Attachment 2 — Burbank City Council, June 13, 2023 (part 1 of 4)

BURBANK WATER AND POWER

CAMPUS STORMWATER

IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Initial Study &
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lead Agency:

City of Burbank Department of
Water and Power
Revised MND Prepared By:

Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

November 2019 MND Prepared By:

Stevenson, Porto & Pierce, Inc.

May 2023
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-1
Table of Contents
Project Information Summary ............................................................................................................. 3

1. Project Title ............................................................................................................................ 3

2. Lead Agency Name and Address ........................................................................................... 3

3. Contact Person Name and Phone Number ............................................................................. 3

4. Project Location ..................................................................................................................... 3

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Phone Number ......................................................................... 3

6. General Plan Designation(s) .................................................................................................. 3

7. Zoning .................................................................................................................................... 3

8. Description of Project ............................................................................................................ 3

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ...................................................................................... 4

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ............................................................ 4

11. Native American Tribe Notification (Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1) ................ 4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................................................... 6 Determination ............................................................................................................................... 6 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 7 Project Location .................................................................................................................................. 7 Land Use and Zoning Designations .................................................................................................... 7 Background and Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 7 Statement of Objectives and Project Goals ......................................................................................... 8 Project Elements ................................................................................................................................. 9 Project Construction .......................................................................................................................... 10 Required Approvals .......................................................................................................................... 12 Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................................... 14

1. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................. 14

2. Agricultural and Forest Resources ....................................................................................... 16

3. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 18

4. Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 21

5. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 25

6. Energy .................................................................................................................................. 30

7. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 32

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 36

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 38

10. Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 41

11. Land Use and Land Use Planning ........................................................................................ 47

12. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................... 49

13. Noise .................................................................................................................................... 50

14. Population and Housing ....................................................................................................... 52

15. Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 53

16. Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 55

17. Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................................... 56

18. Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 59

19. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 62

20. Wildfire ................................................................................................................................ 66 1 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-2

21. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................... 68 Summary of Mitigation Measures..................................................................................................... 70 Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity
Exhibit 3: Site Context
Exhibit 4: Site Plan Overview
Exhibit 5: Proposed Onsite Improvements
Exhibit 6: Proposed Offsite Improvements
Exhibit 7: Offsite Improvements Work Area
Attachment 1: Biological Reconnaissance Report
Attachment 2: Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Attachment 3: Acoustic Report
Attachment 4: Notice of Intent
Attachment 5: Comments
Attachment 6: Responses to Comments
Attachment 7: Resource Protection Plan
Attachment 8: Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 2 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-3
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Project Information Summary

1. Project Title: Burbank Water and Power Campus Storm
Water Improvement Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burbank
Burbank Water & Power
164 Magnolia Blvd. Burbank CA, 91502

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Claudia Reyes (818) 238-3510 Sean Kigerl (818) 238-3774

4. Project Location: Burbank Water & Power Campus,
plus adjoining parcels
164 W. Magnolia Blvd.

Burbank

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Same as above

6. General Plan Designation(s): Institutional

7. Zoning: M-2, General Industrial

8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the Project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The Project is located at the Burbank Water and Power Campus (BWP Campus) in the approximate central portion of the City of Burbank, at 164 West Magnolia Boulevard. The BWP Campus is approximately 22.5 acres in size, locat ed on the south side of Magnolia Boulevard east of North Lake Street. The Burbank Western Channel (BWC), a tributary of the Los Angeles River, forms the eastern boundary of the Project site. In order to comply with Regional, State and Federal water quality standards, Burbank Water & Power is proposing to construct improvements to the storm water drainage system on the site, as well as the adjacent off-site storm water drainage system.

Currently, surface stormwater runoff discharges to the east of the Proje ct site into the BWC, a tributary to the Los Angeles River. Existing off -site runoff originates upstream of the Project site from an adjacent area that includes a lumberyard and other miscellaneous industrial uses. The off- site runoff then comingles with the Project site runoff.

To improve the quality and quantity of the local storm drainage, the Burbank Water and Power proposes to construct drainage improvements that would allow storm water from adjacent properties to be intercepted and discharged into the BWC through a new outfall structure.

Once separated, on-site runoff would be largely retained on the BWP Campus and either infiltrated into the groundwater or used for cooling tower make-up (replenishment) water. 3 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-4

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
On-site runoff would be pretreated prio r to infiltration to ensure compliance with all applicable water quality standards.

The Project would require approvals from the City of Burbank to authorize completion of Project engineering plans. Additional approvals may also be required from Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles County Flood Control District, California Department of Fish & Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the Project’s surroundings.).

The Project site is currently zoned M-2, General Industrial. Properties located north and east of the site are zoned Burbank Center Commercial Manufacturing (BCCM). Properties to the south and west are zoned M -1, Limited Industrial Zone, M -2, and BCCM. Con sistent with area zoning, all adjacent properties are developed for industrial uses, including but not limited to lumberyards, wood processing, storage, assembly, and similar uses.

The Burbank General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the Project site as “ Institutional.” Surrounding properties are designated as “North Victory Commercial/Industrial”, “Institutional”, and “Downtown Commercial”.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.).

Actions and approvals that may be required from other agencies for the proposed Project include:
• City of Burbank-Excavation Permit, Building Permit & Encroachment Permit. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineer-Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit • State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ
• SWRCB – NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Industrial General Permit), Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ • Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) – Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Permit
• California Department of Fish & Wildlife – Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement • Los Angeles Flood Control District – Flood Control Permit

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area requested co nsultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun?

In response to the outreach undertaken by the City pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill 52), the City received one (1) letter from the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI). Any Native American (Tribal) cultural resources found on the Project site as a result of construction will be protected by adherence to Mitigation Measure s CUL-1, TRIBAL-1, and TRIBAL -2. On February 4, 2020, BWP staff met with Mr. Jairo Avila of the FTBMI to discuss how Native American resources could be protected during construction. BWP met, via teleconference, with FTBMI (Mr. Avila) again on March 15, 2022. On March 25, 2022, 4 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-5

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
FTBMI provided commen ts via email on the preliminary draft mitigation measures. FTBMI provided an additional email to BWP regarding the scope of the requested mitigation measures on June 13, 2022. Based on the consultation undertaken with FTBMI, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 contained in the 2019 Initial Study has been replaced by a revised version of CUL -1, TRIBAL-1, and TRIBAL-2. In addition, a second letter was received from the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, but that letter was received 13 months after the 30-day Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation window closed and therefore was untimely.

Burbank Water and Power sent letters on November 16, 2021, to California Native American tribes that have requested to be notified of Projects within the City’s jurisdiction inviting them to participate in government-to-government consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 ( Assembly Bill AB 52). The FBTMI responded on December 15, 202 1, requesting additional information regarding the extent of proposed groundwork. Additional information was provided to FBTMI on January 21, 2022. No tribal consultation has been requested at this time.

Burbank Water and Power prepared a Recirculated Mi tigated Negative Declaration (MND) to assess the potential environmental effects of the Burbank Water & Power Campus Stormwater Improvement Project. The City circulated the Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a proposed MND for public review between June 22, 2 022, and July 22, 2022. The public comment period closed on July 22, 2022. One (1) written letter of comment was received from the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI). A response to comments from FTBMI has been prepared in order to address all comments to be included in the Final MND.

The response to comments provides that, following meetings and consultation with FTBMI, BWP revised the Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures. Such consultation with the FTBMI occurred from February 2020 through March 2023. The City made a reasonable effort to complete this consultation including phone calls, emails, and exchanging multiple drafts of the proposed Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures , specifically regarding the development of Mitigation Measure Tribal-1. As of April 4, 2023, AB 52 consultation was concluded, at which time the parties reached an impasse and BWP concluded that mutual agreement on the language in Mitigation Measure Tribal-1 cannot be reached. On April 11, 2023, an additional letter from the FTBMI was sent to BWP stating disagreement that AB 52 consultation could be complete on the grounds that additional revisions to the measure weren’t made as requested. However, BWP stands on the conclusion that mutual agreement on the language in Mitigation Measure Tribal-1 cannot be reached and that the parties have reached an impasse. Therefore, AB 52 consultation remains concluded as stated on April 4, 2023.

5 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-6
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-7
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Project Description

Project Location

The city encompasses a land area of approximately 17.1 square miles and is located in the central portion of Los Angeles County (Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity). The city is approximately 12 miles north of downtown Los Angeles, the northeastern edge of the city is bordered by the Verdugo Mountains, and the western edge of the city is located near the eastern part of the San Fernando Valley. The city is bisected by Inter state 5 (I -5) and is adjacent to the cities of Los Angeles and Glendale, 12 miles south and 4 miles east of the city, respectively. Regional access to the city is provided by I-5, State Route 134 (SR-134), and State Route 170 (SR-170).

The proposed Burbank Water and Power Campus Stormwater Improvement Project (proposed Project) is located at the Burbank Water & Power (BWP) campus at 164 West Magnolia Boulevard in the central portion of the City of Burbank (City) (Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity).

Project activities would occur on and adjacent to the BWP Campus. The BWP Campus is approximately 22.5 acres in size. The BWP Campus is located on the south side of Magnolia Boulevard, and east of North Lake Street (Exhibit 3, Site Context). The proposed Project extends from the stormwater improvements on the BWP Campus and connects to the Burbank Western Channel (BWC), which is a tributary of the Los Angeles River, via a stormwater drain.

Land Use and Zoning Designations

As described in the City General Plan and Zone Map, the Project site and surrounding area is planned and zoned for institutional/ M-2 General I ndustrial uses (City of Burbank, 2013; City of Burbank, 2019). The Project site is located within the North Victory Commercial/Industrial area of the Burbank Center Plan specific plan area. The primary use of the Project site is the BWP Campus. The institutional land use designation provides for City facilities, public schools, flood control channels, railroad tracks, and other public and private institutions. The M-2 General Industrial zoning designation is intended for the development of manuf acturing process as well as fabrication and assembly of goods and materials (City of Burbank, n.d.).

Background and Existing Conditions

The BWP Campus was constructed in 1913. The industrial portion of the BWP Campus includes two steam boilers, a simple cycle turbine and a combined cycle power plant. The combined cycle power plant (Magnolia Power Plant) is owned by the Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA), a joint powers authority.

The Participants in the Magnolia Power Plant include six lo cal public agencies that operate power generation and distribution facilities in Southern California. Burbank is entitled to 31% of the total amount of energy produced by the Magnolia Power Plant and operates the plant. In addition to providing electricity to the residents and businesses of Burbank, BWP also provides water and broadband services.

7 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-8
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
The Project site comprises approximately 22.5 acres of land which is relatively flat. Burbank Water and Power provides electricity, water and broadband services to Burbank residents and businesses. The Project site is fully developed and consists of an on-site area and an off-site area.

On-Site Area

Under current conditions, a single 36 -inch pipe drains the approximately 22 -acre Project area and an additional 20.9 acres of industrial area of the BWP facilities before reaching the BWC (Exhibit 4, Site Plan Overview). In terms of storm water runoff and drainage, a 36 -inch-diameter collector extends across the on-site BWP Campus with a series of drainage inlets. The collector then deposits water in the adjacent BWC, just east of the Project site.

Off-Site Area

The BWP Campus also receives storm water from an adjacent 22-acre industrial area north of the BWP Campus. This off-site area drains to an existing sump at the intersection of West Magnolia Boulevard and North Varney Street. The 36-inch line runs through the BWP Campus and co-mingles with storm water generated on site prior to discharge into the BWC.

Currently, BWP Campus storm water runoff discharges into the BWC. Existing runoff through the BWP Campus originates upstream from an adjacent area that includ es a lumberyard and other miscellaneous industrial uses. The off-site runoff then comingles with the on-site BWP Campus runoff prior to discharge into the BWC.

Statement of Objectives and Project Goals

Goals

In order to comply with Regional, State, and Federal water quality standards, BWP is proposing to construct onsite storm water improvements, as well as improvements to the adjacent off -site storm water drainage system. As set forth by the CEQA Guidelines, the list of goals that the City seeks to achieve for the proposed Project is provided below.

1. Construct new storm water facilities to separate on-and off-site drainage.

2. Assist in recharging the regional aquifer.

3. Provide a source of make-up water for BWP Campus operations.

4. Achieve Regional, State, and Federal water quality standards for BWP Campus runoff.

5. Construct off-site storm water facilities to improve the quality of off-site storm water.

The purpose of this Project is to construct a new connection to the BWC to discharge storm water that is generated offsite of the BWP Campus. This would prevent comingling of offsite and onsite storm water. The new connection to the BWC would not bring stormwater to the channel; rather, it will move the existing discharge location and change the point at which it will make a connection to the channel.

There will be no net increase in volume of water that is discharged into the channel. The existing discharge point will remain in place and be used as overflow in case the on -site discharge system has a greater than 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event.
8 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-9
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Overall, storm water quality would be improved by the addition of the onsite pretreatment filter. The amount of storm water discharged to the BWC would be reduced, as the onsite storm water would be collected and used onsite as process cooling water.

Project Elements

The basis for th e proposed Project is compliance with a mandated industrial stormwater quality regulation. The proposed design would improve drainage and separate local urban runoff from industrial runoff, facilitate collection and treatment of industrial runoff, reduce the total drainage area utilizing the storm drain by 50 -percent, and improve local catch basin inlets to the maximum permissible capacities permitted to be discharged to the BWC. The connection to the BWC can be made without compromising the existing BWC ; please s ee Attachment 3, Structural Plans and Attachment 4, Structural Calculations, that certify and detail the structural connection to the BWC.

The proposed Project would divert storm water that is generated offsite by constructing a new storm water pipeline, manholes, and connection to the BWC. Beginning at the boundary between the onsite and offsite systems, the connection to the BWP campus, which exists as a reinforced concrete box (RCB) in Magnolia Boulevard, would be blocked forcing offsite storm water to discharge through the new system. This would eliminate comingling and reduce the amount of storm water conveyed across the BWP campus.

On-Site Improvements

On-site improvements include two natural gas fired boilers, a simple cycle gas turbine, a combined cycle power plant, solar collectors, cooling towers, administrative offices, parking area and related ancillary equipment. Onsite drainage improvements would consi st of diverting flow from an existing 36-inch diameter pipe into an on-site filter, then into an underground vault within the northeast portion of the BWP Campus. The proposed vault location is presently paved with an asphalt concrete (a/c) surface that wo uld be removed and replaced after construction of the vault. The vault would be approximately 10-feet deep with a volume of 37,000 cubic feet. Following completion of the above improvements, drainage from the BWP Campus, up to the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event, would flow through the filters and into the vault and not the existing BWC outfall. The storm water capture system would on average divert 8.2 million gallons per year of storm water from the BWC, assuming average rainfall of 16.3 inches per y ear. The treated storm water would either be used for cooling tower make-up water or infiltrated into the ground, or a combination of the two. The system would have the capacity to renew its capacity to accept a 24 -hour, 85th percentile storm event within 24 hours of the discharge. The existing outfall would continue to be used to discharge flows above the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. Existing a/c material would be removed from the Project site and recycled. Please see Exhibit 5, Proposed Onsite Improvements, for more detail.

Off-Site Improvements

A second portion of the Project would include diverting storm water from adjacent properties to the north (approximately 22-acre area) before it runs on to the BWP Campus into a new 36-inch diameter storm drain that would be constructed within the right -of-way of North Varney Street and would terminate in a new drainage outfall into the BWC, approximately 950 feet north of the current outfall.

9 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-10
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
The total amount of the site that would be disturbed by the Project would be approximately 13,100 square feet (0.30 acre). Please see Exhibit 6, Proposed Offsite Improvements, and Exhibit 7, Offsite Improvements Work Area, for more details.

Exhibits 3 through 5 show preliminary drawings of the proposed on-site/off-site improvements.

Other Project features would include:

• Construction plans and specifications would include the following hours and days of construction to minimize noise off site:

Monday-Friday: 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
Saturday: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
- No construction would be permitted by contractors or subcontractors after hours, on Sunday or on City Holidays, without prior written request and approval from the Community Development Department’s Building and Safety Division. • Prior to commencement of construction, the Project contractor would prepare and implement a Construction & Demolition Diversion Plan to safely recycle and discard materials and construction debris.

At the conclusion of the Project, all Regional, State and Federal surface water quality standards would be met.

There are no anticipated changes in the existing Operations and Maintenance (O&M) activities of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) for the BWC as result of the proposed Project.

Overall storm water quality would be improved by the addition of the onsite pretreatment filter.

O&M of the new offsite storm water pipeline, manholes, and connection to the BWC is the responsibility of:

1. City of Burbank (City)

2. LACFCD

The City is re sponsible for maintenance and operat ion of the entire new storm system up to the LACFCD right-of-way, which is denoted by the last manhole upstream of the connection to the BWC, strategically located just outside the LACFCD right of way.

The LACFCD is re sponsible for maintenance and operat ion of the connection the BWC and the pipeline segment within its right of way, only.

Project Construction

The Project would be constructed within one phase beginning mid-2023 and is anticipated to be completed in 202 4. All construction activities would occur during dayti me hours, specifically from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

10 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-11
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Construction Scenario

This environmental analysis assumes the development of the proposed Project would require a minimum of approximately 9 months to complete, from approximately June 2023 to November 2024.

Connection to the BWC and all work within the BWC is expected to take approximately 2 weeks to complete. This work is planned to be completed during November of 2024. It is anticipated that no more than 25 employees would be needed to complete the proposed Project.

The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst -case” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent.4 The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA guidelines. Site-specific construction fleet may vary due to specific Project needs at the time of construction. The duration of construction activity is based on a 2022 opening year. The associated construction equipment was generally based on CalEEMod 2016.3.2 defaults.

Please refer to specific detailed modeling inputs/outputs contained in Appendix 3.1 of this analysis.

A list of construction equipment types and quantities that would potentially be used in construction of the Burbank Water and Power Campus Stormwater Improvement Project is presented in Table 1.

Anticipated Construction Equipment.

11 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-12
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Table 1. Anticipated Construction Equipment

Activity Type of Equipment/Vehicle Approximate
Quantities
Approximate Duration of
On-Site Construction
Activity (days)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1
10 days Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Site
Preparation
Graders 1
1 day
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Graders
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1
2 days Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Building
Construction
Cranes 1
100 days Forklifts 2
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers 4
5 days
Pavers 1
Rollers 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Architectural
Coating Air Compressors 1 5 days

A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared prior to the start of construction.

The construction of the proposed Project shall be managed pursuant to the SWPPP throughout the duration of construction. The BMPs required in conjunction with the SWPPP would protect the BWC from erosion or siltation from construction of the proposed stormwater improvements.

Site preparation and construction of the proposed Project would be in accordance with all federal, state building codes, and applicable codes within the City Municipal Code. The Project site is accessible via the site of the BWP campus or via local streets at West Magnolia Boulevard or West Olive Avenue.

Required Approvals

Actions and approvals required from the City in association with the Project include:

• City of Burbank-Excavation Permit, Building Permit & Encroachment Permit • U.S. Army Corps of Engineer-Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit • State Water Resource s Control Board (SWRCB) – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ
12 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-13
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
• SWRCB – NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Industrial General Permit), Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ • Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) – Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Permit
• California Department of Fish & Wildlife – Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
• Los Angeles Flood Control District – Flood Control Permit • Any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which requires use of over -sized-transport vehicles on State highways would require a Caltrans transportation permit.

References

City of Burbank. 2013. Burbank2035 General Plan. Adopted February 19, 2013. Accessed September 27, 2021. Available at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/The+Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/1396 56b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d-751642c85b38?version=1.2&t=1616616954424&imagePreview=1

———. Effective 2019. Zone Map. Last Amended by Ordinance No. 3802. Available at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/20210101_Zoning_Map.pdf/c8bc55ed- 98cf-505d-3892-7e1657bca8f1?t=1618866483006

———. N.d. Burbank Municipal Code. Title 10 Zoning Regulations. Accessed September 17, 2021.

Available at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/#!/Burbank10/Burbank100108.html#10-1-808 13 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-14
^_
!
!

ANGELES
OUNTY

34.656893, -118.784964

33.700012, -117.851625
LEGEND
! Map Corners
^_ Project Site
County Boundaries
EXHIBIT 1
Regional Vicinity Map
Q:\Projects\1679\1679-003\ArcMaps\RegionalVicinity.mxd
SOURCES: ESRI, SEI, SoCalGas, US Census Bureau.

Date prepared: 9/27/2021
Prepared by: Stefanie Paz
Organiza
tion: Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

Project Site
o
05 1 0
Miles
1 inch=8 miles
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-15
^_
!
!

34.225451, -118.360579

34.133593, -118.270897
LEGEND
! Map Corners
^_ Project Site
County Boundaries
SOURCES: ESRI, SEI, SoCalGas, US Census Bureau.
o
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
1 inch = 4,000 feet
Date prepared: 9/27/2021
Prepared by: Stefanie Paz
Organiza
tion: Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

Project Site
Q:\Projects\1679\1679-003\ArcMaps\LocalVicinity.mxd
EXHIBIT 2
Local Vicinity Map
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-16

CITY OF BURBANK

INITIAL STUDY / BURBANK WATER AND POWER CAMPUS PROJECT
Exhibit 3

SITE CONTEXT
N

C I T Y O F

B U R B A N K

LOS ANGELES RIVER

BURBANK WESTERN CHANNEL

PROJECT SITE

BURBANK WATER & POWER
Google Maps
5 134
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-17

CITY OF BURBANK

INITIAL STUDY / BURBANK WATER AND POWER CAMPUS PROJECT
Exhibit 4

SITE PLAN OVERVIEW

RED AREA REPRESENTS

THE ONSITE IMPROVEMENT AREA
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-18

CITY OF BURBANK

INITIAL STUDY / BURBANK WATER AND POWER CAMPUS PROJECT
Exhibit 5

PROPOSED ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-19

CITY OF BURBANK

INITIAL STUDY / BURBANK WATER AND POWER CAMPUS PROJECT
Exhibit 6

PROPOSED OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-20
!
!

34.178571, -118.314453

34.180497, -118.316377
LEGEND
New 3-ft Diameter Pipe
LA C
ounty Flood Control Right-of-Way
Storm Drain Inlet Protection
Soil Stockpile Location
Proposed Work Area
Permanent
Impact
Total Offsite Work Area
Burbank Western Channel
Q:\Projects\1679\1679-003\ArcMaps\ProjectArea_20211013.mxd o
06 0 1 20
Feet
1 inch =83 feet
Date prepared: 9/27/2021
Prepared by: Stefanie Paz
Organiza
tion: Sapphos Environmental, Inc.

EXHIBIT 7
Offsite Improvements Work Area
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-21

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

a) No Impact. A scenic vista generally provides focal views of objects, settings, or features of visual interest; or panoramic views of large geographic areas of scenic quality, primarily from a given vantage point. The Burbank2035 General Plan (General Plan) Open Space and Conservation Element defines scenic vistas as viewpoints that provide expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. Scenic vistas within Burbank include views of the Verdugo Mountains to the northeast and views of the eastern Santa Monica Mountains to the south. Downslope views from hillside development in the Verdugo Mountains toward the City and the Santa Monica Mountains beyond are also considered a valued resource (City of Burbank 2013). According to the Burbank2035 General Plan, the Project site is not located within an area identified as having a scenic vista (City of Burbank 2013). Additionally, the Project site is flat and has been developed with a major municipal power plant and other industrial land uses. The site is fenced and secured to prevent public access. Therefore, there would be no impact on scenic vistas.

b) No Impact. There are no officially designated State scenic highways within proximity to the Project site. The nearest eligible State Scenic Highway is Interstate 210, located east/northeast of the Project site (Caltrans 2021). No rock outcroppings or historic buildings eligible for national or state designation are located on or near the Project site, sinc e the area is used as a power generation facility and other industrial uses. Therefore, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway and no impact would occur.

c) No Impact. Implementation of the Project would involve construction of subsurface drainage facilities as well as an additional outfall to the BWC. In addition, the visual character of the Project site from public views would be similar to the existing condition based on the City’s 14 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-22

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
General Plan, Complet e Streets Plan, policies, and other guidelines for maintaining and preserving its small-town character that provides a sense of belonging to the community per its architecture, design, and density. Furthermore, the City’s plans, policies and guidelines also protect the views and character of highly valued landscape for the benefit of the public (City of Burbank 2021). There would be no damage or impact to local or regional scenic resources.

d) No Impact. The Project site is currently developed with a municipal power plant that has a large array of buildings and yard lighting for security and plant operations. Adjacent streets are equipped with streetlights. No additional light fixtures would be constructe d as part of the Project. There would be no impacts related to this topic.

References

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. California State Scenic Highways.

Accessed September 28, 2021. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap- landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways

———. 2021. City of Burbank Municipal Code. August 10, 2021. Accessed September 28, 2021.

Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/ 15 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-23

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Agricultural and Forest Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

II. Agricultural and Forest Resources -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in asses sing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Pro tection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

a–e) No Impact. The city contains no designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department of Conservation, 20 21). The Project site is fully developed with power generation facilities and related improvements. No crops or trees, other than ornamental landscape trees, are maintained on the site. No Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreements or Timberland Preserves are located on the site , and there is no zoning designation for agricultural use (Burbank, 2013 , 2021). Therefore, approval and Implementation of the Project would have no impact on agriculture or forest resources.

16 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-24

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
References

California Department of Conservation. 2021. Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program:

California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

———. 2021. City of Burbank Zoning Code. August 10, 2021. Accessed September 28, 2021.

Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/ 17 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-25

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable Federal or State ambient air quality
standard?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

a) No Impact. The Project site is located within the 6,600 -square-mile South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), together with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is responsible for formulating and implementing air pollution control strategies throughout the Basin. The current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was adopted March 3, 2017 and outlines the air pollution control measures needed to meet Federal particulate matter (PM2.5) standards by 2015 and ozone (O3) standards by 2024. The 2016 AQMP, adopted by SCAQMD is currently under State review and will contain measures to meet 24-hour PM2.5 standards by 2019, annual PM2.5 standards by 2025, and 1-hour ozone (O3) standards by 2022.

The operati on of the proposed Project would not add population or vehicle trips to the community that would be in conflict with population or trip assumptions used as the basis of the regional AQMP. There would be no impact with respect to this topic.

b) No Impact. The operation of the proposed drainage Project would not result in any ongoing air quality impacts, since it would not involve vehicular trips or any industrial processes that would generate pollutants. Construction of the Project would involve removal of existing paved surfaces, trenching and grading for the addition of subsurface drains as well as for the construction of a new drainage outfall. The total amount of disturbance would be under approximately 20,000 square feet of surface area (both on the BWP site and adjacent roadway.

Construction activities could release dust, particle matter and other pollutants into the atmosphere. The City of Burbank will add standard construction specifications and requirements for the Project contractor to implement the following Policies from the Air Quality and Climate Change Element of the Burbank2035 General Plan.

18 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-26

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
• Policy 1.6: Require measures to control air pollutant emissions at construction sites and during soil disturbing dust generating activities (such as tilling, landscaping, etc.) for Projects requiring such activities.

• Policy 1.7: Require reduced idling, trip reductio n and efficiency routing for City departments, where appropriate.

Such requirements could include, but not be limited to, a prohibition on truck idling for more than five minutes on the site, watering of disturbed (graded) area of the site every three hours, covering or enclosing stockpiles of debris, dirt of other dusty materials, suspending grading activities when wind speed exceeds 25 miles -per-hour (mph), limiting on -site speed for construction equipment at 15 mph and routing construction trips away from sensitive receptors.

The size of Project construction (approximately 20,000 square feet) would fall below screening criteria established by the SCAQMD. For construction projects below the sizes shown in the District CEQA Guidelines (Table 6.3) no impact would occur with respect to air quality. Table

6.3 of the District’s CEQA Guidelines has determined that government office complexes of 559,000 square feet of floor area and demolition activities that would remove 23,214,000 cubic feet of building area w ould not result in a significant air quality impact. The proposed BWP project would fall substantially below the screening criteria established by the regional air quality district.

With adherence to Burbank2035 General Plan policies as reflected in construction specifications, adherence to standard City construction reduction requirements and based on the regional air quality screening criteria the Project would not contribute cumulatively considerable pollutants. No impacts would result with respect to this topic.

c) No Impact. The Project site is located in an industrial portion of Burbank with no schools, hospitals, parks, playgrounds, residences or other sensitive receptors located in the vicinity that could be impacted by emissions from Project construction. There would be no impact with respect to this topic.

d) No Impact. Surrounding properties are developed with light industrial and commercial business establishments that do not have a large population base, based on a site investigation conducted on September 12, 2018.

References

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2016. 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Accessed September 28, 2021. Available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air- plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2016-aqmp

19 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-27

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
———. 1993. Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Accessed September 28, 2021. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ceqa-air- quality-handbook-(1993)
20 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-28

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Biological Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

The following section of the Initial Study is based on the following site-specific document: “Biological Resources Assessment: Stormwater Quality Improvements Project, City of Burbank, Los Angeles County, California” prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants, October 2018. This report is hereby incorporated into this Initial Study by reference and is attached to this document as Attachment

1. a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project site is developed with the majority of the parcels consisting of paved parking lots with impervious surfaces, various buildings associated with the BWP Campus. No special -status plant or wildlife species were observed during the biological site assessment, and the Project site was determined to have little to no potential to host the special-status species identified in the literature and database searches.

However, the Project has the potential to impact special -status and non -special-status native nesting birds protected by California Fish and Game Code and guidelines for protection 21 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-29

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
provided by the Migratory Bir d Treaty Act (MBTA). Project activities such as vegetation removal and ground disturbance associated with Project activities would have the potential to affect these species by causing direct mortality of eggs or young, or by causing auditory, vibratory, and/ or visual disturbance of a sufficient level to cause abandonment of an active nest. If Project activities occur during the bird nesting season, which generally extends from February 15 through August 31, nests of both special-status and non-special-status native birds could be impacted by construction and other ground disturbing activities. Impacts to nesting birds would be considered significant under CEQA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will reduce this potential impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO -1. No Project activities, including vegetation removal and grading shall be conducted during nesting bird season ( February 15 to August 3 1) to the extent feasible. If such activities must be conducted during the nesting season, a pre - construction nesting-bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal or initial ground disturbance. The survey shall include the disturbance area and the surrounding 500 feet, to identify the location and status of any nests that could potentially be affected either directly or indirectly by Project activities.

The nesting bird surveys shall be conducted during appropriate time of day and weather conditions and concentrate on potential roosting or perch sites.

If an active nest (containing eggs or chicks) of protected species is found within the survey area, it shall be designated as an ecologically sensitive area and protected (while occupied) during Project Activities. Establis hed exclusion zones shall remain in place until all young in the nest have fledged or the nest otherwise becomes inactive (e.g., due to predation). Appropriate exclusion zone sizes shall be determined by a qualified biologist and vary dependent upon the sp ecies, nest location, existing visual buffers, noise levels, and other factors. An exclusion zone radius may be as small as 250 feet for common, disturbance -adapted species or as large as 500 feet or more for raptors.

Exclusion zone size may be reduced fro m established levels if supported with nest monitoring findings by a qualified biologist indicating that work activities outside the reduced radius are not adversely affecting the nest and that a reduced exclusion zone would not adversely affect the subjec t nest.

These requirements shall be included in Project plans and construction specifications.

b, c) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project site is located in an area that is entirely developed. The site survey performed by WRA biologists identified no riparian habitat, wetlands or designated sensitive natural communities exist on the Project site or in the surrounding area. No impacts would therefore result with approval and implementation of the proposed Project.

The Project’s diversion of storm water flows would primarily occur during the winter rainy season and would correspond with high flows in the BWC. Accordingly, the Project’s minor storm water diversion would have a less-than-significant impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, including wetlands.

Prior to disturbance of any jurisdictional waters, BWP would obtain all required resource agency permit approvals required for such disturbance (e.g., Section 404 Permit from the Corps, Section 40 1 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, Section 1602 Lake and 22 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-30

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW) and comply with all conditions of such approvals from the appropriate agency. BWP shall provide the County with documented evidence of such approvals and compliance with associated permit(s) conditions. The Project would be required to comply with all rules and regulations stipulated by the resource agencies during the construction of the Project to avoid any potential impacts to the BWC. Mitigation and avoidance measures, as defined in the Summary of Mitigation Measures, including active implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and the discharge of sediment, shall be used for the protection of water quality and habitat within the BWP and downstream resources. Compliance with Federal and State organizations with jurisdiction over the BWC will reduce the level of significance to less than significant under CEQA.

d) No Impact. The Project site is currently paved and located within a developed portion of the city. The Project site is predominately covered with impervious surfaces and does not contain any quality biological habitat. Thus, the Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or established migratory wildlife corridor.

No impacts would occur with respect to this topic.

The Project’s diversion of storm water flows would primarily occur during the winter rainy season and would correspond with high flows in the BWC. Accordingly, the Project’s minor storm water diversion would have no impact on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with establish ed native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

e) Less than Significant Impact. Section 7-4-115 of the City of Burbank Municipal Code states that the no ground disturbing activities, including the ex cavation of any ditches, tunnels, trenches, or the installation of pavement, shall occur within ten feet from any public tree without prior notification to the City Community Development Director. Landscaped trees are present along the northwestern border of the Campus that would likely be removed during Project activities. The Project may remove five planted fan palm trees protected under the City of Burbank Trees and Vegetation ordinance. Impacts to protected trees would be considered significant under CE QA, however the Project has been designed to comply with ordinance.

Replacement trees of equal size, of the same species would be placed in a location approved by the City of Burbank Park, Recreation and Community Services Director and the Community Development Director. Therefore, the Project’s potential impacts to trees protected under the City of Burbank Vegetation and Trees Ordinance are considered less than significant without mitigation.

f) No Impact. The City of Burbank does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). There are no approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. Therefore, the Project would have no impact to an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

References

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
———. 2021. City of Burbank Municipal Code. August 10, 2021. Accessed September 28, 2021.

Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/

WRA Environmental Consultants. 201 9. Biological Resources Assessment, Stormwater Quality Improvements Project City of Burbank, Los Angeles County CA .

24 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-32
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
☐ ☒ ☒ ☐
Discussion
a) No Impact. The Burbank Water and Power (BWP) Campus was fully developed and paved with power generating facilities, administrative offices, manufacturing uses and related facilities by 1952 , based upon a review of historic aerial photographs . According to Los Angeles County Flood Control District records, the Burbank Western Channel (BWC) was constructed in 1957. Both resources are greater than 50 years of age and may be considered historical resources. However, the proposed Project is consistent with the original intended purpose and use of both the BWP campus and BWC. In addition, the proposed Project would not alter the seven qualities that convey the historical significance of the resource:
• Location: there is no change in the location of the BWP campus or BWC; • Setting: the footprint of the Project is very small in relation to the overall setting of the BWP campus and BWC and does not substantially alter or compromise the setting; • Design: the proposed Project does not alter any of the character -defining features of the BWP campus or BWC;
• Materials: the proposed Project consists largely of subterranean construction and does not add any visible materials that are inconsistent with the primary materials and would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5;
• Workmanship: the proposed Project elements do not change the workmanship that is characteristic of the BWP campus or BWC;
• Feeling: the setting of the BWP Campus and BWC are characteristic of mid -century infrastructure and would remain unchanged by the proposed Project; and • Association: the proposed Project stormwater management improvements are consistent with the original flood control purpose of the BWP campus and BWC Sapphos Environmental, Inc. conducted a site visit of the BWP Campus and BWC on February 10, 2022 and confirmed that the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on potential historical resources. Within a 0.25-mile radius of the Project site, fourteen ( 14) previous surveys were completed (Table 1. Previously Conducted Survey Reports). Of seven (7) resources identified in the fourteen (14) previous surveys, two (2) are located within the 25 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-33
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Project site (Table 2. Previously Identified Cultural Resources). Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on cultural resources as a result of causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.

Table 1. Previously Conducted Survey Reports

Report
No.

Year Authors Title Affiliation Location
LA-01798 1989 Singer, Clay A. and
John E. Atwood
Cultural Resources Survey and
Impact Report for The Proposed
Burbank Gateway Center, Los
Angeles County, California
C.A. Singer and
Associates, Inc
Within APE
LA-02370 1991 Dillon, Brian D. An Archaeological and Historical Cultural Resources Study of the
Burbank Water Reclamation Plant
Expansion Project, Burbank, Los
Angeles County, California An
Archeological and Historical
Cultural Resources Study of the
Burbank Water Reclamation Plant
Expansion Project
Within APE
LA-02950 1992 Anonymous Consolidated Report: Cultural
Resource Study for the Proposed
Pacific Pipeline Project
Peak and
Associates, Inc.

Within APE
LA-07189 2001 Morgan, Sally
Salzman
Magnolia Power Project Cultural
Resources (archaeological
Resources), Appendix J of
Application for Certification
Magnolia Power Project Cultural
Resources (archeological
resources)
URS Corporation Intersects
Project Site
LA-07190 2002 Hahn, Douglas L. Submittal of Revised Offsite Construction Laydown Area
Magnolia Power Project, Docket
01-afc-6
URS Corporation Within APE
LA-07191 2003 Unknown Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessment Americold Facility 10
West Magnolia Boulevard,
Burbank, California
URS Corporation Within APE
LA-08255 2006 Arrington, Cindy
and Nancy Sikes
Cultural Resources Final Report
of Monitoring and Findings for
The Qwest Network Construction
Project State of California:

Volumes I and II
SWCA
Environmental
Consultants, Inc.

Within APE
LA-09485 2008 Lasick, Sheri L. Burbank Water Reclamation Plant Equalization Basin Project,
Cultural Resources Report
Sylvir Consulting,
Inc.

Within APE
LA-10385 2009 Bonner Wayen H.
and Kathleen
Crawford
Direct APE Historic Architectural
Assessment for T Mobile USA
Candidate SV00120A, 60
Magnolia Blvd, Burbank, Los
Angeles County, California
MBA Within APE
26 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-34
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Report
No.

Year Authors Title Affiliation Location
LA-10543 2003 Gust, Sherri Archeological Initial Study Report and Mitigation Plan for The San
Fernando Valley MRT Fiber Optic
Line Project, Cities of Canoga
Park, Burbank, and Los Angeles,
California.

Cogstone
Resource
Management Inc.

Within APE
LA-10642 2010 Tang, “Bai” Tom Preliminary
Historical/Archeological
Resources Study, Antelope Valley
Line Positive Train Control PCT
Project Southern California
Regional Train Rail Authority,
Lancaster to Glendale, Los
Angeles County, California
CRM Tech Within APE
LA-11772 2012 Meyer, Donna Seismically Retrofit Storage Facility Building, 124 S Lake
Street, Burbank CaCA
FEMA Within APE
LA-12122 2012 Bonner, Wayne,
Sarah Williams,
Sarah, and
Kathleen Crawford,
Kathleen
Cultural Resources Records
Search and Site Visit Results for
T Mobile West, LLC Candidate
SV00120A (Swordplay LA1200)
60 1/3 East Magnolia Boulevard,
Burbank, Los Angeles County,
California
MBA Within APE
LA-12526 2013 Ehringer, Candace,
Katherine Ramirez,
Katherine, and
Michael Vader,
Michael
Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation
District Chloride TMDL Facilities
Plan Project, Phase I Cultural
Resources Assessment
ESA

Within APE

Table 2. Previously Identified Cultural Resources

Primary NumberNo.
(Trinomial)
Description Age Within
Project
SiteLocation
P-19-002530
(CA-LAN-002530H)
Privies/dumps/trash scatters Historic Site, standing
structures
Historic Within APE
P-19-003348
(CA-LAN-003348H)
Privies/dumps/trash scatters Historic Artifact Deposit Historic Intersects Project Site
P-19-180751 U.S. Post Office, Burbank Downtown Historic Within APE P-19-180773 Significant U.S. Post Office, California (District) Historic Within APE P-19-186688 Union Pacific Railr Road Wye and & Rail Spurs (bridge, highway/trail)
Historic Within APE
P-19-186689 Union Pacific Railroad Concrete Drainage Channel HistoricSite
Historic Within APE
P-19-188507 Commercial Building Historic Within APE

b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. While Although the Project site was fundamentally altered in the 1950s with respect to archaeological deposits through historic era development and previous ground -disturbing activities, construction of the Project construction could result in an unanticipated discovery of unknown archaeological resources 27 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-35
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
as well as human remains. To ensure any such impacts to these resources are reduced to a less- than-significant level, the following measure shall be implemented by the Burbank Water & Power Department and Project contractor:

Mitigation Measure CUL-1. If an archaeological cultural resource is identified, work on the Project site shall cease immediately until a resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Guidelines Sectio n 15064.5(e) is prepared by a qualified arch aeologist and approved by the Community Development Director. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately.

c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated . Based upon a review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs there are no recorded formal cemeteries at the Project site. Similarly, there are no historic land uses typically associated with informal burials, such as hospitals or homestead sites, at the Project site that precede preceded construction of the BWP Campus and the BWC. In addition, the depth of excavation re quired for the stormwater improvements that comprise the proposed Project would require a maximum excavation depth of excavation of approximately 14 feet, which should be entirely within the area disturbed during the construction of the BWP campus and BWC; therefore, it is not anticipated that human remains would be encountered. In the unanticipated event that human remains are encountered during construction, Mitigation Measure TRIBAL-2 shall be implemented by the Project contractor (see Tribal Cultural Resources section, below). therefore, it not anticipated that human remains would be encountered. In the unanticipated event that human remains are encountered during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the Los Angeles County Coroner determines, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code , that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. Therefore, in the unanticipated event of the discovery of human remains, conformance with the provisions of California Code, Health and Safety Code - HSC § 7050.5 and Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code shall ensure that s uch remain are properly repatriated or reinterred, and thus impact would be less than significant.

References

28 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-36
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Los Angeles County Flood Control District. Burbank Channel – Burbank Western System. Asset No.

F02000118. Available at: https://pw.lacounty.gov/fcd/StormDrain/index.cfm

NetroOnline. Historic Aerials. Accessed May 20, 2021. Available at:
https://historicaerials.com/viewer
29 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-37

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Energy

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

a) Less than Significant Impact . The City of Burbank General Plan Conservation Element includes goals and policies to conserve energy, use alternative energy resources, and promote sustainable energy practices that reduce pollution and fossil fuel consumption (City of Burbank, 2013) . Construction of the proposed Project would require the temporary use of energy, including electricity and carbon -based fuels, for construction equipment. The temporary use electric power would be required for lighting, and electrically powered hand tools. The majority of energy that would be petroleum and diesel -fuels used for on-road vehicles and off-road construction equipment. Construction workers would travel to and from the Project site throughout the durat ion of construction. Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities, vendor trucks, and haul trucks would rely on diesel fuel.

The amount of electricity used for construction would be temporary and minimal. Natural gas is not anticipated to be required for the construction of the proposed Project. There would also be vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with the transportation of construction materials and construction worker commutes which would also result in petroleum consumption. The use of construction equipment is necessary to complete the required stormwater management improvements; therefore, it does not constitute an i nefficient or wasteful use of energy .

Operation of the proposed Project would not result in any additional energy usage, and maintenance activities would not differ from existing conditions. Additionally, no habitable or other structures would be construct ed as part of the proposed Project that would result in additional energy consumption. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

b) No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with any adopted state or local plans related to use of renewable energy or energy efficiency , including the State Renewable Portfolio Standards (California Energy Commission, 2020); 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Energy Commission, 2019); Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Goals and Policies for Energy Efficiency (Southern California Association of Governments, 2008); or the City of Burbank General Plan Conservation Element (City of Burbank, 2013). The proposed Project does not involve construction of habitable structures that would involve consumptive use of energy consumption during operation of the proposed Project. Similarly, the stormwater improvements would involve passive flows and not necessitate consumptive use of energy. The operation and maintenance of the facilities , involves operating and maintaining relocated stormwater conveyance facilities, and would not 30 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-38

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
increase per capita vehicle miles travelled. Therefore, there would be no conflict with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

References

California Energy Commission. 2020. “Renewables Portfolio Standards.” Accessed September 28, 2021. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/renewables- portfolio-standard

———. 2019. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency- standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency

Southern California Association of Governments. 2008. Regional Comprehensive Plan. Accessed September 28, 2021. Available at:
http://scag.ca.gov/NewsAndMedia/Pages/RegionalComprehensivePlan.aspx

31 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-39

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Discussion

a.i) Less than Significant Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requires the State of California to map areas of high risk for surface fault rupture. This law prohibits locating structures designed for human occupancy on top of the surface traces of active faults, thereby reducing the loss of life and property from an earthquake. Southern California, including the Project site, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to active faults that traverse the region. Act. According to the Saf ety Element of the General Plan, there are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones designated within Burbank (City of Burbank, 2013).

The closest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the Project site is the Sierra Madre Fault Zone, located to the northeast. Therefore, impacts related to ground rupture would be less-than- significant.

32 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-40

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
a.ii) Less than Significant Impact. Ground shaking is motion that occurs as a result of energy released during an earthquake and has the ability to damage or destroy important city infrastructure.

Although regional faults near Burbank would likely not cause a surface rupture in Burbank, a seismic event on any nearby faults, especially the S ierra Madre Fault, could cause ground shaking at the Project site and region that could cause damage in structures, especially older structures built to older standards (City of Burbank, 2013). However, the Project would be designed and constructed in conf ormance with all applicable design standards, including in accordance with the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan Safety Element , City Building Code , and the County’s seismic safety standards and construction recommendations included Oakridge Geosciences soil s report (2018). With conformance to current seismic design standards and recommendations contained in the Oakridge Report, the Project would be feasible from a geotechnical standpoint in regard to strong ground shaking. This impact would be less-than-significant.

a.iii) Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a process by which sediments below the water table temporarily lose strength and behave as a viscous liquid rather than a solid. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium -grained primarily sandy soil. The California Department of Conservation identifies the BWP campus as fully within a Liquefaction Zone (California Department Conservation, 2018) , as much of the City of Burbank is located atop soils susceptible to liquefaction (City of Burbank, 2013). However, while the site is expected to experience ground-shaking and earthquake activity typical of the Southern California region, the Project soils report does not identify a significant hazard with respect t o liquefaction (Oakridge Geosciences, 2018). The City’s Burbank2035 General Plan Safety Element states that, except in some areas along the Ventura Freeway (SR 134) in the southwestern portion of the city, most groundwater underlying Burbank is deeper than 100 feet below the ground surface. Thus, a lthough the proposed Project site is located within a liquefaction zone, groundwater levels in Burbank can be expected to remain deeper than 50 feet, resulting in a low risk of liquefaction for most of the city (City of Burbank, 2013) . Additionally, the proposed Project consists of stormwater drainage improvements to the existing BWP campus.

The proposed project would not introduce new residents, businesses, or structures to the area, as it is already highly urbanized and currently used. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to greater effec ts of liquefaction than they are currently exposed to. Furthermore, the Project would be designed to be compliant with the most current safety standards to minimize effects from seismic activity, including liquefaction. This impact would be less-than-significant.

a.iv) No Impact. Landslide hazards are related to both slope and seismic activity. A landslide is the downhill movement of masses of earth material under the force of gravity. Factors contributing to landslide potential are steep slopes, unstable terrain, and proximity to earthquake faults. The Project site and surrounding area are developed and relatively flat, making the possibility for landslides very low. Additionally, the proposed Project site is not located in a zone mapped by the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan Safety Element as susceptible to earthquake -induced landslides (City of Burbank, 2013) . Therefore, development of the Project would not result in significant impacts associated with the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides.

33 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-41

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
b) Less than Significant Impact. Project construction would include grading and limited earthmoving activities at the site that could expose site soils to erosion from heavy winds, rainfall, or runoff. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit, which would require the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and associated Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize or eliminate sediment and soils discharged from the Project site. With adherence to these standards, no impact would result with respect to this topic.

c) Less than Significant Impact. As stated above, the Project site is located within a developed area of the city and has a relatively flat topography. The proposed Project would be designed to be compliant with the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan Safety Element and Building Code, the County’s seismic safety standards , and site-specific design recommendations included in the Project soils report (Oakridge Geosciences, 2018) to minimize the effects of seismic activity. The drainage improvements would be minimal additions to the existing BWP campus in highly urbanized area. These improvements would not result in greater instability than it is currently exposed to that may result in result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Further, s ince the proposed drainage improvements would not be occupied by visitors or residents, no injury or loss of life would occur. This impact would therefore be less than significant.

d) Less than Significant Impact. According to the Focused Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Project, the soils underlain the Project site are considered to have very low potential for expansion (Oakridge Geosciences, 2018). Further, the Project would be designed in accordance with recommendations included in the geotechnical report (Oakridge Geosciences, 2018). This impact would be less than significant.

e) No Impact. The Project would not generate any wastewater so it would require a connection to the City’s wastewater system or require use of a septic system. No impacts would result.

f) Less than Significant with Mitigation. While the Project site is disturbed due to existing development and previous ground disturbing activities, construction of the Project could result in the inadvertent discovery of unknown paleontological or geological resources. To ensure any such impacts to these resources are reduced to a less-than-significant level, the following measure shall be implemented by the Burbank Water & Power Department and Project contractor:

Mitigation Measure GEO -1. If a paleontological resource is identified, work on the Project site shall cease immediately until a resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) is prepared by a qualified paleontologist and approved by the Community Development Director. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan.

References

California Department of Conservation and California Geological Survey. January 10, 2018. “DOC Maps: Geology Hazards – Seismic Hazard Zones; Liquefaction.” Accessed May 24, 2021.

34 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-42

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
City of Burbank. 2013. Burbank2035 General Plan. Adopted February 19, 2013. Accessed September 27, 2021. Available at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/The+Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/1396 56b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d-751642c85b38?version=1.2&t=1616616954424&imagePreview=1

Oakridge Geosciences, Inc. 2016. Focused Geotechnical Report. Available at: Ecocampus NPDES Compliance Feasibility Study Project Burbank Water and Power.

35 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-43

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would
the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Discussion

a) Less than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activity are implicated in global climate change or global warming. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrogen oxides (NOX), ozone, water vapor, and fluorinated gases (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride). No long -term operational greenhouse gas impacts are anticipated as a result of the Project since there would be no operational vehicle trips resulting from the Project improvements, since the Project is limited to drainage and water quality improvements. As such, there are also no operational (stationary- source) greenhouse gas sources anticipated as a result of the Project improvements since they would be constructed underground.

As shown on Table 3-3 of the Urban Crossroads GHG Report (see Attachment 2 of this Initial Study), the Project has the potential to generate a total of approximately 3.00 MTCO2e per year from construction. As such, the Project would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. Thus, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions.

b) Less than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activity are implicated in global climate change or global warming. The principal GHGs are CO2, CH4, NOX, ozone, water vapor, and fluorinated gases (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride).

The City’s Burbank2035 General Plan includes the following policy to deal with greenhouse gas emissions reduction:

• Policy 3.4 (partial): Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new development by promoting water conservation and recycling.

On February 19, 2013, the City of Burbank adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan as part of the Burbank2035 General Plan. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (Plan) identifies a number of State actions adopted to reduce future emissions of greenhouse gasses , including, but not limited to, AB 32, AB 1493, SB 1078 and AB 1109.

36 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-44

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
The City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan is a programmatic plan to respond to State mandates by identifying a number of specific steps to reduce future GHG emissions. The Plan anticipates a 6.7% reduction in the emission of GHGs by the City in the year 2020 over “business as usual” emissions and a 6.5 reduction of GHG emissions over “business as usual” in 2015.

The Plan identifies a number of actions to be taken by the City of Burbank to assist in GHG reduction. A number of these action identified in the Plan applicable to the Project include:

• Program E-1.6 BWP: Energy Conservation. The Department is anticipated to reduce GHGs through a series of conservation measures that would likely involve the Project.

• Program W-1.3: Stormwater Master Plan. The Project would be an element in reducing polluted runoff into the BWP.

• Program SW-1.3: Lumber Diversion Ordinance: Lumber used for concrete forms and other uses would be recycled instead of diverted to the local landfill.

There would be no long-term operational emission of greenhouse gasses, since there would be no structures that would generate traffic or involve industrial processes that would ge nerate GHGs. Short-term GHG emissions would be generated by Project construction but would be limited to a less -than-significant level by adherence to the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan and General Plan Policies 1.6 and 1.7.

The proposed Project would not include any elements that could conflict with the City’s Greenhouse Reduction Plan, Regional, State or Federal plans or regulation involving greenhouse gasses.

References

———. 2013. Burbank Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. Adopted February 19, 2013. Accessed October 8, 2021. Available at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/240353/02192013_Burbank_Greenhouse_Ga s_Reduction_Plan.pdf/39624e2e-ef46-b6a5-81fc-
45b3f4c4c819?version=1.0&t=1616021724684&imagePreview=1 37 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-45
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS -- Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the Project
area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Discussion
a) No Impact. A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the enviro nment.

Construction activities would require the use of certain hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, and adhesives. The proposed Project would involve a number of related drainage improvements at the City of Burbank’s BWP Campus to improve lo cal surface water quality.

There would be no transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed Project. No impacts would result.
b, d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Project site has been used as a power generating facility for a number of years since the 1940s . A limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was performed on the project property in November 2020 (Attachment 8, Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment). Although soil samples collected during the Limited Phase II ESA determined soil within the area of the project w as non-hazardous, laboratory results for lead and diesel-range organics exceeded U.S. EPA Regional Screening 38 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-46
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Levels (RSL) and California EPA Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) levels. Construction including trenching, grading and related ground disturbing activities during the Project could release air-borne contaminants that are harmful to on-site workers and the public. Excavation activities during the propos ed project are not expected to encounter groundwater. The following measure shall be implemented prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities to ensure this impact would be less -than- significant:

Properties to the north and west are used for industrial purposes. It is likely that current and historic uses of the area could have d eposited hazardous and potentially hazardous materials into the local soil and/or groundwater. Such contamination could include but may not be limited to petroleum products, solvents, paints, and other chemical compounds.

Mitigation Measure HAZ -1. Prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be developed to address 1) the possibility of encountering petroleum hydrocarbon or lead-impacted soils during excavation of the on -site southern parcel and 2) monitor excavated soils for Volatile Organic Compounds during the project construction in the northern parcel (Attachment 8). The SMP shall be prepared by a qualified environmental consultant and implemented during soil disturbance activities under the oversight of an environmental professional. The SMP shall address monitoring of excavated soil, community and construction worker health and s afety, and soil handling, stockpiling, and characterization. Soil characterization results should be used to determine on-site reuse, export, and disposal protocols as appropriate. The Soil Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Burbank Community Development Director or Burbank Public Works Department prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities. a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be completed by a qualified consulting firm as determined by BWP staff to determine possible presence of contaminated compounds or materials in the soil or groundwater near excavated or trenched areas. If such materials are identified, additional analysis, including soil testing, to determine the extent of any potential contamination. If needed, a remediation plan shall be prepared and implemented under the oversight of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Grading and trenching operations may commence after clearances are granted by the appropriate regulatory agency.
c) No Impact. There are no schools located within one -quarter mile of the Project site and the closest school is Disney Elementary School, located approximately one mile southwest of the Project site. Further, the sur rounding area is designated as General Industrial uses on the Burbank2035 General Plan, which does not support school uses. Therefore, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. There would be no impact with respect to this topic.

e) No Impact. Although the Project site is located southeast of Hollywood-Burbank Airport, no habitable structures would be built that would cause any impacts to safety or obstructions to aircraft operations. All Project facilities would be located underground. There w ould be no impact with respect to this topic.

f) No Impact. Proposed drainage improvements to be constructed as part of the Project would not require access by emergency vehicles, since there would be no residents or visitors occupying Project improvements. Access to drainage facilities would be provided on the site of the BWP campus or via local streets. No impact would result with respect to this topic.

39 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-47
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
g) No Impact. None of the proposed underground drainage or water quality improvements would be subject to wildland or urban fires, so that there would be no impact with respect to this topic.

References

Ninyo & Moore. 2020. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment City of Burbank Magnolia Power Plant Storm Water Improvement Plan 164 West Magnolia Boulevard, Burbank California 91502. November 12, 2020.

40 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-48
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --
Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:

i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site;

ii) substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) impede or redirect flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

a) No Impact. This Project is located within an area that is in the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) , for management of water quality pursuant to the Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Los Angeles Basin Plan, 2014). Recent investigation of surface water quality by the firm of MNS Engineering indicate d that stormwater running onto the BWP Campus exceeds the numeric action levels (NALs) for oil and grease, iron, zinc, and copper per the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial General Permit (IGP) Order 2014-0057-DWQ (MNS, 2018). Concentrations of contaminants in stormwater discharged from the BWP Campus to the BWC exceed s the NALs for iron, zinc, and copper , as well as a one-time pH exceedance. For all sampling dates, the concentrations of zinc were higher in stormwater discharged from the BWP Campus to the BWC than stormwater running onto the campus from outside sources , indicating th at the campus contributes to zinc concentrations. Data for other contaminants, including oil and grease, iron, copper, 41 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-49
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
cadmium, and lead, are inconclusive as to the source (MNS, 2018). The purpose of the Project is to improve localized drainage and water quality through installation of water quality filters and other devices prior to outfall into the BWC. In 2018, MNS Engineers and Burbank Water and Power (BWP) prepared the NPDES Compliance Stormwater Quality Improvement Options Feasibility Study. The BWP Campus currently experiences water quality issues and stormwater runoff issues such that they are not in compliance with existing water qu ality and waste discharge standards established by the IGP numeric limits (MNS, 2018) . Current data shows that concentrations of contaminants in stormwater are in exceedance of the IGP numeric limit s water quality standards; thus, the feasibility study analyzed options that would improve the water quality. The feasibility study analyzed 12 Project design alternatives that would improve the water quality and runoff of the proposed Project site. Based on this analysis, the feasibility study recommended combin ed storage and reuse with infiltration and off -site diversion for the 24 -hour 85th percentile storm event.

Similar to this recommendation, the proposed Project would include on -site drainage improvements that would divert and filter flows up to the 85th pe rcentile, 24 -hour storm event, and subsequently use or infiltrate the treated stormwater. The system would have the capacity to renew its capacity to accept a 24 -hour 85th percentile storm event within 24 hours of the discharge, and the existing outfall wo uld continue to be used to discharge flows above the 85th percentile, 24 -hour storm event. Therefore, the alternative that was analyzed to be the best Project design that would result in improvements to water quality and stormwater runoff would be implemen ted under the proposed Project; thus, the proposed Project would improve water quality and stormwater runoff , consistent with the water quality goals and objectives articulated in the Basin Plan . Additionally, the proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially degrade groundwater quality, as excavation during the construction phase is not anticipated to encounter groundwater. One of the primary purposes of the Project is to meet current water quality requirements adopted by the LARWQCB by redirecting stormwater runoff and adding filtration systems to ensure that all applicable waste discharge requirements are met. Therefore, water quality would be improved after implementation of the Project and there would be no impact as a result of violation of a ny water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or any other degra dation of surface or groundwater quality .

b) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 1, Project Description, site preparation and grading would take approximately 3 working days (please see Table 1, Anticipated Construction Equipment). Dust control would be accomplished by using a water truck to spray down exposed areas. It is anticipated that a single 5,000-gallon water truck would be deployed each day. Given 3 working days with 5,000 gallons of water used each day, 15,000 total gallons of water would be required for Project construction. There are 10 licensed water haulers in Los Angeles County that would be able to provide this water (Los Angeles County Department of Public Health).

According to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP, 2021), the City of Burbank extracts its groundwater from the San Fernando Basin (SFB). The SFB underlies the city, including the Project site. One of the purposes of the Project is to redirect stormwater runoff from an existing outfall into the nearby BWC to an infiltration field on the BWP Campus. The proposed Project would implement storm water capture system that would divert an average of 8.2 million gallons per year of storm water from the BWC for filtration, assuming average rainfall of 16.3 inches per year. The treated storm water would either be used for cooling tower make-up water or infiltrated into the ground, or a combination of the two. Therefore, as 42 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-50
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
captured stormwater is infiltrated, then the amount of local high -quality infiltration would be increased, and the proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supplies nor interfere with sustainable groundwater management . Both the reuse and infiltration maintain or improve existing levels of regional groundwater recharge. Additionally, excavation during the construction phase is not anticipated to encounter groundwater. As construction of the Project would not require use of groundwater, and the operation and maintenance of the Project would sustain or improve regional groundwater recharge, the Project would have no impact on hydrology or water quality resulting from substantially depleting or decreasing groundwater supplies or substantial interference wi th groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

c.i) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within an urban area of the city and is fully paved with asphalt. Existing storm drains are located within the roadways surrounding the Project site and on the BWP Campus of the power station. Construction of the proposed Project would include earthmoving activities, such as grading, exca vation, and trenching. The proposed Project may produce sediment created by soil disturbance during or immediately after construction. Construction activities such as excavation, grading, and trenching would temporarily disturb the ground surface of the Project area and could result in erosion if not properly controlled and repaired. However, this would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site, as these potential pollutants are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminati on System (NPDES) General Permit. As stated in the Project Description, the required approvals for the proposed Project site include the NPDES Construction General Permit and Industrial General Permit, which require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in order to obtain the permits (EPA, 2007).

A SWPPP is a site -specific document that identifies the potential sources of pollution and plans the steps that will be taken to prevent pollution. The SWPPP wil l ide ntify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent the proposed Project from erosion or siltation and protect water quality during construction. In addition to the SWPPP and BMPS, the geotechnical report prepared for the proposed Project states that projects such as these can become clogged with sediment or other debris over time ; therefore, a maintenance program that addressed sediments would also be required for development and implementation as a part of the Project design. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts on hydrology and water quality in relation to erosion and siltation.

c.ii) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within an urban area of the city and is fully paved with asphalt. Existing storm drains are located within the roadways surrounding the Project site and on the BWP Campus of the power station. The proposed design will improve drainage and separate local urban runoff from industrial runoff, facilitate collection and treatment of industrial runoff, reduce the total drainage area utilizing the storm drain by 50-percent, and improve local catch basin inlets to the maximum permissible capacities permitted to be discharged to the BWC. The Project design also includes an underground vault with a volume of 37,000 cubic feet that would collect stormwater runoff up to the 24 -hour 85 -percentile storm event, which would prevent flooding in other areas on - or off -site rather than induce flooding. Thus, rather than increasing runoff, the proposed Project would make drainage improvements that would contain runoff volume and improve runoff quality. Rather than substantially increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site, the drainage patterns in the Project area would be improved upon over their current 43 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-51
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
conditions in that stormwater runoff would be reduced and infiltration increased. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a beneficial effect on drainage patterns in the city and would result in less than s ignificant impact on hydrology or water quality in relation to inducing on -site or off -site flooding .

c.iii) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within an urban area of the city and is fully paved with asphalt. Existing storm drains are located within the roadways surrounding the Project site and on the BWP Campus. The proposed design will improve drainage and separate local urban runoff from industrial runoff, facilitate collection and treatment of industrial runoff, reduce th e total drainage area utilizing the storm drain by 50 percent, and improve local catch basin inlets to the maximum permissible capacities permitted to be discharged to the BWC. The Project design also includes an underground vault with a volume of 37,000 c ubic feet that would collect stormwater runoff up to the 24 - hour 85-percentile storm event, which would prevent flooding in other areas on - or off-site.

The Project would not result in the alteration of the Project site’s existing topography or overall dra inage pattern but would serve to reduce the quantity of stormwater leaving the Project site. The stormwater capture system would, on average, divert 8.2 million gallons per year of stormwater from the BWC, assuming average rainfall of 16.3 inches per year.

The system would have the capacity to accept a 24 -hour, 85th percentile storm event within 24 hours of the dischar ge, and t he existing outfall would continue to be used to discharge flows above the 85th percentile, 24 -hour storm event. There would be no potential to exceed the existing storm drain system since the drainage system would be engineered to accommodate the maximum flows from the Project site. Thus, rather than creating or contributing runoff which would exceed the capacity of the stormwate r drainage systems, the proposed Project would improve the existing stormwater drainage systems to increase their capacity. Further, the proposed Project would not provide substantial sources of polluted runoff, as its purpose is to manage the existing run off in order to filter stormwater and improve water quality. T he drainage patterns in the Project area would be improved upon over their current conditions in that stormwater runoff would be reduced and infiltration increased. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a beneficial effect on drainage patterns in the city and would result in less than significant impacts in relation to runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff .

c.iv) Less than Significant Impact . The proposed Project site is the BWP Campus which currently experiences water quality issues and stormwater runoff issues such that they are not in compliance with existing water quality and waste discharge standards established by the IGP numeric limits (MNS, 2018) . Current data shows that concentrations of contaminants in stormwater are in exceedance of standards; thus, the 2018 feasibility study analyzed options that would impro ve the water quality. The 12 Project design alternatives that were analyzed to improve the water quality and runoff of the proposed Project site require the existing runoff flows to be impeded and/or redirected. However, while the proposed Project would al ter the drainage on- and off-site such that flows would be impeded or redirected, the construction of these measures would be improvements in order to address the existing water quality and runoff concerns. As previously stated, the Project design was analyzed in the 2018 feasibility study as the best outcome and was determined to improve water quality and runoff. By combining multiple technologies such as diversion, filtration, infiltration, and reuse, the feasibility study states that the Project design w ould reduce the likelihood of runoff remaining in violation of water quality standards. Thus, while the 44 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-52
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
proposed Project would impede and redirect flows, these improvements would have beneficial effect on drainage patterns in the city and would not result in a significant adverse impact. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts on hydrology and water quality, as a result of redirecting flows.

d) No Impact. The Project site is located within an urban area of the city that is distanced from the ocean and other bodies of water. The proposed Project site is located outside of the area mapped as a tsunami hazard area by the California Department of Conservation a nd California Geological Survey. The nearest tsunami hazard area is approximately 15 miles south west (California Department of Conservation, 2019). Seismic activity may cause inundation by a seismically induced wave, called a seiche. As stated in the Burbank2035 General Plan, there are three reservoirs upstream from the City of Burbank which impound water susceptible to seiche. However, these reservoirs are not large enough to result in considerable risk of inundation in Burbank that would result from fail ure of any of the facilities (City of Burbank, 2013). With regard to flood zones, as shown in the Burbank2035 General Plan, the proposed Project site is not located within a FEMA 100 -year or 500 -year flood zone. Thus, the proposed Project site is not at risk of inundation due to flooding of the nearby Burbank Western Channel or Lockheed Channel. Thus, the proposed Project is not at risk of inundati on due to tsunami, seiche, or flood that would release pollutants.

Additionally, while the proposed Project includes improvements which would store water in an underground vault, this would prevent flooding in other areas on - or off -site rather than induce flooding. The system is designed to have the capacity to accept a 24 -hour, 85th percentile storm event within 24 hours of the discharge, and should the storm event exceed this threshold, the existing outfall would continue to be used to discharge flows ab ove the 85th percentile, 24 -hour storm event. Rather than risk inundation and the release of pollutants, the proposed Project would filter runoff before being stored for the purposes of reducing runoff volume. and infiltration increased. Therefore, the pro posed Project would result in less than significant impacts on hydrology and water quality, in relation to release of contaminants from inundation caused by tsunami, seiche, or flooding events.

e) No Impact. The proposed Project is subject to the regulatory authority of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board , which is administered pursuant to the Los Angeles Basin Plan (M NS Engineers, 2018). The goal of the Los Angeles Basin Plan is to develop water quality standards and objectives. T he water quality objectives are intended (i) to protect the public health and welfare and (ii) to maintain or enhance water quality in relation to the designated existing and potential beneficial uses of the water (Los Angeles Basin Plan, 2014).

Water qual ity objectives are achieved through Waste Discharge Requirements for concentrations of pollutants. As the proposed Project would capture, filter, and infiltrate stormwater in order to reduce contamination, the proposed Project would protect public health, enhance water quality, and reduce the concentration of pollutants. Therefore, the proposed Project achieves the objectives of the Los Angeles Basin Plan, rather than conflict with it.

References

California Department of Conservation. 2019. “Los Angeles County Tsunami Hazard Area Maps.” Accessed May 24, 2021. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/los-angeles

45 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-53
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
California Water Board. September 11, 2014. “Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.” Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_d ocumentation.html

City of Burbank Department of Water and Power. Adopted June 2021. “2020 Urban Water Management Plan.” Accessed September 17, 2021. Available at:
https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/images/administrative/downloads/BWP_2020UW MP_Final.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. May 2007. “Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan:

A Guide for Construction Sites.” Accessed May 24, 2021. Available at:
https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_swppp_guide.pdf

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. Licensed Water Haulers. Accessed June 2, 2021.

Available at: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/docs/ep_dw_licensed_water_haulers.pdf

MNS Engineers for the City of Burbank Water and Power. June 1, 2018. Burbank Water and Power Campus and Magnolia Power Plant NPDES Compliance Stormwater Quality Improvements Options – Draft Feasibility Study.

46 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-54

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the
project:

a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

a) No Impact. As stated in the Project Description, the Project site is designated by the Land Use Element of the Burbank2035 General Plan as Institutional with corresponding City zoning of M-2 General Industrial (City of Burbank, 2019) . The BWP Campus is a part of the Burbank Center Pl an specific plan area, the goal of which is to facilitate the revitalization of the Downtown Burbank, South San Fernando, and surrounding areas (City of Burbank, 2013). As the improvements would be limited to the BWP Campus property, the Project would not result in the physical division of the Burbank Center Plan specific plan area. Additionally, the nearest residential community is a low-density residential community to the west and southwest of the BWP Campus (City of Burbank, 2013) . A commercial and indu strial area lies between the residential community and the BWP campus. The BWP campus connects to the residential area by traveling less than 1,000 feet west or southwest along Magnolia Boulevard, Palm Avenue, or Orange Grove Avenue. However, the water quality improvements would involve no changes to these streets. As the improvements would be limited to the BWP Campus property, the Project would not result in the physical division of the residential community or result in changes to its connectivity with t he rest of the City. Furthermore, t he Project contains no improvements that would limit connectivity or facilitate blockages of road s or walking pathways on the BWP campus itself. The proposed improvements would occur on developed properties and would be limited to the existing BWP Campus so that no existing communities would be impacted or divided. No impacts would occur.

b) No Impact. As stated in the Project Description, the Project site is designated by the Land Use Element of the Burbank2035 General Plan as Institutional with corresponding City zoning of M-2 General Industrial (City of Burbank, 2019). The primary use of the Project site is the BWP Campus, and the land use would remain as such after the insta llation of the water quality enhancements. The Project would not include any amendments to the Burbank2035 General Plan or the zoning code . The Project would not affect any existing City of Burbank General Plan goal or policy, zoning regulation, or other environmental protection or regulation. One of the principal goals of the Project is to provide enhanced water quality for the properties included in the Project area. As stated in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Burbank2035 General Plan, “The City will continue to require all new development and modifications to existing development to use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff and increase on‐site retention. BMPs are effective methods of preventing and contro lling the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system, where pollutants 47 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-55

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
eventually enter the surface water system.” The proposed project would implement drainage improvements so that stormwater would flow through filters and not into the BWC, ther eby reducing stormwater runoff and increasing on-site retention, consistent with the General Plan.

Therefore, the Project is consistent with the applicable land use plan and does not result in conflict. No impacts would occur with respect to this topic.

References

———. 2019. Zone Map. Effective 2019. Accessed September 17, 2021. Available at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/20210101_Zoning_Map.pdf/c8bc55ed- 98cf-505d-3892-7e1657bca8f1?t=1618866483006
48 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-56

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

a) No Impact. According to the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Burbank General Plan, the Project site is located atop an area classified by the State Mining and Geology Board as MRZ-2, which is a mineral classification that indicates that mineral resources may be present (City of Burbank, 2013). However , the Open Space and Co nservation Element states that the city is an urbanized environment where existing land use designations preclude mineral extraction activities, as mining activities would destroy parts of the city (City of Burbank, 2013). While there is a possibility that significant mineral resources could be located in the MRZ-2 area, the Open Space and Conservation Element states that mining is not feasible, and Burbank is not considered to be a potential future source for mineral resources . Furthermore, the proposed Project site is planned and zoned for institutional/industrial uses and has been developed as the BWP Campus since 1913. Therefore, no impact would occur in relation to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

b) No Impact. As stated above, while the Project site is located wi thin a n MRZ-2 mineral classification area, the City of Burbank General Plan does not consider the city to be a potential source for mineral resources (City of Burbank, 2013). The City of Burbank General Plan does not delineate any locally important mineral resource recovery sites. Furthermore, the proposed Project site has been developed and used as the BWP Campus since 1913, and therefore, is not used as a mineral resource recovery site such as a mine. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site and no impact would occur.

Reference

City of Burbank. 2013. Burbank2035 General Plan. Adopted February 19, 2013. Accessed September 21, 2021. Available at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/The+Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/1396 56b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d-751642c85b38?version=1.2&t=1616616954424&imagePreview=1

49 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-57

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

a) Less than Significant Impact. Project construction is expected to create temporary elevated noise levels at receivers surrounding the Project site when certain activities occur at the closest point to the nearby receiver locations from primary Project construction activities.

Construction trucks and related construction activities, including but not limited to grading, trenching and removal and replacement of paving material, could result in a potentially significant noise increase in close proximity to the Project site. This noise could affect employees on the BWP campus and nearby sites. As not ed in the Project Description, construction plans and specifications would include the following limitations on hours of Project construction activities:

• Monday-Friday 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
• Saturday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
• No construction is permitted by contract ors or subcontractors after hours, on Sunday or on City Holidays. Without prior written request and approval from the Community Development Department.

Using sample reference noise levels to represent the planned construction activities on the site, the firm Urban Crossroads, Inc. estimated Project-related construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receiver locations (see the Urban Crossroads, Inc. report, Attachment 3 to this Initial Study). Properties located north and east of the Project site are dev eloped for industrial uses, including but not limited to lumber yards, wood processing, storage, assembly , and similar uses. The closest noise-sensitive receiver locations to the Project site, consisting of residential homes to the west and south, are located over 1,000 feet away. The results of the construction noise analysis show that the unmitigated construction noise levels would approach 35.5 dBA Leq at these noise-sensitive receiver locations and would result in a less-than-significant impact.

This is documented in the Urban Crossroads noise analysis (Attachment 3).

50 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-58

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
No long-term operational noise would result from the proposed Project since there wo uld be no new vehicles trips to or from the Project site or industrial operations, since proposed improvements would include drainage and water quality improvements. There would be no impact during operations with respect to this topic.

b) Less than Signi ficant Impact. Groundborne vibration and groundborne noise could occur during the construction phase of the Project as a result of grading, trenching and removal of existing paving. No residences, schools, hospitals or similar noise-sensitive land uses exist near the site that could be significantly impacted from these types of activities. The closest noise- sensitive receiver locations to the Project site are located over 1,000 feet away. Based on the reference vibration levels provided by the Federal Transit Administrat ion, a large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration with a reference velocity of 0.089 in/sec peak-particle- velocity (PPV) at 25 feet. At distances ranging from 1,210 to 1,918 feet from primary Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are expected to range from 0.0001 to 0.0003 in/sec PPV, as shown on Table 7 -10 in Attachment 3. Based on the Caltrans older residential building damage threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV, the proposed Project construction activities would result in vibration levels which are anticipated to remain below the threshold for building damage, and therefore, represents a less than significant impact. A less than significant impact would result in terms of excessive ground vibration.

c) No Impact. The Project site is located approximately one mile southeast of the Hollywood- Burbank Airport. Since the Project would include no above -ground structures and would not be occupied by residents, employees or visitors, there would be no impact with respect to this topic.

References

———. 2021. City of Burbank Municipal Code. August 10, 2021. Accessed September 28, 2021.

Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/

Urban Crossroads, Inc. for City of Burbank Water and Power. April 30, 2019. Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus, Noise Impact Analysis.
51 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-59

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the
project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

a) No Impact. The Project does not include a residential component and thus would not directly increase the City’s population. The Project would not extend roads or other infrastructure such that indirect population growth could occur. The Project would include drainage and water quality improvements to support the City of Burbank’s, Burban k Water and Power Department. There would be no impact with respect to this topic.

b) No Impact. The Project site and surrounding area is developed with the BWP Campus and surrounding light industrial uses. The Project site does not contain existing hous ing units and is designated for institutional and industrial uses. Implementation of the Project would not result in the displacement of a substantial number of people and thus would not cause replacement housing to be built elsewhere within the city. No residences would be removed to accommodate Project improvements and no impact would result.

References

52 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-60

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the
following public services:

i) Fire Protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Police Protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

a.i) No Impact. The Project would include the construction of storm drainage and water quality improvements on the existing developed BWP campus in an urbanized area of the City of Burbank. The Project would not involve construction or operation of any structures that could result in fire hazards or require paramedic service calls. Therefore, no impact would result with respect to this topic.

a.ii) No Impact. Similar to fire impacts, the Project would include construction of storm drainage and water quality improvements on the existing developed BWP campus in an urbanized area of the City of Burbank. No structures or other improvements would be built that would require police calls for services and no impacts would result with respect to this topic.

a.iii) No Impact. The Project does not include a ny components which would increase housing, increase businesses, or bring infrastructure into undeveloped areas, and would not otherwise directly or indirectly increase the City’s population. For this reason, the proposed Project would not generate new students and would not increase demand on local schools. No impact would occur.

a.iv) No Impact. As noted above, no impact would occur wit h respect to this Project since no habitable space would be created where new residents or visitors would use local parks , as there would be no increase in population.

a.v) No Impact. As noted above, no impact would occur with respect to this Project sin ce no habitable space would be created where new residents or visitors would use City libraries, as there would be no increase in population.

53 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-61

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Reference

54 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-62

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

a) No Impact. The Project does not include a residential component and thus would not directly or indirectly increase the City’s population. There would be no increase in the use of local or regional parks as a result of Project construction. The City has recreation resources, including the nearest resource, Olive Recreation Center, which is located approximately 0.3 mile south of the Project site. As stated in the Construction Scenario, the work is expected to be completed in three (3) months, with no more than 25 employees on site at one time. There are sufficient labor resources in the greater Los Angeles Metropolitan area that the construction w ould be completed by existing available labor resources (City of Burbank, 2021; SCAG, 2019) .

Therefore, there would be no anticipated population growth that would impact the nearest park.

No impact would occur with respect to this topic.

b) No Impact. The Project does not include or require a recreation facility or expansion of existing recreational facilities. There is no residential component of the Project that would require the construction of recreational facilities to support planned popul ation growth .

Therefore, the Project would have no impact with respect to adverse effects physical effects on the environmental due to development of recreation facilities or expansion of existing recreational facilities.

References

Karen Warner Associates, Inc. for City of Burbank Community Development Department, Planning Division. April 27, 2021. Draft Burbank Housing Element 2021-2029. Available at:
https://www.burbankhousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Public-Review-Draft- 2021-2029-Burbank-Housing-Element.pdf

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). May 2019. Local Profiles Report 2019:

Profile of the City of Burbank. Available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/burbank_localprofile.pdf?1605663993
55 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-63
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Transportation and Traffic

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the
project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Discussion

a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The Project would result in temporary impacts during demolition and construction in relation to potential conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Project site is located approximately 0.1 mile southwest of the Golden State Freeway (U.S. Interstate 5), with the off-site improvements proposed approximately 0.1 mile southwest of the freeway at N. Varney Street, and the on-site improvements located on the next block near W. Olive Avenue. The onsite improvements would occur where a single southwest bound lane connects the S. Flower Street and W. Olive Avenue intersection before the elevated Olive Avenue freeway overpass bridge drops to an at -grade level to the south of the Project site. The nearest transit stops to the project site are the Burbank – Downtown Metrolink Station, which faces S. Front Street to the northeast of the project site, and a bus line along Olive Avenue. Demolition and construction activities, which would require transport of construction equipment and materials to and from the Project site, has the potential for vehicles to temporarily affect circulation during the construction phase. Based on a discussion with the Transportation Division of the Burbank
Community Development Department (Hannah Woo,
Associate Transportation Planner, 11/29/18, reviewed by Vikki Davtian, Principal Traffic Engineer, 10/2021), the number of construction vehicles associated with the Project would result in a less than significant impact with the application of Mitigation Measure TRA -1 during Project demolition and construction:

Mitigation Measure TRA -1. Prior to commencement of construction of the Project (including demolition activities), the City of Burbank, Burbank Water and Power shall require the Project contractor to submit to the Burbank Public Works Department for approval, a Traffic Management Plan that includes, at minimum, the specified items:

a) A haul route for demolition debris; and
b) Provision to ensure that all adjacent public streets are accessible for emergency e
quipment and normal vehicle, bicycle , and pedestrian traffic during Proje ct demolition and construction.
56 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-64
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Additionally, as stated in the Project Description, any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which requires use of over-sized -transport vehicles on State highways will require a Caltrans transportation permit. Large size truck trips should be limited to off-peak commute periods. The proposed Project would not result in a direct adverse impact to the existing State transportation facilities. The nearest state highway to the Project site is the Ventura Freeway (State Route 134), located approximately 1.5 miles south of the Project site.

The Project would not create any habitable space that would generate vehicular trips. There would therefore be no long-term impacts to local or regional roadways, public transit systems, and bicycle or pedestrian facilities.

The Project would not conflict with air traffic circulation. Although the Project site is located southeast of Hollywood- Burbank Airport, no habitable structures would be built that would cause any impacts to safety or obstructions to aircraft operations. All Project facilities would be located underground. In terms of potential blockage of emergency vehicle access, refer to Mitigation Measure TRA -1 “b,” that requires continued access around the Project area for emergency vehicles and all other forms of normal access.

There would be no impact with respect to conflicts to plans or policies dealing with public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities since the Project would be constructed underground and would not interfere with roads, bicycle routes or sidewalks.

Impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 because the Traffic Management Plan would reduce potential conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefor e, impacts would be less than significant after incorporation of mitigation measure TRA-1.

b) No Impact. Based on discussions with the Burbank Transportation Division, construction of the Project would not result in conflicts with any City congestion management plans or result in a significant amount of
congestion at any nearby roadways or intersections (Hannah Woo, 11/29/18, reviewed by Vikki Davtian, Principal Traffic Engineer, 10/2021 ). Additionally, the Project would not create any habitable space that would generate vehicular trips. The Project would involve construction of drainage improvements that would allow stormwater from adjacent properties to be intercepted and discharged into the BWC through a new outfall structure. The Project does not involve any new residences, offices, or businesses that would generate per capita automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT). There would be no impact with respect to this topic.

c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. No above -ground improvements would be constructed as part of the Project. The City’s construction contractor would be required to prepare and have the City’s Public Works Department to prepare a Traffic Management Plan (see Mitigation Measure TRA -1) to ensure vehicular and pedestrian safety. As shown in Exhibit 3, Site Plan Overview , and Exhibit 5, Proposed Offsite Improvements , the Project would involve installation of a new curb inlet, a new manhole, and a new 36-inch storm drain pipe, as well as replacement of an existing underground storm drain pipe and replacement of existing trees that interfere with construction. These Project features would occur off-site, above and below ground on N. Varney Street, and the adjacent right -of-way. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, vehicular and pedestrian safety impacts would 57 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-65
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
be reduced to a less than significant level. With adherence to the approved Traffic Management Plan, there would be no impacts with respect to potential hazards due to construction and incompatible uses.

d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation . Since all Project improvements would be located below grade, there would be no need for emergency access or blockage of emergency equipment during Project operation. During Project construction, adherence to Mitigation Measure TRA-1, above will ensure that emergency vehicle access would not be blocked on adjacent streets. Access to Project improvements for maintenance and repair would be provided by manhole access points as specified by City of Burbank Engineering standards . With adherence to the referenced mitigation measure, no significant impacts would be created.

References

Discussion with Hannah Woo, Associate Transportation Planner, Burbank Traffic Division, November 29, 2018. Reviewed by Vikki Davtian, Principal Traffic Engineer, October 2021. 58 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-66
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES --
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined
in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Discussion

a, b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. On February 4, 2020, BWP staff met with Mr. Jairo Avila of the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians ( FTBMI) to discuss how Native American resources could be protected during construction. Burbank Water & Power met, via teleconference, with FTBMI (Mr. Avila) again on March 15, 2022. On March 25, 2022 , FTBMI provided comments via email on the preliminary draft mitigation measures. FTBMI provided an additional email to Burbank Water & Power regarding the scope of the requested mitigation measures on June 13, 2022. Based on the consultation undertaken with FTBMI, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 contained in the 2019 Initial Study has been replaced by a revised version of CUL -1, TRIBAL-1, and TRIBAL -2. In addition, the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation), provided a letter 13 months after the 30-day AB 52 consultation was conducted in 2020.

In preparing the updated Initial Study/MND for public review, Burbank Water & Power sent letters on November 16, 2021, to California Native American tribes that have requested to be notified of Projects within the City’s jurisdiction inviting them to participate in government -to-government consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (Assembly Bill 52). The FTBMI responded on December 15, 202 1, requesting additional information regarding the extent of proposed groundwork. Additional information was provided to F TBMI on January 21, 2022 . No tribal consultation was requested during preparation of the updated Initial Study/MND. However, in addition to the February 4, 2020, meeting, via teleconference, between Burbank Water & Power and FTBMI (Mr. Avila), Burbank Water & Power met, again via teleconference, with FTBMI on March 15, 2022. On March 25, 2022 , FTBMI provided comments via email on the preliminary 59 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-67
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
draft mitigation measures. On June 13, 2022, FTBMI provided an additional email to Burbank Water & Power regarding the scope of the requeste d mitigation measures on June 13, 2022.

Burbank Water & Power responded to FTBMI by phone and email and provided a copy of the three mitigation measures identified for the protection of Tribal cultural resources: Mitigation Measures CUL-1, TRIBAL-1, and TRIBAL-2. In response to the outreach undertaken by the City pursuant to AB 52, the City received one (1) letter from the FTBMI. Following additional consultation, the proposed Mitigation Measure TRIBAL-1 was revised.

Any Native American (Tribal) cultural resources found on the Project site as a result of construction would be protected by adherence to Mitigation Measure s CUL-1, TRIBAL-1, and TRIBAL -2, found in the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources sections of this Initial Study. With adherence to th e three specified mitigation measures, any impacts to Native American (Tribal) cultural resources would be less than significant. Sapphos Environmental, Inc. conducted a site visit of the BWP Campus and BWC on February 10, 2022, and confirmed the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on potential historical resources.

Mitigation Measure TRIBAL-1: Tribal Resources – Avoidance and Monitoring.

The Qual ified Archaeologist shall have a pre -construction meeting to explain the construction monitoring process and provide training on how to recognize Tribal cultural resources encountered during earthmoving activities. Such sensitivity training shall include a handout and focus on how to recognize Tribal cultural resources encountered during earthmoving activities.

The City may also elect to retain a Native American Monitor upon the request of a local tribe with cultural ties to the project site. Upon request, the City shall determine whether to retain a Native American Monitor prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities. If it elects to retain such a monitor, such monitor shall be affiliated with the local Tribe with cultural ties to the project si te and such Tribe shall also be designated by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC - Designated Tribes). Such a Native American monitor, if retained, shall be present during the ground-disturbing activities in undisturbed native soils within the Pro ject area. Regardless of whether the City elects to retain a Native American Monitor, the NAHC -Designated Tribes, or those who have identified themselves directly to the City as having an interest in the BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project, shall be invited to attend the pre -construction meeting held by the Qualified Archaeologist to participate in Tribal cultural resource sensitivity training. Project efforts are not prohibited from moving forward should Tribal representatives decline to voluntarily participate in the pre-construction meeting.

If previously unknown Tribal cultural resources are encountered during construction, then the resources shall either be left in situ and avoided through redesign, or the resources shall be salvaged, recorded, and reposited at a repository consistent with the provisions of a Phase III data recovery program and the provisions of the Resource Protection Plan, specified in CUL -1. The City shall hire a Tribal monitor if the identified resources are likely Tribal cult ural resources. The Resource Protection Plan shall include further consultation with the identified Tribal representatives.

Mitigation Measure TRIBAL -1: Tribal Resources – Avoidance and Monitoring. Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities in native ( i.e., non-fill) soil, the City shall require 60 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-68
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
monitoring of all ground -disturbing activities by a Qualified Archeologist. The Qualified Archaeologist shall have a pre-construction meeting to explain the construction monitoring process and provide training. In addition, consultation and coordination shall be undertaken with the Native American local Tribal contacts designated by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and the Tribe(s) to determine if the city shall retain a Native American monitor to be present during all or a portion of the ground -disturbing activities within the Project area. In addition, representatives of tribes, with which the Most Likely Descendants, identified by the NAHC, or who have ident ified themselves directly to the City as having an interest in the BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project shall be invited to attend the pre-construction meeting to conduct Tribal cultural resource sensitivity training. Such sensitivity training may inc lude a handout and focus on how to recognize Tribal cultural resources encountered during earthmoving activities.

In the event that previously unknown Tribal cultural resources are encountered during construction, the resources shall either be left in situ and avoided through redesign, or the resources shall be salvaged, recorded, and reposited at a repository consistent with the provisions of a Phase III data recovery program and the provisions of the Resource Protection Plan, specified in CUL -1. The Resource Protection Plan shall include further consultation with the identified Tribal representatives. Data recovery is not required by law or regulation. It is, though, the most commonly agreed-upon measure to mitigate adverse effects to cultural resources eligible or listed under Section 106 Criterion D/CRHR Criterion 4, as it preserves important information that would otherwise be lost.

No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains within 100 feet shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains.

If the County Coroner determines that the remains are or are believed to be Native American, s/he shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, the NAHC shall immediately notify the person(s) it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make a recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative (s) would then determine, in consultation with the City, the disposition of the human remains. The MLD’s recommendation shall be followed if feasible and may include scientific removal and non -destructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials. If the City rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the agency shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the property within a time frame agreed upon be tween the City and the MLD’s in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface disturbance (14 California Code of Regulations §15064.5(e)).

61 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-69
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
Project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Comply with Federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Discussion

a) No Impact. The elements described as the onsite improvements in the Project Description are located on the developed BWP Campus, which is already served by water, wastewater, drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure for daily operations. The offsite improvements in the Project Description are located within the right- of-way of North Varney Street and would terminate in a new drainage outfall into the BWC, approximately 950 feet north of the current outfall. As stated in the Burbank2035 General Plan, water and power is provided to the City by BWP, wastewater is primarily treated at the Burbank Wastewater Reclamation Plant, and the City maintains a drainage system. The Project consists of stormwater infrastructure improvements to the BWP campus that would not involve any changes to water, wastewater, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications infrastructure, and therefore would have no impact on these utilities. With regard to stormwater drainage infrastructure, the Project would implement improvements on the already-developed BWP campus that would increase on -site filtration and retention, increase infiltration into groundwater, and reduce runoff into the BWC. The Project would include the construction of drainage and water quality improvements, some of which would replace existing, older facilities. New drainage improvements would ensure that current regional surface water quality standards are met. Therefore, while the Project would involve the construction of new and expanded stormwater drainage facilities, these improvements would improve water quality and reduce stormwater runoff, thereby resulting in a net benefit. As discussed throughout the Initial Study, there would be no significant environmental effects as a result of the Project. Therefore, 62 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-70
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
there would be no impact with regard to the construction or relocation of utilities which could cause significant environmental effects.

b) No Impact. As stated in the Burbank2035 General Plan, the City’s water is supplied by BWP, providing potable water, fire protection water, and recycled water. BWP receives most of its potable water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and is supplemented by groundwater from the San Fernando Basin. As discussed in Section 1, Project Description, site preparation and grading would take approximately 3 working days (please see Table 1, Anticipated Construction Equipment). Dust control would be acco mplished by using a water truck to spray down exposed areas. It is anticipated that a single 5,000-gallon water truck would be deployed each day. Given 3 working days with 5,000 gallons of water used each day, 15,000 total gallons of water would be require d for Project construction. There are 10 licensed water haulers in Los Angeles County that would be able to provide this water (Los Angeles County Department of Public Health). According to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP, 2021), San Fernando Basin underlies the city, including the Project site. One of the purposes of the Project is to redirect stormwater runoff from an existing outfall into the nearby BWC to an infiltration field on the BWP Campus. The proposed Project would im plement storm water capture system that would divert an average of 8.2 million gallons per year of storm water from the BWC for filtration, assuming average rainfall of 16.3 inches per year (MNS, 2018). The treated storm water would either be used for cool ing tower make-up water or infiltrated into the ground, or a combination of the two. Therefore, as captured stormwater is infiltrated, then the amount of local high -quality infiltration would be increased, and the proposed Project would not decrease ground water supplies nor interfere with sustainable groundwater management. Both the reuse and infiltration maintain or improve existing levels of regional groundwater recharge. Therefore, the 15,000 gallons of water used for project construction would be offset by the infiltration of water captured as a result of implementing the Project. Furthermore, after construction, the Project would require no additional water supplies for operation. Therefore, there would be no impacts with regard to sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project.

c) No Impact. No habitable structures or other facilities would be constructed as part of the Project that would generate wastewater, and therefore the Project would not require new water or wastewater facilities. No changes to current City water or wastewater facilities would result from the Project. No impact would result with regard to wastewater capacity.

d, e) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Project improvements would not include generation of long-term solid waste, since no habitable space would be created that could generate waste material. In the short-term, construction activities could generate quantities of waste material, including but not limited to empty cartons, material wrappers, concrete and paving material.

To ensure this impact is less than significant, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.

Mitigation Measure Util -1. Prior to issuance of an Excavation Permit by the City of Burbank, the Project contractor shall prepare a Construction and Demolition Debris Plan (CDDP). The PlanCDDP shall meet the requirements of a project “Waste Management Plan,” consistent with Section 9 -1-11-1012, Diversion of Construction and Demolition Debris and Submission of Waste Management Plan, in the City of Burbank Municipal Code. The Plan CDDP shall include methods for recycling construction debris and ultimate disposition of recycled material and shall and be approved by the Burbank Public Works 63 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-71
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Department prior to commencement of excavation activities. The PlanCDDP shall specify performance standards for construction waste recycling and diversion that are consistent with the City of Burbank Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance. Consistent with the Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance, the project shall r euse or r ecycle a minimum of 50% of construction and demolition debris. The PlanCDDP shall specify the waste hauler that will separate 50% of the materials for recycling , and it shall specify the recycling center that will accept the waste. The Project contractor shall consult the City of Burbank Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Reference Manual to develop the Project’s Construction and Demolition Debris Plan CDDP. The Construction and Demolition Debris PlanCDDP shall specify how the contractor shall transport any waste generated by construction of the project to a landfill outside the City of Burbank. The project demolition contractor shall determine the ultimate disposal site for asphalt, concrete, and other material. Any materials cleaned from the vault shall be treated as contaminated soil and transporteddisposed of outside of the City for disposal.

As the project is relatively small, the quantity of debris generated from demolition would not be significantly large. Demolition material from industrial/commercial projects is not accepted at the City Landfi ll. The City of Burbank has adequate capacity to accommodate any solid waste not recycled per Mitigation Measure Util-1.

The City of Burbank’s Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance establishes recycling standards and requires developers and builders to incorporate these standards into their projects’ construction process (City of Burbank, 2016). Mitigation Measure Util-1 would ensure that the proposed Project meets the performance standards set by the City for construction and demolition debris waste and recycling.

Waste generated from operations and maintenance is anticipated to be similar to the existing condition. Burbank Landfill No. 3, which accepts non -hazardous materials and does not typically accept construction materials, would continue to accept solid waste at the project site during operations and maintenance (Molinar, 10/09/21). Under no conditions does the Landfill accept any type of soil or any materials cleaned ou t of a vault because they are considered contaminated soils by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). As of November 2020, the total remaining capacity at the Burbank Landfill was 4,309,704 tons; at its current fill rate, Burbank Landfill No. 3 is projected to reach fill capacity in 129 years (Jordan, 10/08/21; Molinar, 10/09/21).

The Project contractor will adhere to all local, State and Federal requirements regulating solid waste handling and disposal. This impact would be less than significant.

References

64 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-72
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
City of Burbank Building Division. 2016. Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Reference Manual. Accessed May 12, 2023. Available at:
file:///C:/Users/rbaker/Downloads/Construction_&_Demolition_Manual%20(1).pdf

City of Burbank. Title 9 Building and Regulations, Chapter 1 Building and Fire, Division 2 Diversion of Construction and Demolition Debris. Accessed May 12, 2023. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/#!/Burbank09/Burbank0901.html#9-1-11

Jordan, Curtis, Burbank Public Works Department, Burbank, CA. October 8, 2021. Email to Laura Male, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.

MNS Engineers for City of Burbank Water and Power. June 1, 2018. Burbank Water and Power Campus and Magnolia Power Plant NPDES Compliance Stormwater Quality Improvements Options – Draft Feasibility Study.

Molinar, John, Burbank Public Works Department, Burbank, CA. October 9, 2021. Email to Laura Male, Sapphos Environmental, Inc., Pasadena, CA.

65 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-73

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE –
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

a) No Impact. The proposed drainage improvements as part of the Project would not require access by emergency vehicles since there would be no residents or visitors occupying Project improvements. Access to drainage facilities would be provided on the site of the BWP campus or via local streets. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no impacts to wildfire in relation to the substantial impairment of adopted emergency response and emergency evacuation plans in or near State Responsibility Area (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ ; California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention [CAL FIRE], 2021).

b) No Impact. The proposed Project improvements are within an urban setting on an existing facility and not located near an SRA or lands classified as VHFHSZ. The nearest VHFHSZ is within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) located over 1.0 -mile away from the proposed Project to the south (CAL FIRE, 2021). In addition, the proposed Project and surrounding area are located on a relatively flat terrain where drainage improvements will be constructed below ground connecting to the BWC and thereby reducing to a low possibility of exacerbated wildfire risk from natural factors such as slope and wind. Therefore, the proposed Project improvements would result in no impacts to wildfire in relation to exacerbated wildfire risk due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors and thereby exposing Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

c) No Impact. The proposed Project improvements are within an urban setting on an existing facility that is served by current infrastructure and not located near an SRA or lands classified 66 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-74

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
as VHFHSZ. The nearest VHFHSZ is within a n LRA located over 1.0 -mile away from the proposed Project to the south and the area is relatively on flat terrain (CAL FIRE, 2021). In addition, the proposed drainage improvements will be constructed below ground and would not require access by emergency vehicles, since there would be no residents or visitors occupying the Project improvements. Access to the drainage facilities would be provided on the site of the BWP campus or via local streets. Therefore, the proposed Project improvements would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in the temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment in or near SRAs or lands classified as VHFHSZs as this Project site is already served by current infrastructure.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not exacerbate fire risk.

d) No Impact. The proposed Project improvements are within an urban setting on an existing facility where there would be no residents or visitors occupying the Project improvements. In addition, the proposed Project is not located near an SRA or lands classified as VHFHSZ. The nearest VHFHSZ is within a n LRA located over 1.0 mile away from the proposed Project to the south (CAL FIRE, 2021) . Furthermore, the proposed Project and surrounding area are located on a relatively flat terrain where drainage improvements will be constructed below ground connecting to the BWC and thereby reducing to a low possibility of exposure of people or structures to exacerbated wildfire risk. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no impacts to wildfires related to exposure of people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes in or near SRAs or lands classified as VHFHSZs.

Reference

California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2021. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed September 28, 2021. Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/

67 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-75

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE --

a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the Project have impacts that are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a Project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of
past Projects, the effects of other current
Projects, and the effects of probable future
Projects)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Does the Project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Discussion

a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in a developed area of the City and is developed with buildings, power generation equipment, public rights -of-way and similar urban uses. Based on the Biological Resources Assessment performed on the site by WRA (attached to this Initial Study), there are limited biological resources that could be affected by construction of the Project. The one potentially significant impact would be impacts to nesting birds as a result of loss of five trees. This impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level as described in the Biological Resources section of this Initial Study. Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce a fish or wildlife species or eliminate any wildlife species. It would als o not impact any rare, threatened species or eliminate any historic resources. As described in the Cultural Resources section of the Initial Study, the Project would result in no impact to historical resources and impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation if there is unanticipated discovery of unknown archaeological resources as well as human remains. Although the BWP campus and BWC are both greater than 50 years of age and may be considered historical resources, the Project is consistent with the original intended purpose and use of both resources. The Project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

b) No Impact. The propose d Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future related Projects, has no potential to result in significant cumulative impacts when the independent impacts of the proposed Project and the impacts of related Projects combine to create impacts greater than those of the proposed Project alone. Proposed drainage 68 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-76

BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
and storm water quality improvements that would be constructed as part of the Project would be located in a limited area of the City of Burbank and would be complet ed in a single phase.

No other changes to the environment are proposed on or adjacent to the site. No impact would result with respect to this topic.

c) No Impact. The preceding Initial Study does not identify any effects that would result in substantial adverse impacts to human beings, either directly or indirectly. There would be no impact with respect to this topic.

69 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-77
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Summary of Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO -1. No Project activities, including vegetation removal and grading shall be conducted during nesting bird season (February 15 to August 3 1) to the extent feasible. If such activities must be conducted during the nesting season, a pre-construction nesting-bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal or initial ground disturbance. The survey shall include the disturbance area and the surrounding 500 feet, to identify the location and status of any nests that could potentially be affected either directly or indirectly by Project activities. The nesting bird surveys shall be conducted during appropriate time of day and weather conditions and concentrate on potential roosting or perch sites.

If an active nest (containing eggs or chicks) of protected species is found within the survey area, it shall be designated as an ecologically sensitive area and prot ected (while occupied) during Project Activities. Established exclusion zones shall remain in place until all young in the nest have fledged or the nest otherwise becomes inactive (e.g., due to predation). Appropriate exclusion zone sizes shall be determin ed by a qualified biologist and vary dependent upon the species, nest location, existing visual buffers, noise levels, and other factors. An exclusion zone radius may be as small as 250 feet for common, disturbance -adapted species or as large as 500 feet o r more for raptors.

Exclusion zone size may be reduced from established levels if supported with nest monitoring findings by a qualified biologist indicating that work activities outside the reduced radius are not adversely affecting the nest and that a re duced exclusion zone would not adversely affect the subject nest.

These requirements shall be included in Project plans and construction specifications.

Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1. If an archaeological resource is identified, work on the Project site shall cease immediately until a resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) is prepared by a qualified archaeologist and approved by the Community Develop ment Director. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately.

Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure GEO-1. If a paleontological resource is identified, work on the Project site shall cease immediately un til a resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) is prepared by a qualified paleontologist and approved by the Community Development Director. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. 70 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-78
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Mitigation Measure HAZ -1. Prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be developed to address 1) the possibility of encountering petroleum hydrocarbon or lead-impacted soils during excavation of the on -site southern parcel and 2) monitor excavated soils for Volatile Organic Compounds during the project construction in the northern parcel (Ninyo & Moo re 2020). The SMP sh all be prepared by a qualified environmental consultant and implemented during soil disturbance activities under the oversight of an environmental professional.

The SMP shall address monitoring of excavated soil, community and construct ion worker health and safety, and soil handling, stockpiling, and characterization. Soil characterization results shall be used to determine on-site reuse, export, and disposal protocols as appropriate. The SMP shall be submitted to and approved by the Bur bank Community Development Director or Burbank Public Works Department prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities. a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be completed by a qualified consulting firm as determined by BWP staff to determine po ssible presence of contaminated compounds or materials in the soil or groundwater near excavated or trenched areas. If such materials are identified, additional analysis, including soil testing, to determine the extent of any potential contamination. If ne eded, a remediation plan shall be prepared and implemented under the oversight of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Grading and trenching operations may commence after clearances are granted by the appropriate regulatory agency.

Transportation/Traffic

a) A haul route for demolition debris; and
b) Provision to ensure that all adjacent public streets are accessible for emergency equipment and normal vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic during Project demolition and construction.

Tribal Cultural Resources

Mitigation Measure TRIBAL-1: Tribal Resources – Avoidance and Monitoring.

Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities in native (i.e., non-fill) soil, the City shall require monitoring of all ground -disturbing activities by a Secretary of Interior Professionally Qualified Archaeologist who is a member of the Register of Professional Archaeologists (Qualified Archaeologist). The Qualified Archeologist shall not only be qualified to identify tribal cultural resources but also qualified to identify many other types of cultural and paleontological resources. The Qualified Archaeologist shall have a pre-construction meeting to explain the construction monitoring process and provide training on how to recognize Tribal cultural resources encountered during earthmoving activities. Such sensitivity training shall include a handout and focus on how to recognize Tribal cultural resources encountered during earthmoving activities.

The City may also elect to retain a Native American Monitor upon the request of a local tribe with cultural ties to the project site. Upon request, the City shall determine whether to retain a Native 71 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-79
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
American Monitor prior to the initiation of ground -disturbing activities. If it elects to retain such a monitor, such monitor shall be affiliated with the local Tribe with cultural ties to the project site an d such Tribe shall also be designated by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC-Designated Tribes). Such a Native American monitor, if retained, shall be present during the ground -disturbing activities in undisturbed native soils within the Project area. Regardless of whether the City elects to retain a Native American Monitor, the NAHC -Designated Tribes, or those who have identified themselves directly to the City as having an interest in the BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project, shall be invited to attend the pre-construction meeting held by the Qualified Archaeologist to participate in Tribal cultural resource sensitivity training. Project efforts are not prohibited from moving forward should Tribal representatives decline to voluntarily participate in the pre-construction meeting.

If previously unknown Tribal cultural resources are encountered during construction, then the resources shall either be left in situ and avoided through redesign, or the resources shall be salvaged, recorded, and re posited at a repository consistent with the provisions of a Phase III data recovery program and the provisions of the Resource Protection Plan, specified in CUL-1. The City shall hire a Tribal monitor if the identified resources are likely Tribal cultural resources. The Resource Protection Plan shall include further consultation with the identified Tribal representatives.

Mitigation Measure TRIBAL -1: Tribal Resources – Avoidance and Monitoring. Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities in native (i.e., non-fill) soil, the City shall require monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities by a Qualified Archeologist. The Qualified Archaeologist shall have a pre-construction meeting to explain the construction monitoring process and provide trai ning. In addition, consultation and coordination shall be undertaken with the Native American local Tribal contacts designated by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and the Tribe(s) to determine if the city shall retain a Native American monitor to be present during all or a portion of the ground-disturbing activities within the Project area. In addition, representatives of tribes, with which the Most Likely Descendants, identified by the NAHC, or who have identified themselves directly to the City as having an interest in the BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project shall be invited to attend the pre -construction meeting to conduct Tribal cultural resource sensitivity training. Such sensitivity training may include a handout and focus on how to recognize Tribal cultural resources encountered during earthmoving activities.

In the event that previously unknown Tribal cultural resources are encountered during construction, the resources shall either be left in situ and avoided through redesign, or the resources shall be salvaged, recorded, and reposited at a repository consistent with the prov isions of a Phase III data recovery program and the provisions of the Resource Protection Plan, specified in CUL -1. The Resource Protection Plan shall include further consultation with the identified Tribal representatives. Data recovery is not required by law or regulation. It is, though, the most commonly agreed -upon measure to mitigate adverse effects to cultural resources eligible or listed under Section 106 Criterion D/CRHR Criterion 4, as it preserves important information that would otherwise be lost.

Mitigation Measure TRIBAL -2: Regulatory Requirements – Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are encountered during excavation activities, the County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains within 100 feet shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains.

72 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-80
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
If the County Coroner determines that the remains are or are believed to be Native American, s/he shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, the NAHC shall immediately notify the person(s) it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make a recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. T he designated Native American representative(s) would then determine, in consultation with the City, the disposition of the human remains. The MLD’s recommendation shall be followed if feasible and may include scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials. If the City rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the agency shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the property within a time frame agreed upon between the City and the MLD’s in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface disturbance (14 California Code of Regulations §15064.5(e)).

Utilities and Service Systems

Mitigation Measure Util -1. Prior to issuance of an Excavation Permit by the City of Burbank, the Project contractor shall prepare a Construction and Demolition Debris Plan (CDDP). The CDDP shall meet the requirements of a project “Waste Management Plan,” consistent with Section 9 -1-11-1012, Diversion of Construction and Demolition Debris and Submission of Waste Management Plan, in the City of Burbank Municipal Code. The Plan CDDP shall include methods for recycling construction debris and ultimate disposition of recycled material and shall and be approved by the Burbank Public Works Department prior to commencement of excavation activities. The CDDP shall specify performance standards for construction waste recycling and diversion that are consistent with the City of Burbank Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance. Consistent with the Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance, the project shall reuse or recycle a minimum of 50% of construction and demolition debris. The CDDP shall specify the waste hauler that will separate 50% of the materials for recycling, and it shall specify the recycling center that will accept the waste. The Project contractor shall consult the City of Burbank Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Reference Manual to develop the Project’s CDDP. The Construction and Demolition Debris Plan CDDP shall specify how the contractor shall transport any waste generated by construction of the project to a l andfill outside the City of Burbank. The project demolition contractor shall determine the ultimate disposal site for asphalt, concrete, and other material. Any materials cleaned from the vault shall be treated as contaminated soil and transporteddisposed of outside of the City for disposal.

73 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-81
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Attachment 1
Biological Reconnaissance Report
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-82
2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94702 (415) 454-8868 tel [email protected] www.wra-ca.com Biological Resources Assessment

STORMWATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

CITY OF BURBANK, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:

Stevenson, Porto & Pierce
5519 Ayon Avenue
Irwindale CDOLIRUQLD 91706
Prepared By:

WRA, Inc.
2169-G East Francisco Boulevard
San Rafael, California 94901
Contact: Kari Dupler
[email protected]
Date:

October 2018
WRA Project Number:
28190
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-83
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 Project Description and Purpose ........................................................................... 2

2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 3

2.1 Sensitive Biological Communities ............................................................................ 3

2.2 Special-Status Species and Critical Habitat ............................................................. 5

3.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Biological Communities ........................................................................................... 6

3.1.1 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities ...................................................... 6

3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities .............................................................. 7

3.2 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................ 8

3.2.1 Literature Review ...................................................................................... 8

3.2.2 Site Assessment ....................................................................................... 8

4.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Biological Communities ..........................................................................................10

4.1.1 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities .................................................... 10

4.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities ............................................................ 10

4.2 Special-Status Species ...........................................................................................11

4.2.1 Plants ...................................................................................................... 11

4.2.2 Wildlife .................................................................................................... 11

4.3 City of Burbank Trees and Vegetation Ordinance ...................................................11

5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ....................................................................... 11

5.1 Significance Threshold Criteria ...............................................................................12

5.2 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ...................................................................13

5.3 Potential Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures ....................................13

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 16

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Description of CNPS Ranks and Threat Codes ........................................................... 6 Table

2. Summary of Non-Sensitive Biological Communities in the Project Site ...................... 10

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-84
i

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Figures
Appendix B – List of Observed Plant and Wildlife Species Appendix C – Project Area and Site Photographs
Appendix D – Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Project Site

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BRA Biological Resource Assessment
BWC Burbank Western Channel
BWPC Burbank Water and Power Campus
CAL-IPC California Invasive Plant Council
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CWA Clean Water Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
NAL Numeric Action Level
NWI National Wetland Inventory
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geologic Survey
WBWG Western Bat Working Group
WRA WRA, Inc.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-85
2 1.0 INTRODUCTION

WRA, Inc. (WRA) prepared this biological resource assessment (B RA) report on behalf of the Burbank Water and Power Campus (BWPC) for the establishment of a new stormwater system (Project). The Project Site is located within downtown Burbank in Los Angeles, California (Assessor Parcel Numbers [APN] 2451-011-900, 2451-009-900, 2451 -009-902, and 2451-009- 901) (Appendix A, Figure 1). The approximately 24-acre Project Site is comprised of a series of buildings and associated parking lots utilized by the Burbank W ater and Power Campus. Much of the proposed changes occur along the northwestern border and northeastern corner of the Project Site. This BRA report includes an evaluation of publis hed background information relevant to the Project and findings from a site visit conducte d throughout the Project Site on October 9, 2018.

The purpose of this BRA was to gather information necessary to complete a review of biological resources protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to support the regulatory permit application process. This report describes t he results of previous site visits that occurred in the Project Site and reviews relevant existing information in order to evaluate the Project Site for: (1) the potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species; (2) the potential presence of sensitive biological communities, such as wetlands or riparian habitats; and (3) the potential presence of other sensitive biological re sources protected by local, state, and federal laws and regulations. This report also identifies potential impacts to biological resources that would result from the Project, discusses avoidan ce and minimization measures that would protect natural resources, and recommends mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts under CEQA.

This BRA is based on information available at the time of the s tudy and on-site conditions observed during the October 9, 2018 survey performed in the Pro ject Site. Habitat and species information associated with the Project Site are considered suitable for an evaluation of the Project’s biological resources impacts under CEQA; however, additional protocol-level plant and wildlife surveys for certain species may be necessary to obtain permits or other regulatory approvals from state and federal regulatory agencies prior to Project implementation.

1.1 Project Description and Purpose
Currently, the 24-acre Project Site stormwater system collects run-off throughout the area and drains to a 36-inch storm drain collector, which discharges int o the Burbank Western Channel (BWC), a tributary of the Los Angeles River. Run-off from an a djacent property also feeds into this same stormwater system and has resulted in discharges into the BWC containing elevated levels of zinc, copper and iron. Therefore, the Project seeks to divert the run-off from the adjacent property by plugging the pipes at the existing stormwa ter inlet that connect the BWPC to the adjacent property, as well as establishing 340 linear feet of new pipe and a new outflow into the BWC. Project activitie s associated with this diversio n may result in the removal of five existing landscaped ornamental trees and underground work withi n the existing storm water system on Western Magnolia Blvd. Once the Project is completed, the adjacent property will no longer add to the levels of zinc, copper and iron within the stormwater discharge into the BWC that is currently resulting in exceeding of numeric action leve ls (NALs). Additionally, establishment of an on-site stormwater treatment system for the BWPC stormwater system that discharges into the BWC will result in the BWPC also complying with NALs of zinc, copper, and iron. This stormwater system will collect discharge as it curr ently does without receiving additional run-off from the adjacent property. Discharge for the entire BWPC will then be stored in an underground facility in the eastern corner, before being filtered through a pre-treatment ATTACHMENT 2
A2-86
3 system equipped with valves and gates to let water infiltrate below as well as flow into the BWC.

The Project would involve adding a new storage facility, pump a nd control housing, pretreatment system, and catch basin to the existing storm drai n outfall that discharges into the BWC.

2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

The following sections describe the regulatory context of the b iological resources assessment, including applicable laws and regulations that were applied to the field investigations.

2.1 Sensitive Biological Communities
Sensitive biological communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, or riparian habitat. These habitats are protected under federal regulations, such as the CWA; state regulations, such as the Porter-Cologne Act, Section 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), and CEQA; Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), or local ordinances or policies, suc h as city or county tree ordinances, and General Plan Elements.

Waters of the United States
The Corps regulates “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the CWA. Waters of the U.S. are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) a s waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all other w aters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Pot ential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands as defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), are identified by the presenc e of (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology.

Areas that are inundated at a sufficient depth and for a suffic ient duration to exclude growth of hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction as “other waters” and are often characterized by an ordinary high water mark (OHWM), and herein referred to as non-wetland waters. Non-wetland waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The placement of fill material into Waters of the U.S. generally re quires an individual or nationwide permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA.

Waters of the State
The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The RWQCB protects all waters in its regulatory scope and has special responsibili ty for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are vu lnerable to filling, and are not systematically protected by other programs. RWQCB jurisdiction includes wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the Corps under Section 404.

Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects tha t require a Corps permit or fall under other federal jurisdiction and have the potential to impact Waters of the State are required ATTACHMENT 2
A2-87
4 to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification det ermination. If a proposed project does not require a federal permit but does involve dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to Waters of the State, the RWQCB has the option to r egulate the dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements

Streams, Lakes, and Riparian Habitat
Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, ar e subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Cod e. Alterations to or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes generally require a N otification of Lake or Streambed Alteration. The term “stream”, which includes creeks and river s, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or othe r aquatic life [including] watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term “stream” can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparia n vegetation, or stream- dependent terrestrial wildlife (CDFG 1994). “Riparian” is defined as “on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream.” Riparian vegetation is defined as “vegetat ion which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of , the stream itself” (CDFG 1994). Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Notifica tion of Lake or Streambed Alteration.

Other Sensitive Biological Communities
Other sensitive biological communities, not discussed above, in clude habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities consider ed sensitive are those identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) in loc al or regional plans, policies, or regulations. The CDFW ranks sensitive communities as "threaten ed" or "very threatened" and keeps records of their occurrences in its California Natural Di versity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2018a). Sensitive plant communities are also identified by the CDFW (2018b) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS; 2018a). Vegetation alliances are r anked 1 through 5 by CNDDB based on NatureServe's (2015) methodology, with those alliances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered sensitive. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or those identified by the CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must be conside red and evaluated under CEQA (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Div. 6, Ch ap. 3, Appendix G). Specific habitats may also be identified as sensitive in city or county general plans or ordinances.

City of Burbank Trees and Vegetation Ordinances
The City of Burbank has ordinances set for tree removal associa ted with construction. Both street trees and trees on private property shall be replaced if removed during construction.

Street trees are defined as a tree within the width of public or right of way when any part is open for the use of the public, as a matter of right for purposes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, including alleys. Tree replacement shall follow the below stip ulations from the City of Burbank Municipal Code (Burbank 2018):

Street Trees: Any street tree requested by any person or property owner to b e removed for the purpose of any type of construction shall be replaced w ith a tree of the nearest size available, of a species and in the location to be determin ed by the Director. The ATTACHMENT 2
A2-88
5 person or property owner shall pay the total cost to the City o f removal prior to any such action being undertaken. If such tree, or trees, are not repla ced, the City shall be reimbursed the value of the tree as established in Section 7-4- 105 of this article, in addition to the cost to the City of removal.

Private Trees: Any tree removed for the purpose of any type of construction sh all be replaced with a tree of equal size, of the same species or an appropriate alternative, and in a location to be approved by the Park, Recreation and Commun ity Services Director and the Community Development Director. Alternately, the City s hall be reimbursed the value of the trees, pursuant to this section and Section 7-4-10 5 of this article; or, the project’s landscaping shall be improved above what is required by subsection 10-1- 1113E in the City of Burbank Municipal code, and in an amount equal to the value of the removed trees, or if the excess landscaping does not equal the value of the removed trees, then a fee for the shortfall shall be paid to the City; or, the tree(s) shall be moved elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Park, Recreation and Commu nity Services Director; or a combination of moving or replacing the trees pursuant to S ection 7-4-105 and this section shall be followed.

2.2 Special-Status Species and Critical Habitat

Special-Status Species

Special-status species include plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for suc h listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species A ct (CESA). These acts afford protection to both listed species and species proposed f or listing. In addition, CDFW Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpa tion in California if current population and habitat trends continue, and USFWS Birds of Cons ervation Concern are all considered special-status species. Although CDFW Species of Special Concern generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration u nder CEQA. Bat species are also evaluated for conservation status by the Western Bat Working Gr oup (WBWG), a non- governmental entity; bats named as a “High Priority” or “Medium Priority” species for conservation by the WBWG are typically considered special-statu s. In addition to regulations for special-status species, most birds in the United States, in cluding non-special-status native species, are protected by the CFGC, i.e., sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Under this law, destroying active bird nests, eggs, and/or young is illegal. T he Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) provides federal recommendations to protect birds, as well.

Plant species included within the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (Inventory; CNPS 2018) with California Rare Plant Rank (Rank) of 1, 2, and 3 are also considered special- status plant species and must be considered under CEQA. Very few Rank 4 plant species meet the definitions of Section 1901 Chapter 10 of the Native Plant Protection Act or Sections 2062 and 2067 of the CFGC that outlines CESA. However, the CNPS and the CDFW strongly recommend that these species be fully considered during the pre paration of environmental documentation related to CEQA. This may be particularly approp riate for the type locality of a Rank 4 plant species, for populations at the periphery of a spe cies range, or in areas where the taxon is especially uncommon or has sustained heavy losses, or from populations exhibiting unusual morphology or occurring on unusual substrates. A descr iption of the CNPS Ranks is provided below in Table 1.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-89
6 Table 1. Description of CNPS Ranks and Threat Codes
California Rare Plant Ranks (formerly known as CNPS Lists) Rank 1A Presumed extirpated in California and either rare or ex tinct elsewhere Rank 1B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsew here Rank 2A Presumed extirpated in California, but more common else where Rank 2B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3 Plants about which more information is needed - A review list Rank 4 Plants of limited distribution - A watch list
Threat Ranks

0.1 Seriously threatened in California

0.2 Moderately threatened in California

0.3 Not very threatened in California

3.0 METHODS

On October 9, 2018, the Project Site was traversed on foot to d etermine (1) plant communities present within the Project Site, (2) whether existing conditions potentially provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant or wildlife species, and ( 3) whether sensitive habitats are present. All plant and wildlife species encountered during the site visit were documented, and are listed in Appendix B. Plant nomenclature follows Baldwin e t al. (2012) and subsequent revisions by the Jepson Flora Project (2018), except where note d. Because of recent changes in classification for many of the taxa treated by Baldwin et al . and the Jepson Flora Project, relevant synonyms are provided in brackets. For cases in which regulatory agencies, CNPS, or other entities base rarity on older taxonomic treatments, precedence was given to the treatment used by those entities.

3.1 Biological Communities
Biological communities present in the Project Site were classif ied based on existing plant community descriptions described in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) and Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986).

However, in some cases it was necessary to identify variants of community types or communities that are not described in the literature. Biologic al communities were classified as sensitive or non-sensitive as defined by the CEQA and other app licable laws and regulations (see Section 2.2, above).

3.1.1 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities
Non-sensitive biological communities are those communities that are not afforded special protection under the CEQA or other state, federal, or local law s, regulations or ordinances.

These communities may, however, provide suitable habitat for so me special-status plant or wildlife species and are identified or described in Section 4.2.1, below.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-90
7 3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities
Sensitive biological communities are defined as those communities that are given special protection under the CEQA or other applicable federal, state, o r local laws, regulations or ordinances. Applicable laws and ordinances are discussed above in Section 2.0. Special methods used to identify sensitive biological communities are discussed below.

Wetlands and Non-Wetland Waters

The Project Site was surveyed to determine whether any wetlands or non-wetland waters potentially subject to jurisdiction by the Corps, RWQCB, or CDF W may be present. The preliminary assessment of wetlands was based primarily on the p resence of wetland plant indicators, but may also include any observed indicators of wet land hydrology or wetland soils.

Any potential wetland areas were identified as areas dominated by plant species with a wetland indicator status
1 of OBL, FACW, or FAC as given on the current National Wetlands Plant List (Lichvar 2013). Evidence of wetland hydrology may include dire ct evidence (i.e., primary indicators) such as visible inundation or saturation, algal mat s, or oxidized root channels, or indirect evidence (i.e., secondary indicators) such as a water table within two feet of the soil surface during the dry season. Some indicators of wetland soils include dark colored soils, soils with a sulfidic odor, or soils that contain redoximorphic featu res, as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) publication Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (NRCS 2010). The preliminary assessment of non-wetland waters assessment was based primarily on the presence of unvegetated, ponded area s or flowing water, or evidence indicating their presence such as an OHWM or a defined drainage course.

The preliminary assessment conducted during the biological reso urces assessment does not constitute an official wetland delineation. Collection of addi tional data may be necessary to prepare a wetland delineation report suitable for submission to the Corps. However, no wetland or non-wetland waters were found on site during the assessment.

Other Sensitive Biological Communities

The Project Site was evaluated for the presence of other sensit ive biological communities, including riparian areas, and sensitive plant communities recognized by the CDFW. Prior to the site visit, aerial photographs, local soil maps, and A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) were reviewed to assess the potential for sensitive b iological communities to occur in the Project Site. All vegetation alliances within the Project Site with a State Rank of 1 through 3 were considered sensitive biological communities and were mapped. Some communities in the Project Site may not be considered rare by the CDFW, but are af forded special protections when associated with wetland or riparian habitats. Sensitive biological communities observed in the Project Site are described in Section 4.1.2, below.

1 OBL = Obligate, always found in wetlands (> 99% frequency of oc currence); FACW = Facultative Wetland, usually found in wetlands (67-99% frequency of occurrence); FAC = Facul tative, equal occurrence in wetland or non- wetlands (34-66% frequency of occurrence).

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-91
8 3.2 Special-Status Species

3.2.1 Literature Review
The potential for special-status species to occur in the Projec t Site and immediately adjacent land was evaluated by first determining which special-status sp ecies have been documented previously in the Project Site and in the 5-mile vicinity of the Project Site through a literature and database search. Database searches for known occurrences of special-status species focused on the Burbank USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle (USGS 2015). The following sources were reviewed to determine which special-status plant and wildlife species have been documented to occur within and in the vicinity of the Project Site:

x California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2018)
x USFWS quadrangle species lists (USFWS 2018)
x CNPS Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory (CNPS 2018)
x CDFG publication California’s Wildlife, Volumes I-III (Zeiner et al. 1990) x CDFG publication Amphibians and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California (Jennings 1994)
x Western Bat Working Group, species accounts (WBWG 2018) x California Bird Species of Special Concern (Shuford and Gardal i 2008) x A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003)

3.2.2 Site Assessment
An assessment of the potential for special-status plant and wil dlife species to occur in the Project Site was conducted based on the literature review and t ypes and condition of habitats observed in the Project Site. The potential for occurrence is a rating of general habitat suitability that considers several factors related to the ability of a site to support a particular species, including:
x Historic and existing species range and documented occurrences in the vicinity; x Current understanding of the life history and habitat requirem ents of each species; x Suitability of physical and biological conditions of the site to support sustainable populations including appropriate breeding, foraging, and dispersal habitat; and x Existing and historic on-site and surrounding land uses that m ay affect habitat suitability.

Each special-status species identified in the literature search as occurring in the vicinity of the Project Site was assigned a potential for occurrence rating based on the following criteria:
x No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species.

For wildlife, this is based on a lack of one or more essential habitat elements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, pl ant community, site history, or disturbance regime). Species surveys are not considered necessary. x Unlikely. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on th e site. Species surveys not considered necessary but may be performed to confirm species absence.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-92
9 x Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting th e species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.

Species surveys may be necessary to avoid project impacts. x High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the spe cies requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site i s highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site. Spe cies surveys may be necessary to avoid project impacts.

Statements of results and recommendation for further actions ar e provided for each species based on the potential for occurrence rating and available surv ey results if previous surveys have been conducted. Presence or absence results may utilize t he following categories, if applicable:

x Presumed Absent. Species not observed during surveys or there is no potential for occurrence.
x Present. Species was observed on the site or has been documen ted recently as being on the site.

The site assessment is intended to identify the presence or abs ence of suitable habitat for each special-status species known to occur in the vicinity of the Pr oject Site to determine its potential to occur in the Project Site. The site assessment does not con stitute a protocol-level survey and is not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species; however, if a special-status species was observed during the site visit, its presence was recorded and it is discussed in Section 4, below. For some species, a site assessment visit at the level conducted for this report may not be sufficient to determine presence or absence of a species to the specifications of regulatory agencies. In these cases, a species may be assumed to be present or further protocol-level special-status species surveys may be necessary. Special-status species for which further protocol-level surveys may be necessa ry are described below in Section 5.0.

4.0 RESULTS

The following sections present the results of the biological re sources assessment conducted within the Project Site. Plant and wildlife species observed i n the Project Site during the site visit are listed in Appendix B. Representative photographs of the Project Site are provided in Appendix C.

The 24-acre Project Site consists of approximately 24 acres of landscaped/developed land. The Project Site is located in a developed area in downtown Burbank , and is located approximately half a mile southwest of Burbank City Hall. The Project Site is surrounded to the south, east, and west by government, residential and commercial development. The Project Site is dominated by developed surfaces and commercial buildings, but is bordered to the northeast by the BWC. Vegetation consists of landscaped trees which are pla nted in landscaped planters along the edges of buildings, parking areas, and streets. Elev ations within the Project Site range from 553 to 570 feet above sea level.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-93
10 The Project Site is highly developed with the majority of the p arcels consisting of paved parking lots with impervious surfaces, various buildings associated the Burbank Water and Power Campus. No special-status plant or wildlife species were obser ved during the site assessment, and the site was determined to have little to no potential to h ost the special-status species identified in the literature and database searches.

4.1 Biological Communities
Descriptions for each biological community observed in the Proj ect Site are contained in the following sections. Biological communities within the Project S i t e a r e s h o w n o n F i g u r e 2 (Appendix A).

4.1.1 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities

Table 2 summarizes the area of each non-sensitive biological community within the Project Site.

Non-sensitive biological communities in the Project Site include just developed/landscaped areas (24.0 acres).

Table 2. Summary of Non-Sensitive Biological Communities in the Project Site Community Type Area (acres)
Developed/Landscaped 24.0
Total 24.0

Developed/Landscaped

The Project Site (24 acres) is made up of developed and landsca ped areas including parking lots and paved, impervious surfaces with numerous buildings associated with the Burbank Water and Power Campus. Ornamental trees and shrubs were observed within the Project Site including fan palms (Washingtonia sp.), holly oak (Quercus ilex), and birds of paradise (Strelitzia reginae).

4.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities
Burbank Western Channel
The BWC is an intermittent stream that runs within a constructe d concrete-lined trapezoidal channel, and is protected under the CWA and Porter Cologne Act. It runs outside of the Project Site on the northeastern boundary and currently receives stormw ater discharge through an outfall that drains from the Project Site and adjacent property. This portion of the BWC does not sustain much vegetation and contains trash and other debris. T he BWC is within the Los Angeles River watershed and is a tributary of the Los Angeles R iver. The Project will construct a new outfall into the BWC, potential impacts and mitigation are discussed below in section 5.0.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-94
11 4.2 Special-Status Species

4.2.1 Plants

Appendix D summarizes the potential for occurrence determined f or each special-status plant species documented from the vicinity of the Project Site. Based upon a review of the resources and databases given in Section 3.2.1, it was determined that 10 special-status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the Project Site. Spec ial-status plant species that have been documented within a five-mile radius of the Project Site a re shown on Figure 3 (Appendix A). Given that the site is dominated by developed and landscaped areas with vegetated habitats consisting of planted non-native species, it was deter mined the Project Site does not contain suitable habitat for the any of the 10 special-status p lant species documented from the vicinity. These species are generally associated with less dis turbed habitats including forest, scrub, woodland, grassland, vernal pools, meadows and seeps, playas, alkaline or mesic marsh and swamps, or chaparral communities which are not present on t he site. Additionally, the majority of the site is paved except for the landscaped trees w hich do not provide suitable habitat for any of the special status plant species documented within the Burbank USGS quadrangle.

4.2.2 Wildlife

Appendix D summarizes the potential for each of these species t o o c c u r i n t h e P r o j e c t S i t e .

Based upon a review of the resources and databases given in Sec tion 3.2.1, it was determined that 14 special-status wildlife species have been documented in the vicinity of the Project Site (Burbank USGS quadrangle) with nine of these species being docu mented within five miles of the Project Site (Appendix A, Figure 4). No special-status wil dlife species were observed in the Project Site during the site assessment and none were determine d to have a moderate or high potential to occur. These species are generally associated wit h grassland, sage scrub, chaparral, woodland, arid scrub, or riparian communities, which are not present on the site.

Bird species that are protected under the CFGC and the MBTA may use trees that are present within the Project Site to nest. Mitigation measures for these are included in Section 5.3.

4.3 City of Burbank Trees and Vegetation Ordinance

The Project Site contains several species of landscaped ornamen tal trees protected under the City of Burbank Trees and Vegetation Ordinance. Fan palms and holly oaks are present on the borders of the Project Site in rows along the sidewalk and stre et sides. These trees are protected and any removal or permanent impacts to them require compensatory mitigation discussed above in Section 2.1.

5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

No sensitive biological community was identified within the Project Site, though the BWC is adjacent to the northeastern portion of the Project Site. No special-status plant or wildlife species wildlife species were determined to have a moderate pot ential to occur within the Project Site. The following sections present a CEQA level disc ussion of potential impacts to these natural resources and subsequent mitigation to reduce the level of significance to acceptable levels.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-95
12 5.1 Significance Threshold Criteria

Pursuant to Appendix G, Section IV of the State CEQA Guidelines , a project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or throug h habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS;

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regu lations, or by the CDFW or USFWS;

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wet lands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal po ol, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resi dent or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migrato ry wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and/or,

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, Natural Comm unity Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

This report uses these thresholds in the analysis of impacts an d determination of the significance of those impacts. The assessment of impacts under CEQA is based on the change caused by the Project relative to the CEQA baseline, which in t h i s c a s e a r e t h e e x i s t i n g conditions at the site. In applying CEQA Appendix G, the terms “substantial” and “substantially” are used as the basis for significance determinations in many o f the thresholds but are not defined qualitatively or quantitatively in CEQA or in technical literature. In some cases, the determination of a substantial adverse effect ( i.e., significant impact) may be relatively straightforward. For instance, “take” or other direct adverse impacts to special-status species listed under the CESA or ESA or their habitat without implementation of appropriate mitigation is considered a significant impact. In other cases, the determina tion of a substantial adverse effect ( i.e., significant impact) requires application of best professiona l judgment based on knowledge of site conditions as well as the ecology and physiology of biological resources present in a given area and the type of effect that would be caused by a project. Determinations of whether or not Project activities will result in a substanti al adverse effect to biological resources are discussed in the following sections for sensitive biological communities, special- status plant species, and special-status wildlife species.

Regarding item c, above, there are no wetlands present within t he Project Site, therefore the Project would not substantially impact wetlands.

Regarding item d, above, due the location of the Project in a d eveloped urban environment there is limited capacity to provide habitat for wildlife speci es, therefore the Project would not substantially impact movement of wildlife or use of nursery sites.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-96
13 Regarding item e, above, the Project may remove five trees protected under the City of Burbank Trees and Vegetation trees but the project design is such that it complies with local ordinances therefore the impacts will be less then significant.

Regarding item f, above, no Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan are applicable within the Project Site.

5.2 Avoidance and Minimization Measures

Avoidance and minimization measures that would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to sensitive species and habitats are discussed below.

x Areas of disturbance will be limited to the construction area, including access routes and staging areas
x Utilize street sweeping and/or vacuuming to prevent sediments from entering storm drains

5.3 Potential Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures

Impact BIO-1: Project Activities Could Potentially Impact Protected Trees

Landscaped trees are present along the northwestern border of the Burbank Water and Power Campus that may be removed during project activities. The Proj ect may remove five planted fan palm trees protected under the City of Burbank Trees and Vegetation ordinance. Impacts to protected trees would be considered significant under CEQA, how ever the project has been designed to comply with ordinance. Replacement trees of equal size, of the same species will be placed in a location approved by the City of Burbank Park, R ecreation and Community Services Director and the Community Development Director. Ther efore, the Project’s potential impacts to trees protected under the City of Burbank Vegetation and Trees Ordinance are considered less than significant without mitigation due to the project design.

Level of Significance before Mitigation: Less than Significant without Mitigation

Impact BIO-2: Project Activities Could Potentially Impact the Burbank Western Channel

The Project includes installation of a reinforced concrete pipe outflow to divert discharge from the adjacent property into the BWC instead of the stormwater system of the BWPC (Appendix A, Figure 5). The BWC is within the jurisdiction of the Corps u nder Section 404 of the CWA and the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne A ct, and CDFW under Section 1600 of the CDFG. Permits necessary for installation of the culvert may include a Section 404 Permit from the Corps, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, and a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW. BWPC will obtain all required resource agency permit approvals prior to b eginning work within potentially jurisdictional waters, and will comply with any specific condit ions of those approvals.

Construction activities related to the installation of this new outflow could potentially impact the BWC and be considered significant under CEQA, however the imple mentation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 will reduce this potential impact to less than significant.

Level of Significance before Mitigation: Potentially Significant without Mitigation ATTACHMENT 2
A2-97
14 Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Obtain Regulatory Permits for Activit ies Adjacent to the Burbank Western Channel

Prior to disturbance of any jurisdictional waters, BWPC shall obtain all required resource agency permit approvals required for such disturbance (e.g., Section 4 04 Permit from the Corps, Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW) and shall comply with all c onditions of such approvals.

BWPC shall provide the County with documented evidence of such approvals and compliance with conditions. The Project will comply with all rules and regulations stipulated by the resource agencies during the construction of the Project to avoid any po tential impacts to the BWC.

Compliance with federal and state organizations with jurisdicti on over the BWC will reduce the level of significance to less than significant under CEQA.

Level of Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant

Impact BIO-3: Project Activities Could Potentially Impact Nesting Birds

The Project has the potential to impact special-status and non- special-status native nesting birds protected by California Fish and Game Code and guidelines for protection provided by the MBTA. Project activities such as vegetation removal and ground disturbance associated with Project activities would have the potential to affect these species by causing direct mortality of eggs or young, or by causing auditory, vibratory, and/ or visua l disturbance of a sufficient level to cause abandonment of an active nest. If Project Activities occur during the bird nesting season, which generally extends from February 1 through August 31, nests of both special- status and non-special-status native birds could be impacted by construction and other ground disturbing activities. Impacts to nesting birds would be consi dered significant under CEQA.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 will reduce this pot ential impact to less than significant.

Level of Significance before Mitigation: Potentially Significant

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Nesting Bird Avoidance Measures

Project Activities such as vegetation removal and grading shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 (outside of the February 1 to August 31 nesting season) to the extent feasible. If such activities must be conducted during t he nesting season, a pre- construction nesting-bird survey shall be conducted by a qualif ied biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal or initial ground disturbance. The survey shall include the disturbance area and surrounding 250 feet to identify the locat ion and status of any nests that could potentially be affected either directly or indirectly by Project activities.

If active nests of protected species are found within the surve y area, a work exclusion zone shall be established around each nest by the qualified biologist. Established exclusion zones shall remain in place until all young in the nest have fledged or the nest otherwise becomes inactive (e.g., due to predation). Appropriate exclusion zone sizes shall be determined by a qualified biologist and vary dependent upon the species, nest location, existing visual buffers, noise levels, and other factors. An exclusion zone radius may be as small as 50 feet for common, disturbance-adapted species or as large as 250 feet or more for raptors. Exclusion ATTACHMENT 2
A2-98
15 zone size may be reduced from established levels if supported w ith nest monitoring findings by a qualified biologist indicating that work activities outside the reduced radius are not adversely affecting the nest and that a reduced exclusion zone would not adversely affect the subject nest.

Level of Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant ATTACHMENT 2
A2-99
16 6.0 REFERENCES

Baldwin, BG, DH Goldman, DJ Keil, R Patterson, TJ Rosatti, and DH Wilken (eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
[CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code.

Environmental Services Division, Sacramento, CA.

[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. California Natural Diversity Database. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeog raphic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, Cali fornia. Available online at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.a sp; most recently accessed October 2018.

[Burbank] City of Burbank Municipal Code. A Codification of the General Ordinances of the City of Burbank, California. 2018. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/; most recently accessed October 2018.

[CNPS] California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2018. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Online at:
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org; most recently accessed October 2018.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631.

Holland, RF. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Final report submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. Contract No. 8023.

Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2018. Jepson eFlora. Online at:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html; most recently accessed October 2018.

Lichvar, RW. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2013- 49: 1-241.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, version 7.0. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX.

NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Conservation Status. Available online at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.

Sawyer, J, T Keeler-Wolf and J Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Berkeley, CA.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-100
17 Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Stebbins, RC. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, third edition. The Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, NY. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018b. IPaC - Information for Planning and Conservation Trust Resource Report. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Available online: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/; most recently accessed October 2018.

[USGS] United States Geological Survey. 2015. Burbank 7.5-minute Quadrangle map

[WBWG] Western Bat Working Group. 2018. Species accounts. Prepared by: Betsy C. Bolster.

Available online at: http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/; most recently accessed October 2018.

Zeiner, DC, WF Laudenslayer, Jr., KE Mayer, and M White. 1990. California's Wildlife, Volume I-III: Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-101

APPENDIX A

FIGURES
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-102
City of Burbank W&P Improvement Project
Los Angeles County, California
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\28000\28190\GIS\ArcMap\Figure 1 Project Area.mxd Sources: 2016 DigitalGlobe Aerial, WRA | Prepared By: pkobylarz, 10/19/2018 Project 6LWH (24.00 ac.)
04 00200
Feet
Figure 1. Project Area Map
±
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-103
City of Burbank W&P Improvement Project
Los Angeles County, California
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\28000\28190\GIS\ArcMap\Figure 2 Biological Communities.mxd Sources: 2016 DigitalGlobe Aerial, WRA | Prepared By: pkobylarz, 10/29/2018
Burbank Western Channel
Biological Communities
Landscaped/Developed (24.00 ac.)
04 00200
Feet
Figure 2. Biological Communities
±
WƌŽũĞĐƚ^ŝƚĞ;Ϯϰ͘ϬϬĂĐ͘Ϳ
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-104
1 1 1
2 2
3 3
4 5
5 5
5 6
6 7
8 8
8 8
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\28000\28190\GIS\ArcMap\CNDDB_Plants_20181017.mxd 1, Davidson's bush-mallow
2, mesa horkelia
3, Nevin's barberry
4, Parish's brittlescale
5, Plummer's mariposa-lily
6, San Fernando Valley spineflower
7, slender-horned spineflower
8, slender mariposa-lily
Study Area
5-mileBuffer
City of Burbank W&P Improvement Project
Los Angeles County, California
02 1
Miles ±
Sources: National Geographic, CNDDB October 2018, WRA | Prepared By: pkobylarz, 10/17/2018 Figure ϯ. Special-Status Plant Species
Documented within ϱ miles of the Study Area
<
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-105
1 2
3 3
3 3
3 44
5 6
7 8
89 Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\28000\28190\GIS\ArcMap\CNDDB_Wildlife_20181017.mxd 1, big free-tailed bat
2, California glossy snake
3, California legless lizard
4, coastal California gnatcatcher
5, hoary bat
6, least Bell's vireo
7, pallid bat
8, San Diego desert woodrat
9, western pond turtle
Study Area
5-mileBuffer
City of Burbank W&P Improvement Project
Los Angeles County, California
02 1
Miles ±
Sources: National Geographic, CNDDB October 2018, WRA | Prepared By: pkobylarz, 10/17/2018 Figure ϰ. Special-Status Wildlife Species
Documented within ϱ miles of the Study Area
<
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-106
City of Burbank W&P Improvement Project
Los Angeles County, California
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\28000\28190\GIS\ArcMap\Figure 3 Impacts.mxd Project ^ŝƚĞ (24.00 ac.)
Burbank WesternChannel
Areas of Impact (1.73 ĂĐͿ
04 00200
Feet
Sources: 2016 DigitalGlobe Aerial, WRA | Prepared By: pkobylarz, 10/29/2018 Figure ϱ. Project Impacts
±
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-107

APPENDIX B

LIST OF OBSERVED PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-108
Appendix B. Observed Plant and Wildlife Species in the Project Site Common Name Scientific Name
Plants
Holly oak Quercus ilex
Birds of Paradise Strelitzia reginae
Fan palms Washingtonia sp.

Wildlife
Common raven Corvus corax
Western gull Larus occidentalis
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-109

APPENDIX C

PROJECT AREA AND SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-110
Photograph 1: Representative photograph showing location of current stormwater system currently connecting adjacent property to Project Site
Photograph 2: Representative photograph showing the Burbank Western Channel Appendix C. Project Area and Site
Photographs 1
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-111
Photograph 3: Representative photograph show ornamental trees and vegetation Photograph 4: Representative photograph showing developed area within the Project Site Appendix C. Project Area and Site
Photographs 2
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-112
Photograph 5: Representative photograph showing developed area within the Project Site Photograph 6: Representative photograph showing developed area within the Project Site Appendix C. Project Area and Site
Photographs 3
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-113

APPENDIX D

POTENTIAL FOR SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT SITE

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-114
Appendix D. Potential for Special-Status Species to occur in the Project Site.

Name Status* Habitat Potential to occur
Plants
Parish's brittlescale
Atriplex parishii

CNPS 1B.1 Annual herb typically occurring
in vernal pools or on drying
alkali flats with fine soils. 25-
1900 m. Blooms Jun-Oct.

No potential. No vernal pools
or alkali flat habitat in or
adjacent to site.

Nevin's barberry
Berberis nevinii

Federal Endangered
State Endangered
CNPS 1B.1
California endemic evergreen
shrub occurring in foothill
woodland, chaparral, and
coastal sage scrub. 70-825m.

Blooms Mar-Jun.

No potential. Associated
habitat is not present in or
adjacent to the site.
slender mariposa-lily
Calochortus clavatus var.
gracilis

CNPS 1B.2 California endemic perennial
bulbiferous herb occurring in
chaparral, coastal scrub, and
grassland. 320-1000m.

Blooms Mar-Jun.

No potential. Associated
habitat is not present in or
adjacent to the site.

Plummer's mariposa-lily
Calochortus plummerae

CNPS 4.2 California endemic perennial
bulbiferous herb occurring in
chaparral, coastal scrub,
grassland, cismontane
woodland, and montane
coniferous forest. 100-1700m.

Blooms May-Jul.

No potential. Associated
habitat is not present in or
adjacent to the site.

San Fernando Valley
spineflower
Chorizanthe parryi var.
fernandina

Federal Proposed Threatened
State Endangered
CNPS 1B.1
Annual herb presumed extinct
but rediscovered in 1999.

Occurs in sandy soils in
coastal scrub and grasslands.
150-1220m. Blooms Apr-Jul.

No potential. Only two known
populations exist: Laskey
Mesa in Ventura Co. and
Newhall Ranch in Los Angeles
Co.
slender-horned spineflower
Dodecahema leptoceras

Federal Endangered
State Endangered
CNPS 1B.1
California endemic annual
herb occurring in alluvial fan
habitat within chaparral and
coastal cage scrub. 200-
760m. Blooms Apr-Jun.

No potential. No alluvial fan
habitat present within of
adjacent to site.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-115
Name Status* Habitat Potential to occur
many-stemmed dudleya
Dudleya multicaulis

CNPS 1B.2 California endemic perennial
herb occurring in chaparral,
coastal sage scrub, and valley
grassland, often in clay soils.
15-790m. Blooms Apr-Jul.

No potential. Associated
habitat is not present in or
adjacent to the site.
mesa horkelia
Horkelia cuneata var. puberula

CNPS 1B.1 California endemic perennial
herb occurring in maritime
chaparral, coastal scrub, and
cismontane woodland in sandy
or gravelly soil. 70-810m.

Blooms Feb-Jul.

No potential. Associated
habitat is not present in or
adjacent to the site.

Davidson's bush-mallow
Malacothamnus davidsonii

CNPS 1B.2 California endemic perennial
shrub occurring in chaparral,
coastal scrub, cismontane
woodland, and riparian
woodland. 185-1140m.

Blooms Jun-Jan.

No potential. Associated
habitat is not present in or
adjacent to the site.
white rabbit-tobacco
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum

CNPS 2B.2 Perennial herb occurring in
chaparral, coastal scrub,
cismontane woodland, and
riparian woodland in sandy or
gravelly soils. 0-2100m
Blooms Aug-Nov.

No potential. Associated
habitat is not present in or
adjacent to the site.

Plants
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
CDFW: Species of Special
Concern
USFWS: Birds of Conservation
Concern
Occurs in open, dry
grasslands and scrub habitats
with low-growing vegetation,
perches, and abundant
mammal burrows. Preys upon
insects and small vertebrates.

Nests and roosts in old
mammal burrows, most
No potential. Habitat on and
adjacent to the site is
unsuitable for the species.

Burrows for nesting and
roosting are not present.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-116
Name Status* Habitat Potential to occur
commonly those of ground
squirrels.
coastal California gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica californica
Federal Threatened
CDFW: Species of Special
Concern
Obligate, permanent resident
of coastal sage scrub below 25
feet in southern California.

Low, coastal sage scrub in arid
washes, on mesas and slopes.

Not all areas classified as
coastal sage scrub are
occupied.

No potential. Coastal sage
scrub habitat is not present on
or adjacent to the site.
least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
Federal Endangered
State Endangered
Dense brush, mesquite,
willow-cottonwood forest,
streamside thickets, and scrub
oak, in arid regions, but often
near water. Moist woodland,
bottomlands, woodland edge,
scattered cover, and
hedgerows in cultivated areas.

Summer resident of southern
California in low riparian in
vicinity of water or in dry river
bottoms; below 2 feet. Nests
placed along margins of
bushes or on twigs projecting
into pathways, usually willow,
Baccharis, or mesquite.

No potential. Riparian
habitat is not present on or
adjacent to the site.
southwestern willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus
Federal Endangered
State Endangered

Summer breeder in the
southwest needing dense
riparian habitat for nesting.

Nesting typically occurs in
native willow and cottonwood
stands, which the species also
uses for perching and as
foraging habitat for insects.

No potential. Necessary
riparian habitat is not present
on or adjacent to the site.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-117
Name Status* Habitat Potential to occur
American badger
Taxidea taxus
CDFW: Species of Special
Concern

Most abundant in drier open
stages of most shrub, forest,
and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils. Requires friable
soils and open, uncultivated
ground. Preys on burrowing
rodents.

No potential. Habitat on and
adjacent to the site is
unsuitable for the species.

Additionally, typical prey is not
found on the site.
big free-tailed bat
Nyctinomops macrotis
CDFW: Species of Special
Concern
Western Bat Working Group:

Medium-High Priority
Occurs rarely in low-lying arid
areas, including desert scrub,
woodlands, and evergreen
forests. Requires high cliffs or
rocky outcrops for roosting
sites.

Unlikely. Any occurrences
on site are likely to be during
foraging as there is no suitable
roosting habitat on or adjacent
to the site.
hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
Western Bat Working Group:

Medium-High Priority
Prefers open forested habitats
or habitat mosaics, with
access to trees for cover and
open areas or habitat edges
for feeding. Roosts in dense
foliage of medium to large
trees. Feeds primarily on
moths.

Unlikely. Any occurrences
on site are likely to be during
foraging as there is no suitable
roosting habitat on or adjacent
to the site.
pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
CDFW: Species of Special
Concern
Western Bat Working Group:

High Priority
Found in deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands, and
forests. Most common in open
forages along river channels.

Roost sites include crevices in
rocky outcrops and cliffs,
caves, mines, trees and
various human structures,
such as bridges, barns, and
buildings (including occupied
buildings). Very sensitive to
disturbance of roosting sites.

Unlikely. Any occurrences
on site are likely to be during
foraging. No roosting habitat
on-site due to the sensitivity of
the species to disturbance.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-118
Name Status* Habitat Potential to occur
San Diego desert woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia
CDFW: Species of Special
Concern

Sagebrush scrub and
chaparral in coastal southern
California from San Diego
County to San Luis Obispo
County. Moderate to dense
canopies preferred.

Particularly abundant in rock
outcrops and rocky cliffs and
slopes.

No potential. Habitat on and
adjacent to the site is
unsuitable for the species.
southern grasshopper mouse
Onychomys torridus ramona
CDFW: Species of Special
Concern

Common in arid desert scrub,
coastal scrub, mixed
chaparral, and sagebrush
habitat. Uncommon in valley
foothill and montane riparian
habitat. Feeds primarily on
arthropods, specializing in
scorpions and grasshoppers.

Nests in burrows constructed
in friable soils.

No potential. Habitat on and
adjacent to the site is
unsuitable for the species.
western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
CDFW: Species of Special
Concern
Western Bat Working Group:

High Priority
Found in a wide variety of
open, arid, and semi-arid
habitats. Distribution appears
to be tied to large rock
structures, which provide
suitable roosting sites,
including cliff crevices and
cracks in boulders.

Unlikely. Any occurrences
on site are likely to be during
foraging as there is no suitable
roosting habitat on or adjacent
to the site.
western yellow bat
Lasiurus xanthinus
CDFW: Species of Special
Concern
Western Bat Working Group:

High Priority
Found in desert regions of the
southwestern United States,
where they occur with palms
and other desert riparian
habitats. They are known to
from a number of palm oases,
but are also believed to be
expanding their range with the
Unlikely. Any occurrences
on site are likely to be during
foraging as there is no suitable
roosting habitat on or adjacent
to the site.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-119
Name Status* Habitat Potential to occur
increased usage of ornamental
palms in landscaping.
southern California legless
lizard
Anniella stebbinsi
CDFW: Species of Special
Concern
Occurs in moist, warm loose
soil with plant cover, in
sparsely vegetated areas of
beach dunes, chaparral, pine-
oak woodlands, desert scrub,
sandy washes, alluvial fans,
and stream terraces with
sycamores, cottonwoods, or
oaks. Leaf litter under trees
and bushes in sunny areas
and dunes stabilized with bush
lupine and mock heather often
indicate suitable habitat. Often
can be found under surface
objects such as rocks, boards,
driftwood, and logs. Can also
be found by gently raking leaf
litter under bushes and trees.

Sometimes found in suburban
gardens in Southern
California.

No potential. Any available
habitat (moist soils with leaf
litter) present on or adjacent to
the site would be too heavily
developed and fragmented to
support a population of the
species.
southwestern pond turtle
Actinemys pallida [=Emys
marmorata]
CDFW: Species of Special
Concern
Found in a variety of wetland
habitats with abundant
vegetation, and either rocky or
muddy bottoms. In streams,
prefers pools to shallower
areas. Logs, rocks, cattail
mats, and exposed banks are
required for basking.

Omnivorous, feeding on
aquatic plants, invertebrates,
No potential. No available
aquatic habitat on or adjacent
to site meeting the
requirements for the species.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-120
Name Status* Habitat Potential to occur
and small aquatic vertebrates
such as frogs and fish.

* Key to status codes:

FE Federal Endangered
FT Federal Threatened
FC Federal Candidate
BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
SE State Endangered
ST State Threatened
SC State Candidate
SSC CDFW Species of Special Concern
CFP CDFW Fully Protected Animal
WBWG Western Bat Working Group High or Medium Priority Species Rank 1A CNPS Rank 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California Rank 1B CNPS Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2A CNPS Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in Californi a, but more common elsewhere Rank 2B CNPS Rank 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered i n California, but more common elsewhere

Potential to Occur:

No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly un suitable for the species requirements (cover, substrate, elevat ion, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).

Unlikely. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and a djacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site.

Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.

High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the spec ies requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or a djacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-121
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Attachment 2
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-122

Burba
Magn
Impro
GREEN
CITYOF

PREPARED

Haseeb
Q
hqureshi@
(949)336

AlyssaT
a
atamase@
(949)336

A
PRIL30,

12406Ͳ02G

ankWa
noliaCa
ovemen
HOUSEG

BURBANK
BY:
Qureshi
@urbanxroa
6Ͳ5987
amase
@urbanxroa
6Ͳ5988
2019
HGReport

aterand
ampusD
nt
ASANALY
K
ads.com
ads.com
dPowe
Drainag
YSIS
r
ge
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-123

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-124
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
i
TABLEOFCONTENTS
TABLEOFCONTENTS.............................................................................................................................I APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................... II LISTOFEXHIBITS..................................................................................................................................II LISTOFTABLES....................................................................................................................................II LISTOFABBREVIATEDTERMS.............................................................................................................III EXECUTIVESUMMARY.........................................................................................................................1 ES.1 RegulatoryRequirements.............................................................................................................1 ES.2 CityofBurbankGreenhouseGasReductionPlan.........................................................................2 1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................4

1.1 SiteLocation............................................................................................................................... ...4

1.2 ProjectDescription........................................................................................................................4 2 CLIMATECHANGESETTING.........................................................................................................4

2.1 IntroductiontoGlobalClimateChange........................................................................................4

2.2 GlobalClima
teChangeDefined....................................................................................................4

2.3 GreenhouseGases........................................................................................................................5

2.4 GreenhouseGasEmissionsInventories........................................................................................8

2.5 EffectsofClimateChangeinCalifornia.........................................................................................9

2.6 HumanHealthEffects.................................................................................................................11

2.7 RegulatoryS
etting.......................................................................................................................13

2.8 DiscussiononEstablishmentofSignificanceThresholds............................................................35 3 PROJECTGREENHOUSEGASIMPACT.........................................................................................37

3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................37

3.2 StandardsofSignificance............................................................................................................37

3.3 CaliforniaEmissionsEstimatorModel™ EmployedToAnalyzeGHGEmissions.........................37

3.4 ConstructionandOperationalLifeͲ CycleAnalysisNotRequired................................................37

3.5 ConstructionEmissions...............................................................................................................38

3.6 OperationalEmissions................................................................................................................40

3.7 EmissionsSummary....................................................................................................................40

3.8 GreenhouseGasEmissionsFindingsandRecommendations.....................................................40 4 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................43 5 CERTIFICATION..........................................................................................................................47

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-125
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
ii
APPENDICES
APPENDIX3.1:CALEEMODEMISSIONSMODELOUTPUTS

LISTOFEXHIBITS
EXHIBIT1ͲA:LOCATIONMAP..............................................................................................................1 EXHIBIT1ͲA:SITEPLAN.......................................................................................................................2 EXHIBIT2ͲA:SUMMARYOFPROJECTEDGLOBALWARMINGIMPACT.................................................12
LISTOFTABLES
TABLEESͲ1:SUMMARYOFCEQASIGNIFICANCEFINDINGS..................................................................1 TABLEESͲ1:PROJECTCONSISTENCYWITHCITYOFBURBANKGGRP.....................................................2 TABLE2Ͳ1:GLOBALWARMINGPOTENTIALANDATMOSPHERICLIFETIMEOFSELECTGHGS.................8 TABLE2Ͳ2:TOPGHGPRODUCERCOUNTRIESANDTHEEUROPEANUNION..........................................9 TABLE3Ͳ1:CONSTRUCTIONDURATION..............................................................................................39 TABLE3Ͳ
2:CONSTRUCTIONEQUIPMENTASSUMPTIONS....................................................................39 TABLE3Ͳ3:TOTALPROJECTGREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONS(ANNUAL)................................................40 TABLE3Ͳ4:PROJECTCONSISTENCYWITHCITYOFBURBANKGGRP.....................................................41
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-126
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
iii
LISTOFABBREVIATEDTERMS
(1) Reference
AB AssemblyBill
APA AdministrativeProcedureAct
APS AlternativePlanningOrganizations
AR5 IPCC’s5thAssessmentReport
ARB CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard
BAU BusinessAsUsual
C2F6 Hexafluoroethane
C2H6 Ethane
C2H2F4 Tetrafluroethane
C2H4F2 EthylideneFluoride
CAA FederalCleanAirAct
CalEEMod CaliforniaEmissionsEstimatorModel
CalEPA CaliforniaEnvironmentalProtectionAgency
CALGAPS CaliforniaLBNLGHGAnalysisofPoliciesSpreadsheet CALGreen CaliforniaGreenBuildingStandardsCode
CAPCOA CaliforniaAirPollutionControlOfficersAssociation CARB CaliforniaAirResourceBoard
CAT ClimateActionTeam
CBSC CaliforniaBuildingStandardsCommission
CEC CaliforniaEnergyCommission
CCR CaliforniaCodeofRegulations
CEQA CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct
CF4 Tetrafluoromethane
CFC Chlorofluorocarbons
CFR CodeofFederalRegulations
CH4 Methane
CHF3 CarbonTrifluoride
CO CarbonMonoxide
CO2 CarbonDioxide
CO2e CarbonDioxideEquivalent
COP ConferenceoftheParties
CPUC CaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission
EPA EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
EPS EmissionPerformanceStandard
FED FunctionalEquivalentDocument
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-127
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
iv
GCC GlobalClimateChange
GHGA GreenhouseGasAnalysis
GWP GlobalWarmingPotential
GGRP GreenhouseGasReductionPlan
H2O Water
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
HP Horsepower
IPCC IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange
IS InitialStudy
ISO IndependentSystemOperator
LBNL LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory
LCA LifeͲCycleAnalysis
LCFS LowCarbonFuelStandard
LEV LowͲEmissionVehicle
MMR MandatoryReportingRule
MMTCO2e MillionMetricTonofCarbonDioxideEquivalent MPG MilesPerGallon
MPOs MetropolitanPlanningOrganizations
MTCO2e MetricTonofCarbonDioxideEquivalent
MY ModelYear
NHTSA NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration
N20 NitrogenDioxide/NitrousOxide
NCHRP NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram
NDC NationallyDeterminedContributions
NF3 NitrogenTrifluoride
NIOSH NationalInstituteforOccupationalSafetyandHealth NOX OxidesofNitrogen
PFC Perfluorocarbons
PM10 ParticulateMatter10micronsindiameterorless PM2.5 ParticulateMatter2.5micronsindiameterorless PPM PartsPerMillion
PPT PartsPerTrillion
Project BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainage Improvement
RPS RenewablePortfolioStandard
RTP RegionalTransportationPlan
SAR SecondAssessmentReport
SB SenateBill
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-128
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
v
SCAG SouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernments
SCAQMD SouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict
SCS SustainableCommunitiesStrategies
SF6 SulfurHexaflouride
SLPS ShortͲLivedClimatePollutantStrategy
SP ServicePopulation
TIA TrafficImpactAnalysis
UNFCCC UnitedNations’FrameworkConventiononClimateChange URBEMIS UrbanEmissions
UTR UtilityTractors
VMT VehicleMilesTraveled
VOC VolatileOrganicCompounds
WRI WorldResourcesInstitute
ZE/NZE ZeroandNearͲZeroEmissions

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-129
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
vi
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-130
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
1
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
The results of this Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement GreenhouseGasAnalysisaresummarizedbelowbasedonthesignificancecriteriainSection3.7 of this report consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines(1).
TABLEESͲ1:SUMMARYOFCEQASIGNIFICANCEFINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
SignificanceFindings
Unmitigated Mitigated
GHGImpact#1:TheProjectwouldnotgenerate
directorindirectgreenhousegasemissionthat
wouldresultinasignificantimpactonthe
environment.

3.7 LessThanSignificant n/a
GHGImpact#2:TheProjectwouldnotconflict
withanyapplicableplan,policyorregulationof
anagencyadoptedforthepurposeofreducing
theemissionsofgreenhousegases.

3.7 LessThanSignificant n/a
ES.1 REGULATORYREQUIREMENTS
TheProjectwouldberequiredtocomplywithallmandatesimposedbytheStateofCalifornia andtheSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict.ThosethatareapplicabletotheProject andthatwouldassistinthereductionofgreenhousegasemissionsare: x GlobalWarmingSolutionsActof2006(AB32)(2).
x RegionalGHGEmissionsReductionTargets/SustainableCommunitiesStrategies(SB375)(3). x PavleyFuelEfficiencyStandards(AB1493).Establishesfuelefficiencyratingsfornewvehicles(4). x Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirementsfornewconstruction(5).
x Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energyefficiencyrequirementsforappliances(6).
x Title17CaliforniaCodeofRegulations(LowCarbonFuelStandard).Requirescarboncontentof fuelsoldinCaliforniatobe10%lessby2020(7).
x CaliforniaWaterConservationinLandscapingActof2006(AB1881).Requireslocalagenciesto adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalentbyJanuary1,2010toensur
eefficientlandscapesinnewdevelopmentandreduced
waterwasteinexistinglandscapes(8).
x Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generatorstoachieveperformancestandardsforGHGemissions(9). ATTACHMENT 2
A2-131
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
2
x RenewablePortfolioStandards(SB1078).Requireselectriccorporationstoincreasetheamount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percentby2020(10).
x SenateBill32(SB32).Requiresthestatetoreducestatewidegreenhousegasemissionsto40% below1990levelsby2030,areductiontargetthatwasfirstintroducedinExecutiveOrder BͲ30Ͳ 15(11).
Promulgated regulations that will affect the Project’s emissions are accounted for in the Project’s GHG calculations provided in this report. In particular, the Pavley Standards, Low CarbonFuelStandards,andRenewablePortfolioStandards(RPS)willbeineffectfortheAB32 targetyearof2020,andthereforeareaccountedforintheProject’semissioncalculations. ES.2 CITYOFBURBANKGREENHOUSEGASREDUCTIONPLAN
Pursuant to the City of Burbank’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP). The Project shall ensurethatthefollowingmeasuresareimplemented:
TABLEESͲ1:PROJECTCONSISTENCYWITHCITYOFBURBANKGGRP GGRPMeasure ApplicabilitytoProposedProject Remarks MeasureEͲ1.6:
BWP:EnergyConservation Applicable
TheDepartmentisanticipatedtoreduce
GHGsthroughaseriesofconservation
measuresthatwouldlikelyinvolvethe
Project.
MeasureWͲ1.3:
StormwaterMasterPlan Applicable TheProjectwouldbeanelementin reducingpollutedrunoffintotheBWP.
MeasureSWͲ1.3:
LumberDiversion
Ordinance
Applicable
Lumberusedforconcreteformsand
otheruseswouldberecycledinsteadof
divertedtothelocallandfill.
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-132
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
3
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-133
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
4
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the greenhouse gas analysis (GHGA) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., for the Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement (referredtoas“Project”).ThepurposeofthisGHGAistoevaluateProjectͲrelatedconstruction emissionsanddeterminethelevelofgreenhousegas(GHG)impactsasaresultofconstructing andoperatingtheproposedProject.

1.1 SITELOCATION
The proposed Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Project is located at 164 West Magnolia Boulevard within the BWP Campus, in the City of Burbank, as shownonExhibit1ͲA. PropertieslocatednorthandeastoftheProjectsitearedevelopedfor industrialuses,includingbutnotlimitedtolumberyards,woodproc essing,storage,assembly andsimilaruses.ExistingsensitivelandusesintheProjectstudyareaincluderesidentialhomes tothewest,westofVictoryBoulevard,andsouth,southofLakeStreet.

1.2 PROJECTDESCRIPTION
TheProjectproposestoconstructdrainageimprovementsthatwouldallowstormwaterfrom adjacent properties to be intercepted and discharged into the BWC through a new outfall structure,asshownonExhibit1ͲB.
NolongͲtermoperationalgreenhousegasimpactsareanticipatedasaresultoftheproposed ProjectsincetherewouldbenooperationalvehicletripsresultingfromtheproposedProject improvements, since the Project is limited to drainage and water qu ality improvements. As
such,therearealsonooperational(stationaryͲsource)greenhousegassourcesanticipatedasa resultoftheProjectimprovementssincetheywouldbeconstructedunderground. ATTACHMENT 2
A2-134

04.30.2019_
_12406Ͳ02GHG
Burbank
Report
WaterandPowe
EXHIBIT1Ͳ
erMagnoliaCam
1
ͲA:LOCATION
mpusDrainageI
NMAP
mprovementGr
reenhouseGasA
Analysis

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-135

04.30.2019_
_12406Ͳ02GHG
Burbank
Report
WaterandPowe

EXHIBIT
erMagnoliaCam
2
T1ͲA:SITEPL

mpusDrainageI
LAN
mprovementGr
reenhouseGasA
Analysis
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-136
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
3
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-137
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
4
2 CLIMATECHANGESETTING

2.1 INTRODUCTIONTOGLOBALCLIMATECHANGE
GlobalClimateChange(GCC)isdefinedasthechangeinaveragemeteorologicalconditionson theearthwithrespecttotemperature,precipitation,andstorms.GCC iscurrentlyoneofthe most controversial environmental issues in the United States, and much debate exists within the scientific community about whether or not GCC is occurring natu rally or as a result of human activity.Some data suggests that GCC has occurred in the past over the course of thousandsormillionsofyears.These historicalchangestotheearth’sclimatehaveoccurred naturally without human influence, as in the case of an ice age. However, many scientists believethattheclim
ateshifttakingplacesincetheindustrialrevolution(1900)isoccurringata quickerrateandmagnitudethaninthepast.ScientificevidencesuggeststhatGCCistheresult of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Many scien tists believe that this increasedrateofclimatechangeistheresultofgreenhousegasesresultingfromhumanactivity andindustrializationoverthepast200years.
AnindividualprojectliketheproposedProjectevaluatedinthisGHGAcannotgenerateenough greenhouse gas emissions to affect a discernible change in global climate.However, the proposed Project ma
y participate in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of greenhouse gases combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC.Because these changesmayhaveseriousenvironmentalconsequences,Section3.0willevaluatethepotential for the proposed Proje
ct to have a significant effect upon the environment as a result of its potentialcontributiontothegreenhouseeffect.

2.2 GLOBALCLIMATECHANGEDEFINED
GCC refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturallyoccurringatmosphericgasessuchaswatervapor,CO2(carbondioxide),N2O(nitrous oxide), CH4 (methane), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radioactive heat from escaping, thus warmingtheearth’satmosphere.GCCcanoccurnaturallyasithasinthepastwiththeprevious iceages.
Gasesthattrapheatintheatmosphereareoftenreferredtoasgreenhousegases.Greenhous e
gases are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic (human) activity. Without the natural greenhouse gas effect, the earth’s average temperature would be approximately 61° Fahrenheit (F) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of thesegasesintheearth’satmosphereisconsideredtobethecausefortheobservedincrease intheearth’stemperature.
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-138
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
5

2.3 GREENHOUSEGASES
Forthepurposesofthisanalysis,emissionsofCO2,CH4,andNO2wereevaluated(seeTable3Ͳ1 later in this report) because these gasses are the primary contributors to GCC from developmentprojects.Althoughthereareothersubstancessuchasfluorinatedgasesthatalso contribute to GCC, these fluorinated gases were not evaluated as their sources are not wellͲ definedanddonotcontainacceptedemissionsfactorsormethodologytoac curatelycalculate thesegases.
WaterVapor:Watervapor(H20)isthemostabundant,important,andvariablegreenhousegas intheatmosphere.Watervaporisnotconsideredapollutant;intheatmosphereitmaintainsa climatenecessaryforlife.Changes initsconcentrationareprimarilyconsideredtobearesult ofclimatefeedbacksrelatedtothewarmingoftheatmosphereratherthan adirectresultof industrialization.A climate feedback is an indirect, or s econdary, change, either positive or negative, that occurs within the climate system in response to a forcing mechanism.The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change.
As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers,oceans,reservoirs,soil).Becausetheairiswarmer,therelativehumiditycanbehigher (in
essence,theairisableto‘hold’morewaterwhenitiswarmer),leadingtomorewatervapor intheatmosphere.As aGHG,thehigherconcentrationofwatervaporisthenabletoabsorb more
thermalindirectenergyradiatedfromtheEarth,thusfurtherwarmingtheatmosphere. Thewarmeratmospherecanthenholdmorewatervaporandsoonandsoon.Thisisreferred toasa“positivefeedbackloop.”The extenttowhichthispositivefeedbackloopwillcontinue is unknown as there are also dynamics that hold the positiv e feedback loop in check.As an example,whenwatervaporincreasesintheatmosphere,moreofitwilleventuallycondense intoclouds,whicharemoreabletoreflectincomingsolarradiation(thusallowinglessenergy toreachtheearth’ssurfaceandheatitup)(12).
There are no human health effe
cts from water vapor itself; however, when some pollutants come in contact with water vapor, they can dissolve, and the water vapor can then act as a pollutantͲcarrying agent. The main source of water vapor is evaporation from the oceans (approximately 85 percent).Other sources include evaporation from other water bodies, sublimation (change from solid to gas) from sea ice and snow, and transpiration from plant leaves.
Carbon Dioxide: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless and colorless GHG.Outdoor levels of carbon dioxide are not high enough to result in negative health effects. Carbon dioxide is emitted from natural and manmade sources. Natural sources include:the decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources include:the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Carbon dioxide is naturally removed from the air by photosynthesis, dissolution into
ocean water, transfer to soils and ice caps, and chemical weathering of carbonaterocks(13).
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-139
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
6
SincetheindustrialrevolutionbeganinthemidͲ1700s,thesortofhumanactivitythatincreases GHG emissions has increased dramatically in scale and distribution.Data from the past 50 years suggests a corollary increase in levels and concentrations. As an example, prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). Today, they are around 370 ppm, an increase of more than 30 percent.Left unchecked, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is projected to increase to a minimum of 540ppmby2100asadirectresultofanthropogenicsources(14). Methane:Methane (CH4) is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, although its atmosphericconcentrationislessthancarbondioxideanditslifetimeintheatmosphereisbrief (10Ͳ12 years), compared to other GHGs.Exposure to high levels of methane can cause asphyxiation, loss of consciousness, headache and dizziness, nausea and vomiting, weakness, lossofcoordination,andanincreasedbreathingrate
Methane has both natural and anthropogenic sources.It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the rootsoftheplants).Overthelast50years,humanactivitiessuchasgrowingrice,raisingcattle, usingnatura
lgas,andminingcoalhaveaddedtotheatmosphericconcentrationofmethane. Otheranthropocentricsourcesinclu
defossilͲfuelcombustionandbiomassburning(15).
NitrousOxide:Nitrous oxide(N2O),alsoknownaslaughinggas,isacolorlessgreenhousegas. Nitrous oxide can cause dizziness, euphoria, and sometimes slight hallucinations.In small doses,itisconsideredharmless.However, insomecases,heavyandextendedusecancause Olney’sLesions(braindamage)(16).
Concentrationsofnitrousoxidealsobegantoriseatthebeginningoftheindustrialrevolution. In1998,theglobalconcentrationwas314partsper billion(ppb).Nitrous oxideisproducedby microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containingnitrogen.In additiontoagriculturalsources,someindustrialprocesses(fossilfuelͲ fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load.It is used as an aeroso l spray propellant, i.e., in whipped cream bottles.It is also used in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh.It is used in rocket enginesandinracecars.Nitrous oxidecanbetransportedintothestratosphere,bedeposited ontheearth’ssurface,andbeconvertedtoothercompoundsbychemicalreaction(16). Chlorofluorocarbons:Chlorofluorocarbons(CFCs)are
gasesformedsyntheticallybyreplacingall
hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane (C2H6) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms.CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of airattheearth’ssurface).CFCs arenolongerbeingused;therefore,itisnotlikelythathealth effectswouldbeexperienced.Nonetheless,inconfinedindoorlocations,workingwithCFCͲ113 orotherCFCsis
thoughttoresultindeathbycardiacarrhythmia(heartfrequencytoohighor toolow)orasphyxiation.
CFCs have no natural source but were first synthesized in 1928.They were used for refrigerants,aerosolpropellantsandcleaningsolvents.Duetothediscoverythattheyareable todestroystratosphericozone,aglobalefforttohalttheirproductionwasundertakenandwas ATTACHMENT 2
A2-140
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
7
extremely successful, so much so that levels of the major CFCs are now remaining steady or declining.However,theirlongatmosphericlifetimesmeanthatsomeoftheCFCswillremainin theatmosphereforover100years(17).
Hydrofluorocarbons: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic, manͲmade chemicals that are usedasasubstituteforCFCs.Out ofallthegreenhousegases,theyare oneofthreegroups with the highest global warming potential.The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheric abundancesare(inorder),HFCͲ23(CHF3),HFCͲ134a(CH2FCF),andHFCͲ152a(CH3CF2).Priorto 1990,theonlysignificantemissionswereofHFCͲ23.HFCͲ134aemissionsareincreasingdueto itsuseasarefrigerant.NohealtheffectsareknowntoresultfromexposuretoHFCs,whichare manmadeforapplicationssuchasautomobileairconditionersandrefrigerants. Perfluorocarbons:Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)havestablemolecularstructuresanddonotbreak downthroughchemicalprocessesintheloweratmosphere.HighͲenergyultravioletrays,which occurabout60kilometersaboveearth’ssurface,areabletodestroythecompounds.Because ofthis,PFCshaveverylonglifetimes,between10,000and50,000years.TwocommonPFCsare tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6).The U.S. EPA estimates that concentrationsofCF4intheatmosphereareover70ppt. NohealtheffectsareknowntoresultfromexposuretoPFCs.ThetwomainsourcesofPFCsare primaryaluminumproductionandsemiconductormanufacture. Sulfur Hexafluoride: Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammablegas.Italsohasthehighestglobalwarmingpotential(GWP)ofanygasevaluated (23,900) (18).The U.S. EPA indicates that concentrations in the 1990s were about 4 ppt. In high concentrations in confined areas, the gas presents the hazard of suffocation because it displacestheoxygenneededforbreathing.
Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment,inthemagnesiumindustry,insemiconductormanufacturing,andasatracergasfor leakdetection.
Nitrogen Trifluoride: Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is a colorless gas with a distinctly moldy odor. NF3isusedinindustrialprocessesandisproducedinthemanufactureofsemiconductorsand LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) panels, and types of solar panels and chemical lasers. The World ResourcesInstitute(WRI)indicatesthatNF3hasa100ͲyearGWPof17,200(19). LongͲtermorrepeatedexposuremayaffecttheliverandkidneysandmaycausefluorosis(20). CarbonDioxideEquivalent:Carbondioxideequivalent(CO2e)isatermusedfordescribingthe differencegreenhousegasesinacommonunit.CO2esignifiestheamountofCO2whichwould havetheequivalentglobalwarmingpotential.
GreenhousegaseshavevaryingGWPvalues.GWPofagreenhousegasindicatestheamountof warmingagascausesoveragivenperiodoftimeandrepresentsthepotentialofagastotrap heatintheatmosphere.CarbondioxideisutilizedasthereferencegasforGWP,andthushasa GWPof1.
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-141
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
8
TheatmosphericlifetimeandGWPofselectedgreenhousegasesaresummarizedatTable2Ͳ1. As shown in the table below, GWP for the Second Assessment Report (SAR), the IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)’sscientificandsocioͲeconomicassessment onclimatechange,rangefrom1forcarbondioxideto23,900forsulfurhexafluorideandGWP fortheIPCC’s5thAssessmentReport(AR5)rangefrom1forCO2to23,500forSF6(21). TABLE2Ͳ1:GLOBALWARMINGPOTENTIALANDATMOSPHERICLIFETIMEOFSELECTGHGS Gas AtmosphericLifetime
(years)
GlobalWarmingPotential(100Ͳyeartimehorizon)
SecondAssessment 5thAssessmentReport
CO2 See* 1 1
CH4 12.4 21 28
N2O 121 310 265
HFCͲ23 222 11,700 12,400
HFCͲ134a 13.4 1,300 1,300
HFCͲ152a 1.5 140 138
SF6 3,200 23,900 23,500
*AsperAppendix8.A.ofIPCC’s5thAssessmentReport(AR5),nosinglelifetimecanbegiven. Source:Table2.14oftheIPCCFourthAssessmentReport,2007

2.4 GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONSINVENTORIES
Global
Worldwideanthropogenic(human)GHGemissionsaretrackedbytheIntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change for industrialized nations (referred to as Annex I) and developing nations (referred to as NonͲAnnex I). Human GHG emissions data for Annex I nations are available through2016.FortheYear2016,thesumoftheseemission stotaledapproximately28,747,554 Gg CO2e1 (22) (23). The GHG emissions in more recent years may differ from the inventories presented in Table 2Ͳ2; however, the data is representative of currently available inventory data.
UnitedStates
AsnotedinTable2Ͳ2,theUnitedStates,asasinglecountry,wasthenumbertwoproducerof GHGemissionsin2016.TheprimarygreenhousegasemittedbyhumanactivitiesintheUnited StateswasCO2,representingapproximately81.6percentoftotalgreenhousegasemissionsin the US. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, the largest source of US greenhouse gas emissions,accountedforapproximately93.5percentoftheCO2emissions(24). 1 TheglobalemissionsarethesumofAnnexIandnonͲAnnexIcountries,withoutcountingLandͲUse,LandͲUseChangeandForestry(LULUCF). Forcountrieswithout2016data,theUNFCCCdataforthemostrecentyearwereused.UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimate Change,“AnnexIParties–GHGtotal withoutLULUCF,”ThemostrecentGHGemissionsforChinaweretakenin2012,whilethemostrecent GHGemissionsforIndiaweretakenin2010.
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-142
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
9
TABLE2Ͳ2:TOPGHGPRODUCERCOUNTRIESANDTHEEUROPEANUNION2 EmittingCountries GHGEmissions(GgCO2e)
China 11,895,765
UnitedStates 6,511,302
EuropeanUnion(28Ͳmembercountries) 4,291,252
India 2,643,817
RussianFederation 2,100,850
Japan 1,304,568
Total 28,747,554
StateofCalifornia
Californiahassignificantlyslowedtherateofgrowthofgreenhousegasemissionsduetothe implementation of energy efficiency programs as well as adoption of strict emission controls butisstillasubstantialcontributortotheU.S.emissionsinventorytotal(25).CARB compiles GHGinventoriesfortheStateofCalifornia.Baseduponthe2018GHGinventorydata(i.e.,the latestyea
rforwhichdataareavailable)forthe2000Ͳ2016greenhousegasemissionsinventory, California emitted 429.4 MMTCO2e including emissions resulting from imported electrical powerin2015(26).

2.5 EFFECTSOFCLIMATECHANGEINCALIFORNIA
PublicHealth
Higher temperatures may increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation.For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation could increase from 25 to 35 percent under the lower warming range to 75 to 85 percent under the medium warming range.In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it ma
y become impossible to meet local air quality
standards.Airqualitycouldbefurthercompromisedbyincreasesinwildfires,whichemitfine particulate matter that can travel long distances, depending on wind conditions. The Climate Scenariosreportindicatesthatlargewildfirescouldbecomeupto55percentmorefrequentif GHGemissionsare
notsignificantlyreduced.
Inaddition,underthehigherwarmingrangescenario,therecouldbeupto100moredaysper yearwithtemperaturesabove90qFinLosAngelesand95qFinSacramentoby2100.Thisisa large increase over his
torical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures could increasetheriskofdeathfromdehydration,heatstroke/exhaustion,heartattack,stroke,and respiratorydistresscausedbyextremeheat.
WaterResources
2 Usedhttp://unfccc.intdataforAnnexIcountries.ConsultedtheCAITClimateDataExplorerinhttp://www.wri.orgsitetoreferenceNonͲ AnnexIcountriessuchasChinaandIndia.
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-143
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
10
A vast network of manͲmade reservoirs and aqueducts captures and transports water throughout the state from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distributionsystemreliesonSierraNevadasnowpacktosupplywaterduringthedryspringand summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, couldseverelyreducespr
ingsnowpack,increasingtheriskofsummerwatershortages. Iftemperaturescontinuetoincrease,moreprecipitationcouldfallasraininsteadofsnow,and the snow that does fallcould melt earlier,reducing the Sierra Nevadaspring snowpack by as muchas70to90percent.Underthelowerwarmingrangescenario,snowpacklossescouldbe onlyhalfaslargeasthosepossibleiftemperaturesweretorisetothehigherwarmingrange. How much snowpack could be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projectionsfor which
remain uncertain.However,even under the wetterclimateprojections, the loss of snowpack could pose challe
nges to water managers and hamper hydropower
generation.Itcouldalsoadverselyaffectwintertourism.Underthelowerwarmingrange,the skiseasonatlowerelevationscouldbereducedbyasmuchasamonth.Iftemperaturesreach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there migh t be many years with insufficientsnowforskiingandsnowboarding.
The State’s water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater could degradeCalifornia’sestuaries,wetlands,andgroundwateraquifers.Saltwaterintrusioncaused byrisingsealevelsisamajorthreattothequalityandreliabilityofwaterwithinthesouthern edgeoftheSacramento/SanJoaquinRiverDelta–amajorfreshwaters upply.
Agriculture
Increased temperatures could cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. First, California farmers could possiblyloseasmuchas25percentofthewater supplyneeded.AlthoughhigherCO2levelscan stimulate plant production and increase plant waterͲuse efficiency, California’s farmers could facegreaterwaterdemandforcropsandalessreliablewatersupplyastemperaturesrise.Crop growth and development could change, as could the intensity and frequency of pest and diseaseoutbreaks.RisingtemperaturescouldaggravateO3pollution,whichmakesplantsmore susceptibletodiseaseandpestsandinterfereswithplantgrowth. Plantgrowthtendstobeslowatlowtemperatures,increasingwithrisingtemperaturesuptoa threshold.However,fastergrowthcanresultinlessͲthanͲoptimaldevelopmentformanycrops, so rising temperatures could worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’sagriculturalproducts.Productslikelytobemostaffectedincludewinegrap es,fruits
andnuts.
In addition, continued global climate change could shift the ranges of existing invasive plants andweedsandaltercompetitionpatternswithnativeplants.Rangeexpansioncouldoccurin many species while range contractions may be less likely in rapidly evolving species with
significant populations already established. Should rangecontractions occur, new or different weed species could fill the emerging gaps. Continued global climate change could alter the ATTACHMENT 2
A2-144
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
11
abundanceandtypesofmanypests,lengthenpests’breedingseason,andincreasepathogen growthrates.
ForestsandLandscapes
Global climate change has the potential to intensify the current threat to forests and landscapes by increasing the risk of wildfire and altering the distribution and character of natural vegetation. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires
in California could increase by as much as 55 percent, which is almost twice the increaseexpectediftemperaturesstayinthelowerwarmingrange.However,sincewildfirerisk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscapeandvegetationconditions,futureriskswillnotbeuniformthroughoutthestate.In contrast,wildfiresinnorthernCalifor
niacouldincreasebyupto90percentduetodecreased precipitation.
Moreover,continuedglobalclimatechangehasthepotentialtoalternaturalecosystemsand biological diversity within the state. For example, alpine and subalpine ecosystems could decline by as much as 60 to 80 percent by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures.Theproductivityofthestate’sforestshas thepotentialtodecreaseasaresultof
globalclimatechange.
RisingSeaLevels
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures could increasinglythreatenthestate’sco
astalregions.Underthehigherwarmingrangescenario,sea levelisanticipatedtorise22to35inchesby2100.Elevationsofthismagnitudewouldinundate lowͲlying coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. Under the lower warming rangescenario,sealevelcouldrise12Ͳ14inches.

2.6 HUMANHEALTHEFFECTS
Thepotentialhealtheffectsrelateddirectlytotheemissionsofcarbondioxide,methane,and nitrousoxideastheyrelatetodevelopmentprojectssuchastheproposedProjectarestillbeing debated in the scientific community.Their cumulative effects to global climate change have the potential to cause adverse effects to human health. Increases in Earth’s ambient temperatures would result in more intense heat waves, causing more heatͲrelated deaths. Scientistsalsopurportthathigherambienttemperatureswouldincreasediseasesurvivalrates and result in more widespread disease.Climate change will likely cause shifts in weather patterns,potentiallyresultingindevastatingdroughtsandfoodshortagesinsomeareas(27). Exhibit2ͲApresentsthepotentialimpacts
ofglobalwarming(28).
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-145

04.30.2019_
Source:Barb
Specifich
WaterVa
should b
formsat
waterva
CarbonD
highconc
restlessn
increased
concentr
370part
effectsty
_12406Ͳ02GHG
E
baraH.AllenͲDiaz.
healtheffect
apor:Ther e
be noted ho
transport m
por.
Dioxide:Acc
centrations
ness, difficul
dbloodpres
rationsofca
spermillion
ypicallyoccu
Burbank
Report
XHIBIT2ͲA:S
“Climatechangea
tsassociated
earenokno
owever that
mechanismfo
cordingtoth
ofcarbond
lty breathin
ssure,coma
rbondioxid
n(ppm),the
ur)isatexpo
WaterandPowe
UMMARYOFP
affectsusall.”Uni
dwithdirect
owndirecth
when som
orsome of
heNationalI
ioxidecanre
g, sweating
,asphyxia,a
eintheeart
eactualrefe
osurelevels
erMagnoliaCam
12
PROJECTEDGLO
iversityofCaliforn
tlyemittedG
healtheffect
e pollutants
these pollut
nstitutefor
esultinheal
g, increased
and/orconv
th’satmosp
renceexpos
of5,000pp
mpusDrainageI
OBALWARMIN
ia,Agricultureand
GHGemissio
tsrelatedto
s react with
tants to ent
Occupation
ltheffectssu
heart rate
vulsions.Its
hereareest
surelevel(le
pmaveraged
mprovementGr
NGIMPACT
dNaturalResourc
onsareasfo
owatervapo
h water vap
ter the hum
alSafetyan
uchas:head
e, increased
shouldbeno
timatedtob
evelatwhic
dover10ho
reenhouseGasA
ces,2009.
ollows:
oratthistim
por, the rea
an body thr
dHealth(NI
daches,dizzi
cardiac ou
otedthatcu
beapproxim
chadverseh
oursina40Ͳ
Analysis
me.It
action
rough
IOSH)
iness,
utput,
urrent
mately
health
Ͳhour
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-146
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
13
workweekandshortͲtermreferenceexposurelevelsof30,000ppmaveragedovera15minute period(29).
Methane: Methane is extremely reactive with oxidizers, halogens, and other halogenͲ containingcompounds.Methaneisalsoanasphyxiantandmaydisplaceoxygeninanenclosed space.
NitrousOxide:Nitrous Oxideisoftenreferredtoaslaughinggas;itisacolorlessgreenhouse gas. The health effects associated with exposure to elevated concentrations of nitrous oxide include dizziness, euphoria, slight hallucinations, and in extreme cases of elevated concentrationsnitrousoxidecanalsocausebraindamage(30). Fluorinated Gases: High concentrations of fluorinated gases can also result in adverse health effectssuchasasphyxiation,dizziness,headache,cardiovasculardisease,cardiacdisorders,and inextremecases,increasedmortality.
Aerosols:The health effects of aerosols are similar to that of other fine particulate matter. Thus,aerosolscancauseelevatedrespiratoryandcardiovasculardiseasesaswellasincreased mortality(31).

2.7 REGULATORYSETTING
INTERNATIONAL
Climate change is a global issueinvolving GHG emissions from all around the world; therefore, countriessuchastheonesdiscussedbelowhavemadeanefforttoreduceGHGs. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 1988, the United Nations and the World MeteorologicalOrganizationestablishedtheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChangetoass ess the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basisofriskofhumanͲinducedclimatechange,itspotentialimpacts,andoptionsforadaptation andmitigation.
UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange(Convention).OnMarch21,1994, theU.S.joinedanumberofcountriesaroundtheworldinsigningtheConvention.Under the Convention, governments gather and
share information on GHG emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and adapting to expectedimpacts,includingtheprovisionoffinancialandtechnologicalsupporttodeveloping countries;andcooperateinpreparingforadaptationtotheimpactsofclimatechange. International Climate Change Treaties.
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linkedtotheConvention.ThemajorfeatureoftheKyotoProtocolisthatitsetsbindingtargets for37industrializedcountriesandtheEuropeancommunityforreducingGHGemissionsatan average of five percent against 1990 levels over the fiveͲyear per iod 2008–2012.The Convention (as discussed above) encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize emissions; however, the Protocol commits them to do so.Developed countries have contributed more emissionsoverthelast150years;therefore,theProtocolplacesaheavierburdenondeveloped nationsundertheprincipleof“commonbutdifferentiatedresponsibilities.” ATTACHMENT 2
A2-147
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
14
In2001,PresidentGeorgeW.BushindicatedthathewouldnotsubmitthetreatytotheU.S. Senateforratification,whicheffectivelyendedAmericaninvolvementintheKyotoProtocol.In December2009,internationalleadersmetinCopenhagentoaddressthefutureofinternational climatechangecommitmentspostͲKyoto.No bindingagreementwasreachedinCopenhagen; however,th
eCommitteeidentifiedthelongͲtermgoaloflimitingthemaximumglobalaverage temperature increase to no more than 2°C above preͲindustrial levels, subject to a review in 2015.TheUNClimateChangeCommitteeheldadditionalmeetingsinDurban,SouthAfricain November2011;Doha,QatarinNovember2012;andWars aw,PolandinNovember2013.The meetings are gradually gaining consensus among participants on individual climate change issues.
OnSeptember23,2014morethan100HeadsofStateandGovernmentandleadersfromthe private sector and civil society met at the Climate Summit in New York hosted by the United Nations.AttheSummit,headsofgovernme
nt,businessandcivilsocietyannouncedactionsin
areas that would have the greatest impact on reducing emissions, including climate finance, energy,transport,industry,agriculture,cities,forests,andbuildingresilience. Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached a landmark agreement on Decemb
er 12, 2015 in Paris, charting a fundamentally new course in the twoͲ decadeͲold global climate effort. Culminating a fourͲyear negotiating round, the new treaty endsthestrictdifferentiationbetweendevelopedanddevelopingcountriesthatcharacterized earlierefforts,replacingitwithacommonframeworkthatcommitsallcountriestoputforward theirbesteffortsandtostrengthenthemintheyearsah ead.Thisincludes,forthefirsttime,
requirements that all parties report regularly on their emissions and implementation efforts andundergointernationalreview.
Theagreementandacompaniondecisionbypartieswerethekeyoutcomesoftheconference, known as the 21st session of the UNFCCC Conferen ce of the Parties (COP) 21.Together, the
ParisAgreementandtheaccompanyingCOPdecision:
x Reaffirm the goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2 degrees Celsius, while urgingeffortstolimittheincreaseto1.5degrees;
x Establish binding commitments by all parties to make “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs),andtopursuedomesticmeasuresaimedatachievingthem; x Commitallcountriestoreportregularlyontheiremissionsand “progressmadeinimplementing andachieving”theirNDCs,andtoundergointernationalreview; x CommitallcountriestosubmitnewNDCseveryfiveyears,withtheclearexpectationthatthey will“representaprogression”beyondpreviousones;
x Reaffirm the binding obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC to support the effortsofdevelopingcountries,whileforthefirsttimeencouragingvoluntarycontributionsby developingcountriestoo;
x Extendthecurrentgoalofmobilizing$100billionayearinsupportby2020through2025,witha new,highergoaltobesetfortheperiodafter2025;
x Extend a mechanism to address “loss and dama ge” resulting from climate change, which explicitlywillnot“involveorprovideabasisforanyliabilityorcompensation;” ATTACHMENT 2
A2-148
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
15
x Requirepartiesengagingininternationalemissionstradingtoavoid“doublecounting;”and x Call for a new mechanism, similar to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol,enablingemissionreductionsinonecountrytobecountedtowardanothercountry’s NDC(C2ES2015a)(32).
OnJune2,2017PresidentDonaldTrumpannouncedhisintentiontowithdrawfromtheParis Agreement.Itshouldbenotedthatunderthetermsoftheagreement,theUnitedSatescannot formallyannounceitsresignationuntilNovember4,2019.Subsequently,withdrawalwouldbe effectiveoneyearafternotificationin2020.
NATIONAL
Prior to the last decade, there have been no concrete federal regulations of GHGs or major planning for climate change adaptation.The following are actions regarding the federal government,GHGs,andfuelefficiency.
GHGEndangerment.InMassachusettsv.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency549U.S.497(2007), decidedonApril2,2007,theSupremeCourtfoundthatfourGHGs,includingcarbondioxide, areairpollutantssubjecttoregulationunderSection202(a)(1)oftheCleanAir Act.TheCourt
heldthattheEPAAdministratormustdeterminewhetheremissionsofGHGsfromnewmotor vehiclescauseorcontributetoairpollution,whichmayreasonablybeanticipatedtoendanger publichealthorwelfare,orwhetherthescienceistoouncertaintomakeareasoneddecision. OnDecemb
er7,2009,theEPAAdministratorsignedtwodistinctfindingsregardingGHGsunder section202(a)oftheCleanAirAct:
x EndangermentFinding:TheAdministratorfindsthatthecurrentandprojectedconcentrationsof thesixkeywellͲmixedGHGs—carbon dioxide,methane,nitrousoxide,hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,andsulfurhexafluoride—in theatmospherethreatenthepublichealthand welfareofcurrentandfuturegenerations.

x CauseorContributeFinding:TheAdministratorfindsthatthecombinedemissionsofthesewellͲ mixedGHGsfromnewmotorvehiclesandnewmotorvehicleenginescontributetotheGHG pollution,whichthreatenspublichealthandwelfare.
Thesefindingsdonotimposerequirementsonindustryorotherentities.However, thiswasa prerequisiteforimplementingGHGemissionsstandardsforvehicles,asdiscussedinthesection “CleanVehicles” below.After a lengthy legal challenge, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reviewanAppealsCourtrulingthatupheldtheEPAAdministrator’sfindings(33). Clean Vehicles.Congress first passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy law in 1975 to increas
ethefueleconomyofcarsandlightdutytrucks.The lawhasbecomemorestringent overtime.OnMay19,2009,PresidentObamaputinmotionanewnationalpolicytoincrease fuel economy for all new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. On April 1, 2010, the EPA and the
DepartmentofTransportation’sNationalHighwaySafetyAdministrationannouncedajointfinal rule establishing a national program that would reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economyfornewcarsandtruckssoldintheU.S.
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-149
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
16
The first phase of the national program applies to passenger cars, lightͲduty trucks, and mediumͲdutypassengervehicles,coveringmodelyears2012through2016.Theyrequirethese vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxidepermile,equivalentto35.5milespergalloniftheautomobileindustryweretomeet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standardswouldcutcarbondioxideemissionsbyanestimated960millionmetrictonsand1.8 billion barrels of oil over
the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012–2016).The EPAandtheNationalHighwaySafe tyAdministrationissuedfinalrulesona secondͲphasejointrulemakingestablishingnationalstandardsforlightͲdutyvehiclesformodel years2017through2025inAugust2012(EPA2012c).Thenewstandardsformodelyears2017 through2025applytopassengercars,lightͲdutytrucks,andmediumdutypassengervehicles. The final standards are projected to result in an average industry fleetwid e level of 163
grams/mileofcarbondioxide(CO2)inmodelyear2025,whichisequivalentto54.5milesper gallon(mpg)ifachievedexclusivelythroughfueleconomyimprovements. The EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation issued final rules for the first national standardstoreduceGHGemissionsandimprovefuelefficiencyofheavyͲdutytrucksandbuses onSeptembe
r15,2011,effectiveNovember14,2011.For combinationtractors,theagencies areproposingengineandvehiclestandardsthatbegininthe2014modelyearandachieveup toa20percentreductionincarbondioxideemissionsandfuelconsumptionbythe2018model year.ForheavyͲdutypickuptrucksandvans,theagenciesare proposingseparategasolineand dieseltruckstandards,whichphaseinstartinginthe2014modelyearandachieveuptoa10Ͳ percent reduction for gasoline vehicles and a 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles by the 2018 model year (12 and 17 percent respectively if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle standards would achieve up to a 10 percent red
uction in fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions from the 2014 to 2018 modelyears.
OnApril2,2018,theUSEPAsignedtheMidͲtermEvaluationFinalDetermination,whichfinds that the model year 2022Ͳ2025 greenhouse gas standards are not appropriate and should be
revised(34).ThisFinalDeterminationservestoinitiateanoticetofurtherconsiderappropriate standards for model year 2022Ͳ2025 lightͲduty vehicles. On August 24, 2018, the USEPA and NHTSApublishedaproposaltofreezethemodelyea r2020standardsthroughmodelyear2026 andtorevokeCalifornia’swaiverundertheCleanAirActtoestablishmorestringentstandards (35).
Mandatory Reporting of GHGs. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, passed in December 2007, requires the establishment of mandatory GHG reporting requirements.On Septembe
r 22, 2009, the EPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of GHGs Rule, which became effective January 1, 2010.The rule requires reporting of GHG emissions from large sourcesandsuppliersintheU.S,,andisintendedtocollectaccurateandtimelyemissionsdata to inform future policy decisions.Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturersofvehiclesandengines,andfacilitiesthat emit25,000metrictonsormoreper
yearofGHGemissionsarerequiredtosubmitannualreportstotheEPA. ATTACHMENT 2
A2-150
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
17
NewSourceReview.The EPAissuedafinalruleonMay13,2010,thatestablishesthresholds for GHGs that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrialfacilities.This finalrule“tailors”therequirementsoftheseCleanAirActpermitting programs to limit which
facilities will be required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permits.In the preamble to the revisions to the Federal Code of Regulations,theEPAstates:
This rulemaking is necessary because without it the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
andTitleVrequirementswouldapply,asofJanuary2,2011,atthe 100 or 250 tons per year levels provided under the Clean Air Act, greatly increasing the number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources, overwhelming the resources of permitting authorities, and severely impairing the functioning of the programs. EPA is relieving these resource burdens by phasing in the applicability of these programs to GHG sources, startingwith
thelargestGHGemitters.This ruleestablishestwoinitialstepsof thephaseͲin.Therulealsocommitstheagencytotakecertainactionsonfuture steps addressing smaller sources, but excludes certain s maller sources from PreventionofSignificantDeteriorationandTitleVpermittingforGHGemissions untilatleastApril30,2016.
The EPA estimates that facilities responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources will be subject to permitting requirements under this rule. This includes the nation’s largest GHG emitters—power plants, refineries, and cement
productionfacilities.
StandardsofPerformanceforGHGEmissionsforNewStationarySources:ElectricUtilityGenerating Units.Asrequiredbyasettlementagreement,theEPAproposednewperformancestandardsfor emissionsofcarbondioxidefornew,affected,fossilfuelͲfiredelectricutilitygeneratingunitsonMarch 27,2012.Newsourcesgreaterthan25megawattswouldberequiredtomeetanoutputba sedstandard of1,000poundsofcarbondioxidepermegawattͲhour,basedontheperformanceofwidelyused naturalgascombinedcycletechnology.ItshouldbenotedthatonFebruary9,2016theU.S.Supreme Courtissuedastayofthisregulationpendinglitigation.Additionally,thecurrentEPAAd ministratorhas alsosignedameasuretorepealtheCleanPowerPlan,includingtheCO2standards. CapandTrade.Cap andtradereferstoapolicytoolwhereemissionsarelimitedtoacertain amountandcanbetraded,orprovidesflexibilityonhowtheemittercancomply. Successful examplesintheU.S.includetheAcidRainProgramandtheNOxBudgetTradingProgramand Clean Air Interstate Rule in the northeast.There is no federal GHG cap and trade program currently; however, some states have joined to create initiatives to provide a mechanism for capandtrade.
The Regional GHG Initiative is an effort to reduce GHGs among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hamps hire, New York, Rhode Island, and
Vermont.Eachstatecapscarbondioxideemissionsfrompowerplants,auctionscarbondioxide emissionallowances,andinveststheproceedsinstrategicenergyprogramsthatfurtherreduce ATTACHMENT 2
A2-151
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
18
emissions, save consumers money, create jobs, and build a clean energy economy.The Initiativebeganin2008.
TheWesternClimateInitiativepartnerjurisdictionshavedevelopedacomprehensiveinitiative toreduceregionalGHGemissionsto15percentbelow2005levelsby2020.Thepartnerswere originallyCalifornia,BritishColumbia,Manitoba,Ontario,andQuebec.However,Manitobaand Ontario
arenotcurrentlyparticipating.California linkedwithQuebec’scapandtradesystem January1,2014,andjointoffsetauctionstookplacein2015(C2ES2015). SmartWay Program. The SmartWay Program is a publicͲprivate initiative between the EPA, large and small trucking companies, rail carriers, logistics companies, commercial manufacturers,retailers,
andotherfederalandstateagencies.Its purposeistoimprovefuel efficiency and the environmental performance (reduction of both GHG emissions and air pollution)ofthegoodsmovementsupplychains.SmartWay iscomprisedoffourcomponents (EPA2014):

1. SmartWay TransportPartnership:Apartnershipinwhichfreightcarriersandshipperscommitto benchmarkoperations,trackfuelconsumption,andimproveperformanceannually.

2. SmartWay TechnologyProgram:Atesting,verification,anddesignationprogramtohelpfreight companiesidentifyequipment,technologies,andstrategiesthatsavefuelandloweremissions.

3. SmartWay Vehicles:AprogramthatrankslightǦdutycarsandsmalltrucksandidentifiessuperi or environmentalperformerswiththeSmartWaylogo.

4. SmartWay International Interests: Guidance and resources for countries seeking to develop freightsustainabilityprogramsmodeledafterSmartWay. SmartWayeffectivelyreferstorequirementsgearedtowardsreducingfuelconsumption.Most largetruckingfleetsdrivingnewervehiclesarecompliantwithSmartWaydesignrequirements. Moreover,overtime,allheavyͲdutytruckswillhavetocomplywiththeARBGHGRegulation thatisdesignedwiththeSmartWayPrograminmind,toreduceGHGemissionsbymakingthem more fuelͲefficient. For instance, in 2015, 53 foot or longer dry vans or refrigerat ed trailers
equippedwithacombinationofSmartWayͲverifiedlowͲrollingresistancetiresandSmartWayͲ verified aerodynamic devices would obtain a total of 10 percent or more fuel savings over traditionaltrailers.
ThroughtheSmartWayTechnologyProgram,theEPAhasevaluatedthefuelsavingbenefitsof variousdevicesthroughgrants,
cooperativeagreements,emissionsandfueleconomytesting, demonstration projects and technical literature review.As a result, the EPA has determined thefollowingtypesoftechnologiesprovidefuelsavingand/oremissionreducingbenefitswhen usedproperlyintheirdesignedapplications,andhasverifiedcertainproducts: x Idlereductiontechnologies–lessidlingoftheenginewhenitisnotneededwouldreducefuel consumption.
x Aerodynamic technologies minimize drag and improve airflow over the entire tractorǦtrailer vehicle.Aerodynamic technologies include gap fairings that reduce turbulence between the tractorandtrailer,sideskirtsthatminimizewindunderthetrailer,and rearfairingsthatreduce turbulenceandpressuredropattherearofthetrailer. ATTACHMENT 2
A2-152
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
19
x Lowrollingresistancetirescanrolllongerwithoutslowingdown,therebyreducingtheamount of fuel used.Rolling resistance (or rolling friction or rolling drag) is the force resisting the motion when a tire rolls on a surface.The wheel will eventually slow down because of this resistance.
x Retrofit technologies include th ings such as diesel particulate filters, emissions upgrades (to a highertier),etc.,whichwouldreduceemissions.
x Federalexcisetaxexemptions.
CALIFORNIA
LegislativeActionstoReduceGHGs
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation.Some legislation such as the landmarkAssemblyBill(AB32)CaliforniaGlobalWarmingSolutionsActof2006wasspecifically enacted to address GHG emissions.Other legislation such as Title 24 and Title 20 energy standardswereoriginallyadoptedforotherpurposessuchasenerg yandwaterconservation,
butalsoprovideGHGreductions.Thissectiondescribesthemajorprovisionsofthelegislation. AB 32. The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, which requires that GHGs emitted in Californiabereducedto1990levelsbytheyear2020.“GHGs”asdefinedunderAB32include carbondioxide,methane,N2O,hydrofluorocarbons,perfluorocarbons,andsulfurhexafluoride. SinceAB32wasenacted,aseventhchemical,nitrogentrifluoride,hasalsobeenaddedtothe list of GHGs.The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is the state agency charged with monitoringandregulatingsourcesofGHGs.AB32statesthefollowing: Globalwarmingposesaseriousthre attotheeconomicwellͲbeing,publichealth, natural resources, and the environment of California.The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels r esulting in the displacement of thousands of coastalbusinessesandresidences,damagetomarineecosystemsandthenatural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, andotherhumanhealthͲrelatedproblems.
ARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 MMTCO2e on December 6, 2007 (ARB 2007).Therefore,emissionsgeneratedinCaliforniain2020arerequiredtobeequaltoorless than427MMTCO2e.Emissionsin2020ina“businessasusual”(BAU)scenariowereestimated tobe596MMTCO2e,whichdonotaccountforreductionsfromAB32regulations(ARB2008). Atthatlevel,a28.4percentreductionwasrequiredtoachievethe427millionMTCO2e1990 inventory. In October 2010, ARB prepared an updated 2020 forecast to account for the recession and slower forecasted growth. The forecasted inventory without the benefits of adopted regulation is now estimated at 545 million MTCO2e.Therefore, under the updated forecast,a21.7percentreductionfromBAUisrequiredtoachieve1990levels(ARB2010). ProgressinAchievingAB32TargetsandRemainingReductionsRequired ATTACHMENT 2
A2-153
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
20
TheStatehasmadesteadyprogressinimplementingAB32andachievingtargetsincludedin Executive Order SͲ3Ͳ05.The progress is shown in updated emission inventories prepared by ARB for 2000 through 2012 (ARB 2014a). The State has achieved theExecutive Order SͲ3Ͳ05 targetfor2010ofreducingGHGemissionsto2000levels.Asshownbelow,the2010emission inventoryachievedthistarget.
x 1990:427millionMTCO2e(AB322020target)
x 2000:463millionMTCO2e(anaverage8percentreductionneededtoachieve1990base) x 2010:450millionMTCO2e(anaverage5percentreductionneededtoachieve1990base) ARBhasalsomadesubstantialprogressinachievingitsgoalofachieving1990emissionslevels by2020.As describedearlierinthissection,ARBrevisedthe2020BAUinventoryforecastto accountfornewlowergrowthprojections,whichresultedinanewlowerreductionfromBAU to achieve the 1990 base.The previous reduction from 2020 BAU needed to achieve 1990 levelswas28.4
percentandthelatestreductionfrom2020BAUis21.7percent. x 2020:545millionMTCO2eBAU(anaverage21.7percentreductionfromBAUneededtoachieve1990 base)
ARB Scoping Plan.ARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contains measures designedtoreducetheState’semissionsto1990levelsbytheyear2020tocomplywithAB32 (ARB 2008).The Scoping Plan identifies recommended measures for multiple GHG emission sectors and the associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target—each sectorhasadifferentemissionreductiontarget.Mostofthemeasurestargetthe transportationandelectricitysecto
rs.As statedintheScopingPlan,thekeyelementsofthe strategyforachievingthe2020GHGtargetinclude:
x Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliancestandards;
x Achievingastatewiderenewablesenergymixof33percent; x DevelopingaCaliforniacapͲandͲtradeprogramthatlinkswithotherWesternClimateInitiative partnerprogramstocreatearegionalmarketsystem;
x EstablishingtargetsfortransportationͲrelatedGH G emissionsforregionsthroughoutCalifornia andpursuingpoliciesandincentivestoachievethosetargets; x Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’scleancarstandards,goodsmovementmeasures,andtheLowCarbonFuelStandard; and
x Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high glob al warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State’s longͲterm commitmenttoAB32implementation.
TheARBapprovedtheFirstUpdatetotheScopingPlan(Update)onMay22,2014.TheUpdate identifies the next steps for California’s climate change strategy.The Update shows how California continues on its path to meet the nearͲterm 2020 GHG limit, but also sets a path towardlongͲterm,deepGHGemissionreductions. Thereportestablishesabroadframework forcontinuedemissionreductionsbeyond2020,onthepathto80percentbelow1990levels ATTACHMENT 2
A2-154
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
21
by2050.The UpdateidentifiesprogressmadetomeetthenearͲtermobjectivesofAB32and defines California’s climate change priorities and activities for the next several years.The UpdatedoesnotsetnewtargetsfortheStatebutdescribesapaththatwouldachievethelong term2050goalofExecutiveOrder SͲ05Ͳ03foremissionstodeclineto80percentbelow1990 levelsby2050(ARB2014).
Forecasting the amount of emissions that would occur in 2020 if no actions are taken was necessary to assess the amount of reductions California must achieve to return to the 1990 emissionslevelby2020asrequiredbyAB32.ThenoͲactionscenarioisknownas“businessͲasͲ usual”orBAU.TheARBoriginallydefinedtheBAUscenarioasemissionsintheabsenc eofany
GHGemissionreductionmeasuresdiscussedintheScopingPlan. As part of CEQA compliance for the Scoping Plan, ARB prepared a Supplemental Functional Equivalent Document (FED) in 2011. The FED included an updated 2020 BAU emissions inventoryprojectionbasedoncurrenteconomicforecasts(i.e.,asinfluenced bytheeconomic
downturn) and emission reduction measures already in place, replacing its prior 2020 BAU emissions inventory. ARB staff derived the updated emissions estimates by projecting emissions growth, by sector, from the state’s average emissions from 2006–2008. The new BAU estimate includes emission reductions for the millionͲsolarͲroofs program, the AB 1493 (Pavley
I) motor vehicle GHG emission standards, and the Low Carbon Fuels Standard.In addition, ARB factored into the 2020 BAU inventory emissions reductions associated with 33 percent RPS for electrici
ty generation.The updated BAU estimate of 507 MMTCO2e by 2020 requiresareductionof80MMTCO2e,ora16percentreductionbelowtheestimatedBAUlevels toreturnto1990levels(i.e.,427MMTCO2e)by2020.
InordertoprovideaBAUreductionthatisconsistentwiththeoriginaldefinitionintheScoping Plan and with threshold definitions used in thresholds adopted by lead agencies for CEQA purposes and manyclimate action plans, theupdated inventory without regulations was also included in the Supplemental FED.The ARB 2020 BAU projection for GHG emissions in Californiawa
soriginallyestimatedtobe596MMTCO2e.TheupdatedARB2020BAUprojection in the Supplemental FED is 545 MMTCO2e.Considering the updated BAU estimate of 545 MMTCO2e by 2020, ARB estimates a 21.7 percent reduction below the estimated statewide BAUlevelsisnecessarytoreturnto1990emissionlevels(i.e.,427MMTCO2e)by2020,instead oftheapproximate28.4percentBAUreductionpreviouslyreportedundertheoriginalClimate ChangeScopingPlan(2008).
2017ClimateChangeScopingPlanUpdate
In November 2017, ARB released the final 2017 Scoping Plan Update, which identifies the State’spostͲ2020reductionstrategy.The2017ScopingPlanUpdatereflectsthe2030targetof a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order BͲ30Ͳ15 and codified by SenateBill32(SB32).Keypr ograms thattheproposedSecondUpdatebuildsuponincludethe CapͲandͲTrade Regulation, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and much cleaner cars, trucks and freight movement, utilizing cleaner, renewable energy, and strategies to reduce methane emissionsfromagriculturalandotherwastes.
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-155
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
22
The2017ScopingPlanestablishesanewemissionslimitof260MMTCO2efortheyear2030, whichcorrespondstoa40percentdecreasein1990levelsby2030. California’s climate strategy will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including the land base, and will include enhanced focus on zeroͲ and nearͲzeroͲemission (ZE/NZE)vehicletechnologies;continuedinvestmentinrenewables,includingsolarroofs,wind, andotherdistributedgeneration;greateruseoflowcarbonfuels;integratedlandco nservation
and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of shortͲlived climate pollutants(methane,blackcarbon,andfluorinatedgases);andanincreasedfocusonintegrated land use planning to support livable, transitͲconnected communities and conservation of agriculturalandotherlands.RequirementsfordirectGHGreductionsatrefin erieswillfurther
support air quality coͲbenefits in neighborhoods, including in disadvantaged communities historicallylocatedadjacenttotheselargestationarysources,aswellaseffortswithCalifornia’s localairpollutioncontrolandairqualitymanagementdistricts(airdistricts)totightenemission limits on a broad spectrum of industrial sources. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan frameworkinclude:
x Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include increasingZEVbusesandtrucks.
x LowCarbonFuelStandard(LCFS),withanincreasedstringency(18percentby2030). x Implementing SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50 percent RPSanddoublesenergyefficiencysavingsby2030.
x California Sustainable Freight
Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes nearͲzeroemissionstechnology,anddeploymentofZEVtrucks. x Implementing the proposed ShortͲLived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS), which focuses on reducing methane and hydroflurocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbonemissionsby50percentbyyear2030.
x Continuedimplemen
tationofSB375.
x PostͲ2020CapͲandͲTradeProgramthatincludesdecliningcaps. x 20percentreductioninGHGemissionsfromrefineriesby2030. x DevelopmentofaNaturalandWorkingLandsActionPlantosecureCalifornia’slandbaseasa netcarbonsink.
Note,however,thatthe2017ScopingPlanacknowledgesthat: [a]chievingnetzeroincreasesinGHGemissions,resultinginnocontributionto GHGimpacts,maynotbefeasibleorappropriateforeveryproject,however,and theinabilityofaprojecttomitigateitsGHGemissionstonetzerodoesnotimply the project r esults in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmentalimpactofclimatechangeunderCEQA.
Inadditiontothestatewidestrategieslistedabove,the2017ScopingPlanalsoidentifieslocal governmentsasessentialpartnersinachievingtheState’slongͲtermGHGreductiongoalsand identifies local actions to reduce GHG emissio ns. As part of the recommended actions, CARB recommendsthatlocalgovernmentsachieveacommunityͲwidegoaltoachieveemissionsofno ATTACHMENT 2
A2-156
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
23
morethan6MTCO2eorlesspercapitaby2030and2MTCO2eorlesspercapitaby2050.For CEQA projects, CARB states that lead agencies may develop evidencedͲbased brightͲline numeric thresholds—consistent with the Scoping Plan and the State’slongͲterm GHG goals— and projects with emissions over that amount may be required to incorporate onͲsite design features and mitigation measures that avoid or minimize project emissions to the degree feasible; or, a performanceͲbased metric using a climat e action plan or other plan to reduce
GHGemissionsisappropriate.
AccordingtoresearchconductedbytheLawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratoryandsupported byARB,California,underitsexistingandproposedGHGreductionpolicies,is ontracktomeet the 2020 reduction targets under AB 32 and could achieve the 2030 goals under SB 32. The researchutilizedanew,validatedmodelknownastheCaliforniaLBNLGHGAnalysisofPolicies Spreadsheet (CALGAPS), which simulates GHG and criteria pollutant emissions in California from 2010 to 2050 in accordance to existing and future GHGͲreducing policies. The CALGAPS
model showed that GHG emissions through 2020 could range from 317 to 415 MTCO2e per year,“indicatingthatexistingstatepolicieswilllikelyallowCaliforniatomeetitstarget[of2020 levelsunderAB32].”CALGAPSalsoshowedthatby2030,emissionscouldrangefrom211to 428 MTCO2e per year, indicating that “even if all modeled policies are not implemented, reductionscouldbesufficienttoreduceemissions40percentbelowthe1990level[ofSB32].” CALGAPSanalyzedemissionsthrough2050eventhoughitdidnotgenerallyaccountforpolicies thatmightbeputinplaceafter2030.Althoughtheres earchindicatedthattheemissionswould notmeettheState’s80percentreductiongoalby2050,variouscombinationsofpoliciescould allowCalifornia’scumulativeemissionstoremainverylowthrough2050(36)(37). SenateBill32.OnSeptember8,2016,GovernorJerryBrownsignedtheSenateBill(SB)32and its companio
n bill, Assembly Bill (AB) 197. SB 32 requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissionsto40percentbelow1990levelsby2030,areductiontargetthatwasfirstintroduced in Executive Order BͲ30Ͳ15. The new legislation builds upon the AB 32 goal of 1990 levels by 2020 and provides an intermediate goal
to achieving SͲ3Ͳ05, which sets a statewide GHG reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 197 creates a legislative committee to oversee regulators to ensure that ARB not only responds to the Governor, but alsotheLegislature(11).
CapandTrad
eProgram.TheScopingPlanidentifiesaCapͲandͲTradeProgramasoneofthekey strategiesforCaliforniatoreduceGHGemissions.According toARB,acapͲandͲtradeprogram willhelpputCaliforniaonthepathtomeetitsgoalofreducingGHGemissionsto1990levelsby the year 2020 and ulti
mately achieving an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. UndercapͲandͲtrade,anoveralllimitonGHGemissionsfromcappedsectorsisestablished,and facilitiessubjecttothecapwillbeabletotradepermitstoemitGHGswithintheoveralllimit. ARBadoptedaCaliforniaCapͲandͲTradeProgrampursuanttoitsauthorityunderAB32.See Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) §§ 95800 to 96023).The CapͲandͲTrade Programis
designedtoreduceGHGemissionsfrommajorsources(deemed“coveredentities”) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions and employing market mechanisms to achieveAB32'semissionͲreductionmandateofreturningto1990levelsofemissionsby2020. The statewide cap for GHG emissions from the capped sectors (e.g., electri city generation,
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-157
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
24
petroleum refining, and cement production) commenced in 2013 and will decline over time, achievingGHGemissionreductionsthroughouttheprogram'sduration. Coveredentitiesthatemitmorethan25.000MTCO2eperyearmustcomplywiththeCapͲandͲ Trade Program.Triggering of the 25.000 MTCO2e per year “inclusion threshold” is measured against a subset of emissions reported and verified under the California Regulation for the MandatoryReportingofGHGEmissions(MandatoryReportingRuleor“MRR”). Under the CapͲandͲTrade Program, ARB issues allowances equal to the total amount of allowableemissionsoveragivencomplianceper iodanddistributesthesetoregulatedentities. Covered entities are allocated free allowances in whole or part (if eligible), and may buy allowances at auction, purchase allowances from others, or purchase offset credits. Each coveredentitywithacomplianceobligationisrequiredtosurrender“complianceinstruments” (30)foreachMTCO2eofGHGtheyemit.Therealsoarerequirementstosurrendercompliance instrumentscovering30percentoftheprioryear’scomplianceobligationbyNovemberofeach year. For example, in November 2014, a covered entity was required to submit compliance instrumentstocover30percentofits2013GHGemissions. The CapͲandͲTrade Program provides a firm cap, ensuring that the 2020 statewide emission limitwillnotbeexceeded.AninherentfeatureoftheCapͲandͲTradeprogramisthatitdoesnot guarantee GHG emissions reductions in any discrete location or by any particular source. Rather, GHG emissions reductions are only guaranteed on an accumulative basis. As summarizedbyARBintheFirstUpdate:
TheCapͲandͲTradeRegu
lationgivescompaniestheflexibilitytotradeallowances with others or take steps to costͲeffectively reduce emissions at their own facilities. Companies that emit more have to turn in more allowances or other compliance instruments. Companies that can cut their GHG emissions have to turninfewerallowances.Butasthecapdeclines,aggregateemissionsmustbe reduced. In other words, a covered entity th
eoretically could increase its GHG
emissionseveryyearandstillcomplywiththeCapͲandͲTradeProgramifthereis a reduction in GHG em
issions from other covered entities. Such a focus on aggregateGHGemissionsisconsideredappropriatebecauseclimatechangeisa global phenomenon, and the effects of GHG emissions are considered cumulative(ARB2014).
The CapͲandͲTrade Program works with other direct regulatory measures and provides an economicincentivetoreduceemissions.IfCalifornia’sdirectregulatorymeasuresreduceGHG emissions more
than expected, then the CapͲandͲTrade Program will be responsible for relatively fewer emissions reductions. If California’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissionslessthanexpected,thentheCapͲandͲTradeProgramwillberesponsibleforrelatively moreemissionsreductions.Thus
,theCapͲandͲTradeProgramassuresthatCaliforniawillmeet its2020GHGemissionsreductionmandate:
TheCapͲandͲTradeProgramestablishesanoveralllimitonGHGemissionsfrom most of the California economy—the “capped sectors.” Within the capped ATTACHMENT 2
A2-158
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
25
sectors, some of the reductions are being accomplished through direct regulations, such as improved building and appliance efficiency standards, the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard] LCFS, and the 33 percent [Renewables Portfolio Standard] RPS. Whatever additional reductions are needed to bring emissions within the cap is accomplished through price incentives posed by emissions allowance p
rices.Together, direct regulation and price incentives assure that emissionsarebroughtdowncostͲeffectivelytotheleveloftheoverallcap.The CapͲandͲTradeRegulationprovidesassurancethatCalifornia’s2020limitwillbe met because the regulation sets a firm limit on 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions.In sum, the CapͲandͲTrade Program will achieve aggregat e, rather
than site specific or projectͲlevel, GHG emissions reductions.Also, due to the regulatory architecture adopted by ARB in AB 32, the reductions attributed to the CapͲandͲTrade Program can change over time depending on the State’s emissions forecasts and
the effectiveness of direct regulatory measures (ARB 2014).
As of January 1, 2015, the CapͲandͲTrade Program covered approximately 85 percent of California’sGHGemissions. TheCapͲandͲTradeProgramcoverstheGHGemissionsassociated withelectricityconsumedinCalifornia,whethergeneratedinͲstateorimported.Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with CEQA
projects’electricity usage are covered by the CapͲandͲ TradeProgram.
TheCapͲandͲTradeProgramalsocoversfuelsuppliers(naturalgasandpropanefuelproviders andtransportationfuelproviders)toaddressemissionsfromsuchfuelsandfromcombustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the Program’s first compliance period. While the CapͲandͲTrade Program technically covered fuel suppliers as early as 2012,
theydidnothaveacomplianceobligation(i.e.,theywerenotfullyregulated)until2015.The CapͲandͲTrade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with the combustion of transportationfuelsinCa
lifornia,whetherrefinedinͲstateorimported.Thepointofregulation for transportation fuels is when they are “supplied” (i.e., delivered into commerce). Accordingly, as with stationary source GHG emissions and GHG emissions attributable to electricity use, virtually all, if not all, of GHG emissions from CEQA proje cts associated with vehicleͲmilestraveled(VMT)arecoveredbytheCapͲandͲTradeProgram(ARB2015)(38). In addition, the Scoping Plan differentiates between “capped” and “uncapped” strategies. “Capped” strategies are subject to the proposed capͲandͲtrade program. The Scoping Plan statesthattheinclusionoftheseemissionswithintheProgramwillhe lpensurethattheyear 2020 emission targets are met despite some degree of uncertainty in the emission reduction estimatesforanyindividualmeasure.Implementationofthecappedstrategiesiscalculatedto achieveasufficientamountofreductionsby2020toachievetheemissiontargetcontainedin AB32.“Uncapped”strategiesthatwillnotbesubjecttothecapͲandͲtradeemissionscapsand ATTACHMENT 2
A2-159
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
26
requirements are provided as a margin of safety by accounting for additional GHG emission reductions.3
SB375ͲtheSustainableCommunitiesandClimateProtectionActof2008.PassingtheSenateon August 30, 2008, Senate Bill (SB) 375 was signed by the Governor on September 30, 2008. AccordingtoSB375,thetransportationsectoristhelargestcontributorofGHGemissions,which emitsover40percentofthetotalGHGemission sinCalifornia.SB375states,“Withoutimproved landuseandtransportationpolicy,CaliforniawillnotbeabletoachievethegoalsofAB32.” SB 375doesthefollowing:it(1)requiresmetropolitanplanningorganizationstoincludesustainable communitystrategiesintheirregionaltransportationplansforreducingGHGemissions,(2)alig ns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementationofthestrategies.
Concerning CEQA, SB 375, as codified in Public Resources Code Section 21159.28, states that CEQAfindingsforcertainprojectsarenotrequiredtoreference,describe,ordiscuss(1)growth inducing impacts, or (2) any projectͲspecific or cumulative impacts fr om cars and lightͲduty
trucktripsgeneratedbytheprojectonglobalwarmingortheregionaltransportationnetwork, iftheproject:

1. Is in an area with an approved sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategythattheARBacceptsasachievingtheGHGemissionreductiontargets.

2. Is consistentwiththatstrategy(indesignation,density,buildingintensity,andapplicablepolicies).

3. Incorporates themitigationmeasuresrequiredbyanapplicablepriorenvironmentaldocument. AB1493PavleyRegulationsandFuelEfficiencyStandards.CaliforniaAB1493,enactedonJuly 22, 2002, required ARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks.Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the EPA’s denial of an implementa tion waiver.The EPA subsequentlygrantedtherequestedwaiverin2009,whichwasupheldbytheU.S.DistrictCourt fortheDistrictofColumbiain2011.
Thestandardsphaseinduringthe2009through2016modelyears.When fullyphasedin,the nearͲterm(2009–2012)standardswillresultinabouta22percentreduct ioncomparedwiththe 2002fleet,andthemidͲterm(2013–2016)standardswillresultinabouta30percentreduction. Several technologies stand out as providing significant reductions in emissions at favorable costs. These include discrete variable valve lift or camless valve actuation to optimize valve operation rather than relying on fix ed valve timing and lift as has historically been done; turbocharging to boost power and allow for engine downsizing; improved multiͲspeed transmissions;andimprovedairconditioningsystemsthatoperateoptimally,leakless,and/or useanalternativerefrigerant.
3 OnMarch17,2011,theSanFranciscoSuperiorCourtissuedafinaldecisioninAssociationofIrritatedResidentsv.CaliforniaAirResources Board(CaseNo.CPFͲ09Ͳ509562).WhiletheCourtupheldthevalidityoftheARBScopingPlanfortheimplementationofAB32,theCourt enjoinedARBfromfurtherrulemaking underAB32untilARBamendsitsCEQAenvironmentalreviewoftheScopingPlantoaddressthe flawsidentifiedbytheCourt.OnMay23,2011,ARBfiledanappeal.OnJune24,2011,theCourtofAppealgrantedARB’spetitionstaying thetrailcourt’sorderpendingconsiderationoftheappeal. IntheinterestofinformeddecisionͲmaking,onJune13,2011,ARBreleasedthe expandedalternativesanalysisinadraftSupplementtotheAB32ScopingPlanFunctionalEquivalentDocument.TheARBBoardapproved theScopingPlanandtheCEQAdocumentonAugust24,2011. ATTACHMENT 2
A2-160
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
27
ThesecondphaseoftheimplementationforthePavleybillwasincorporatedintoAmendments totheLowͲEmissionVehicleProgramreferredtoasLEVIIIortheAdvancedCleanCarsprogram. The Advanced Clean Car program combines the control of smogͲcausing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025.TheregulationwillreduceGHGsfromnewcarsby34percentfrom2016levelsby2025. Thenewrul
eswillcleanupgasolineanddieselͲpoweredcars,anddeliverincreasingnumbersof zeroͲemission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plugͲin hybrid electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The packag e will also ensure adequate fueling
infrastructureisavailablefortheincreasingnumbersofhydrogenfuelcellvehiclesplannedfor deploymentinCalifornia.
SB350— CleanEnergyandPollutionReductionActof2015.InOctober2015,thelegislature approved, and the Governor signed SB 350, which reaffirms California’s commitment to reducingitsGHGemissionsandaddressingclimatechange.Keyprovisionsincludeanincrease intherenewablesportfoliostandard(RPS),higherenergyefficiencyrequirementsforbuildings, initial strategies towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations.Provisions for a 50 percent reduction in the use of petroleum statewidewe
reremovedfromtheBillbecauseofoppositionandconcernthatitwouldprevent the Bill’s passage.Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG emissions:
x Increasetheamountofelectricityprocuredfromrenewableenergysourcesfrom33percentto 50percentby2030,withinterimtargetsof40percentby2024,and25percentby2027. x Doubletheenergyefficiencyinexistingbuildingsby2030.This targetwillbeachievedthrough the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and localpubliclyͲownedutilities.
x Reorganize the Indepe
ndent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrify transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growthofrenewableenergymarketsinthewesternUnitedStates(CaliforniaLeginfo2015). EXECUTIVEORDERSRELATEDTOGHGEMISSIONS
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs through the use of ExecutiveOrders.Althoughnotregulatory,theysetthetoneforthestateandguidetheactions ofstateagencies.
Executive Order BͲ55Ͳ18 and SB 100. Executive Order BͲ55Ͳ18 and SB 100. SB 100 and Executive Order BͲ55Ͳ18 were signed by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018. Under the existingRPS,25percentofretailsalesarerequiredtobefromrenewablesourcesbyDecember 31,2016,33percentbyDecember31,2020,40percentbyDecember31,2024, 45percentby December 31, 2027, and 50 percent by December 31, 2030. SB 100 raises California’s RPS requirementto50percentrenewableresourcestargetbyDecember31,2026,andtoachievea 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also requires that retail sellers and local publiclyownedelectricutilitiesprocureaminimumquantityofelectricityproductsfromeligible renewable energ
y resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retailendͲusecustomersachieve44percentofretailsalesbyDecember31,2024,52percent ATTACHMENT 2
A2-161
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
28
byDecember31,2027,and60percentbyDecember31,2030.InadditiontotargetsunderAB 32 and SB32, Executive Order BͲ55Ͳ18 establishes a carbon neutrality goal for the state of Californiaby2045;andsetsagoaltomaintainnetnegativeemissionsthereafter.TheExecutive Order directs the California Natural Resources Agency, CalEPA, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and CARB to include sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands ClimateChangeImplementationPlanconsistentwiththecarbonneutralitygoal. Executive Order SͲ3Ͳ05.Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order SͲ3Ͳ05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
x By2010,reduceGHGemissionsto2000levels.
x By2020,reduceGHGemissionsto1990levels.
x By2050,reduceGHGemissionsto80percentbelow1990levels. The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels thatwillstabilizetheclimate.The2020goalwasestablishedtobeamidͲtermtarget.Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the privatesector.
ExecutiveOrderSͲ01Ͳ07–LowCarb onFuelStandard.TheGovernorsignedExecutiveOrderSͲ 01Ͳ07onJanuary18,2007.The ordermandatesthatastatewidegoalshallbeestablishedto reducethecarbonintensityofCalifornia’stransportationfuelsbyatleast10percentby2020. In particular, the Executive Order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission,theARB,theUniversityofCalifornia,andotheragenciestodevelopandpropose protocolsformeasuringthe“lifeͲcyclecarbonintensity”oftransportationfuels.This analysis supporting development of the protocols was included in the State Implementation Plan for alternative fuels (State Alternative Fuels Plan adopted by California Energy Commission on December 24, 2007) and was submitted to ARB for consideration as an “early action” item underAB32.
TheARBadoptedtheLowCarbonFuelStandardonApril23,2009. TheLowCarbonFuelStandardwaschallengedintheU.S.DistrictCourtinFresnoin2011.The court’s ruling issued on December 29, 2011, included a preliminary injunction against ARB’s implementationofther
ule.The NinthCircuitCourtofAppealsstayedtheinjunctiononApril 23,2012,pendingfinalrulingonappeal,allowingARBtocontinuetoimplementandenforce the regulation.
The Ninth Circuit Court’s decision, filed September 18, 2013, vacated the preliminaryinjunction. Inessence,thecourtheldthatLowCarbonFuelStandardsadoptedby ARBwerenotinconflictwithfederallaw.OnAugust8,2013,theFifthDistrictCour tofAppeal (California)ruledARBfailedtocomplywithCEQAandtheAdministrativeProcedureAct(APA) whenadoptingregulationsforLowCarbonFuelStandards.Inapartiallypublishedopinion,the CourtofAppealreversedthetrialcourt’sjudgmentanddirectedissuanceofawritofmandate setting aside Resolution 09Ͳ31 and two executive orders of ARB approving Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) regulations promulgated to reduce GHG emissions.However, the cour t
tailored its remedy to protect the public interest by allowing the LCFS regulations to remain operativewhileARBcomplieswiththeproceduralrequirementsitfailedtosatisfy. ATTACHMENT 2
A2-162
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
29
ToaddresstheCourtruling,ARBwasrequiredtobringanewLCFSregulationtotheBoardfor consideration in February 2015. The proposed LCFS regulation was required to contain revisions to the 2010 LCFS as well as new provisions designed to foster investments in the production of the lowͲcarbon intensity (lowͲCI) fuels, offer additional flexibility to regulated parties,updatecriti
caltechnicalinformation,simplifyandstreamlineprogramoperations,and enhance enforcement. On November 16, 2015 the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approvedtheFinalRulemakingPackage.ThenewLCFSregulationbecameeffectiveonJanuary 1,2016.
Executive Order SͲ13Ͳ08.Executive Order SͲ13Ͳ08 states that “climate change in California duringthenextcenturyisexpectedtoshiftprecipitationpatterns,acceleratesealevelriseand increasetemperatures,therebyposingaseriousthreattoCalifornia’seconomy,tothehealth andwelfareofitspopulationandtoitsnaturalresources.”Pursuanttotherequirementsinthe Order, the 2009 California Climat
e Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resources Agency 2009) was adopted, which is the “. . . first statewide, multiͲsector, regionͲspecific, and informationͲbasedclimatechangeadaptationstrategyintheUnitedStates.”Objectivesinclude analyzingrisksofclimatechangeinCalifornia,identifyingandexploringstrategiestoadaptto climat
echange,andspecifyingadirectionforfutureresearch. Executive Order BͲ30Ͳ15.On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an executiveordertoestablishaCaliforniaGHGreductiontargetof40percentbelow1990levels by2030. TheGovernor’sexecutiveorderalignsCalifornia’sGHGreductiontargetswiththose ofleadinginternational
governmentsaheadoftheUnitedNationsClimateChangeConference inParislate2015.The OrdersetsanewinterimstatewideGHGemissionreductiontargetto reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by2030 in order to ensure Cal ifornia meetsitstargetofreducingGHGemissionsto80percentbelow1990levelsby2050anddirects ARBtoupdatetheClimateChangeScopingPlantoexpressthe2030targetintermsofmillion metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMCO2e).The Order also requires the state’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years, and for the State to continue its climate changeresearchprogram,amongotherprovisions.As withExecutiveOrderSͲ3Ͳ05,thisOrder isnotlegallyenforceableforlocalgovernmentsandtheprivatesector. Legislationthatwould updateAB32tomakepos
t2020targetsandrequirementsamandateisinprocessintheState Legislature.
CALIFORNIAREGULATIONSANDBUILDINGCODES
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flatevenwithrapidpopulationgrowth.
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Standards.California Code of Regulations, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter4,Article4,Sections1601Ͳ1608:ApplianceEfficiencyRegulationsregulatesthesaleof appliances in California.
The Appliance Efficiency Regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and nonͲfederally regulated appliances.23 categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations.The standards within these regulationsapplytoappliancesthataresoldorofferedforsaleinCalifornia,ex ceptthosesold ATTACHMENT 2
A2-163
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
30
wholesale in California for final retail sale outside the state and those designed and sold exclusivelyforuseinrecreationalvehiclesorothermobileequipment(CEC2012). Title24EnergyEfficiencyStandardsandCaliforniaGreenBuildingStandards.California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow
consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energyefficientbuildingsrequirelesselectricity;therefore,increasedenergyefficiencyreduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.The 2019 version of Title 24 was adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and will become effective on January 1,
2020andisthereforeapplicabletotheProject.
TheCECindicatesthatthe2019Title24standardsmayrequiresolarphotovoltaicsystemsfor new homes, establish requirements for newly constructed healthcare facilities, encourage demand responsive technologies for residential buildings, update indoor and outdoor lighting for nonresidential buildings. The CEC anticipates that singleͲfamily homesbuilt with the 2019 standardswilluseapproximately7percentlessenergycomparedtotheresidentialhomesbuilt under the 2016 standards. Additionally, aft er implementation of solar photovoltaic systems, homesbuiltunderthe2019standardswillabout53percentlessenergythanhomesbuiltunder the2016standards.Nonresidentialbuildingswilluseapproximately30percentlessenergydue tolightingupgrades(39).
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)isacompreh
ensiveanduniformregulatorycodeforallresidential,commercial,and schoolbuildingsthat went ineffectonJanuary1,2011,andisadministeredbytheCalifornia BuildingStandardsCommission.CALGreen isupdatedonaregularbasis,withthemostrecent approvedupdateconsistingofthe2016CaliforniaGreenBuildingCodeStandardsthatbecame effectiveJanuary1,2017.Itsh
ouldbenotedthattheCALGreenstandardsarecurrentlyinthe processofbeingupdated,butfinalrulemakingactivityhasnotoccurred,thereforeatthistime the2016CalGreenstandardsarethecurrentlyadoptedstandardsineffect.Localjurisdictions are permittedtoadoptmore stringentrequirements, asstatelaw providesmethodsforlocal
enhancements.CALGreen recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided, they establish a minimum 65 percent diversion requirement.The code also provides exemptionsforareasnotservedbyconstructionanddemolitionrecyclinginfrastructure. The
State Building Code provides the minimum standard that buildings must meet in order to be certified for occupancy, which is generally enforced by the local building official.CALGreen requires:
x ShortͲterm bicycle parking. If a commercial project is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visibletopassersͲby,for5percentofvisitormotorizedvehicleparkingcapacity,withaminimum ofonetwoͲbikecapacityrack(5.106.4.1.1).
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-164
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
31
x LongͲtermbicycleparking.Fornewbuildingswith10ormoretenantͲoccupants,providesecure bicycle parking for 5 percent of tenantͲoccupied motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimumofonespace(5.106.4.1.2).
x Designatedparking.ProvidedesignatedparkingincommercialprojectsforanycombinationoflowͲ emitting,fuelͲefficientandcarpool/vanpoolveh iclesasshowninTable5.106.5.2(5.106.5.2). x Recycling by Occupants.Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling (5.410.1).
x Construction waste. A minimum 65 percent diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills, increasing voluntarily to 80 percent for new homes and commercial projects
(5.408.1, A5.408.3.1 [nonresidential], A5.408.3.1 [residential]). All (100 percent) of trees, stumps,rocksandassociatedvegetationandsoilsresultingfromlandclearingshallbereusedor recycled(5.408.3).
x Wastewaterreduction. Eachbuildingshallreducethegenerationofwastewaterbyoneofthe followingmethods:
o Theinstallationof
waterͲconservingfixtures(5.303.3)or
o Usingnonpotablewatersystems(5.303.4).
x Water use savings.20 percent mandatory reduction of indoor water use with voluntary goal standardsfor30,35and40percentreductions(5.303.2,A5303.2.3[nonresidential]). x Watermeters.Separatewatermetersforbuildingsinexcessof50,000sforbuildingsprojected toconsumemoretha
n1,000gallonsperday(5.303.1).
x Irrigationefficiency.MoistureͲsensingirrigationsystemsforlargerlandscapedareas(5.304.3). x Materials pollution control.Low Ͳpollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet,vinylflooring,andparticleboard(5.404).
x Building co mmissioning. Mandatory inspections of energy systems (i.e., heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) fornonresidential buildingsover 10,000sftoensure thatall areworkingattheirmaximumcapacityaccordingtotheirdesignefficiencies(5.410.2). ModelWaterEfficientLandscapeOrdinance.TheModelWaterEfficientLandscapeOrdinance (Ordinance) was required by AB 1881, the Water Conservation Act.The bill required local agenciestoadoptalocallandscapeordinanceatleastaseffectiveinconservingwaterasthe Model Ordinance by January 1, 2010.Reductions in water use of 20 percent consistent with (SBXͲ7Ͳ7)2020mandateareexpe
cteduponcompliancewiththeordinance.GovernorBrown’s DroughtExecutiveOrderofApril1,2015(EOBͲ29Ͳ15)directedDepartmentofWaterResources (DWR) to update the Ordinance through expedited regulation. The California Water Commission approved the revised Ordinance on July 15, 2015 effective December 15, 2015. New development
projects that include landscape areas of 500 sf or more are subject to the Ordinance.Theupdaterequires:
x Moreefficientirrigationsystems;
x Incentivesforgraywaterusage;
x ImprovementsinonͲsitestormwatercapture;
x Limitingtheportionoflandscapesthatcanbeplantedwithhighwateruseplants;and ATTACHMENT 2
A2-165
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
32
x Reportingrequirementsforlocalagencies.
ARB Refrigerant Management Program. ARB adopted a regulation in 2009 to reduce refrigerant GHG emissions from stationary sources through refrigerant leak detection and monitoring, leak repair, system retirement and retrofitting, reporting and recordkeeping, and properrefrigerantcylinderuse,sale,anddisposal.Theregulationissetforthinsections95380 to 95398 of Title 17, California Code of Regulations. The rules implementing the regulation establish a limit on statewide GHG emissions from stationary facilities with refrigeration systems with more than 50 pounds of a high GWP refrigerant.The refrigerant management program is designed to (1) reduce emissions of highͲGWP GHG refrigerants from leaky stationary,nonͲresidentialrefrigerationequipment;(2)re duceemissionsfromtheinstallation
andservicingofrefrigerationandairͲconditioningappliancesusinghighͲGWPrefrigerants;and (3)verifyGHGemissionreductions.
TractorͲTrailerGHGRegulation.Thetractorsandtrailerssubjecttothisregulationmusteither useEPASmartWaycertifiedtractorsandtrailersorretrofittheirexistingfleetwith SmartWay verifiedtechnologies.Theregulationappliesprimarilytoownersof53ͲfootorlongerboxͲtype trailers, including both dryͲvan and refrigeratedͲvan trailers, and owners of the heavyͲduty tractorsthatpullthemonCaliforniahighways.These ownersareresponsibleforreplacingor retrofitting their affected vehicles with compliant aerodyn amic technologies and low rolling
resistancetires.Sleeper cabtractorsmodelyear2011andlatermustbeSmartWaycertified. All other tractors must use SmartWay verified low rolling resistance tires.There are also requirementsfortrailerstohavelowrollingresistancetiresandaerodynamicdevices. Phase I and 2 HeavyͲDuty Vehicle GHG Standards. ARB has adopted a new regulation for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from heavyͲduty trucks and engines sold in California. It establishes GHG emission limits on truck and engine man ufacturers andharmonizes with the
U.S.EPArulefornewtrucksandenginesnationally.ExistingheavyͲdutyvehiclereg ulationsin California include engine criteria emission standards, tractorͲtrailer GHG requirements to implement SmartWay strategies (i.e., theHeavyͲDuty TractorͲTrailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation), and inͲuse fleet retrofit requirements such as theTruck and Bus Regulation. In September2011, the U.S.EPA adopted theirnew rule for heavyͲduty trucks and engines. The U.S.EPA
rulehascompliancerequirementsfornewcompressionandsparkignitionengines,as well as trucks from Class2b throughClass 8. Compliance requirements begin with modelyear(MY)2014 with stringency levels increasing through MY2018. The rule organizes truck compliance into three groupings, which
include a) heavyͲduty pickups and vans; b)
vocationalvehicles;andc)combinationtractors.TheU.S.EPAruledoesnotregulatetrailers. ARBstaffhasworkedjointlywiththeU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(U.S.EPA)andthe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the next phase of federal greenhousegas(GHG)emissionstandardsformediumͲandheavyͲdutyvehicles,call edfederal
Phase2.ThefederalPhase2standardswerebuiltontheimprovementsinengineandvehicle efficiencyrequiredbythePhase1emissionstandardsandrepresentasignificantopportunity toachievefurtherGHGreductionsfor2018andlatermodelyearhe avyͲdutyvehicles,including trailers.Butasdiscussedabove,theUSEPAandNHTSAhaveproposedtorollbackGHGandfuel ATTACHMENT 2
A2-166
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
33
economystandardsforcarsandlightͲdutytrucks,whichsuggestsasimilarrollbackofPhase2 standardsformediumandheavyͲdutyvehiclesmaybepursued. SB97andtheCEQAGuidelinesUpdate.PassedinAugust2007,SB97addedSection21083.05 to the Public Resources Code.The code states “(a) On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of PlanningandResearchshallprepare,develop,andtransmittotheResourcesAgencyguidelines forthemitig
ationofGHGemissionsortheeffectsofGHGemissionsasrequiredbythisdivision, including,butnotlimitedto,effectsassociatedwithtransportationorenergyconsumption.(b) OnorbeforeJanuary1,2010,theResourcesAgencyshallcertifyandadoptguidelinesprepared
and developed by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to subdivision (a).”Section 21097wasalsoaddedtothePublicResourcesCode.ItprovidedCEQAprotectionuntilJanuary 1,2010fortransportationprojectsfundedbytheHighwaySafety,TrafficReduction,Air Quality, andPortSecurityBondActof2006orprojectsfundedbytheDisasterPreparednessandFlood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, in stating that the failure to analyze adequately the effects of GHGswouldnotviolateCEQA.
OnDecember28,2018,theNaturalResourcesAgencyannounced theOfficeofAdministrative law approved the amendments to the CEQA guidelines for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. The CEQA Amendments provide guidance to public agencies regardingtheanalysisandmitigationoftheeffectsofGHGemissionsinCEQAdocuments.The CEQA Amendments fit within the existing CEQA framewor k by amending existing CEQA Guidelinestoreferenceclimatechange.
Section 1506.4 was amended to state that in determining the significance of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions, the lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change. A project’s in
cremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively small compared to statewide, national or global emissions. The agency’s analysisshouldconsideratimeframethatisappropriatefortheproject.Theagency’sanalysis also must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes. Additionally, a lea
d agency may use a model or methodology to estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodologyitconsidersmostappropriatetoenabledecisionmakerstointelligentlytakeinto account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change. The lead agen cy must support its selection of a model or methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency shouldexplainthelimitationsoftheparticularmodelormethodologyselectedforuse(1). REGIONAL
The project is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD.
SouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict
SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the SCAB.The SCAQMDaddressestheimpactstoclimatechangeofprojectssubjecttoSCAQMDpermitasa leadagencyiftheyaretheonlyagencyhavingdiscretionaryapprovalfortheprojectandactsas ATTACHMENT 2
A2-167
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
34
aresponsibleagencywhenalanduseagencymustalsoapprovediscretionarypermitsforthe project.The SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality.This expertisecarries over to GHG emissions, so the agency helps local land use agencies through the development of models and emission thresholds that can be used to a ddress GHG emissions.
In2008,SCAQMDformedaWorkingGrouptoidentifyGHGemissionsthresholdsforlanduse projectsthatcouldbeusedbylocalleadagenciesintheSCAB.The WorkingGroupdeveloped several different options that are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – InterimCEQAGHGSignificanceThreshold,thatcouldbeappliedbylea dagencies.Theworking
grouphasnotprovidedadditionalguidancesincereleaseoftheinterimguidancein2008.The SCAQMD Boardhasnotapprovedthethresholds;however,theGuidanceDocumentprovides substantial evidence supporting the approaches to significance of GHG emissions that can be consideredbytheleadagencyinadoptingits ownthreshold. Thecurrentinterimthresholds consistofthefollowingtieredapproach:
x Tier1consistsofevaluatingwhether ornottheprojectqualifiesforanyapplicableexemption underCEQA.
x Tier2consistsofdeterminingwhethertheprojectisconsistentwithaGHGreductionplan.Ifa projectisconsistentwithaqualifyinglocalGHGreductionplan,itdoesnothavesignificantGHG emissions.
x Tier3 consistsof screeningvalues, which theleadage ncycanchoose,butmustbe consistent
withallprojectswithinitsjurisdiction. Aproject’sconstructionemissionsareaveragedover30 yearsandareaddedtotheproject’soperationalemissions.If aproject’semissionsarebelow oneofthefollowingscreeningthresholds,thentheprojectislessthansignificant: o Residentialan
dCommerciallanduse:3,000MTCO2eperyear
o Industriallanduse:10,000MTCO2eperyear
o Basedonlandusetype:residential:3,500MTCO2eperyear;commercial:1,400MTCO2e peryear;ormixeduse:3,000MTCO2eperyear
x Tier4hasthefollowingoptions:
o Option 1: Reduce BAU emissions by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently undefined.
o Option2:EarlyimplementationofapplicableAB32ScopingPlanmeasures o Option 3, 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employees:4.8MTCO2e/SP/yearforprojectsand6.6MTCO2e/SP/yearforplans; o Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans
x Tier5involvesmitigationoffsetstoachievetargetsignificancethreshold. TheSCAQMD’sinterimthresholdsusedtheExecutiveOrderSͲ3Ͳ05Ͳyear2050goalasthebasis for the Tier 3 screening level.Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate.
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-168
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
35
SCAQMD only has authority over GHG emissions from development projects that include air qualitypermits.At thistime,itisunknowniftheprojectwouldincludestationarysourcesof emissions subject to SCAQMD permits. Notwithstanding, if the Project requires a stationary permit,itwouldbesubjecttotheapplicableSCAQMDregulations. SCAQMDRegulationXXVII,adoptedin2009includesthefollowingrules: x Rule2700definestermsandpostglobalwarmingpotentials. x Rule 2701, SoCal Climate Solutions Exchange, establishes a voluntary program to encourage, quantify,andcertifyvoluntary,highqualitycertifiedGHGemissionreductionsintheSCAQMD. x Rule 2702, GHG Reduction Program created a program to produce GHG emission reductions withintheSCAQMD.TheSCAQMDwillfundprojectsthroughcontractsinresponsetorequests for
proposalsorpurchasereductionsfromotherparties.
CITYOFBURBANKGGRP
On February 19, 2013, the City of Burbank adopted the GGRP as part of the Burbank 2035 General Plan. The GGRP identifies a number of State actions adopted to reduce future emissionsofgreenhousegasses,includingbutnotlimitedtoAB32,AB1493,SB1078andAB 1109(40).

2.8 DISCUSSIONONESTABLISHMENTOFSIGNIFICANCETHRESHOLDS The City of Burbank has not adopted a numeric threshold of significance for determining impacts with respect to GHG emissions. Within this GHGA, a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2eperyearisemployedtodetermineifadditionalanalysisisrequired.Thisapproachisa widelyacceptedsmallprojectscreeningthresholdusedbynumerousleadagencieswithinSCAB and is based on the SCAQMD staff’sproposed GHG screening threshold for stationary source emissions for nonͲindustrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (“SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold”).The SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold identifies a screening threshold to determinewhether
additionalanalysisisrequired.
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-169
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
36
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-170
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
37
3 PROJECTGREENHOUSEGASIMPACT

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Project has been evaluated to determine if it will result in a significant greenhouse gas impact.Thesignificanceofthesepotentialimpactsisdescribedinthefollowingsection.

3.2 STANDARDSOFSIGNIFICANCE
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential ProjectͲrelated greenhouse gas impactsaretakenfromtheInitialStudyChecklistinAppendixGoftheStateCEQAGuidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project wouldresultinasignificantimpactrelatedtogreenhousegasifitwould(1): x Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impactontheenvironment?
x Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissionsofgreenhousegases?

3.3 CALIFORNIAEMISSIONSESTIMATORMODEL™ EMPLOYEDTOANALYZEGHGEMISSIONS On October 17, 2017, the SCAQMD, in conjunction with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and other California air districts, released the latest version of theCaliforniaEmissionsEstimatorModel™ (CalEEMod™) v2016.3.2.Thepurposeofthismodel is to calculate constructionͲsource and operationalͲsource criteria pollutant (VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and greenhouse gasemissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures (41). CalEEModutilizeswidelyacceptedmodelsforemissionsestimatescombinedwithdefaultdata thatcanbeusedifsiteͲspecificinformationisnotavailable.Itshouldbenotedthatamajority ofthedefaultdataassociatedwit
hlocationsandlanduseisbasedonsurveysofexistingland uses.Cautionshouldbetakeniftheprojectdeviatessignificantlyfromthetypesandfeatures included in the survey that forms the evidence supporting the default data (42). The latest versionofCalEEMod™ hasbeenusedforthisProje cttodeterminegreenhousegasemissions. OutputfromthemodelrunsforconstructionactivityareprovidedinAppendix3.1.

3.4 CONSTRUCTIONANDOPERATIONALLIFEͲCYCLEANALYSISNOTREQUIRED A full lifeǦcycle analysis (LCA) for construction and operational activity is not included in this analysisduetothelackofconsensusguidanceonLCAmethodologyatthistime(43).LifeǦcycle analysis(i.e.,assessingeconomyǦwideGHGemissionsfromtheprocessesinmanufacturingand transporting all raw materials used in the project development, infrastructure an d onͲgoing operations)dependsonemissionfactorsoreconometricfactorsthatarenotwellestablished forallprocesses.Atthistime,anLCAwouldbe extremelyspeculativeandthus hasnot been prepared.
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-171
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
38
Additionally, the SCAQMD recommends analyzing direct and indirect project GHG emissions generated within California and not lifeͲcycle emissions because the lifeͲcycle effects from a project could occur outside of California, might not be very well understood or documented, and would be challenging to mitigate(44). Additionally, the science to calculate life cycle emissions is not yet established or well defined; therefore, SCAQMD has not recommended, andisnotrequiring,lifeͲcycleemissionsanalysis.

3.5 CONSTRUCTIONEMISSIONS
Construction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.Construction related emissions are expected from the following constructionactivities:
x Demolition
x SitePreparation
x Grading
x BuildingConstruction
x Paving
x ArchitecturalCoating
Construction is expected to commence in midͲ2020 and will last through beginning of 2021 ConstructiondurationbyphaseisshownonTable3Ͳ1.Theconstructionscheduleutilizedinthe analysis represents a “worstͲcase” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysisyearincreasesduetoemissionregulationsbecomingmore stringent.4Thedurationof
constructionactivityandassociatedequipmentrepresentsareasonableapproximationofthe expected construction fleet as required per CEQA guidelines. Site specific construction fleet mayvaryduetospecificprojectneedsatthetimeofconstruction.Thedurationofconstruction activity was based on a 2021 opening year. The associated construction equipment was generally based on CalEEMod 2016.3.2 defaul
ts. Please refer to specific detailed modeling
inputs/outputscontainedinAppendix3.1ofthisanalysis.Adetailedsummaryofconstruction equipmentassumptionsbyphaseisprovidedatTable3Ͳ2. As per information provided in the Initial Study (IS), the proposed vault location is presently paved with an asphalt/concrete (a/
c) surface that would be removed and replaced after the constructionofthevault.Asaconservativemeasure,itisassumedthatthetotalProjectareaof 12,195.69sfwouldbedemolishedwhichwouldresultin561tonsofdebris(45). ConstructionactivitiesassociatedwiththeproposedProjectwillresultinemissionsofCO2and CH4fromconstructionactivities.ForconstructionphaseProjectemissions,GHGsarequantified and amortized over the life of the Project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the 4AsshownintheCaliforniaEmissionsEstimatorModel(CalEEMod)User’sGuideVersion2016.3.2,Section4.3“OFFROADEquipment”asthe analysisyearincreases,emissionfactorsforthesameequipmentpiecesdecreaseduetothenaturalturnoverofolderequipmentbeing replacedbynewerlesspollutingequipmentandnewregulatoryrequirements. ATTACHMENT 2
A2-172
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
39
Project, the SCAQMD recommends calculating the total greenhouse gas emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a 30Ͳyear project life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions (46). For purposes of analysis, since no longͲterm operationalgreenhousegasimpactsareanticipated,thisGHGAanalyzesconstructionemissions wereamortizedovera30Ͳyearperiod
.
TABLE3Ͳ1:CONSTRUCTIONDURATION
PhaseName StartDate EndDate Days
Demolition 07/20/2020 07/31/2020 10
SitePreparation 08/01/2020 08/03/2020 1
Grading 08/04/2020 08/05/2020 2
BuildingConstruction 08/06/2020 12/23/2020 100
Paving 12/24/2020 12/30/2020 5
ArchitecturalCoating 12/31/2020 01/06/2021 5
TABLE3Ͳ2:CONSTRUCTIONEQUIPMENTASSUMPTIONS
Activity Equipment Amount HoursPerDay
Demolition
Concrete/IndustrialSaws 1 8
RubberTiredDozers 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8
SitePreparation
Graders 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8
Graders
Concrete/IndustrialSaws 1 8
RubberTiredDozers 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8
BuildingConstruction
Cranes 1 8
Forklifts 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8
Paving
CementandMortarMixers 4 8
Pavers 1 8
Rollers 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8
ArchitecturalCoating AirCompressors 1 8
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-173
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
40

3.6 OPERATIONALEMISSIONS
NolongͲtermoperationalgreenhousegasimpactsareanticipatedasaresultoftheproposed ProjectsincetherewouldbenooperationalvehicletripsresultingfromtheproposedProject improvements, since the Project is limited to drainage and water quality improvements. As such,therearealsonooperational(stationaryͲsource)greenhousegassourcesanticipatedasa resultoftheProjectimprovementssincetheywouldbeconstructedunderground.

3.7 EMISSIONSSUMMARY
AsshownonTable3Ͳ3,theProjecthasthepotentialtogenerateatotalofapproximately3.00 MTCO2e per year from construction. As such, the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e if it were applied. Thus, the proposed ProjectwouldresultinalessthansignificantimpactwithrespecttoGHGemissions. TABLE3Ͳ3:TOTALPROJECTGREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONS(ANNUAL) EmissionSource
Emissions(metrictonsperyear)
CO2 CH4 N2O TotalCO2E
AnnualconstructionͲrelatedemissions
amortizedover30years 2.98 ͲͲ ͲͲ 3.00
TotalCO2E(AllSources) 3.00
SCAQMDThreshold 3,000
ThresholdExceeded? NO

3.8 GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONSFINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONS GHGImpact#1:TheProjectwouldgeneratedirectorindirectgreenhousegasemissionthat wouldresultinasignificantimpactontheenvironment The City of Burbank has not adopted a numeric threshold of significance for determining impacts with respect to GHG emissions. Within this GHGA, a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2eperyearisemployedtodetermineifadditionalanalysisisrequired.Thisapproachisa widelyacceptedsmallprojectscreeningthresholdusedbynumerousleadagencieswithinthe SCAB and is based on the SCAQMD staff’s proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary sourceemissionsfornonͲindustrialprojects,asdescribedintheSCAQMD ’sInterimCEQAGHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (“SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold”).The SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold identifies a screening threshold to determinewhetheradditionalanalysisisrequired.
The Project will result in approximately 3.00 MTCO2e per year from construction activity. As such,theProjectwouldnotexceedtheSCAQMD’srecommendednumericthresholdof3,000 MTCO2eifitwereapplied.Thus,projectͲrelatedemissionswouldnothaveasignificantdirector indirectimpactonGHGandclimatechangeandnomitigationorfurtheranalysisisrequired. ATTACHMENT 2
A2-174
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
41
GHGImpact#2:TheProjectwouldnotconflictwithanyapplicableplan,policyorregulation ofanagencyadoptedforthepurposeofreducingtheemissionsofgreenhousegases. ConsistencywithCityofBurbank’sGGRP
OnFebruary19,2013,theCityofBurbankadoptedaGreenhouseGasReductionPlan(GGRP)as partoftheBurbank2035GeneralPlan.TheGGRPidentifiesanumberofStateactionsadopted toreducefutureemissionsofgreenhousegasses,includingbutnotlimitedtoAB32,AB1493, SB1078andAB1109(40).
TheGGRPidentifiesanumberofactionstobetakenbytheCitytoassistinGHGreduction.A numberoftheseactionid
entifiedintheGGRPapplicabletotheplanarelistedinTable3Ͳ4. TABLE3Ͳ4:PROJECTCONSISTENCYWITHCITYOFBURBANKGGRP GGRPMeasure ApplicabilitytoProposedProject Remarks MeasureEͲ1.6:
BWP:EnergyConservation Applicable
TheDepartmentisanticipatedtoreduce
GHGsthroughaseriesofconservation
measuresthatwouldlikelyinvolvethe
Project.
MeasureWͲ1.3:
StormwaterMasterPlan Applicable TheProjectwouldbeanelementin reducingpollutedrunoffintotheBWP.
MeasureSWͲ1.3:
LumberDiversion
Ordinance
Applicable
Lumberusedforconcreteformsand
otheruseswouldberecycledinsteadof
divertedtothelocallandfill.
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-175
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
42
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-176
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
43
4 REFERENCES

1.AssociationofEnvironmentalProfessionals.2018CEQACaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct.2018.

2.AirResourcesBoard.AssemblyBill32:GlobalWarmingSolutionsAct.[Online]2006. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.

3.—. SustainableCommunities.[Online]2008.http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm.

4.—. CleanCarStandardsͲPavley,AssemblyBill1493.[Online]September24,2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm.

5.BuildingStandardsCommission.CaliforniaBuildingStandardsCode(Title24,CaliforniaCodeof Regulations).[Online]http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspx.

6.Californi
aEnergyCommission.CaliforniaCodeofRegulations,TITLE20,Division2.[Online] September3,2013.http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/title20/index.html.

7.AirResourcesBoard.Title17ͲCaliforniaCodeofRegulation.[Online]2010. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regs/regsͲ17.htm.

8.DepartmentofWaterResources.UpdatedModelWaterEfficientLandscapeOrdinanceAB1881. [Online]2006.
http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/updatedOrd_history.cfm.

9.CaliforniaEnergyCommission.SB1368EmissionPerformanceStandards.[Online]Sep tember29, 2006.http://www.energy.ca.gov/emission_standards/.

10.—. RenewablesPortfolioStandard(RPS).[Online]2002.http://www.energy.ca.gov/portfolio/.

11.CaliforniaLegislativeInformation.SenateBillNo.32.[Online]September8,2016. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32.

12.NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration.GreenhouseGasesͲWaterVapor.NOAA NationalCentersForEnvironmentalInformation.[Online]https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoringͲ references/faq/greenhous
eͲgases.php?section=watervapor.

13.TheCarbonCycleandClimateChange.Bennington,BretJ.1,s.l.:Brooks/Cole.ISBN13:978Ͳ0Ͳ495Ͳ 73855Ͳ8.

14.ClimateChange2007:ThePhysicalScienceBasis.ContributionofWorkingGroupItotheFourth AssessmentReport.InternationalPanelonClimateChange.4,2007.

15.NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration.Gree nhouseGasesͲMethane.NOAANational CentersforEnvironmentalInformation.[Online]https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoringͲ references/faq/greenhouseͲgases.php?section=methane.

16.TheNationalInstituteforOccupationalSafetyandHealth.WorkplaceSafetyandHealthTopicsͲ NitrousOxide.CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention.[Online] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nitrousoxide/default.html.

17.NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration.GreenhouseGasesͲChlorofluorocarbons.NOAA NationalCentersForEnvironmentalIn
formation.[Online]https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoringͲ references/faq/greenhouseͲgases.php?section=chlorofluorocarbons.

18.UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.RegulationforReductingSulfurHexafluoride EmissionsfromGasInsulatedSwitchgear.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.[Online]May7,2014. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016Ͳ02/documents/mehlͲarbͲpresentationͲ2014Ͳ wkshp.pdf.
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-177
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
44

19.WorldResourcesInstitute.NitrogenTrifluorideNowRequiredinGHGProtocolGreenhouseGas EmissionsInventory.[Online]May22,2013.https://www.wri.org/blog/2013/05/nitrogenͲ trifluorideͲnowͲrequiredͲghgͲprotocolͲgreenhouseͲgasͲemissionsͲinventories.

20.NationalCenterforBiotechnologyInformation.NitrogenTrifluoride.PubChemCompound Database.[Online]https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/24553.

21.IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.ClimateChange2013ThePhysicalSci enceBasisͲ WorkingGroupIContributiontotheFifthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelon ClimateChange.AR5ClimateChange2013:ThePhysicalScienceBasis.[Online]September2013. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf.

22.UnitedNations.GHGProfilesͲAnnexI.[Online]http://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profile_annex1.

23.—. GHGProfilesͲNonͲAnnexI.[Online]http://di.unfccc.int/ghg_profile_non _annex1.

24.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.InventoryofU.S.GreenhouseGasEmissionsandSinks1990Ͳ 2016.[Online]2018.https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018Ͳ 01/documents/2018_complete_report.pdf.

25.WorldResourcesInstitute.ClimateAnalysisIndicatorTool(CAIT).[Online]http://cait.wri.org.

26.AirResourcesBoard.CaliforniaGreenhouseGasEmissionInventory2000Ͳ2016Edition.[Online] June17,2016.http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.

27.AmericanLungAssociation.ClimateChange.[Onlin e]http://www.lung.org/ourͲinitiatives/healthyͲ air/outdoor/climateͲchange/.

28.BarbaraH.AllenͲDiaz.Climatechangeaffectsusall.UniversityofCaliforniaAgricultureandNatural Resources.[Online]April1,2009.http://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.v063n02p51.

29.TheNationalInstituteforOccupationalSafetyandHealth.CarbonDioxide.CentersforDisease ControlandPrevention.[Online]https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0103.html.

30.UnitedStatesDepartmentofLabor.NitrousOxi deinWorkplaceAtmospheres(PassiveMonitor). OccupationalHealthandSafetyAdministration.[Online]1994. https://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/inorganic/id166/id166.html.

31.Hardin,MaryandKahn,Ralph.Aerosols&ClimateChange.EarthObservatory.[Online] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/.

32.CenterforClimateandEnergySolutions(C2ES).OutcomesoftheU.N.ClimateChangeConference. CenterforClimateandEnergySolutions(C2E S).[Online]2015. http://www.c2es.org/international/negotiations/cop21Ͳparis/summary.

33.Agency,UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtection.EndangermentandCauseorContributeFindings forGreenhouseGasesundertheSection202(a)oftheCleanAirAct.UnitedStatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency.[Online]https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/endangermentͲandͲcauseͲorͲ contributeͲfindingsͲgreenhouseͲgasesͲunderͲsectionͲ202aͲclean.

34.FederalReg
ister.MidͲTermEvaluationofGreenhouseGasEmissionsStandardsforModelYear 2022Ͳ2025LightͲDutyVehicles.[Online]April13,2018. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/13/2018Ͳ07364/midͲtermͲevaluationͲofͲ greenhouseͲgasͲemissionsͲstandardsͲforͲmodelͲyearͲ2022Ͳ2025ͲlightͲduty.

35.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.TheSaferAffordableFuelͲEfficientVehiclesRuleforModelYears 2021Ͳ2026PassengerCarsandLightTrucks.[On
line]August24,2018.
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPAͲHQͲOARͲ2018Ͳ0283Ͳ0756. ATTACHMENT 2
A2-178
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
45

36.LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory.California'sPoliciesCanSignificantlyCutGreenhouseGas Emissionsthrough2030.LawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory.[Online]January22,2015. http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/01/22/californiasͲpoliciesͲcanͲsignificantlyͲcutͲgreenhouseͲgasͲ emissionsͲ2030/.

37.ErnestOrlandoLawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory.ModelingCaliforniapolicyimpactson greenhousegasemissions.[Online]2015.https://eaei.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnlͲ7008e.pdf.

38.Californi
aAirResourcesBoard(ARB).CapandTradeOverview.CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard. [Online][Cited:May10,2016.]
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/guidance/cap_trade_overview.pdf..

39.TheCaliforniaEnergyCommission.2019BuildingEnergyEfficiencyStandards.CaliforniaEnergy Commission.[Online]2018.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Stand ards_FAQ.pdf.

40.CityofBurbank.CityofBurbankGreenhouseGasReductionPlan.2013.

41.Californi
aAirPollutionControlOfficersAssociation(CAPCOA).CaliforniaEmissionsEstimator Model(CalEEMod).[Online]September2016.www.caleemod.com.

42.CaliforniaAirPollutionControlOfficersAssociation.AppendixACalculationDetailsforCalEEMod. [Online]2017.http://www.caleemod.com/.

43.CaliforniaNaturalResourcesAgency.FinalStatementofReasonsforRegulatoryAction, AmendmentstotheStateCEQAGuidelinesAddressingAnalysisan dMitigationofGreenhouseGas EmissionsPursuanttoSB97.[Online]December2009.

44.MinutesfortheGHGCEQASignificance.SouthCoastAirQualityManagmentDistrict.2008.

45.CityofBurbank.BurbankWaterandPowerCampusStormwaterImprovementProjectInitialStudy. 2019.

46.SouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict.GreenhouseGa sCEQASignificanceThreshold StakeholderWorkingGroup#13.[Powerpoint]DiamondBar:s.n.,2009. ATTACHMENT 2
A2-179
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
46
Thispageintentionallyleftblank
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-180
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport
47
5 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this greenhouse gas study report represent an accurate depiction of the greenhouse gas impacts associated with the proposed Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement.The information contained in this greenhouse gas report is basedonthebestavailabledataatthetimeofpreparation.Ifyouhaveanyquestions,please contactme
directlyat(949)336Ͳ5987.

HaseebQureshi
SeniorAssociate
URBANCROSSROADS,INC.
260E.BakerSt.,Suite200
CostaMesa,CA92626
(949)336Ͳ5987
[email protected]

EDUCATION
MasterofScienceinEnvironmentalStudies
CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fullerton•May,2010
BachelorofArtsinEnvironmentalAnalysisandDesign
UniversityofCalifornia,Irvine•June,2006

P
ROFESSIONALAFFILIATIONS
AEP–AssociationofEnvironmentalPlanners
AWMA–AirandWasteManagementAssociation
ASTM–AmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterials

P
ROFESSIONALCERTIFICATIONS
PlannedCommunitiesandUrbanInfill–UrbanLandInstitute•June,2011 IndoorAirQualityandIndustrialHygiene–EMSLAnalytical•April,2008 PrinciplesofAmbientAirMonitoring–CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard•August,2007 AB2588RegulatoryStandards–TrinityConsultants•November,2006 AirDispersionModeling–LakesEnvironmental•June,2006 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-181
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport

Thispageintentionallyleftblank
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-182
BurbankWaterandPowerMagnoliaCampusDrainageImprovementGreenhouseGasAnalysis

04.30.2019_12406Ͳ02GHGReport

APPENDIX3.1:

CALEEMODEMISSIONSMODELOUTPUTS
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-183

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population User Defined Industrial 12.20 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
12 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Burbank Water & Power
2021Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
1096.12 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 1 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-184
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total Project Area is 12,195.69 Square Feet/0.28 acres.

Construction Phase - Consistent with the Initial Study, the Project's Operational Year is aniticipated to be early 2021.

Off-road Equipment - Hours are based on an 8-hour workday.

Off-road Equipment -
Demolition -
Architectural Coating - Rule 1113
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Grading - For purposes of analysis, total acres graded per day is based on the equipment specific grading rates (CalEEMod Appendix A) and the equipment list.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Nonresidential_Exterior 0.00 6,098.00 tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Nonresidential_Interior 0.00 18,294.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 100.00 50.00
tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Exterior 0 6098
tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Interior 0 18294
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 0.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 0.00 1.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 0.00 2.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 0.00 100.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 0.00 5.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 2 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-185

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 0.00 5.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 1.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 1.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 0.00 5.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 0.00 1.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 3 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-186

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.0802 0.7697 0.5695 1.0100e-
003

0.0179 0.0417 0.0596 5.6600e-
003

0.0385 0.0442 0.0000 88.6718 88.6718 0.0255 0.0000 89.3080 2021 0.0232 4.0800e-
003

4.9200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.5000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.5000e-
004

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.7007 0.7007 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.7018
Maximum 0.0802 0.7697 0.5695 1.0100e-
003

0.0179 0.0417 0.0596 5.6600e-
003

0.0385 0.0442 0.0000 88.6718 88.6718 0.0255 0.0000 89.3080 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.0802 0.7697 0.5695 1.0100e-
003

0.0100 0.0417 0.0517 3.0300e-
003

0.0385 0.0415 0.0000 88.6717 88.6717 0.0255 0.0000 89.3079 2021 0.0232 4.0800e-
003

4.9200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.5000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.5000e-
004

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.7007 0.7007 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.7018
Maximum 0.0802 0.7697 0.5695 1.0100e-
003

0.0100 0.0417 0.0517 3.0300e-
003

0.0385 0.0415 0.0000 88.6717 88.6717 0.0255 0.0000 89.3079 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.76 0.00 13.07 46.38 0.00 5.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 4 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-187

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.6700e-
003

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e-
004
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 5.6700e-
003

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 004

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e-
004
Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 7-20-2020 10-19-2020 0.4857 0.4857
2 10-20-2020 1-19-2021 0.3742 0.3742
Highest 0.4857 0.4857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 5 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-188

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 004

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e-
004
Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 6 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-189
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 7/20/2020 7/31/2020 5 10
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 8/1/2020 8/3/2020 5 1 3 Grading Grading 8/4/2020 8/5/2020 5 2
4 Building Construction Building Construction 8/6/2020 12/23/2020 5 100 5 Paving Paving 12/24/2020 12/30/2020 5 5
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/31/2020 1/6/2021 5 5 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 18,294; Non-Residential Outdoor: 6,098; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 7 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-190
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 8.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 55.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 5 5.00 2.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 8 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-191

3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 6.0000e-
003

0.0000 6.0000e-
003

9.1000e-
004

0.0000 9.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 9.5800e-
003

0.0942 0.0619 1.0000e-
004

5.1000e-
003

4.7700e-
003

0.0000 9.1696 9.1696 2.2700e-
003

0.0000 9.2262
Total 9.5800e-
003

0.0942 0.0619 1.0000e-
004

6.0000e-
003

5.1000e-
003

0.0111 9.1000e-
004

4.7700e-
003

5.6800e-
003

0.0000 9.1696 9.1696 2.2700e-
003

0.0000 9.2262
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 9 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-192

3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 2.4000e-
004

8.1700e-
003

1.8000e-
003

2.0000e-
005

4.7000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.1197 2.1197 1.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.1233
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.3000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

5.5000e-
004

0.0000 5.5000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.5000e-
004

0.0000 0.5107 0.5107 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.5111
Total 4.7000e-
004

8.3600e-
003

3.8600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.0200e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.0500e-
003

2.8000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 2.6303 2.6303 1.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.6344
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.3400e-
003

0.0000 2.3400e-
003

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 3.5000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 9.5800e-
003

0.0942 0.0619 1.0000e-
004

5.1000e-
003

4.7700e-
003

0.0000 9.1696 9.1696 2.2700e-
003

0.0000 9.2262
Total 9.5800e-
003

0.0942 0.0619 1.0000e-
004

2.3400e-
003

5.1000e-
003

7.4400e-
003

3.5000e-
004

4.7700e-
003

5.1200e-
003

0.0000 9.1696 9.1696 2.2700e-
003

0.0000 9.2262
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 10 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-193

8.1700e-
003

1.8000e-
003

2.0000e-
005

4.7000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.1197 2.1197 1.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.1233
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.3000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

5.5000e-
004

0.0000 5.5000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.5000e-
004

0.0000 0.5107 0.5107 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.5111
Total 4.7000e-
004

8.3600e-
003

3.8600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.0200e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.0500e-
003

2.8000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 2.6303 2.6303 1.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.6344
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0000 2.7000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.4000e-
004

4.2200e-
003

2.0500e-
003

0.0000 1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

0.0000 0.4280 0.4280 1.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.4314
Total 3.4000e-
004

4.2200e-
003

2.0500e-
003

0.0000 2.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

4.4000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

1.5000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.4280 0.4280 1.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.4314
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 11 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-194

3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
004

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0255 0.0255 0.0000 0.0000 0.0256
Total 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
004

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0255 0.0255 0.0000 0.0000 0.0256
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.4000e-
004

4.2200e-
003

2.0500e-
003

0.0000 1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

0.0000 0.4280 0.4280 1.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.4314
Total 3.4000e-
004

4.2200e-
003

2.0500e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

1.5000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4280 0.4280 1.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.4314
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 12 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-195

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
004

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0255 0.0255 0.0000 0.0000 0.0256
Total 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
004

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0255 0.0255 0.0000 0.0000 0.0256
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 6.5500e-
003

0.0000 6.5500e-
003

3.3700e-
003

0.0000 3.3700e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.9200e-
003

0.0188 0.0124 2.0000e-
005

1.0200e-
003

9.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.8339 1.8339 4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.8453
Total 1.9200e-
003

0.0188 0.0124 2.0000e-
005

6.5500e-
003

1.0200e-
003

7.5700e-
003

3.3700e-
003

9.5000e-
004

4.3200e-
003

0.0000 1.8339 1.8339 4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.8453
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 13 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-196

3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

4.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.1000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1021 0.1021 0.0000 0.0000 0.1022
Total 5.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

4.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.1000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1021 0.1021 0.0000 0.0000 0.1022
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.5600e-
003

0.0000 2.5600e-
003

1.3100e-
003

0.0000 1.3100e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.9200e-
003

0.0188 0.0124 2.0000e-
005

1.0200e-
003

9.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.8339 1.8339 4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.8452
Total 1.9200e-
003

0.0188 0.0124 2.0000e-
005

2.5600e-
003

1.0200e-
003

3.5800e-
003

1.3100e-
003

9.5000e-
004

2.2600e-
003

0.0000 1.8339 1.8339 4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.8452
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 14 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-197

4.0000e-
005

4.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.1000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1021 0.1021 0.0000 0.0000 0.1022
Total 5.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

4.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.1000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1021 0.1021 0.0000 0.0000 0.1022
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0580 0.6098 0.4518 7.5000e-
004

0.0341 0.0341 0.0314 0.0314 0.0000 66.0607 66.0607 0.0214 0.0000 66.5948 Total 0.0580 0.6098 0.4518 7.5000e-
004

0.0341 0.0341 0.0314 0.0314 0.0000 66.0607 66.0607 0.0214 0.0000 66.5948 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 15 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-198

0.0108 2.9300e-
003

3.0000e-
005

6.3000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

6.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

2.3000e-
004

0.0000 2.4843 2.4843 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.4882
Worker 1.1500e-
003

9.3000e-
004

0.0103 3.0000e-
005

2.7400e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.7600e-
003

7.3000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.5534 2.5534 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.5554
Total 1.5100e-
003

0.0118 0.0132 6.0000e-
005

3.3700e-
003

7.0000e-
005

3.4400e-
003

9.1000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

9.8000e-
004

0.0000 5.0376 5.0376 2.4000e-
004

0.0000 5.0436
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0580 0.6098 0.4518 7.5000e-
004

0.0341 0.0341 0.0314 0.0314 0.0000 66.0606 66.0606 0.0214 0.0000 66.5947 Total 0.0580 0.6098 0.4518 7.5000e-
004

0.0341 0.0341 0.0314 0.0314 0.0000 66.0606 66.0606 0.0214 0.0000 66.5947 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 16 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-199

0.0108 2.9300e-
003

3.0000e-
005

6.3000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

6.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

2.3000e-
004

0.0000 2.4843 2.4843 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.4882
Worker 1.1500e-
003

9.3000e-
004

0.0103 3.0000e-
005

2.7400e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.7600e-
003

7.3000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.5534 2.5534 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.5554
Total 1.5100e-
003

0.0118 0.0132 6.0000e-
005

3.3700e-
003

7.0000e-
005

3.4400e-
003

9.1000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

9.8000e-
004

0.0000 5.0376 5.0376 2.4000e-
004

0.0000 5.0436
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 2.2900e-
003

0.0212 0.0208 3.0000e-
005

1.1500e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 2.7492 2.7492 7.9000e-
004

0.0000 2.7689
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.2900e-
003

0.0212 0.0208 3.0000e-
005

1.1500e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 2.7492 2.7492 7.9000e-
004

0.0000 2.7689
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 17 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-200

3.6 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

1.8500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 5.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.4596 0.4596 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.4600
Total 2.1000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

1.8500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 5.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.4596 0.4596 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.4600
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 2.2900e-
003

0.0212 0.0208 3.0000e-
005

1.1500e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 2.7492 2.7492 7.9000e-
004

0.0000 2.7689
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.2900e-
003

0.0212 0.0208 3.0000e-
005

1.1500e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 2.7492 2.7492 7.9000e-
004

0.0000 2.7689
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 18 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-201

1.7000e-
004

1.8500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 5.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.4596 0.4596 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.4600
Total 2.1000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

1.8500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 5.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.4596 0.4596 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.4600
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6000e-
004

1.1200e-
003

1.2200e-
003

0.0000 7.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1702 0.1702 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1706
Total 5.8100e-
003

1.1200e-
003

1.2200e-
003

0.0000 7.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1702 0.1702 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1706
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 19 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-202

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.1100e-
003

5.1100e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 5.1100e-
003
Total 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.1100e-
003

5.1100e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 5.1100e-
003
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 5.6500e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6000e-
004

1.1200e-
003

1.2200e-
003

0.0000 7.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1702 0.1702 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1706
Total 5.8100e-
003

1.1200e-
003

1.2200e-
003

0.0000 7.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1702 0.1702 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1706
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 20 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-203

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.1100e-
003

5.1100e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 5.1100e-
003
Total 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.1100e-
003

5.1100e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 5.1100e-
003
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0700e-
003

4.8500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.5000e-
004

0.0000 0.6809 0.6809 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6820
Total 0.0232 4.0700e-
003

4.8500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.5000e-
004

0.0000 0.6809 0.6809 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6820
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 21 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-204

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

8.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 0.0000 0.0198
Total 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

8.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 0.0000 0.0198
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0226 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.8000e-
004

4.0700e-
003

4.8500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.5000e-
004

0.0000 0.6809 0.6809 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6820
Total 0.0232 4.0700e-
003

4.8500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.5000e-
004

0.0000 0.6809 0.6809 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6820
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 22 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-205

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

1.0000e-
005

8.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 0.0000 0.0198
Total 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

8.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0198 0.0198 0.0000 0.0000 0.0198
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 23 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-206
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by User Defined Industrial 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

5.0 Energy Detail

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH User Defined Industrial 0.547192 0.045177 0.202743 0.121510 0.016147 0.006143 0.019743 0.029945 0.002479 0.002270 0.005078 0.000682 0.000891 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 24 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-207
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 25 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-208

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 26 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-209

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.6700e-
003

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e-
004
Unmitigated 5.6700e-
003

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e-
004

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 27 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-210

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

5.6500e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e-
004
Total 5.6600e-
003

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e-
004
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

5.6500e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e-
004
Total 5.6600e-
003

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e-
004
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 28 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-211

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated

7.0 Water Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 29 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-212

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 30 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-213

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 31 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-214

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 4/29/2019 4:50 PMPage 32 of 33 Burbank Water & Power Magnolia Campus (Construction) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual ATTACHMENT 2
A2-215
BWP Campus Stormwater Improvement Project
Initial Study May 2023
Attachment 3
Acoustic Report
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-216

Burbank Water and Power
Magnolia Campus Drainage
Improvement

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF BURBANK
PREPARED BY:

Bill Lawson, PE, INCE
[email protected]
(949) 336-5979

Alex Wolfe, INCE
[email protected]
(949) 336-5977

A
PRIL 30, 2019
12343-02 Noise Study
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-217
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
ii

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-218
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... III APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ IV LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................................. IV LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ ................... IV LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS .............................................................................................................. V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 Construction Noise Analysis .................................................................................................................... 1 Construction Vibration Analysis .............................................................................................................. 2 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Site Lo cation .................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Project De scription ........................................................................................................................ 3 2 FUNDAMENTALS ......................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Range of Noise .............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Noise De scriptors .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Sound Prop agation ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.4 Noise Control ................................................................................................................................ 9

2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation ........................................................................................................... 10

2.6 Land Use Compatibi lity With Noise ............................................................................................ 10

2.7 Community Respon se to Noise ................................................................................................... 10

2.8 Exposure to Hi gh Noise Levels .................................................................................................... 11

2.9 Vibr ation ..................................................................................................................................... 11 3 REGULATORY SETTING .............................................................................................................. 15

3.1 State of California Noise Requirements ...................................................................................... 15

3.2 State of Californ ia Building Code ................................................................................................ 15

3.3 City of Burbank Genera l Plan Noise Element .............................................................................. 16

3.4 Construction Vi bration Standards ............................................................................................... 16 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ......................................................................................................... ... 17

4.1 CEQA Guidelines No t Further Analyzed ...................................................................................... 17

4.2 Significanc e Criteria..................................................................................................................... 17 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................... 19

5.1 Measurement Proced ure and Criteria ........................................................................................ 19

5.2 Noise Measurem ent Locations ................................................................................................... 19

5.3 Noise Measurement Results ................................................................................................. ...... 20 6 RECEIVER LOCATIONS............................................................................................................. ... 23 7 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ......................................................................................................... 25

7.1 Construction Noise Levels ........................................................................................................... 25

7.2 Construction Refe rence Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 25

7.3 Construction Noise Analysis ........................................................................................................ 26

7.4 Construction Noise Le vels of Significance ................................................................................... 31

7.5 Construction Vibration Assessment ......................................................................................... ... 32

7.6 Construction Vi bration Impacts .................................................................................................. 32 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-219
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
iv
8 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 35 9 CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................................................... 37

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE
APPENDIX 5.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS
APPENDIX 5.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP .................................................................................................... .......... 4 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN........................................................................................................ ................ 5 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS .................................................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION ............................................................................. 11 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION .......................................................... 13 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ............................................................................... 22 EXHIBIT 6-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS ................................................................................................... 24 EXHIBIT 7-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS .......................................... 30

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY .................................................................................. 18 TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS .......................................................... 21 TABLE 7-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS ...................................................................... 26 TABLE 7-2: DEMOLITION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS ......................................................................... 27 TABLE 7-3: SITE PREPARATION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS ................................................................ 27 TABLE 7-4: GRADING EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS ............................................................................... 28 TABLE 7-5: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS ..................................................... 28 TABLE 7-6: PAVING EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS ................................................................................. 29 TABLE 7-7: ARCHITECTURAL COATING EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS ..................................................... 29 TABLE 7-8: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY (DBA LEQ) .............. 31 TABLE 7-9: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ........................................ 32 TABLE 7-10: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS ........................................................... 34

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-220
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
v

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ANSI American National Standards Institute
BWC Burbank Western Channel
BWP Burbank Water and Power
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A-weighted decibels
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
Lmax Maximum level measured over the time interval
Lmin Minimum level measured over the time interval
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
Project Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement
RMS Root-mean-square
VdB Vibration Decibels

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-221
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
vi
This page intentionally left blank

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-222
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this nois e study to determine th e potential noise and vibration impacts related to the construction of the proposed Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement (“Project” ). The Project site is located at 164 West Magnolia Boulevard within the Burbank Water and Power Campus (BWP Campus), in the City of Burbank. The Project proposes to construct drainage improvements that would allow storm water from adjacent properties to be interc epted and discharged into the Burbank Western Channel (BWC) through a new outfall structure. This study has been prepared consistent with applicable City of Burbank noise standards and si gnificance criteria, and guidance provided in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (1)

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Project construction is expected to create te mporary noise levels at receivers surrounding the Project site when certain activities occur at th e closest point to the nearby receiver locations from primary Project construction activities. Us ing sample reference noise levels to represent the planned construction activities of Burb ank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement site, this analysis estimates the Project-related construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receiver locations. The closest noise-sensitive receiver locations to the Project site are located over 1,000 feet away. The results of the construction noise analysis show that the unmitigated construction noise levels will approach 35.5 dBA Leq at these noise-sensitive receiver locations.

Per the City of Burbank General Plan Noise Element, construction noise that occurs between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday is exempt from applicable noise standards . With this regulatory exemption, the City acknowledges that construction noise is an acceptable public nui sance when conducted du ring the least noise- sensitive hours of the day. The City also acknowledges that construction noise could cause a substantial temporary increase in the ambient no ise environment at nearby noise-sensitive receptors if construction occurs during the more noise-sensitive hours (i.e., evening, nighttime, early morning), or if construction equipment is not properly equipped with noise control devices.

In addition to the exemption for construction nois e, the Project construction noise levels of up to 35.5 dBA Leq are shown to remain below the Noise Element Table N-4 stationary-source noise level limits for noise-sensit ive land uses of 55 dBA L eq during the daytime hours. Moreover, ambient noise levels in the Project study area were measured during the daytime hours when construction would normally take place and ranged from 54.0 to 71.4 dBA L eq. Since Project
construction noise levels are shown to approach up to 35.5 dBA L eq, they would not be high enough to increase overall ambient conditions by barely perceptible levels. In order for the Project construction noise levels to increase ambient noise level conditions by 3 dBA L eq, or a barely perceptible increase, the noise source (i.e., construction noise) would need to be equal to that of the ambient.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-223
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
2 As such, since Project construction noise levels are considered exempt from the Municipal Code standards, are shown to remain below applicable Noise Element standards for stationary noise sources despite the exemption, and would not generate barely perceptible temporary noise level increases, the unmitigated Project construction noise level impacts are considered less than significant.

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Based on the reference vibration levels provided by the Federal Transit Administration, a large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration with a reference velocity of 0.089 in/sec peak- particle-velocity (PPV) at 25 feet. At distances of over 1,000 feet from primary Project construction activities, construction vibration ve locity levels are expected to approach 0.0003 in/sec PPV. Based on the Caltrans building damage threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV for older residential structures, the proposed Project construction activities would result in vibration levels which would remain below the threshold for building damage at sensitive receiver locations, and therefore, represents a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-224
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
3 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to de termine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed Burbank Wate r and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement (“Project”). This noise study describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, outlines the local regulatory setting, provides the study methods and procedures for construction noise and vibration analysis, and evaluates the potential Project- related construction noise and vibration levels.

1.1 S ITE LOCATION
The proposed Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Project is located at 164 West Magnolia Boulevard within the BWP Campus, in the City of Burbank, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. Properties located north and east of the Project site are developed for industrial uses, including but not limited to lumb er yards, wood processing, storage, assembly and similar uses. Existing noise-sensitive land us es in the Project study area include residential homes to the west, west of Victory Boulevard, and south, south of Lake Street.

No long-term operational noise levels are anticipa ted as a result of the proposed Project since there would be no operational vehicle trips resulting from the proposed Project improvements, since the Project is limited to drainage and wate r quality improvements. As such, there are also no operational (stationary-sour ce) noise sources anticipated as a result of the Project improvements since they would be constructed underground.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-225
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-226
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
5 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-227
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
6 This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-228
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
7 2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise has been simply defined as "unwan ted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it i n t e r f e r e s w i t h n o r m a l a c t i v i t i e s , w h e n i t c a u s e s a c t u a l p h y s i c a l h a r m o r w h e n i t h a s a d v e r s e effects on health. Noise is measured on a loga rithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to refl ect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below.

EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004) March 1974.

2.1 R ANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiple s of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (2) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine no ises equate to 110 dBA ATTACHMENT 2
A2-229
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
8 at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (3) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.

2.2 N OISE DESCRIPTORS
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A- weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (L eq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time vary ing signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment.

Peak hour or average noise levels, while usef ul, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening a nd nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Day-Night Average Noise Level (LDN) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24- hour noise level is utilized. The LDN and CNEL are weighted averages of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours.

The LDN time of day corrections include the addition of 10 decibels to dBA L eq sound levels at
night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The CNEL time of day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA L eq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10: 00 p.m., in addition to the corrections for the LDN. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder. LDN and CNEL do not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represent the total sound exposure. The City of Burbank relies on the 24-hour LDN level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources, howeve r, this analysis uses the CNEL noise level to apply the more conservative evening hour corrections to the 24-hour noise levels.

2.3 S OUND PROPAGATION
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The way noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.

2.3.1 G EOMETRIC SPREADING
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decr eases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound leve ls attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-230
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
9 2.3.2 G ROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receiver is usually ve ry close to the ground.

Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Tradit ionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This appr oximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the rece iver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acou stically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between th e source and the receiver such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source.

2.3.3 A TMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increa sed noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can ha ve lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects.

2.3.4 S HIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency cont ent of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearby resident. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. Th e FHWA does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure.

2.4 N OISE CONTROL
Noise control is the process of obtaining an ac ceptable noise environment for an observation point or receiver by controlling the noise source, tr ansmission path, receiver, or all three. This concept is known as the source-path-receiver conc ept. In general, nois e control measures can be applied to these three elements.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-231
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
10 2.5 N OISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver.

Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source. (4)

2.6 L AND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambien t noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use comp atibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and desi gn process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noise-sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (5)

2.7 C OMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Community responses to noise may range from registering a complaint by telephone or letter, to initiating court action, depending upon everyone’s susceptibility to noise and personal attitudes about noise. Several factors are related to the level of community annoyance including:
x Fear associated with noise producing activities;
x Socio-economic status and educational level;
x Perception that those affected are being unfairly treated; x Attitudes regarding the usefulness of the noise-producing activity; x Belief that the noise source can be controlled.

Approximately ten percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Another twenty-five percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment. (6) Surveys have shown that about ten percent of the people exposed to traffic noise of 60 dBA will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one dBA is associated with approximately two percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 dBA or aircraft noise exceeds 55 dBA, people may begin to complain. (6) Despite this variability in behavior on an indi vidual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels as shown on Exhibit 2-B. An increase or decrease of 1 dBA cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 3 dBA are considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (4)
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-232
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
11 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION

2.8 E XPOSURE TO HIGH NOISE LEVELS
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets legal limits on noise exposure in the workplace. The permissible exposure limit (P EL) for a worker over an eight-hour day is 90 dBA. The OSHA standard uses a 5 dBA exchange rate. This means that when the noise level is increased by 5 dBA, the amount of time a person can be exposed to a certain noise level to receive the same dose is cut in half. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended that all worker exposures to noise should be controlled below a level equivalent to 85 dBA for eight hours to minimize occupational noise induced hearing loss. NIOSH also recommends a 3 dBA exchange rate so that every increase by 3 dBA doubles the amount of the noise and halves the recommended amount of exposure time. (7) OSHA has implemented requirements to protec t all workers in general industry (e.g. the manufacturing and the service se ctors) for employers to implement a Hearing Conservation Program where workers are exposed to a time weighted average noise level of 85 dBA or higher over an eight-hour work shift. Hearing Cons ervation Programs require employers to measure noise levels, provide free annual hearing exams and free hearing protection, provide training, and conduct evaluations of the adequacy of the hearing protectors in use unless changes to tools, equipment and schedules are made so that they ar e less noisy and worker exposure to noise is less than the 85 dBA. This noise study does not evaluate the noise exposure of workers within a project or construction site based on CEQA requirements, and instead, evaluates Project-related operational and construction noise levels at the nearby sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area. Further, periodic exposure to high noise levels in short duration, such as Project construction, is typically considered an annoyance and not impactful to human health. It would take several years of exposure to high noise levels to result in hearing impairment. (8)

2.9 V IBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment (9), vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-bo rne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment).

Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. 0123456789 1 0
Just Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Readily Perceptible
Twice as Loud
Noise Level Increase (dBA)
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-233
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
12 As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.

There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instanta neous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impa cts to buildings, but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, and is most frequently used to de scribe the effect of vibration on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS.

Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration. Typically, ground-borne vibratio n generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibr ation. Sensitive receiv ers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment.

The background vibration-velocity level in reside ntial areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally percepti ble to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-ve locity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fr agile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground-borne vibration.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-234
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
13 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-235
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
14 This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-236
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
15 3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities ar e also major sources of noise in some areas.

Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards fo r mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.

3.1 S TATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE REQUIREMENTS
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element which is to be prepared per gu idelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. (10) The pur pose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including the potential environmental noise impacts.

3.2 S TATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
The State of California’s noise insulation sta ndards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-se nsitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are developed near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans for noise-sensitive land uses mu st demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-237
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
16 3.3 C ITY OF BURBANK GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
The City of Burbank has adopted a Noise Element of the General Plan to safeguard the community from excessive noise as the ambient noise level in the community rises. (11) For this analysis, City’s construction-related noise standards are used to evaluate potential impact related to the Project.

CITY OF BURBANK CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
The City of Burbank General Plan Noise Element indicates:
…construction noise that occurs between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday is exempt from applicable noise standards. With this regulatory exemption, the City acknowledges that construction noise is an acceptable public nuisance when conducted during the least noise-sensitive hours of the day. The City also acknowledges that construction noise could cause a substantial temporary increase in the ambient noise environment at nearby noise-sensitive receptors if constructi on occurs during the more noise-sensitive hours (i.e., evening, nighttime, early morning), or if construction equipment is not properly equipped with noise control devices.

Although exempt, this noise study compares Project construction noise levels with the Noise Element Table N-4 stationary-source noise level limits for noise-sensitive land uses of 55 dBA Leq for the daytime hours when construction activities would occur.

3.4 C ONSTRUCTION VIBRATION STANDARDS
The City of Burbank General Plan and Municipal Code do not identify specific vibration level standards. Therefore, applicable vibration sta ndards identified by the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual are used in this noise study. (2) The Caltrans vibration manual establishes thresholds for determining potential vibration impacts resulting in buildin g damage. For older residential structures, Caltrans identifies a building damage threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV which is used in this analysis to evaluate potential Project-related construction vibration impacts at the closest sensitive receiver locations.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-238
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
17 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ A) Guidelines. (1) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:

A. Generation of a substantial temporary or perm anent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
B. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a priv ate airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? While the City of Burbank General Plan Guidelin es provide direction on noise compatibility and establish noise standards by land use type that ar e sufficient to assess the significance of noise impacts, they do not define the levels at which increases are considered substantial for use under Guideline A. CEQA Appendix G Guideline C applie s to nearby public and private airports, if any, and the Project’s land use compatibility.

4.1 CEQA GUIDELINES NOT FURTHER ANALYZED
No long-term operational noise levels are anticipa ted as a result of the proposed Project since there would be no operational vehicle trips resulting from the proposed Project improvements, since the Project is limited to drainage and water quality improvements. As such, there are also no operational (stationary-sour ce) noise sources anticipated as a result of the Project improvements since they would be constructed underground, and no further analysis is provided for these noise sources under Guideline A.

The Project site is located greater than two miles southeast of Burbank Airport and is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. As such, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and therefore, impacts are considered less than significant, and no further noise analysis is conducted in relation to Guideline C.

4.2 S IGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed development. Table 4-1 shows the significance criteria summary matrix.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE
x If Project construction activities occur outside of the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction noise is considered exempt from applicable noise standards if it occurs within the specific hours. While not required, this noise study identifies the City of Burbank General Plan Noise Element, Table N- 4 stationary noise level limits for noise-sensitive receiver locations for comparison purposes.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-239
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
18 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION
x If short-term Project generated construction vibration levels exceed Caltrans building damage vibration standard of 0.3 in/sec PPV at sensit ive receiver locations (Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Table 19).

TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis Land Use Condition(s) Significance
Criteria
Construction
Noise &
Vibration
Noise-
Sensitive
Exempt; However,
Exterior Noise Level
Standards Considered:1
55 dBA Leq
(Daytime)
Vibration Level Threshold2 0.3 in/sec PPV
1 In the City of Burbank Municipal Code, construction noise that occurs between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday is exempt from applicable noise standards. City of Burbank General Plan Noise Element, Table N-4 stationary noise level limits are provided for noise- sensitive receiver locations for comparison purposes.
2 Source: Caltrans, Transportation & Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-240
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
19 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise le vel environment, five 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area.

Exhibit 5-A provides the boundaries of the Proj ect study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing no ise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Tuesday, April 9 th, 2019. Appendix 5.1 provides a series of study area photos.

5.1 M EASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period. By collecting individual hourly noise level measurements, it is possible to describe the daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels and calculate the 24-hour CNEL. The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all me asurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (12)

5.2 N OISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
The long-term noise level measurements were po sitioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the exis ting ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent any part of a private yard, patio, deck or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general site location guidelines which indicate that, sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Avoid sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources . (2) Further, FTA guidance states, t hat it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noise exposure be determined by measuring at every noise-sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community. (9)
Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence, because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. (9 ) In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of nois e sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearby ATTACHMENT 2
A2-241
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
20 sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparis on of the before and after Project noise levels and is necessary to assess potential noise impa cts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels.

5.3 N OISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The noise measurements presented below focus on the average or equivalent sound levels (Leq).

The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sa mple period. Table 5-1 identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location. Appendix 5. 2 provides a summary of the existing hourly ambient noise levels described below:
x Location L1 represents the noise levels on North First Street, northeast of the Project site, east of the I-5 Highway, adjacent to an existing commercial area. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 68.5 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 63.5 dBA Leq.
x Location L2 represents the noise levels on We st Olive Avenue, southeast of the Project site, adjacent to an existing general industrial area . The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 71.4 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 65.4 dBA Leq.
x Location L3 represents the noise levels on Vi ctory Boulevard, south of the Project site, adjacent to an existing general commercial ar ea. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 70.6 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 64.9 dBA Leq.
x Location L4 represents the noise levels on Palm Avenue, southwest of the Project site, adjacent to an existing residential area. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 54.0 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 51.7 dBA Leq. x Location L5 represents the noise levels on Victory Boulevard, west of the Project site, adjacent to an existing commercial area. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 68.5 dBA
Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 63.9 dBA Leq.

Table 5-1 provides the (energy average) noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttim e energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise leve ls observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each hour as well as the minimum, maximum, L 1, L2, L5, L8, L25, L50, L90, L95, and L 99 percentile noise levels observed during the daytime and nighttime periods.

The background ambient noise levels in the Project study area are dominated by the transportation-related noise associated with the arterial roadway network and Union Pacific Railroad lines, in addition to existing industrial noise sources. This includes auto and heavy truck activity near the noise level measurement lo cations. The 24-hour existing noise level measurements shown on Table 5-1 present the wo rst-case existing unmitigated ambient noise conditions.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-242
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
21 TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)2
Daytime Nighttime
L1
Located on North First Street, northeast of the Project site, east of the I-5 Highway, adjacent to an existing commercial area.

68.5 63.5
L2 Located on West Olive Avenue, southeast of the Project site, adjacent to an existing general industrial area. 71.4 65.4 L3 Located on Victory Boulevard, south of the Project site, adjacent to an existing general commercial area. 70.6 64.9 L4 Located on Palm Avenue, southwest of the Project site, adjacent to an existing residential area. 54.0 51.7
L5 Located on Victory Boulevard, west of the Project site, adjacent to an existing commercial area. 68.5 63.9
1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 The long-term 24-hour measurement printouts are included in Appendix 5.2. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-243
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
22 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-244
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
23 6 RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for short- term construction impacts, the following receiver locations as shown on Exhibit 6-A were identified as representative locations for analysis. The City of Burbank General Plan Noise Element defines noise-sensitive uses as: residences, hospitals, schools, and nursing homes. (11) Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include: industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, natural open space, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.

Other sensitive land uses in the Project study ar ea that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures.

R1: Located approximately 1,608 feet west of the Project site, R1 represents existing residential homes east of Glenwood Place.

R2: Location R2 represents the existing resi dential homes located approximately 1,506 feet west of the Project site on Victory Boulevard.

R3: Location R3 represents the existing reside ntial homes located roughly 1,918 feet from the Project site boundary on the north side of Clark Avenue.

R4: Location R4 represents the existing resid ential homes located roughly 1,210 feet south of the Project site boundary on the south side of Lake Street.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-245
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
24 EXHIBIT 6-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-246
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
25 7 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resultin g from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 7-A shows the construction activity boundaries in relation to the nearby sensitive receiver locations.

7.1 C ONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Noise generated by the Project construction e quipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels.

The number and mix of construction equipment is expected to occur in the following stages:
x Demolition
x Site Preparation
x Grading
x Building Construction
x Paving
x Architectural Coating
This construction noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. to describe the typical construction activity noise levels for each stage of Project construction. The construction reference noise level measurements represent a list of typical construction activity noise levels. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 62 dBA to more than 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet. However, these noise levels diminish with distance from the construction site at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 80 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receiver wo uld be reduced to 74 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receiver, and would be further re duced to 68 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receiver.

The construction stages used in this analysis ar e consistent with the da ta used to support the construction emissions in Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Focused Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads Inc. (13)

7.2 C ONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe the Project construction noise levels, measurements were collected for similar activities at several construction sites. Table 7-1 provides a summary of the reference construction noise level measurements. Since the reference noise leve ls were collected at varying distances, all construction noise level measurements presented on Table 7-1 have been adjusted to describe a common reference distance of 50 feet.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-247
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
26 TABLE 7-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
ID Noise Source Duration
(h:mm:ss)
Reference
Distance
From
Source
(Feet)
Reference
Noise Levels
@ Reference
Distance
(dBA Leq)
Reference
Noise Levels
@ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)6
1 Truck Pass-Bys & Dozer Activity 1 0:01:15 30' 63.6 59.2 2 Dozer Activity 1 0:01:00 30' 68.6 64.2
3 Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities 2 0:01:00 30' 71.9 67.5 4 Foundation Trenching 2 0:01:01 30' 72.6 68.2
6 Framing 3 0:02:00 30' 66.7 62.3
7 Concrete Paver Activities 4 0:01:00 30' 70.0 65.6
8 Concrete Mixer Pour & Paving Activities 4 0:01:00 30' 70.3 65.9 9 Forklift, Jackhammer, & Metal Truck Bed Loading 5 0:02:06 50' 67.9 67.9 1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/14/15 at a business park construction site located at the northwest corner of Barranca Parkway and Alton Parkway in the City of Irvine.
2 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/20/15 at a construction site located in Rancho Mission Viejo. 3 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/20/15 at a residential construction site located in Rancho Mission Viejo. 4 Reference noise level measurements were collected from a nighttime concrete pour at an industrial construction site, located at 27334 San Bernardino Avenue in the City of Redlands, between 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on 7/1/15. 5 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 9/9/16 during the demolition of an existing paved parking lot at 41 Corporate Park in Irvine. 6 Reference noise levels are calculated at 50 feet using a drop off rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (point source).

7.3 C ONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Tables 7-2 to 7-7 show the Project construction stages and the reference construction noise levels used for each stage. Table 7-8 provides a su mmary of the noise levels from each stage of construction at each of the sensitive receiver lo cations in the City of Burbank. Based on the reference construction noise levels, the Projec t-related construction noise levels when the highest reference noise level is operating at a single point nearest the sensitive receiver location will range from 25.6 to 35.5 dBA L eq at the sensitive receiver locations in the City of Burbank.

Exhibit 7-A shows the construction activity noise source location and the distance to each nearby sensitive receiver location.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-248
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
27 TABLE 7-2: DEMOLITION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Reference Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Truck Pass-Bys & Dozer Activity 59.2
Dozer Activity 64.2
Forklift, Jackhammer, & Metal Truck Bed Activities 67.9 Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA Leq): 67.9

Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)2
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA Leq)3
Estimated
Noise Barrier
Attenuation
(dBA Leq)4
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
R1 1,608' -30.1 -5.0 32.8
R2 1,506' -29.6 -5.0 33.3
R3 1,918' -31.7 -5.0 31.2
R4 1,210' -27.7 -5.0 35.2
1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Estimated barrier attenuation from existing barriers/buildings in the Project study area.

TABLE 7-3: SITE PREPARATION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Reference Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Truck Pass-Bys & Dozer Activity 59.2
Dozer Activity 64.2
Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA Leq): 64.2

Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)2
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA Leq)3
Estimated
Noise Barrier
Attenuation
(dBA Leq)4
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
R1 1,608' -30.1 -5.0 29.0
R2 1,506' -29.6 -5.0 29.6
R3 1,918' -31.7 -5.0 27.5
R4 1,210' -27.7 -5.0 31.5
1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Estimated barrier attenuation from existing barriers/buildings in the Project study area.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-249
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
28 TABLE 7-4: GRADING EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Reference Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Truck Pass-Bys & Dozer Activity 59.2
Dozer Activity 64.2
Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA Leq): 64.2

Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)2
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA Leq)3
Estimated
Noise Barrier
Attenuation
(dBA Leq)4
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
R1 1,608' -30.1 -5.0 29.0
R2 1,506' -29.6 -5.0 29.6
R3 1,918' -31.7 -5.0 27.5
R4 1,210' -27.7 -5.0 31.5
1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Estimated barrier attenuation from existing barriers/buildings in the Project study area.

TABLE 7-5: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS Reference Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities 67.5
Foundation Trenching 68.2
Framing 62.3
Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA Leq): 68.2

Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)2
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA Leq)3
Estimated
Noise Barrier
Attenuation
(dBA Leq)4
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
R1 1,608' -30.1 -5.0 33.0
R2 1,506' -29.6 -5.0 33.6
R3 1,918' -31.7 -5.0 31.5
R4 1,210' -27.7 -5.0 35.5
1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Estimated barrier attenuation from existing barriers/buildings in the Project study area.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-250
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
29 TABLE 7-6: PAVING EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Reference Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Concrete Paver Activities 65.6
Concrete Mixer Pour & Paving Activities 65.9
Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA Leq): 65.9

Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)2
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA Leq)3
Estimated
Noise Barrier
Attenuation
(dBA Leq)4
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
R1 1,608' -30.1 -5.0 30.7
R2 1,506' -29.6 -5.0 31.3
R3 1,918' -31.7 -5.0 29.2
R4 1,210' -27.7 -5.0 33.2
1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Estimated barrier attenuation from existing barriers/buildings in the Project study area.

TABLE 7-7: ARCHITECTURAL COATING EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS Reference Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Framing 62.3
Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA Leq): 62.3

Receiver
Location
Distance to
Construction
Activity
(Feet)2
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA Leq)3
Estimated
Noise Barrier
Attenuation
(dBA Leq)4
Construction
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
R1 1,608' -30.1 -5.0 27.1
R2 1,506' -29.6 -5.0 27.7
R3 1,918' -31.7 -5.0 25.6
R4 1,210' -27.7 -5.0 29.6
1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Estimated barrier attenuation from existing barriers/buildings in the Project study area.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-251
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
30 EXHIBIT 7-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-252
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
31 7.4 C ONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The construction noise analysis shows that the highest construction noise levels will occur when construction activities take place at the edge of the Project site boundaries. As shown on Table 7-8, the unmitigated construction noise levels are expected to range from 25.6 to 35.5 dBA Leq at the sensitive receiver locations in the City of Burbank.

TABLE 7-8: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY (DBA LEQ) Receiver
Location1
Construction Phase Hourly Noise Level (dBA Leq)
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading Building
Construction Paving Architectural
Coating
Highest
Noise Levels2
R1 32.8 29.0 29.0 33.0 30.7 27.1 33.0
R2 33.3 29.6 29.6 33.6 31.3 27.7 33.6
R3 31.2 27.5 27.5 31.5 29.2 25.6 31.5
R4 35.2 31.5 31.5 35.5 33.2 29.6 35.5
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 7-A.
2 Estimated construction noise levels based on the highest reference noise level of each stage.

The results of the construction noise analysis show that the unmitigated construction noise levels will approach 35.5 dBA L eq at these noise-sensitive receiver locations. Per the City of Burbank General Plan Noise Element, construction noise that occurs be tween the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday is exempt from applicable noise standards. With this regulatory exemption, the City ac knowledges that construction noise is an acceptable public nuisance when conducted during the least noise-sensitive hours of the day. The City also acknowledges that construction noise could cause a substantial temporary increase in the ambient noise environment at nearby noise-sensitive receptors if construction occurs during the more noise-sensitive hours (i.e., evening, nighttime, early morning), or if construction equipment is not properly equipped with noise control devices.

In addition to the exemption for construction nois e, the Project construction noise levels of up to 35.5 dBA L
eq are shown to remain below the Noise Element Table N-4 stationary-source noise level limits for noise-sensit ive land uses of 55 dBA L eq during the daytime hours. Moreover, ambient noise levels in the Project study area were measured during the daytime hours when construction would normally take place and ranged from 54.0 to 71.4 dBA L eq. Since Project
construction noise levels are shown to approach up to 35.5 dBA L eq, they would not be high enough to increase overall ambient conditions by barely perceptible levels. In order for the Project construction noise levels to increase ambient noise level conditions by 3 dBA L eq, or a barely perceptible increase, the noise source (i.e., construction noise) would need to be equal to that of the ambient.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-253
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
32 7.5 C ONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ASSESSMENT
This analysis focuses on the potential ground-bo rne vibration associated with vehicular traffic and construction activities. Ground-borne vibration levels from automobile traffic are generally overshadowed by vibration generated by heavy trucks that roll over the same uneven roadway surfaces. However, due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular tr affic-induced ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and ra rely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity.

However, while vehicular traffic is rarely percepti ble, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibr ation levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 7-9. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate potential vibration impacts with the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe potential vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 TABLE 7-9: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, September 2018.

7.6 C ONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS
Construction activity can resu lt in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affe cted structures and soil type. The proposed Project’s construction activities most likely to cause vibration impacts are:
x Heavy Construction Equipment: Although all heavy mobile construction equipment has the potential of causing at least some perceptible vibration while operating close to buildings, the vibration is usually short-term and is not of sufficient magnitude to cause building damage. x Trucks: Trucks hauling building materials to co nstruction sites can be sources of vibration intrusion if the haul routes pass through residential neighborhoods on streets with bumps or potholes. Repairing the bumps and potholes generally eliminates the problem.

Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration. Construction activities that would have the potential to generate low levels of grou nd-borne vibration within the Project site include grading. Using the vi bration source level of construction equipment ATTACHMENT 2
A2-254
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
33 provided on Table 7-9 and the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA, it is possible to estimate the Project vibr ation impacts. Table 7-10 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at each of the sensitive receiver locations.

Based on the reference vibration levels provided by the Federal Transit Administration, a large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration with a reference velocity of 0.089 in/sec peak- particle-velocity (PPV) at 25 feet. At distance s ranging from 1,210 to 1,918 feet from primary Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are expected to range from

0.0001 to 0.0003 in/sec PPV, as shown on Table 7-10. Based on the Caltrans older residential building damage threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV, the proposed Project construction activities would result in vibration levels which are anticipa ted to remain below the threshold for building damage, and therefore, represents a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-255
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
34 TABLE 7-10: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS Receiver1
Distance to
Const.

Activity
(Feet)
Reference Vibration Levels @ 25' & Resulting Vibration
at Receiver Locations (in/sec)2 Threshold
Exceeded?3 Small
Bulldozer
(0.003 in/sec)
Jack-Hammer
(0.035)
Loaded Trucks
(0.076)
Large
Bulldozer
(0.089)
Peak Vibration
Levels
R1 1,608' 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 No
R2 1,506' 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 No
R3 1,918' 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 No
R4 1,210' 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 7-A.
2 Based on the FTA's Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment previously shown on Table 7-9 at a reference distance of 25 feet. Calculated using the following equation per FTA guidance: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)^1.5 Where "PPVequip" = the vibration level at the receiver; "PPVref" = the reference vibration level at 25 feet; and "D" = the distance to each receiver location. 3 Does the peak vibration exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold?

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-256
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
35 8 REFERENCES

1. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G. 2018.

2. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.

3. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004.

4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. June, 1995.

5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April 2000. p. 3.

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Noise Effects Handbook-A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. October 1979 (revised July 1981).

EPA 550/9/82/106.

7. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Standard 29 CRF, Part 1910.

8. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. About Hearing Loss. [Online] [Cited: 04 15, 2016.] http://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/noise/signs.htm.

9. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006. FTA-VA-90-1003-06.

10. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidlines. 2018.

11. City of Burbank. General Plan. February 2013.

12. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Sound Level Meters ANSI S1.4- 2014/IEC 61672-1:2013.

13. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Focused Greenhouse Gas Assessment. April 2019.

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-257
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
36 This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-258
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
37 9 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Project. The information contained in this noise study report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5979.

Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
260 E. Baker Street, Suite 200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(949) 336-5979
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂWŽůǇƚĞĐŚŶŝĐ^ƚĂƚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽͻĞĐĞŵďĞƌ͕ϭϵϵϯ Bachelor of Science in City and Regional Planning
ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂWŽůǇƚĞĐŚŶŝĐ^ƚĂƚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕^ĂŶ>ƵŝƐKďŝƐƉŽͻ:ƵŶĞ͕ϭϵϵϮ

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
PE – Registered Professional Traffic Engineer – dZϮϱϯϳͻ:ĂŶƵĂƌǇ͕ϮϬϬϵ AICP – American Institute of Certified Planners – ϬϭϯϬϭϭͻ:ƵŶĞ͕ϭϵϵϳ–January 1, 2012 PTP – WƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂůdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶWůĂŶŶĞƌͻDĂǇ͕ϮϬϬϳ– May, 2013 INCE – /ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞŽĨEŽŝƐĞŽŶƚƌŽů
ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐͻDĂƌĐŚ͕ϮϬϬϰ

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
ASA – Acoustical Society of America
ITE – Institute of Transportation Engineers

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Acoustical Consultant – ŽƵŶƚǇŽĨKƌĂŶŐĞͻ&ĞďƌƵĂƌǇ͕ϮϬϭϭ FHWA-NHI-ϭϰϮϬϱϭ,ŝŐŚǁĂǇdƌĂĨĨŝĐEŽŝƐĞĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚĞŽĨdƌĂŝŶŝŶŐͻ&ĞďƌƵĂƌǇ͕ϮϬϭϯ

ATTACHMENT 2
A2-259
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study
38 This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 2
A2-260
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study

APPENDIX 3.1:

CITY OF BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE

39 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-261
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study

This page intentionally left blank
40 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-262
CHAPTER 3

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SECTION:

Article 1. Environmental Quality
9-3-101: Environmental Quality; Purpose
9-3-102: Definitions
9-3-103: State CEQA Guidelines Adopted
9-3-104: Departmental Responsibility
9-3-105: Director’s Responsibility
9-3-106: Completion Deadlines
9-3-107: Public Notice of Environmental Decision
9-3-108: Appeal of Environmental Decision
9-3-109: Conflict Determinations
9-3-110: through 9-3-117: Reserved
9-3-118: Adoption of Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan Article 2. Noise Control
Division 1. General Provisions
9-3-201: Declaration of Policy
9-3-202: Definitions
9-3-203: Decibel Measurement Criteria
9-3-204: Emergency Work; Exemption
9-3-205: Injunction; Additional Remedy
9-3-206: City Attorney Authorized to Take Legal Proceedings Division 2. Special Noise Sources
9-3-207: Animals and Fowl
9-3-208: Machinery, Equipment, Fans and Air Conditioning 9-3-209: Deleted
9-3-210: Vehicle Repairs in Residential Areas
9-3-211: Vehicle Operation on Private Property, Etc. 9-3-212: Sound Suppression on Gasoline and Gas Engines 9-3-213: Radios, Television Sets and Similar Devices 9-3-213.5: Radios, Television Sets and Similar Devices in and Adjacent to Park Facilities 9-3-214: Restrictions on Leaf Blower Operation
Division 3. Sound Trucks
9-3-215: Purpose of Regulation
9-3-216: Sound Trucks Must be Registered
9-3-217: Disapproval of Registration
9-3-218: Amending Registration
9-3-219: Copy of Registration to Chief of Police
9-3-220: Certified Copy of Registration Must be Carried in Sound Truck 9-3-221: Regulations for Use of Sound Trucks
41 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-263
Division 4. Miscellaneous
9-3-222: Octave Band Sound Frequency Level Limits
9-3-223: Noise Sources Not Specifically Covered
9-3-224: Schools, Hospitals and Churches
Article 3. Removal of Graffiti or Other Inscribed Material 9-3-301: Purpose
9-3-302: Removal of Graffiti or Other Inscribed Material Article 4. Standard Urban Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management Programs 9-3-401: Purpose
9-3-402: Applicability
9-3-403: General Construction Permit
9-3-404: Construction Priority Projects
9-3-405: Other Construction Projects
9-3-406: Exempt Projects
9-3-407: Best Management Practices (BMPs)
9-3-408: Permit Issuance
9-3-409: Retention of Documents
9-3-410: Inspections
9-3-411: Enforcement
9-3-412: Fees
9-3-413: Adoption of the “Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan for Los Angeles County and Cities in Los Angeles” Issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region on March 8, 2000
9-3-414: Storm Water Pollution Control Measures for Development Planning Article 5. Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance
9-3-500: Adoption of the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act (Assembly Bill 1881) “Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance”
ARTICLE 1. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
9-3-201: DECLARATION OF POLICY:

It is the policy of the City to prohibit unnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds which at certain levels and frequencies are detrimental to the health and welfare of the City’s inhabitants and in the public interest must be systematically proscribed. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-20; renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383, 2338, 2336.] 9-3-202: DEFINITIONS:

Unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, the words and phrases used in this article are defined as follows:

AMBIENT NOISE: The all encompassing noise associated with a given environment, usually being a composite of sounds with many sources near and far, but excluding the noise source being measured.

A-WEIGHTED LEVEL OR “A”: Used in conjunction with dB is the total sound level of all noise as measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighting network as defined in American National Standards Specification for sound level meters S1.4-1971. The unit is the dBA. 42 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-264
BAND PRESSURE LEVEL: “Band pressure level” of a sound for a specified frequency band is the sound pressure level for the sound contained within the restricted band.

CYCLE: The complete sequence of values of a periodic quantity which occurs during a period.

DAYTIME: The hours from seven o’clock (7:00) A.M. to ten o’clock (10:00) P.M.

DECIBEL OR dB: A unit of level which denotes the ratio between two (2) quantities which are proportional to power; the number of decibels corresponding to the ratio of two (2) amounts of power is ten (10) times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of this ratio.

FREQUENCY: “Frequency” of a function periodic in time is the reciprocal of the primitive period.

The unit is hertz and shall be specified.

HERTZ OR Hz: Cycles per second.

MICROBAR: A unit of pressure commonly used in acoustics and is equal to one dyne per square centimeter.

MOTOR VEHICLE: Includes, but shall not be limited to, minibikes and go-carts.

NIGHTTIME: The hours from ten o’clock (10:00) P.M. until seven o’clock (7:00) A.M. of the following day.

NOISE: Includes all sound.

PERIOD: “Period” of a periodic quantity is the smallest increment of time for which the function repeats itself.

PERIODIC QUANTITY: Oscillating quantity, the values of which recur for equal increments of time.

SOUND AMPLIFYING EQUIPMENT: Any machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, music, or any other sound, but shall not include standard automobile radios when used and heard only by the occupants of the vehicle in which the automobile radio is installed, and as used in this chapter shall not include warning devices on authorized emergency vehicles or horns or other warning devices on any vehicle used only for traffic safety purposes.

SOUND ANALYZER: A device for measuring the band pressure level or pressure spectrum level of a sound as a function of frequency.

SOUND LEVEL METER: An instrument including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement of noise and sound levels in a specified manner.

SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL: “Sound pressure level” of a sound, in decibels, is twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of the ratio of the pressure of the sound to the reference pressure, which for the purposes of this chapter shall be 0.0002 microbars.

SOUND TRUCK: Any vehicle regardless of motive power, whether in motion or stationary, having mounted thereon, or attached thereto, any sound amplifying equipment.

SPECTRUM: “Spectrum” of a function of time is a description of its resolution into components, each of a different frequency or frequency band. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-21; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.]
43 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-265
9-3-203: DECIBEL MEASUREMENT CRITERIA:

A. Any decibel measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this article shall be based on a reference sound pressure of 0.0002 microbars as measured in any octave band with center frequency, in hertz, as follows: 31.5, 63, 125, 250, 500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000 and 8,000 or as measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighting, and using the slow meter response.

B. Unless otherwise provided, measurements shall be taken with the microphone located at any point on the property line of the noise source, but no closer than five feet (5') from any wall or vertical obstruction and not less than five feet (5') above ground level whenever possible. In no case shall such measurements be taken at less than three feet (3'). When measurements are taken at less than five feet (5'), the distance shall be recorded and appropriate corrections to the reading may be applied.

C. A minimum of three (3) readings shall be taken at two (2) minute intervals. The sound level shall be the average of these readings.

D. Sound pressure levels shall be measured with a sound level meter and an octave band analyzer that conform to specifications published by the American National Standards Institute. (American Standard Sound Level Meters for Measurement of Noise and Other Sounds, S1.4- 1971 American National Standards Institute, New York, New York, and American Standard Specification for octave, half octave and third octave band filter set for the analysis of noise and other sounds, S1.11-1966, American National Standards Institute, New York, New York, shall be used.) [Formerly Numbered Section 21-22; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.] 9-3-204: EMERGENCY WORK; EXEMPTION:

This article shall not apply to emergency work necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, or work required to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger, or work by a private or public utility when restoring utility service. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-23; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.] 9-3-205: INJUNCTION; ADDITIONAL REMEDY:

The operation or maintenance of any device, instrument, vehicle or machinery in violation of any provision of this article, which causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or peace of residents in the area shall be deemed, and is declared to be, a public nuisance and may be subject to summary abatement by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. This is not intended to preclude resort to any other legal remedy. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-24; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.]
9-3-206: CITY ATTORNEY AUTHORIZED TO TAKE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:

The City Attorney, upon request of the Building Director, is authorized to institute necessary legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of this article. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-25; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.]
DIVISION 2. SPECIAL NOISE SOURCES
9-3-207: ANIMALS AND FOWL:

A. No person shall keep or maintain upon any premises owned, occupied or controlled by him any animal or fowl which, by any sound, cry or behavior, shall cause discomfort or annoyance to a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness in any residential area.

B. A violation of this section shall constitute an infraction. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-30; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2749, 2383.] 44 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-266
9-3-208: MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, FANS AND AIR CONDITIONING:

A. Decibel Limit: No person shall operate any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus, or similar mechanical device in such a manner as to cause the ambient noise level to be exceeded by more than five (5) decibels. In the case of leaf blowers, as defined by Section 9-3-214 of this article, the ambient noise level may not be exceeded by more than twenty (20) decibels.

B. Ambient Noise Base Level: For the purposes of this section only, all ambient noise measurements shall commence at the following ambient noise base levels in the zones and during the times shown:

Base Levels Time Zone
45 dBA Nighttime Residential
55 dBA Daytime Residential
65 dBA Anytime Commercial
70 dBA Anytime All other zones
Accordingly, and by way of illustration, the ambient noise level in commercial zones shall be deemed to be sixty five (65) dBA notwithstanding a lower reading; provided, however, that when the ambient noise base level for the property on which the machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus or similar mechanical device is located is higher than the ambient noise base level for adjacent property, the ambient noise base level for the adjacent property shall apply. Properties separated by a street shall be deemed to be adjacent to one another.

C. Exception For Home Air Conditioners: Air conditioning appliances and equipment installed on or before June 1, 1972, in residences in residential zones may be operated until January 1, 1974, between the hours of eight o’clock (8:00) A.M. and ten o’clock (10:00) P.M. without complying with the decibel limits prescribed in this section. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-31; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 3122, 2383, 2361.] 9-3-209: CONSTRUCTION IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS; EXCEPTION:
[Deleted by Ord. No. 3797, eff. 12/3/10; Formerly Numbered Section 21-32; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; Amended by Ord. 3588, eff. 11/3/01; 2383.] 9-3-210: VEHICLE REPAIRS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS:

It is unlawful for any person in a residential zone of the City, or within a radius of five hundred feet (500') from any residential zone, to repair, rebuild or test any motor vehicle during the nighttime in such manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the zone is caused discomfort or annoyance. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-33; Renumbered by Ord.

No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.]
9-3-211: VEHICLE OPERATION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, ETC.:

No person shall operate any motor driven vehicle within the City in such manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area where the vehicle is being operated is caused discomfort or annoyance. This section shall apply only if the operation of the vehicle is not regulated by State law. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-34; Renumbered by Ord.

No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.]
9-3-212: SOUND SUPPRESSION ON GASOLINE AND GAS ENGINES:

No person having charge or control of any engine in which gas, gasoline, distillate or other similar substance is used as a motive power, shall run or operate such engine without having the exhaust pipe thereof connected with an underground air chamber or having attached to such exhaust pipe a muffler or other device so constructed as to deaden the sound of the exhaust of 45 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-267
such engine and effectually prevent such exhaust from making any loud noise or disturbing the peace and quiet of persons in its vicinity. This section shall apply to the engine of a motor vehicle only if its exhaust equipment is not regulated by State law. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-35; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.] 9-3-213: RADIOS, TELEVISION SETS AND SIMILAR DEVICES:

A. Disturbing Residents: No person shall use or operate any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound in such manner as to disturb the peace, quiet, and comfort of neighboring residents or any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area.

B. Prima Facie Violation: Any noise causing the ambient noise level to be exceeded by more than five (5) decibels shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.

Noise measurements shall be taken within any adjoining apartment if the radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set or other machine or device is in an apartment house, condominium or other multiple dwelling. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-36; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.]
9-3-213.5: RADIOS, TELEVISION SETS AND SIMILAR DEVICES IN AND ADJACENT TO PARK FACILITIES:

A. Disturbing Residents: No person in a park (including public parking lots) or on a right of way adjacent to a park shall use or operate any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound or other sound amplification systems in such manner as to disturb the peace, quiet, and comfort of neighboring residents or any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area.

B. Prima Facie Violation: Any person who operates or permits the operation of an outdoor sound amplification device which can be heard seventy five feet (75') or more away: 1) from the closest boundary of the park, when the source of the noise is within the boundaries of a park; or 2) from the actual source of the noise, when the source is of noise is located in the right of way adjacent to a park; shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.

C. Exceptions: This prohibition shall not apply to a park permit or other City approval that expressly authorizes the use of outdoor sound amplification devices. [Added by Ord. No. 3642, eff. 7/24/04.]
9-3-214: RESTRICTIONS ON LEAF BLOWER OPERATION:

A. Definitions:

LEAF BLOWER: Any machine however powered used to blow leaves, dirt and other debris off sidewalks, driveways, lawns and other surfaces.

PARCEL: An area of real property with a separate and distinct number or other designation shown on a plat recorded in the office of the County Recorder. Contiguous parcels owned by the same individual or entity shall be considered one parcel for the purposes of this section.

B. Time Restrictions: No person shall operate a leaf blower within a residential zone or within two hundred feet (200') of a residential zone between the hours of six o’clock (6:00) P.M. to eight o’clock (8:00) A.M.

C. Duration of Use: No person shall operate any leaf blower within a residential zone or within two hundred feet (200') of a residential zone for more than fifteen (15) minutes per hour on parcels less than one-half (1/2) acre and no more than thirty (30) minutes per hour on parcels greater than one-half (1/2) acre.
46 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-268
D. Number of Leaf Blowers: No person shall operate more than one leaf blower per parcel within any residential zone or within two hundred feet (200') of a residential zone.

E. Debris Restriction: No person shall operate any leaf blower within the City in such a way as to blow leaves, dirt, and other debris on to adjoining properties and public rights of way and to allow the material to remain there for more than fifteen (15) minutes. [Added by Ord. No. 3122; Formerly Numbered Section 21-37; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.] DIVISION 3. SOUND TRUCKS
9-3-215: PURPOSE OF REGULATION:

The Council recognizes that the use of sound amplifying equipment when operated for free speech purposes is protected by the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly, but nevertheless feels obligated to reasonably regulate the use of such equipment in order to protect the correlative constitutional rights of those who wish privacy and freedom from the nuisance of loud and unnecessary noise. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-40; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.]
9-3-216: SOUND TRUCKS MUST BE REGISTERED:

No person shall use a sound truck on the street with its sound amplifying equipment in operation without having first filed a registration statement with the Community Development Department in writing. This registration shall be filed in triplicate and shall state the following:

A. Name and home address of the registrant;
B. Address and place of business of registrant;
C. License number and motor number of the sound truck to be used by registrant; D. Name, address and telephone number of person who owns the sound truck; E. Name, address and telephone number of person having direct charge of the sound truck; F. Names and addresses of all persons who will use or operate the sound truck; G. The purpose for which the sound truck will be used; H. A general statement as to the section or sections of the City in which the sound truck will be used;
I. The proposed hours of operation of the sound truck; J. The number of days of proposed operation of the sound truck; K. A general description of the sound truck amplifying equipment which is to be used; L. The maximum sound producing power of the sound amplifying equipment, expressed in decibels at a reference distance of thirty feet (30'); and M. Whether the sound amplifying equipment will be used for commercial or noncommercial purposes. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-41; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; Amended by Ord. No. 3828, eff. 8/24/12; 2383, 2338, 2336, 2194.] 9-3-217: DISAPPROVAL OF REGISTRATION:

The Community Development Department shall accept such registration unless the Community Development Director finds that the regulations for the use of sound trucks set forth in Section 47 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-269
9-3-221 of this article would be violated in whole or part. If the registration is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval shall be endorsed on the statement and it shall be returned to the applicant forthwith. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-42; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; Amended by Ord. No. 3828, eff. 8/24/12; 2383.] 9-3-218: AMENDING REGISTRATION:

All persons using sound trucks shall amend any registration statement filed pursuant to this article within forty eight (48) hours after any change in the information therein furnished. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-44; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383, 2338, 2336.]
9-3-219: COPY OF REGISTRATION TO CHIEF OF POLICE:

The Community Development Department shall furnish the Chief of Police with a copy of such registration statement and all amendments thereto. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-45; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; Amended by Ord. No. 3828, eff. 8/24/12; 2383, 2338, 2336, 2194.]
9-3-220: CERTIFIED COPY OF REGISTRATION MUST BE CARRIED IN SOUND TRUCK:

The Community Development Department shall return to each registrant hereunder one copy of said registration statement duly certified as a correct copy of said registration. Said certified copy of the registration shall be in the possession of any person operating the sound truck at all times while the sound truck’s sound amplifying equipment is in operation, and said copy shall be promptly displayed and shown to any police officer or Community Development Director of the City upon request. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-46; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; Amended by Ord. No. 3828, eff. 8/24/12; 2383, 2338, 2336, 2194.] 9-3-221: REGULATIONS FOR USE OF SOUND TRUCKS:

All persons using sound trucks with sound amplifying equipment in operation shall be subject to the following regulations:

A. The only sound permitted is music or human speech or both; B. The human speech and music amplified shall not be obscene, profane, lewd, indecent, vulgar, or slanderous, nor shall such music or speech induce, request, or incite any persons to injure or damage persons or property, or to do any illegal act; C. Sound shall not be issued within three hundred feet (300') of any hospital, church, courthouse, or school;
D. No sound emanating from sound amplifying equipment shall exceed fifteen (15) dBA above the ambient noise level as measured at the property line of the affected property; E. Sound amplifying equipment shall not be operated between the hours of nine o’clock (9:00) P.M. and nine o’clock (9:00) A.M. of the following day during weekdays and at no time on Sundays;
F. No sound truck with its amplifying equipment in operation shall be operated when:

1. The conditions of motor vehicle movement are such that in the opinion of the Chief of Police use of the equipment would constitute a detriment to traffic safety; or

2. The conditions of pedestrian movement are such that use of the equipment would constitute a detriment to traffic safety; and
48 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-270
G. The volume of sound shall be so controlled that it will not be unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing or a nuisance to reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness within the area of audibility. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-47; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383, 2338, 2336.]
DIVISION 4. MISCELLANEOUS
9-3-222: OCTAVE BAND SOUND FREQUENCY LEVEL LIMITS:

A. For those marginal cases where an objectionable noise is clearly audible, but where the measured A-weighted noise level is not violated, sound measurements shall be taken utilizing an octave band sound analyzer and compared to the table on the next page:

Allowable A-Weighted Sound Levels

40 45
50 55
60 65
70 75
Octave Band Frequency Sound Level Limits (In Decibels) For Each Frequency (In Hz)

31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
61 54 47 42 37 34 31 28 25
64 58 51 46 42 39 36 33 30
57 61 55 51 47 44 41 38 35
70 65 60 55 52 49 46 43 40
73 68 64 60 56 54 51 48 45
76 72 68 64 61 59 56 53 50
79 76 72 69 66 64 61 58 55
82 79 76 73 71 69 66 63 60
Where the A-weighted sound level is between any of the figures shown, octave band frequency sound levvel limits for such A-weighted sound level shall be determined by proportionally adjusting the figures shown to the nearest whole figure.

B. Any measured sound pressure level in any octave band exceeding the noise limits prescribed above, as adjusted using the following table, is prohibited:

Condition Adjustment To Be Added To
Values Given (Decibels)
Steady audible tone such as hum, whine, or
screech
Minus 5
Continuous impulsive noise such as hammering
or riveting
Minus 5
Noise occurring more than 5 but less than 15
minutes per hour
Plus 5
Noise occurring more than 1 but less than 5
minutes per hour
Plus 10
49 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-271
Condition Adjustment To Be Added To
Values Given (Decibels)
Noise occurring less than 1 minute per hour Plus 20
[Formerly Numbered Section 21-50; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.] 9-3-223: NOISE SOURCES NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this article and in addition thereto, it shall be unlawful for any person to wilfully make or continue any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. The standards which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of this section exists shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

A. The sound pressure level of the noise;
B. The octave band sound pressure level of the noise; C. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual; D. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; E. The sound pressure level and octave band sound pressure level of the background noise, if any;
F. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; G. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; H. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; I. The time of the day or night when the noise occurs; J. The duration of the noise;
K. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant; and L. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-51; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.] 9-3-224: SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS AND CHURCHES:

It shall be unlawful for any person to create any noise on any street, sidewalk or public place adjacent to any hospital or to any school, institution of learning or church while the same is in use, which noise unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets, sidewalk or public place indicating the presence of a school, church or hospital. [Formerly Numbered Section 21-52; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2383.] ARTICLE 3. REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI OR OTHER INSCRIBED MATERIAL 50 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-272
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study

APPENDIX 5.1:

STUDY AREA PHOTOS

51 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-273
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study

This page intentionally left blank
52 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-274
JN:12343 Study Area Photos
L1Northeast
34,10'45.750000",118,18'35.140000"
L1Northwest
34,10'45.800000",118,18'35.140000"
L1Southeast
34,10'45.790000",118,18'35.170000"
L1Southwest
34,10'45.850000",118,18'35.170000"
L2Northeast
34,10'33.690000",118,18'50.600000"
L2Northwest
34,10'33.680000",118,18'50.580000"
53 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-275
JN:12343 Study Area Photos
L2Southeast
34,10'33.660000",118,18'50.630000"
L2Southwest
34,10'33.580000",118,18'50.600000"
L3Northeast
34,10'28.390000",118,19'0.520000"
L3Northwest
34,10'28.390000",118,19'0.600000"
L3Southeast
34,10'28.430000",118,19'0.490000"
L3Southwest
34,10'28.460000",118,19'0.710000"
54 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-276
JN:12343 Study Area Photos
L4Northeast
34,10'30.750000",118,19'10.300000"
L4Northwest
34,10'30.710000",118,19'10.380000"
L4Southeast
34,10'30.740000",118,19'10.270000"
L4Southwest
34,10'30.710000",118,19'10.350000"
L5Northeast
34,10'42.880000",118,19'8.100000"
L5Northwest
34,10'43.000000",118,19'7.960000"
55 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-277
JN:12343 Study Area Photos
L5Southeast
34,10'42.890000",118,19'8.070000"
L5Southwest
34,10'42.950000",118,19'8.020000"
56 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-278
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study

APPENDIX 5.2:

NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS

57 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-279
Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Campus Drainage Improvement Noise Impact Analysis 12343-02 Noise Study

This page intentionally left blank
58 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-280
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo I JN: 12343
Project: Burbank Water & Power Campus Analyst: R. Saber Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 61.5 81.4 52.2 70.0 68.0 65.0 64.0 60.0 58.0 55.0 55.0 54.0 61.5 10.0 71.5 1 62.1 87.1 51.0 70.0 67.0 64.0 62.0 58.0 57.0 54.0 54.0 52.0 62.1 10.0 72.1 2 58.5 82.1 48.9 66.0 64.0 62.0 60.0 57.0 55.0 53.0 52.0 51.0 58.5 10.0 68.5 3 59.4 76.9 48.4 69.0 67.0 63.0 61.0 58.0 57.0 54.0 52.0 50.0 59.4 10.0 69.4 4 61.7 78.8 54.8 69.0 67.0 65.0 64.0 61.0 60.0 57.0 57.0 56.0 61.7 10.0 71.7 5 65.7 79.1 58.8 74.0 73.0 70.0 68.0 65.0 63.0 61.0 60.0 59.0 65.7 10.0 75.7 6 67.4 84.1 59.8 76.0 75.0 71.0 70.0 67.0 64.0 61.0 61.0 60.0 67.4 10.0 77.4 7 67.9 83.3 58.2 76.0 75.0 72.0 71.0 67.0 65.0 62.0 61.0 60.0 67.9 0.0 67.9 8 68.0 88.0 57.8 76.0 75.0 72.0 70.0 67.0 65.0 62.0 61.0 59.0 68.0 0.0 68.0 9 69.0 89.3 59.0 79.0 77.0 73.0 71.0 67.0 65.0 62.0 61.0 60.0 69.0 0.0 69.0 10 68.4 89.8 59.7 77.0 75.0 72.0 70.0 67.0 65.0 62.0 61.0 60.0 68.4 0.0 68.4 11 67.6 88.1 59.4 75.0 74.0 71.0 70.0 67.0 65.0 62.0 62.0 60.0 67.6 0.0 67.6 12 69.1 90.6 60.2 77.0 75.0 72.0 71.0 68.0 66.0 63.0 62.0 61.0 69.1 0.0 69.1 13 69.6 93.6 39.1 77.0 76.0 74.0 73.0 70.0 64.0 41.0 40.0 40.0 69.6 0.0 69.6 14 68.2 87.2 59.7 76.0 75.0 72.0 70.0 67.0 65.0 62.0 62.0 61.0 68.2 0.0 68.2 15 68.0 86.4 59.0 76.0 74.0 71.0 70.0 68.0 66.0 62.0 62.0 60.0 68.0 0.0 68.0 16 72.4 100.6 59.3 80.0 77.0 73.0 71.0 68.0 65.0 62.0 61.0 60.0 72.4 0.0 72.4 17 68.0 89.0 58.4 76.0 74.0 72.0 71.0 67.0 65.0 61.0 61.0 59.0 68.0 0.0 68.0 18 67.8 89.9 57.3 76.0 74.0 71.0 70.0 67.0 65.0 62.0 61.0 59.0 67.8 0.0 67.8 19 66.4 80.5 58.7 73.0 72.0 70.0 69.0 66.0 64.0 61.0 61.0 59.0 66.4 5.0 71.4 20 66.1 82.8 57.9 73.0 71.0 70.0 69.0 66.0 64.0 60.0 60.0 59.0 66.1 5.0 71.1 21 66.3 90.0 56.9 74.0 72.0 70.0 69.0 65.0 63.0 60.0 59.0 58.0 66.3 5.0 71.3 22 65.1 84.9 54.4 74.0 72.0 69.0 68.0 64.0 62.0 59.0 58.0 57.0 65.1 10.0 75.1 23 62.4 78.3 54.3 71.0 69.0 67.0 65.0 62.0 60.0 57.0 56.0 55.0 62.4 10.0 72.4 Timeframe Hour L
eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 67.6 83.3 39.1 75.0 74.0 71.0 70.0 67.0 64.0 41.0 40.0 40.0 Max 72.4 100.6 60.2 80.0 77.0 74.0 73.0 70.0 66.0 63.0 62.0 61.0

68.9 76.8 75.1 72.1 70.7 67.5 65.1 60.3 59.6 58.3
Min 66.1 80.5 56.9 73.0 71.0 70.0 69.0 65.0 63.0 60.0 59.0 58.0 Max 66.4 90.0 58.7 74.0 72.0 70.0 69.0 66.0 64.0 61.0 61.0 59.0

66.3 73.3 71.7 70.0 69.0 65.7 63.7 60.3 60.0 58.7
Min 58.5 76.9 48.4 66.0 64.0 62.0 60.0 57.0 55.0 53.0 52.0 50.0 Max 67.4 87.1 59.8 76.0 75.0 71.0 70.0 67.0 64.0 61.0 61.0 60.0

63.5 71.0 69.1 66.2 64.7 61.3 59.6 56.8 56.1 54.9
Energy Average Average:

71.5Night
Energy Average Average:

Evening 24-Hour CNEL (dBA)

67.2 68.5 63.5
Night
L eq (dBA)
Day
Energy Average Average:
24-Hour Daytime Nighttime
Evening
L1 - Located on North First Street, northeast of the Project site, east of the I-5 Highway, adjacent to an existing
commercial area.
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Tuesday, April 09, 2019
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Day

61.5 62.1

58.5 59.4

61.7 65.7

67.4 67.9

68.0 69.0

68.4 67.6

69.1 69.6

68.2 68.0

72.4 68.0

67.8 66.4

66.1 66.3

65.1 62.4

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 Hourly Leq(dBA)
Hour Beginning
U:\UcJobs\_12100-12500\_12300\12343\Fieldwork\12343_L1_Summary 59 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-281
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo I JN: 12343
Project: Burbank Water & Power Campus Analyst: R. Saber Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 64.8 87.1 51.7 75.0 72.0 69.0 67.0 61.0 57.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 64.8 10.0 74.8 1 60.1 83.2 48.8 71.0 69.0 65.0 63.0 55.0 53.0 50.0 49.0 49.0 60.1 10.0 70.1 2 58.2 77.0 49.0 70.0 68.0 64.0 61.0 55.0 53.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 58.2 10.0 68.2 3 59.3 79.4 47.1 70.0 68.0 64.0 61.1 56.0 54.0 51.0 50.0 48.0 59.3 10.0 69.3 4 63.8 82.1 54.3 73.0 72.0 69.0 67.0 62.0 60.0 57.0 56.0 55.0 63.8 10.0 73.8 5 67.0 81.8 54.2 76.0 75.0 73.0 71.0 67.0 62.0 57.0 56.0 54.0 67.0 10.0 77.0 6 70.3 85.6 51.9 78.0 77.0 76.0 75.0 71.0 67.0 58.0 56.0 53.0 70.3 10.0 80.3 7 72.0 89.6 54.5 79.0 78.0 77.0 76.0 73.0 69.0 61.0 59.0 57.0 72.0 0.0 72.0 8 71.8 87.2 55.3 78.0 77.0 76.0 75.0 73.0 69.0 61.0 59.0 57.0 71.8 0.0 71.8 9 72.7 96.8 55.9 80.0 78.0 76.0 75.0 72.0 69.0 61.0 60.0 57.0 72.7 0.0 72.7 10 71.1 89.6 57.8 78.0 77.0 76.0 75.0 72.0 68.0 61.0 60.0 59.0 71.1 0.0 71.1 11 70.9 86.2 52.5 78.0 77.0 75.0 75.0 72.0 67.0 60.0 58.0 55.0 70.9 0.0 70.9 12 70.2 81.9 51.4 76.0 76.0 75.0 74.0 71.0 68.0 60.0 58.0 54.0 70.2 0.0 70.2 13 71.4 93.7 39.7 82.0 78.0 75.0 74.0 71.0 65.0 41.0 41.0 40.0 71.4 0.0 71.4 14 70.3 84.7 51.7 77.0 76.0 75.0 74.0 71.0 68.0 60.0 58.0 55.0 70.3 0.0 70.3 15 71.9 94.3 53.3 80.0 77.0 75.0 75.0 72.0 69.0 61.0 60.0 57.0 71.9 0.0 71.9 16 72.9 98.1 55.8 80.0 78.0 76.0 75.0 73.0 70.0 62.0 60.0 58.0 72.9 0.0 72.9 17 72.0 88.2 53.1 78.0 77.0 76.0 75.0 73.0 70.0 63.0 61.0 58.0 72.0 0.0 72.0 18 72.1 94.2 52.7 78.0 77.0 76.0 75.0 73.0 70.0 61.0 59.0 56.0 72.1 0.0 72.1 19 70.8 88.4 56.1 78.0 77.0 75.0 74.0 71.0 68.0 60.0 59.0 57.0 70.8 5.0 75.8 20 70.1 87.9 55.1 77.0 76.0 75.0 74.0 71.0 67.0 59.0 58.0 57.0 70.1 5.0 75.1 21 68.5 86.1 53.5 76.0 75.0 74.0 73.0 69.0 64.0 57.0 56.0 54.0 68.5 5.0 73.5 22 66.6 86.6 53.5 75.0 73.0 72.0 71.0 67.0 62.0 56.0 55.0 54.0 66.6 10.0 76.6 23 64.7 85.0 53.1 73.0 72.0 70.0 69.0 64.0 59.0 56.0 55.0 55.0 64.7 10.0 74.7 Timeframe Hour L
eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 70.2 81.9 39.7 76.0 76.0 75.0 74.0 71.0 65.0 41.0 41.0 40.0 Max 72.9 98.1 57.8 82.0 78.0 77.0 76.0 73.0 70.0 63.0 61.0 59.0

71.7 78.7 77.2 75.7 74.8 72.2 68.5 59.3 57.8 55.3
Min 68.5 86.1 53.5 76.0 75.0 74.0 73.0 69.0 64.0 57.0 56.0 54.0 Max 70.8 88.4 56.1 78.0 77.0 75.0 74.0 71.0 68.0 60.0 59.0 57.0

69.9 77.0 76.0 74.7 73.7 70.3 66.3 58.7 57.7 56.0
Min 58.2 77.0 47.1 70.0 68.0 64.0 61.0 55.0 53.0 50.0 49.0 48.0 Max 70.3 87.1 54.3 78.0 77.0 76.0 75.0 71.0 67.0 58.0 56.0 55.0

65.4 73.4 71.8 69.1 67.2 62.0 58.6 54.3 53.3 52.1
Evening
L2 - Located on West Olive Avenue, southeast of the Project site, adjacent to an existing general industrial area.
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Tuesday, April 09, 2019
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Day
Night
L eq (dBA)
Day
Energy Average Average:
24-Hour Daytime Nighttime
Evening 24-Hour CNEL (dBA)

70.0 71.4 65.4
Energy Average Average:

73.8Night
Energy Average Average:

64.8 60.1

58.2 59.3

63.8 67.0

70.3 72.0

71.8 72.7

71.1 70.9

70.2 71.4

70.3 71.9

72.9 72.0

72.1 70.8

70.1 68.5

66.6 64.7

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 Hourly Leq(dBA)
Hour Beginning
U:\UcJobs\_12100-12500\_12300\12343\Fieldwork\12343_L2_Summary 60 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-282
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo I JN: 12343
Project: Burbank Water & Power Campus Analyst: R. Saber Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 59.2 80.3 50.2 69.0 67.0 64.0 63.0 57.0 53.0 52.0 51.0 50.0 59.2 10.0 69.2 1 57.5 74.9 50.1 67.0 66.0 63.0 61.0 55.0 53.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 57.5 10.0 67.5 2 59.1 84.2 50.3 69.0 66.0 62.0 60.0 54.0 52.0 51.0 51.0 50.0 59.1 10.0 69.1 3 58.3 76.8 51.2 69.0 66.0 63.0 61.0 55.0 54.0 52.0 52.0 51.0 58.3 10.0 68.3 4 62.1 85.2 53.6 71.0 69.0 66.0 65.0 60.0 57.0 55.0 54.0 54.0 62.1 10.0 72.1 5 67.7 89.3 55.7 79.0 75.0 71.0 69.0 65.0 61.0 57.0 56.0 56.0 67.7 10.0 77.7 6 69.1 94.0 55.0 78.0 77.0 73.0 72.0 67.0 64.0 58.0 57.0 56.0 69.1 10.0 79.1 7 69.7 94.2 56.6 78.0 76.0 73.0 72.0 68.0 65.0 60.0 59.0 57.0 69.7 0.0 69.7 8 71.8 95.5 57.5 82.0 78.0 75.0 73.0 69.0 66.0 61.0 60.0 58.0 71.8 0.0 71.8 9 69.8 87.9 55.2 79.0 77.0 74.0 72.0 69.0 66.0 61.0 60.0 57.0 69.8 0.0 69.8 10 70.2 95.5 55.2 79.0 76.0 73.0 71.0 68.0 65.0 60.0 59.0 57.0 70.2 0.0 70.2 11 73.5 90.0 55.9 84.0 83.0 80.0 77.0 71.0 67.0 61.0 60.0 58.0 73.5 0.0 73.5 12 69.3 88.0 53.9 79.0 76.0 73.0 71.0 68.0 66.0 61.0 60.0 57.0 69.3 0.0 69.3 13 70.5 96.4 56.9 78.0 75.0 72.0 71.0 68.0 66.0 61.0 60.0 58.0 70.5 0.0 70.5 14 73.0 99.0 53.7 87.0 80.0 74.0 72.0 69.0 65.0 59.0 58.0 56.0 73.0 0.0 73.0 15 68.8 87.8 55.0 77.0 75.0 72.0 71.0 69.0 66.0 59.0 58.0 56.0 68.8 0.0 68.8 16 71.2 94.0 55.3 82.0 77.0 73.0 72.0 68.0 66.0 60.0 59.0 57.0 71.2 0.0 71.2 17 72.3 101.3 55.2 81.0 77.0 74.0 72.0 69.0 67.0 61.0 60.0 57.0 72.3 0.0 72.3 18 70.6 94.5 55.2 80.0 77.0 74.0 72.0 69.0 66.0 60.0 59.0 57.0 70.6 0.0 70.6 19 68.3 93.8 55.1 75.0 73.0 71.0 70.0 67.0 64.0 59.0 58.0 56.0 68.3 5.0 73.3 20 67.1 85.8 54.6 77.0 74.0 71.0 69.0 66.0 63.0 58.0 57.0 56.0 67.1 5.0 72.1 21 65.0 90.7 53.8 72.0 70.0 68.0 67.0 64.0 61.0 57.0 56.0 54.0 65.0 5.0 70.0 22 68.4 96.1 52.4 77.0 74.0 70.0 68.0 64.0 60.0 54.0 54.0 53.0 68.4 10.0 78.4 23 63.8 93.5 51.1 70.0 68.0 66.0 64.0 60.0 56.0 52.0 52.0 51.0 63.8 10.0 73.8 Timeframe Hour L
eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 68.8 87.8 53.7 77.0 75.0 72.0 71.0 68.0 65.0 59.0 58.0 56.0 Max 73.5 101.3 57.5 87.0 83.0 80.0 77.0 71.0 67.0 61.0 60.0 58.0

71.1 80.5 77.3 73.9 72.2 68.8 65.9 60.3 59.3 57.1
Min 65.0 85.8 53.8 72.0 70.0 68.0 67.0 64.0 61.0 57.0 56.0 54.0 Max 68.3 93.8 55.1 77.0 74.0 71.0 70.0 67.0 64.0 59.0 58.0 56.0

67.0 74.7 72.3 70.0 68.7 65.7 62.7 58.0 57.0 55.3
Min 57.5 74.9 50.1 67.0 66.0 62.0 60.0 54.0 52.0 51.0 51.0 50.0 Max 69.1 96.1 55.7 79.0 77.0 73.0 72.0 67.0 64.0 58.0 57.0 56.0

64.9 72.1 69.8 66.4 64.8 59.7 56.7 53.6 53.1 52.4
Energy Average Average:

73.0Night
Energy Average Average:

Evening 24-Hour CNEL (dBA)

69.2 70.6 64.9
Night
L eq (dBA)
Day
Energy Average Average:
24-Hour Daytime Nighttime
Evening
L3 - Located on Victory Boulevard, south of the Project site, adjacent to an existing general commercial area.
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Tuesday, April 09, 2019
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Day

59.2 57.5

59.1 58.3

62.1 67.7

69.1 69.7

71.8 69.8

70.2 73.5

69.3 70.5

73.0 68.8

71.2 72.3

70.6 68.3

67.1 65.0

68.4 63.8

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 Hourly Leq(dBA)
Hour Beginning
U:\UcJobs\_12100-12500\_12300\12343\Fieldwork\12343_L3_Summary 61 ATTACHMENT 2
A2-283
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo I JN: 12343
Project: Burbank Water & Power Campus Analyst: R. Saber Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 47.9 62.5 44.2 52.0 51.0 49.0 49.0 48.0 47.0 45.0 45.0 44.0 47.9 10.0 57.9 1 49.5 65.3 44.3 56.0 55.0 52.0 51.0 49.0 48.0 46.0 46.0 45.0 49.5 10.0 59.5 2 47.7 55.2 42.8 51.0 51.0 50.0 49.0 48.0 47.0 45.0 44.0 44.0 47.7 10.0 57.7 3 50.5 69.1 45.9 53.0 52.0 52.0 51.0 50.0 49.0 48.0 47.0 47.0 50.5 10.0 60.5 4 53.1 61.3 48.0 56.0 55.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 53.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 53.1 10.0 63.1 5 54.1 66.5 49.5 61.0 60.0 58.0 57.0 53.0 52.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 54.1 10.0 64.1 6 53.3 69.7 46.8 61.0 60.0 57.0 56.0 53.0 51.0 48.0 48.0 47.0 53.3 10.0 63.3 7 55.1 79.7 44.9 65.0 62.0 58.0 56.0 52.0 50.0 47.0 46.0 45.0 55.1 0.0 55.1 8 55.3 77.8 42.7 65.0 63.0 61.0 59.0 53.0 49.0 45.0 44.0 43.0 55.3 0.0 55.3 9 53.1 72.7 42.3 63.0 61.0 58.0 56.0 51.0 48.0 44.0 44.0 43.0 53.1 0.0 53.1 10 54.7 74.4 45.3 66.0 64.0 60.0 58.0 51.0 49.0 47.0 46.0 45.0 54.7 0.0 54.7 11 55.3 79.9 44.1 65.0 62.0 58.0 56.0 51.0 49.0 46.0 46.0 45.0 55.3 0.0 55.3 12 51.6 68.5 42.2 62.0 60.0 56.0 55.0 50.0 47.0 44.0 43.0 43.0 51.6 0.0 51.6 13 53.7 67.7 43.7 63.0 62.0 59.0 58.0 53.0 50.0 46.0 45.0 44.0 53.7 0.0 53.7 14 54.1 73.2 43.5 63.0 62.0 59.0 57.0 53.0 50.0 46.0 45.0 44.0 54.1 0.0 54.1 15 52.9 68.5 41.2 63.0 62.0 59.0 57.0 51.0 48.0 44.0 43.0 42.0 52.9 0.0 52.9 16 56.8 75.3 45.9 66.0 64.0 62.0 60.0 55.0 52.0 48.0 48.0 47.0 56.8 0.0 56.8 17 54.3 73.9 43.1 64.0 63.0 60.0 58.0 52.0 48.0 45.0 44.0 44.0 54.3 0.0 54.3 18 51.9 73.9 43.6 62.0 60.0 56.0 54.0 49.0 47.0 45.0 45.0 44.0 51.9 0.0 51.9 19 52.1 68.4 47.0 61.0 59.0 56.0 55.0 51.0 50.0 48.0 48.0 47.0 52.1 5.0 57.1 20 52.5 65.0 46.1 60.0 58.0 55.0 54.0 52.0 51.0 49.0 49.0 47.0 52.5 5.0 57.5 21 52.2 73.1 46.7 59.0 56.0 54.0 53.0 51.0 50.0 49.0 48.0 48.0 52.2 5.0 57.2 22 54.3 73.7 46.1 66.0 63.0 57.0 55.0 51.0 50.0 49.0 48.0 47.0 54.3 10.0 64.3 23 47.9 60.2 44.3 53.0 51.0 50.0 49.0 48.0 47.0 45.0 45.0 44.0 47.9 10.0 57.9 Timeframe Hour L
eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 51.6 67.7 41.2 62.0 60.0 56.0 54.0 49.0 47.0 44.0 43.0 42.0 Max 56.8 79.9 45.9 66.0 64.0 62.0 60.0 55.0 52.0 48.0 48.0 47.0

54.3 63.9 62.1 58.8 57.0 51.8 48.9 45.6 44.9 44.1
Min 52.1 65.0 46.1 59.0 56.0 54.0 53.0 51.0 50.0 48.0 48.0 47.0 Max 52.5 73.1 47.0 61.0 59.0 56.0 55.0 52.0 51.0 49.0 49.0 48.0

52.3 60.0 57.7 55.0 54.0 51.3 50.3 48.7 48.3 47.3
Min 47.7 55.2 42.8 51.0 51.0 49.0 49.0 48.0 47.0 45.0 44.0 44.0 Max 54.3 73.7 49.5 66.0 63.0 58.0 57.0 53.0 53.0 50.0 50.0 50.0

51.7 56.6 55.3 53.3 52.3 50.3 49.3 47.3 47.0 46.3
Evening
L4 - Located on Palm Avenue, southwest of the Project site, adjacent to an existing residential area.
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Tuesday, April 09, 2019
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Day
Night
L eq (dBA)
Day
Energy Average Average:
24-Hour Daytime Nighttime
Evening 24-Hour CNEL (dBA)

53.2 54.0 51.7
Energy Average Average:

58.8Night
Energy Average Average:

47.9 49.5

47.7 50.5

53.1 54.1

53.3 55.1

55.3 53.1

54.7 55.3

51.6 53.7

Burbank City CouncilJune 13, 2023

Burbank City Council
June 13, 2023