeles. T wo census tracts in the exhibit show concentrations exceeding 40 percent, including the area along the foothills of the Angeles Forest in the community of Tujunga and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in West Los Angeles.

Familial Status
Familial status refers to the marital status of the head of household with or without children under the age of 18. Data on familial status can provide insight into potential segregation issues in a community.

The HCD AFFH Data Viewer maps shown in Exhibits B -6 to B-9, illustrate the spatial distribution of the familial status categories for the City of Burbank and the eastern San Fernando Valley/western San Gabriel Valley region.
▪ Adults Living Alone (Exhibit B-6). Thirty-two percent (32%) of Burbank adult heads of households and 25 percent of Los Angeles County adult heads of households live alone. As shown on Exhibit B-6, the largest share of adults living alone (20-40%) in Burbank are located in four census tracts:

CT 3107.01 and CT 3107.02 located in Downtown Burbank; CT 3118.01 eastern border south of the I-5; and CT 3116 in the Media District of southern Burbank. The pattern of adults living alone is similar through the eastern San Fernando Valley/western San Gabriel Valley region, with the exception of one census tract in Pasadena where a single census tract has a concentration of 40- 60 percent of adults living alone.

ATTACHMENT 6-25

B-17
Exhibit B-5
Percent of Population with Disability

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2015-2019)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
ATTACHMENT 6-26

B-18
Exhibit B-6
Percent of Adults Living Alone

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2015-2019)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
ATTACHMENT 6-27

B-19
▪ Adults Living with Spouse (Exhibit B-7). Higher percentages (60-80%) of Burbank’s population in married households are located in the northern portion of the City (CT 3101 and CT 3103). These are primarily single -family residential neighborhoods located north of 6th Street and in the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains. The remaining areas of the City have approximately 40 to 60 percent in married households. These percentages are similar to many areas in region e ast of Burbank (western San Gabriel Valley region). Areas in the west of Burbank (eastern San Fernando Valley region) generally show a pattern of lower percentage (20 -40%) of adults living with a spouse. Estimates indicated that the percentage of adults living with their spouse is approximately 45 percent in the County.
▪ Children in Single Female -Headed Households (Exhibit B-8). Female -headed households with children under the age of 18 require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

In addition, families with children sometimes face housing discrimination for fear of property damage. Children in female headed households in Burbank rep resent four percent of the City’s total households, as compared to Los Angeles County as a whole, which represents seven percent of the total households. Geographically, children in female-headed households are concentrated in a CT 3118.02, which is located in the eastern portion of the City, south of the I-5. Exhibit B-8 shows that 40-60 percent of the children in female single -parent households are located in this census tract. All the other census tracts in the City are below 40 percent, with most bel ow 20 percent. This overall pattern is exhibited through most of the neighboring areas of the eastern San Fernando Valley/western San Gabriel Valley region.
▪ Children in Married -Couple Households (Exhibit B -9). As mentioned above, households with children face housing discrimination, and according to the Burbank AI, HRC have observed an increase in fair housing violations towards families with children throughout their fair housing service area, such as signs posted in common areas limiting usage by children. Exhibit B-9 shows the highest percentage (>80%) of children in married -couple households are located in the northern portion of Burbank, north of the I-5, and in the central portion of the City, south of Vanowen Street and north of Magnolia Boulevard. The census tracts with the lowest percentage (40-60%) are located near the downtown area -- CT 3107.01 north of the I-5 and CT 3118.02 south of the I-5. The spatial patterns of children in married-couple households are similar to many areas to the west a nd east of Burbank. Based on the Census ACS 2014 -2018 data, a comparison between the City and County shows that Burbank had a higher percentage (42%) of married - couple households with children than Los Angeles County (39%).

Income
Income is an important factor that can contribute to integration and to overcome patterns of segregation.

As previously discussed, in 2018 the median household income in Burbank was $73,277 as compared to the County’s median household income $64,251. Exhibit B-10 illustrates areas of Burbank’s low-moderate income population areas and previous Exhibit B-1 shows the level of poverty by census tract.

ATTACHMENT 6-28

B-20
Exhibit B-7
Percent of Adults Living with Spouse

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2015-2019)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
ATTACHMENT 6-29

B-21
Exhibit B-8
Percent of Children in Female Householder with No Spouse/Partner

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2015-2019)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
ATTACHMENT 6-30

B-22
Exhibit B-9
Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2015-2019)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
ATTACHMENT 6-31

B-23
Exhibit B-10
Low-Moderate Income Population

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2015-2019)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
ATTACHMENT 6-32

B-24
Exhibit B-10 shows the geographic distribution of the percentage of low-moderate income population by census tracts in Burbank and the surrounding eastern San Fernando Valley/western San Gabriel Valley region. The map shows census tracts with highest percentage (50 -75%) of the low-moderate income population concentrated along the I-5 corridor. These are the areas within the City that are proposed for future investment and new development with the adoption and implementation of the Burbank Downtown TOD Specific Plan and Golden State Specific Plan. The vast majority of census tracts are within the 25-50 percent low-moderate income population in the City. Exhibit B-10 also shows more areas to the west and east of Burbank to have higher concentrations of low to moderate income population, those that are 50 percent and over.

Another measurement of income is the percentage of residents that live below the poverty line. This is illustrated in previous Exhibit B-1, which shows that Census Tract 3107.03 has the highest percentage (25%) of its residents living in poverty. This census tract is located in the southeastern portion of Burbank on the border with Glendale and north of I -5. All the other census tracts in the City show less than 20 percent of the population living below the poverty line. Areas outside of Burbank showing 30-40 percent are in the poverty category include census tracts in communities of eastern San Fernando Valley, census tracts in the Cities of Glendale and Pasadena, and areas in the vicinity of Downtown Los A ngeles. In comparison to the Los Angeles County, Burbank has a significantly lower percentage of families living below the poverty level (7% Burbank verses 12% Los Angeles County).

ATTACHMENT 6-33

B-25
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas
Based on economic, environmental, and educational criteria established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the majority of the Burbank’s census tracts are identified as areas of Highest and High Resources.

This indicates that Burbank residents have a high level of access to resources and opportunities that can impact educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility.

Table B-4 presents resource categories and index scores for the four key criteria for each census tract and Exhibit B-11 illustrates the spatial distribution of TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas in Burbank. According to the table and exhibit, only two of Burbank’s 24 census tracts are identified as Moderate Resource, with the remaining tracts identified as H ighest or High and one not applicable because the census tract is Hollywood-Burbank Airport (CT 9800.10). These two Moderate Resource census tracts (CT 3107.03 and CT 3118.02) are located in the southeastern portion of the City along the I-5 corridor.

Table B-4
Burbank Opportunity Resource Levels
Census Tract Final Category
Economic
Domain Score
(by region)
Environmental
Domain Score
(by region)
Education
Domain Score
(by region)
Composite
Index Score
310100 High Resource 0.802 0.125 0.848 0.408
310201 High Resource 0.674 0.624 0.836 0.418
310202 High Resource 0.776 0.526 0.794 0.417
310300 Highest Resource 0.865 0.433 0.848 0.579
310400 High Resource 0.784 0.090 0.854 0.368
310501 High Resource 0.596 0.038 0.862 0.160
310601 High Resource 0.438 0.054 0.854 0.102
310602 Highest Resource 0.838 0.258 0.848 0.504
310701 High Resource 0.574 0.082 0.858 0.218
310702 High Resource 0.612 0.046 0.811 0.113
310703 Moderate Resource 0.300 0.027 0.732 -0.179
310800 High Resource 0.663 0.046 0.822 0.162
310900 High Resource 0.740 0.069 0.862 0.321
311000 Highest Resource 0.760 0.203 0.885 0.457
311100 High Resource 0.775 0.150 0.754 0.270
311200 Highest Resource 0.845 0.451 0.826 0.518
311300 Highest Resource 0.849 0.462 0.905 0.658
311400 Highest Resource 0.843 0.364 0.892 0.601
311500 Highest Resource 0.835 0.313 0.921 0.631
311600 High Resource 0.840 0.219 0.810 0.433
311700 High Resource 0.860 0.085 0.841 0.434
311801 High Resource 0.834 0.032 0.827 0.288
311802 Moderate Resource 0.450 0.030 0.843 0.037
980010 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the California Department of Housing and Community Development ATTACHMENT 6-34

B-26
Exhibit B-11
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas

Source: 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2021-tcac-opportunity-map CT 3107.03
CT 3118.02
Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
ATTACHMENT 6-35

B-27
Table B-5 provides a summary profile of the two Moderate Resource census tracts. A closer look at CT 3107.03 indicates that almost two -thirds (65%) of it s residents are White . The poverty s cale for CT 3107.03, with a 20-30 percent of population below the poverty level is consistent with tract’s 63 percent lower income households. The median age of homes is approximately 50 years old. This tract is comprised predominantly renters (90%) with over two -thirds of the households facing a housing cost burden . This area falls within The Burbank Center Plan (BCP), which was adopted in 1997 as an economic revitalization plan, and is currently being updated and integrated within the Downtown TOD Specific Plan. The City and its former Redevelopment Agency have attracted numerous major employers to this census tract, including a 455,000-square foot IKEA store and a Home Depot, as well as Ralph’s and Trader Joes grocery stores. The South San Fernando Streetscape Plan provided a variety of public improvements to the area to create a more visually pleasing and pedestrian-oriented environment.

Census Tract 3118 .02 is also identified as Moderate Resource. Its racial/ethnic composition is majority Latinx. Poverty levels are al so high, but there is a lower percentage (45%) of lower income households than CT 3107.03. The Lake/Verdugo Focus Neighborhood falls within this tract, and the City and Burbank Housing Corporation (BHC) have to date improved 72 rental units and provided a s long-term affordable housing. A major employer in this tract is the Burbank Recycling Center. A large portion of this tract falls within the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan and will benefit from investments under the Plan.

Table B-5
Moderate Resource Census Tracts
Census Tract
3107.03 3118.02
Population 4,693 4,135
Race/Ethnicity White: 65% Latinx: 19%
Other: 7% Asian: 6%
Black: 3%
Latinx: 53% White: 26%
Asian: 14% Black: 4%
Other: 4%
Poverty Status (refer to Exhibit B-1) 20-30% <10%
% Low-Income Households 63% 45%
Type of Housing Single-family: 10%
Multi-family: 90%
Single-family: 19%
Multi-family: 81%
Median Year Housing Built 1971 1972
% Owner/% Renter Owner: 10%
Renter: 90%
Owner: 15%
Renter: 85%
Number of Housing Choice Vouchers 64 10
Overcrowding (>1.01/room) 12% 18%
Overpayment (>30% of Inc. to Housing) 69% 43%
Planned Investments (Economic growth
and Community benefits)
CDBG Eligible CT
Community benefits and public
improvements will continue
under Downtown TOD Specific
Plan.

CDBG Eligible CT
BHC will continue to improve
housing conditions &
affordability. Downtown TOD
Specific Plan will provide new
community benefits and public
improvements.

Sources: ACS 2014-2018 and 2015-2019; Burbank Housing Corporation; Urban Displacement Project, UC Berkeley http://www.urbandisplacement.org/
ATTACHMENT 6-36

B-28
HUD Opportunity Indicators
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed the opportunity indicators to help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity. The index scores are based on nationally available data sources and an assessment of residents’ access to key resource opportunities in the City and the region. Table B -6 provides the index scores (ranging from zero to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
▪ Low Poverty Index: The higher the value, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood. ▪ School Proficiency Ind ex: The higher the value, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.
▪ Labor Market Engagement Index: The higher the value, the higher the labor force participation and human capital is in a neighborhood.
▪ Transit Trips Index: The higher the value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
▪ Low Transportation Cost Index: The higher the value, the lower the cost of transportation is in that neighborhood.
▪ Jobs Proximity Index: The higher the value, the better acce ss to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
▪ Environmental Health Index: The higher the value, the better environmental quality of a neighborhood.

Education
The City is within the jurisdiction of the Burbank Unified School District (BUSD) which provides public school services to Burbank residents for grades kindergarten through 12. BUSD oversees eleven elementary schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and an alternative school that offers child development, special education, independent learning, and adult education programs. Schools within BUSD have a combined enrollment of approximately 15,000 students. Information provided through the California Department of Education shows that the District ’s high school graduation rate in 2020 was 92 percent, in comparison to the state graduation rate of 87 percent. In addition, approximately one -third (35%) of the District’s students are socioeconomically disadvantaged and 10 percent are English as second language learners2. Census ACS 2014 -2018 data show that Burbank residents had a higher education attainment level than the county as a whole. This data shows that 58 percent of Burbank residents 25 years and over had at least graduated from high school and that 42 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. This compares to countywide data that shows 51 percent of its resident 25 year and over had graduated from high school and 32 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher.

2 California Department of Education, School Dashboard, http://www.caschooldashboard.org ATTACHMENT 6-37

B-29
Table B-6
HUD Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity

Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Trip
Index
Low
Transport.

Cost
Index
Job
Proximity
Index
Environ.

Health
Index
City of Burbank
Total Population
White, Non-Hisp. 66.07 77.83 69.01 90.93 82.61 95.33 18.47 Black, Non-Hisp. 61.92 78.18 66.59 92.63 85.67 95.81 17.68 Hispanic 63.54 76.67 64.48 91.41 83.79 96.11 17.77
Asian/Pac. Is., Non-Hisp. 65.65 77.35 68.07 91.38 82.87 95.80 18.70 Nat. Am., Non-Hisp. 61.48 77.62 65.86 91.48 83.56 95.74 17.47 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hisp. 56.67 78.67 63.31 91.65 85.76 95.52 18.71 Black, Non-Hisp. 66.73 79.31 69.13 93.95 87.65 94.59 17.15 Hispanic 57.48 79.15 60.27 92.08 85.97 96.45 18.24
Asian/Pac. Is., Non-Hisp. 61.82 80.52 68.64 94.44 86.64 96.44 19.95 Native Am., Non-Hisp. 44.00 69.84 74.00 94.00 81.00 94.81 18.00 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Region
Total Population
White, Non-Hisp. 65.19 68.03 67.43 77.63 73.13 54.59 21.35 Black, Non-Hisp. 36.07 33.82 35.34 87.25 79.02 40.72 11.92 Hispanic 35.53 39.72 35.73 86.48 77.78 43.70 12.36
Asian/Pac. Is., Non-Hisp. 55.03 61.94 57.64 85.13 75.98 51.11 13.13 Native Am., Non-Hisp. 48.40 50.70 48.58 81.04 75.36 45.88 17.68 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hisp. 53.66 60.62 59.62 83.19 78.51 56.98 18.46 Black, Non-Hisp. 24.12 28.03 26.41 88.34 81.07 36.90 11.74 Hispanic 25.05 33.70 29.50 89.09 80.94 44.63 10.63
Asian /Pac. Is., Non-Hisp. 45.45 57.59 51.41 88.58 80.61 52.88 11.05 Native Am., Non-Hisp. 33.63 39.10 36.05 84.43 78.22 47.65 16.22 Source: HUD AFFH, https://egis.hud.gov/affht/

ATTACHMENT 6-38

B-30
Burbank residents have a high degree of access to educational opportunities. The TCAC/HCD educational domain scores in previous Table B-4 include math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates at the census tract level. These scores range from a low of 0.73 (CT 3107.03) to as high as 0.92 (CT 3115). Exhibit B -12 at the end of this section shows that all census tracts in Burbank, with the exception of CT 3107.03 (located in the southeast portion of the City north of I-5), have educational scores exceeding 0.75, indicating the most positive educational outcomes. As presented earlier in the discussion of Table B-5, CT 3107.03 is one of two Moderate Resource tracts in Burbank, and is characterized by higher rates of poverty and lower incomes. With an educational score of 0.73, it is just slightly below the 0.75 threshold. Students in CT 3107.03 that attend public schools are enrolled at Joaquin Miller Elementary School (located within this census tra ct), John Muir Middle School (approximately 1-1.5 miles north of this census tract), and Burbank High School (approximately 1-1.5 miles north of this census tract). According to the California Department of Education ’s Smarter Balanced Summative Assessmen t, standardized test results show that during the 2018 -2019 academic year, students of Joaquin Miller Elementary School, John Muir Middle School, and Burbank High School all performed better than the test results of the overall school district and the stat e for their respective grades. For example, 68 percent of students at Joaquin Miller Elementary Schools met or exceeded English Language Arts/Literacy (ELA) standards and 58 percent met or exceeded mathematics standards during the 2018-2019 academic year. This compares to district-wide student performances of 65 percent for ELA and 51 percent for mathematics.3 These test result patterns are also similar at the middle school and high school levels. In addition, a K-12 school rankings prepared by U.S. News & World Report based on student diversity, teachers, counselors, test scores, and district spending data, ranked Joaquin Miller Elementary School number two among 11 elementary schools in the district, only behind Providencia Elementary.4
Census Tract 3107.03 also has a concentration of persons with income below the poverty level; however, as discussed above, the schools serving this census tract appear to rank high and score high in standardized testing. Another population group that needs greater a ccess to educational resources is children in female headed households. These children are concentrated in CT 3118.02 which is located south of I -5 in southeast Burbank. However, as Table B -4 shows, the education domain score for this census tract is 0.84, which indicates there is access to educational opportunities.

Exhibit B-12 at the end of this section presents a map of educational score levels by census tract using the HCD AFFH Data Viewer , and illustrates that Burbank’s educational scores are h igher than those of Glendale, Pasadena, and the Los Angeles City communities in eastern San Fernando Valley. 5 School proficiency from a regional perspective is also presented in the HUD-based Table B-6. The school proficiency index uses school -level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high -performing e lementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. Therefore, the higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. As the table shows, the school proficiency of Burbank's total population by

3 California Department of Education, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. The Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments for English language arts/literacy ( ELA) and mathematics annually assesses student knowledge and skills for ELA and mathematics, as well as how much students have improved since the previous year. These measures help identify and address gaps in knowledge or skills early so students get the support they need for success in higher grades and for college and career readiness. https://caaspp-elpac.cde.ca.gov/caaspp/ 4 US News and World Report, https://www.usnews.com/education/k12?int=top_nav_K-12 5 While census tract 9800.10 is depicted in Exhibit B-12 as having a low educational score, this tract in fact is entirely comprised of the Hollywood Burbank Airport and has no population, consistent with Table B -4.

ATTACHMENT 6-39

B-31
race/ethnicity is higher than those in the Los Angeles -Long Beach -Anaheim region as a whole. For example, the non-Hispanic White population and Hispanic population of Burbank have school proficiency indices of 78 and 77, respectively, which are significantly h igher than the regionwide indices of the non- Hispanic White (68) and Hispanic (40) population. These school proficiency patterns by race/ethnicity of the total population are also similar for the population below the federal poverty line. In summary, Burbank does not have any substantial differences in access to educational opportunities.

Economics
Burbank is a major employment center in the region with over 130,000 jobs. However, average annual unemployment rates for the City in 2019 was five percent, higher than unemployment rates in Los Angeles County (4%) and the state as a whole (4%).

The City scores high in terms of access to economic opportunities. The TCAC/HCD economic domain scores in previous Table B-4 range from a low of 0.300 (CT 3118.02) to as high as 0.865 (CT 3103), with Exhibit B- 13 showing that that majority of the City ’s census tr acts scored greater than 0.75 indicating the most positive economic outcomes. The northeastern and southwestern portions of the City scored the highest, while more modest economic scores were concentrated in areas along the I -5 corridor. Three census tracts have lower economic domain scores (0.25 – 0.50), which include Burbank’s two Moderate Resource census tracts (CTs 3107.03 and 3118.02) in the southeastern portion of the City, and CT 3106.01 located north of I-5 in the Peyton/Grismer Focus Neighborhood. All three of these tracts are characterized by a higher than average (50 - 75%) low and moderate income population (refer to Exhibit B -10). However, these census tracts are in close proximity to jobs throughout the City, but in particu lar those jobs in the Downtown District. All three census tracts (CTs 3106.01, 3107.03, and 3118.02) are within or adjacent to the Downtown District, which include large employme nt centers such as the Burbank Civic C enter (City Hall and other governmental departments), and retail commercial establishments in and around Burbank Town Center. The Town Center alone has over one million square feet of floor area. Census Tract 3107.03 also includes the largest IKEA store in the United States, as well as Car Ma x and Home Depot. City staff has indicated that Census Tract 3107.03 is approximately one mile from Disney Imagineering and DreamWorks Animation in the adjacent City of Glendale, which provide job opportunities for Burbank residents. Furthermore, residents of Census Tract 3118.02 are within 1.0 -1.5 miles of six of the top ten major employment centers in the City (Walt Disney Company, Warner Brothers, Providence St. James Medical Center, ABC Inc., and Nickelodeon Animation -- refer to Housing Element Table 1-5). Census Tract 3106.01 is adjacent to the Downtown District and the Airport District, which is west of I -5. The Airport District includes major retail employment centers such as Lowe’s, Target, Walmart, and Costco, as well as Hollywood Burbank Airport, two Marriott Hotels, and entertainment-related businesses.

City staff has identified recently approved commercial and mixed-use projects that will provide additional employment opportunities for Burbank residents, including those in Census Tracts 3106.01, 3107.03, and 3118.02. The following is a list of approved commercial and mixed-use projects:
▪ Netflix Animation. Streaming giant Netflix selected Burbank’s Airport District for its worldwide animation headquarters in what was 2020’s largest new LA c ounty office lease. The project encompasses 171,000 sq ft on seven stories at 2300 W Empire Avenue . The project permit was issued in 2021.
▪ Titmouse. An animation production company signed a 95,000 sq. ft. deal at 2835 N Naomi Street in Burbank’s Airport District. Permits for tenant improvements were finalized in 2021. ▪ Warner Bros. Tour Center . Located at 4000 Warner B oulevard, the 79,800-sq. ft. studio tour center is in the Media District. The project was opened to the public 2021.

ATTACHMENT 6-40

B-32
▪ Providence Saint Joseph ER and Urgent Care. Located at 501 S Buena Vista Street in the Media District, this project will include a 34,500-sq. ft. 44-bed emergency room and an 8,500-sq. ft. 12- bed urgent care. The permit was issued in 2020 and construction is continuing as of May 2022. ▪ Avion Burbank. Project is located at 3001 N Hollywood Way in the City ’s Airport District. It includes one million sq. ft. of industrial/space, 142,000 sq. ft. of creative office space, 15,000 sq. ft of retail/restaurant space, and a 150-room hotel. The project opened to the public in 2021, with the hotel under construction as of May 2022.
▪ Warner Bros. Second Century. An 800,000-sq. ft. office space project designed by Frank Gehry.

It is to be located on West Olive Avenue in the Media District. Anticipated opening in 2023. ▪ First Street Village Mixed -Use. Located on First Street between Magnolia Boulevard and Palm Avenue in Downtown. The project will include 275 apartments and 18,876 sq. ft. of retail space, with an anticipated opening in 2023.
▪ La Terra. 777 Front Street in Downtown Burbank. It includes 573 residential units, 1,067 sq. ft. of retail space, and a 307-room hotel. Anticipated opening in 2023-2025 ▪ Airport Replacement Terminal. 2627 N Hollywood Way is 355,000 sq. ft. and includes 14 gates, new parking structures, and taxiway extensions. Anticipated opening in 2025. ▪ South San Fernando Mixed -Use. Located at 624-628 S San Fernando Boulevard in Downtown Burbank, includes 42 residential rental units with ground floo r retail/ office. Approved by the Planning Board in 2020
▪ AC Hotel. This 196-room AC Hotel will be located at 550 N Third Street in the Downtown District.

As of May 2022, the project is in City Plan check.

In comparison to the region, economic opportunities in Burbank are similar to those available to Glendale and Pasadena residents, but higher than in the communities in eastern San Fernando Valley, including the City of San Fernando.

Exhibit B-14, Jobs Proximity map, clearly shows that all of Burbank is in close proximity to jobs, that there is a high degree of access to employment opportunities for its residents. The Census ACS 2014-2018 data indicates 56 percent of Burbank resident workers 16 years and over that do not work at home commute less than 30 minutes to work as compared to 49 percent of countywide worker. While Burbank has good access to job opportunities and is considered jobs-rich, it still needs more housing at varied income levels to balance the number of jobs. Exhibit B-14 also illustrates that from a regional perspective, areas that are highlighted in red with an index score of less than 20 are located in Los Angeles City communities of Highland Park/El Sereno (southeast of Glendale), Sunland/Tujunga (north of Burbank), and Pacoima/Panorama City/Van Nuys in eastern San Fernando Valley, including the City of San Fernando.

Economic opportunity indicators based on the HUD indices presented in Table B -6 include low poverty, labor market engagement, and jobs proximity. The low poverty ind ex captures poverty in a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is determined at the census tract level. A high score indicates less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood. The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative in tensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood, based on the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract.

Higher scores indicate higher labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. The third economic opportunity indicator is jobs proximity, which quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA), with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.

ATTACHMENT 6-41

B-33
Table B -6 shows that the index values for the three economic opportunity indicators are sign ificantly higher for Burbank residents than for those in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim region. This applies to all race and ethnic groups of the total population and the population below the federal poverty line.

The difference between Burbank and t he region is most evident by the job proximity indicator. For the total population of Burbank, the job proximity index is about 96 for all race/ethnic groups, which indicates the presence of large employment centers in close proximity to residential neigh borhoods, and that job proximity appears not to be tied to race and ethnicity. In comparison, the regional job proximity scores range from 41 (non-Hispanic Blacks) to 55 (non-Hispanic Whites). The labor market indicator (labor force participation and human capital) shows that while the index value for non-Hispanic Whites is higher than the region, the gap is relatively small -- 69 for Burbank and 67 for the region. However, the difference between Burbank and the region is more pronounced for the minority groups, and especially for the population in poverty.

With an educated labor force , a network of efficient public transit, and an established entertainment industry, Burbank will continue to attract employment-generating businesses to the City as evident by the recent approval of major commercial projects.

Transportation
The availability of efficient, accessible, and affordable transit is critical to the social and economic well - being of Burbank residents, especial to lower-income households that must use public transit to commute to work, and the elderly and persons with disabilities that require transportation to medical and other public social services, as well as for routine activities such as shopping. Currently, Burbank residents have access to the local and regional bus and rail transit systems within the City and to other parts of the region.

The City is served by Burbank Bus, a commuter‐oriented service that provides local connections to regional Metrolink rail service. In a ddition to Burbank Bus, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) operates a number of bus routes that serve local destinations. Other important bus service providers include the City of Glendale Beeline, Los Angeles Department of Transportation Commuter Express Service, and Santa Clarita Transit. In addition, Burbank is located along the proposed California High Speed Rail Corridor, with a station proposed adjacent to the Hollywood Burbank Airport.

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) developed a mapping tool for High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) as part of the Connect SoCal 2020 -2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). SCAG defines HQTAs as areas within one-half mile from a major transit stop and a high -quality transit corridor. Exhibit B -15 shows that most of Burbank is located within an HQTA. Additionally, all of the opportunity sites, entitled projects, and pending entitlement projects identified in the Housing Element site inventory are an HQTA. The HQTA graphically shows Burbank ’s transit connects and options throughout the City and the rest of the region.

ATTACHMENT 6-42

B-34
Exhibit B-12
Access to Educational Opportunities

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2021)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
CT 3107.03
ATTACHMENT 6-43

B-35
Exhibit B-13
Access to Economic Opportunities

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2021)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
ATTACHMENT 6-44

B-36
Exhibit B-14
Job Proximity

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2014-2017)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
ATTACHMENT 6-45

B-37
Exhibit B-15
High Quality Transit Area

Source: SCAG (2016)
https://gisdatascag.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/1f6204210fa9420b87bb2e6c147e85c3_0/explore?location=34.056609%2C- 118.278249%2C10.00

ATTACHMENT 6-46

B-38
Exhibit B-16
Environmental Opportunities

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2021)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
ATTACHMENT 6-47

B-39
The HUD-based transportation opportunity indicators shown in Table B -6 include transit trips and low transportation cost. The transit trip index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a three -person, single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. The low transportation cost index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a three-person, single- parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. Therefore, the higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.

Similar to other opportunity indicators, transit trips and low transportation cost index values are higher for Burbank residents than residents of the Los Angeles -Long Beach -Anaheim region. All residents of Burbank have very high access to public transit and low transportation costs with index values in the 90s and 80s, respectively. At the regional level, scores are 70/80s for access to transit and the 70s for lower transportation cost. Another pattern is that minority r esidents tend to have slightly higher values than non-Hispanic Whites for both Burbank and the region.

While Burbank residents overall tend to have higher transit use and lower transportation costs than the rest of the region, female -headed households with children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and those with incomes below the poverty level need even more public transit. These groups of residents are concentrated in the following census tracts: female -headed household with children (CT 3118.02); the elderly (CTs 3107.01 and 3107.02); persons with disabilities (CT 3107.01); and, residents in poverty (CT 3107.03). All of the identified census tracts are located along the I-5 corridor in the southeastern portion of Burbank. All four census tracts are located within the High Quality Transit Area and are serviced by various local and regional bus transit lines. But, for more curb-to-curb transportation service for Burbank’s seniors and persons with disabilities, there is the BurbankBus Senior and Di sabled (BBS&D) Transit that allows these residents to maintain healthy and active lifestyles. To be eligible for the BBS&D Transit service, Burbank residents must be 60 years of age or older or qualify by nature of a disability. In addition, MTA has a new on-demand rideshare service known as Metro Micro, which offer trips within several zones in LA County, including the North Hollywood/Burbank service zone. All four of the above mentioned census tracts are within this service zone. This rideshare service is for short local trips and uses small vehicles (seating up to 10 passengers). The Metro Micro service is meant to be a fast, safe and convenient option for quick trips around town.

MTA is also preparing the plans for the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit (NoHo-Pasadena BRT) Project. The 18 -mile high-quality regional transit project w ill connect the Metro North Hollywood Red Line Station, the Burbank Media District, Downtown Burbank, Glendale, Eagle Rock, and Pasadena. A bus rapid transit is a bus corridor that operates like a light rail line, and includes rail-like stations, frequent bus service, and roadway improvements to include bus lanes and traffic signal priority that allows the bus to bypass congestion. This transit line t raverses or is in close proximity to the four census tracts (CTs 3107.01, 3107.02, 3107.03, and 3118.02).

Environment
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening tool (known as CalEnviroScreen 3.0) to identify communities disproportionately burden by multiple sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution. The CalEnviroScreen 3.0 was used in the TCAC/HCD AFFH Data Viewer map shown in Exhibit B-16 to measure environmental opportunities within Burbank and the region. Low scoring census tracts (less than 0.25) tend to be more burdened by pollution from multiple sources and are most vulnerable to its effects, taking into account their socioeconomic characte ristics and underlying health status, and high scoring census ATTACHMENT 6-48

B-40
tracts (0.75 to 1.0) having more positive environmental outcomes. Overall, the majority of Burbank census tracts score in the low range, with two census tract (CT 3102.01 and CT 3102.02) in the northeast portion of the City along the Verdugo Mountain foothills having moderate high scores (0.50-0.75). From a regional perspective, more positive environment outcomes occur away from Burbank, closer to areas along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and Santa Monica Mountains, area southeast of Glendale, and areas of northeastern San Fernando Valley.

Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000) requires cities with identified disadvantaged communities to include environmental justice goals and policies in th e General Plan. Per SB 1000, the California EPA uses CalEnviroScreen, a mapping tool to identify disadvantaged communities throughout the state. The model scores each of the indicators using percentiles and combines the scores for individual indicators to determine an overall CalEnviroScreen score for a given census tract relative to others in the state. As shown in Exhibit B-17, there are a total of five census tracts identified as disadvantaged communities: two census tracts (CTs 3105.01 and 3106.01) in Burbank identified as disadvantaged communities, located along the I-5 northeast of Burbank Boulevard; and three census tracts (CTs 3107.03, 3118.01, and 3118.02) also along the I-5 in southeast Burbank at the border with Glendale. As mandated under SB 1000, the City of Burbank is updating the Safety Element and other General Plan Elements in conjunction with the Housing Element to include policies to address environmental justice through reducing health risks to disadvantaged communities, promoting civil engagement, and prioritizing the needs of these communities.

ATTACHMENT 6-49

B-41
Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement Risk
Overpayment
Housing affordability problems occur when housing costs become so high in relation to income that households are faced with paying an excessive portion of their income for housing, leaving less income remaining for other basic essentials. Housing overpayment occurs when a household spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs; severe overpayment refers to spending more than 50 percent of income on housing.

As presented in Table B -7, the majority ( 56%) of total renter households in Burbank p ay more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, which is slightly less than the 58 percent countywide. Almost one-third (31%) of renter households are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs, which is about the same rate as the County.

Table B-7
Housing Overpayment 2018
Overpayment
Burbank Los Angeles Co.

Households Percent Percent
Renters
Overpayment
(30%-50% Household Income) 5,861 25.3% 27.3%
Severe Overpayment
(>50% Household Income) 7,207 31.1% 31.0%
Total Overpayment-Renters
(>30% Household Income) 13,068 56.4% 58.3%
Owners*
Overpayment
(>30%-50% Household Income) 3,053 17.6% 19.8%
Severe Overpayment
>50% Household Income 2,403 13.9% 16.6%
Total Overpayment- Owners
(>30% Household Income) 5,456 31.5% 36.3%
Source: ACS 2014-2018 (B25091)
*Owner household includes with and without mortgage

ATTACHMENT 6-50

B-42
Exhibit B-17
Disadvantaged Communities

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2021)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
ATTACHMENT 6-51

B-43
As shown in Table B -8 o verpayment is most pronounced among lower income renter households. A significant majority of renter households earning less than $50,000 in Burbank face either overpayment or severe overpayment, and the highest percentage (95%) of overpayment are renter household in the $20,000 to $34,999 income range. Therefore, the impact of housing overpayment on Burbank’s lower income households is significant, with the community’s special needs populations – seniors, persons with disabilities, and female -headed households with children – being the most vulnerable to losing their housing due to an inability to pay. For these reasons, housing overpayment is considered a significant issue in Burbank.

Table B-8
Renter Overpayment by Income 2018
Income Level
Overpayment
(30-50% HH Income)
Severe Overpayment
(>50% HH Income)
Total
(>30% HH Income)
Households
% Renter
Income
Level Households
% Renter
Income
Level Households
% Renter
Income
Level
Less than $20,000 579 13.1% 3,571 80.6% 4,150 90.7%
$20,000-$34,999 593 19.0% 2,374 75.9% 2,967 94.9%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,724 58.1% 854 28.8% 2,578 86.9%
$50,000 to $74,999 1,809 47.0% 408 10.6% 2,217 57.6%
$75,000 to $99,999 825 26.7% 0 0 825 26.7%
$100,000 or more 331 5.8% 0 0 331 5.8%
Total 5,861 25.3% 7,207 31.1% 13,068 56.4%
Source: SCAG Pre-Certified Local Housing Data, August 2020; ACS 2014-2018.

Overcrowding
The State defines an overcrowded housing unit as one occupied by more than 1.0 person per room (excluding kitchen, porches, and hallways). A unit with more than 1.5 occupants per room is considered severely overcrowded. The incidence of overcrowded housing is a general measure of whether there is an available supply of adequately sized housing units.

Housing overcrowding impacts Burbank renters more than homeowners in the City. Of the total renter households in the City, seven percent were living in overcrowded conditions (more than 1 person per room), while only two percent of total owner households were living under these conditions. Burbank’s overcrowding percentages were one -half those of Los Angeles County (17% for renter s and 6% for owners).

While overcrowding in general is not considered a significant housing issue in Burbank, there is a disparity in the supply and demand for large rental units among lower income households, with 940 lower-income large family renter ho useholds and only 590 adequately sized and affordable units. This imbalance between supply and demand contributes to nearly one -fifth of the City’s renter households residing in overcrowded conditions, and demonstrates the need for larger apartment units c onsisting of three or more bedrooms.

ATTACHMENT 6-52

B-44
Housing Conditions
For many low-income families, substandard housing is the only housing available at an affordable price.

One indicator of substandard housing is the age of a City’s housing stock. The age of housing is commonly used by State and federal agencies as a factor in estimating rehabilitation needs. Typically, most homes begin to require major repairs or have significant rehabilitation needs at 30 to 40 years of age. In addition, housing built prior to 1980 may have lead paint, asbestos, and other hazardous materials, which are now banned in the construction of homes. Also, since the Sylmar Earthquake of 1971, stringent seismic safety standards were developed to ensure that structures could withstand seismic activity of similar magnitude.

According to the Census ACS 2014 -2018 data, approximately three-quarters (74%) of Burbank’s housing stock consists of units built before 1980. In comparison, the age of Los Angeles County’s housing stock is similar to Burbank, with 75 percent of its housing units built prior to 1980.

As shown in Exhibit B -18, rental housing built before 1980 is located in the darkest shaded areas , which include census tracts located in: western Burbank south of the Hollywood Burbank Airport and Vanowen Street; northwest Burbank north of the I-5 Freeway; and in the vicinity of the southeast boundaries of the City. As previously shown in Exhibit B-3: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, these census tracts are identified as “highest” or “high” areas of resources and opportunit ies and relatively “low” areas of poverty.

However, it is of interest for the City to monitor all housing built prior to 1980 for lead paint and other hazardous or structurally unsafe housing issues.

Exhibit B-18
Rental Housing Built Before 1980

Percent of Rental Housing
Built before 1980

Source: Burbank 2020 Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI)
ATTACHMENT 6-53

B-45
Another measure of substandard housing condition in a jurisdiction is the lack of adequate plumbing and kitchen facilities in a housing unit. Estimates from the Census ACS 2014 -2018 data show s that only 62 occupied housing units in Burbank lacked complete plumbing facilities or 0.1 percent of the total occupied units in the City. There were more units lacking complete kitchen facilities, with 532 units or 1.3 percent of the City’s total occupied units. At the countywide level, estimates were higher than Burbank in both cases. According to the Census estimates, 0.5 percent of the County’s total occupied housing units lacked complete plumbing facilities and 1.5 percent lacked complete kitchen facilities.

Severe Housing Problems
Exhibit B-19 shows the percentage of households experiencing any one of four severe housing problems (lack of complete plumbing, lack of complete kitchen, severe over -crowding, and severe cost -burden).

The exhibit shows Burbank and other nearby cities and unincorporated communities were in the 20 -40 percent range of household s facing a severe housing problem. For Burbank, 27 percent of households faced severe housing problems. Other areas that experienced higher percentages than Burbank included the Cities of San Fernando (39%), Los Angeles (37%), and Glendale (36%), while the City of Pasadena was the same as Burbank. Cities with lower percentages than Burbank include the Cities of South Pasadena (20%), San Marino (20%), La Canada -Flintridge (19%). The highest percentage in the area was the unincorporated community of East Los Angeles at 40 percent.

Homelessness
According the 2020 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count released by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), the January 2020 “point in time” count enumerated 66,439 homeless individuals in Los Angeles County, reflecting an increase of 13 percent over the previous 2019 count. Other Southern California counties have experienced even higher increases in homelessness between 2019 and 2020, with Kern at 19 percent and San Bernardino a t 20 percent. Only San Diego County witnessed a decrease in homelessness of minus six percent. Within Los Angeles County, the largest number of homeless were counted in Metro Los Angeles (Service Planning Area 4), which includes the Los Angeles City downtown area and its vicinity, with a count of 17,121 or 26 percent of the countywide homeless total. San Fernando Valley (Service Planning Area 2), which includes the City of Burbank, had a count of 9,274 homeless or 14 percent of the countywide homeless total.

A closer look at LAHSA ’s homeless data indicate that in Los Angeles County, about one-quarter of homeless families were sheltered and about three -quarters unsheltered. Between 2019 and 2020, the number of homeless families increased by 46 percent. The demographic data also indicate that the homeless population in Los Angeles County is mostly Hispanic/Latino at 36 percent, then Black/African American at 34 percent, followed by White at 26 percent. Asian/Pacific Islanders represent only 1.5 percent of the countywide homeless population. Of the racial/ethnic groups, Black/African Americans are disproportionately represented. This group represents 34 percent of the total homeless, while only accounting for eight percent of the total county population. The Hispanic/Latino ’s share of the total county population is 49 percent and White’s 26 percent.

Other LAHSA 2020 homeless data for Los Angeles County show:
▪ 6,290 homeless seniors (62+), accounting for nine percent of the total county homeless -- an increase of 20 percent since 2019.
▪ 19 percent increase of transitional age youth households and unaccompanied minors in one year. ▪ 54 percent increase in chronic homelessness in one year (HUD defines chronic as homeless for more than one year and has a disabling condition).

ATTACHMENT 6-54

B-46
▪ Two-thirds of people experiencing homelessness identify as male. ▪ One half of unsheltered cisgender females (18+) have a history of domestic, intimate partner and other sexual violence.
▪ 59 percent of newly homeless cite economic hardship as the main reason for their homelessness.

Within Burbank, LAHSA’s 2020 point in time cou nt identified a total of 291 homeless individuals (207 unsheltered and 84 she ltered homeless), an increase of only three percent from the previous year, but almost doubling since 2016. The City’s sheltered homeless included the following: 65 individuals i n transitional housing; 19 individuals in the emergency shelter who reported they were from Burbank; 47 persons living in the street; 146 homeless persons living in a car, van, or RV/camper; and nine persons living in a makeshift shelter.

Demographic information provided for the San Fernando Valley (Service Planning Area 2) shows that three-fourths of the homeless population are individuals and not in a family household. About one third of total homeless persons identify as female. Six percent of the total homeless in San Fernando Valley are seniors (62+). Also, the homeless identifying as Hispanic/Latino account for 43 percent of the total homeless population in San Fernando Valley, which is followed by Whites at 30 percent and Black/African Americans at 22 percent.

Working together with local, County, and City of Los Angeles partners, the City of Burbank adopted a comprehensive Homeless Plan for 2011-2021, scheduled to be updated in spring of 2022. The Homeless Plan provides a proactive approach to homelessness by: 1) creating action-oriented solutions that address the ongoing systemic social issues of homelessness impacting our community; 2) coordinating efforts to address homelessness with City Departments, public and private entities, businesses, a nd community involvement; and 3) identifying funding, barriers, and measurable outcomes.

As previously discussed in Housing Element ’s Special Needs Populations of the Housing Needs Assessment, there are numerous agencies and organizations that are current ly providing programs and services to help the homeless in Burbank. Examples of a few of the homeless resources include:
▪ Burbank Housing Corporation (BHC), in partnership with service providers including Family Services Agency (FSA) and Family Promise of the Verdugos, owns and operates five transitional/supportive housing facilities within Burbank. ▪ Burbank Housing Authority (BHA) and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority offer a form of tenant-based rental assistance to chronically homeless individuals and families. ▪ Burbank Temporary Aid Center (BTAC) administers a motel voucher program for homeless individuals and families to stay at local motels.
▪ Family Promise of the Verdugos provides temporary shelter and supportive services to families that are “situationally” homeless.
▪ Ascencia Emergency Housing provides Burbank homeless with 60 -90 days of emergency and transitional housing and permanent supportive housing.
▪ Street Plus - Downtown Burbank Hospitality and Social Outreach Ambassador Program dedicated to homeless outreach in downtown Burbank by providing homeless individuals receive housing, housing support, or transportation back to their families. ▪ Safe Storage and Help Center (SAFE) was completed in August 2021. The Salvation Army assists homeless individuals with safely storing their personal belongings at the center while also providing case management and referrals to services.

ATTACHMENT 6-55

B-47
A complete list of homeless resources and additional information are included in the Housing Element's Special Needs Populations section and on the City of Burbank website.

Displacement Risk
There are no affordable units currently at-risk of converting to market‐rate within the 2021‐2029 planning period. The three projects identified as at-risk in the City’s 2014-2021 Housing Element included Pacific Manor, Wesley Tower , and Harvard Plaza . All three have extended their affordability requirements beyond the 2021-2029 planning period.

A mapping tool developed by the UCLA Urban Displacement Project using 2018 Census ACS data provides stakeholder a better understand where neighborhoods are changing and are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties 6. As illustrated in Exhibit B-20, a vast majority of Burbank census tracts are identified as Stable Moderate/Mixed Income. However, areas most susceptible to displacement include three connecting census tracts (CT 3107.01, CT 3107.02, and CT 3107.03) located southeast of Burbank Boulevard in downtown Burbank to the border with the City of Glendale. These census tracts are identified as Low -Income/Susceptible to Displacement or Ongoing Displacement of Low -Income Households and are mostly lower -income areas or have experienced an absolute loss of low-income households between 2000 and 2018. With a strong housing market for both owner homes and rental units in Burbank and a shortage of housing statewide, the average apartment rent in Burbank have increased by 40 percent since 2013. The information on rents in Burbank is based on surveys conducted in 2013 and 2020. As a result, many lower income households have been priced out of the ownership and rental housing market and must look elsewhere for housing. Also, the majority of lower income renters face overpayment. The burden of higher housing cost is supported by data from the Census ACS 2015-2019 estimates that show CT 3107.02 and CT 3107.3 continue to have the highest proportion of cost -burdened renters in the City (more than 30% of household income going towards housing). At the other end of the scale are three census tracts: CT 3111 located south of the Hollywood Burbank Airport is designated Becoming Exclusive; and CT 3101 and CT 3103 in the northern part of the City are designated Stable/Advance Exclusive. The location of the census tracts and the criteria used to define the designations are presented in Exhibit B-20.

While most of Burbank is stable with moderate and mix income, the areas immediately to the west of the City and portions of southern Glendale are susceptible to displacement and gentrification. At the county level, the UCLA Urban Displacement Project data show Los Angeles County exhibiting the highest rates of gentrification among the three counties of Southern California, with 10 percent of census tracts classified as At Risk of Gentrification, Early/Ongoing Gentrification, or Advanced Gentrification. In addition, five percent of census tracts in Los Angeles County are not gentrifying but experiencing Ongoing Displacement of Low-Income Households.

6 UCLA Urban Displacement Project, https://www.urbandisplacement.org/los-angeles/los-angeles-gentrification- and-displacement
ATTACHMENT 6-56

B-48
Exhibit B-19
Severe Housing Problems

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD CHAS 2014-2018)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b38495 7d4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

39%
19%
27%
36%
27%
20%
37%
40%
20%
34%
ATTACHMENT 6-57

B-49
Exhibit B-20
Displacement Risk

Source: Urban Displacement Project, UC Berkeley (ACS 2014-2018) http://www.urbandisplacement.org/

CT 3107.03
CT 3107.01
CT 3107.02
CT 3111
CT 3101
CT 3103
ATTACHMENT 6-58

B-50

5. Summary of Housing Issues and Contributing Factors
The Burbank AI evaluated a wide range of housing issues and potential barriers to fair housing. In general, Burbank is becoming a more racial/ethnically diverse community and the evidence of segregation is low in comparison to Los Angeles County as defined by HUD . The City does not have an identified R/ECAP census tract. Furthermore, the City’s census tracts are designated as highest or high opportunity areas under the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas, with the exception of two moderate opportunity census tracts located in the southeastern portion of the City. Most of the City’s residents have access and are in close proximity to local and regional transit, health care facilities, education, and other services. However, there are fair housing issues that still need to be addressed in the City. The following summarizes the key contributing factors or impediments to fair housing:

Housing Issues: Affordable housing of various types for Burbank’s residents ▪ Housing Cost Burden. Of the total renter households in the City, 56 percent were paying over 30 percent of their total household income on housing. This compares to 58 percent countywide. ▪ Large Households. Disparity in the supply and demand for large rental units, especially among lower income households, with 940 lower -income large family renter households and only 590 adequately sized and affordable units. This imbalance between supply and demand contrib utes to nearly one -fifth of the City’s renter households residing in overcrowded conditions, and demonstrates the need for larger apartment units consisting of three or more bedrooms. ▪ Senior Population. Seniors (65+ years) have experienced a steady propor tional increase in population. As of 2018, 15 percent of Burbank residents are seniors as compare d to 13 percent in 2000. The median age of Burbank residents in 2018 was 40 years as compared to 36 years for Los Angeles County residents. Senior citizens face housing needs related to housing maintenance, accessibility, and cost. Seniors also experience high housing cost burdens, with almost one -third of senior households overpaying (more than 30% of income) for housing. ▪ Lower-Income Households. Overpayment is most pronounced among lower income renter households. A significant majority of renter households earning less than $50,000 in Burbank face either overpayment or severe overpayment.
▪ Housing Cost. Median rental rates in Burbank are beyond the level affordable to lower income (80 percent of AMI) households. A three -person low-income household can afford to pay up to $1,423 in monthly rent (excluding utilities), whereas the median two-bedroom apartment rent in Burbank is $1,685 -- an affordability ga p of $262. Moderate income (110 percent of AMI) households are still priced out of Burbank’s homeownership market. The maximum affordable purchase price ranges from $267,000 for a three-person household to $300,900 for a four-person household, rendering both condominiums and single-family homes in Burbank beyond the reach of moderate-income households
▪ Displacement Risk . A reas most susceptible to displacement include four census tracts (CT 3107.01, CT 3107.02, and CT 3107.03) within the City. These census tracts are identified as “Low- Income/Susceptible to Displacement” or “Ongoing Displacement” and are mostly lower-income areas where the increase in rents may cause a risk of displacement.

ATTACHMENT 6-59

B-51
Housing Issues: Public education of fair housing services and fair housing rights ▪ Racial/Ethnic Diversity. Burbank is continuing to become more ethnically and racially diverse, which often brings changes in terms of different income levels, family types , and languages spoken. While the majority of Burbank’s residents are non-Hispanic White (57%), the Hispanic (24%), Asian (12%), and Black (3%) populations are increasing in their proportion of the citywide total. In Los Angeles County , non -Hispanic White residents only account for 26 percent and Hispanics 26 percent. In addition, English proficiency may affect housing needs and opportunities, and the residents’ understanding of their fair housing rights. Among people at least five years old living in Burbank between 2014 and 2018, 45 percent spoke a language other than English at home. Spanish was spoken by 17 percent of people at least five years old; 16 percent reported that they did not speak English "very well."
Housing Issues: Fair housing for the special needs population ▪ Persons with Disabilities. Approximately 11 percent of Burbank’s population has some type of disability, encompassing physical, mental , and developmental disabilities. The living arrangements for persons with disabilities depends on the severity of the condition, and range s from independent living to specialized care environments (group housing). ▪ Housing for Persons with Physical Disabilities. Special need groups experience a high incidence of discrimination complaints. Housing available for persons with physical disabilities continues to be the top disc rimination complaint in Burbank, which is consistent with other areas in Los Angeles served by the HRC. In addition, there are discriminatory complaints pertain ing to requests for a property manager to make a reasonable modification to accommodate a tenant’s disability.
▪ Familial Status and Person with Mental Disabilities. Families with children and persons with mental disabilities are the other protected classes facing alleged discrimination in Burbank. ▪ Homeless. The 2020 point-in-time homeless count identified a total of 291 homeless individuals in Burbank.

Housing Issues: Availability of accessible housing
▪ ADU Design Standard. Public comments from Housing Element community workshops indicated that the need for new ADU design guideline s and standards to accommodate persons with disabilities.

Housing Issues: Neighborhood revitalization
▪ Moderate Resource Opportunity Areas. Although the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area maps indicate that most of Burbank residents have a high level of access to resources and opportunities , there are two census tracts (CT 310703 and CT 311802) that are identified as moderate resource opportunity areas in the eastern portion of the City along the I-5. ▪ Housing Conditions. Majority of the multi-family housing in Burbank are older than 40 years and require maintenance.

ATTACHMENT 6-60

B-52
Site Inventory
As presented in the Housing Element, Burbank’s future housing growth need is based on the SCAG RHNA (6th cycle) that forecasts the need to accommodate 2,553 very‐low (29.1%), 1,418 low (16.2%), 1,409 moderate (16.1%), and 3,392 above moderate income units (38.7%) within the 2021‐2029 planning period. The full Sites Inventory of the Housing Element presented in Appendix D and summarized in Table B-9 shows the City’s ability to accommodate its fair share of existing and future housing needs for all income groups. Based on approved and pending housing projects, opportunity sites identified in the Burbank Downtown TOD and Golden State specific plans, projected development of accessory dwelling units, and committed assistance to convert market rate units to affordable, the City is able to accommodate the level of housing growth determined in the RHNA.

The higher -density housing sites identified in the Housing Element sites inventory ( Appendix D ) are primarily located in the highest and high resource ar eas as shown in Exhibit B-21 of the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas and sites identified in the Site Inventory. Entitled and pending housing projects are located in high resource areas , with two projects in moderate resource areas . ADUs are distributed throughout the City, with additional opportunities for lot splits and duplexes in high resource single-family neighborhoods through implementation of SB 9 . Overall, the sites inventory helps to expand housing options and promotes a pattern of interspersed multi-family residential uses rather than in concentrated locations. The analysis below illustrates that Burbank’s sites inventory: (1) improves areas of opportunity for all Burbank residents; (2) does not exacerbate racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; (3) improves integration; and (4) does not exacerbate displacement risk for Burbank’s residents.

Table B-9
Burbank’s Future Housing Estimates 2021-2029
Sites/Projects

TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Areas
General Plan Net
Units
Specific Plan Net
Units
Downtown TOD Highest, High Mod. Resources 2,788 3,415
Golden State SP Highest and High Resources 836 2,651
Media District High Resources -- --
Entitlement Projects High and Moderate Resources 1,845
Pending Entitlement High and Moderate Resources 490
ADUs Citywide 1,600
Committed Assistance High Resources 10
Total 7,569 10,011
RHNA 8,772 8,772
Difference (1,203) 1,239
ATTACHMENT 6-61

B-53

Exhibit B-21
TCAC Opportunity Areas and Site Inventory

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2014-2018 and 2015-2019) https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d 4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

ATTACHMENT 6-62

B-54
Access to Opportunity
As presented in previous Table B -4 and illustrated in Exhibit B -21, 34 of the total 37 sites in the Site Inventory are located in the highest and high resource areas of the City. Resources include access to education, economic, transportation, and environmental opportunities. Of the total number of potential lower-income units, 90 percent are located in the highest/high resources areas and only 10 percent in the moderate resource areas. This pattern is similar for moderate/above moderate income units where 87 percent are located in highest and high resource areas and 13 percent in moderate resources areas.

Among all the sites in the highest and high resources areas, the TOD 6-Burbank Town includes the largest number of lower income units with a potential of 1,020 units.

AB 686 requires that all sites identified in the Housing Element to meet the RHNA to be consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Additionally, the HCD AFFH guidance memo states that sites must be identified and evaluated relative to socio-economic patterns. This is to ensure that the sites for lower-income housing are located equitably across the city with fair access to opportunities and resources, and that the sites are not concentrated in a single geographic area that could exacerbate segregated living pattern s. To addr ess this requirement, Table B -10 presents the distribution of lower income units and moderate/above moderate income units relative to: access to resource opportunities; racial/ethnic concentrated areas; persons with disabilities; familial status; low/moderate income; poverty; and displacement risk areas . Exhibit s B-22 to B-27 show the locations of entitled and pending projects and opportunity sites identified in the Site Inventory. It should be noted that ADUs have been approved throughout the City, and therefore, the distribution of projected ADUs are assumed citywide.

Racial/Ethnic Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) are areas that have both racial/ethnic concentrations and high levels of poverty. As shown previously in Exhibit B-2, there are no census tracts in Burbank that are designated as R/ECAP. Furthermore, Table B-3 presents the 2010 dissimilarity index, which indicates that Burbank was considered relatively integrated with an index of 27.7 for Hispanics as compared to a county index of 63.9 (lower index scores indicate higher levels of integration).

Segregation and Integration
AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites not only to accommodate the levels of housing needs in the RHNA, but also in a manner that is consistent with affirmatively furthering fair housing. This analysis must address whether the site inventory decreases any existing segregated living patterns and promotes integration among the protected classes. The following analysis discusses the levels of segregation and integration in relation to race/ethnicity, persons with disabilities, familial status, seniors, and income groups.
▪ Minority Concentration. The White population accounts for 57 p ercent of the total population of Burbank, and the Hispanic population, which is the largest minority group, accounts for 24 percent. As shown in Exhibit B-22, most census tracts in the City are predominantly White, though as previously noted, persons of Armenian descent comprise an estimated 15 percent of Burbank’s population and fall within the White racial category . It shows the Hispanic population concentrated in the triangular census tract (CT 3105.01 ) located east of Hollywood Burbank Airport and CT 3118.02 located south of the I-5 and southeast of Olive Avenue. Table B-10 shows that 85 percent of lower income units in the sites inventory are located in census tracts that are predominantly White, with the remaining 15 percent of the lower income units in predominantly ATTACHMENT 6-63

B-55
Hispanic tracts. There is a slightly larger proportion (19%) of moderate and above moderate income units in predominantly Hispanic area.
▪ Persons with Disabilities. According to the ACS 2018 data, an estimated 11,216 Burbank residents (10.8%) have some type of disability. As illustrated in Exhibit B-23, no census tracts are identified as having a high concentration (over 30%) of persons with disabilities. Only one census tract (CT 3107.01), located near Downtown Burbank north of the I -5 has a moderate (20 -30%) concentration of persons with disabilities. Since most of Burbank is identified as highest and high resource areas, including CT 3107.01, persons with disabilities have access to social and medical services, retail establis hments, and p ublic transportation. Table B -10 shows that almost two- thirds (64%) of the lower income units in the Housing Element sites inventory are in census tracts with less than 20 percent of the population with some form of disability and the remaini ng one- third of the lower income units are in census tracts with greater than 20 percent disabled. The percentage of moderate and above moderate income units are even higher (85%) in census tracts with less than 20 percent of the population disabled.
▪ Familial Status. Familial status for this analysis refers female-headed households with children under the age of 18. Approximately four percent of the households in Burbank are female-headed households with children. As previously mentioned, these households require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services. In addition, families with children sometimes face housing discrimination related to property owner fears of excessive noise and property damage. Exhibit B-24 shows the location of proposed housing sites relative to census tracts with a percentage of households with children in single parent female-headed households. It shows that the highest concentration is in CT 3118.02, which is located in the eastern portion of the City, south of the I-5 and includes the TOD 11 -Victory/Olive opportunity site. In addition, Table B-10 shows that over one-half (53%) of the lower income units indentified in the site inventory are in census tracts with greater than 20 percent of children of single female-head of households. ▪ Seniors (65+). Burbank’s older residents, persons 65 years of age or older, have experienced a steady proportional increase in population, and represent approximately 15 percent of the total population of Burbank. Based on Census 2019 ACS data, senior residents are concentrated in Downtown Burbank in CT 3107.01 and CT 3107.02. Approximately one-third of the residents of CT 3107.01 and almost one-fourth of the residents of CT 3107.02 are seniors . Table B-10 shows that 57 percent of the total lower income units in the site inventory are located in the se two census tracts (CT 3107.01 and CT3207.02). The remaining 43 percent of lower income units are located in census tracts with less than 20 percent seniors. ▪ Low - Moderate Income. As illustrated in Exhibit B-25, census tracts with a high percentage (50- 75%) of low - moderate income households are concentrated along the I-5 corridor. These generally coincide with the transit and jobs -rich areas that are proposed for future investment and new development of residential and commercial uses with the adoption and implementation of the Burbank Downtown TO D Specific Plan and Go lden State Specific Plan. Table B-10 shows that almost three-fourths (72%) of the lower income units in the site inventory are in areas with greater than 50 percent low - moderate income households. ▪ Poverty. Exhibit B-26 shows that only one census tract (CT3107.03) located in the eastern portion of Burbank and north of I-5, has a poverty status of 20-30 percent of the population of that census tract whose income is below poverty level. Table B-10 also shows that less than one percent or 13 units of the City’s lower income units in the site inventory are located in CT 3107.03 and over 99 percent of the lower income units are in census tracts where less than 10 percent of the ATTACHMENT 6-64

B-56
population live below the poverty level. It should be noted that HUD uses greater than 40 percent poverty as one of its criteria for designating a n R/ECAP census tract -- a poverty level not witnessed in any census tract within the Burbank.

Table B-10
Fair Housing Assessment of Sites Inventory
Census Tract Areas Categories
Lower Income
Units
Moderate and
Above Mod.

Income Units
Racial/Ethnic Concentration
Predominantly White 85% 81%
Predominantly Hispanic 15% 19%
TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas
Moderate Resources 10% 13%
Highest/High Resource 90% 87%
Persons with Disabilities
Less than 20% of Pop. Disabled 64% 85%
Greater than 20% of Pop. Disabled 36% 15%
Familial Status
Less than 20% of Children of Single
Female Head of HH 47% 59%
Greater than 20% of Children of Single
Female Head of HH 53% 41%
Seniors (65+) Less than 20% of Pop. Seniors 43% 69%
Greater than 20% of Pop. Seniors 57% 31%
Low-Moderate Income
Less than 50% Pop. Low/Mod. Inc. 28% 47%
Greater than 50% Pop. Low/Mod. Inc. 72% 53%
Poverty
Less than 20% of Pop. in Poverty >99% 99%
Greater than 20% of Pop. in Poverty <1% 1%
Displacement Risk
Susceptible/Ongoing Displacement 54% 33%
Stable Moderate/Mixed Income 29% 48%
Becoming Exclusive, and
Stable/Advanced Exclusive 17% 19%
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2015-2019)
Note: HUD defines lower income as less than 50% of AMI and moderate incomes as 51-80% of AMI.

ATTACHMENT 6-65

B-57
Exhibit B-22
Predominant Racial/Ethnic Population and Housing Element Sites

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2014-2018 and 2015-2019) https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d 4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

ATTACHMENT 6-66

B-58
Exhibit B-23
Population with a Disability and Housing Element Sites

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2015-2019)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d 4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

ATTACHMENT 6-67

B-59
Exhibit B-24
Children with Female Householder, No Spouse/Partner and Housing Element Sites

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2015-2019)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d 4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

ATTACHMENT 6-68

B-60
Exhibit B-25
Low-Moderate Income Population and Housing Element Sites

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2015-2019)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d 4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60

ATTACHMENT 6-69

B-61
Exhibit B-26
Poverty and Housing Element Sites

Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ACS 2015-2019)
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4d43b384957d 4366b09aeeae3c5a1f60
ATTACHMENT 6-70

B-62
Displacement Risk
A mapping tool was developed by the UCLA Urban Displacement Project using Census ACS 2018 data to help stakeholders better understand where neighborhoods are changing and are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Die go Counties7. As illustrated in the following Exhibit, a vast majority of Burbank census tracts are identified as Stable Moderate/Mixed Income. However, areas most susceptible to displacement include three connecting census tracts (CT 3107.01, CT 3107.02, and CT 3107.03) located southeast of Burbank Boulevard in downtown Burbank to the border with the City of Glendale. These census tracts are identified as Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement or Ongoing Displacement of Low -Income Households and are mostly lower-income areas or have experienced an absolute loss of low-income households between 2000 and 2018.

The Downtown TOD Specific Plan accommodates 3,415 new units on Housing Opportunity sites, with 85 percent of these units affordable to lower income households. The Specific Plan area includes portions of Census Tracts 3107.01, 3107.02, and 3107.03 (identified as vulnerable to displacement), and also have disproportionate numbers of lower income and minority households , persons with income below the poverty level, the elderly, and persons with disabilities , and therefore, would be affected by the redevelopment of the downtown area. There are seven TOD Housing Opportunity sites located within the three census tracts. In 2019, the total number of units in the three census tracts totaled approximately 7,000 units with a population of 13,500 residents. The projected increase in housing units of the seven TOD opportunity sites in the displacement -risk census tracts is approximately 2,600 units of which approximately 2,300 units or 88 percent will be available to lower income households. Assuming the area’s current persons per dwelling unit of 2.0, the population is estimated to increase by 5,200 residents.

Development of these sites will not directly cause significant displacement as they are currently developed with predominately non-residential uses – only eight existing units . However, new market rate development in areas already at -risk of displacement may place upward pressure on rents, resulting in the potential displacement of existing lower income residents. Locating lower income sites in these areas can help to protect vulnerable residents from being displaced under changing market pressures.

With a strong housing market for both owner homes and rental units in Burbank and a shortage of housing statewide, the average apartment rent in Burbank have increased by 40 percent since 2013. The information on rents in Burbank is based on surveys conducted in 2013 and 2020. As a result, many lower income households have been priced out of the ownership and rental housing market and must look elsewhere for housing. Also, the majority of lower income renters face overpayment. The burden of higher housing cost is supported by data from the Census ACS 2015-2019 estimates that show CT 3107.02 and CT 3107.03 continue to have the highest proportion of cost-burdened renters in the City (more than 30% of household income going towards housing). At the other end of the scale are three census tracts:

CT 3111 located south of the Hollywood Burbank Airport is designated Becoming Exclusive, which is part of the Golden State Specific Plan areas that also included census tracts designated Stable Moderate/Mixed Income; and CT 3101 and CT 3103 in the northern part of the City are designated Stable/Advance Exclusive. The location of the census tracts and the criteria used to define the designations are presented in Exhibit B-27.

Program objectives being considered in the Specific Plan and include programs to provide greater access to these units for current lower incom e households in these at -risk areas, and therefore, reduce the potential for displacement of lower -income residents. Moreover, it is anticipated that the opportunity sites identified within the boundaries of the Specific Plan would request density bonus approval and would

7 UCLA Urban Displacement Project, https://www.urbandisplacement.org/los-angeles/los-angeles-gentrification- and-displacement
ATTACHMENT 6-71

B-63
therefore be subject to State Density Bonus law that limits the displacement of units as well as calling for replacement units.

In addition, Burbank carries out several anti-displacement programs including limits on rent increases and prohibiting evictions without just cause for tenants that have resided in their units for more than 12 months; p roviding relocation fees when state or federal funds are utilized; an d offering existing households an opportunity to return to the new development. The Burbank Housing Authority continues to administer and expand the use of Federal vouchers offering tenant assistance for low er income residents, allowing tenants to remain in their units and providing preference on the wait list for residents spending more than half their incomes on rent (at -risk of displacement). Furthermore, beginning in July 2022, the Housing Authority will be partnering with a local service provider to a dminister the Lifting People Up program for very low-income residents at-risk of homelessness and will assist such households in increasing income, securing employment and maintaining their housing. Finally, the City implements the requirements of Governm ent Code Sec. 65583.2(g)(3), which requires that for any proposed development on a site that has had residential uses within the past five years that are or were subject to lower income affordability restrictions, or are or were occupied by lower income households, the City shall require the replacement of all affordable units at the same or lower income level as a condition of development on the site. Thus, the level of housing growth affordable to lower income households and the displacement programs will not exacerbate displacement in at-risk areas.

ATTACHMENT 6-72

B-64
Exhibit B-27
Displacement Risk and Site Inventory

Source: Urban Displacement Project, UC Berkeley, https://www.urbandisplacement.org/ ATTACHMENT 6-73

B-65
Existing Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing
The description of deed -restricted affordable rental housing is presented in Table 1 -25 of the Housing Element. The opportunity sites are in close proximity to existing deed-restricted affordable rental housing in the City, while others are in areas of the City with fewer existing deed -restricted affordable housing.

The affordable rental housing sites are in areas with access to resources and opportunities such as education, services, jobs, and transit, and they provide additional lower income housing to those susceptible to displacement.

Local Information and Knowledge
In the preparation of the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element and the Burbank Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, the City consulted with various stakeholders regarding housing needs and fair housing issues. During the initial stages of developing the Housing Element, the City conducted two virtual stakeholder consultation workshops. First workshop was for housing developers. The second workshop was for housing service providers and housing advocates that serve the lower income community and special needs groups. In addition, as part of the Burbank AI, the City implemented a community outreach program that included consultation with housing service providers. The following local housing needs and fair housing issues were highlighted during the Housing Element and AI outreach efforts:
▪ Available housing for Burbank’s growing low and moderate income workforce is not being produced in the market.
▪ Cost burden has significant impacts on the special needs population. ▪ Continuing need for public awareness of available housing services and knowledge of fair housing laws for both tenants and landlords/property owners.
▪ Certain special needs groups experienced a high incidence of discrimination complaints. Housing for persons with physical disabilities continues to be the top discrimination complaint in Burbank. ▪ Shortage of housing designed to accommodate persons with disabilities. Building Code requirements (Title 24) for accessibility in new construction are insufficient to meet the need for accessible housing in the community, particularly with the City’s aging population. ▪ Neighborhoods in Burbank require revitalization to improve the existing housing and economic conditions of the area; especially with the limited funds available for redevelopment. ▪ Details of the complete Housing Element public participation program are included as Appendix F of the Housing Element.

ATTACHMENT 6-74

B-66
Fair Housing Actions
Burbank is committed to furthering fair housing through the implementation of Housing Element policies and programs, Burbank AI actions, proposed City actions in this AFFH as they relate to factors contributing to fair housing issues. Table B-11 that follows presents: the five primary fair housing issues in Burbank; evidence and factors that contribute to these issues ; priority of addressing the issues, and identifying meaningful actions by the City.

ATTACHMENT 6-75

B-67

Table B-11
Housing Issues, Contributing Factors and City Actions

FAIR HOUSING
ISSUES

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS/

EVIDENCE AND PATTERNS PRIORITY CITY ACTIONS TARGETS

CORRESPONDING

HE PROGRAMS
Condition that restricts
fair housing choice or
access to opportunity
Factors that create, contribute to,
perpetuate, or increase the severity of fair
housing issues
City’s commits to addressing the fair housing issue during the Housing Element planning period of 2021-2029
Measure of performance Implements HE
Program
Need for Affordable
Housing of Various
Types and Sizes

(Housing Mobility,
New Housing
Choices,
Displacement
Protection)

1. Lack of affordable housing in
affluent areas
▪ Affordable housing in affluent
areas. No new lower income
units are proposed in affluent
census block groups (median
income greater than
$125,000) and approximately
one-quarter of new lower
income housing in area with
median incomes between
$87,100 - $125,000. Only 16
percent of new lower income
units proposed in
predominantly White areas.

High ▪ In 2022, incorporate incentives in the Downtown
TOD Specific Plan, including streamlined land use
entitlement procedures, for accessible units
beyond the state required minimums and
universal design in new developments which
ensures housing can be used by residents
throughout their lifespan.
▪ Initiate a policy to provide developers with State
HCD’s New Home Universal Design Checklist and
encourage them to offer Universal Design
features to interested buyers.

Adopt the Downtown
TOD Specific Plan with
design guidelines and
incentives for accessible
units and housing
designed according to
universal design
principles. Require all
new units in multi-story
buildings to be
adaptable (readily
modifiable for
accessibility), and seek
to achieve at least 6% of
units in buildings with
public funding to be fully
accessible (estimated 23
accessible units in the
TOD Specific Plan).

HE 5-Housing
Opportunity Sites
▪ Starting in January 2022, expand the housing
supply in High Resource single-family zones by
allowing for lot splits and duplexes under the
parameters of SB 9
Through
implementation of the
City’s SB 9 ordinance,
seek to integrate at least
five units annually in
high resource single-
family districts.

New State Housing
Law signed in 2021

ATTACHMENT 6-76

B-68

▪ In 2023, provide a streamlined approval process
for affordable housing projects that qualify for
tax credits and/or other grant funds.

Adopt the Downtown
TOD and Golden State
Specific Plans with
streamlined approval
processes.

HE 5-Housing
Opportunity Sites
HE 8-Public/ Private
Partnership
HE 9- Affordable
Housing
Development
Assistance
HE 17-Objective
Development
Standards
▪ In 2023, develop pre-approved/prototype
accessory dwelling unit (ADU) plans to streamline
the approval process and lower the cost for
developers.

Develop at least three
(3) pre-approved/
prototype ADUs,
including one smaller
sized, lower cost option.

Seek to issue permits for
200 ADUs annually,
including 80% in high
and highest resource
neighborhoods (see
Exhibit B-21) to foster a
more inclusive
community.

HE 6a-Promote
ADUs
▪ In 2023, begin promoting first-time homebuyer
opportunities in high resource neighborhoods
through both regulatory and financial incentives.

Conduct affirmative marketing to promote equal
access to homeownership opportunities.

Adopt regulatory tools,
including a small lot
subdivision ordinance,
zoning for missing
middle housing, and an
updated Inclusionary
Ordinance to increase
affordable
homeownership options
by 10%.

HE 12 – Affordable
Homeownership
Program
ATTACHMENT 6-77

B-69

2. Lack of affordable rental housing
for large households
▪ Large Households. Disparity
in the supply and demand for
large rental units which
contributes to nearly one-fifth
of the City’s renter
households residing in
overcrowded conditions.

High ▪ Continue to work with the City’s non-profit
housing partner, the Burbank Housing
Corporation (BHC) for the development of two
plus– bedroom units.

Develop 10 two plus-
bedroom units through
non-profit housing
partners and BHC. To
date BHC has acquired
and rehabilitated 178
two plus bedroom units.

HE 21-Zone Text
Amendments for
Special Needs
Housing
▪ Continue to provide regulatory incentives such as
a density bonus and/or concessions to private
developers to increase the supply of affordable
housing throughout the community for the
development of two plus-bedroom units.

Increase the use of
density bonuses by 10%.

▪ Continue to utilize landlord financial incentives
such as lease signing bonuses, vacancy holding
fees, and security deposit assistance to assist
large households with a housing voucher to
access rental units.

Increase the use of
landlord financial
incentives by 10%.

3. Displacement of residents due to
economic pressure
▪ Housing Cost Burden. 56
percent of total renters pay
over 30 percent of their total
household income on housing.
▪ Senior Population. Seniors
experience high housing cost
burdens, with almost one-
third of senior households
overpaying for housing.

High ▪ Annually partner with Burbank Housing Authority
(BHA) to administer the Rental Assistance
Voucher program, including targeted vouchers
for VASH (Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing),
Emergency Housing Vouchers and Permanent
Supportive Housing.

▪ Utilize the Landlord Incentive Program to assist
qualifying Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH),
Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH), and
Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) holders with
moving expenses (on a case-by-case basis) and
security deposits.

Continue to administer
an average of 1,116
vouchers per year. To
ensure vouchers are
utilized throughout the
City, provide voucher
holders with a map
delineating higher
resourced areas to
encourage leasing in
these areas.

Furthermore, annual
notice will be provided
HE 4 -Rental
Assistance Vouchers

ATTACHMENT 6-78

B-70

8 As of January 2020, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects tenants from housing discrimination based on source of income, including Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. 9 Landlord incentives are targeted to disabled households with a permanent supportive housing voucher. ▪ Lower-Income Households.

Majority of renter households
earning less than $50,000 in
Burbank face overpayment.
▪ Housing Cost. Median rental
rates in Burbank exceed
affordability levels for lower
income households.
▪ Displacement Risk. Three
census tracts where the
increase in rents may cause a
risk of displacement.
to landlords in higher
resource areas about
source of income
protections under the
FEHA8 and to educate
them that housing
incentive funds may be
available if a unit is
leased to a voucher
holder9 (2023). Provide
preference to residents
spending more than half
their incomes on rent
(at-risk of displacement).
▪ In 2022, update and implement the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance and Density Bonus Ordinance
to effectively integrate affordable units in market
rate projects.

Adopt an updated
Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance and Density
Bonus Ordinance in
2022 . Seek to achieve
at least 15% very low,
low and moderate
income units in
developments with 5 or
more units, including
90% of these affordable
units in high and highest
resource neighborhoods
(see Exhibit B-21).

Increase the use of
density bonuses by 10%.

HE 9-Affordable
Housing
Development
Assistance
HE 10-Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance
HE 11-Density
Bonus Ordinance
ATTACHMENT 6-79

B-71

▪ In 2022/2023, develop and adopt the Downtown
TOD, Golden State, and Media District Specific
Plans to provide the necessary zoning, objective
development standards, and processing
procedures to facilitate the production of higher
density and affordable housing opportunities
near employment transit centers.

Adopt the Downtown
TOD, Golden State, and
Media District Specific
Plans.

HE 5-Housing
Opportunity Sites

▪ Annually partner with BHA to selectively acquire
and rehabilitate property to expand unit sizes,
improve unit conditions, and add necessary
community facilities in focus neighborhoods
using CDBG and HOME funds. Continue to
provide gap financing for affordable housing
projects, with special consideration for projects
that set aside units for extremely low-income
households and persons with disabilities.

Acquire and rehabilitate
three units annually and
24 units over the 2021-
2029 planning period.

BHC has acquired and
rehabbed over 300 units
in Burbank.

HE 1-Neighborhood
Revitalization/
Community Building

▪ Through 2023, provide rapid-rehousing and
transitional housing to assist extremely low
income individuals or households using
Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
funds.

Assist 44 households
with rapid rehousing
assistance in the first
program year.

Assist 40 individuals with
navigation service in the
first program year.

Over the 2021-2029
planning period, provide
130 rapid-rehousing
units and 480 individuals
housing navigation
service.

HE 27-Housing for
Extremely Low
Income Households
ATTACHMENT 6-80

B-72

▪ Pursue state funding and other funding as
available, to provide housing for individuals
and/or families who are experiencing
homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness.

Utilize HOME-ARP funding by September 30,
2030 to assist individuals or households who are
homeless, at risk of homelessness, and other
vulnerable populations, by providing possible
housing, rental assistance, supportive services,
and non-congregate shelter, to reduce
homelessness and increase housing stability
across the country.

Develop 26 modular
homes for the homeless.

Currently there are no
modular homes for the
homeless in the city.

Annually apply for
Measure H funding and
prioritize 100% of the
funds, as available, for
ongoing interim housing
operations
HE 25 Homeless
Housing and
Services
▪ Starting in 2022 seek opportunities to master
lease residential rental units/recuperative care
for at-risk and homeless adults and special needs
populations in an effort to prevent and divert
people from becoming homeless.

As a new program,
partner up with program
operators/developers to
negotiate master lease
agreements.

HE 25 Homeless
Housing and
Services
▪ In 2022 develop and adopt the Downtown TOD,
Specific Plan to provide the necessary zoning,
objective development standards, and processing
procedures to facilitate the production of higher
density and affordable housing opportunities in
the three displacement risk areas of Burbank.

Adopt the Downtown
TOD Specific Plan.

HE 5-Housing
Opportunity Sites

▪ Continue anti-displacement programs including:
limits on rent increases and prohibiting evictions
without just cause for tenants that have resided
in their units for more than 12 months; providing
rent mediation and other conflict resolution
services through the Landlord-Tenant
Commission; providing relocation fees when
state or federal funds are utilized; offering
existing households an opportunity to return to
the new development; and prioritizing rental
assistance to households spending >50% of
Implement programs to
protect existing
residents from
displacement and
expand awareness in the
community of available
protections by
increasing outreach and
provision of
informational materials
through the Housing
HE 3-Preserve and
Protect Existing
Tenants and
Housing
HE 24-Landlord-
Tenant Services and
Mediation
ATTACHMENT 6-81

B-73

10 This will be achieved by: 1) continuing two social media posts a month and adding 2-3 posts in the year to highlight new information and laws; 2) continuing to post new information, laws and updates on the City’s website (homepage); and 3) continuing to place Ads in printed media available through the Burbank Water and Power (BWP) and Parks and Recreation Department. The BWP “CURRENTS” Newsletter is also available digitally, and the information is streamed daily both on monitors in the BWP lobby and on Burbank Channel 6. income on housing costs.

Authority and Landlord
Tenant Commission.10
Increase the supply of
deed-restricted
affordable housing to
allow low and moderate
income residents
options to remain in the
community, including
requiring 15% affordable
units in projects with 5+
units; acquiring and
rehabilitating 24 units
for long-term affordable
housing; purchasing of
affordability covenants
on 10 market rate units;
and establishing a goal
to achieve at least 400
affordable units through
SB 35 projects.
▪ In 2022, the Housing Authority will partner with a
local service provider to administer the Lifting
People Up (LPU) program for very low-income
residents at-risk of homelessness and will assist
such households in increasing income, securing
employment and maintaining their housing.

Help stabilize at-risk
households through the
LPU program, and utilize
available City locations,
including BHC activity
centers located in low
and moderate income
neighborhoods, for
programming.

HE 25-Homeless
Housing Services

ATTACHMENT 6-82

B-74

Need Public
Education of Fair
Housing Services and
Fair Housing Rights

(Housing Mobility,
Displacement
Protection)

1. Lack of fair housing information
due to language barriers
▪ Racial/Ethnic Diversity. As
Burbank becomes more
ethnically and racially
diverse, changes occur in
terms of different income
levels, family types, and
languages spoken. English
proficiency may affect
housing needs and
opportunities, and the
residents’ understanding of
their fair housing rights.

Moderate ▪ Annually partner with Housing Rights Center
(HRC) to promote fair housing practices, and
provide multi-language (Armenian, English, and
Spanish) educational information on fair housing
to the public through distribution of fair housing
brochures, training sessions, workshops, and
press releases/public service announcements.

Conduct at least two fair
housing informational
workshop per year and
increase education and
outreach via social and
print media including
printed materials to
Burbank Water and
Power, the Libraries,
Senior Centers and
Activity Centers.

Through these steps, the
City will increase the
distribution fair housing
material by at least 25%
and increase the
number of Burbank
residents counseled
annually through the
HRC from an average of
85 to 90.

HE 23-Fair
Housing/AFFH
HE 24-Landlord-
Tenant Services and
Mediation
▪ Annually distribute multi-lingual fair housing
mailings to buildings with concentrations of
immigrant tenants based on statistical and
demographic information collected by the City,
HRC, and BHC. Continue to provide tenants and
landlords with resources on fair housing,
procedures on filing a complaint, information on
the Burbank Landlord-Tenant Commission, and
provide copies of HCD’s Landlord/Tenant Rights
booklet in multi-languages.
▪ Annually partner with BHA in distributing multi-
lingual information on housing opportunities
throughout the City, providing landlord
apartment listings as available, as well as
informational brochures to encourage landlords
to participate in the housing choice voucher
program.
▪ Annually partner with BHA in monitoring of the
racial and ethnic make-up of Section 8 voucher
holders and waiting list by the BHA, and provide
applications in multi-languages.

Need Fair Housing
for the Special Needs
Population

1. Significant special needs
population needing fair housing
services
▪ Persons with Disabilities.

Approximately 11 percent of
High ▪ Annually coordinate with BHA, Landlord-Tenant
Commission, and HRC to provide landlord-tenant
conflict mediation involving property
maintenance, repairs, and lease disagreements,
unjust rent increases, and evictions.

Annual monitoring of
the number and
outcome of illegal
housing discrimination
cases and landlord-
HE 23-Fair Housing/
AFFH
HE 24-Landlord-
Tenant Services and
ATTACHMENT 6-83

B-75

(Housing Mobility,
New Housing
Choices,
Displacement
Protection)
Burbank’s population has
some type of disability,
encompassing physical,
mental and developmental
disabilities.
▪ Fair Housing for Families with
Children and Persons with
Disabilities. Special need
groups experience a high
incidence of discrimination
complaints. Housing available
for families with children and
person with physical and
mental disabilities continues
to be the top discrimination
complaint in Burbank.
▪ Homeless. The 2020 point-in-
time homeless count
identified a total of 291
homeless individuals in
Burbank.
▪ Continue to provide investigations and response
to allegations of illegal housing discrimination
through HRC. For cases that cannot be resolved,
defer to the Department of Fair Housing and
Employment, HUD, small claims court, or to a
private attorney, as warranted.
tenant conflict
mediations.

Mediation
▪ In all affordable housing developments that
utilize federal, state or local funds,
owners/developers will be required to meet the
accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act
and Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Annual compliance
monitoring of Fair
Housing Act and Section
504 of Rehabilitation
Act.

HE 23-Fair Housing/
AFFH
HE 26-Housing for
Persons with
Disabilities
▪ Continue to require affirmative fair housing, non-
discrimination and equal access in all federally
assisted projects.

Annual compliance
monitoring of Fair
Housing Act.

Update the AI in 2025
HE 23-Fair Housing/
AFFH

▪ Through 2023 provide rapid-rehousing and
transitional housing to assist extremely low
income households through the Permanent Local
Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds as stated in the
PLHA 5-Year Plan.

Assist 44 households
with rapid rehousing
assistance in the first
program year.

Over the 2021-2029
planning period, provide
130 rapid-rehousing
units and 120 unhoused
households will receive
move-in assistance
HE 27-Housing for
Extremely Low
Income Households
▪ Pursue state funding and other funds as
available, to provide housing for individuals and
families who are experiencing homelessness or
who are at risk of homelessness.

Develop 26 modular
homes for the homeless.

Currently there are no
HE 25 Homeless
Housing and
Services
ATTACHMENT 6-84

B-76

▪ Annually pursue Measure H funding for interim
housing operations.
modular homes for the
homeless in the city.
▪ Annually, implement the Homelessness Plan by
funding utilization of Section 8 and Emergency
Housing Vouchers (EHV) for families at-risk of
homelessness.

Attend regional
homeless coordination
meetings each month.

HE 25 Homeless
Housing and
Services
▪ Continue to collaborate on regional efforts to
develop supportive housing and affordable
housing projects in Burbank, which includes
collaboration with the San Fernando Valley
Council of Governments, Los Angeles County
Homeless Initiative, and Los Angeles Homeless
Services Authority
Need Accessible
Housing

(Housing Mobility,
New and Accessible
Housing Choices)

1. Lack of assistance to modify
housing to accommodate the
elderly and persons with
disabilities
▪ ADU Design Standard. Public
comments indicate the need
for new ADU design guideline
and standards to
accommodate persons with
disabilities.
▪ Persons with Disabilities. One
census tract located in the
Moderate ▪ By 2023, incentivize ADU developers to
incorporate accessibility features by establishing
and promoting a program to reduce building
permit and planning fees. In 2025 conduct a
mid-cycle review to evaluate if ADU production
levels are achieved.

Establish accessible
design guidelines for
ADUs. Reduce building
permit and planning
fees by up to 50% for
qualifying ADUs. Seek
to issue permits for 200
ADUs annually, including
80% in high and highest
resource neighborhoods
(see Exhibit B-21) to
foster a more inclusive
community.

HE 6a-Promote
ADUs
HE6b-Track and
Monitor ADUs
ATTACHMENT 6-85

B-77

northwestern portion of
Downtown Burbank shows
moderate concentration (20-
30%) of persons with
disabilities and over one-half
of this census tract’s disabled
population is over the age of
65 years.
▪ Continue to expedite the permit processing by
providing technical assistance and pre-
application consultation for housing that sets
aside units to persons with physical and
developmental disabilities. The City will continue
to coordinate housing near transit centers and
door-to-door transit services for persons with
disabilities.

Adopt the Downtown
TOD and Golden State
Specific Plans with
accessibility design
guidelines, incentives,
and streamlined
approval processes.

HE 5-Housing
Opportunity Sites
HE 26-Housing for
Persons with
Disabilities
▪ Continue to require owners/developers to meet
the accessibility requirements the Fair Housing
Act and Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973
in all affordable housing developments that
utilize federal, state or local funds. Also,
continue to pursue competitive federal grants
offered by the Office of Lead Hazard Control and
Healthy Homes through the Healthy Homes
Initiative to obtain funding for modifying homes
to accommodate elderly and persons with
disabilities.

Annual compliance
monitoring of Fair
Housing Act and Section
504 of Rehabilitation
Act.

Annually apply for
grants offered by the
Office of Lead Hazard
Control and Healthy
Homes and prioritize
100% of the funds, as
available for modifying
homes for the elderly
and persons with
disabilities. If funds are
received, program
funding will be
marketed to landlords in
low- and moderate-
income neighborhoods
to help improve
conditions in these
vulnerable areas.

HE 23-Fair Housing/
AFFH
HE 26-Housing for
Persons with
Disabilities
▪ Continue to require affirmative fair housing, non-
discrimination and equal access in all federally
assisted projects.

Annual compliance
monitoring of Fair
Housing Act and Section
HE 23-Fair Housing/
AFFH
HE 26-Housing for
ATTACHMENT 6-86

B-78

504 of Rehabilitation
Act.

Persons with
Disabilities
▪ As funding permits, continue to provide gap
financing for affordable housing projects, with
special consideration for projects that set aside
units for extremely low-income households and
persons with disabilities
Develop 26 modular
homes for the homeless.

Currently there are no
modular homes for the
homeless in the city.

HE 27-Housing for
Extremely Low
Income Households
Need Neighborhood
Revitalization and
Resources

(Housing Mobility,
Place-based
Strategies for
Community
Preservation and
Revitalization)

1. Moderate levels of public
investments in specific
neighborhoods
▪ Moderate Resource
Opportunity Areas. Two
census tracts (CT 3107.03 and
CT 3118.02) are identified as
moderate resource
opportunity areas in the City.

Moderate ▪ Continue to provide federal assistance funds (CDBG and HOME) for economic growth,
infrastructure, and community services to areas
of moderate resources.

Provide 65% of CDBG
funds for community
facilities and
infrastructure and 100%
percent of HOME funds
for creating new
affordable units via new
construction or
acquisition/rehab in
moderate resources
opportunity areas.

HE 1-Neighborhood
Revitalization/
Community Building
HE 1a-committed
Assistance
▪ Continue to work with the City’s non-profit
housing partner the BHC to develop affordable
housing units in identified census tracts and
continue incorporating community serving uses
such as childcare, after school care and family
programs.

2. Substandard housing conditions
▪ Deferred Maintenance.

Majority of the multi-family
housing in Burbank are older
than 40 years and require
maintenance.

Moderate ▪ Continue to partner with the BHC to develop or acquire and rehabilitate housing units as part of
the Neighborhood Revitalization program.

Construct or acquire and
rehabilitate an average
of three (3) units per
year, a total of 24 units
over the 2021-2029
planning period.

Convert ten (10) market
rate units to permanent
affordable units by
October 2024.

HE 1-Neighborhood
Revitalization/
Community Building
HE 1a-Committed
Assistance
▪ By October 2024, provide financial assistance of
$5.0 million toward the conversion of market
rate units to permanent affordable housing units.
(See HE program 1a). Report to HCD on the
status of purchasing affordability covenants no
later than July 1, 2025
ATTACHMENT 6-87

B-79

▪ Continue to support acquisition and
rehabilitation activities with an emphasis on
community revitalization, integration, and
permanent affordable housing.

BHC has acquired and
rehabilitated over 300
units in the city.

ATTACHMENT 6-88

Appendix C
Evaluation of 2014-2021 Housing Element Programs

ATTACHMENT 6-89
C-1

Appendix C: Evaluation of Accomplishments Under Adopted Housing Element
Under State Housing Element law, communities are required to assess the achievements under their adopted housing programs as part of the update to their housing elements. These results should be quantified where possible (e.g. the actual number of units rehabilitated), but may be qualitative where necessary (e.g. mitigation of governmental constraints). The results should then be compared with what was projected or planned in the earlier element. Where significant shortfalls exist between what was planned and what was achieved, the reasons for such differences must be discussed.

The City of Burbank 2014-2021 Housing Element sets forth 18 separate program components, which are directed at a variety of housing needs. This section reviews the City’s progress to date in implementing these housing programs and their continued appropriateness for the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Table C-1 that follows summarizes the City’s housing program accomplishments. The results of this analysis will provide the basis for developing the comprehensive housing program strategy presented in Housing Plan of this section.

Table C-1
Evaluation of 2014-2021 Housing Element Programs
Programs/Objective Accomplishments
Existing Housing and Neighborhood Conditions

1. Focus Neighborhood
Revitalization/Community Building
Objective: Acquire and rehabilitate rental
units. Achieve an average of ten housing
units annually, for a total of 80 units over
eight years (20 extremely low‐, 20 very
low‐, and 40 low‐income units).

Progress: After the end of Redevelopment in 2012, the Burbank Housing Corporation (BHC), which implements Burbank’s
Affordable Housing Program, expanded its efforts beyond the Focus Neighborhoods. During the 2014-2020 period, BHC
acquired, rehabilitated, and/or developed the following:
▪ Jerry’s Promise (1932 N. Ontario Street) - acquired,
rehabilitated, and created three transitional housing units for homeless families.
▪ Elmwood Preservation Project Phase II (Elmwood Focus
Neighborhood) -- completed rehabilitation improvements
on ten affordable units.
▪ Fairview Cottages (2300 N. Fairview Street) -- acquired a three-unit property in the Golden State Neighborhood to provide affordable housing for extremely low-income
households.
▪ Veterans Bungalows (1101 W. Verdugo/1108 West Angelino Avenue) -- rehabilitated and furnished 11 deed-restricted very low-income units for homeless veterans.

In total, BHC rehabilitated 27 affordable units during the seven- year period
Effectiveness: This program continues to provide a multi‐faceted approach to improving neighborhoods, providing a service‐ enriched environment, and providing affordable rental housing.

ATTACHMENT 6-90
C-2

Implementation of this program achieved one-third of its objective of 80 units.

Appropriateness: This program continues to be appropriate for the Housing Element Update, providing needed affordable units even though the high cost of housing, limited funds and available properties have constrained program implementation.

2. Code Enforcement
Objective: Conduct proactive
neighborhood improvement activities
within designated CDBG target areas.

Progress: As part of the City’s Building and Safety Division, Code Enforcement is responsible for the enforcement of property maintenance, zoning, unpermitted construction and business license regulations throughout the City. In 2019, there were 1,141 code enforcement cases (residential and non-residential) recorded Citywide. Of this total, 957 cases were completed, 77 cases were pending, and in 107 cases the permit expired. Many of the residential code enforcement cases were related to property maintenance, zoning compliance, and health and safety issues.

Effectiveness: The Code Enforcement program is effective in addressing housing and property maintenance issues, especially properties in the CDBG target areas.

Appropriateness: This is an ongoing program that is an important part of preserving the City’s aging housing stock. Code Enforcement continues to be appropriate for the Housing Element Update.

3. Preservation of Assisted Housing
Objective: Preserve existing "at-risk"
affordable housing stock.
▪ Monitor At‐Risk Units
▪ Support for Refinancing
▪ Rental Assistance
▪ Tenant Education

Progress: There are currently (March 2021) 1,373 deed-restricted affordable rental units in Burbank. The City monitors these affordable units on an annual basis by: maintaining contact with owners/management to ensure long-term affordability covenants are met; maintaining and updating the list of all assisted housing developments; communicating with Section 8 tenants regarding status of HUD contract renewal; providing tenant education for Section 8 recipients in the event of property owner withdrawal from Section 8 program; and promoting fair housing opportu nities through owner/tenant workshops.

Three projects were identified in the 2014-2021 Housing Element as being at potential risk of losing their long-term affordability status: Wesley Towers, Pacific Manor and Harvard Plaza. All three projected have extended their affordability covenants and are no longer considered at risk of conversion.

Effectiveness: The City was effective in having the affordability controls extended on all three at-risk projects.

ATTACHMENT 6-91
C-3

Appropriateness: This is an ongoing program that is an important part of preserving the City’s long-term affordable housing units and aging housing stock. Preservation of Assisted Housing continues to be appropriate for the Housing Element Update.

4. Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8
Rental Assistance)
Objective: Maintain current levels of
Section 8 funding and apply for additional
funds as available. Encourage landlords
to register units with the Burbank Housing
Authority and undergo education on the
Section 8 program

Progress: The Burbank Housing Authority (BHA) has increased its Section 8 allocation of 1,014 vouchers to a total of 1,049 vouchers, including targeted vouchers for VASH (Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing) and Permanent Supportive Housing. Staff applied for funding and was awarded the additional allocation to assist homeless veterans and persons needing supportive housing in the community.

The majority of the vouchers are utilized by seniors and persons with disability. Nearly 29,000 households are on the waiting list for Section 8 rental assistance, although just 12% are current Burbank residents.

Effectiveness: The BHA has been effective in increasing its voucher levels and adjusting program standards to maximize utilization.

Appropriateness: It is the goal of the 2020/21-2024/25 Consolidated Plan to provide Section 8 rental assistance to 1,029 households annually (including 15 VASH vouchers); and with about 29,000 residents on the waiting list for assistance, the Section 8 Rental Assistance program continues to be appropriate for the Housing Element Update.

5. Condominium Conversion Program
Objective: Consider amending the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to include
condominium conversion projects.

Progress: Between 2014 and 2020, there were no applications for condominium conversions and no inclusionary housing
requirements imposed on condominium conversions.

Effectiveness: Burbank’s condominium conversion regulations are effective in facilitating the creation of quality entry‐level ownership housing. Existing regulations help to mitigate impacts on tenants of the units undergoing conversion by regulating noticing procedures and mandating relocation payments to cover the costs of moving.

Appropriateness: The City’s condominium conversion regulations remain an appropriate mechanism to ensure the safety and quality of units and to help mitigate the impacts on displaced tenants.

While there were no conversions during the period, the City is still considering extending the affordability requirements under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to condominium
conversions. Changes to this program will be addressed under the ATTACHMENT 6-92
C-4

Inclusionary Housing Program (#9), so a separate program is no longer necessary.

Variety of Housing Sites

6. Land Use Element and Zoning Code
Objective: Facilitate and encourage the
creation of residential mixed‐use
development in the Downtown area and
other appropriate locations citywide.

Update the Zoning Code to include
development standards for residential
mixed‐use and small-lot development.

Progress: The City approved three mixed use developments in the Downtown: Talaria, First Street Village and 777 N Front Street, providing 1,089 new apartments, which included 82 deed- restricted rental units for qualified moderate income households.

The City initiated and/or adopted the following Land Use and Zoning Code changes impacting residential uses:
▪ Elimination of R-5 Very High Density Residential Zone and MDR-5 Media District Very High Density Residential
Zone (adopted January 2015, Ord. No. 15-3,860). This
Ordinance removes references to the R5 and MDR-5
zones from the Zoning Code and changed the zoning to R - 4 and MDR-4, respectively. These zone changes have
been reflected on the City’s Zone Map.
▪ Single-Family Development Standards and Design
Guidelines (adopted January 2017, Ord. No. 17-3,890 and Reso. No. 17-28,906). This ordinance regulates bulk and mass of residential development in single-family
neighborhoods.
▪ Accessory Dwelling Unit (adopted urgency interim
ordinance in April 2017 and adopted an ADU ordinance in April 2018, Ord. No. 18-3,901). The ordinance amended
the zoning definitions and establish development controls to allow ADUs in all residential zones consistent with
State Law. Allowed ADUs to a maximum size of 500
square feet.
▪ Urgency Ordinance Extending the Residential Growth
Management Provisions of Measure One Until 2030
(adopted December 2019, Ord. No. 19-3,929). This
urgency ordinance extends the growth control measure
originally approved by Burbank voters in 1989 for an
additional 10 years. Measure One caps the maximum
number of residential dwelling units at the maximum
build out identified in the 1988 Land Use Element,
consistent with infrastructure capacities. The
Burbank2035 General Plan has a maximum build out less
than the Measure One maximum build out.
▪ Accessory Dwelling Unit (adopted Interim Development
Control Ordinance December 2019, Ord. No. 19-3,928 and
subsequent ADU Ordinance in February 2020, Ord. No.
20-3932). This ordinance updates development standards for new ADUs and Junior ADUs consistent with recent
changes in State law. Changes include allowance for
ADUs of up to 850 square feet with one-bedroom and up
ATTACHMENT 6-93
C-5

to 1,000 square feet for two-bedrooms, and exemption
from FAR and lot coverage requirements.
▪ Golden State Specific Plan and Burbank Center Plan
Update. The City initiated the Golden State and
Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) Specific Plans. These Plans will
introduce significant additional housing in the area, and will establish development standards and design
guidelines to enable compact, well designed, higher-
density and mixed-use projects.

Effectiveness: The General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance continue to provide opportunities for a mix of housing types -- small lot development, live‐work units, and mixed‐use development.

Appropriateness: The potential for residential mixed-use development within the existing and proposed Specific Plan areas and the continued increase of ADU development make this program appropriate for the Housing Element Update.

7. Second Dwelling Units (“Accessory
Dwelling Units”)
Objective: Promote development of
second units and monitor ADU
development trends annually to evaluate
if modifications are needed for City
requirements.

Progress: New State Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) laws (AB 2299 and SB 1069) took effect in January 2017. These state laws made parts of the City’s secondary dwelling unit requirements null and void and established new regulations regarding on-site parking, type and size of dwelling units, setbacks, and water and sewer utility requirements for all new ADUs. In April 2018, the City’s Zoning Code was updated to incorporate new ADU regulations in compliance with State ADU laws. In February 2020 the City adopted Ord. No. 19-3,932 which established development standards regulating new ADUs and Junior ADUs in the City’s single-family and multi-family residential zones in compliance with 2020 State ADU law.

Effectiveness: Burbank has been highly successful in producing ADUs, having issued over 280 building permits for ADUs between 2017 and 2020. A February 2020 rent survey shows that 46% of ADU rents were within the level affordable to low-income households, 10% were affordable to moderate-income
households, and 44% were at levels affordable to above moderate- households.

Appropriateness: With the new 2020 State ADU laws and the City's ADU Ordinance No. 20-3,932 designed to further facilitate production, applications for ADUs and Junior ADUs are anticipated to remain robust. This program will continue in the Housing Element Update, and pursuant to new State law, will incorporate ATTACHMENT 6-94
C-6

provisions to promote ADUs that provide affordable rents to low and moderate income households.

Development of Affordable Housing

8. Affordable Housing Development
Assistance
Objective: Provide regulatory incentives
and financial assistance for affordable
housing projects, especially for extremely
low-income households and persons with
disabilities. Also, disseminate information
on sites with potential for development,
inclusionary housing requirements,
density bonuses, and other available
incentives and concessions.

Progress: In 2017, the City adopted the Burbank Affordable Housing Analysis and Strategy, which describes some of the causes of the affordable housing crisis and suggests strategies/solutions to be considered by the City. The results from the Strategy helped the City Council to formulate a citywide housing goal to facilitate the building of 12,000 dwelling units during the next 15 years, focused primarily in the Downtown Burbank/Burbank Center Plan/North San Fernando Blvd. Specific Plan area, Airport District (Golden State Specific Plan) area, and parts of the Media District Specific Plan area.

Projects with affordable housing units that received planning entitlements and/or financial assistance during the planning period included:
▪ 601-615 East Cedar Avenue - 46 unit multi-family project provided 35% density bonus and waiver from certain
development standards in exchange for eight deed-
restricted very low- and low-income rental units.
▪ First Street Village – Mixed use project encompassing 261 apartments and over 21,000 square feet of retail, and
including 13 moderate-income units.
▪ 777 Front Street (La Terra) – Mixed use project including 573 rental units, a 300+ room hotel, and 1,000+ square feet of retail. 69 of the units will be provided at affordable rents to moderate-income households.

In addition to these projects, the City provided funding assistance to BHC to acquire and rehabilitate 17 long-term affordable housing units and 10 additional units owned by BHC were also
rehabilitated. The City has also entitled a 42-unit mixed-use project at 624 S. San Fernando Boulevard that will provide affordable units as part of a density bonus request and in compliance with the City’s inclusionary requirements.

Effectiveness: The City has provided incentives to facilitate the development of 90 new affordable rental units. It is anticipated that 8 of these units will come on line during the 5 th Housing Element cycle, with the balance coming on line during the 6 th cycle.

Appropriateness: As funding permits, continue to provide gap financing, regulatory incentives and concessions to private developers and non-profits to increase the supply of affordable ATTACHMENT 6-95
C-7

housing. This program continues to be appropriate for the Housing Element Update.

9. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Objective: Continue to implement the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
▪ Monitor the effectiveness of the
Ordinance
▪ Develop parameters for expending
the in‐lieu fee revenues
▪ Consider amending the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance to include
condominium conversion projects

Progress: Burbank’s existing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, adopted in 2006, requires income and affordability covenants to be imposed on 15% of the units included in new residential developments with five or more units. The ordinance had been suspended for rental housing since 2009 due to the Palmer decision, but with the passage of AB 1505 (the “Palmer Fix”), was re-instated in January 2018. In 2019, an Inclusionary Housing Study prepared by Keyser Marston Associates focused on the impacts created by the imposition of affordable housing requirements; and estimated the fee amounts that can be supported for projects that are permitted to pay a fee in lieu of producing affordable housing. Updated regulations will be considered by the Burbank City Council in 2021. While no inclusionary units were produced during the planning period, numerous projects are in the pipeline that will provide on-site inclusionary units. Smaller projects, such as the recently entitled eight-unit housing project on Naomi Avenue, are more likely to contribute an in-lieu affordable housing fee. to the requested four very low income density bonus units.

Effectiveness: The City continues to apply its existing inclusionary housing regulations for applicable rental and ownership projects.

Appropriateness: The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Program can provide an important tool for increasing the number of affordable housing units in the City, and continues to be appropriate for the Housing Element Update.

10. Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Objective: Support construction and
rehabilitation of housing targeted for
persons with disabilities.

Progress: The City provided financial support to BHC to develop Burbank Veteran Bungalows. This 11-unit property offers formerly homeless veterans affordable housing and supportive services provided through New Directions for Veterans (NDVets). Two units were redesigned for full ADA accessibility.

Effectiveness: City has implemented its reasonable
accommodation ordinance (adopted in 2009) and has complied with ADA requirements.

Appropriateness: This program continues to be appropriate for the Housing Element Update.

11. Sustainability and Green Building Progress: The City has adopted the 2019 California Building Standards Code, including the California Energy Code and the CALGreen Code. Each of these codes have increased measures for ATTACHMENT 6-96
C-8

Objective: Implement Sustainability
Action Plan and Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plan and encourage green
building practices in new construction and
rehab projects.

energy efficiency, resource conservation, green building, and sustainability. Large development projects, such as the mixed-use projects being developed at Avion Burbank and the 777 N. Front Street include project design features that involve energy efficiency and green building design. Single-family residential homes continue to install solar photovoltaic systems and electric vehicle charging units, which are processed through building permits.

Effectiveness: The Building and Safety Division has implemented CALGreen and provided information to the public about green building via the website and brochures handed out at the public counter.

Appropriateness: CAL Green (Title 24) building code standards continue to be implemented through the Burbank Building and Safety Division. This program continues to be appropriate for the Housing Element Update.

Remove Constraints to Housing

12. Transitional and Supportive Housing
Objective: To comply with State law, the
City will amend the Zoning Ordinance for
transitional and supportive housing to be
considered a residential use and only
subject to those restrictions that apply to
other residential uses of the same type in
the same zone.

Progress: The City has updated its Zoning Ordinance consistent with State law to treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use, and to allow supportive housing as a use by right in all zones where multi-family and mixed use is permitted.

Between 2014-2020, the Burbank Housing Corporation (BHC) created a total of 17 transitional housing units for adults, youth, and families with children. In 2017, the City entered into a new partnership with Hope of the Valley by adding 38 beds of transitional congregate housing for transitional aged youth experiencing homelessness. Supportive services are offered through Village Family Services in order to stabilize the persons housing needs.

Effectiveness: The City has been highly effective in expanding its supply of transitional and supportive housing.

Appropriateness: The City, in cooperation with the Burbank Housing Corporation (BHC), remains committed to expanding transitional and supportive housing opportunities to persons experiencing homelessness or at-risk of becoming homeless.

13. Development Standards and
Procedures
Objectives: Encourage mixed use
developments through implementation of
Progress: With funds from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in 2016, the City initiated the preparation of development standards for mixed-used places. After City staff conducted a number of public workshops and City Council/ Planning Board study sessions on mixed-use design standards, the ATTACHMENT 6-97
C-9

mixed use development standards and
revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. Review
the City's development review and
approval process.

City will now consider incorporating these standards in the Burbank Center Plan Update and the Golden State Specific Plan.

The City also approved the following mixed-use projects within the planning period:
▪ First Street Village Mixed-Use Development Project - This project consists of three six-story mixed-use development retail commercial space and 261 multifamily apartments. ▪ 777 Front Street "La Terra" - The Project includes retail and hotel uses and 573 residential (rental) units on a vacant seven-acre site.
▪ Talaria Mixed Use Development at 3401 W. Olive Avenue - This mixed-use project includes 241 residential rental units, a 42,950 square foot supermarket, and 760 parking spaces on 3.86 acres of land.

Effectiveness: Three mixed-use projects, totaling 1,075 rental units have been approved by the City since the beginning of 2014.

Appropriateness: With the Burbank Center Plan Update and the Golden State Specific Plan considering these mixed-use
development standards, this program continues to be relevant for the Housing Element Update.

14. Fair Housing
Objective: Continue to contract with a
qualified fair housing service, provide
information on fair housing to Burbank
residents and property owners, and
promote fair housing practices.

Progress: Beginning in 2017, the City entered into a contract with the Housing Rights Center (HRC) to provide housing discrimination assistance and tenant/landlord information. HRC also offers fair housing education and outreach; fair housing investigation and enforcement; monitoring of real estate and lending activities; and assistance in implementation of Burbank’s Fair Housing Plan.

During 2017-2019, HRC handled 40 discrimination complaint inquiries in Burbank, just three of which rose to the level of a discrimination case. During this same three-year period, HRC handled complaints or requests for assistance involving 220 Burbank tenants or landlords. HRC has been able to resolve roughly 65% of the complainant’s issues, with the remainder of complainants referred to an outside agency such as Legal Aid.

Burbank is currently updating its Fair Housing Plan (“Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice”) which will guide the City’s fair housing activities for the ensuing five years.

Effectiveness: The City’s fair housing program is effective in providing services and education regarding housing discrimination and tenant/landlord rights and responsibilities.

ATTACHMENT 6-98
C-10

Appropriateness: The Fair Housing Program provides an
important service to residents and landlords in the community, and remains appropriate for the Housing Element Update.

15. Landlord/Tenant Mediation
Objective: Offer conflict mediation
services through Landlord-Tenant
Commission.

Progress: The Landlord-Tenant Commission meets on the first Monday of each month to educate and assist in resolving issues between landlords and tenants. During 2019, the Commission held various public information meetings on the State’s AB 1482 rent control regulations that took effect on January 1, 2020.

In addition, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the City approved an Urgency Ordinance on March 17, 2020 prohibiting the evictions of residential and commercial tenants for non-payment of rent caused by the Corona virus. The eviction moratorium was extended through July 31st with amendments; including certain qualified commercial tenants. Furthermore, the City Council approved a Rent Repayment Ordinance in April 2020 that allows the repayment of back due rent, late fees/penalties to November 30, 2020, unless further extended by action of the City Council.

Effectiveness: The Landlord-Tenant Commission is effective in helping to mediate the disputes brought before it, and serves an important role in promoting the rights of both tenants and landlords in the Burbank community.

Appropriateness: The Landlord-Tenant Mediation Program provides a critical service to residents and landlords, especially with rising homelessness and the potential issues resulting from the current Covid-19 pandemic. This program continues to be appropriate for the Housing Element Update.

16. Emergency Shelter and Emergency
Services
Objective: Explore opportunities for
supportive services programs and
partnerships to leverage funds; provide
funding support to agencies offering
homeless services to Burbank's homeless
and at-risk population.

Progress: During the Housing Element planning period, the City participated in the following activities addressing homelessness:
▪ The regional Winter Shelter Program operated by Hope of the Valley in Pacoima from December - March, which
provides a shuttle van pick-up and drop-off at the
Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station.
▪ Working together with local, County, and City of Los
Angeles partners, the City of Burbank adopted a
comprehensive Homeless Plan for 2018-2021. The
Homeless Plan provides a proactive approach to
homelessness by: 1) creating action oriented solutions that address the ongoing systemic social issues of homelessness impacting our community; 2) coordinating efforts to
address homelessness with City Departments, public and
private entities, businesses, and community involvement; and 3) identifying funding, barriers, and measurable
ATTACHMENT 6-99
C-11

outcomes. The City has implemented multiple strategies identified in the Homeless Plan, including:
✓ Preparing a feasibility study for interim or permanent housing;
✓ Preparing a feasibility study for the acquisition and conversion of a commercial space into an access
center and shelter;
✓ Conducting a study of City-owned plots of land for
potential use as a safe storage facility;
✓ Hiring a Homeless Services Liaison to educate the
public regarding the City’s Homelessness efforts and
engaging with the homeless; and
✓ Extending the partnership with Hope of the Valley to
provide a winter shelter pick-up/drop-off from
December 1, 2019 to March 30, 2020.
▪ The City of Burbank, along with several other cities, advocated for future Measure H Homelessness grants to
implement homelessness plans. These efforts led to the release of a Cities’ Homelessness Plan Implementation - Request for Funding Proposal (RFP). Los Angeles County
and Home For Good Funder’s Collaborative (HFG) released an RFP soliciting proposals for city-specific projects to increase the supply of interim or permanent supportive
housing and to enhance the County service systems for
those experiencing homelessness.
▪ In 2019, the Downtown Business Improvement District
approved a 12-month contract with Streetplus to dedicate homeless outreach in downtown Burbank.

Effectiveness: The City has been effective in its support of local homeless service providers, and partnering with other cities in addressing the homelessness issue.

Appropriateness: According to the 2019 Point-In-Time Homeless Count, the homeless population in the City was estimated to include 282 individuals. This program continues to be important for the Housing Element Update, and will be retitled “Homeless and Housing Services”.

17. Accessible Housing and Universal
Design
Objective: Explore incentives for
residential projects that include universal
design features.

Progress: The City routinely adopts updates to Uniform Building and Housing Codes to reflect current accessibility requirements in new construction.

Effectiveness: The City also implements the reasonable accommodation ordinance, which was adopted in 2009.

Appropriateness: Compliance with accessibility requirements is a standard building code requirement. As part of the Downtown Burbank/Burbank Center Plan Update and Golden State Specific ATTACHMENT 6-100
C-12

Plan development process, the City will consider universal design guidelines and standards. This program will be broadened to encompass housing for person with disabilities in the updated Housing Element.

18. Residential Lifeline Program
Objective: Continue to offer reduced
utility rates to very low-income seniors
and disabled residents.

Progress: The Burbank Water and Power’s Lifeline Program offers an exemption from the monthly customer service charge, the utility users tax, and a reduced rate on electric service to income- qualified seniors and persons with disabilities. Description and application for the Lifeline Program is on the Burbank Water and Power website: https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/my- home/lifeline-program
Effectiveness: This program is an effective way of reducing the housing costs for Burbank’s special needs populations – low- income seniors and persons with disabilities.

Appropriateness: The “Opportunities for Energy Conservation” section of the Resources chapter of the Housing Element presents the variety of sustainability programs offered through the City and Burbank Water and Power (BWP). A separate program for BWP’s Residential Lifeline Program is no longer necessary for the Housing Element update.

ATTACHMENT 6-101
C-13

The Table below summarizes the quantified objectives contained in the City’s 2014-2021 Housing Element, and compares the City’s progress in fulfilling these objectives:

Table C-2
Progress Towards 2014-2021 Quantified Objectives
Income Level
New Construction
(2014-2020)
Rehabilitation
(2014-2020) Preservation
Goal Progress Goal Progress Goal Progress
Extremely Low 347 -- -- 8 212 212
Very Low 347 -- 20 7 212 212
Low 413 115 20 13
Moderate 443 29 40 --
Above Moderate 1,134 553 -- --
Total 2,684 697 80 28 414 414
New construction goal reflects Burbank’s 2014-2021 RHNA. Of allocation for 694 very low income units, half is allocated to extremely low income and half to very low income households.

Rehabilitation goal and progress reflects the Focus Neighborhood Revitalization Program.

Conservation goal and progress reflects the City’s units at risk of conversion to market rate.

Housing Element statutes now require jurisdictions to evaluate the effectiveness of the Element’s programs in meeting the needs of special needs households. Burbank implemented numerous programs during the 5th cycle planning period that assisted special needs populations, including:
• Providing 11 affordable housing units for homeless veterans, 3 transitional housing units for homeless families, a 38 bed shared housing facility for transitional age youth (ages 18- 24), 20 dedicated rental vouchers for formerly homeless and 15 dedicated vouchers for veterans, and rapid re-housing through temporary rent assistance and case management • Continuing to fund a year-round homeless street outreach program • Dedicating future funds for establishment of a Tiny Home Village of modular homes on public land for approximately 20 homeless households
• Funding counseling services to families fleeing domestic violence and residing in transitional housing programs operated by Family Service Agency • Funding programs designed to benefit developmentally disabled adults and children by providing access to employment opportunities, life skills, and case management • Preserving 149 uni ts of affordable senior rental housing a t-risk of conversion to market rate
• Providing rental assistance vouchers to approximately 700 very low income seniors • Adopting an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance and updates to facilitate the addition of ADUs which can benefit seniors, persons with disabilities and female-headed households
• Funding the addition of six rent-restricted ADUs on BHC affordable housing sites ATTACHMENT 6-102

Appendix D
Housing Element Site Inventory

ATTACHMENT 6-103

D-1

Table D-1
Housing Element Site Inventory: Housing Opportunity Sites Current General Plan
OP Site ID Address APN General Plan Zone
Current
GP Max
Density
Gross
Acres Current Use
Realistic
Dev
Potential
%
Realistic
GP Net
DUs

DOWNTOWN TOD SPECIFIC PLAN SITES
TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 2460010010 High Density Residential NSFC 43 0.08 Parking lot/patron 70% 2.3 TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 2460010011 High Density Residential NSFC 43 0.08 Parking lot/patron 70% 2.3 TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 2460010012 High Density Residential NSFC 43 0.08 Parking lot/patron 70% 2.3 TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 2460010013 High Density Residential NSFC 43 0.08 Parking lot/patron 70% 2.3 TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 1300 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460010014 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.21 Restaurant 70% 4.0 TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 1310 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460010033 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.13 Restaurant 70% 2.4 TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 1320 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460010036 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.65 Restaurant 70% 11.3 Total 1.29 70% 26.0

TOD 2-Kmart 1000 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460006045 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 2.80 Store 60% 45.4 TOD 2-Kmart 1000 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460007036 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 3.63 Disc. depart store 60% 58.9 Total 6.43 60% 104.0

TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 923 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460021017 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.26 Parking lot/patron 70% 4.8 TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 913 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460021018 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.17 Restaurant 70% 3.2 TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 911 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460021019 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.17 Restaurant 70% 2.3 TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 903 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460021020 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.30 Prof. building 70% 5.7 TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 901 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460021027 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.26 Full service station 70% 4.9 TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 127 W BURBANK BLVD 2460021028 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.13 Store 70% 2.5 TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP CALTRANS PROPERTY N/A N/A 0 1.58 Vacant 70% Total 2.87 70% 23.0

TOD 4-Old IKEA 600 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460023044 Downtown PD 87 6.38 Reg. shopping 70% 388.7 TOD 4-Old IKEA 731 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460023045 Downtown PD 87 0.90 Reg. shopping 70% 55.0 TOD 4-Old IKEA 601 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460023046 Downtown PD 87 2.81 Reg. shopping 70% 170.9 TOD 4-Old IKEA 600 N 1ST ST 2460023047 Downtown PD 87 0.29 Reg. shopping 70% 17.9 TOD 4-Old IKEA 230 E BURBANK BLVD 2460023060 Downtown PD 87 1.67 Reg. shopping 70% 101.8 ATTACHMENT 6-104

D-2

OP Site ID Address APN General Plan Zone
Current
GP Max
Density
Gross
Acres Current Use
Realistic
Dev
Potential
%
Realistic
GP Net
DUs
TOD 4-Old IKEA 217 GRINNELL DR 2460031007 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.19 Parking lot/patron 70% 11.5 TOD 4-Old IKEA 215 GRINNELL DR 2460031008 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.19 Parking lot/patron 70% 11.5 TOD 4-Old IKEA 218 E BURBANK BLVD 2460031016 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.17 Parking lot/patron 70% 10.1 TOD 4-Old IKEA 212 E BURBANK BLVD 2460031018 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.19 Parking lot/patron 70% 11.7 TOD 4-Old IKEA 800 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460031019 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.24 Bank/savings 70% 14.7 TOD 4-Old IKEA 840 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460031029 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.16 Bank/savings 70% 9.6 TOD 4-Old IKEA 2460031044 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.16 Vacant 70% 9.8 TOD 4-Old IKEA 800 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460031045 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.44 Fast food-walkup 70% 26.8 Total 13.80 70% 839.0

TOD 5-Ashley Home/El Pollo 401 N 1ST ST 2460023056 Downtown PD 87 2.06 Reg. shopping 70% 125.5 TOD 5-Ashley Home/El Pollo 521 N 1ST ST 2460023057 Downtown PD 87 0.65 Reg. shopping 70% 39.4 Total 2.71 70% 164.0

TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 245 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460023048 Downtown PD 87 1.31 Reg. shopping 70% 79.5 TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 201 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460023049 Downtown PD 87 5.20 Reg. shopping 70% 316.5 TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 111 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460023050 Downtown PD 87 1.41 Reg. shopping 70% 86.2 TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 501 N 3RD ST 2460023052 Downtown PD 87 2.23 Reg. shopping 70% 135.9 TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 550 N 1ST ST 2460023054 Downtown PD 87 2.71 Reg. shopping 70% 165.3 TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 200 E CYPRESS AVE 2460023063 Downtown PD 87 2.35 Reg. shopping 70% 143.3 TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr (PRIV STREET AND YARD IMPS) 2460023064 Downtown PD 87 1.26 Private Street 70% 76.9 TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 555 N 3RD ST 2460023996 Downtown PD 87 0.27 Theater 70% 16.4 Total 16.75 70% 1,020.0

TOD 7-Civic Center 2453008900 Institutional PD 0 0.08 Parking lot lease 70% TOD 7-Civic Center 2453008903 Institutional PD 0 0.89 Gov't owned 70% TOD 7-Civic Center 348 E ORANGE GROVE AVE 2453008905 Institutional PD 0 0.36 Store/resid combo 70% TOD 7-Civic Center 301 E OLIVE AVE 2453008908 Institutional PD 0 0.53 Bank/savings 70% TOD 7-Civic Center 375 E OLIVE AVE 2453008910 Institutional PD 0 0.17 Parking lot/patron 70% TOD 7-Civic Center 2453008911 Institutional PD 0 0.20 Parking lot/patron 70% TOD 7-Civic Center 374 E ORANGE GROVE AVE 2453008912 Institutional PD 0 0.66 Bank/savings 70% TOD 7-Civic Center (City Hall) 275 E OLIVE AVE 2453009902 Institutional PD 0 1.79 City Hall/Admin
Ctr 70%
ATTACHMENT 6-105

D-3

OP Site ID Address APN General Plan Zone
Current
GP Max
Density
Gross
Acres Current Use
Realistic
Dev
Potential
%
Realistic
GP Net
DUs
TOD 7-Civic Center 110 N GLENOAKS BLVD 2455021906 Institutional R-4 0 1.56 Central Library 70% Total 6.24 70%

TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 121 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453014002 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.08 Prof building 70% 4.9 TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 123 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453014003 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.04 Store/resid combo 70% 2.4 TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 147 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453014008 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.09 Store 70% 2.3 TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 356 E OLIVE AVE 2453014012 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.18 Prof building 70% 10.8 TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 348 E OLIVE AVE 2453014014 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.18 Office building 70% 10.9 TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 362 E OLIVE AVE 2453014022 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.06 Store 70% 3.8 TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 358 E OLIVE AVE 2453014023 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.12 Office building 70% 7.0 TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 137 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453014024 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.16 Restaurant 70% 7.8 TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 372 E OLIVE AVE 2453014025 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.13 Bank/savings 70% 7.8 TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 359 E ANGELENO AVE 2453014026 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.17 Parking lot/patron 70% 10.5 TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 353 E ANGELENO AVE 2453014029 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.35 Office building 70% 20.4 Total 1.55 70% 88.0

TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 249 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453021026 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.19 Auto serv/body 70% 11.8 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 249 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453021027 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.09 Auto serv/body 70% 5.3 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 201 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453021029 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.25 Restaurant 70% 15.4 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 221 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453021030 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.21 Store 70% 12.5 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 354 E ANGELENO AVE 2453021032 High Density Residential BCC-2 43 0.17 Prof building 70% 5.2 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 344 E ANGELENO AVE 2453021033 High Density Residential BCC-2 43 0.17 Prof building 70% 5.3 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 336 E ANGELENO AVE 2453021035 High Density Residential BCC-2 43 0.18 Private school 70% 5.3 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 320 E ANGELENO AVE 2453021041 High Density Residential BCC-2 43 0.17 Church 70% 5.2 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 310 E ANGELENO AVE 2453021046 High Density Residential BCC-2 43 0.35 Parking lot/patron 70% 10.6 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 300 E ANGELENO AVE 2453021062 High Density Residential BCC-2 43 0.15 Church 70% 4.7 ATTACHMENT 6-106

D-4

OP Site ID Address APN General Plan Zone
Current
GP Max
Density
Gross
Acres Current Use
Realistic
Dev
Potential
%
Realistic
GP Net
DUs
Total 1.94 70% 81.0

TOD-10-BJs/Black Angus 101 S 1ST ST, 400 2453011029 Downtown BCC-2 87 2.12 Office building 70% 129.3 TOD-10-BJs/Black Angus 235 S 1ST ST 2453018017 Downtown BCC-2 87 1.71 Restaurant 70% 103.0 Total 3.83 70% 232.0

TOD 11-Victory/Olive 120 S VICTORY BLVD 2451016011 North Victory BCCM 27 2.14 Office building 70% 37.4 TOD 11-Victory/Olive 272 E OLIVE AVE 2451016012 North Victory BCCM 27 0.24 Auto serv/body 70% 3.5 TOD 11-Victory/Olive 264 W OLIVE AVE 2451016013 North Victory BCCM 27 0.19 Auto serv/body 70% 3.7 TOD 11-Victory/Olive 110 S VICTORY BLVD 2451016014 North Victory BCCM 27 0.31 Auto serv/body 70% 5.8 Total 2.90 70% 50.0

TOD 12-YMCA 353 E SAN JOSE AVE 2460034021 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.35 Private school 70% 21.0 TOD 12-YMCA 409 N GLENOAKS BLVD 2460035001 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.11 Parking lot/patron 70% 6.5 TOD 12-YMCA 369 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460035003 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.18 Restaurant 70% 10.8 TOD 12-YMCA 361 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460035005 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.17 Office building 70% 10.5 TOD 12-YMCA 353 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460035007 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.17 Store/resid combo 70% 10.6 TOD 12-YMCA 352 E SAN JOSE AVE 2460035008 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.18 Parking lot/patron 70% 10.8 TOD 12-YMCA 320 E SAN JOSE AVE 2460035014 Downtown PD 87 0.28 Parking lot/patron 70% 17.1 TOD 12-YMCA 300 E SAN JOSE AVE 2460035016 Downtown PD 87 0.33 Parking lot/patron 70% 20.2 TOD 12-YMCA 344 E SAN JOSE AVE 2460035017 Downtown PD 87 0.36 Private school 70% 21.9 TOD 12-YMCA 321 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460035018 Downtown PD 87 0.53 Club/Lodge Hall 70% 32.4 Total 2.66 70% 161.0

GOLDEN STATE SPECIFIC PLAN SITES
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3075 N LIMA ST 2466001015 Golden State M-2 27 0.16 Light industrial 70% 3.0 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3079 N LIMA ST 2466001016 Golden State M-2 27 0.16 Light industrial 70% 2.9 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3310 COHASSET ST 2466001022 Golden State M-2 27 0.15 Light industrial 70% 2.9 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3094 N AVON ST 2466001023 Golden State M-2 27 0.15 Light industrial 70% 2.9 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3090 N AVON ST 2466001024 Golden State M-2 27 0.15 Light industrial 70% 2.9 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3086 N AVON ST 2466001025 Golden State M-2 27 0.31 Light industrial 70% 4.8 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3080 N AVON ST 2466001026 Golden State M-2 27 0.18 Light industrial 70% 3.4 ATTACHMENT 6-107

D-5

OP Site ID Address APN General Plan Zone
Current
GP Max
Density
Gross
Acres Current Use
Realistic
Dev
Potential
%
Realistic
GP Net
DUs
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3071 N LIMA ST 2466001029 Golden State M-2 27 0.15 Light industrial 70% 2.8 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3083 N LIMA ST 2466001030 Golden State M-2 27 0.31 Warehouse,
storage 70% 5.8
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3059 N CALIFORNIA ST 2466001045 Golden State M-2 27 0.15 Vacant 70% 2.8 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3063 N CALIFORNIA ST 2466001046 Golden State M-2 27 0.16 Vacant 70% 3.1 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3300 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2466001063 Golden State M-2 27 0.51 Warehouse,
storage 70% 9.7
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3089 N LIMA ST 2466001064 Golden State M-2 27 0.16 Warehouse,
storage 70% 2.9
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3099 N LIMA ST 2466001077 Golden State M-2 27 0.31 Light industrial 70% 6.0 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3320 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2466001081 Golden State M-2 27 0.99 Light industrial 70% 18.7 Total 4.00 70% 74.0

GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3333 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2466005003 Golden State M-2 27 0.89 Light industrial 80% 19.1 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3207 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2466005013 Golden State M-2 27 0.50 Light industrial 80% 10.9 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466005017 Golden State M-2 27 0.20 Parking
lot/structure 80% 4.3
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466005018 Golden State M-2 27 0.23 Parking
lot/structure 80% 4.9
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3303 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2466005024 Golden State M-2 27 1.33 Light industrial 80% 28.7 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3301 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2466005025 Golden State M-2 27 1.26 Light industrial 80% 27.3 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3024 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006002 Golden State M-2 27 0.07 Light industrial 80% 0.4 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3022 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006003 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Light industrial 80% 1.4 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3020 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006004 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Light industrial 80% 1.3 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3018 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006005 Golden State M-2 27 0.07 Light industrial 80% 1.4 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3016 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006006 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Light industrial 80% 1.4 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3014 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006007 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Light industrial 80% 1.4 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3012 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006008 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Light industrial 80% 1.3 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006009 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Parking
lot/structure 80% 1.4
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006010 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Parking
lot/structure 80% 1.4
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3000 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006011 Golden State M-2 27 0.30 Warehouse,
storage 80% 6.5
Total 5.28 80% 113.0
ATTACHMENT 6-108

D-6

OP Site ID Address APN General Plan Zone
Current
GP Max
Density
Gross
Acres Current Use
Realistic
Dev
Potential
%
Realistic
GP Net
DUs

GSSP-3 Valhalla 2210 N SCREENLAND DR 2463001005 Golden State M-1 27 3.04 Light industrial 70% 57.5 GSSP-3 Valhalla 2211 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2463001006 Golden State M-1 27 0.34 Light industrial 70% 6.5 GSSP-3 Valhalla 2205 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2463001007 Golden State M-1 27 0.34 Light industrial 70% 5.4 GSSP-3 Valhalla 2201 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2463001008 Golden State M-1 27 0.34 Light industrial 70% 5.4 GSSP-3 Valhalla 3520 W VALHALLA DR 2463001011 Golden State M-1 27 2.41 Light industrial 70% 45.5 GSSP-3 Valhalla 2231 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2463001012 Golden State M-1 27 1.64 Light industrial 70% 30.9 Total 8.10 70% 151.0

GSSP-4 Logix 2340 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2463010001 Golden State M-2 27 4.46 Office building 80% 96.0

GSSP-5 Ontario 2464004036 Regional Commercial PD 58 1.73 Parking
lot/structure 80% 80.0

GSSP-6 Fairview 2464006045 Regional Commercial M-2 58 0.65 Parking
lot/structure 80% 30.0

GSSP-7 Empire 3030 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001002 Regional Commercial M-2 58 0.39 Light industrial 80% 18.2 GSSP-7 Empire 3020 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001003 Regional Commercial M-2 58 0.41 Light industrial 80% 18.9 GSSP-7 Empire 2820 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001007 Regional Commercial M-2 58 0.74 Heavy industrial 80% 34.3 GSSP-7 Empire 3110 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001015 Regional Commercial M-2 58 0.82 Office building 80% 38.2 GSSP-7 Empire 3000 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001019 Regional Commercial M-2 58 1.98 Light industrial 80% 91.6 GSSP-7 Empire 2890 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001020 Regional Commercial M-2 58 0.86 Light industrial 80% 40.0 GSSP-7 Empire 3120 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001021 Regional Commercial M-2 58 1.13 Warehouse,
storage 80% 51.4
GSSP-7 Empire 2464001906 Institutional RR 0 0.06
Government,
public 80%
Total 6.4 80% 292.0

TOTAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITES 93.70 3,624.0

ATTACHMENT 6-109

D-7

Table D-2
Housing Element Site Inventory
Entitlement or Pending Entitlement Projects

Project ID Address General Plan Zoning DUs Net DUs
Entitled Projects
Former Fry’s Site 2311 N. HOLLYWOOD WAY Regional Commercial C-3 863 863 La Terra 777 FRONT STREET Downtown Commercial PD 17-01 573 573 First Street Village 315 N. FIRST STREET (16 PARCELS) Downtown Commercial PD 14-01 275 275 3700 Riverside 3700 RIVERSIDE DR. Media District Commercial MDC-3 49 49 S. San Fernando/Cedar 624-628 S. SAN FERNANDO BLVD. South San Fernando Commercial BCC-3 42 42 530 E. San Jose Ave. 530 E. SAN JOSE AVE. 4 2
Cedar Ave Apartments 610-615 E. CEDAR AVE. High Density Residential R-4 46 32 Naomi Apts 2321-2325 N. NAOMI ST. Medium Density Residential R-4 8 6 Cypress 565 E. CYPRESS AVE High Density Residential R-4 3 3 214 N. Orchard 214 N. ORCHARD Low Density Residential R-2 5 2 Total Entitled Units 1,904 1,845

Pending Projects
Bob Hope Center Project 3201 W. OLIVE AVE. Media District Commercial PD 2001-2 123 123 The Premier on First 103 E. VERDUGO AVE. Downtown Commercial BCC-2 154 154 Palm Ave 529-537 E. PALM High Density Residential R-4 24 19 4100 Riverside 4100 RIVERSIDE Media District Commercial MDC-3 44 44 Thornton Condos 2720 THORNTON AVE. High Density Residential R-4 4 2 2814 W. Empire 2814 W. EMPIRE Regional Commercial M-2 148 148 Total Pending Units 497 490

ATTACHMENT 6-110

D-8

Table D-3
Housing Element Site Inventory: Housing Opportunity Sites Proposed Downtown TOD and Golden State Specific Plans

OP Site ID Address APN General Plan Zone
Current
GP Max
Density
Gross
Acres Current Use
Realistic
Dev
Potential
%
Prop SP
Max
Density

Realistic
SP Net
DUs

DOWNTOWN TOD SPECIFIC PLAN SITES
TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 2460010010 High Density Residential NSFC 43 0.08 Parking lot/patron 70% TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 2460010011 High Density Residential NSFC 43 0.08 Parking lot/patron 70% TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 2460010012 High Density Residential NSFC 43 0.08 Parking lot/patron 70% TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 2460010013 High Density Residential NSFC 43 0.08 Parking lot/patron 70% TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 1300 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460010014 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.21 Restaurant 70% TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 1310 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460010033 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.13 Restaurant 70% TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 1320 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460010036 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.65 Restaurant 70% Total 1.29 70% 26.0

TOD 2-Kmart 1000 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460006045 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 2.80 Store 60% TOD 2-Kmart 1000 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460007036 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 3.63 Disc. depart store 60% Total 6.43 60% 104.0

TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 923 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460021017 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.26 Parking lot/patron 70% TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 913 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460021018 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.17 Restaurant 70% TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 911 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460021019 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.17 Restaurant 70% TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 903 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460021020 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.30 Prof. building 70% TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 901 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460021027 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.26 Full service station 70% TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 127 W BURBANK BLVD 2460021028 Corridor Commercial NSFC 27 0.13 Store 70% TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP CALTRANS PROPERTY N/A N/A 0 1.58 Vacant 70% Total 2.87 70% 23.0

TOD 4-Old IKEA 600 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460023044 Downtown PD 87 6.38 Reg. shopping 70% TOD 4-Old IKEA 731 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460023045 Downtown PD 87 0.90 Reg. shopping 70% TOD 4-Old IKEA 601 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460023046 Downtown PD 87 2.81 Reg. shopping 70% TOD 4-Old IKEA 600 N 1ST ST 2460023047 Downtown PD 87 0.29 Reg. shopping 70% TOD 4-Old IKEA 230 E BURBANK BLVD 2460023060 Downtown PD 87 1.67 Reg. shopping 70% TOD 4-Old IKEA 217 GRINNELL DR 2460031007 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.19 Parking lot/patron 70% TOD 4-Old IKEA 215 GRINNELL DR 2460031008 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.19 Parking lot/patron 70% ATTACHMENT 6-111

D-9

OP Site ID Address APN General Plan Zone
Current
GP Max
Density
Gross
Acres Current Use
Realistic
Dev
Potential
%
Prop SP
Max
Density

Realistic
SP Net
DUs
TOD 4-Old IKEA 218 E BURBANK BLVD 2460031016 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.17 Parking lot/patron 70% TOD 4-Old IKEA 212 E BURBANK BLVD 2460031018 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.19 Parking lot/patron 70% TOD 4-Old IKEA 800 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460031019 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.24 Bank/savings 70% TOD 4-Old IKEA 840 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460031029 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.16 Bank/savings 70% TOD 4-Old IKEA 2460031044 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.16 Vacant 70% TOD 4-Old IKEA 800 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2460031045 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.44 Fast food-walkup 70% Total 13.80 70% 839.0

TOD 5-Ashley Home/El
Pollo 401 N 1ST ST 2460023056 Downtown PD 87 2.06 Reg. shopping 70% TOD 5-Ashley Home/El
Pollo 521 N 1ST ST 2460023057 Downtown PD 87 0.65 Reg. shopping 70% Total 2.71 70% 164.0

TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 245 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460023048 Downtown PD 87 1.31 Reg. shopping 70% TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 201 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460023049 Downtown PD 87 5.20 Reg. shopping 70% TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 111 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460023050 Downtown PD 87 1.41 Reg. shopping 70% TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 501 N 3RD ST 2460023052 Downtown PD 87 2.23 Reg. shopping 70% TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 550 N 1ST ST 2460023054 Downtown PD 87 2.71 Reg. shopping 70% TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 200 E CYPRESS AVE 2460023063 Downtown PD 87 2.35 Reg. shopping 70% TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr (PRIV STREET AND YARD IMPS) 2460023064 Downtown PD 87 1.26 Private Street 70% TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 555 N 3RD ST 2460023996 Downtown PD 87 0.27 Theater 70% Total 16.75 70% 1020.0

TOD 7-Civic Center 2453008900 Institutional PD 0 0.08 Parking lot lease 70% 87 4.9 TOD 7-Civic Center 2453008903 Institutional PD 0 0.89 Gov't owned 70% 87 54.2 TOD 7-Civic Center 348 E ORANGE GROVE AVE 2453008905 Institutional PD 0 0.36 Store/resid combo 70% 87 21.7 TOD 7-Civic Center 301 E OLIVE AVE 2453008908 Institutional PD 0 0.53 Bank/savings 70% 87 32.5 TOD 7-Civic Center 375 E OLIVE AVE 2453008910 Institutional PD 0 0.17 Parking lot/patron 70% 87 10.2 TOD 7-Civic Center 2453008911 Institutional PD 0 0.20 Parking lot/patron 70% 87 12.2 TOD 7-Civic Center 374 E ORANGE GROVE AVE 2453008912 Institutional PD 0 0.66 Bank/savings 70% 87 39.2 TOD 7-Civic Center (City
Hall) 275 E OLIVE AVE 2453009902 Institutional PD 0 1.79 City Hall/Admin
Ctr 70% 87 109.2
TOD 7-Civic Center 110 N GLENOAKS BLVD 2455021906 Institutional R-4 0 1.56 Central Library 70% 87 95.1 Total 6.24 70% 87 379.0

ATTACHMENT 6-112

D-10

OP Site ID Address APN General Plan Zone
Current
GP Max
Density
Gross
Acres Current Use
Realistic
Dev
Potential
%
Prop SP
Max
Density

Realistic
SP Net
DUs
TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 121 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453014002 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.08 Prof building 70% TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 123 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453014003 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.04 Store/resid combo 70% TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 147 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453014008 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.09 Store 70% TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 356 E OLIVE AVE 2453014012 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.18 Prof building 70% TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 348 E OLIVE AVE 2453014014 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.18 Office building 70% TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 362 E OLIVE AVE 2453014022 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.06 Store 70% TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 358 E OLIVE AVE 2453014023 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.12 Office building 70% TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 137 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453014024 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.16 Restaurant 70% TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 372 E OLIVE AVE 2453014025 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.13 Bank/savings 70% TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 359 E ANGELENO AVE 2453014026 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.17 Parking lot/patron 70% TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 353 E ANGELENO AVE 2453014029 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.35 Office building 70% Total 1.55 70% 88.0

TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 249 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453021026 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.19 Auto serv/body 70% 87 11.8 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 249 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453021027 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.09 Auto serv/body 70% 87 5.3 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 201 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453021029 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.25 Restaurant 70% 87 15.4 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 221 S GLENOAKS BLVD 2453021030 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.21 Store 70% 87 12.5 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 354 E ANGELENO AVE 2453021032 High Density Residential BCC-2 43 0.17 Prof building 70% 87 10.6 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 344 E ANGELENO AVE 2453021033 High Density Residential BCC-2 43 0.17 Prof building 70% 87 10.6 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 336 E ANGELENO AVE 2453021035 High Density Residential BCC-2 43 0.18 Private school 70% 87 10.7 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 320 E ANGELENO AVE 2453021041 High Density Residential BCC-2 43 0.17 Church 70% 87 10.5 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 310 E ANGELENO AVE 2453021046 High Density Residential BCC-2 43 0.35 Parking lot/patron 70% 87 21.4 TOD 9-Fosters
Freeze/Salvation Army 300 E ANGELENO AVE 2453021062 High Density Residential BCC-2 43 0.15 Church 70% 87 9.4 Total 1.94 70% 87 118.0

TOD-10-BJs/Black Angus 101 S 1ST ST, 400 2453011029 Downtown BCC-2 87 2.12 Office building 70% TOD-10-BJs/Black Angus 235 S 1ST ST 2453018017 Downtown BCC-2 87 1.71 Restaurant 70% ATTACHMENT 6-113

D-11

OP Site ID Address APN General Plan Zone
Current
GP Max
Density
Gross
Acres Current Use
Realistic
Dev
Potential
%
Prop SP
Max
Density

Realistic
SP Net
DUs
Total 3.83 70% 232.0

TOD 11-Victory/Olive 120 S VICTORY BLVD 2451016011 North Victory BCCM 27 2.14 Office building 70% TOD 11-Victory/Olive 272 E OLIVE AVE 2451016012 North Victory BCCM 27 0.24 Auto serv/body 70% TOD 11-Victory/Olive 264 W OLIVE AVE 2451016013 North Victory BCCM 27 0.19 Auto serv/body 70% TOD 11-Victory/Olive 110 S VICTORY BLVD 2451016014 North Victory BCCM 27 0.31 Auto serv/body 70% Total 2.90 70% 50.0

TOD 12-YMCA 353 E SAN JOSE AVE 2460034021 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.35 Private school 70% 48.6 TOD 12-YMCA 409 N GLENOAKS BLVD 2460035001 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.11 Parking lot/patron 70% 15.1 TOD 12-YMCA 369 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460035003 Downtown BCC-3 87 0.18 Restaurant 70% 24.9 TOD 12-YMCA 361 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460035005 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.17 Office building 70% 24.1 TOD 12-YMCA 353 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460035007 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.17 Store/resid combo 70% 24.6 TOD 12-YMCA 352 E SAN JOSE AVE 2460035008 Downtown BCC-2 87 0.18 Parking lot/patron 70% 24.9 TOD 12-YMCA 320 E SAN JOSE AVE 2460035014 Downtown PD 87 0.28 Parking lot/patron 70% 39.5 TOD 12-YMCA 300 E SAN JOSE AVE 2460035016 Downtown PD 87 0.33 Parking lot/patron 70% 46.7 TOD 12-YMCA 344 E SAN JOSE AVE 2460035017 Downtown PD 87 0.36 Private school 70% 50.6 TOD 12-YMCA 321 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 2460035018 Downtown PD 87 0.53 Club/Lodge Hall 70% 74.8 Total 2.66 70% 372.0

GOLDEN STATE SPECIFIC PLAN SITES
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3075 N LIMA ST 2466001015 Golden State M-2 27 0.16 Light industrial 70% 120 13.2 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3079 N LIMA ST 2466001016 Golden State M-2 27 0.16 Light industrial 70% 120 13.1 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3310 COHASSET ST 2466001022 Golden State M-2 27 0.15 Light industrial 70% 120 12.8 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3094 N AVON ST 2466001023 Golden State M-2 27 0.15 Light industrial 70% 120 13.0 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3090 N AVON ST 2466001024 Golden State M-2 27 0.15 Light industrial 70% 120 12.9 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3086 N AVON ST 2466001025 Golden State M-2 27 0.31 Light industrial 70% 120 24.7 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3080 N AVON ST 2466001026 Golden State M-2 27 0.18 Light industrial 70% 120 15.0 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3071 N LIMA ST 2466001029 Golden State M-2 27 0.15 Light industrial 70% 120 12.6 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3083 N LIMA ST 2466001030 Golden State M-2 27 0.31 Warehouse,
storage 70% 120 26.0
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3059 N CALIFORNIA ST 2466001045 Golden State M-2 27 0.15 Vacant 70% 120 12.5 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3063 N CALIFORNIA ST 2466001046 Golden State M-2 27 0.16 Vacant 70% 120 13.6 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3300 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2466001063 Golden State M-2 27 0.51 Warehouse,
storage 70% 120 42.9
ATTACHMENT 6-114

D-12

OP Site ID Address APN General Plan Zone
Current
GP Max
Density
Gross
Acres Current Use
Realistic
Dev
Potential
%
Prop SP
Max
Density

Realistic
SP Net
DUs
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3089 N LIMA ST 2466001064 Golden State M-2 27 0.16 Warehouse,
storage 70% 120 13.1
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3099 N LIMA ST 2466001077 Golden State M-2 27 0.31 Light industrial 70% 120 26.4 GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 3320 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2466001081 Golden State M-2 27 0.99 Light industrial 70% 120 83.0 Total 4.00 70% 334.0

GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3333 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2466005003 Golden State M-2 27 0.89 Light industrial 80% 120 85.1 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3207 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2466005013 Golden State M-2 27 0.50 Light industrial 80% 120 48.3 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466005017 Golden State M-2 27 0.20 Parking
lot/structure 80% 120 19.0
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466005018 Golden State M-2 27 0.23 Parking
lot/structure 80% 120 22.0
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3303 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2466005024 Golden State M-2 27 1.33 Light industrial 80% 120 127.4 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3301 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 2466005025 Golden State M-2 27 1.26 Light industrial 80% 120 121.1 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3024 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006002 Golden State M-2 27 0.07 Light industrial 80% 120 5.3 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3022 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006003 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Light industrial 80% 120 6.1 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3020 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006004 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Light industrial 80% 120 5.9 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3018 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006005 Golden State M-2 27 0.07 Light industrial 80% 120 6.2 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3016 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006006 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Light industrial 80% 120 6.1 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3014 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006007 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Light industrial 80% 120 6.1 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3012 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006008 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Light industrial 80% 120 6.0 GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006009 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Parking
lot/structure 80% 120 6.1
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006010 Golden State M-2 27 0.06 Parking
lot/structure 80% 120 6.1
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 3000 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2466006011 Golden State M-2 27 0.30 Warehouse,
storage 80% 120 28.8
Total 5.28 80% 505.0

GSSP-3 Valhalla 2210 N SCREENLAND DR 2463001005 Golden State M-1 27 3.04 Light industrial 70% 120 255.5 GSSP-3 Valhalla 2211 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2463001006 Golden State M-1 27 0.34 Light industrial 70% 120 28.7 GSSP-3 Valhalla 2205 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2463001007 Golden State M-1 27 0.34 Light industrial 70% 120 27.3 GSSP-3 Valhalla 2201 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2463001008 Golden State M-1 27 0.34 Light industrial 70% 120 27.3 GSSP-3 Valhalla 3520 W VALHALLA DR 2463001011 Golden State M-1 27 2.41 Light industrial 70% 120 202.3 GSSP-3 Valhalla 2231 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2463001012 Golden State M-1 27 1.64 Light industrial 70% 120 137.4 Total 8.10 70% 678.0
ATTACHMENT 6-115

D-13

OP Site ID Address APN General Plan Zone
Current
GP Max
Density
Gross
Acres Current Use
Realistic
Dev
Potential
%
Prop SP
Max
Density

Realistic
SP Net
DUs

GSSP-4 Logix 2340 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 2463010001 Golden State M-2 27 4.46 Office building 80% 120 428.0

GSSP-5 Ontario 2464004036 Regional Commercial PD 58 1.73 Parking
lot/structure 80% 120 166.0

GSSP-6 Fairview 2464006045 Regional Commercial M-2 58 0.65 Parking
lot/structure 80% 58 30.0

GSSP-7 Empire 3030 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001002 Regional Commercial M-2 58 0.39 Light industrial 80% 100 31.5 GSSP-7 Empire 3020 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001003 Regional Commercial M-2 58 0.41 Light industrial 80% 100 32.5 GSSP-7 Empire 2820 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001007 Regional Commercial M-2 58 0.74 Heavy industrial 80% 100 59.2 GSSP-7 Empire 3110 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001015 Regional Commercial M-2 58 0.82 Office building 80% 100 65.9 GSSP-7 Empire 3000 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001019 Regional Commercial M-2 58 1.98 Light industrial 80% 100 158.0 GSSP-7 Empire 2890 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001020 Regional Commercial M-2 58 0.86 Light industrial 80% 100 68.9 GSSP-7 Empire 3120 W EMPIRE AVE 2464001021 Regional Commercial M-2 58 1.13 Warehouse,
storage 80% 100 89.3
GSSP-7 Empire 2464001906 Institutional RR 0 0.06
Government,
public 80% 100 4.9
Total 6.40 80% 510.0

TOTAL PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN OPPORTUNITY SITES 93.7 6,066
units

ATTACHMENT 6-116

Exhibit D-1
TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites

ATTACHMENT 6-117
D-14

TOD 1 - Carl’s Jr.

Site Acreage: 1.29 acres
Current General Plan Land Use:

High Density Res. (43 du/ac)
Corridor Commercial (27 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Downtown Burbank TOD SP (27
du/ac and 43 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 26 units
Programs to Facilitate
Development: 5, 9, 10, 11, 17,
19, 20, 22
Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

This site is located at prominent corner across the street from McCambridge Park on San Fernando Road. The site abuts multifamily and is in a TCAC designated highest resource area with underutilized service commercial/fast food restaurants whose buildings are more than 40 years old, and an improvement-to-land value ratio of just 0.75.1 Five of the seven parcels are owned by one owner. The properties are targeted as opportunity sites in the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan and the City is engaging with the property owners about the viability of developing mixed use projects at both sites individually, or through consolidation into a larger parcel. In conjunction with release of the City’s draft Housing Element opportunity sites and public meetings regarding the Downtown TOD Specific Plan update, the City has received inquiries as recently as October 2021 about the site’s development potential that currently exists, as well as what is being envisioned through the TOD Specific Plan. The existing base maximum density is proposed to be increased as part of the Specific Plan update.

Beyond that, other housing development incentives to be established with the Specific Plan update will further support the likelihood of residential development on the site. As noted in the inventory, the site is expected to yield fewer than 100 dwelling units and would therefore fall within the Housing Element program to allow for by-right ministerial review. Additional factors supporting residential development include density incentives for lot

1 Improvement-to-land value ratios under 1.0 are considered economically conducive for redevelopment.

ATTACHMENT 6-118
D-15

consolidation, reduced parking for residential use, and identification of the site as an opportunity site within the Specific Plan itself.

In order for the level of projected housing development to occur on this opportunity site, small-lot consolidation will be necessary. This site has seven small parcels with three property owners, but as discussed in the Housing Element regarding small sites, the City has experience facilitating small-lot consolidation, with the five projects presented in Table I-45 (Examples of Small Lot Consolidation) involving the aggregation of multiple small parcels. In each of these instances, property owners were able to acquire adjacent small parcels that were either physically underdeveloped and/or economically underutilized to create a viable site which was then developed to a higher economic use. Four of the five projects took advantage of density bonuses and provided affordable units. Other TOD sites also contain small parcels that share similar characteristics of physical and/or economic underutilization, and in several instances are already under common ownership. With the increased densities and economic incentives to be provided under the specific plan, these small parcels will be ripe for consolidation and development.

The City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-119
D-16

TOD 2 - Kmart Shopping Center

Site Acreage: 6.43 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Corridor Commercial (27 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Downtown Burbank TOD SP (27 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 104 units
Programs to Facilitate Development:
5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22

Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

This opportunity site is located in a prime location along the North San Fernando Boulevard corridor and includes a now shuttered K- Mart store built in 1962 and large surface parking area under single-ownership. The area is identified as highest resource by TCAC, is in close proximity to services including the adjacent McCambridge Park, and within a high-quality transit area. The property is targeted as an opportunity site in the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan and the City is engaging with the multiple prospective developers seeking to develop the site as a residential and/or mixed-use project. One of the two parcels on this site (southeastern portion) has an improvement-to-land value ratio of 0.80 and the existing building was also built in 1962.

Furthermore, the existing base maximum density is proposed to be increased as part of the Specific Plan update to allow up to 43 ATTACHMENT 6-120
D-17

dwelling units per acre. Beyond that, other housing development incentives to be established with the Specific Plan update will further support the likelihood of residential development on the site.

In February 2022, City staff met with the property owner’s representative and architect about a potential mixed-use project at the subject site. The property owner’s representatives conveyed their interest in being involved in the Downtown TOD Specific Plan process to provide input on a mixed-use project on the site that is consistent with the Specific Plan project objectives and with the Program Environmental Impact Report in order to preserve any future opportunities for streamlined project review and environmental assessment. Communications between staff and the property owner’s representatives is ongoing.

Moreover, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-121
D-18

TOD 3 - Caltrans/IHOP

Site Acreage: 2.87 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Corridor Commercial (27 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Downtown Burbank TOD SP (27 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 23 units
Programs to Facilitate Development:
5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22

Note: 1.58-acre Caltrans property not
included for residential development
Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

This opportunity site includes a 1960s IHOP restaurant (closed), fast food restaurant, gas station and surface parking. The site also includes a 1.58-acre parcel of land owned by Caltrans. The prior use of the Caltrans property was an off-ramp from the I-5 freeway to Burbank Boulevard. As surplus property, it is currently used as a staging area for the construction of a bridge overpass; however, once the construction is completed, the City will engage with Caltrans to obtain the property. The first communication with Caltrans was in early 2022. While no specific environmental studies have not been conducted on the Caltrans property, all potential environmental risks will be assessed as part of the TOD Specific Plan Program EIR. The existing buildings are over 40 years and the property is underutilized. Excluding the Caltrans parcel, the site has an improvement-to-land value ratio of just 0.17, indicating a strong potential for lot consolidation and redevelopment with a higher value economic use. City staff will continue to engage with Caltrans and the adjacent property owners about the viability of ATTACHMENT 6-122
D-19

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 being evaluated as part of the Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan. 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.

In order for the level of projected housing development to occur in this opportunity site, small-lot consolidation will be necessary.

This site has six small parcels (not counting the Caltrans parcel) with three property owners, but as discussed in the Housing Element regarding small sites, the City has experience facilitating small-lot consolidation, with the five projects presented in Table I-45 (Examples of Small Lot Consolidation) involving the aggregation of multiple small parcels. In each of these instances, property owners were able to acquire adjacent small parcels that were either physically underdeveloped and/or economically underutilized to create a viable site which was then developed to a higher economic use. Four of the five projects took advantage of density bonuses and provided affordable units. Other TOD sites also contain small parcels that share similar characteristics of physical and/or economic underutilization, and in several instances are already under common ownership. With the increased densities and economic incentives to be provided under the specific plan, these small parcels will be ripe for consolidation and development.

In addition, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-123
D-20

TOD 4 - Old IKEA Site

Site Acreage: 13.8 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Downtown (87 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Downtown Burbank TOD SP
(87 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 839 units
Programs to Facilitate
Development: 5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22

Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

After the closing of the old IKEA building in 2017, the owners of the property (also owners of adjacent Burbank Town Center) proposed development of a seven-story mixed-use project on the 13.8-acre site that would have produced over 1,100 new housing units. The project was subsequently paused just prior to the COVID pandemic. City staff has been in ongoing discussions with the property owners, and have proposed by right approval of residential land uses, as well as consideration of the possible repurposing of vacant and/or underutilized portions of the mall square footage as office use. In the most recent discussion with the owners (October 2021) they requested to include the private street (Cypress Ave) that runs between N. 1st and N. 3rd Streets to the total site area in order to increase the potential for additional building area, including for a residential portion. These efforts are focused on facilitating a mixed-use project that combines potential for new office space with new housing in a major employment and transportation hub within the City’s Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan. As of November 2021, the Onni Group (a Toronto-based investor and developer with expertise in the construction of mixed-use developments) has acquired the Burbank Town Center as well as approximately 75% of the land within the TOD 4 ATTACHMENT 6-124
D-21

opportunity site for redevelopment purposes, and has been in discussions with City staff about the pending Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan as it relates the Town Center site. While they are still defining the scope of their project, their goal is to develop well in excess of the 1,020 units identified in the Housing Element for this site. In May of 2022, City staff met with the property owner’s representatives and architects about a potential mixed-use project at the subject site. The property owner’s representatives conveyed their interest in being involved in the Downtown TOD Specific Plan process to provide input on a mixed-use project on the subject site that is consistent with the Specific Plan project objectives and with the Program EIR to preserve any future opportunities for streamlined project review and environmental assessment. Communications between staff and the property owner’s representatives is ongoing.

Moreover, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-125
D-22

TOD 5 – Ashley Home/El Pollo

Site Acreage: 2.71 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Downtown (87 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Downtown Burbank TOD SP (87 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 164 units
Programs to Facilitate Development:
5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22

Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

This site is also owned by the property owner of the Burbank Town Center and old IKEA property. It is currently developed with an Ashley Furniture store and El Pollo Loco developed in the early 1990s. With a land-to-improvement value of just 0.74, it has high redevelopment potential. As previously discussed, City staff has been in ongoing discussions about redeveloping the site with Crown Realty Group, which own the land. As of November 2021, the Onni Group (a Toronto-based investor and developer with expertise in the construction of mixed-use developments) has purchased has acquired the Burbank Town Center for redevelopment purposes, and has been in discussions with City staff about the pending Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan as it relates the Town Center site. While they are still defining the scope of their project, their goal is to develop well in excess of the 1,020 units identified in the Housing Element for this site. In May of 2022, City staff met with the property owner’s representatives and architects about a ATTACHMENT 6-126
D-23

potential mixed-use project at the subject site. The property owner’s representatives conveyed their interest in being involved in the Downtown TOD Specific Plan process to provide input on a mixed-use project of the subject site that is consistent with the Specific Plan project objectives and with the Program
Environmental Impact Report in order to preserve any future opportunities for streamlined project review and environmental assessment. Communications between staff and the property owner’s representatives is ongoing.

In addition, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of this year and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-127
D-24

TOD 6 - Burbank Town Center

Site Acreage: 16.75 acres General Plan Land Use: Downtown (87 du/ac) Net Unit Potential: 1,020 units Proposed Zoning: Downtown Burbank TOD SP (87 du/ac) Programs to Facilitate Development: 5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22 Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

In 2017, the owner of the Burbank Town Center property that also includes ownership of the Old IKEA, Office Depot, Corner Bakery, Ashley Furniture and El Pollo Loco, proposed an amendment to the existing planned development for the 30-plus acre aggregated site that included just over 1,000 new housing units as well as new hotel rooms, restaurants, and retail uses. Just prior to Covid, the project was subsequently paused as the ownership entities reconsidered the scope of the project. However, City staff has been in ongoing discussions with the various ownership entities that included Crown Realty Group and EB Arrow Realty. As part of these ongoing discussions, City staff is considering by right approval of residential land uses, including new affordable housing consistent with the City’s Inclusionary Housing regulations, as well as consideration of the possible repurposing of vacant and/or underutilized portions of the mall square footage as office and other service commercial uses. These efforts are focused on facilitating a mixed-use project that combines potential for new office space, reconfigured retail space with new housing in a major employment and transportation hub within the City’s Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan area consistent with the Housing Element update and associated policies and programs to increase housing production and address Burbank’s 3 to 1 jobs to housing imbalance. As of November 2021, the Onni Group (a Toronto-based investor and developer with expertise in the construction of mixed-use developments) has acquired the Burbank Town Center for redevelopment purposes, and has been in discussions with City staff about the pending Downtown Burbank TOD Specific Plan as it relates the Town Center site. While they are still defining the scope of their project, their goal is to develop well in excess of the 1,020 units identified in the Housing Element for this site. In May of 2022, City staff met with the property owner’s representatives and architects about a potential mixed-use project at the subject site. The property owner’s representatives conveyed their interest in being involved in ATTACHMENT 6-128
D-25

the Downtown TOD Specific Plan process to provide input on a mixed-use project of the subject site that is consistent with the Specific Plan project objectives and with the Program Environmental Impact Report to preserve any future opportunities for streamlined project review and environmental assessment.

Communications between staff and the property owner’s representatives is ongoing.

Furthermore, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These pr operty information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-129
D-26

TOD 7 - Civic Center

Site Acreage: 6.24 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Institutional (0 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Downtown Burbank TOD SP
(87 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 379 units
Programs to Facilitate
Development: 5, 8, 9, 10, 11,
17, 19, 20, 22

Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

The Civic Center site currently has no allowable residential density under the Institutional General Plan land 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. The site includes administrative buildings, bank, library, parking lot and a portion of a parking structure. 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 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.

ATTACHMENT 6-130
D-27

Over the past seven months, the City’s Civic Center taskforce made of key City executives and land development staff have been working with ARUP and a subconsultant team made up of economists, urban designers, traffic engineers, and environmental consultants to develop a plan to consider a public private partnership (“P3”) for the Civic Center. The Civic Center plan would include amongst other things, the development of housing, office, retail and a new library as well as on-site parking. During this period, the City has undertaken various studies including development of multiple Civic Center conceptual plans, parking analysis, capital cost estimate and affordability assessment. This effort will culminate in a presentation by City staff and ARUP to the City Council in the last quarter of 2022. It is the intent of this effort to seek City Council authorization to prepare an RFP to solicit proposals from qualified developers to build out the Civic Center in a manner that addresses the various mix of residential, commercial, and civic uses. The RFP development, solicitation of proposals and negotiation would take approximately 12 months to complete in late 2023. It is anticipated that a Civic Center Project would be underway by the summer of 2025.

ATTACHMENT 6-131
TOD 8 - Olive and Glenoaks

Site Acreage: 1.55 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Downtown (87 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Downtown Burbank TOD SP (87 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 88 units
Programs to Facilitate
Development: 5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22

Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

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. The majority of the buildings on the site were constructed prior to 1980 and half of the parcels are underutilized with improvement to land value ratios of less than 1. The site includes 11 separate parcels and three owners. 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 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 addition, 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 ATTACHMENT 6-132
D-14

fewer. Various property owners have approached City staff in the past regarding potential development of the site. Once the draft of the Downtown TOD Specific Plan is available for public review, City staff will reach out to the property owners of the opportunity site and invite them to participate in workshop to discuss the draft plan and solicit input from the public.

In order for the level of projected housing development to occur in this opportunity site, small-lot consolidation will be necessary. This site has 11 small parcels with three property owners, but as discussed in the Housing Element regarding small sites, the City has experience facilitating small-lot consolidation, with the five projects presented in Table I-45 (Examples of Small Lot Consolidation) involving the aggregation of multiple small parcels. In each of these instances, property owners were able to acquire adjacent small parcels that were either physically underdeveloped and/or economically underutilized to create a viable site which was then developed to a higher economic use. Four of the five projects took advantage of density bonuses and provided affordable units. Other TOD sites also contain small parcels that share similar characteristics of physical and/or economic underutilization, and in several instances are already under common ownership. With the increased densities and economic incentives to be provided under the specific plan, these small parcels will be ripe for consolidation and development.

In addition, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-133
D-15

TOD 9 - Fosters Freeze/Boys and Girls Club

Site Acreage: 1.94 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Downtown (87 du/ac)
High Density Residential (43 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Downtown Burbank TOD SP (87 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 118 units
Programs to Facilitate Development:
5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22
Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

City staff had previous redevelopment discussions with the property owner of the north half of this opportunity site about the redevelopment of the opportunity site as a residential/mixed use project. The site currently contains medical office buildings, Foster Freeze Restaurant, a small church, and other older structures. The site's overall improvement-to-land value ratio is 0.46 and the majority of structures were built prior to 1980. The site is adjacent to a Los Angeles County Courthouse and the City’s Civic Center, and is a little more than half a mile from the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station.

The portion of the site that has an existing General Plan Land Use designation of High Density Residential at 43 dwelling units per acre will be increased to allow for 87 dwelling units per acre. This increase in density accounts for approximately 1.37 acres of the total 1.94-acre site.

ATTACHMENT 6-134
D-16

Similar to the previous site (TOD 8), various property owners have approached City staff in the past regarding potential development of the site. Once the draft of the Downtown TOD Specific Plan is available for public review, City staff will reach out to the property owners of the opportunity site and invite them to participate in workshop to discuss the draft plan and solicit input from the public.

In order for the level of projected housing development to occur in this opportunity site, small-lot consolidation will be necessary. This site has ten small parcels with five property owners, but as discussed in the Housing Element regarding small sites, the City has experience facilitating small-lot consolidation, with the five projects presented in Table I-45 (Examples of Small Lot Consolidation) involving the aggregation of multiple small parcels. In each of these instances, property owners were able to acquire adjacent small parcels that were either physically underdeveloped and/or economically underutilized to create a viable site which was then developed to a higher economic use. Four of the five projects took advantage of density bonuses and provided affordable units. Other TOD sites also contain small parcels that share similar characteristics of physical and/or economic underutilization, and in several instances are already under common ownership. With the increased densities and economic incentives to be provided under the specific plan, these small parcels will be ripe for consolidation and development.

In addition, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-135
D-17

TOD 10 - BJ’s and Black Angus

Site Acreage: 3.83 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Downtown (87 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Downtown Burbank TOD SP (87 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 232 units
Programs to Facilitate Development:
5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22
Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

The opportunity site is located in a prime location within Downtown and includes two standalone restaurants (BJ’s and Black Angus), and an office building. Approximately 75% of the underutilized 3.83-acre site is currently used for parking. The site is within easy walking distance (approximately half-mile) from the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station. The City is engaging with multiple prospective developers seeking to develop the site as a residential and/or mixed- use development. The City has received inquiries during the current planning period about the short and long-term development potential of the site.

In addition, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc.

ATTACHMENT 6-136
D-18

that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-137
D-19

TOD 11 - Victory/Olive

Site Acreage: 2.9 acres
General Plan Land Use:

North Victory (27 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Downtown Burbank TOD SP (27 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 50 units
Programs to Facilitate Development:
5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22
Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

This opportunity site is located at the corner of Victory Boulevard and Olive Avenue, west of the I-5 freeway. The site contains a collection of underutilized service commercial/media uses. The site's overall improvement-to-land value ratio is 0.86. The City is engaging with the property owners about the viability of developing mixed-use projects on individual parcels or on a consolidated site. The City has received inquiries during the current planning period about the short- and long-term development potential envisioned as a result of the proposed Specific Plan. 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. In January 2022, City staff met with the property owner’s attorney and land development representative about a potential mixed-use project at the subject site. The property owner’s representatives conveyed their interest in being involved in the Downtown TOD Specific Plan process to provide input on a mixed-use project of the subject site that is consistent with the Specific Plan project objectives and with ATTACHMENT 6-138
D-20

the Program EIR in order to preserve any future opportunities for streamlined project review and environmental assessment.

Communications between staff and the property owners’
representatives is ongoing.

In order for the level of projected housing development to occur in this opportunity site, small-lot consolidation will be necessary. This site has four small parcels with three property owners, but as discussed in the Housing Element regarding small sites, the City has experience facilitating small-lot consolidation, with the five projects presented in Table I-45 (Examples of Small Lot Consolidation) involving the aggregation of multiple small parcels. In each of these instances, property owners were able to acquire adjacent small parcels that were either physically underdeveloped and/or economically underutilized to create a viable site which was then developed to a higher economic use. Four of the five projects took advantage of density bonuses and provided affordable units. Other TOD sites also contain small parcels that share similar characteristics of physical and/or economic underutilization, and in several instances are already under common ownership. With the increased densities and economic incentives to be provided under the specific plan, these small parcels will be ripe for consolidation and development.

Moreover, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway. The property information sheet will be posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-139
D-21

TOD 12 - YMCA

Site Acreage: 2.66 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Downtown (87 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Downtown Burbank TOD SP (87 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 372 units
Programs to Facilitate Development:
5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22
Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

The 10 parcels that make up this opportunity site include the existing YMCA facility and adjacent retail/commercial businesses and surface parking on YMCA-owned properties. Most of the existing buildings were constructed prior to 1980 and most parcels are underutilized with improvement to land value ratios of less than 1.0. The YMCA-led property ownership group and development team initiated a pre- application meeting with City staff in February 2021 during which the conceptual project proposal was discussed. The redevelopment of the YMCA opportunity site would include a new YMCA facility along with associated community-serving retail and child development center, as well as market rate and affordable units through a combination of the City’s inclusionary housing requirement and State density bonus incentive. The site is within 0.3 miles of the Civic Center, a prominent location within the transit and jobs-rich Downtown core and 0.8 miles from the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Train Station. Preliminary project proposal for the site facilitates development of 372 dwelling ATTACHMENT 6-140
D-22

units including 66 deed-restricted affordable lower income units. In April 2022, City staff met with the property owner’s attorney and land development representative about a potential mixed-use project at the subject site. The property owner’s representatives conveyed their interest in being involved in the Downtown TOD Specific Plan process to provide input on a mixed-use project of the subject site that is consistent with the Specific Plan project objectives and with the Program Environmental Impact Report to preserve any future opportunities for streamlined project review and environmental assessment. Communications between staff and the property owner’s representatives is ongoing.

In order for the level of projected housing development to occur in this opportunity site, small-lot consolidation will be necessary. This site has ten small parcels with four property owners, but as discussed in the Housing Element regarding small sites, the City has experience facilitating small-lot consolidation, with the five projects presented in Table I-45 (Examples of Small Lot Consolidation) involving the aggregation of multiple small parcels. In each of these instances, property owners were able to acquire adjacent small parcels that were either physically underdeveloped and/or economically underutilized to create a viable site which was then developed to a higher economic use. Four of the five projects took advantage of density bonuses and provided affordable units. Other TOD sites also contain small parcels that share similar characteristics of physical and/or economic underutilization, and in several instances are already under common ownership. With the increased densities and economic incentives to be provided under the specific plan, these small parcels will be ripe for consolidation and development.

Moreover, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway. The property information sheet will be posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-141
D-23

GSSP 1 - Lima/Avon

Total Acres: 4.0 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Golden State (27 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Golden State SP (120
du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 334
units
Programs to Facilitate
Development: 5, 9, 10, 11,
17, 19, 20, 22
Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

This site encompasses 15 parcels within the City’s Golden State Specific Plan focus area. The properties are bounded by San Fernando Blvd, Avon Street, Lima Street and Cohasset Street. One vacant parcel is located on California Street. These parcels are currently zoned as General Industrial (M-2) and would be rezoned to allow for Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development at a density of 120 dwelling units per acre, to allow for mixed use residential development within a quarter mile of the existing Burbank Airport – North AV Line Metrolink Station, and a half mile of Hollywood Burbank Airport and proposed High Speed Rail Station.

Additionally, these parcels are within close proximity of major regional employers including an Amazon Delivery Station, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Netflix, Hasbro, Warner Brothers and Disney. The site includes uses such as storage and warehousing, light industrial and parking lots, with a majority of the buildings built prior to 1980 and half of the parcels are underutilized with improvement to land value ratios of less than 1.0. Representatives of property owners and potential investors have expressed interest in multi-family residential development within this site.

ATTACHMENT 6-142
D-24

In order for the level of projected housing development to occur in this opportunity site, small-lot consolidation will be necessary. This site has 15 small parcels with 11 property owners, but as discussed in the Housing Element regarding small sites, the City has experience facilitating small-lot consolidation, with the five projects presented in Table I-45 (Examples of Small Lot Consolidation) involving the aggregation of multiple small parcels. In each of these instances, property owners were able to acquire adjacent small parcels that were either physically underdeveloped and/or economically underutilized to create a viable site which was then developed to a higher economic use. Four of the five projects took advantage of density bonuses and provided affordable units. Other GSSP sites also contain small parcels that share similar characteristics of physical and/or economic underutilization, and in several instances are already under common ownership. With the increased densities and economic incentives to be provided under the specific plan, these small parcels will be ripe for consolidation and development.

Moreover, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway. The property information sheet will be posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-143
D-25

GSSP 2 - N. Hollywood Way

Site Acreage: 5.28 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Golden State (27 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Golden State SP (120 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 505 units
Programs to Facilitate Development:
5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22
Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

This site encompasses 16 parcels near the southeast corner San Fernando Blvd and Hollywood Way. These parcels are currently zoned as General Industrial (M-2) and would be rezoned to allow for Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development at a density of 120 dwelling units per acre, to allow for mixed use residential development within a quarter mile of the existing Burbank Airport – North AV Line Metrolink Station, and a half mile of Hollywood Burbank Airport and proposed High Speed Rail Station. Additionally, these parcels are within close proximity of major regional employers including an Amazon Delivery Station, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Netflix, Hasbro, Warner Brothers and Disney. The sites currently include uses such as storage and warehousing, light industrial and parking lots. The majority of the building are over 40 years old and most of the parcels have an improvement to land value of less than 1.0. Representatives of property owners and potential investors have expressed interest in multi-family residential developments in this opportunity site. A majority of these parcels have improvement-to-land value ratios of less than 1.0 and buildings constructed prior to 1980.

ATTACHMENT 6-144
D-26

In order for the level of projected housing development to occur in this opportunity site, small-lot consolidation will be necessary. This site has 16 small parcels and 12 owners, but as discussed in the Housing Element regarding small sites, the City has experience facilitating small- lot consolidation, with the five projects presented in Table I-45 (Examples of Small Lot Consolidation) involving the aggregation of multiple small parcels. In each of these instances, property owners were able to acquire adjacent small parcels that were either physically underdeveloped and/or economically underutilized to create a viable site which was then developed to a higher economic use. Four of the five projects took advantage of density bonuses and provided affordable units. Other GSSP sites also contain small parcels that share similar characteristics of physical and/or economic underutilization, and in several instances are already under common ownership. With the increased densities and economic incentives to be provided under the specific plan, these small parcels will be ripe for consolidation and development.

Moreover, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway. The property information sheet will be posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-145
D-27

GSSP 3 - Valhalla

Site Acreage: 8.10 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Golden State (27 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Golden State SP (120 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 678 units
Programs to Facilitate
Development: 5, 9, 10, 11, 17,
19, 20, 22
Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

This site encompasses six parcels bounded by Screenland Drive, Pacific Avenue, Valhalla Drive and Hollywood Way. These parcels are currently zoned as Limited Industrial (M-1) and would be rezoned to allow for Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development at a density of 120 dwelling units per acre, to allow for mixed use residential development within a quarter mile of the existing Burbank Airport – South VC Line Metrolink Station, and approximately a half mile of Hollywood Burbank Airport and the proposed High Speed Rail Station. Additionally, these parcels are within close proximity of major regional employers including an Amazon Delivery Station, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Netflix, Hasbro, Warner Brothers and Disney. The sites currently include uses such as storage and warehousing, light industrial and parking lots. A majority of these parcels have improvement-to-land value ratios of less than 1.0 and buildings constructed prior to 1980. With the rezoning, these properties would be key candidates for residential development, similar the development of the former Fry’s Property by La Terra Development, LL, which proposes over 800 residential units. Redevelopment of these six parcels would bridge the gap between the existing residential neighborhood to the south of Pacific Avenue and the proposed residential development north of Valhalla Drive.

ATTACHMENT 6-146
D-28

In order for the level of projected housing development to occur in this opportunity site, small-lot consolidation will be necessary. This site has six small parcels with five property owners, but as discussed in the Housing Element regarding small sites, the City has experience facilitating small-lot consolidation, with the five projects presented in Table I-45 (Examples of Small Lot Consolidation) involving the aggregation of multiple small parcels.

In each of these instances, property owners were able to acquire adjacent small parcels that were either physically underdeveloped and/or economically underutilized to create a viable site which was then developed to a higher economic use. Four of the five projects took advantage of density bonuses and provided affordable units. Other GSSP sites also contain small parcels that share similar characteristics of physical and/or economic underutilization, and in several instances are already under common ownership. With the increased densities and economic incentives to be provided under the specific plan, these small parcels will be ripe for consolidation and development.

This opportunity site is just south of the property at 2311 N. Hollywood Way (a former Frys Electronics Store) that is being developed with a 862 unit mixed-use project. The Frys site is adjacent to the Airport Influence Area and railroad right of way. The approved project includes numerous project design features and mitigation measures to address noise control measures and façade upgrades such as MERV 13 filtration system, sound baffling glass barriers, and interior design of units to maintain interior unit noise to 45 dBA, to name a few. The project’s design features and mitigation measures are consistent with the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan goals and policies that seek to facilitate mixed use projects near public transit and employment centers while ensuring that new residential development located near the airport, railroad, and freeways are designed to address any potential health risks in compliance with City green building codes, the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, and Burbank2035 Land Use, Housing, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas, and Mobility Elements. The subject GSSP 3 site is located south of the Frys development site, and thus will benefit from buffering by the new development’s high rise construction and location away from the airport noise influence area and railroad right of way. Any future development at GSSP 3 would be required to receive similar clearances to the Frys site from the FAA and the Airport Land Use Committee before obtaining approval from the City for development.

Moreover, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway. The property information sheet will be posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-147
D-29

GSSP 4 - Logix

Site Acreage: 4.46 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Golden State (27 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Golden State SP (120 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 428 units
Programs to Facilitate
Development: 5, 9, 10, 11, 17,
19, 22
Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

This one-parcel site is located at the southeast corner of Vanowen Street and Hollywood Way. This parcel is currently zoned as General Industrial (M-2) and would be rezoned to allow for Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development at a density of 120 dwelling units per acre, to allow for mixed use residential development within a quarter mile of the existing Burbank Airport – South VC Line Metrolink Station, and approximately a half mile of Hollywood Burbank Airport and the proposed High Speed Rail Station. This site is within close proximity of major regional employers including an Amazon Delivery Station, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Netflix, Hasbro, Warner Brothers and Disney. The site is currently improved with a pre-1980 office building and surrounding surface parking. In 2016, Logix Federal Credit Union – the tenant occupying the existing office building – announced that they would be relocating their company headquarters from Burbank to Valencia CA. In 2020 the City met with a potential investor (La Terra Development, LLC) who expressed interest in multi-family residential developments on this opportunity site. This opportunity site is east of the property at 2311 N.

Hollywood Way (a former Frys Electronics Store) that is being developed ATTACHMENT 6-148
D-30

with a 862 unit mixed-use project. The Frys site is adjacent to the Airport Influence Area and railroad right of way. The approved project includes numerous project design features and mitigation measures to address noise control measures and façade upgrades such as MERV 13 filtration system, sound baffling glass barriers, and interior design of units to maintain interior unit noise to 45 dBA, to name a few. The project’s design features and mitigation measures are consistent with the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan goals and policies that seek to facilitate mixed use projects near public transit and employment centers while ensuring that new residential development located near the airport, railroad, and freeways are designed to address any potential health risks in compliance with City green building codes, the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, and Burbank2035 Land Use, Housing, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas, and Mobility Elements. The subject GSSP 4 site is located further east of the Frys development site, which will be buffered by the new development’s construction and further away from the airport noise influence area. Any future development at GSSP 4 would have to receive similar clearances to the 2311 N. Hollywood Way development site from the FAA and the Airport Land Use Committee before obtaining approval from the City for development.

Moreover, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway. The property information sheet will be posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-149
D-31

GSSP 5 - Ontario

Site Acreage: 1.73 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Regional Commercial (58
du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Golden State SP (120 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 166 units
Programs to Facilitate
Development: 5, 9, 10, 11, 17,
19, 22
Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

This site includes one parcel located at the northeast corner of Empire Avenue and Ontario Street. This parcel is currently zoned as Planned Development and would be rezoned to allow for Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development at a density of 120 dwelling units per acre, to allow for mixed use residential development within a quarter mile of the existing Burbank Airport – South VC Line Metrolink Station, and approximately a half mile of Hollywood Burbank Airport and the proposed High Speed Rail Station. This site is within close proximity of major regional employers. The site is currently improved with a surface parking lot. City staff has been in ongoing discussions the property owner, Worthe Realty Group who has shown an interest in redeveloping the site with a mixed use and/or residential project pursuant to the proposed Golden State Specific Plan which seeks to maximize housing opportunities within a half-mile distance of the existing Burbank Airport Metrolink Station.

The site is within a major employment complex (The Media Studios North Campus), which houses businesses like Disney, Hasbro, Madison Square Garden entertainment and Kaiser Permanente. The purpose is to maximize the proximity of the site to major employment, improve housing availability in the neighborhood, and reduce vehicle miles travelled for existing and future employees of the Media Studio North Campus and surrounding employers.

This parcel has an improvement-to-land value ratio of just 0.03.

ATTACHMENT 6-150
D-32

This opportunity site is northeast of the property at 2311 N. Hollywood Way (a former Frys Electronics Store) that is being developed with a 862 unit mixed- use project. The Frys site is adjacent to the Airport Influence Area and railroad right of way. The approved project includes numerous project design features and mitigation measures to address noise control measures and façade upgrades such as MERV 13 filtration system, sound baffling glass barriers, and interior design of units to maintain interior unit noise to 45 dBA, to name a few. The project’s design features and mitigation measures are consistent with the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan goals and policies that seek to facilitate mixed use projects near public transit and employment centers while ensuring that new residential development located near the airport, railroad, and freeways are designed to address any potential health risks in compliance with City green building codes, the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, and Burbank2035 Land Use, Housing, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas, and Mobility Elements. The subject GSSP 5 site is located further east of the Frys development site, which will be buffered by the new development’s construction and further away from the airport noise influence area. Any future development at GSSP 5 would have to receive similar clearances to the 2311 N. Hollywood Way development site from the FAA and the Airport Land Use Committee before obtaining approval from the City for development.

Moreover, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway. The property information sheet will be posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-151
D-33

GSSP 6 - Fairview

Site Acreage: 0.65acres
General Plan Land Use:

Regional Commercial (58 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Golden State SP (58 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 30 units
Programs to Facilitate
Development: 5, 9, 10, 11, 17,
19, 22
This opportunity site includes one parcel and is bounded by Empire Avenue, Ontario Street and Fairview Street. This parcel is currently zoned General Industrial (M-2) and would be rezoned to allow for Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development at a density of 58 dwelling units per acre. This would allow for mixed use residential development within a quarter mile of the existing Burbank Airport – South VC Line Metrolink Station, and approximately a half mile of Hollywood Burbank Airport and the proposed High Speed Rail Station. Additionally, this site is within close proximity of major regional employers including an Amazon Delivery Station, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Netflix, Hasbro, Warner Brothers and Disney. City staff has been in ongoing discussions the property owner, about the redevelopment of the opportunity site as a residential project that seeks to maximize housing opportunities. The site is currently improved with a surface parking lot, and has an improvement-to-land value ratio of just 0.05.

Redevelopment of this parcel would allow for up to 30 units. 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. As of May of 2022, the City has received an application on this site for SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial review for the development of 148 residential dwelling units 100% affordable to low-income households, well in excess of the 30 units assumed in the sites inventory.

ATTACHMENT 6-152
D-34

Moreover, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway. The property information sheet will be posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-153
D-35

GSSP 7 - Empire

Site Acreage: 6.4 acres
General Plan Land Use:

Regional Commercial (58 du/ac)
1 small parcel -- Institutional (0
du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:

Golden State SP (100 du/ac)
Net Unit Potential: 510 units
Programs to Facilitate Development:
5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22
Site Description and Factors Supporting Development:

This site includes eight parcels totaling approximately seven acres. The properties are located along Empire Avenue. These parcels are currently zoned as General Industrial (M-2) and would be rezoned to allow for Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development at a density of 100 dwelling units per acre, to allow for mixed use residential development within a quarter mile of the existing Burbank Airport – South VC Line Metrolink Station, and approximately a half mile of Hollywood Burbank Airport and the proposed High Speed Rail Station. Additionally, these parcels are within close proximity of major regional employers including an Amazon Delivery Station, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, Netflix, Hasbro, Warner Brothers and Disney. The sites currently include uses such as storage and warehousing, light and heavy industrial and office. Most of the buildings were constructed prior to 1980.

In order for the level of projected housing development to occur in this opportunity site, small-lot consolidation will be necessary. This site has eight small parcels with six property owners, but as discussed in the Housing Element regarding small sites, the City has experience facilitating small-lot consolidation, with the five projects presented in Table I-45 (Examples of Small Lot Consolidation) involving the aggregation of multiple small parcels. In each of these instances, property owners were able to acquire adjacent small parcels that were either physically underdeveloped and/or economically underutilized to create a viable site which was then developed to a higher economic use. Four of the five ATTACHMENT 6-154
D-36

projects took advantage of density bonuses and provided affordable units. Other GSSP sites also contain small parcels that share similar characteristics of physical and/or economic underutilization, and in several instances are already under common ownership. With the increased densities and economic incentives to be provided under the specific plan, these small parcels will be ripe for consolidation and development.

Representatives of property owners and potential investors have expressed interest in multi-family development on these sites. For example, City staff has been in ongoing discussions with property owners, including Abs Properties, about the redevelopment of properties with residential projects that seek to maximize housing opportunities.

Redevelopment of these parcels would allow for up to 510 units.

On November 29, 2021, the City received a Notice of Intent (NOI) to submit an application for a Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process under SB 35 for the 2 acre parcel within GSSP 7. The proposal is to construct a 100% affordable multi-family residential building with 340 units at 3000 W. Empire Avenue. On the same date, the City also received an NOI to submit an SB 35 application for the property at 3001 W. Empire located across the street to construct 131 affordable units. As of May 2022, the applicant is preparing updated applications to address City comments on the projects’ compliance with applicable objective design and development standards.

Moreover, the City’s Housing, Economic Development and Real Estate Division is in the process of preparing property information sheets detailing applicable zoning regulations, permitted density, etc. that can be used to help actively market the subject site. These property information worksheets for all the housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element will be completed in the third quarter of 2022 and posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway. The property information sheet will be posted on the City’s website and will be updated every six months to account for any changes to zoning including proposed updates resulting from the Specific Plan update currently underway.

ATTACHMENT 6-155
Please Start Here, Instructions in Cell
A2, Table in A3:B15 Form Fields
Site Inventory Forms must be submitted to
HCD for a housing element or amendment
adopted on or after January 1, 2021. The
following form is to be used for satisfying
this requirement. To submit the form,
complete the Excel spreadsheet and submit
to HCD at [email protected].

Please send the Excel workbook, not a
scanned or PDF copy of the tables.

General Information
Jurisidiction Name City of Burbank
Housing Element Cycle 6th Cycle
Contact Information
First Name Shipra
Last Name Rajesh
Title Associate Planner
Email [email protected]
Phone (818) 238-5250
Mailing Address
Street Address 150 N. Third St.

City Burbank
Zip Code 91502
ATTACHMENT 6-156
Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation (Current)
Zoning Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed (units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning Cycle(s)
Lower Income
Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity Total Capacity Information-1
(Underutilization)
Information-2 (Likeliness of
Development)
Information-3 (Availability to
Resources)
N SAN FERNANDO/BETHANY 91504 2460010010 A High Density Residential NSFC 0 43 0.08 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 2.3 2.3 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
N SAN FERNANDO/BETHANY 91504 2460010011 A High Density Residential NSFC 0 43 0.08 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 2.3 2.3 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
N SAN FERNANDO/BETHANY 91504 2460010012 A High Density Residential NSFC 0 43 0.08 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 2.3 2.3 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
N SAN FERNANDO/BETHANY 91504 2460010013 A High Density Residential NSFC 0 43 0.08 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 2.2 2.2 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
1300 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91504 2460010014 A Corridor Commercial NSFC 0 27 0.21 Restaurant Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 2.0 1.8 3.8 Building pre-1980 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
1310 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91504 2460010033 A Corridor Commercial NSFC 0 27 0.13 Restaurant Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 1.2 1.1 2.3 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
1320 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91504 2460010036 A Corridor Commercial NSFC 0 27 0.65 Restaura nt Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cyc le 5.8 5.1 10.9 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
Total: TOD 1-Carl's Jr 91504 1.29 9.0 9.0 8.0 26.0 1000 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91502 2460006045 B Corridor Commercial NSFC 0 27 2.80 Store Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 22.6 22.6 45.2 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
1000 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91502 2460007036 B Corridor Commercial NSFC 0 27 3.63 Disc. depart store Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 29.4 29.4 58.8 Building pre-1980 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
Total: TOD 2-Kmart 91502 6.43 52.0 52.0 104.0
923 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91502 2460021017 C Corridor Commercial NSFC 0 27 0.26 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 2.5 4.7 7.2 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
913 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91502 2460021018 C Corridor Commercial NSFC 0 27 0.17 Restaurant Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 1.6 3.1 4.7 Building pre-1980 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
911 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91502 2460021019 C Corridor Commercial NSFC 0 27 0.17 Restaurant Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 1.2 2.2 3.4 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendi
x D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
903 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91502 2460021020 C Corridor Commercial NSFC 0 27 0.30 Prof. building Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 2.9 5.6 8.5 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
901 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91502 2460021027 C Corridor Commercial NSFC 0 27 0.26 Full service station Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 2.5 4.8 7.3 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
ATTACHMENT 6-157
Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation (Current)
Zoning Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed (units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning Cycle(s)
Lower Income
Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity Total Capacity Information-1
(Underutilization)
Information-2 (Likeliness of
Development)
Information-3 (Availability to
Resources)
127 W BURBANK BLVD 91502 2460021028 C Corridor Commercial NSFC 0 27 0.13 Store Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 1.3 2.4 3.7 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
I-5 FWY/E BURBANK 91502 N/A C N/A 0 0 1.58 Vacant Yes-Current YES - State-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle Vacant public land Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
Total: TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 91502 2.87 12.0 11.0 23.0
600 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91502 2460023044 D Downtown PD 0 87 6.38 Reg. shopping Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 388.2 388.2 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest/High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
731 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91502 2460023045 D Downtown PD 0 87 0.90 Reg. shopping Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 55 55 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest/High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
601 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91502 2460023046 D Downtown PD 0 87 2.81 Reg. shopping Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 170.7 170.7 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest/High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
600 N 1ST ST 91502 2460023047 D Downtown PD 0 87 0.29 Reg. shopping Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 17.9 17.9 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest/High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
230 E BURBANK BLVD 91502 2460023060 D Downtown PD 0 87 1.67 Reg. shopping Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 101.7 101.7 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest/High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
217 GRINNELL DR 91502 2460031007 D Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.19 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 11.5 11.5 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest/High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
215 GRINNELL DR 91502 2460031008 D Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.19 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 11.5 11.5 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest/High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
218 E BURBANK BLVD 91502 2460031016 D Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.17 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 10.1 10.1 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest/High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
212 E BURBANK BLVD 91502 2460031018 D Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.19 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 11.7 11.7 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest/High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
800 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91502 2460031019 D Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.24 Bank/savings Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 14.6 14.6 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest/High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
840 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91502 2460031029 D Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.16 Bank/savings Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 9.6 9.6 Building pre-1980 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest/High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
N SAN FERNANDO/GRINNEL 91502 2460031044 D Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.16 Vacant Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 9.8 9.8 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest/High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
800 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91502 2460031045 D Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.44 Fast food-walkup Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 26.7 26.7 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest/High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
Total: TOD 4-Old IKEA 91502 13.80 839.0 839.0
ATTACHMENT 6-158
Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation (Current)
Zoning Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed (units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning Cycle(s)
Lower Income
Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity Total Capacity Information-1
(Underutilization)
Information-2 (Likeliness of
Development)
Information-3 (Availability to
Resources)
401 N 1ST ST 91502 2460023056 E Downtown PD 0 87 2.06 Reg. shopping Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 124.8 124.8 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
521 N 1ST ST 91502 2460023057 E Downtown PD 0 87 0.65 Reg. shopping Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 39.2 39.2 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
Total: TOD 5-Ashley Home/El Pol 91502 2.71 164.0 164.0
245 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 91502 2460023048 F Downtown PD 0 87 1.31 Reg. shopping Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 79.5 79.5 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
201 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 91502 2460023049 F Downtown PD 0 87 5.20 Reg. shopping Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 316.5 316.5 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
111 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 91502 2460023050 F Downtown PD 0 87 1.41 Reg. shopping Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 86.2 86.2 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
501 N 3RD ST 91502 2460023052 F Downtown PD 0 87 2.23 Reg. shopping Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 135.9 135.9 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
550 N 1ST ST 91502 2460023054 F Downtown PD 0 87 2.71 Reg. shopping Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 165.3 165.3 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
200 E CYPRESS AVE 91502 2460023063 F Downtown PD 0 87 2.35 Reg. shopping Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 143.3 143.3 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
(PRIV STREET AND YARD IMPS) 91502 2460023064 F Downtown PD 0 87 1.26 Private Street Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 76.9 76.9 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
555 N 3RD ST 91502 2460023996 F Downtown PD 0 87 0.27 Th eater Yes-Current YES - City-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 16.4 16.4 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
Total: TOD 6-Burbank Town Ctr 91502 16.75 1020.0 1020.0 121 S GLENOAKS BLVD 91502 2453014002 G Downtown BCC-3 0 87 0.08 Prof building Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 4.9 4.9 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
123 S GLENOAKS BLVD 91502 2453014003 G Downtown BCC-3 0 87 0.04 Store/resid combo Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 2.4 2.4 Building pre-1980 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
147 S GLENOAKS BLVD 91502 2453014008 G Downtown BCC-3 0 87 0.09 Store Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 2.3 2.3 Building pre-1980 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
ATTACHMENT 6-159
Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation (Current)
Zoning Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed (units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning Cycle(s)
Lower Income
Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity Total Capacity Information-1
(Underutilization)
Information-2 (Likeliness of
Development)
Information-3 (Availability to
Resources)
356 E OLIVE AVE 91502 2453014012 G Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.18 Prof building Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 10.7 10.7 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
348 E OLIVE AVE 91502 2453014014 G Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.18 Office building Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 10.8 10.8 Building pre-1980 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
362 E OLIVE AVE 91502 2453014022 G Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.06 Store Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 3.8 3.8 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
358 E OLIVE AVE 91502 2453014023 G Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.12 Office building Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 7.0 7.0 Building pre-1980 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
137 S GLENOAKS BLVD 91502 2453014024 G Downtown BCC-3 0 87 0.16 Restaurant Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 7.7 7.7 Building pre-1980 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
372 E OLIVE AVE 91502 2453014025 G Downtown BCC-3 0 87 0.13 Bank/savings Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 7.7 7.7 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
359 E ANGELENO AVE 91502 2453014026 G Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.17 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 10.5 10.5 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
353 E ANGELENO AVE 91502 2453014
029 G Downtown BCC-2 0 87 0.35 Office building Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 20.2 20.2 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
Total: TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 91502 88.0 88.0
101 S 1ST ST, 400 91502 2453011029 H Downtown BCC-2 0 87 2.12 Office building Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 129.2 129.2 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
235 S 1ST ST 91502 2453018017 H Downtown BCC-2 0 87 1.71 Restaurant Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 102.8 102.8 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
Total: TOD-10-BJs/Black Angus 91502 3.83 232.0 232.0
120 S VICTORY BLVD 91502 2451016011 I North Victory BCCM 0 27 2.14 Office building Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 18.6 18.6 37.2 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Moderate Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
272 E OLIVE AVE 91502 2451016012 I North Victory BCCM 0 27 0.24 Auto serv/body Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 1.7 1.7 3.4 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Moderate Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
264 W OLIVE AVE 91502 2451016013 I North Victory BCCM 0 27 0.19 Auto serv/body Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 1.8 1.8 3.6 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendi
x D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Moderate Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
110 S VICTORY BLVD 91502 2451016014 I North Victory BCCM 0 27 0.31 Auto serv/body Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in L ast Cycle 2.9 2.9 5.8 Building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific
Plan, Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-
1: TOD and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Moderate Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
ATTACHMENT 6-160
Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation (Current)
Zoning Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed (units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning Cycle(s)
Lower Income
Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity Total Capacity Information-1
(Underutilization)
Information-2 (Likeliness of
Development)
Information-3 (Availability to
Resources)
Total: TOD 11-Victory/Olive 91502 2.88 25.0 25.0 50.0
N FAIRVIEW/W EMPIRE 91504 2464006045 J Regional Commercial M-2 0 58 0.65 Parking lot/structure Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Available Not in Last Cycle 30.0 30.0 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
Total: GSSP-6 Fairview 91504 30.0 30.0
137 E VERDUGO AVE 91502 2453019011 L Downtown Commercial BCC-2 0 87 0.17 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects In Last Cycle 4.8 25.8 30.6 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980 Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
121 E VERDUGO AVE 91502 2453019015 L Downtown Commercial BCC-2 0 87 0.51 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects In Last Cycle 14.7 79.6 94.3 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980 Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
103 E VERDUGO AVE 91502 2453019017 L Downtown Commercial BCC-2 0 87 0.16 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects In Last Cycle 4.5 24.6 29.1 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980 Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
Total: The Premier on First 91502 0.83 24.0 130.0 154.0 W ALAMEDA/CALIFORNIA 91505 2483023419 M Media District Commercial PD 0 58 0.24 Vacant-Comm Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects Not in Last Cycle 2.5 21.6 24.1 Currently vacant in highly urbanized area Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
W ALAMEDA/CALIFORNIA 91505 2483023420 M Media District Commercial PD 0 58 0.28 Vacant-Comm Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects Not in Last Cycle 2.9 24.4 27.3 Currently vacant in highly urbanized area Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
3321 W OLIVE AVE 91505 2483023421 M Media District Commercial PD 0 58 0.28 Vacant-Comm Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects Not in Last Cycle 2.9 24.6 27.5 Currently vacant in highly urbanized area Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
W OLIVE/N LIMA 91505 2483023422 M Media District Commercial PD 0 58 0.06 Vacant-Comm Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects Not in Last Cycle 0.6 5.2 5.8 Currently vacant in highly urbanized area Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
3320 W ALAMEDA AVE 91505 2483023431 M Media District Commercial PD 0 58 0.16 Vacant-Comm Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects Not in Last Cycle 1.7 14.4 16.1 Currently vacant in highly urbanized area Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
W OLIVE/N LIMA 91505 2483023432 M Media District Commercial PD 0 58 0.07 Vacant Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects Not in Last Cycle 0.8 6.6 7.4 Currently vacant in highly urbanized area Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
3201 W OLIVE AVE 91505 2484024401 M Media District Commercial PD 0 58 0.15 Vacant-Comm Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects Not in Last Cycle 1.6 13.2 14.8 Currently vacant in highly urbanized area Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
Total: Bob Hope Center 91505 1.24 13.0 110.0 123.0
ATTACHMENT 6-161
Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP
Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan
Designation (Current)
Zoning Designation
(Current)
Minimum Density
Allowed (units/acre)
Max Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning Cycle(s)
Lower Income
Capacity
Moderate Income
Capacity
Above Moderate
Income Capacity Total Capacity Information-1
(Underutilization)
Information-2 (Likeliness of
Development)
Information-3 (Availability to
Resources)
3700 W RIVERSIDE DR 91505 2485005004 N Media District Commercial MDC-3 0 58 0.43 Car Wash Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects Not in Last Cycle 2.8 31.6 34.4 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980 Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
3700 W RIVERSIDE DR 91505 2485005014 N Media District Commercial MDC-3 0 58 0.08 Parking lot/patron Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects Not in Last Cycle 0.5 6.2 6.7 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980 Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
134 N SCREENLAND DR 91505 2485005015 N Media District Commercial MDC-3 0 58 0.10 Office Building Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects Not in Last Cycle 0.6 7.3 7.9 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980 Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
Total: 3700 Riverside 91505 0.61 4.0 45.0 49.0
4100 W RIVERSIDE DR 91505 2485008034 O Media District Commercial MDC-3 0 58 0.35 Store and Office Combo Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects Not in Last Cycle 7.0 37.0 44.0 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
Total: 4100 Riverside 91505 0.35 7.0 37.0 44.0
537 E PALM AVE 91501 2455030011 P High Density Residential R-4 0 43 0.18 Single Familly Residence Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects In Last Cycle 1.0 4.0 5.0 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980 Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
529 E PALM AVE 91501 2455030013 P High Density Residential R-4 0 43 0.17 Four Units/4 Stories or Less Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects Not in Last Cycle 1.0 4.0 5.0 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980 Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
Total: 529-537 Palm Ave 91501 0.35 2.0 8.0 10.0
2720 THORNTON AVE 91504 2464008013 Q High Density Residential R-4 0 43 0.20 Two Units/4 Stories or less Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects In Last Cycle 2.0 2.0 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980 Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
Total: 2720 Thornton Ave 91504 0.2 2.0 2.0
2814 W. EMPIRE AVE 91504 2464001017 R Regional Commercial M-2 0 58 0.8 Vacant Commercial Yes-Current NO - Privately-Owned Pending Projects Not in Last Cycle 118.0 29.0 1.0 148.0 Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980 Pending Entitlement TCAC-High Resources, High Quality Transit Area
Total: 2814 W. Empire Ave 91504 0.8 118.0 29.0 1.0 148.0 ATTACHMENT 6-162
didate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need, Table Starts in Cell A2 Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor
Parcel Number
Very Low-
Income Low-Income Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of Shortfall Parcel Size
(Acres)
Current General Plan
Designation Current Zoning Proposed General
Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density Allowed Total Capacity Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description of
Existing Uses
Information-1
(Underutilization)
Information-2 (Likeliness of
Development)
Information-3 (Availability to
Resources)
N GLENOAKS / E OLIVE 91502 2453008900 3.6 1.9 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Institutional PD Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 5.5 Nonvacant Parking lot lease Public Uses-Civic Center Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
N GLENOAKS / E OLIVE 91502 2453008903 39.8 21.5 Shortfall of sites 0.9 Institutional PD Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 61.3 Nonvacant Gov't owned Public Uses-Civic Center Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
348 E ORANGE GROVE AVE 91502 2453008905 15.9 8.6 Shortfall of sites 0.4 Institutional PD Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 24.5 Nonvacant Store/resid combo Public Uses-Civic Center Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
301 E OLIVE AVE 91502 2453008908 23.9 12.9 Shortfall of sites 0.5 Institutional PD Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 36.8 Nonvacant Bank/savings Public Uses-Civic Center Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
375 E OLIVE AVE 91502 2453008910 7.5 4.1 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Institutional PD Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 11.6 Nonvacant Parking lot/patron Public Uses-Civic Center Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
E OLIVE / S 3RD 91502 2453008911 9.0 4.9 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Institutional PD Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 13.8 Nonvacant Parking lot/patron Public Uses-Civic Center Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
374 E ORANGE GROVE AVE 91502 2453008912 28.8 15.6 Shortfall of sites 0.7 Institutional PD Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 44.3 Nonvacant Bank/ savings Public Uses-Civic Center Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
275 E OLIVE AVE 91502 2453009902 47.7 25.8 Shortfall of sites 1.8 Institutional PD Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 73.5 Nonvacant City Hall/Admin Ctr Public Uses-Civic Center Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
110 N GLENOAKS BLVD 91502 2455021906 69.8 37.8 Shortfall of sites 1.6 Institutional R-4 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 107.6 Nonvacant Central Library Public Uses-Civic Center Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
Total: TOD 7-Civic Center 91502 246.0 133.0 6.2 379.0
249 S GLENOAKS BLVD 91502 2453021026 7.7 4.1 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Downtown BCC-3 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 11.7 Nonvacant Auto serv/body Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
249 S GLENOAKS BLVD 91502 2453021027 3.4 1.8 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Downtown BCC-3 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 5.3 Nonvacant Auto serv/body Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
201 S GLENOAKS BLVD 91502 2453021029 10.0 5.3 Shortfall of sites 0.3 Downtown BCC-3 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 15.4 Nonvacant Restaurant Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
221 S GLENOAKS BLVD 91502 2453021030 8.2 4.3 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Downtown BCC-3 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 12.5 Nonvacant Store Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-198
0 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
354 E ANGELENO AVE 91502 2453021032 6.9 3.7 Shortfall of sites 0.2 High Density Residential BCC-2 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 10.5 Nonvacant Prof building Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
344 E ANGELENO AVE 91502 2453021033 6.9 3.7 Shortfall of sites 0.2 High Density Residential BCC-2 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 10.6 Nonvacant Prof building Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
336 E ANGELENO AVE 91502 2453021035 7.0 3.7 Shortfall of sites 0.2 High Density Residential BCC-2 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 10.7 Nonvacant Private school Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
320 E ANGELENO AVE 91502 2453021041 6.8 3.6 Shortfall of sites 0.2 High Density Residential BCC-2 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 10.5 Nonvacant Church Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
310 E ANGELENO AVE 91502 2453021046 14.0 7.4 Shortfall of sites 0.4 High Density Residential BCC-2 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 21.4 Nonvacant Parking lot/patron Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
300 E ANGELENO AVE 91502 2453021062 6.1 3.3 Shortfall of sites 0.2 High Density Residential BCC-2 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 87 9.4 Nonvacant Church
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
Total: TOD 9-Fosters Freeze 91502 77.0 41.0 1.9 118.0
353 E SAN JOSE AVE 91502 2460034021 4.4 4.2 39.8 Shortfall of sites 0.3 Downtown BCC-2 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 200 48.4 Nonvacant Private school Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
1 ATTACHMENT 6-163
Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor
Parcel Number
Very Low-
Income Low-Income Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of Shortfall Parcel Size
(Acres)
Current General Plan
Designation Current Zoning Proposed General
Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density Allowed Total Capacity Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description of
Existing Uses
Information-1
(Underutilization)
Information-2 (Likeliness of
Development)
Information-3 (Availability to
Resources)
409 N GLENOAKS BLVD 91502 2460035001 1.4 1.3 12.3 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Downtown BCC-3 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 200 15.0 Nonvacant Parking lot/patron Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
369 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 91502 2460035003 2.3 2.1 20.4 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Downtown BCC-3 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 200 24.8 Nonvacant Restaurant Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
361 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 91502 2460035005 2.2 2.1 19.8 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Downtown BCC-2 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 200 24.0 Nonvacant Office building Building pre-1980 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
353 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 91502 2460035007 2.2 2.1 20.1 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Downtown BCC-2 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 200 24.5 Nonvacant Store/resid combo Building pre-1980 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
352 E SAN JOSE AVE 91502 2460035008 2.3 2.1 20.4 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Downtown BCC-2 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 200 24.8 Nonvacant Parking lot/patron Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
320 E SAN JOSE AVE 91502 2460035014 3.6 3.4 32.3 Shortfall of sites 0.3 Downtown PD Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 200 39.3 Nonvacant Parking lot/patron Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
300 E SAN JOSE AVE 91502 2460035016 4.2 4.0 38.2 Shortfall of sites 0.3 Downtown PD Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 200 46.5 Nonvacant Parking lot/patron Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
344 E SAN JOSE AVE 91502 2460035017 4.6 4.3 41.4 Shortfall of sites 0.4 Downtown PD Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 200 50.4 Nonvacant Private school
Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
321 E MAGNOLIA BLVD 91502 2460035018 6.8 6.4 61.2 Shortfall of sites 0.5 Downtown PD Downtown TOD Specific Plan Downtown TOD Specific Plan 20 200 74.4 Nonvacant Club/Lodge Hall Building pre-1980 Proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
Total: TOD 12-YMCA 91502 34.0 32.0 306.0 6.5 372.0
3075 N LIMA ST 91504 2466001015 6.6 6.6 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 13.2 Nonvacant Light industrial Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3079 N LIMA ST 91504 2466001016 6.5 6.5 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 13.1 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3310 COHASSET ST 91504 2466001022 6.4 6.4 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 12.7 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3094 N AVON ST 91504 2466001023 6.5 6.5 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 13.0 Nonvacant Light industrial Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3090 N AVON ST 91504 2466001024 6.4 6.4 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 12.9 Nonvacant Light industrial Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3086 N AVON ST 91504 2466001025 12.3 12.3 Shortfall of sites 0.3 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 24.6 Nonvacant Light industrial Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3080 N AVON ST 91504 2466001026 7.5 7.5 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 14.9 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3071 N LIMA ST 91504 2466001029 6.3 6.3 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 12.6 Nonvacant Light industrial Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3083 N LIMA ST 91504 2466001030 13.0 13.0 Shortfall of sites 0.3 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 25.9 Nonvacant Warehouse, storage Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3059 N CALIFORNIA ST 91504 2466001045 6.2 6.2 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 12.4 Vacant in highly urbanized area
Vacant Vacant in highly urbanized area
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3063 N CALIFORNIA ST 91504 2466001046 6.8 6.8 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 13.6 Vacant in highly urbanized area
Vacant Vacant in highly urbanized area
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3300 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91504 2466001063 21.4 21.4 Shortfall of sites 0.5 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 42.8 Nonvacant Warehouse, storage Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3089 N LIMA ST 91504 2466001064 6.5 6.5 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 13.0 Nonvacant Warehouse, storage Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3099 N LIMA ST 91504 2466001077 13.2 13.2 Shortfall of sites 0.3 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 26.4 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
2 ATTACHMENT 6-164
Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor
Parcel Number
Very Low-
Income Low-Income Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of Shortfall Parcel Size
(Acres)
Current General Plan
Designation Current Zoning Proposed General
Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density Allowed Total Capacity Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description of
Existing Uses
Information-1
(Underutilization)
Information-2 (Likeliness of
Development)
Information-3 (Availability to
Resources)
3320 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91504 2466001081 41.4 41.4 Shortfall of sites 1.0 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 82.9 Nonvacant Light industrial Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
Total: GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 91504 167.0 167.0 17.1 334.0
3333 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91504 2466005003 42.6 42.4 Shortfall of sites 0.9 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 85.0 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3207 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91504 2466005013 24.2 24.1 Shortfall of sites 0.5 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 48.2 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
N SAN FERNANDO/N HOLLYWOOD 91504 2466005017 9.5 9.4 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 18.9 Nonvacant Parking lot/structure Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
N SAN FERNANDO/N HOLLYWOOD 91504 2466005018 11.0 11.0 Shortfall of sites 0.2 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 22.0 Nonvacant Parking lot/structure Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3303 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91504 2466005024 63.8 63.5 Shortfall of sites 1.3 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 127.3 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3301 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 91504 2466005025 60.6 60.4 Shortfall of sites 1.3 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 121.0 Nonvacant Light industrial Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3024 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 91504 2466006002 2.7 2.7 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 5.3 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3022 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 91504 2466006003 3.1 3.1 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 6.1 Nonvacant Light industrial Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3020 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 91504 2466006004 2.9 2.9 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 5.9 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3018 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 91504 2466006005 3.1 3.1 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 6.2 Nonvacant Light industrial Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3016 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 91504 2466006006 3.1 3.1 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 6.1 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3014 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 91504 2466006007 3.0 3.0 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 6.1 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3012 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 91504 2466006008 3.0 3.0 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 6.0 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golde
n State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
N HOLLYWOOD/TULARE 91504 2466006009 3.1 3.1 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 6.1 Nonvacant Parking lot/structure Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
N HOLLYWOOD/TULARE 91504 2466006010 3.0 3.0 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 6.1 Nonvacant Parking lot/structure Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3000 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 91504 2466006011 14.4 14.3 Shortfall of sites 0.3 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 28.7 Nonvacant Warehouse, storage Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
Total: GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 91504 253.0 252.0 5.3 505.0 2210 N SCREENLAND DR 91505 2463001005 166.1 89.2 Shortfall of sites 3.0 Golden State M-1 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 255.3 Nonvacant Light industrial Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
2211 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 91505 2463001006 18.6 10.0 Shortfall of sites 0.3 Golden State M-1 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 28.7 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
2205 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 91505 2463001007 17.8 9.5 Shortfall of sites 0.3 Golden State M-1 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 27.3 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
2201 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 91505 2463001008 17.7 9.5 Shortfall of sites 0.3 Golden State M-1 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 27.2 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
3 ATTACHMENT 6-165
Jurisdiction
Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Assessor Parcel Number
Very Low-
Income Low-Income Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Type of Shortfall Parcel Size
(Acres)
Current General Plan
Designation Current Zoning Proposed General
Plan (GP) Designation Proposed Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density Allowed Total Capacity Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description of
Existing Uses
Information-1
(Underutilization)
Information-2 (Likeliness of
Development)
Information-3 (Availability to
Resources)
City of Burbank 3520 W VALHALLA DR 91505 2463001011 131.5 70.7 Shortfall of sites 2.4 Golden State M-1 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 202.2 Nonvacant Light industrial Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
City of Burbank 2231 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 91505 2463001012 89.3 48.0 Shortfall of sites 1.6 Golden State M-1 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 137.3 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
City of Burbank Total: GSSP-3 Valhalla 91505 441.0 237.0 8.1 678.0 City of Burbank 2340 N HOLLYWOOD WAY 91505 2463010001 214.0 214.0 Shortfall of sites 4.5 Golden State M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 428.0 Nonvacant Office building Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-Highest Resources, High
Quality Transit Area
City of Burbank Total: GSSP-4 Logix 91505 214.0 214.0 4.5 428.0 City of Burbank N ONTARIO/W EMPIRE 91505 2464004036 83.0 83.0 Shortfall of sites 1.7 Regional Commercial PD Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 120 166.0 Nonvacant Parking lot/structure Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
City of Burbank Total: GSSP-5 Ontario 91505 83.0 83.0 1.7 166.0 City of Burbank 3030 W EMPIRE AVE 91504 2464001002 20.3 11.1 Shortfall of sites 0.4 Regional Commercial M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 100 31.4 Nonvacant Light industrial Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
City of Burbank 3020 W EMPIRE AVE 91504 2464001003 21.0 11.5 Shortfall of sites 0.4 Regional Commercial M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 100 32.5 Nonvacant Light industrial Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
City of Burbank 2820 W EMPIRE AVE 91504 2464001007 38.3 20.9 Shortfall of sites 0.7 Regional Commercial M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 100 59.2 Nonvacant Heavy industrial Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
City of Burbank 3110 W EMPIRE AVE 91504 2464001015 42.6 23.3 Shortfall of sites 0.8 Regional Commercial M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 100 65.9 Nonvacant Office building Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
City of Burbank 3000 W EMPIRE AVE 91504 2464001019 102.2 55.7 Shortfall of sites 1.9 Regional Commercial M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 100 157.9 Nonvacant Light industrial Building pre-1980 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
City of Burbank 2890 W EMPIRE AVE 91504 2464001020 44.6 24.3 Shortfall of sites 0.9 Regional Commercial M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 100 68.9 Nonvacant Light industrial Improve/Land Value ratio < 1, building pre-1980
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
City of Burbank 3120 W EMPIRE AVE 91504 2464001021 57.8 31.5 Shortfall of sites 1.1 Regional Commercial M-2 Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 100 89.3 Nonvacant Warehouse, storage Improve/Land Value ratio < 1 Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
City of Burbank W EMPIRE/VANOWEN 91504 2464001906 3.2 1.7 Shortfall of sites 0.1 Institutional RR Golden State Specific Plan Golden State Specific Plan 20 100 4.9 Vacant in highly urbanized area
Government, public Vacant in highly urbanized area
Proposed Golden State Specific Plan,
Refer to Appendix D, Exhibit D-1: TOD
and GSSP Opportunity Sites
TCAC-High Resources, High Quality
Transit Area
City of Burbank Total: GSSP-7 Empire 91504 330.0 180.0 6.4 510.0 1 ATTACHMENT 6-166
Table C: Land Use, Table Starts in A2
Zoning Designation
(From Table A, Column G) General Land Uses Allowed
NSFC Mixed-Use (MC Section 10-1-2701)
PD Variety of housing (MC Section 10-1-655)
BCC-2 Residential above Commercial w/CUP (MC Section
10-1-502)
BCC-3 Residential above commercial w/ CUP and
Residential only permitted (MC Section10-1-502)
BCCM Residential not permitted (MC Section10-1-502)
C-3 Residential above Commercial w/CUP (MC Section
10-1-502)
M-2 Residential not permitted (MC Section10-1-502)
C-R Residential not permitted (MC Section10-1-502)
R-4 Residential only permitted (MC Section10-1-627)
MDC-3 Residential above Commercial w/CUP (MC Section
10-1-502)
ATTACHMENT 6-167

Appendix E
Adequate Sites Program Alternative Checklist

ATTACHMENT 6-168
E-1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 Third Street, Suite 430
P. O. Box 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
(916) 323-3177
FAX (916) 327-2643
Adequate Sites Program Alternative Checklist
Government Code Section 65583.1(c)

As provided for in Government Code Section 65583.1(c), local governments can rely on existing housing units to address up to 25 percent of their adequate sites requirement by counting existing units made available or preserved through the provision of “committed assistance” to low- and very low-income households at affordable housing costs or affordable rents. The following is a checklist intended to provide guidance in determining whether the provisions of Government Code Section 65583.1(c) can be used to address the adequate sites program requirement. Please be aware, all information must be provided in the housing element to demonstrate compliance.

HE Page #
65583.1(c)(4)
Is the local government providing, or will it provide “committed assistance” during the period of time from the beginning of the RHNA projection period (6/30/21) to the end of the first 3 years of the housing element planning period (10/15/24)? See the definition of “committed assistance” at the end of the checklist.

x Yes
No

65583.1(c)(1)(A)
Has the local government identified the specific source of “committed assistance” funds?
If yes: specify the amount and date when funds will be dedicated through a (legally enforceable agreement). $5,000,000
Date: October 2024

x Yes
No

65583.1(c)(3)
Has at least some portion of the regional share housing need for very low-income (VL) or low-income (L) households been met in the current or previous planning period?

Specify the number of affordable units permitted/constructed in the previous period.

Specify the number affordable units permitted/constructed in the current period and document how affordability was established.

x Yes
No

144

_________

65583.1(c)(1)(B) Indicate the total number of units to be assisted with committed assistance funds and specify funding source.

Number of units: 10
Funding source: Successor Agency Housing Asset Fund

65583.1(c)(1)(B)
Will the funds be sufficient to develop the identified units at affordable costs or rents?

x Yes
No

65583.1(c)(1)(C)
Do the identified units meet the substantial rehabilitation, conversion, or preservation requirements as defined? Which option? conversion

x Yes
No

Note: If you cannot answer “yes” to all of the general requirements questions listed above, your jurisdiction is not eligible to utilize the alternate adequate sites program provisions set forth in Government Code Section 65583.1(c).

ATTACHMENT 6-169
E-2
65583.1(c) Checklist
CONVERSION OF MULTIFAMILY RENTAL AND OWNERSHIP UNITS OF 3 OR MORE OR FORECLOSED PROPERTIES FROM NON-AFFORDABLE TO AFFORDABLE (65583.1(c)(2)(B)) Include reference to specific program action in housing element.

Program #
_________
Page #
_______
65583.1(c)(2)(B)
Specify the number of multifamily rental (3 or more units) to be converted.

Specify the number multifamily ownership units to be converted.

Specify the number of foreclosed properties acquired.

Date Acquired?
Will these units be for rent?
10 ________
________
________
________
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(i)
Will the acquired units be made affordable to low- or very low-income households?
x Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(ii)
For units to be converted to very-low income, were those units affordable to very low-income households at the time they were identified for acquisition?
For units to be converted to low-income, were those units affordable to low-income households at the time they were identified for acquisition?
Yes
x No
Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(iii)
If the acquisition results in the displacement of very low- or low- income households, is the local government providing relocation assistance consistent with Government Code Section 7260, including rent and moving expenses equivalent to four (4) months, to those occupants permanently or temporary displaced?
x Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(iv)
Will units be decent, safe, and sanitary upon occupancy?  Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(v)
Will affordability and occupancy restrictions be maintained at least 55 years?
 Yes
No
65583.1(c)(2)(B)(vi)*
For conversion of multifamily ownership units:

Has at least an equal share of newly constructed multifamily rental units affordable to lower-income households been constructed within the current planning period or will be constructed by the of program completion as the number of ownership units to be converted? (Note: this could be demonstrated by providing certificates of occupancy)
Specify the number of affordable multifamily rental units constructed in the planning period.

Yes
No
# of lower-income
units: ________
N/AX
ATTACHMENT 6-170
E-3

65583.1(c) Checklist

DEFINITIONS:

Committed Assistance: When a local government has entered into a legally enforceable agreement within a specific timeframe spanning from the beginning of the RHNA projection period through the end of the second year of the housing element planning period, obligating funds for affordable units available for occupancy within two years of the agreement.

Assisted Housing Development: A multifamily rental housing development that receives governmental assistance under any of the following programs:

(A) New construction, substantial rehabilitation, moderate rehabilitation, property disposition, and loan management set-aside programs, or any other program providing project-based assistance, under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f). (B) The following federal programs:
(i) The Below-Market-Interest-Rate Program under Section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1715l(d)(3) and (5)).
(ii) Section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. Sec.1715z-1). (iii) Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1701q). (C) Programs for rent supplement assistance under Section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, as amended (12 U.S.C. Sec. 1701s).
(D) Programs under Sections 514, 515, 516, 533, and 538 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1485).
(E) Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code.
(F) Section 142(d) of the Internal Revenue Code (tax-exempt private activity mortgage revenue bonds). (G) Section 147 of the Internal Revenue Code (Section 501(c)(3) bonds). (H) Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (Community Development Block Grant Program).
(I) Title II of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, as amended (HOME Investment Partnership Program).
(J) Titles IV and V of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, as amended, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Supportive Housing Program, Shelter Plus Care program, and surplus federal property disposition program. (K) Grants and loans made by the Department of Housing and Community Development, including the Rental Housing Construction Program, CHRP-R, and other rental housing finance programs. (L) Chapter 1138 of the Statutes of 1987.
(M) The following assistance provided by counties or cities in exchange for restrictions on the maximum rents that may be charged for units within a multifamily rental housing development and on the maximum tenant income as a condition of eligibility for occupancy of the unit subject to the rent restriction, as reflected by a recorded agreement with a county or city:
(i) Loans or grants provided using tax increment financing pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code). (ii) Local housing trust funds, as referred to in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 50843 of the Health and Safety Code.
(iii) The sale or lease of public property at or below market rates. (iv) The granting of density bonuses, or concessions or incentives, including fee waivers, parking variances, or amendments to general plans, zoning, or redevelopment project area plans, pursuant to Chapter 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915).

Assistance pursuant to this subparagraph shall not include the use of tenant-based Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8(o)) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f(o), excluding subparagraph (13) relating to project-based assistance). Restrictions shall not include any rent control or rent stabilization ordinance imposed by a county, city, or city and county.

ATTACHMENT 6-171

Appendix F
Community Participation

F-1. Workshop Notice/Announcement

F-2. Workshop Presentation

F-3. Summary of Community Workshop Input

F-4. Housing Element Survey

F-5. Housing Element Survey Results

F-6. Comment Letters on Draft Housing Element

ATTACHMENT 6-172
F-1

Appendix F-1: Community Workshop Notice and
Announcements

ATTACHMENT 6-173
F-2

Community Workshop Announcement on Housing Element
Website: https://www.burbankhousingelement.com/

ATTACHMENT 6-174
F-3

Appendix F-2: Community Workshop #2 Presentation

ATTACHMENT 6-175
F-4

ATTACHMENT 6-176
F-5

ATTACHMENT 6-177
F-6

ATTACHMENT 6-178
F-7

ATTACHMENT 6-179
F-8

Appendix F-3: Summary of Community Workshop Input

City of Burbank
Housing Element & Environmental Justice
Community Workshop Input

On October 3rd 2020, City Community Development Department staff and consultants conducted a virtual community workshop to solicit public input on the Housing Element update and the new Environmental Justice component of the General Plan. Twenty-three members of the public participated in the workshop, and provided feedback via on-line polling and question and answers. The following summarizes the input received at the workshop, including staff responses to participant questions.

Polling Questions

1. How long have you lived in Burbank? 16 respondents 1 person 1-2 years
3 persons 6-10 years
3 persons 11-20 years
8 persons 21+ years
1 person Work in Burbank but live in another City

2. What type of housing unit you live in? 17 respondents 9 persons Detached single-family house
4 persons Duplex/triplex/fourplex
2 persons Condominium/townhome
1 person Apartment
1 person Work in Burbank but live in another City

3. Which of these issues do you see as being Burbank’s most important housing needs? 13 respondents 10 persons Lack of housing for Burbank’s workforce
8 persons Housing for our homeless population

ATTACHMENT 6-180
F-9

7 persons Housing for Burbank’s seniors and disabled population 3 persons Deteriorated housing conditions
3 persons Overcrowded housing

4. What strategies should the City purse to meet its RHNA obligations? 13 respondents 9 persons Tiny homes/micro units
8 persons Increased densities near transit
6 persons Incentives for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) 6 persons Motel conversions
3 persons Allow slightly increased densities in single-family neighborhoods to reduce the number of multi-family sites needed
2 persons Increased densities in multi-family zoned neighborhoods

5. In evaluating strategies to address environmental justice issues faced by Burbank’s low income and disadvantaged communities, which of the following environmental justice issues do you see as being the highest priority? 16 respondents
13 persons High housing costs
8 persons Public health
7 persons Environmental pollution
6 persons Unemployment
3 persons Linguistic isolation (non-English speaking)
2 persons Increased densities in multi-family zoned neighborhoods Questions and Answers

1. How does City Council’s goal to produce 12,000 housing units by 2034 pace with the expected future job growth? How much will it improve the Job-Housing ratio in the City? Staff Response:
 The goal of 12,000 housing units is aspirational, but it is consistent with Burbank’s projected RHNA which has increased from 2,600 to 8,700 in the last 8 years.  We anticipate a growth in employment with current developments like Avion and Media Studio North. Additionally, the City has been able to attract major employers like Netflix and Tip Mouse.  Even if Burbank were to achieve its housing goal, the City might not be able to keep pace with projected employment growth. However, we won’t be losing ground as we have in the past.

2. Given the water and power shortage, how will the City accommodate the increase in electricity and water demand from 12,000 additional housing units? Will the City build another powerplant? ATTACHMENT 6-181
F-10

Staff Response:
 Burbank2035 General Plan, adopted in 2013, anticipated projected growth of 5,900 units. The 8,700 units that is our fair share requirement coming through SCAG is something we have to look at within the context of our infrastructure/utility capacity.  An environmental assessment will be conducted to determine the location of additional housing units that is consistent with Council goals of responsible development and protecting single- family neighborhoods, and at the same time being able to have community facility and infrastructure to support additional housing.
 The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process will be initiated early next year. Topics of energy and water will be investigated as a part of the review process.

3. Can you elaborate on what will happen if the City does not meet the required RHNA numbers and does not build the require housing? How will it impact the City, and alternatively, how would meeting the RHNA number help the City?
Staff Response:
 While the majority of cities don’t meet their RHNA numbers, particularly for lower income households which typically require subsidies, it is important for cities to set the stage through zoning to enable development of projected housing needs without undue constraints.  The State is trying to get cities to help with the housing crisis. Cities underproducing housing to address their RHNA goals can be subjected to SB35 (by right housing development). There is a trend in the recent legislature to hold cities more accountable to meet their housing needs.

4. Where will the proposed housing be located within the City? Staff Response:
 Specific plan areas - Golden State Specific Plan, Downtown specific plan area (Burbank Center Plan), and Media District – areas with potential for high density and Transit Oriented Development. Focus will be on employment and transit centers within the City which have opportunity for infill development.
 Housing location will be looked at in more detail during next phase of the Housing element update and there will be a second community workshop focused on looking at potential housing sites.

5. What is the City’s plan to accommodate parking for the proposed housing? Staff Response:
 Parking will be looked at through development standards in the new Specific Plans. The City is looking at ways to accommodate parking though efficient parking management and best practices for infill and mixed-use projects.
 Parking standards will depend on the type of project. For example, density bonus projects are eligible for reduced parking requirements under State law.

6. How can we be sure that new housing units will contribute towards meeting the City’s housing needs, in other words, house permanent residents of the City and not function as short-term ATTACHMENT 6-182
F-11

rentals for travelers. ADUs in particular can be rented out as short-term rentals to generate income for the owners.

Staff Response:
 The City is looking at Short Term Rental (STR) regulations. The intent of the STR regulation is to document existing STR units in the City, and ensure that ADUs are not being used as STRs.  ADUs are actual dwelling units and are meant for long term residence. Per Code, ADUs cannot be rented out for less than 30 days. Additionally, City Council is looking at increasing the minimum number of days for renting ADUs to 90 days. If people are using their ADUs for short term rentals, they are doing so illegally.

7. Does the Housing Element provide detail regarding how housing will be created under the lower and moderate income categories? Can you provide any updates regarding the old Ikea site, how many residential units are you considering to build on that site, and how will it be classified under each income category? Is the 34-acre property you are referring to the entire Mall? Staff Response:
 Housing Element statutes allow for the use of default densities to assign sites to the various income categories. For Burbank, any site with a density of 30 units/acre or greater can be credited towards its low and very low-income RHNA need, and sites with 12 units/acre and above are considered suitable for development of moderate income housing. While a 30 unit/acre market rate project may not be affordable to lower income households, the City is setting the stage through zoning to allow a developer – typically a non-profit - to build affordable housing at that density.
 The City is also in the process of updating its Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that requires a certain percentage of deed restricted affordable units to be built within projects that have 10 units or more.
 In addition, the State has allocated significant funding to support production of affordable housing.
 Regarding the old IKEA site – there was a mixed-use project proposed – Burbank Town Center North – that proposed over 1,000 units. Due to COVID, the Mall has been shut down and property owners are re-evaluating the feasibility of repurposing the Mall. The 34-acre Ikea site is inclusive of the entire Mall proper, including development across and adjacent to the freeway, In-N-Out, and furniture stores.

8. It will be interesting to look at the correlation between Burbank’s disadvantaged communities/high impact areas and the location of entertainment industries that have a rate of high employment turn-over. For example, the Media Center is located in an area identified as a disadvantaged community.

Staff Response:
 Good feedback – Burbank is unique as it has prominent media industry presence. Such feedbacks are important for policy development to mitigate negative impacts.

ATTACHMENT 6-183
F-12

9. How much contribution do large companies - like Netflix and Disney that are employers in the City - have in providing housing for their employees? Microsoft and Facebook are examples of large companies that have contributed towards housing for their employee in the past.

Staff Response:
 We aren’t aware of anything specific where Burbank employers are providing housing assistance, but we will check with the Economic Development Department to get more information. These big companies are usually supportive of opportunities to facilitate housing near and around their employment site, and employees have expressed an interest in residing close to their workplace.
 For the Housing Element survey, we have included questions about potential new housing programs for Burbank, including a potential Commercial Impact Fee that requires new commercial developments to pay a fee which contributes towards City’s affordable housing trust fund to provide affordable units.
 Other efforts being undertaken by the City include evaluating Development Impact Fees to identify opportunities for new developments to provide their fair share of funding for community services and infrastructure including new housing units.

10. How will the increase in housing units impact schools in the City? What will be the impact on those people who work in the City but don’t live here and want their kids to join schools here? Staff Response:
 The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Housing Element Update will include an assessment of schools. During the process, we talk to schools and see how they are projecting their growth, and we look at the impact of potential growth from housing on the schools.  The 4City will reach out to BUSD and their demographers regarding Housing Element Update to verify enrollment rates and their capacity.

11. Will there be any consideration for the impact the increase in housing will have on early child care and education/ infant care (age 0 to 5 years)? Gaps in infant care hit crisis levels in 2018 in Burbank and had a direct impact on economic participation by the parents. In workforce housing – young adults (25-44 years) upon beginning a family – Infant care becomes their first introduction to the neighborhood. I urge the City to consider infant care, child care, and early education in this Housing Element Update.

Staff Response:
 Good point. Traditionally the environmental assessment doesn’t specifically evaluate early childcare, but we can take this into consideration.
 There are various avenues that can the City can use (including CEQA review) to address infant care, child care, and early education.

ATTACHMENT 6-184
F-13

12. With respect to ADUs – there were 350 permits submitted for ADUs. How many of those permits are for new ADUs? How many of these permits are for those ADUs that are being legalized by bringing them to conform to the Burbank Municipal Code? Where are new ADUs being built? Staff Response:
 The City has few cases of existing ADUs that are being legalized. The vast majority of ADUs fall into two categories –

1. Garage/accessory structure conversion

2. New detached ADUs
 In terms of where new ADUs are being built, the City has created a map showing the distribution of ADU applications throughout the City. The map was included in a November 10, 2020 ADU update to the City Council and can be access at the following link:
https://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=42&clip_id=9251&meta_id=376295 The map indicates that ADU development has been dispersed throughout the City.

13. Talking about employer assisted housing, especially given the current situation where people are working remotely due to COVID, and given that post COVID there may not be as much demand to commute, there might be an opportunity to provide on-campus housing within commercial properties for short term workers who work in the City on a project basis (may be for a year). This might help to ease the pressure on the smaller units that can provide housing for permanent residents. Is this something that larger commercial entities can consider? Staff Response:
 These are good points. We need to set up future discussions with large employers to see where they stand on this matter.

14. With such a large proportion of young professionals in Burbank, many of whom live alone, what happens when they start families - do they leave Burbank or are they able to start families here? Similarly, a large number of young professionals live with their parents due to high housing costs – are there any efforts underway or planned to help this age group? Staff Response:
 The City’s goal is to significantly increase the production of housing for its workforce, and through this increase in supply, pent up demand will be reduced and housing prices should come down. The City will employ a variety of tools - including inclusionary zoning, density bonuses and other affordable housing incentives - to ensure a portion of new housing is provided at levels affordable to lower and moderate income households.
 Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) can also provide a less costly housing option for young professionals, and with over 540 ADU applications received over the last three years, ADUs are becoming more widely available throughout Burbank.

15. Has there been any thought to evaluating the long-term effects of COVID 19 on the workforce needing to be near their work vs working from home?
ATTACHMENT 6-185
F-14

Staff Response:
 While there is likely to be reduced demand for commercial office space moving forward, Burbank’s employment base continues to grow (refer to response to Question #1). The City has over-produced jobs relative to housing for several decades, resulting in a ratio of three jobs for every housing unit. Even with reduced demand for office, the City needs to increase housing production to achieve a healthy jobs/housing balance.

16. I’m wondering about traffic issues, particularly Barham Boulevard as it is already congested.

What is being done to alleviate that kind of additional strain on the roadways?

Staff Response:
 Burbank’s General Plan - adopted in 2013 - studied how growth in the City between 2010 and 2035 would impact its street system, and included land use changes, transportation policies, and six targeted intersection improvements to lessen impacts to transportation. The Housing Element will build on the General Plan analysis to identify how the amount and location of new housing will affect transportation. The Housing Element will study if building new housing in Burbank, near jobs and transit, will reduce the number and length of car trips in the City because more housing provides opportunity for Burbank workers to live closer to where they work.  The cause of congestion on major roads leading into and out of the City, such as Barham Blvd, is because most of the employees who work in Burbank live elsewhere and must commute into the City. Adding new housing in the City will likely lessen traffic increases on Barham and other regional corridors.
 The General Plan and the Housing Element do not propose major street and road improvements to reduce congestion because widening streets increases car trips and harmful environmental effects like greenhouse gas emissions.

ATTACHMENT 6-186
F-15

Appendix F-4: Housing Element Online Survey
The online Housing Element survey was administered through MetroQuest. It was available in three languages (English, Spanish, and Armenian) from September 30, 2020 to January 4, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 6-187
F-16

Appendix F-5: Housing Element Survey Results
Online Survey
English: September 30, 2020 to January 4, 2021
Spanish: November 19, 2020 to January 4, 2021
Armenian: November 19, 2020 to January 4, 2021
Characteristics of Survey Participants
Participants by
Language of Survey
English: 224
Spanish: 1
Armenian: 2

Renter/Owner

Renter: 40%
Owner: 54%
Other: 6%
Housing Type

SF Detached: 57%
Duplex: 4%
ADU: 3%
Apartment: 28%
Condo: 6%
Care Facility/Assist: 1%
Other: 2%
Demographics

White: 60%
Hispanic: 12%
Black: 5%
Asian: 6%
Other: 17%

Under 25 yrs: 3%
25-39 yrs: 22%
40-45 yrs: 44%
55-69 yrs: 24%
70 yrs over: 7%

HH Income

Under $50,000: 22%
$50,000-$74,999: 18%
$75,000-$99,999: 16%
$100,000 and over: 44%
Potential Areas for Housing Sites
(Areas ranked by survey participants)

1. Downtown Burbank -
Metrolink Station

ATTACHMENT 6-188
F-17

2. Downtown Burbank - North
San Fernando

3. Golden State/Airport District
Area

4. Media District

ATTACHMENT 6-189
F-18

5. Multi-Family Neighborhoods

Other Housing Sites Suggested by Survey Participants:
▪ Consider remodels of existing commercial space, to include residential capacity. ▪ While the current multi-family zones should be an area of focus for more to-buy multi-family development (condos, townhouses, and duplexes), existing single-family areas should be rezoned to allow denser housing. ▪ Former retail, like old IKEA that can become mixed use. The Americana concept is very appealing. All focus should include units for purchase above all other concerns. Having an ownership stake ties residents to the City in a more meaningful way.
▪ The old City dump above Belair.
▪ Empire between Buena Vista and Hollywood Way. Vanoven Blvd between Hollywood Way and Clybourne. ▪ That HUGE and forever unused lot by the 5 fwy and Burbank Blvd, where circuses set up. Use it for something useful already!!!
▪ Stay far from the Downtown/Media area. No more new buildings and NO additional traffic!! Obviously don’t add to any area that has traffic right now. Don’t make any area worse. Use units on Burbank Blvd or Victory at the No Ho border.

It’s dead over there so a bit more traffic won’t be worse. ▪ Multi family or mixed use housing would be beneficial along the bike path and the 5 fwy for examp le the end of the block at Lamer St
▪ I would love to see more multi-family housing built in single-family housing neighborhoods (similar to parts of the Media District). It would help space out housing density and traffic congestion. ▪ Rancho District.
▪ West Burbank, Northern Burbank and undeveloped areas around Olive and Burbank Blvd.

Comments for no additional housing:
▪ Nowhere, water, electricity, infrastructure should not be built in Burbank! ▪ Not in Burbank. Too much traffic as it is. Stop taking government money. Enough people now ▪ No new housing
▪ None. We have enough. Let’s take better care of what we have. This city has sadly gone downhill in the 25 years I’ve been here. I’ve never seen so much trash on the streets as I do now and our roads and trees have never been this neglected before. The traffic is horrendous. More housing and increasing our population in this already cramped city should not be our focus. Improving what we have should be the greater good. ▪ Nowhere. Don’t give in to the State’s tyrannical mandates.

ATTACHMENT 6-190
F-19

Priority Housing Programs

Housing Programs
Ratings on Housing
Programs
(Weighted Average)

1. Acquisition/Rehab. of
Apartments with
Affordability Controls

2. Homeowner Rehab. Asst.

3. First-Time Homebuyer
Asst.

4. Local Preference for
Burbank Residents and
Employees

5. Tenant Protection Asst.

#
Stars

3.5 3.1

3.5 3.8

3.1 Housing Programs

Ratings on Housing
Programs
(Weighted Average)

1. Increase Density Near
Transit

2. Increase Density in Multi-
Family Zoned
Neighborhoods

3. Establish Minimum
Residential Densities

4. Allow 1-2 Additional Units
on Single-Family Lots

5. Inclusionary Zoning and In-
Lieu Fees

6. Commercial Linkage Fees
for Affordable Housing

7. Affordable Housing on
Surplus Public Land

#
Stars

3.6 2.8

2.7 2.7

2.4 2.9

3.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 Stabilizing Neighborhoods
1 Star
2 Stars
3 Stars
4 Stars
5 Stars
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Planning for Production
1 Star
2 Stars
3 Stars
4 Stars
5 Stars
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 4 5 6 7 3
ATTACHMENT 6-191
F-20

Housing Programs

Ratings on Housing
Programs
(Weighted Average)

1. Incentives for ADUs

2. Tiny Homes/Micro Units

3. Manufactured Housing

4. Motel Conversions

5. Single Room Occupancy

#
Stars

3.1 3.0

2.8 3.0

2.3 Housing Programs

Ratings on Housing
Programs
(Weighted Average)

1. Streamline/Expedite
Housing Development
Approval Process

2. Reduce Development Fees
in Exchange for Affordable
Units

3. Increase Residential
Densities

4. Reduce Multi-Family
Parking Requirements

5. Modify Residential and
Mixed-Use Development
Standards

#
Stars

3.6 3.3

2.6 2.3

3.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Affordable Housing by Design
1 Star
2 Stars
3 Stars
4 Stars
5 Stars
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Removing Constraints to Housing
1 Star
2 Stars
3 Stars
4 Stars
5 Stars
5 2 1 4 3
1 2 3 4 5
ATTACHMENT 6-192
F-21

Housing Programs

Ratings on Housing
Programs
(Weighted Average)

1. High Housing Cost

2. Linguistic Isolation (non-
English Speaking)

3. Unemployment

4. Public Health

5. Environmental Pollution

#
Stars

3.6 2.3

3.1 3.7

4.0 Other Programs Suggested by Survey Participants:

Stabilizing Neighborhoods
▪ Burbank is a desirable neighborhood to live because it is one of the only safe cities in the Valley for families to live with a great public school system. The reason for that is that most people who live here are in single -family homes. The City should not put money towards something which negates its value proposition. People who need to live in apartments have several options nearby, but not here.
▪ I walk the neighborhoods surrounding the Chandler bike path and see many homes that look in very poor condition.

Possibly they are owned by long-term elderly residents. I don't know. But helping elderly homeowners keep up their property would benefit them and future buyers.
▪ Is this a form of City run low-income buildings? I have an open mind to it but would want successful examples to model. ▪ Low & extremely low income units are needed not the so called affordable units. ▪ The only assistance that's needed for first time home buyers is to either completely ban or at least more heavily regulate flipping. House flipping in Burbank is out of control and prices so many young buyers out of the market ent irely. ▪ We had no help to buy our 1st house not even from family. Nothing and we still did it. Had to start small with a condo.

Sell, buy bigger with your equity.
▪ There are current programs already, including programs to help with down payments. ▪ Help younger folks and people of color who are new to homebuying. ▪ What is homeowner rehabilitation assistance?
▪ For energy, green space and conservation.
▪ And for building ADU.
▪ Yes, for homeowners. Not for employees - no guarantee how long they will work in Burbank. They may simply get the help and change to a job in LA. I received NO preference when we bought our house and I worked at Disney here for 30 years! Still bought my Burbank house no preferences given. 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Environmental Justice
1 Star
2 Stars
3 Stars
4 Stars
5 Stars
1 2 3

1 4

1 5

1 ATTACHMENT 6-193
F-22

▪ Reduces traffic and commute times which impact the traffic congestion and environmental impact in our city. ▪ Yes, only use already built apartments. NO NEW DEVELOPMENT.

Planning For Production
▪ Assist homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgage and single young people who may not be able to afford a one-bedroom apartment in Burbank.
▪ Yes. much more of this.
▪ I can’t find a description of what this means, but if it has to do with increasing the number of residents allowed in an area, then I’m all for it.
▪ We need more affordable housing, but not at the cost of what little open land that's left. ▪ Without consideration for cars and access, over crowded streets will get worse. ▪ Again, it's single-family or not. If we wanted lots of transient living or neighbors who have no skin in the game, we'd have chosen elsewhere. I grew up in a single-family neighborhood without too much traffic or cars parked everywhere. It is better, and we will make sure our children are raised the same way. It seems like that may be outside of California.
▪ Strongly disagree turning single-family lots to condos, apartment buildings or duplex or triplex. No additional construction on 91504 above Glenoaks.
▪ This will only cause more traffic and less social distancing. We don't have the infrastructure to support more people on R1 and especially R1H zoned lots.
▪ Unless the in-lieu fees are calculated fairly for real life affordability, this will not benefit actual affordable housing. I suggest you read this info here and made contact them for assistance https://inclusionaryhousing.org/designing -a- policy/off-site-development/in-lieu-fees/setting-the-in-lieu-fee/ ▪ Dump the in-lieu fees part of the plan. it’s just an attempt to push people deemed undesirable by a neighborhood into housing that is separate from the rest of the population. if you want to build in our city, providing low income housing in your project should be mandatory
▪ We are exploring exiting not only Burbank, but possibly California over this issue. Single -family property and neighborhoods are only the acceptable choice for our family. We will not allow our positive tax contributions to fund pensions and programs that remove our freedom to choose this form of housing. Anywhere without single - family housing is not a place we will live or send our children to school. We'll lose money escaping if we mistakenly chose Burbank for single-family.
▪ ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Burbank is one of the few areas in LA that retains a suburban neighborhood feel. That's one of the main reasons people choose to live here. If you take that away, you will see all existing residents ’ property values plummet. And for what? To solve the California housing shortage? While that's important, there's PLENTY of land in other cities. There's also the Inland Empire as a more affordable option ▪ It's important to keep R1 and R1H zoned homes as single-family living. ▪ Density is already overflowing. Parking is a nightmare on almost every street ▪ ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!
▪ Yes! This needs to happen to help reduce emissions.
▪ The recent proposed development and the prices they were proposing as affordable to work and live near transit in Burbank made no affordable sense unless the retail jobs paid $20 p/h and the developers agreed to make more than a handful of units "affordable" by L.A. minimum wage standards. Plus living next to transit hubs with the b ad air pollution L.A. already has is not a healthy solution to housing n eeds.

Affordable Housing By Design
▪ Motels are a dying model and could be a low income housing option. ▪ This only works for the many people who would benefit from this low price rent if the buildings are actually maintained & safe for tenants, and if the building owners are given additional financial assistance so they aren't tempted/forced to raise rents, evict to convert to condos, or sell to developers. ▪ This would greatly help the many families who were already struggling to pay their mortgages before the covid19 pandemic to potentially make extra income using an ADU or Tiny Home as a rental on their property. Alternately they could help their family members or friends with housing if they had lost theirs. Also providing financial incentives for ATTACHMENT 6-194
F-23

more eco-friendly ADUs and Tiny Homes would be an additional help positively affecting the environment, housing, and economy.
▪ None of these suggested programs will work for families- they are all about housing that will fit single people or perhaps couples. Affordable housing with enough space for a family is impossible to come by in Burbank and needs to be addressed. I have yet to see a plan from the City that does so. $3-4 k per month in rent/mortgage is not affordable. ▪ R1H zoned areas are already crowed and we need to preserve them. ▪ Same answer as before. Single-family is best, from firsthand experience. This would end that and the extent that it exists now is too much. But we can probably pack in like 3 families on our lot, so it might be a good selling point to help get us to a state where people are free to set the rules for their neighborhoods and each home is owned by the occupants. Media industry isn’t bound to So Cal anymore, which also helps. ▪ Mobile homes (aka manufactured housing) are a scam because you only own the home, NOT the land underneath it. If you owned both that would make more sense, otherwise it will never be a viable affordable housing solution.

Removing Constraints to Housing
▪ Having preapproved style plans for houses, complexes and ADUs. ▪ Increase the size for ADU, have preapproved plans.
▪ Shopping areas like Magnolia should have 1-2 stories of housing above them. ▪ Having senior services in a building housing seniors, pharmacy, doctors office etc. childcare business at large housing projects, grocery store at transit to reduce car needs. Japan as a model. ▪ This only works if the number of affordable housing units required in any new development are at minimum 50 -60% of the development.
▪ If anyone wanted high density they would have gone there, choosing this option is directly in opposition to why people came here. You will drive people like us away. Our tax contribution to the pension fund is not small. Though paid enough, most of senior staff does not choose Burbank as their own home, and quality of life for single- family owners doesn't their paychecks, so why not? As long as the paycheck comes, it doesn't affect their day to day lives. Density goes up, Burbank goes down.
▪ Do not increase density.
▪ If you are serious about climate change, shouldn't we be planning for less vehicles and more green space? ▪ It depends on what those modifications and standards are. ▪ Do not modify R1 and especially R1H zones.
▪ Must remove the loop holes and conflicts of interest for elected officials. ▪ No way, Burbank fees need to be at the same levels as Glendale & Pasadena. ▪ Streets are often impassable due to cars double parked. ▪ No - too many areas already have parking issues.
▪ Increase them! Get cars off the street and underground!! Only in California are cars allowed to ruin our streets. ▪ Needs more thought by everyone who ever tried to park east of Glenoaks Blvd!!!!!!! Don't make the problem worse with reduced requirements.
▪ As it is, homes are built out of code. This would be even worse. However, raising fees for corrections and resubmitting would be more effective at streamlining poor workmanship by designers posing as architects and other nefarious practices trying to sneak non conforming structural elements past plan checks.

Environmental Justice
▪ English as a Second language needs to be encouraged with easy access to classes formal or informal that is fun and inclusive.
▪ Is this for or against? I am pro diversity and think English speaking should not matter. ▪ "Justice" in this sense is used amorphously in many cases like the other popular buzz words of the day and is frequently an opinion. But certainly helping people become employed would help their housing costs. ▪ Mentoring programs are needed. Internships. Trade schools (plumbing, electrical, construction). Gone are the days high school kids could get jobs at restaurants as those are now filled by adults.

ATTACHMENT 6-195
F-24

▪ With Covid we can only prevent fraud and train younger people for the trades. Electrical, plumbers, framers etc. ▪ Dental for the young and elderly is highly overlooked. ▪ Housing cost is too high and condo, townhomes, ownership needs to be priority. City own ed property needs to be used for low income housing that doesn’t expire.
▪ The cost of rent and home purchase is extremely high in Burbank in comparison to the local neighboring communities.

Identify Disadvantaged Communities
(A map of the State’s identified disadvantaged communities was included in the survey. Participants were asked to identify where they thought disadvantaged communities were in the City) Identified Disadvantaged Communities
(Numbers in the circles indicate votes for the area)

Majority of survey participants
agreed with the State’s identified
disadvantaged communities by
voting for the areas that matched
the State’s designation.

ATTACHMENT 6-196
F-25

Disadvantaged Community –
Why do you think this is a
disadvantaged community?

1. High Housing Cost

2. Linguistic Isolation (non-
English Speaking)

3. Unemployment

4. Public Health

5. Environmental Pollution

6. Other

#
votes

17 6

3 5

50 14

Other Reasons Suggested by Survey Respondents:
▪ Nearby train tracks and airport. Affected by both air and noise pollution. ▪ Close to the busy I-5 freeway, noise and air pollution. ▪ Freeway noise and traffic congestion due to Empire Center development. ▪ Noise pollution- airport.
▪ Close to freeways, less desirable part of the City, more distant access to City amenities. ▪ This area is sparse in terms of consumer facing businesses, mainly warehouses. This area likely has a lot of noise pollution due to proximity to airport.
▪ Airport adjacent.
▪ Airport
▪ Exposed to airport noise.
▪ Too adjacent to airport flight path. Buildings that should be affordable now owned by landlords who exp ect top dollar for very old, out of date units.
▪ Adjacent to industrial sites.
▪ Pollution from airport AND train proximity, and high housing costs. ▪ A surfeit of auto body shops, abandoned businesses, dumping zones and unkempt streets contribute to a deteriorating community area.
▪ So close to Victory, I-5 and the metro tracks. High traffic volume from people that don't live in Burbank ▪ So close to N. Hollywood subject to traffic that is "Cutting through" Burbank and is often unlawful ▪ Condition of properties and age of apartment buildings ▪ Apartments a little rundown
▪ Multi family dwelling could use some redevelopment
▪ This area looks very neglected. I see many apartments very populated. ▪ High density.
▪ High housing cost, increased crime, no useful police help. ▪ And high housing cost.
▪ This area is extremely unaffordable
ATTACHMENT 6-197
F-26

▪ The lack of commerce, accessibility, and increased traffic in this housing area. ▪ "Traffic pollution from freeway
▪ The high cost of housing in this area is not commensurate with the wages and high t urnover rate of jobs in the area.

Property owners take advantage of the desperation and competitiveness of the workers in the area. ▪ Rent prices have skyrocketed around Magnolia Park driving out residents. ▪ Overcrowded and subpar housing.
▪ There are areas in NoHo that look run down. I’m assuming they can’t afford up keep. ▪ Reports of crimes
▪ Overcrowding and high crime.
▪ Trash, shopping carts on the sidewalk, junk cars, loud music from apartments ▪ A lot of homeless near the park.
▪ Homelessness
▪ Homeless encampment at Olive and Beachwood, homeless mess in front of store on Verdugo across from McDonalds ▪ Space to build in this area, also closer to transit and City center. ▪ Ignored opportunities for development
▪ Very poorly planned parking that remains a constant problem and adds to environmental pollution as residents & guests drive around the neighborhood for 15-30 minutes looking for a place to park. ▪ Lousy public transportation
▪ How about planting more trees in this area?"
▪ Poverty
▪ City is considering programs that will tarnish the very reason that so many good people choose to live here: Single -family homes, a suburban community feel, and a great school system ▪ The area around Magnolia Park, especially between Chandler and the 134, are far from "disadvantaged", yet are marked as orange. Way off. Some of those neighborhoods are highly advantaged, luxury etc

ATTACHMENT 6-198

Appendix F-6: Comment Letters on Draft Housing Element
ATTACHMENT 6-199
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 17, 2021

Patrick Prescott
Community Development Director
City of Burbank
150 N. Third St.

Burbank, CA 91502

Dear Patrick Prescott:

RE: Review of the City of Burbank’s 6
th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element

Thank you for submitting the City of Burbank’s (City) draft housing element received for review on June 18, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a telephone conversation on August 10, 2021 with Assistant Community Development Director Federico Ramirez, Deputy City Planner Scott Plambaeck, Senior Planner Lisa Frank, and the City’s consultant Karen Warner and team. In addition, HCD considered comments from Abundant Housing LA and Josh Albrektson pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

The enclosed Appendix describes revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

To remain on an eight-year planning cycle, the City must adopt its housing element within 120 calendar days from the statutory due date of October 15, 2021 for Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) localities. If adopted after this date, Government Code section 65588, subdivision (e)(4), requires the housing element be revised every four years until adopting at least two consecutive revisions by the statutory deadline. For more information on housing element adoption requirements, please visit HCD’s website at:
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-
element/housing-element-memos/docs/sb375_final100413.pdf.

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that ATTACHMENT 6-200
represent
lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory.

Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected].

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf
and
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf.

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 cooperation and dedication the City planning staff, and Karen Warner provided during the course of our review. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Divya Ram, of our staff, at [email protected]
.

Sincerely,

Shannan West
Land Use & Planning Unit Chief

Enclosure
ATTACHMENT 6-201

APPENDIX
CIT

Y OF BURBANK

The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml .

Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Review and Revision

Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)

As part of the evaluation of programs in the past cycle, the element must provide an explanation of the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female headed households, farmworkers and persons experiencing homelessness).

B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing (AFFH) in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A))

Integration and Segregation: The element includes limited local and regional data on integration and segregation of race, and no local and regional data on disability, familial status, and income. For example, while the element includes data on race, it does not include data and analysis on disability, familial status, and income. 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 trends and patterns.

Racial/Ethnic Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP): The element includes some data on R/ECAP but no data or analysis areas of affluence. 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 (page B-9).

Access to Opportunity: The element includes limited local data on access to opportunity of education, economic, transportation, and environment, and no regional ATTACHMENT 6-202
data on acces
s to any of these opportunity areas. However, a complete analysis should include an analysis of disparities in relation to education, economic opportunity, transportation, and environmental factors at the regional level.

Disproportionate Housing Needs including Displacement Risks: The element includes some local and regional data on cost-burdened households, overcrowding, and substandard housing, homelessness, and limited discussion on displacement issues but does not include regional analysis on substandard housing and homelessness.

The element should include a complete regional data for substandard housing and homelessness and analyze the data for trends and patterns. The element should also contain a more complete discussion and analysis of displacement risks. Please refer to page 40 of the AFFH guidebook (link: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/affh/index.shtml#guidancev) for specific factors that should be considered when analyzing disproportionate housing needs and displacement risks.

Sites: The element includes a map of the site inventory and states that the proposed sites to meet lower-income regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) are geographically distributed which results in these sites AFFH (page C-2). However, the accompanying 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.

Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: Goals and actions must create meaningful impact to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues. Actions must also:

• Address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity. • Replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns.
• Transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity; and
• Foster and maintain compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.

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.

2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)

While the element quantifies existing and projected extremely low-income (ELI) households, it must also analyze their housing needs. The analysis of ELI housing needs could consider tenure and rates of overcrowding and overpayment. To assist the analysis, ATTACHMENT 6-203
see the enclos
ed data and sample analysis at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/building-blocks/housing-needs/extremely-low-income-housing-needs.shtml.

3. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).)

The element identifies the age of the housing stock (page 1-28). However, it must include analysis of the condition of the existing housing stock and estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. For example, the analysis could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable builders/developers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-
blocks/housing-needs/housing-stock-characteristics.shtml.

4. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)

The City has a RHNA of 8,772 housing units, of which 3,971 are for lower-income households. To address this need, the element relies on pending and entitled residential projects, specific plans, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). To demonstrate the adequacy of these sites and strategies to accommodate the City’s RHNA, the element must include complete analyses:

Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element indicates (page 1-68) that 116 units affordable to very low-income households and 27 units affordable to low-income household have been built or are under construction or approved, but the element provides no information documenting how affordability of the units was determined. As you know, the City’s RHNA may be reduced by the number of new units built since June 30, 2021; however, the element must describe the City’s methodology for assigning these units to the various income groups based on actual sales price or rent level of the units and demonstrate their availability in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.1, subd. (d).) For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing- needs/projected-housing-needs.shtml.

Realistic Capacity: While the element provides 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 ATTACHMENT 6-204
accessibi
lity 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 inventory in zones that allow nonresidential uses (e.g., mixed-use). This analysis should consider the likelihood of nonresidential development, performance standards, and development trends supporting residential development. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-and- zoning.shtml#zoning.

Small Sites: The site inventory identifies small 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.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites and Candidate Sites for Rezoning: The element identifies 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.

In addition, the element should 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.

Specific Plans: The housing element relies upon specific plan areas, including the Golden State Specific Plan (GSSP) to accommodate 6,153 units of the City’s RHNA including for lower-income households (pages 1-46 and 1-66). While the housing element indicates the GSSP’s residential capacity and estimates the number of units ATTACHMENT 6-205
by incom
e group, the element should also describe factors that that will lead to residential development of these specific plan areas. For example the element should describe required development standards, whether 100-percent residential development is allowed, necessary approvals or steps for entitlements for new development (e.g., design review, site plan review, etc.), and development agreements, and conditions or requirements such as phasing or timing requirements, that impact development in the planning period.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element assumes an ADU 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.

Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production throughout the course of the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers anticipated in the housing element. In addition to monitoring production, this program should also monitor affordability. Additional actions, if necessary, should be taken in a timely manner (e.g., within 6 months). Finally, if necessary, the degree of additional actions should be in stride with the degree of the gap in production and affordability. For example, if actual production and affordability of ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then rezoning or something similar would be an appropriate action. If actual production and affordability is near anticipated trends, then measures like outreach and marketing might be more appropriate.

Infrastructure: While the element identifies sufficient existing or planned water and sewer, it does not include availability and access to dry utilities. The element must add availability and access to dry utilities to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs for the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (b).) For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-and- zoning.shtml#environmental.

5. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7). Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
ATTACHMENT 6-206

Local Ordinances: The 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) was signed by Governor Newsom on October 9, 2019 and became effective on January 1, 2020. The Housing Crisis Act (Gov. Code, § 66300) generally 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. These provisions remain in effect until January 1, 2025. Specifically, Government Code section 66300, subdivision (b)(1)(D), with limited exception not applicable here, does not allow affected jurisdictions to adopt new or enforce existing limits on the number of land-use approvals or permits. The City should evaluate consistency with these requirements and if necessary, immediately void or suspend the annual growth cap.

Fees and Exaction: The element must describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including impact, water, sewer hookup fees, school, and other regional fees, and then, the element must analyze their impacts as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could identify the total amount of fees and their proportion to the development costs for both single family and multifamily housing. For additional information and a sample analysis and tables, see the Building Blocks at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/building-blocks/constraints/fees-and-exactions.shtml.

Local Processing and Permit 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.

Zoning, Development Standards and Fees: The element must clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning, development standards and fees for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers and Permanent Supportive Housing: Low barrier navigation centers and permanent supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code sections 65651 and 65662. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate.

Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element states the City utilizes an adopted reasonable accommodation (RA) policy (page 1-54). The analysis must include a list of the required approval findings for RA requests. Additionally, the ATTACHMENT 6-207
element stat
es that community care facilitates serving seven or more persons is subject to a conditional use permit (page 1-50). The element should evaluate approval requirements for impacts on objectivity and approval certainty. For example, excluding this housing from residential zones, excluding community care facilitates from the definition of family (page 1-55), or imposing standards such as compatibility with surrounding uses without clarity would be considered a constraint. The element must include programs as appropriate to address identified constraints based on the outcomes of this analysis.

6. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-low- income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).)

The element states Media Village/Silverwinds has affordability in perpetuity (Page 1-37, Table 25); however, according to our resources at Community Housing Partnership (CHP), it is set to expire in 2029. The element must update or confirm this information.

If units are identified as at-risk within a 10-year period, the analysis of at-risk units must include the following (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9).):

• Earliest date of change from low-income use; and
• Estimated total cost for producing, replacing, and preserving the units at risk. • Identification of public and private non-profit corporations known to the City/County to have the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at-risk units. • Identification and consideration of use of federal, state, local financing and subsidy programs.
• Specific and proactive program actions to preserve the at-risk units.

C. Housing Programs

1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)

As noted in the Finding B4, the 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.

ATTACHMENT 6-208

Sites Identified in Multiple Planning Periods: The element must include a program for vacant sites identified in two of more consecutive planning periods’ housing elements, or nonvacant sites identified in a prior housing element, that are currently identified to accommodate housing for lower-income households. The program must be implemented within the first three years of the planning period and commit to zone for the following:

• S ites must meet the density requirements for housing for lower-income households.
• Site must allow by-right approval for housing developments that include 20 percent or more of its units affordable to lower-income households (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).).

Nonvacant Sites Reliance to Accommodate RHNA: As the element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households, it should include a program(s) to promote residential development of those sites. The program could commit to provide financial assistance, regulatory concessions, or incentives to encourage and facilitate new, or more intense, residential development on the sites. Examples of incentives include identifying and targeting specific financial resources and reducing appropriate development standards. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/program- requirements/identify-adequate-sites.shtml.

Lot Consolidation/Small Sites: As the element relies on 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 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. For additional information, see the Building Blocks’ at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/program- requirements/address-remove-mitigate-constraints.shtml.

2. The housing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)

While the element includes programs to assist in the development of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, it must also include a program(s) to assist in the development of housing affordable extremely low-income (ELI) households. The City should also review and incorporate public comments as appropriate. Programs must be revised or added to the element to assist in the development of housing for ELI households. Program actions could include prioritizing some funding for housing developments affordable to ELI households and offering financial incentives or regulatory concessions to encourage the development of housing types, such as multifamily, single-room occupancy (SRO) units, to address the identified housing needs for ELI households. The element states there is need ATTACHMENT 6-209
for rentals
for large households (page 1-19). The element should add a program to address this identified need. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-needs/extremely- low-income-housing-needs.shtml.

3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)

As noted in Finding B5 the 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.

4. Promote AFFH opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)

As noted in Finding B1, the 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.

D. Public Participation

Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(8).)

While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process (page 1-5 and Appendix F), it must also describe how public comments were considered and incorporated into the element.

ATTACHMENT 6-210
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
Patrick Prescott,
Director
Community Development Department
City of Burbank
150 N. Third St.

Burbank, CA 91502
Dear Patrick Pr
escott:

RE: City of Bur
bank’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submit
ting the City of Burbank’s (City) draft housing element received for review on December 3, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a conversation on January 28, 2022, with Federico Ramirez, Assistant Community Development Director; Scott Plambaeck, Deputy City Planner; Shipra Rajesh, Associate Planner and the City’s consultants Karen Warner and Josh Oshimo. In addition, HCD considered comments from Abundant Housing LA pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element ad
dresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

The enclosed Appendix describes revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

As a reminder, t
he City’s 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City’s 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance.

Public particip
ation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.

Feburary 1, 2022
ATTACHMENT 6-211
For your inf
ormation, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government f
ails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).

Pursuant to Governm
ent Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory.

Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-
development/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected]
Several federal, st
ate, 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.

For your informat
ion, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf
and
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 6-212
HCD appreciates th
e cooperation and dedication the City planning staff, and Karen Warner provided during the course of our review. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Divya Sen, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior
Program Manager
Enclosure
ATTACHMENT 6-213

APPENDIX
CIT

Y OF BURBANK

The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml .

Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A))

Disparities in Access to Opportunity: The element includes limited local and regional data and analysis on access to opportunity of education, economic, transportation (pp. B-27 to B-34). However, a complete analysis should include an analysis of disparities in relation to education, economic opportunity, transportation at the regional level and analyze the data for trends and patterns.

Disproportionate Housing Needs: The element includes some local and regional data on cost-burdened households, overcrowding, homelessness and substandard housing, but does not include data on trends or patterns for regional analysis on homelessness. The element should include a complete regional data for homelessness and analyze the data and include an evaluation of impacts on protected characteristics, local patterns and access to opportunity such as services and programs.

Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): While the element addresses most of the analysis on housing development at income-levels and evaluates the sites relative to socio-economic patterns (pp. B-46 to B-50), it must also include analysis for integration & segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics and lower incomes. Based on the final analysis, the site inventory analysis should be updated to 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. This analysis should be supported by local data and knowledge and other relevant factors. In addition, The element states that over one half of the lower- income units are on sites susceptible to displacement risk, the City should identify what measures will be utilized to provide protection from displacement pressures (p. B-49).

ATTACHMENT 6-214

Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: The element added contributing factors, priority level, and actions with limited metrics and milestones (pp. B-53 to B-57). Actions have milestones but must also have clear metrics to address progress and viability of prioritized actions and go beyond the status quo to address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization, and displacement protection. In addition, the element identifies a number or actions in Table B-10 that are not reflected in the program commitments (pp. 1-108). Housing element program actions must be revised for consistency.

2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)

The City has a regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) of 8,772 housing units, of which 3,971 are for lower-income households. To address this need, the element relies on pending and entitled residential projects, specific plans, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). To demonstrate the adequacy of these sites and strategies to accommodate the City’s RHNA, the element must include complete analyses:

Realistic Capacity: While the element provides that “both specific plans selected sites within the respective planning areas exclusively nonresidential; however, for the Site Inventory, only sites with potential residential uses were included numerous” (pp. 1-85), this statement is insufficient to analyze the likelihood that the identified units will be developed as noted in the inventory in zones that allow nonresidential uses (e.g., mixed- use). To address this finding, the element could provide total potential of buildout of both specific plans and compare it to the capacity of selected sites and development trends supporting residential development.

Small Sites: The revised element includes a program to encourage lot consolidation for the small parcels identified in the inventory, but still does not analyze the City’s capacity for aggregating small parcels. The analysis could describe the City’s role or track record in facilitating small-lot consolidation, policies or incentives offered or proposed to encourage and facilitate lot consolidation, conditions rendering parcels suitable and ready for redevelopment, recent trends of lot consolidation, and/or information on the owners of each aggregated site. To assist in this analysis, the element could relate the conditions that led to the consolidation of projects listed on Table 1-42 to the identified sites.

Large Sites: Sites larger than 10 acres in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income ATTACHMENT 6-215
housing. (
Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).) While the element includes some supporting analysis on TOD 4-Old IKEA and TOD 6-Burbank Town Center large sites, it should expand on how the example project provided are related to large sites by size, affordability, or other factors.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element has some analysis that existing use is not an impediment on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the housing needs for lower-income households (pp. 1-78 to 1-83, Appendix D), it must also include analysis on how the existing uses will likely discontinue in the planning period. The analysis could provide information on existing leases, provide relevant information from the Downtown TOD Specific Plan market study, connect market trends or past examples relating to identified sites to show the likelihood of discontinuation, and include specific programs to facilitate development on lower-income sites.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The City is counting an average of 200 ADUs per year for a total of 1,600 ADUs to accommodate its RHNA. HCD’s records indicate that the City has permitted 54 ADUs in 2018, 110 in 2019, 97 in 2020. The City provided additional documentation stating that it has permitted 243 ADUs from January through September 2021. When considering ADU permits issued since September 2021, the City averages 134 ADUs a year. As a result, the element should be revised to reduce the number of ADUs to accommodate the City’s RHNA. In addition, while the element added Program 6b (Track and Monitor Accessory Dwelling Units), it should be revised to commit to monitor ADU production and affordability on more frequently than mid-cycle.

3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7). Transitional housing and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property, and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)

Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element includes the purpose of the community meeting for multifamily (pp. 1-63), it should also provide detail information on the appeal process and analyze it for constraints. For example, the element could indicate if there are any requirements or parameters for requests for appeals.

ATTACHMENT 6-216
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: While the element includes reasonable accommodate process (pp. 1-58 to 1-59), it must include the findings for approval. The element should also analyze the finding that “for an accommodation to be denied, the requested accommodation must cause undue hardship or cause operational problems” for consistence with fair housing requirements. For example, HUD/DOJ guidance states, “For an accommodation to be denied, the requested accommodation must cause an undue financial and administrative burden or it would fundamentally alter the nature of the provider's operations.”

B. Housing Programs

1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.
(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)

As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Sites Identified in Multiple Planning Periods: In conversations with the City, the two sites identified from the previous planning period is pending entitlement. Please be aware, should these entitlements not be completed, the City must allow by-right approval for housing developments that include 20 percent or more of its units affordable to lower- income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) The element should commit to monitor the pending entitlement of these projects and allow for by-right approval on those sites if projects are not approved as indicated.

Nonvacant Sites Reliance to Accommodate RHNA: As the element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households, it should include a program(s) to promote residential development of those sites. The program could commit to provide financial assistance, regulatory concessions, or incentives to encourage and facilitate new, or more intense, residential development on the sites.

Examples of incentives include identifying and targeting specific financial resources and reducing appropriate development standards or proactively advertise and seek ATTACHMENT 6-217
development
opportunities on city-owned sites through requests for proposals or other mechanisms.

2. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)

While the element includes Program 10 (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance) to support rentals for large households, it should specifically address how the City is assisting large families through that ordinance. For example, the element could describe what incentives are being provided for the provision of large family units.

3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.

The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)

As noted in Finding A3, the 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.

4. P romote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)

As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a complete analysis of affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs.

C. Public Participation

Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).)

Moving forward and up to adoption, the City should continue to employ additional methods for public outreach efforts, particularly including lower-income and special needs households and neighborhoods with higher concentrations of lower-income and special needs households.

ATTACHMENT 6-218
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
June 3, 2022

Patrick Prescott, Director
Community Development Department
City of Burbank
150 N. Third St.

Burbank, CA 91502

Dear Patrick Prescott:

RE: City of Burbank’s 6
th Cycle (2021-2028) Revised Draft Housing Element

Thank you for submitting the City of Burbank’s (City) revised draft housing element update received for review on April 4, 2022 with revisions received on May 27, 2022.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Abundant Housing LA pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The revised draft housing element addresses most statutory requirements described in HCD’s February 16, 2022 review; however, additional revision is necessary to fully comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code), as follows:

Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing (AFFH) in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)

Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues and include related metrics and milestones. Specifically programs should be modified to provide geographic targeting to address patterns and trends and increase housing mobility and choices in higher resourced areas of the City. In addition, some programs still require specific metrics to target meaningful fair housing results. Actions on Table B-11 that could be modified include:

Downtown TOD Specific Plan (Page B-67): Provide a goal or metric for the number of accessible units the City anticipates will be achieved.

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Production (Page B-67) and (Page B-74): Provide a goal or metric for the number of ADU units the City anticipates will be achieved. The ATTACHMENT 6-219
City could also provide geographic targeting for this program to increase production in existing higher resourced single family neighborhoods.

Rental Assistance Voucher Program (Page B-69): This action could include geographic targeting to ensure the provision of vouchers through out the City, especially in higher resourced neighborhoods.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Page B-69): Provide a goal or metric for the number of units the City anticipates will be achieved. This metric could also include a geographic target for higher resourced areas.

Anti-displacement Programs ({age B-71): Provide specific metrics.

Healthy Homes (Page B-75): This program could include specific geographic targeting to improve conditions in vulnerable neighborhoods.

The element will meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and re-adopted to comply with the above requirements.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), as the City failed to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), Program 8 (Housing Opportunity Sites & Rezone Program) must be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline.

Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

ATTACHMENT 6-220
Patrick Prescott, Director