Attachment 2 — Burbank City Council, October 11, 2022

CITY OF BURBANKCITY OF BURBANK

GEORGE IZAY PARK GEORGE IZAY PARK

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTPUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
06/17/2022
Recreation visioning through
community engagement
City of Burbank
George Izay Park Public Engagement
2022
Prepared for:

Prepared by:

City of Burbank City Council
Mayor, Jess Talamantes
Vice Mayor, Konstantine Anthony
Council Member, Bob Frutos
Council Member, Sharon Springer
Council Member, Nick Schultz
City Clerk, Zizette Mullins
City Treasurer, Krystle Palmer
City of Burbank Parks and Recreation Board
Parks and Recreation Director, Marisa Garcia
Chair, Barry Gussow
Member, Myeisha Peguero Gamino
Member, Lori Durbin
Member, Ara L Messerlian
Member, Ashley N Ramsey
City of Burbank Parks and Recreation Department
Parks and Recreation Director, Marisa Garcia
Parks and Recreation Deputy Director, Diego Cevallos
Parks and Recreation Deputy Director, Kristen Smith
Landscape and Forestry Services Superintendent, Michael Del Campo Administrative Officer, Graciela Coronado
Administrative Analyst, Cindy Yee Akuin
Administrative Analyst, Tony Rodriguez
Project Lead Consultant (RJM Design Group, Inc.)
Principal-in-Charge, Zachary Mueting
Associate Landscape Architect, Tamara McClory
Subconsultant Team
Probolsky Research, Adam Probolsky
RM Architecture, Rubio Medina
A Note of Special Thanks
The George Izay Park Public Engagement and Conceptual Park Master Plan process was developed in partnership with our local community who provided valuable input at various stages of the project. Thank you to the hundreds of community members, park users, and Burbank enthusiasts who shared their input and ideas at workshops, online surveys, city- wide surveys and stakeholder interviews. It is with your help that the design team was able to prepare this Conceptual Park Master Plan that reflects the needs, values, priorities and Community Voice of the City of Burbank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Public Engagement
...........................................4

1.2 Setting

.....................................................................................5

1.3 Process & Timeline .................................................................7

1.4 Location Map
.........................................................................9

1.5 Site Inventory ........................................................................11

1.6 Site Analysis

...........................................................................13

1.7 Opportunities and Constraints
...........................................15
Section TWO: COMMUNITY VOICE

2.1 Community Demographics
................................................18

2.2 Outreach & Engagement Highlights
.................................23

2.3 Virtual Townhall & Online Survey 1 Summary
...................25

2.4 Virtual Townhall & Online Survey 2 Summary
...................31

2.5 Stakeholder Interview Summary
........................................37

2.6 Statistically Valid Multi-Modal Survey Summary ...............41

2.7 Design Charrette Workshop Summary
..............................43

2.8 Feedback Workshop Summary ..........................................61

2.9 Project Website & Feedback Comments Summary
........69

2.10 Community Needs Prioritization / Chart ...........................71

Section THREE: ANALYSIS

3.1 Composite Plan
...................................................................77

3.2 Consensus Plan

....................................................................79

3.3 Park Master Plan Illustrative Bubble Diagram
...................81
Section FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conceptual Master Plan.....................................................85

4.2 Plan Enlargements & Imagery
............................................87

4.3 Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate....................................95

4.4 Phasing Plan

.........................................................................99

4.5 Parking Analysis

..................................................................101

4.6 Hardscape & Softscape Analysis

.....................................103

4.7 Tree Analysis

.......................................................................105

4.8 Program Recommendations
............................................107

4.9 City Wide Park & Recreation Master Plan
......................108

4.10 Next Steps
...........................................................................108 Appendix - Under Separate Cover
Executive Summary

....................................................................................1 Section ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Public Engagement ...........................................4

1.2 Setting .....................................................................................5

1.3 Process & Timeline .................................................................7

1.4 Location Map .........................................................................9

1.5 Site Inventory ........................................................................11

1.6 Site Analysis ...........................................................................13

1.7 Opportunities and Constraints ...........................................15 Section TWO: COMMUNITY VOICE

2.1 Community Demographics ................................................18

2.2 Outreach & Engagement Highlights .................................23

2.3 Virtual Townhall & Online Survey 1 Summary ...................25

2.4 Virtual Townhall & Online Survey 2 Summary ...................31

2.5 Stakeholder Interview Summary ........................................37

2.6 Statistically Valid Multi-Modal Survey Summary ...............41

2.7 Design Charrette Workshop Summary ..............................43

2.8 Feedback Workshop Summary ..........................................61

2.9 Project Website & Feedback Comments Summary ........69

2.10 Community Needs Prioritization / Chart ...........................71 Section THREE: ANALYSIS

3.1 Composite Plan ...................................................................77

3.2 Consensus Plan ....................................................................79

3.3 Park Master Plan Illustrative Bubble Diagram ...................81 Section FOUR: RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conceptual Master Plan.....................................................85

4.2 Plan Enlargements & Imagery ............................................87

4.3 Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate....................................95

4.4 Phasing Plan .........................................................................99

4.5 Parking Analysis ..................................................................101

4.6 Hardscape & Softscape Analysis .....................................103

4.7 Tree Analysis .......................................................................105

4.8 Program Recommendations ............................................107

4.9 City Wide Park & Recreation Master Plan ......................108

4.10 Next Steps ...........................................................................108 Appendix - Under Separate Cover
Executive Summary ....................................................................................1 1 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report The George Izay Park Public Engagement process is a collaboration between the City of Burbank Parks and Recreation Department, RJM Design Group and the Community. The intent of the project is to conduct public engagement and outreach while soliciting input to help identify and determine the needs of Burbank residents and stakeholders regarding future improvements at George Izay Park. Information gathered during this process serves as a guide and implementation tool for the management and development of the future vision and Park Master Plan of George Izay Park. This document represents a summary of the extensive community input, investigations, and professional analysis conducted as part of the process. The culminating result is a community inspired Conceptual Park Master Plan with recommendations for current and future park planning efforts.

The Public Engagement Process
The Public Engagement Process commenced with a review of the existing park and recreation documentation related to George Izay Park. Existing facilities, amenities, buildings and programming were evaluated to gain an understanding of all resources available within George Izay Park, the Olive Recreation Center, the Betsy Lueke Creative Arts Center, the Burbank Little Theater, and the Joslyn Adult Center. Once the baseline inventory was completed, an extensive community outreach campaign was developed. Community data was collected through the application of crowd sourcing methodologies and virtual communications strategies. Qualitative consensus building measures combined with quantitative statistically valid input were collected to establish the Community Voice. The Community Voice establishes improvement priorities for George Izay Park. These priorities were then evaluated in concert with facility usage patterns and population projections. The resulting conclusions provide a basis for the quantification of the proposed master plan vision that will meet the needs to the community at George Izay Park.

George Izay Recreation Resources
Located in Los Angeles County and currently home to an estimated 105,885 residents, the city of Burbank offers a wide variety of active and passive recreation facilities and amenities including 28 parks, several recreation centers, cultural and art entertainment venues, 2 public pools, 2 adult centers, 1 nature center, 1 golf course, tennis courts, open space, hiking trails, and other recreational amenities such as a skate/BMX bike park, pickleball courts, bocce ball court, and roller ball facility. Planned recreation facilities include community gardens and aquatic facilities. George Izay Park has many park and recreation facilities and amenities, including the Burbank Walk of Fame, 4 softball fields, batting cages, a concessionaires space, 2 handball courts, horseshoe pits, picnic tables, playground, outdoor restrooms, 2 tennis / pickleball courts, the Joslyn Adult Center, the Olive Recreation Center, the Burbank Little Theater, the Betsy Lueke Creative Arts Center and the historical Lockheed F-104 Starfighter Jet. By providing spaces to recreate, relax, and play, Burbank’s parks and recreation facilities help promote a strong sense of community in the City, improve property values, enhance the business climate and local economy, and generally contribute to a higher quality of life for residents and visitors alike.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 2 The Community Voice
To reach the entire Burbank community, an extensive community outreach campaign was developed. A dedicated project website, in-person and online video presentations, one on one stakeholder interviews, public online surveys, direct website feedback, a statistically valid multi-modal survey, and in-person community workshops were conducted to clearly analyze the community recreation demand at George Izay Park. Throughout the process, project updates and summary results were posted to the project website.

This website enabled community members to review updates and provide immediate feedback at any point in time. This resource allowed anyone in the community to have a voice during the process regardless of when and where meetings or outreach opportunities were held. Key questions answered throughout the Community Voice process include:

What are the top amenity and facility wants at George Izay Park? Are there programming recommendations that can be made based on the Community Voice?
How can phasing achieve the Conceptual Park Master Plan recommendations? By balancing the existing inventory of recreational resources within the Burbank community and the Community Voice of residents’, the planning team developed recommendations to meet the top facility and amenity needs at George Izay Park.

Below, in alpha numerical order, is a summary of those needs.

Top Needs:
• Art Center
•
Exercise Stations
•
Inclusive / Special Needs Programming
•
Landscape
•
Lighting
•
Little Theater
•
Maintenance / Homeless
•
Modernize / Renovate Buildings
•
Open Space
•
Parking
•
Pickleball (dedicated)
•
Picnic Area / Tables / Seating / Benches
•
Playground Renovation / Expansion
• Recreation Center
•
Recreation Classes / Programs
•
Restrooms / Drinking Fountains / Trash
•
Safety / Streetscapes
•
Trees / Shade
•
Variety of Activities / Sports
•
Walking / Biking / Pedestrian Pathways
•
Wayfinding Signage
3 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 4 Purpose of Public Engagement
The community outreach process provides a clear understanding of the community’s desires and needs for park and recreation at George Izay Park. Having such an understanding enables strategic expenditures and improvements within the recreation system maximizing the community impact. In pursuit of these guiding principles and in concert with the Parks and Recreation Department Mission Statement of “together we strive to be the heart of the community by providing enriching opportunities through dedicated people, beautiful parks, and inspiring programs”, this report was developed to ensure the resources dedicated to sustaining recreation at George Izay Park are continuously in line with the community expectations and desires.

The Conceptual Park Master Plan and Recommendations presented here within are intended to be flexible as the city responds to unforeseen opportunities and constraints related to capital improvement and grant funding, economic conditions, demographic changes, social influences and city-wide parks and recreation planning efforts. The goal of the Master Plan matches that of the Parks and Recreation Department providing the framework which will continue to promote a healthy community with diverse and innovative recreational and human services for all ages.

1.1 SECTION ONE:

INTRODUCTION 1
George Izay Park Playground
5 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Setting
Regional Setting
The City of Burbank is a community in Los Angeles County in California’s Southern Region.

It is bordered by Verdugo Mountain Park and La Tuna Canyon Park to the north, the Verdugo Mountains to the northeast, and by the cities of Glendale, Valley Village and North Hollywood.

Local Setting
Within Burbank’s city boundaries sits George Izay Park, located at 1111 W. Olive Ave, Burbank, CA 91506. The park includes a number of buildings on site including the Olive Recreation Center, the Betsy Lueke Creative Arts Center, the Burbank Little Theater, and the Joslyn Adult Center. Within the Olive Recreation Center, the Sports Office operates its programming and Burbank Walk of Fame, recreation programs, classes and sports. Throughout the park a large number of recreation programs are offered.

Programming of the ballfields includes adult softball, youth hap minor/ponytail, youth fall ball, Providence High School and John Burroughs High School use. Ballfields are also used passively by ultimate frisbee groups, pick up soccer players, and park users for open play and recreation. Other programming usages of the park and the Olive Recreation Center include youth instructional basketball, youth basketball league, youth flag football, youth sport camps, youth track and field, youth cross country, adult basketball, slow pitch softball, fast pitch softball, adult fall, winter and summer leagues, officiating and umpire training, private rentals, and special event attendance for the Civitan Jamboree and Burbank Walk of Fame. Also located at the park is the Betsy Lueke Creative Arts Center (BLCAC) which hosts monthly rotating gallery shows, artist receptions, Youth Art Expo, a Holiday Boutique, and a number of art classes such as pottery, painting, drawing, and live model workshops. The Joslyn Adult Center, also located on park property is a 55+ active adult center open 7 days a week which offers nutrition services, special events such as dinners and dances, lunchtime socials, the Burbank Senior Games, recreational and social activities and blood drives. George Izay Park has also been used by special groups such as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Special Olympics, and for filming opportunities and drive through distribution events.

The Burbank Little Theater has been operated through private enterprises putting on small shows and productions. It is also used by community groups for meetings.

1.2 Setting
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 6 Setting
1 Copyright © 1995–2022 Esri.

Exhibit 1.2-1: City of Burbank
Setting
George Izay Park

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 8 7 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Unique to this process was the development
of a central project website. The project
website outlined the Public Engagement
goals and objectives and identified a
schedule of outreach opportunities dates
and workshop results.

Process & Timeline1.3
The public engagement process began
in October of 2021 and launched eleven
(11) months of investigations, community
outreach, and reporting. Critical to the
process was the development of the
Community Voice. Through the lens of the
community views, the community needs
and potential programming are set,
leading to the development of the final
Conceptual Master Plan.

Over a six-month period (November-May)
multiple community outreach methods were
used to collect data from various segments
of the community. Stakeholder interviews,
virtual town hall workshops, online surveys,
direct feedback surveys, and a statistically
valid, multi-modal community survey
were conducted to gather insight into the
community’s views and desires for George
Izay Park.

The Community Engagement Process & Timeline
This component extended the ability for
anyone at any time to review the information
collected to date and provide thoughts of
their own.

After the outreach process was completed,
the data was reviewed and used to develop
the final Conceptual Master Plan. In June of
2022, this report and subsequent presentations
were developed to clearly illustrate what
currently exists, what the community priorities
are, and how the two can align today and in
the future.
1 Document Review and
Base Map Development
Park Site Tour, Inventory,
Analysis, Facilities Review,
Demographic Assessment
Community
Engagement
Plan
Development
Project Kick
Off Meeting
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July August
Project
Website
Launch
Virtual Presentation &
Online Survey 2
Park Master Plan
Illustrative Bubble
Diagram
Conceptual
Park Master
Plan and Cost
Estimates
Master Plan
Report and
Recommendations
Parks and
Recreation
Board and
Council
Presentation
City-Hosted
Pop Up Events
Composite
Plan
Development
Consensus Plan Development
In Person
Community Design
Charrette Workshop
In Person
Community
Feedback
Workshop
Stakeholder
Interviews
Multi-Modal
Survey
Virtual Presentation
& Online Survey 1
Exhibit 1.3-1: Project Timeline

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 10 9 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Exhibit 1.4-1: George Izay Park
Location Map
Location Map
1 1.4 Site Inventory Process
Prior to the development of a
Community Engagement Plan, existing
documents related to George Izay Park
such as recreation and programming
guides, joint-use agreements, field
usage, and facilities schedules were
studied. A park site tour was conducted
with Parks and Recreation department
staff to better understand the parks’
facilities, amenities, and park users.

Inventory was taken to determine the
number of facilities within the park and
analysis was articulated to determine
where opportunities or constraints
exist and other factors that may be
contributing to existing park conditions.

This information created the backbone
for the development of the community
engagement process and was used
on the project website to provide
community members with a “virtual”
park experience.

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 12 11 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report 1 1.5 Site Inventory
Exhibit 1.5-1: George Izay
Park Site Inventory
Olive Recreation Center:

Built in 1941
Last renovated in 1973
Burbank Little Theater:

Built in 1957
Betsy Lueke Creative Arts
Center:

Built in 1972
Joslyn Adult Center:

Built in 1972
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 14 13 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report 1 1.6 Site Analysis
Exhibit 1.6-1: George Izay Park
Site Analysis
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 16 15 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report

11.7 Opportunities and Constraints
Exhibit 1.7-1: George Izay Park
Opportunities and Constraints
17 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Exhibit 2.1-1: Burbank Tapestry
Map
Copyright © 1995–2022 Esri.

All rights reserved.
17 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Tapestry Segments
Tapestry Segmentation began 35 years ago. The 68-Segment Tapestry Segmentation system classifies U.S. neighborhoods based on their socioeconomic and demographic compositions. Most of Burbank households (99.3%) fall into one of six Tapestry LifeMode Groups. Most (99.3%) of Burbank households fall into one of six Tapestry LifeMode groups.

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 18 Community Demographics
Following the park inventory and analysis, community demographics were studied utilizing ESRI Tapestry Segmentation data to better understand who Burbank is and what influences may be affecting George Izay Park. Below is a breakdown of the demographics of Burbank.

SECTION TWO:

COMMUNITY VOICE

2.1 2
1 Affluent Estates (1A,1D,1E)
Average Age: 48
Average Income:
$128K
% of Burbank Households:

5.3%
Typically successful, highly educated
professionals. Mostly homeowners.

Married couples with children ranging
from grade school to college. Known to
participate actively in their communities.

Generally interested in sports.
3 Uptown Individuals (3A,3B,3C)
Average Age: 35
Average Income:
$81K
% of Burbank Households:
18%
Successful singles. Well educated and
hard working. Environmentally conscious
consumers. Commonly interested in arts
and culture.
2 Upscale Avenues (2A,2B,2C,2D)
Average Age: 41
Average Income:
$95K
% of Burbank Households:

24.2%
Typically prosperous married couples
living in older suburban neighborhoods or
townhomes. Majority are homeowners.

Many with older children. Generally
interested in active recreation and fitness.
13 Next Wave (13A,13B)
Average Age: 31
Average Income:
$42K
% of Burbank Households:

8.04%
Young, diverse, hard-working families with
children. Multi-generational households,
some may be multi-lingual. Most are
renters.
8 Middle Ground (8A,8C,8D,8F)
Average Age: 37
Average Income:
$55K
% of Burbank Households:

39.7%
Mix of single/married, renters/homeowners,
and middle/working class. Majority
attended college. Internet savvy.

Commonly interested in night life and
outdoor activities.
9 Senior Styles (9F)
Average Age: 46
Average Income:
$18K
% of Burbank Households:

4.07%
Married empty nesters or singles living
alone. Have cell phones and land lines.

Tend to have regular exercise routine and
are health conscience.

The remaining Tapestry LifeMode group represents 0.7% of the Burbank population:
5 GenXurban (5A)
Average Age: 48
Average Income:
$75K
% of Burbank Households:

0.7%
Gen X in middle age. Families with fewer
kids and a mortgage. Invest wisely, well
insured, comfortable banking online or in
person. News enthusiasts.
19 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Community Demographics
Exhibit 2.1-2: Burbank Demographics
Who is Burbank? A Community Profile
Understanding the demographic context of a
community can create a valuable perspective for
understanding current parks and recreation facility
and program requirements, and, moreover for
anticipating parks and recreation facility and program
needs in the future. A complete demographics was
developed utilizing the 2021 population estimate
from the Department of Finance and Environmental
Systems Research Institute (Esri) 2021 demographic
datasets. With this information a deeper understanding
of “whom” the community is and “where” they are
geographically and economically.

Six community characteristics have been prepared
as a foundation for understanding City residents’
recreation needs and preferences now and in the
future.
•
Population estimates and forecasts
•
Age distribution
•
Racial and ethnic character
•
Household information
•
Household income
•
Tapestry lifemode groups
Population Estimates and Forecasts
Exhibit 2.1-3, Burbank Population Growth, presents a
twenty-one year history of population growth within
the area. As the data illustrates, population growth in the area during the 2010-2021 time frame grew from
103,288 residents to 105,885 residents, reflecting a

2.5% change, with approximately 236 new residents
documented each year on average. The Esri forecast
data indicates this trend will slow down and the
population will increase to 106,510 by 2026. The five
year growth from 2021 to 2026 of 0.6% is half that of
the County’s average growth rate of 1.2% from 2021-
2026. As shown, population growth in the area during
the 2026-2031time frame is projected to grow from
106,510 residents to 107,548 residents, reflecting a

0.97% change, with approximately 208 new residents
each year on average. The City’s General Plan2035
predicts that the population will reach 116,516 in 2035.

Source: Department of Finance Estimate for 01/01/2021
& Esri 2021 Demographic Data
105,885
2021 Population

2.5 Average
Household Size
$82,958
Median
Household
Income

41.1 Median Age
Exhibit 2.1-3: Burbank Population
Growth (2010-2031)

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 20 2 Household Income
The median household income in 2021 for Burbank was $82,958 which is significantly higher than the median household income in 2021 for Los Angeles County of $74,511. In the City of Burbank, the median income figure is projected to grow to $94,800 in 2026, reflecting a 14.3% increase, higher than the 13.0% increase expected for the County during the same period.

See exhibit 2.1-4
Exhibit 2.1-4: Median Income in Burbank
compared to LA County
Age Distribution
The Age Profile as illustrated in Exhibit 2.1-5, shows
significant large portions of the population to
be classified in the 35-64 category. The under
19 years of age group (19%) is slightly lower
than the Los Angeles County population
(24.6%). Exhibit 2.1-6 Population Change by
Age Group, presents a sixteen-year pattern
of population growth by age group within the
City.

Exhibit 2.1-5: Burbank Age Profile
21 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Community Demographics
Exhibit 2.1-6 reveals:
•
During the 2010-2021
time frame, the greatest growth in population by age group was evidenced among City residents 70 to 74 years (44.8%). The greatest growth in population within Los Angeles County was also residents 70 to 74 years old (48%). •
During
the 2010-2021time frame, the greatest decline in population by age group was evidenced among City residents 15 to 19 years old (-20.3%), 45 to 49 years old (-16.9%) and 40 to 44 years old (-14.8%). The greatest decline in population within Los Angeles County was also 15 to 19 years old (-18.2%), 45 to 49 years old (-13.9) and 40 to 44 years old (-13.9) •
The
overall 2026 population in Burbank is projected to grow the most in the 80 to 84 years old (23.8) category which matches the Los Angeles County population (25.0). This reflects an aging population over the next 5 years.
•
The
median age in Burbank is 41.1 in 2021, growing to a projected age of 41.9 in 2026, which is overall slightly less than the median age in Los Angeles County in 2021 (36.2) and projections in 2026 (37.5).
•
Burbank households with children under
the age of 5 are expected to grow (2.3%) in 2026,
which is more than projections for Los Angeles County (0.0%).

Exhibit 2.1-6: Population Change by Age
Group (2010, 2021, 2026
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 22 2 Exhibit 2.1-7: Average Household Size
Exhibit 2.1-8: Number of Housing Units
in Burbank
Exhibit 2.1-9: Percent of Owners,
Renters, & Vacant Housing Units
Racial And Ethnic Character
Household Information
The average household size in the City of Burbank
increased slightly from 2.45 persons in 2010 to 2.49
persons in 2021 representing a 1.6% increase, which
is more than the County average for that time frame
(0.0%). The County average household size remained
the same at a higher number of persons per households
(2.98 persons from 2010 to 2021 time frame).

Exhibit 2.1-8 illustrates housing unit growth in the City during the 2010 to 2021 time frame occurring at a

2.8% rate, with approximately 83.5 new housing units
documented each year on average. The City housing
unit growth fell below the County rate of 3.8%. The
rate of new housing units in the City is predicted to
decrease to 0.9%, which is also below the falling
projected County rate of 1.5%.

Exhibit 2.1-9 shows the City’s proportion of homeowners decreased from 2010 to 2021 (-5.3%) while renters
and vacant housing units increased from 2010 to
2021 (21.2% combined). Homeownership is projected
to decrease in 2026 (-0.8%) while renters decrease
(-0.7%) and vacant housing units increase (11.1%)
in 2026. Homeownership in the County is projected
to decrease (-0.9%) in 2026 while renters remain the
same (0.0%) and vacant housing units increase (4.3%).

In 2021, there was a higher percentage of home
owners in the County compared to Burbank (42.8%
to 39.5%, respectively) and lower number of renters
and vacant housing units in the County compared to
Burbank (57.2% and 60.5%, respectively). The median
housing value in Burbank in 2021 is $835,024 which is
higher than the median average housing value in Los
Angeles County in 2021 of $693,273.

RACE ETHNICITY

23 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report 1 2
3 Outreach and Engagement Highlights
The community outreach campaign developed for this Public Engagement process utilized multiple methods of information sharing and data collection including a dedicated project website, live online video presentations, one on one stakeholder interviews, public online surveys, a statistically valid multi-modal survey, online website feedback surveys, and in person workshops.

Throughout the process, project updates and summary results were posted to the project website. This website enabled community members to review updates and provide immediate feedback at any point in time. This resource enabled anyone in the community to have a voice in the process regardless of when and where meetings were held.

The purpose of gathering community input through a variety of methods is to ensure that the public engagement and master plan development is as inclusive as possible and that it reflects the views, preferences, and recreation patterns of Burbank residents and park users. Within this section, community feedback has been recorded in three (3) separate categories:

Category One: One on One Stakeholder Interviews
Direct one on one interviews with key stakeholders were conducted in a format where participants discuss key issues and opinions on facility and amenity needs and programmatic recommendations that should be included in the master plan development.

Category Two: Community at Large Public Workshops
Public community consensus-building workshops were held via virtual town hall meetings, online surveys, and in-person workshops. These provide opportunity for community members to learn about past survey results, answer questions of the design team, and provide input regarding specific improvements, likes, dislikes, and recommendations for George Izay Park.

Category Three: Statistically Valid Surveys
Direct survey responses were collected through a statistically valid, multi- modal survey. This survey was conducted via telephone (land lines and cell numbers), text, and email to ensure the population demographic was represented.

2.2 Outreach & Engagement Highlights
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 24 Total Combined Participants Reached:
9,184
Total Website Views
2 In-Person Workshops with
127 in attendance
1,271
Total YouTube Video
Views
15 Stakeholder Interviews
290
Total Website Feedback
Comments as of 7.26.22
300
Registered
400
Total Multi-Modal Surveys
1,433
Total Online Surveys
Completed (2) (21 paper)
Visit the website to
see the full project!
2 City Pop-Up Event at Johnny Carson Park. This pop-up event provided an opportunity to solicit ideas and feedback from community members. The Department used the Consultant’s prepared project graphics, survey links, and the project website to bring awareness to the project and to register participants for the March 16, 2022 In- Person Community Design Charrette Workshop.
25 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Virtual Townhall & Online Survey 1 Summary
Virtual Townhall & Online Survey 1:

The first community outreach opportunity
began with a Virtual Townhall presentation
and Online Survey 1. An introduction
video was posted on the project website
introducing the project, purpose, timeline,
and community outreach opportunities.

The video invited community members
to take Online Survey 1 and highlighted
the three-week survey window. The
video remained on the project website
for viewing opportunities even after the
survey closed. Eleven questions were on
the George Izay Park Online Survey #1 that
was available for three weeks, conducted
between November 10th and December
1st. The survey was advertised on the
project website and City website, emailed
to residents, signs were posted at George
Izay Park, and door hangers were posted on
residence doors. Paper copies of the survey
were made available at all city facilities,
sixteen (16) paper copies were received.

A total of eight hundred and thirty-eight
(838) completed surveys were collected.

The survey results are part of the community
engagement outreach for the George Izay
Park Master Plan. The following is a summary
of responses.

Exhibit 2.3-1: Online Survey 1
Survey Distribution Map
Copyright © 1995–2022 Esri.

How long have you lived in
the City of Burbank?
Do you work in the City of
Burbank?

2.3 City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 26 2 How often do you or members of your household use
facilities, amenities or visit George Izay Park (park, ball fields, playgrounds)?
How often do you or members of your household visit the Olive Recreation Center?

27 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Virtual Townhall & Online Survey 1 Summary (continued)
How often do you or members of your household visit the Joslyn Adult Center?
How often do you or members of your household visit the Betsy Lueke Arts Center or the Burbank Little Theater
(when operational)?
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 28 What do you like most about George Izay Park and why?
How do you recreate at George Izay Park?
2 29 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Virtual Townhall & Online Survey 1 Summary (continued)
What facility improvements would you like to see at George Izay Park and why?
What do you dislike most about George Izay Park and why?

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 30 2 Community Workshop 1 Launched on November 10th, 2021
31 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Virtual Townhall & Online Survey 2 Summary
Virtual Townhall & Online Survey 2:

Online Survey #2 was conducted
between January 26th, 2022 through
February 15th, 2022, as a part of the
community engagement outreach for
the George Izay Park Master Plan project.

The survey began with an Virtual Townhall
presentation video posted on the project
website introducing the project, purpose,
timeline, past community outreach
opportunities, results of the previous online
survey 1 and highlighted the three-week
survey window available for online survey

2. Nine (9) questions were asked on the
survey. The survey was advertised on the
project website, City website, emailed to
residents, and made available as paper
copies at all city facilities. Additionally,
signs were posted at George Izay Park and
door hangers were posted on neighboring
residents’ doors. A total of six hundred and
thirteen (613) completed surveys were
collected, three (3) of which were paper
copies. The following is a summary of the
survey responses.

Exhibit 2.4-1: Online Survey 2 Survey
Distribution Map
Copyright © 1995–2022 Esri.

Did you watch the online
video presentation?

2.4 City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 32 Exhibit 2.4-1: Online Survey 2 Survey
Distribution Map
2 What piece of equipment and / or activity would you like to see incorporated into any future upgrades at the George Izay Park playground?
How do you feel about improving pedestrian circulation to maximize passive recreation opportunities such as community event space, recreation programming, spectator viewing, gathering spaces, walking paths, seating, shade, and open space?

33 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report What kind of renovations would best serve the Olive
Recreation Center, its programs and user groups? Current uses include the City’s Sports Office and Recreation Staff, basketball, badminton, pickleball, and volleyball programs, classrooms for preschool and youth classes, camps, and
parties, dance room, recreation lobby / counter, and
restrooms?
Virtual Townhall & Online Survey 2 Summary (continued)
What kind of renovations would best serve the Betsy Lueke Creative Arts Center (BLCAC), its programs and user groups?

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 34 What kind of renovations would best serve the Burbank Little Theater (BLT), its programs and user groups?
2 What kind of renovations would best serve the Joslyn Adult Center (JAC), its programs and user groups?

35 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Virtual Townhall & Online Survey 2 Summary (continued)
Based on results of Phase 1 of the Community Engagement Process, the following facilities and amenities were identified as the preferred park improvements. Which are your top improvements you’d like to see?

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 36 2 *Other answers included:
•
Bandshell / stage / gazebo
•
Basketball courts
•
Bike access / trail
•
California Native Garden
•
Combine all facilities into
one building
•
Dance floor
•
Dedicated pickleball courts
•
Dedicated tennis courts
•
Dog park
•
Don’t do anything
•
Exercise stations
•

Homelessness
•
Outdoor education
•
Renovating baseball /
softball fields
•
Senior center
•

Skatepark
•
Soccer field(s)
•
Splash pad
•
Traffic safety
•
Volleyball courts
Virtual Presentation Community Workshop 2 Online Survey 37 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Stakeholder Interviews:

During the community outreach process, stakeholder interviews were conducted with key groups. Eight (8) questions were asked of fifteen (15) community stakeholders from the Fine Arts Federation, Burbank Cultural Arts Commission, Burbank Athletic Foundation, Youth Board, Park Board, Senior Board, Historical Society, and Sustainable Burbank Commission. Stakeholders were emailed the one-page questionnaire then later scheduled for a video meeting interview to discuss their responses in more details.

Interviews were conducted between December 20, 2021 and January 10, 2022. Each of the eight (8) interviews included one-two (1-2) participants from the same group / board. The following individuals were part of the stakeholders interviewed.

Burbank Athletic Foundation – Larry Nelson and Glenn Hamanaka Burbank Cultural Arts Commission – Chair Leah Harrison (Commissioner) and Vice Chair Eric Conner
Fine Arts Federation – Carol Finkle
Historical Society – President Don Baldaseroni and Vice President Mari Pititto Park Board – Chair Barry Gussow (Commissioner) and Vice Chair Myeisha Peguero Gamino (Commissioner)
Senior Citizen Board – Chair Bruce Oldham and Vice Chair Marva Murphy Sustainable Burbank Commission – Laura Tenenbaum and Robin Gemmill Youth Board – Cahir Sungjoo Yoon and Vice Chair Arpi Sarian The following information is a summary of the responses:

Stakeholder Interview Summary
Renovated children’s playground (does not provide for 5-12 yrs old) 3 Park should bring families in to activate park space (picnics / parties), attract a wide variety of users within the community
2 Better utilization of space within park to meet sustainability measures 2 Lighting at parking lots is insufficient / security concerns 2 Outdated buildings / facilities 1
Lack of ADA compliant walkways 1
Desire for safer facilities 1
Lack of community garden / community green spaces 1
Need more parking 1
Outdated building / gym in need of renovation / maintenance 9 Lack of indoor space for all uses / activities (classrooms, offices, parties) 3 Poor condition of basketball courts 1
Public access to indoor stage is difficult 1
Question #2
What are the most important issues at The Olive Recreation Center? Question #1
What are the most important issues at George Izay Park?

2.5 City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 38 2 Need for interconnectedness to youth / other generations / the community 6 Outdated building / facilities 4
Opportunity to continue to provide a variety of activities, programs, and class offerings
3 Center operates separately from other facilities / park 2 Lack of ADA compliant counters, restrooms 1
Need for current technology / facilities like “internet café” 1 Cleanliness 1
Underutilized areas (horseshoes) 1
Not enough space for classes / gallery / storage 6
Lack of awareness of center and programs 4
Hidden location / lack of connectivity to rest of park 4 Opportunity to continue online programming during pandemic 1 Desire to provide working studio spaces for nearby artists 1 Lack of outdoor gathering space 1
Signage 1
Lack of awareness of facility and programs 6
Closure due to inactivity 2
Too many other existing theaters in Burbank 1
Lack of ADA accommodations 1
Renovation should allow for joint use / community gathering space 1 Opportunity to utilize for various groups and organizations 1 In need of renovations to upgrade technology, layout 1
Signage 1
Question #3
What are the most important issues at Joslyn Adult Center? Question #4
What are the most important issues at Betsy Lueke Creative Arts Center?Question #5 What are the most important issues at Burbank Little Theater (when operational)? Unused stage 1
Parking behind stage creates unsafe area 1
Security / building access 1
Lack of painted pickleball lines 1
Uninviting exterior without space for community gathering 1 Lack of advertising programs / events 1
Lack of community kitchen 1
39 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Stakeholder Interview Summary (continued)
Seating / common gathering areas 2
Giant chessboard / chess tables 2
Special Needs programs / opportunities 2
Community garden and / or community kitchen 2
Play equipment for older children 1
Exercise course / equipment 1
Painted pickleball lines 1
Art space to gather, educate, rehearse and hold events 1 Outdoor basketball court 1
Party / picnic rental space 1
Separate tennis and pickleball courts 1
Refurbishment of the F-104 Starfighter Jet 1
Directory for wayfinding 1
Question #6
What is one program and/or facility or amenity you would like to see added to George Izay Park?
Question #7
What is your vision for parks, recreation facilities, programs and services at George Izay Park?
Upgrade / renovate existing buildings and facilities 6
Expand events and programs 4
Provide ongoing maintenance of existing facilities and amenities 3 Provide / include public art 2
Provide sustainable / native landscapes 2
To create a community center like McCambridge or Verdugo 1 Preservation of green space / community-building spaces 1 Provide concession stand / multi-use building 1
Upgrade / provide current technology (park signage, etc.) 1 Provide a dog park / dedicated dog space 1
Provide community gathering spaces 1
Provide performance spaces 1
Expand / upgrade children’s playground 1
Upgrade it as a multi-Use, modern sports facility 1
Provide picnic tables / rooms for parties and rentals 1 Clean bleachers 1
Safe place for family 1
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 40 2 Question #8
Additional Comments – Please provide any below.
•
Park should program ball diamonds for other uses / summer concert series •
Park improvements should provide more casual community gathering / multi-purpose spaces and opportunities
•
Park improvements should create a central hub / public space •
Park improvements should provide sustainable building and site design, native landscaping, art and sculpture gardens
•
Indoor / outdoor cultural art performance and fine art gallery / gathering spaces
•
Multi-generational facilities
•
Inclusive facilities
•
Spectator seating
•
Park should be a beacon for the community and be designed cohesively

Observed, Verbal Comments:
•
Demonstration garden / water efficient landscapes
•
Art walk / open air rotating gallery
•
Kiosk / food vendor space
•
Bandshell / open air theater / outdoor performance stages / art gathering space
•
Update all buildings
•
Ball containment netting
•
Pedestrian plaza / corridor
•
Gathering / event space
•
Larger arts center and gallery space
•
Community rooms / auditorium / stages
•
Exterior park restrooms
•
Wayfinding signage
•
Creative playground
•
Educational opportunities
•
Inviting streetscape
•
Exercise space
•
Multi-generational buildings / community spaces
•
Little free library
•
Walking paths
•
Need more parking on backside
41 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Statistically Valid Multi-Modal Survey:

During the community outreach process, a statistically valid multi-modal survey was conducted. A total of 400 residents were surveyed (132 by telephone and 268 online) in a statistically valid manner. A survey of this size yields a margin of error of +/-5.0%, with a confidence level of 95%. Interviews were conducted with respondents on both landline (37%) and mobile phones (63%) and were offered in English (93%), Spanish (6%), and Armenian (1%) languages. For the online survey phase, we invited participation via email (50%) and text message (50%). Security measures precluded individuals from completing the survey more than once and allowed only the designated resident to complete the survey. Online respondents were able to use their computer, tablet or smart phone to participate.

Our sample used stratified
random sampling methodology
to ensure that the demographic
proportions of survey respondents
match the demographic
composition of City of Burbank
residents.

Critical in the data collected is the
geolocation of the participants.

The Exhibit 2.6-1 indicates that
there was an equal geographic
distribution of participants across
the City. This not only validates
the statistically valid component
of the survey but also indicated
there is not a geographic bias in
the data being recorded from
only one end of the community
and not the other.

Statistically Valid Multi-Modal Survey Summary
Exhibit 2.6-1: Multi-Modal
Survey Distribution Map
Copyright © 1995–2022 Esri.

2.6 City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 42 Subjects explored in the context of the multi-modal survey included:
29%
Use Olive Recreation Center at least
Once a Month
36%
Use the BLCAC or the BLT at least
Once a Year
59%
Rate the Overall Quality of George Izay
Park as Excellent/Good
What Do You Like Most About the Park
38%
Use Joslyn Adult Center at least
Once a Year
27%
Rate the Overall Quality of the Buildings
as Excellent
37%
Who Rated it as Excellent/Good Rated it
as Excellent
How Do You or Members of Your
Household Recreate
2 43 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Design Charrette Workshop Summary
Community Workshop: Design Charrette
Following the completion of the Virtual
Townhall Online Surveys 1 & 2, Stakeholder
Interviews, and Multi-Modal Survey, an
In-Person Community Design Charrette
Workshop was conducted. The Community
Design Charrette Workshop was hosted
at the Olive Recreation Center (1111 W.

Olive Ave. CA) on March 16th, 2022, from
5:30-8:30pm. The workshop included a
presentation on the project, background,
timeline, outreach results and a park site
tour allowing participants to get a better
understanding of amenities and facilities
that make up George Izay Park. After
the tour, participants were able to design
their ideal George Izay Park via a design
charrette activity. 61 members of the
community attended, including 14 youth
(age 5-11).

2.7 City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 44 Background
Prior to the design charrette workshop,
significant project research, inventory,
analysis, and fact-finding was conducted
as identified in this report. The consultant
team along with the City, developed a
comprehensive database of information
critical to the project. This information
was distilled into a variety of site analysis
exhibits summarizing the findings which
were presented during the workshop and
available for viewing during the design
charrette activity.

After the background research was
completed, a project website was
developed to share the findings, highlight
and track the progress of the project, solicit
community input via virtual online survey
opportunities related to park use, wants,
needs and future improvements, advertise
workshops and summarize outreach results.

The website also allows viewers to provide
feedback, anytime, even when an online
survey is no longer “live”. Online Survey
#1 was conducted from November 10th -
December 2nd followed by Online Survey
#2 from January 26th – February 16th.

Online survey #1 - November 10th
The city shared a commencement video along with other marketing strategies to announce Online Survey #1 to gain input from community members. Approximately 841 community members completed the survey, providing input regarding their likes, dislikes and preferred park improvements.

Online survey #2 - January 26th
Another video was shared by the city to announce Online Survey #2 along with other marketing strategies. Approximately 613 community members completed the survey, 2 45 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Design Charrette Workshop Summary (continued)
providing input regarding their preferred playground upgrades, improved pedestrian circulation, building renovations, and top park improvements.

Stakeholder Interviews and multi-Modal Survey – December-March In addition to the online surveys, multiple stakeholder interviews were conducted with key community groups, asking questions about the park site and future improvements.

A multi-modal survey was conducted with 400 randomly selected participants to gather additional feedback.

Community Design Charrette Workshop –
March 16th
After Online Survey #1 and #2 were
completed, an in-person Community
Design Charrette Workshop was hosted to
gain community consensus and summarize
the preferred park improvements in an
illustrative plan format.

Workshop Process
The design charrette workshop process
began with brief introductions by RJM
representatives Zach Mueting and Tamara
McClory and City staff team members
Diego Cevallos and Cindy Yee Akuin. The
workshop then moved outside for a park
site tour. Each participant received a site
awareness tour book with 8 stops identified
within the park site. Participants were
encouraged to take notes and observe
the conditions of the park at each of the
stops. After the site tour, the workshop
reconvened in the Olive Recreation Center
and a brief project overview of the purpose
of the project, project timeline, project
background and community outreach
opportunities were described. Results of
each of the community outreach methods
were highlighted, resulting in input received
from 1,454 participants to date.

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 46 2 Workshop Objectives
The goal of the design charrette
workshop was to give participants
a clear understanding of the park’s
current conditions, its opportunities and
constraints, community specified preferred
improvements to date, and a platform
to illustrate concepts for future park
improvements. After the presentation,
participants were divided into 5 groups
and given workshop materials (markers,
pens, paper, amenity templates,
magazines, tape, glue, etc.) and scaled
park plans to draw or illustrate their ideal
park improvements. Participants were
encouraged to discuss as a group their
design intent and develop a group plan.

RJM and city staff walked around the room
during the activity, answering questions
and providing verbal assistance when
needed. Groups were also encouraged
to label their plans to clearly identify their
improvements prior to presenting the plan
to the workshop.

Workshop Results
After the design charrette activity, each
group presented their park plans to the
workshop. Colored amenity templates
utilized on the plans helped to identify
similar park elements within each group.

Participants engaged in group discussion
during the presentation and highlighted
similarities between the plans. After the
presentations, RJM and City staff were
available to answer questions and discuss
next steps for the project.

47 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Design Charrette Workshop Summary (continued)
Amenity Template Legend

WHITE
Parking
Patio
Open Space
GRAY
Parking
Walking

LIGHT YELLOW
Tot Lot
Tennis / Pickleball
BROWN
Basketball
PINK
Amphitheater
Community Center / Gym
SALMON
Picnic Tables / Picnic Shelters
Multi-generational Center
Band Shell
Café / Snacks / Concessions

LAVENDER
Soccer
BLUE
Skate Spot / Park
Volleyball
Water Fountain
Benches
Bike Racks

DARK BLUE
Splash Pad
Rock Climbing

MINT GREEN
Little League Baseball
Garden / Community Garden
Bocce Ball
GREEN
High School Baseball
Trees

LIME GREEN
Dog Park
ORANGE
Corridor
Renovate
Handball
OTHER MENTIONS:

Lighting
Trash
Drinking Fountains
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 48 2 Summary
Group 1 - Group Plan
Group 2 - Group Plan

49 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report

Group 3 - Group Plan

Group 4 - Group Plan
Design Charrette Workshop Summary (continued)
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 50

Group 5 - Group Plan

Youth Boy Group - Group Plan

Youth Girl Group - Group Plan
2 51 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Design Charrette Workshop Summary (continued)
Group 1 - Bubble Diagram
Group Bubble Plans
Following the workshop, RJM collected the Group Plans and generated Bubble Diagrams representing all design concepts identified in each Group Plan during the workshop.

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 52 2 Group 2 - Bubble Diagram
Group 3 - Bubble Diagram

53 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Design Charrette Workshop Summary (continued)
Group 4 - Bubble Diagram
Group 5 - Bubble Diagram

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 54 2 Youth Boys Group - Bubble Diagram
Youth Girls Group - Bubble Diagram

55 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Design Charrette Workshop Summary (continued)
Group Composite Plan
After the Group Bubble Plans were prepared, they were overlaid one on top of the other to create a final Composite Plan. The Composite Plans allows visual identification of preferred elements and their locations between the various Group Plans. This plan will be used to create the Consensus Plan and Preliminary Conceptual Plan.

Exhibit 2.7-1: Group Composite Plan
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 56 2 Workbook Feedback
At the conclusion of the workshop, site tour workbooks were collected to further synthesize feedback heard. Below is a summary of the information heard at each tour stop.

Stop 1 - Olive Recreation Center Front Entry
Stop 2 - Betsey Lueke Creative Arts Center Courtyard
57 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Design Charrette Workshop Summary (continued)
Stop 3 - Picnic Area and Parking Lot
Stop 4 - Park Restrooms, Burbank Little Theater, Playground and Seating City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 58 2 Stop 5 - Field 3, Grandstands, Concession Area, Dedicated Burbank City Stadium
Stop 6 - Field 4, Parking Lot, Batting Cages
59 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Design Charrette Workshop Summary (continued)
Stop 7 - Joslyn Adult Center, Parking Lot, Horseshoe Pits, Maintenance Yard
Stop 8 - Oasis Garden at Joslyn Adult Center, Bus Stop, Veterans Memorial and Ballfield 1
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 60 2 Next steps: In Person Feedback Workshop
Following the In Person Community Design Charrette Worskhop, RJM will utilize the Composite Plan to develop a clear and concise Consensus Plan that incorporates the community’s desired site elements into a cohesive layout. The Consensus Plan will be made available on the project website and presented during the Feedback Workshop along with a summary of all community input to date including the Design Charrette Workshop. A Conceptual Park Master Plan Illustrative Bubble Diagram will also be presented at the Feedback Workshop to solicit final input on design. Following the workshop, the refined Park Master Plan will be prepared along with a costs analysis summary, and included in this report.

61 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Feedback Workshop Summary
Feedback Workshop
The Community Feedback Workshop was
hosted at the Olive Recreation Center
(1111 W. Olive Ave. Burbank, CA) on
April 28th, 2022 from 5:30-8:30pm. The
workshop offered participants an in-person
opportunity to learn about the purpose of
the project, view the results of community
outreach processes to date, and comment
on the Group Composite Plan, Consensus
Plan and Conceptual Park Master Plan
Illustrative Bubble Diagram. 66 members of
the community attended the workshop.

Exhibit 2.8-1: Group Composite Plan
Group Composite Plan
Prior to sharing the Conceptual Park Master Plan Illustrative Bubble Diagram, the Group Composite Plan was shared. The Composite Plan is a visual summary of all the Group Plans from the Design Charrette Workshop layered on top of each other.

2.8 City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 62 Exhibit 2.8-2: Consensus Plan
2 Consensus Plan
After the Composite Plan was shared, the Consensus Plan was shared, identifying where two or more amenities or facilities were illustrated in generally the same location by the Design Charrette Group Plans. The Consensus Plan simplifies the Composite Plan into a concise graphic that represents consensus items heard during the Design Charrette Workshop.
63 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Exhibit 2.8-3: Illustrative Bubble
Diagram
Conceptual Park Master Plan Illustrative Bubble Diagram After the Consensus Plan was prepared (prior to the Feedback Workshop), all community feedback received to date was reviewed. This includes input identified during the Design Charrette Workshop, illustrated in the Group, Composite and Consensus Plans, as well as all the other outreach methods. Consensus items heard during all community outreach methods were illustrated in the Conceptual Park Master Plan Illustrative Bubble Diagram.

The intent of this plan is to illustrate high level ideas and preferred improvements based on the Community Voice heard throughout the public outreach process. The plan was shared during the Feedback Workshop after the Consensus Plan.

Feedback Workshop Summary (continued)
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 64 Feedback Workshop Process
The Feedback Workshop process began
with participants checking in, receiving
name tags, and marking “Where they
live” on a map of Burbank. Display
boards were organized at the front of
the workshop space for participants to
view the previously prepared site analysis
exhibits, survey results, Group Plans,
Composite Plan, Consensus Plan and
Preliminary Park Master Plan. Participants
were invited to review the boards prior to
the workshop beginning.

The workshop then began with brief introductions by City Deputy Director Diego Cevallos who welcomed community members and RJM Design Group representatives Tamara McClory and Zachary Mueting. Tamara McClory then presented a summary of the Master Plan process to date including the purpose of the project, project timeline, site inventory and analysis studies, community outreach process and results, and design charrette workshop summary. Tamara then presented in detail the Design Charrette Group Plans, Group Bubble Plans, Composite Plan and Consensus Plans. Next the Preliminary Park Master Plan Illustrative Bubble Diagram was presented as a summary of the Consensus Plan items and all other community feedback heard to date.

Workshop participants were invited back up to the front of the room to review all the display boards in detail. They were given Post-It notes so they could write their feedback down and attach them to the display boards that correlated with their comments on the comment cards that were also provided for additional feedback. RJM and City staff were available to answer questions and engage with community members during the feedback session.

As the end of the process, RJM summarized the next steps of the process and provided the QR code to the project website where project updates would continue to be made available. Post-It notes and comment cards were collected for inclusion in the Community Voice summary of the Master Plan process.
2 65 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Feedback Workshop Summary (continued)
Workshop Objective
The focus to the Feedback Workshop was to give participants a clear understanding of the Conceptual Plan process, community outreach results, and an overview of the Preliminary Park Master Plan Illustrative Bubble Diagram. The goal of the workshop was to solicit feedback and input from participants regarding the Preliminary Park Master Plan and the Community Voice input heard over the course of the project. As described during the workshop, the Preliminary Park Master Plan illustrates the 30,000-foot view of all data collected to date. Feedback received during the Feedback Workshop will be utilized to create the Final Park Master Plan which further details proposed improvements based on the Community Voice, professional design analysis, and code analysis and compliancy. The Final Park Master Plan will represent a closer bird’s eye view of the entire park site.

Workshop Results
The summary below represents the feedback received through the Post It notes and comment cards during the Feedback Workshop. Many of the Post It notes were placed in specific geographical areas of the park and/or relate to proposed improvements based on the Preliminary Master Plan. The comments that could be identified as relating to particular elements or areas are grouped as such in the summary charts. Other Post It notes that were not reflective of specific areas are organized under ‘General Comments’.

Feedback Workshop Summary

CORNER OF CLARK AVE AND NORTH GRIFFITH PARK

BURBANK LITTLE THEATER
Keep the sycamore trees 51
Keep/increase open space for group activities 21
Keep area as is 19
Keep trees for shade 11
No demonstration garden 7
No artificial turf 8
Add dog waste station 3
Over-programming would reduce open space 3
This is the only flat undesignated area 3
Add benches along parking lot 2
Theater should be indoors, locally operated, and have a lobby, dressing rooms, and prop room
2 Make the theatre attractive 1
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 66 2 BETSY LUEKE CREATIVE ARTS CENTER

NATURAL TURF AREAS BY WEST OLIVE AVE
Keep parking lot 8
Parking always full 3
Expand parking lot 3
Close parking lot for events 2
Dedicated parking lot for center 2
Expand Arts Center as a community center 2
Designate one way entry/exit drives to counter lot traffic 1 Rotate art pieces 1
Expand building for more artists 1
Keep the trees 3
No artificial turf 2
Re-do irrigation 2
Keep Park monument sign 2

PLAYGROUND
Add play structures for older children 5
Add higher energy activities (climbing, zip lines, monkey bars, puzzles, ABCs, etc.)
2 Add more climbing structures 1
Add a sandbox 1
Restore to original or better play set 1
ADA accessibility 1

NATURAL TURF AREA EAST OF FIELDS
Keep as is - used as warm up area for fields 3
Add outdoor exercise equipment 1
Remove turf 1

LARGE PARKING LOT
Add trees to islands 6
Add screening landscaping 3
Add community garden 2
Never full, add useable space 2
Add covered parking with solar panels, parking structure 2 67 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report

JOSLYN SENIOR CENTER

BALL FIELDS

GENERAL COMMENTS
Add trees for shading over horseshoe pits 3
Native garden could be at this corner 3
Change horseshoe pits to another activity 2
No basketball here - noisy and takes away from wildlife 2 Add cornhole 2
Re-grade the entry driveway (too steep) 1
Move drop-off zone to front of entry door 1
In favor of basketball courts 1
Leave as is 6
In favor of switching the orientation 4
More bleachers and shade 3
Add concession stand 1
Add landscape screening around fields 1
Change 1-2 fields into one for soccer/football 1
Add cistern underneath 1
Add holding area for waiting teams between the separate fields 1 Increase size of 1 field 1
No divider between the fields 1
Prioritize facility/landscape maintenance 9
Add splash pad/water zone 6
Continuous walking path 6
Install animal-proof trash receptacles, more trash receptacles, recycling 6 Keep all trees and add more, screening trees 6
Secure parking lots at night, security in park (emergency poles) 6 Additional lighting 5
Add table tennis, pool table, chess table, shuffleboard courts, or darts 5 Retail opportunities 3
More shaded picnic/gathering areas 3
Dog waste stations throughout park 3
Restrict skateboarding 3
Add adult exercise area 3
Add bike racks 3
More native and pollinator plants, low water plants 3
Park needs enhanced restrooms, upgraded with ADA improvements 3 Feedback Workshop Summary (continued)
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 68 2 Art events, art programming (projection shows) 3
Add a rentable, covered concrete pad 2
More activities for older kids and teens 2
Do not add splash pad, too costly to maintain 2
Add ADA accommodations throughout park 2
Concerned about homeless presence 2
Dog park 2
Add bocce court 2
Add soccer fields 2
Keep the tennis/handball courts 2
Gazebo for band 2
No additional hardscaping, only use pervious hardscaping 2 Add community garden or compost program and keep mulch pile 2 Update wi-fi 1
Re-paint the Mentzer House 1
Add performing arts space 1
Remove bushes by tennis courts and change to exercise stations for adults 1 Add area for animals 1
Add model railroad layout 1
Do not add more parking 1
Modernize the gym and staff building restrooms 1
Add EVCs throughout parking lots 1
Likes the expanded ORC 1
Remove handball courts 1
More community activities (farmers market) 1
Replace tennis courts with a pool/splash pad 1
Add 4 permanent pickleball courts 1
Adult programs 1
Add bike riding areas 1
Add solar panels to buildings 1
Keep all turf 1
Have cut-off hours for events (noisy late at night) 1
Rain chains and gardens at buildings 1
Remove all turf 1
Add braille signage 1
Indoor rock climbing 1
Keep the F-104 Starfighter 1
Keep magnolia tree by WW2 monument 1
69 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Website Feedback Comments Summary
Project Website and Feedback
As previously mentioned throughout this report, a project website was developed to keep the community informed all day, everyday regarding the status of the project. The website launched to the public on October 20, 2021. Throughout the project, updates were published and surveys made available on the project website. Website views totaled 9,184, averaging 25 views per day.

A total of 290 feedback comments were received throughout the project as of 7/26/22.

The feedback survey option was available on the project website opened with the website launch in October 2021 and remained open for the duration of the project.

2.9 City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 70 Feedback Comments
•
Add bike racks
•
Improve circulation
•
Provide pickleball (permanent courts)
•
Maintain softball fields for softball use
•
Maintain softball fields for open
recreation use (ultimate frisbee,
soccer, etc.)
•
Unhappy with playground remodel
•
Maintain / provide dance floor / line
dance program
•
Provide city run daycare / pre-school
•
Provide teenage hangout
•
Provide splash pad / pool
•
Provide cafe / smoothie bar
•
Enlarge / maintain pottery studio
•
In favor of plaza / pedestrian areas for
community events
•
Concern about noise
•
Provide / maintain open space
•
Provide bulletin board
•
Maintain / improve art gallery
•
Provide more parking
•
Provide tree maintenance
•
Provide 4 square court
•
Provide tables near the playground
•
Provide trees in the parking lot
•
Improve park maintenance
•
Provide soccer fields
•
Protect corner of W. Clark and N.

Griffith park
•
Provide dog waste stations
•
Keep park flat
•
Preserve sycamore trees
•
Provide youth / adult activities
•
Add swings to playground
•
Add slides to playground
•
Provide wayfinding signage
•
Add climbing equipment to
playground
•
Add inclusive play to playground
•
Add infant swings to playground
•
Provide skatepark
•
Provide basketball courts (indoor and
outdoor)
•
Provide / maintain shade
•
Provide zipline
•
Provide / improve landscaping
•
Provide lighting
•
Provide dog park
•
Keep jet
•
Keep baseball fields / grass
•
Provide /Improve site accessibility
2 71 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Community Needs Prioritization
Community Needs Prioritization
Throughout the public engagement process, numerous needs have been identified and recorded across multiple modes of outreach (Small Groups, Public/Community Workshops, and Surveys.) Each of these modes represents a specific segment of the community outreach methodology. The Community Voice is developed through synthesizing all the data into a single summary representing top needs.

Since each of the input modes is directly or indirectly based on community input (qualitative and quantitative measures), it is fair to say that all of the needs identified are significant and important to some portion of the community. However, it is generally helpful to attempt to determine which needs have the highest priority as perceived by the largest number of residents (identified as the area of maximum community impact).

To achieve this analysis each response recorded from the community is cataloged in a matrix. As an individual program or facility need is brought up (baseball, sports facilities, open space, shade, etc.) it is recorded for frequency in the specific outreach tool and mode in which it was received. Needs that have been identified in each of the three modes have a higher impact across the community than needs identified in only one of these modes.

The recommendations are developed from the planning tools and outreach modes in which the community’s voice was recorded and evaluated. Both qualitative and quantitative measures are combined to illustrate where improvements will have the maximum impact across the entire community.

Exhibit 2.10-1 illustrates the classification of these categories as Frequent (3 modes), Apparent (2 modes), and Identified (1 mode) and the respective needs within each category and the number of times the need was listed across all categories.

The top needs in each category have been outlined as an area of maximum community impact. There is an inherent priority of needs based on the number of times a need comes up in each category. For example, Art Center (7) is ranked higher than Trees / Shade (6) because it was identified in each of the three outreach modes. The top needs are utilized in the development of the Conceptual Park Master Plan.

2.10 City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 72 Community Needs Prioritization
Community Needs Prioritization Chart
2 6
6 6
7 6
6 6
6 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
7 7
7 7
7 Area of maximum
community
impact
Public/Community
Survey 1 / Survey 2 /
Feedback Comments / Design
Charrette Workshop / Feedback
Workshop
Small Group
Stakeholder Interviews
Surveys
Multi-Modal Community Survey

BURBANK GEORGE IZAY PARK MASTER PLAN
Needs Prioritization Summary 05/19/22

FREQUENT

APPARENT
/gid00042/gid00037/gid00038/gid00047/gid00053/gid00042/gid00039/gid00042/gid00038/gid00037 6 6
6 7
6 6
6 6
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 7
7 7
7 7
Area of maximum
community
impact
Public/Community
Survey 1 / Survey 2 /
Feedback Comments / Design
Charrette Workshop / Feedback
Workshop
Small Group
Stakeholder Interviews
Surveys
Multi-Modal Community Survey

BURBANK GEORGE IZAY PARK MASTER PLAN
Needs Prioritization Summary 05/19/22

FREQUENT

APPARENT
/gid00042/gid00037/gid00038/gid00047/gid00053/gid00042/gid00039/gid00042/gid00038/gid00037 Exhibit 2.10-1: Top
Priorities Chart
73 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Community Needs Prioritization Chart
*Included in what was heard for specific categories.

Art Center =
Art Center / Art Center Maintenance / CAC Courtyard / Alley Used / Expand CAC Courtyard / Connect to Rest of Park (fees like alley) / Open Air Gallery / Rotating Gallery / Art Classes / Pottery Classes / Larger Studio / Expand to Community Center / Art Programming
Modernize / Renovate Buildings = Building Modernization / Renovate Buildings / Renovate Existing Facilities Recreation Classes / Programs =
Classes / Recreation Classes / Outdoor Classes / Not Enough Space for Classes / Classrooms / Educational Opportunities / City Run Child Care / Dance Classes / Need More Activities / Programs / Classes
Community Events = Events / Community Events / Advertising Events Exercise Stations = Exercise / Exercise Stations / Balance Equipment Lighting = Lighting / More Lighting in Parking
Landscape =
Landscape / More Plants / Community Garden / Flowers / Replace Some Turf with Drought Tolerant Planting / Native Planting / Sustainability / No Artificial Turf / Screen Planting Little Theater =
Little Theater / Update Little Theater / Indoor Stage / Closed Due to Inactivity / Other Theaters in Burbank / Updated Tech / Amphitheater / Dressing & Prop Rooms Maintenance / Homeless =
Maintenance / Cleanliness / Litter / Vandalism / Clean / Well Kept / Professional Tree Trimming / Homeless / Remove Green Box at Horseshoe Pits
Variety of Activities / Sports =
Many Activities / Variety of Sports / Fields / Add Games (giant chess / 4 square court) / Large Size / Layout / Ultimate Frisbee / Add Cornhole
Open Space =
Open Space / Gathering Space / Relax / Quiet / Nature Viewing / Family Space / Friendly / Corner of Griffith Park and Clark / No Demonstration Garden
Parking =
Parking / More Parking / Repair Parking / Conflict Between Parking and Park / Don’t Like Parking / Cars / Picnic Area too Close to Street / Keep Picnic Close to Parking / Trees in Parking / Close Parking for Events / Dedicated Parking Lots for Centers / Parking Structure Pickleball (dedicated) = Pickleball / Dedicated Pickleball Playground Renovation / Expansion =
Playground / Playground Expansion / Redo / Renovate Playground / New / More Play Structure / Play Equipment Variety / 5-12 Play Equipment / Merry-go-Round / Monkeybars / No Sandbox / Sand Pits / Slides / Better Slides / Spinning / Climbing Equipment / Swings / Tunnels Recreation Center =
Recreation Center / Redesign Recreation Center / Community Kitchen / Multi-Generational Center / Staff / Update / Improve Entrance / Updated / Better Gym Safety / Streetscapes = Safety / Not safe Near Street / Update Streetscape Tennis (dedicated) = Tennis / Courts / Dedicated Tennis Walking / Biking / Pedestrian Pathways =
Walking / Dog Walking / Dog Waste Stations / Ride Bikes / Paved Walking / Bike Trail / Bike Racks / More Pedestrian Pathways / Renovate Walkways / ADA Compliant Walkways / Repair Stairs / Corridor Wayfinding Signage =
Wayfinding Signage / Snack Shack Signage / Signage / Larger Entry Sign / Bulletin Board / Kiosk / Food / Retail Vendor Space / Little Free Library / Face Snack Shack the Other Way Inclusive / Special Needs Programming = Inclusive / Special Needs Programming / Activities / Accessibility / Easy Access / Sensory Equipment Joslyn Senior Center = Joslyn Senior Center / Events / Classes / Activities Location = Location / Proximity / Convenience / Community Bleachers = Maintenance in Bleachers / More Bleachers
Softball / Baseball = Softball / Baseball / Fields / Larger / Renovated Fields / Ball Containment Netting / Rotate Ball Fields City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 74 Community Needs Prioritization Chart
2 75 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 76 SECTION THREE:

ANALYSIS
Based on the narrative derived from the Community Voice, analysis begins to take shape.

The pieces that form it include the Composite Plan, Consensus Plan, Park Master Plan Illustrative Bubble Diagram, and the Community Needs Prioritization Chart, as identified in the previous section. These elements establish the vision of community wants and needs, creating a visual consensus of the Community Voice. The analysis that is used to develop the master plan recommendations includes review of all community input received to date and professional design input based on feasibility, other city-wide capital improvement projects and future planning efforts, phasing opportunities and city-wide park and recreation needs.
3 City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 78 77 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Composite Plan
3 Exhibit 3.1-1: Composite Plan
Composite Plan
As previously identified, the
Composite Plan is a result of the
Design Charrette Workshop

3.1 City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 80 79 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Consensus Plan
3 Exhibit 3.2-1: Consensus Plan
Consensus Plan
Using the Composite Plan as a guide, the
Consensus Plan identifies locations where
Design Workshop Groups agreed on
amenity locations

3.2 City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 82 81 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Park Master Plan Illustrative Bubble Diagram
3 Exhibit 3.3-1: Conceptual Bubble Plan
Park Master Plan Illustrative
Bubble Diagram
The Park Master Plan Illustrative Bubble
Diagram was presented during the
Feedback Workshop. Input received was
used to develop the Park Master Plan.

3.3 83 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 84 SECTION FOUR:

RECOMMENDATIONS
4 Based on the summary of the Community
Voice, recommendations have been
developed for current and future
improvements at George Izay Park.

The recommendations are founded in
the desires and needs for recreation
opportunities identified by the Burbank
community. Specific recommendations
are broken down within eight key strategies.

It is important to recognize that while these
strategies apply to George Izay Park, they
may be applicable on a City-wide parks and
recreation scale. In addition, some facilities
or amenities identified by the Community
Voice have been determined to be better
suited at other park facilities or locations
throughout the City. The intent is to maximize
the benefits impacting George Izay Park
while allowing top needs to be distributed
based on the broader understanding of
upcoming capital improvement projects
or funding opportunities. This topic will be
further discussed later in this section.

It is also important to note that demand
for increasingly diverse and ever-changing
recreation programs and facilities should
be re-assessed every five to ten years on a
city-wide basis. Demand is strong for parks
that feature active recreational facilities
and support team sports as well as those
that provide access to natural and passive
environments. Since much of Burbank has
been developed, park space must be used
efficiently and strategically to meet the
needs and demands of the community.

Therefore as part of the key strategies, a
city-wide park and recreation master plan
report is recommended. This will create a
city-wide needs assessment identifying any
deficiencies or surplus’ or certain facilities or
amenities to best serve Burbank based on
its population and demographics.

Key Strategy #1:

New or Enhanced Recreation Facilities for
the Olive Recreation Center, Betsey Lueke
Creative Arts Center, Burbank Little Theater,
and Joslyn Adult Center
Key Strategy #3:

Preserve and Enhance Open Space,
Trees, and Natural Landscapes
Key Strategy #2:

Improve Park Amenities for Safety, Security
and Pedestrian Circulation (lighting, seating,
walking paths, wayfinding signage)
Key Strategy #4:

Preserve and Expand Active Sports
Recreation Facilities
Key Strategy #5:

Provide Opportunities for Passive
Recreation and Exercise
Key Strategy #6:

Preserve and Expand Availability of
Recreation Programming at Park Facilities
Key Strategy #7:

Provide a City-Wide Park and
Recreation Master Plan to guide future
community strategies
Key Strategy #8:

Expand and Enhance Playground to
include 2-5 and 5-12 Play Equipment
Key Strategies
Each of the following recommended key
strategies are designed to balance the
equation of where existing recreation
resources exist elsewhere in the community
and where / how they can be implemented
at George Izay Park. Through this analysis
recreation development can flourish based
on immediate park needs at George Izay Park
and continue to support a thriving outdoor
community on a city-wide scale.

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 86 85 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Conceptual Master Plan
Exhibit 4.1-1: Conceptual
Master Plan
4 Conceptual Master Plan
As a result of the development of the key
strategies, a Conceptual Master Plan has
been prepared. The intent of the Master
Plan is to distill and illustrate the Community
Voice coupled with professional design
and planning analysis. The development of
this plan is based on information provided
by the City, Google Earth imagery, and
self-conducted site inventory and analysis.

The plan does not represent detailed
design development studies, nor is it based
on accurate topographic aerial or field
surveys, arborist reports, building feasibility
studies, recreation program analysis, or
Public Works or Planning Department
input or review. At the conclusion of
this report, it is the recommended that
the above design development studies
be conducted to review and confirm
the proposed master plan layout to
better understand and identify utility,
tree, and infrastructure conflicts, design
opportunities and constraints, appropriate
match lines for phased improvements,
and updated preliminary cost estimates.

4.1 City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 88 87 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Plan Enlargements and Imagery
Plan Enlargements and Imagery 4.2
4 Exhibit 4.2-1: Plan Enlargement &
Imagery
89 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Plan Enlargements and Imagery (continued)
Buildings

1. Remove existing Olive Recreation Center and
replace with New Olive Recreation Center – 22,000
– 28,000 SQ FT with 3 indoor basketball courts /
dual use volleyball courts, instructional dance
room, lobby, multi-use classrooms, administrative
spaces, and storage. It is anticipated that
with a larger footprint building there will be
opportunity to relocate 20-30 staff from
the Community Services Building to
this location. As part of future
building and programming
feasibility studies, floor
plans will be developed
to provide a function and
space efficient layout
to accommodate these
staff offices.

2. Remove
existing Burbank Little Theater and
replace with New Little Theater Multipurpose
building – 3,000-5,000 SQ FT with
dividable multi-purpose rooms,
raised stage, administrative
spaces, lobby, interior and
exterior park restrooms.

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 90 4 3. Create covered event breezeway / outdoor plaza
space between new Olive Recreation Center
building and new Little Theater Multipurpose
Building for events, programming and pedestrian
activities.

4. Renovate
Betsy Lueke Creative Arts Center with
minor exterior and interior improvements only.

Relocate Arts Center Gallery
space to Olive
Recreation Center to provide indoor /
outdoor rotating “art display gallery”
space and more room for art
programming in BLCAC.

Buildings (continued)

91 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Plan Enlargements and Imagery (continued)

5. Renovate Joslyn Adult Center with minor interior
and exterior renovations to address operational and
maintenance challenges.

6. Renovation
of Park Restrooms
at Maintenance Yard for ADA
compliance.

7. Relocation
of stand-alone Park
Restrooms to interior and exterior
facilities at Theater Multi-Purpose
Building.

Buildings (continued)
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 92 4 Preserve current orientation to maintain footprint size and open space when not in use for games and practices. Add / renovate bleachers and ball containment netting.

Expanded pedestrian walkways, preservation of existing trees and natural turf, enhanced native shrub and groundcover areas, exercise stations.

Ballfields
Pedestrian Walkways
93 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Plan Enlargements and Imagery (continued)
Separate 2-5 tot lot with existing small train
climber, train car, and spinner.

New pedestrian plaza and modified parking lot with ADA parking only and drop off loading / unloading zone.

Separate 5-12 playground
with existing large train
climber and added wave
climber and freeform
climber, new tri-ring hub
traverse structure, new
spin max orbit, and existing
see saw.
2-5 and 5-12 Tot Lot Playground
Parking and Pedestrian Plaza
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 94 4 Preserve existing trees and open space, add parking islands, use recyclable construction materials and methods when feasible, utilize water efficient irrigation and drought tolerant landscaping, and explore opportunities to improve stormwater capture systems. As part of any new development projects at the park, hydrology, water quality management plans, storm water best management practices, and storm water pollution prevention plans will have to be included in
design efforts to provide on site
retention / detention systems
for LID (low impact design)
and hydromodification.

Careful attention will be
given to opportunities
beyond the standard
state and local storm water
retention requirements.

Relocate existing Burbank
Walk of Fame to inside new
Olive Recreation Center
Lobby facing the covered
breezeway, or outside in the
pedestrian plaza covered
breezeway.

Sustainability
Burbank Walk of Fame
Expanded picnic / spectator
viewing areas with amenities
such as drinking fountains,
bike racks, trash cans, picnic
tables, site lighting.

Park Amenities

95 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate
Based on the Conceptual Master Plan,
an order of magnitude cost estimate has
been prepared to identify the potential
costs of improvements. Further design
development studies shall be conducted
to confirm the estimated quantities as
it relates to all items, in particular trees,
utilities, building square footages, and
phasing opportunities. As additional
studies are performed, the preliminary
cost estimate may be more accurately
updated. Due to the rising cost climate
of the construction industry as it relates to
supply-chain, availability of material, lead
times, and contractor competitiveness,
escalation fees per annum have not been
included in the order of magnitude cost

4.3 estimate at this time. Over the last 18
months (December 2020 to May 2022) , the
construction industry has seen a 17% cost
rise, resulting in approximately 1.1% per
month. Therefore, it is in the best interest of
the City to prepare design development
and construction document plans that
can be more accurately estimated at
a time more closely related to actual
construction.

Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 96 4 97 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate (continued)

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 98 4 99 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Phasing Plan
West Olive Ave.

George Izay Park
N Griffith Park Dr.

Exhibit 4.3-1: Phasing Plan
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 100 4 Phasing Plan
Based on the Conceptual Master Plan,
there are multiple approaches that
can be taken towards phasing the
proposed improvements. Generally, the
improvements can be organized into four
large phases which may result in multiple,
smaller projects. The ordering of the phases
will be dependent on the availability
of funding, timing of other capital
improvement projects, and anticipated
time of construction. Scheduling of park
facilities, amenity and programming
closures will be necessary to consider and
may dictate phasing improvements, as it
relates to construction time frames.

Purple

New Olive Recreation Center,
Burbank Multi-Purpose Building,
interior parking lot renovation,
pedestrian plaza and covered
breezeway, art walk, and BLCAC
renovations.

Blue
Olive Ave walkway, landscaping,
exercise stations, and right of way
improvements.

Yellow
Playground renovation, picnic areas,
spectator viewing, natural turf, and
landscaping improvements.

Green
Parking lot, exterior landscaping, EV
charging stations, and Joslyn Adult
Center horseshoe pits.

Orange
Joslyn Adult Center renovations*
*It is recommended that the
City engage in feasibility and
programming studies for the Joslyn
Adult Center to confirm what code
requirements specific to ADA may
be triggered as it relates to site
access and parking. Parking lot
improvements and horseshoe pit
improvements may be grouped with
Joslyn Adult Center improvement
as they may expand beyond the
original estimates or limits of work.

4.4 101 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Parking Analysis
Exhibit 4.4-1: Parking Analysis
West Olive Ave.

George Izay Park
N Griffith Park Dr.

Existing Parking Count - 310
Proposed Parking Count - 270
Street Spots on W. Olive Ave - 31
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 102 4 Parking Analysis
George Izay Park is bound by W Olive
Ave, N Griffith Park Dr, W Clark Ave and
development at its eastern property line.

The intent is to minimize changes to existing
parking quantities with any master plan
improvements. To meet Key Strategy 2 –
Improve Park Amenities for Safety, Security
and Pedestrian Circulation, it is important
to understand the value of creating
a pedestrian friendly corridor and axis
point from the interior eastern parking lot
adjacent to the BLCAC and ORC. By doing
so, a central pedestrian plaza is created
with access to all major park components
like the playground, ballfields, recreation
center and tennis / pickleball courts. By
reducing the parking lot footprint in this
area, less vehicular traffic is introduced to
an already busy pedestrian corridor. A drop
off zone allows through traffic to continue
moving while ADA only parking stalls focuses
on access to the adjacent facilities. It also
creates an expanded programming space
for events like Farmers Markets or Food Trucks.

This recommendation reduces the available
interior parking count, therefore the layout
and configuration should be confirmed with
additional design development studies and
input from Public Works and Planning. The
new Olive Recreation Center and Burbank
Multi-Purpose Building will require ADA
compliance and detailed traffic / parking
analysis, which may modify the proposed
parking lot layout further.

In addition to a truncated interior eastern
parking lot, parking islands with trees are
proposed in the large western lot bordering
N Griffith Park Dr and W Clark Ave. Parking
islands with trees will reduce the heat
island effect of the asphalt parking lot and
increase overall green space within the park.

Trees will also increase shade opportunities for
future EV Charging Stations that are planned
to be installed at George Izay Park as part of
a larger City-wide Water and Power project.

While this parking lot is typically only full
during busy weekend sport tournaments
if more than 1 ballfield is in use, there may
be an impact during weekdays to parents
using standard parking stalls for school drop-
off and pick-up at Walt Disney Elementary
School. Information will be shared with the
school and parents regarding the number
of EV Charging Stations planned and their
anticipated locations as to minimize impact
to available parking stalls adjacent to the
school.

In addition to the planned EV Charging
Stations future street improvements on W Olive
Ave as related to the Metro North Hollywood
to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Project will
affect the park site and master plan layout.

Currently, there is an approximately 8’ wide
ROW that includes parkway landscaping
and a 4’ wide sidewalk adjacent to the park
on W Olive Ave. As part of the Metro project,
at least 1’ will be taken from the ROW to
eliminate on-street parking and create a
bus-only lane. While the recommendations
of the Metro project are in conflict with the
Burbank2035 General Plan, it is expected that
the proposed changes will be developed at
some point in the future. Should the ROW be
reduced, it is recommended to eliminate the
landscaped parkways and maintain an ADA
compliant sidewalk within the ROW. If there
is opportunity to maintain street parking on W
Olive Ave with the anticipated bus-only metro
lane, further design and traffic studies should
be conducted to do so, which would reduce
the conflict of available park site parking.

4.5 103 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Hardscape and Softscape Analysis
Exhibit 4.5-1: Existing Hardscape
and Softscape Analysis
Note: No changes proposed to sports field. Sports
field area not included in calculations.

West Olive Ave.

George Izay Park
N Griffith Park Dr.

Hardscape and Softscape Analysis
A common question asked during park
master planning efforts is whether the
broad comparison of hardscape to

4.6 softscape has changed. Throughout the
public engagement process, we have
heard how important the existing grass
areas are within the park, as well as the
large mature trees, and shade.

Existing Hardscape (including
buildings, and parking lots) - 327,915 SF
Existing Softscape - 220,996 SF
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 104 Exhibit 4.5-2: Proposed Hardscape
and Softscape Analysis
Note: No changes proposed to sports field. Sports
field area not included in calculations.

West Olive Ave.

George Izay Park
N Griffith Park Dr.
4 Therefore, as part of Key Strategy 3 –
Preserve and Enhance Open Space,
Trees and Natural Landscapes, a goal
of the master plan is to maintain and
expand open space opportunities.

Key Strategy 5 – Pro vide Opportunities
for Passive Recreation and Exercise, also
encourages and relates to the use and
availability of open space for passive
recreation opportunities.

Proposed Hardscape (including
buildings, and parking lots) - 367,095 SF
Proposed Softscape - 173,165 SF
105 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Tree Analysis
Exhibit 4.6-1: Tree Analysis
West Olive Ave.

George Izay Park
N Griffith Park Dr.

Proposed New Trees: 102
Existing Trees to Remain: 127
Total Trees: 229
City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 106 Proposed New Trees: 102
Existing Trees to Remain: 127
Total Trees: 229
4 Tree Analysis
Just as important as the hardscape and
softscape question is the quantity of trees.

It is necessary to mention that the public
engagement and master planning efforts
for George Izay Park did not include a
site topographic aerial or field survey or a
tree report by arborist. The site survey is
required to create an accurate park map
that is tied to a standard city benchmark
with survey boundary control points.

The map will include existing utilities,
infrastructure, buildings, and amenities.

A tree report will include inspection of all
existing trees to measure and evaluate
the health and condition relative to
transplanting or preservation as related
to park planning improvements and
professional observations. The evaluation
will determine with trees are suitable for
transplanting and the minimum clearance
radius needed to protect each place.

While the intent is to preserve as many
existing trees as possible, we understand
the importance of planting new trees to
continue the growth of the urban forest
within George Izay Park. Both design studies
will be important to better understand
which trees may be affected by the
proposed master plan improvements.

4.7 107 | City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report Programming recommendations
City Wide Park and Recreation Master Plan
Next Steps
Programming Recommendations4.8
Recreation programming is an
important backbone of the master
plan recommendations. While detailed
building and programming feasibility
studies were not part of the scope of
work of the public engagement efforts,
an understanding of programming
opportunities at the Olive Recreation
Center, Joslyn Adult Center, Burbank Little
Theater and Betsy Lueke Creative Arts
Center was studied. It is recommended
that building feasibility studies for each
of the facilities at the park be conducted
as part of future design studies. This will
guide recommendations for Key Strategy
1 - Provide New or Enhanced Recreation
Facilities for the Olive Recreation Center,
Betsey Lueke Creative Arts Center,
Burbank Little Theater, and Joslyn Adult
Center, related to size and scope of
improvements to accommodate existing
and future programming needs. It will also
assist Key Strategy 6 - Preserve and Expand
Availability of Recreation Programming
at Park Facilities. As part of Key Strategy
4 – Preserve and Expand Active Sports
Recreation Facilities, when building
footprints are determined, size, layout
and function of existing sport facilities
(ballfields and tennis / pickleball courts)
can be preserved to maintain current
programming and joint-use agreements.

In addition to conducting building
feasibility studies, it is also necessary to
keep in mind the passive non-programmed
recommendations that are part of the
master plan. Those include preserving
open space and grassy areas like the
corner of N Griffith Park Dr and W Clark Ave
for park users who participate in yoga, tai
chi, qigong, the grassy areas on W Olive
Ave for dog walking and picnicking, and
the ballfields for ultimate frisbee, pick up
soccer, running, and open play.

City of Burbank • George Izay Park Public Engagement Report | 108 4 One of the final recommendations for
George Izay Park is to follow Key Strategy 7
– Provide a City-Wide Park and Recreation
Master Plan to guide future community
strategies. While the data gathered as
part of the public engagement process for
George Izay was critical, much of it can be
utilized to understand park and recreation
development on a city-wide scale. Many
of the questions asked during the multi-
modal survey and the demographic
analysis can be applied to city-wide park
and recreation needs. By taking a closer
look at all of Burbank’s available recreation
amenities, deficiencies and surplus’ in
facilities can be identified and earmarked
for future development at specific park
sites. A broader understanding of park
needs specific to demographic enclaves
within Burbank also become apparent
and identified.

Top needs identified by the George
Izay public engagement process like
dedicated Pickleball courts, a Dog Park,
Splash Pad or Water Feature, Skate Park,
or Community Gardens are amenities that
work well within the framework of a city-
wide park and recreation master plan
analysis. These amenities may already
be planned elsewhere in the community
(like two upcoming community garden
sites and a new dog park) or are not
size appropriate at George Izay without
modifying existing facilities. By studying
the availability of such facilities or planned
improvements, park and recreation
planning can be focused on the needs of
the community and future demographic
demands.

At the completion of the public
engagement and master plan process, it
is recommended that the City conduct a
site specific topographic aerial and field
survey for the entire park site, as well as the
arborist evaluation, utility investigations
and building feasibility studies. This
information coupled with the proposed
master plan with allow the plan to be
refined based on real world constraints
and opportunities. At that time additional
codes, rules, regulations can be applied
to the plan with input from Public Works
and Planning departments. Then the City
can consider possible budget and funding
opportunities and construction timelines
to preliminary anticipate which master
plan improvements may be part of the first
phase of redevelopment.

City Wide Park and Recreation
Master Plan
Next Steps

4.9 4.10

Burbank City CouncilOctober 11, 2022

Burbank City Council
October 11, 2022