Agenda packet — Burbank City Council, April 21, 2026

AMENDED

BURBANK CITY COUNCIL

JOINT MEETING WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2026
4:00 p.m. – Closed Session
5:00 p.m. – Study Session
6:00 p.m. – Open Session
Council Chamber
275 E. Olive Avenue, Second Floor
*Amended to add a Closed Session Item

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Joint City Council Meeting will be held in the Council Chamber – 275 East Olive Avenue, Second Floor, on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, at 4:00 p.m., to discuss matters on the attached agenda.

Members of the public have the option to participate in the meeting via in-person and/or telephonically for Closed Session, General Public Comment, Public Hearings, and Study Sessions. They may also submit their written comments regarding City business using the eComment feature on the City website.

Auxiliary aids and services are available for individuals with speech, vision, or hearing impairments (48- hour notice is required). For more information, please contact the ADA Coordinator at (818) 238-5051.

Interpretation Requests
:

If you would like to participate in Public Comments and require an interpreter, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (818) 238-5851 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.

Si desea participar en los comentarios públicos y necesita un intérprete, por favor llame a la Oficina de la Secretaria Municipal al (818) 238-5851 al menos 48 horas antes de la reunión.

How to View the Meeting
:

Local Cable: Spectrum Channel 6 or AT&T Uverse Channel 99.

YouTube Live Streaming Channel:

Click here
.

City Website Live Streaming:

Click here
.

Public Comment Options
:
1 .

To speak during Closed Session Public Comment, General Public Comment, Public Hearing Public Comment, and Study Session Public Comment periods during the meeting, members of the public may speak in-person in the Council Chamber or call (818) 238-3335
. Speaker time limits will
be determined by the Presiding Officer, depending on how many public comment cards are received and how many callers are in the queue at the commencement of each public comment period (as shown below).

Additional public comment cards and calls will not be accepted once the public comment period commences.
1 – 20 Total Speakers – 3 minutes each
21 – 39 Total Speakers – 2 minutes each
40+ Total Speakers – 1 minute each
2 .

The Reports to Council Public Comment periods are only accepted in person – public comment Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
April 21, 2026

1 A.

Public Comment
: (On Closed Session and Study Session items only) To Comment, please telephone into the meeting at (818) 238-3335, or to speak in person a YELLOW
Public Comment
Card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk prior to the comment period.

Closed Session in City Hall First Floor Conference Room :
cards must be submitted before the public comment period begins for each report to Council.

Speaker time limits will be determined by the Presiding Officer depending on how many public comment cards have been received at the commencement of each public comment period (as shown below).

Additional public comment cards will not be accepted once the public comment period commences.
1 – 20 Total Speakers – 3 minutes each
21 – 39 Total Speakers – 2 minutes each
40+ Total Speakers – 1 minute each
3 .

Written public comment may be submitted via eComment, available on the City website (
www.burbankca.gov/web/city-clerks-office/ecomment
) from the time the agenda is posted until
3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. eComments will be distributed to the City Council in advance of the meeting.
4 .

The Presiding Officer has the discretion to reduce speaking time for each speaker in order to ensure that City business can be completed at a reasonable hour.

Public Disclosure
:

Please be advised that any communication submitted to the City of Burbank, its officials, staff or City consultants, may be considered a public record under the Brown Act and California Public Records Act.

This means that any information contained in the communication, including personal information, may be subject to public disclosure. The City reserves the right to disclose such information in accordance with the law.

This agenda contains a summary of each item of business which the City Council and Housing Authority may discuss or act on at this meeting. The agenda packet consisting of the staff reports and all other documentation relating to each item on this agenda will be posted on the City's website at www.burbankca.gov
. Any writings or documents provided to the City Council regarding any item on this agenda subsequent to distribution of the agenda packet will be posted on the City's website at www.burbankca.gov
. If you have a question about any matter on the agenda, please call the Office of the City Clerk at (818) 238-5851. The Council Chamber is disabled accessible. Auxiliary aids and services are available for individuals with speech, vision, or hearing impairments (48-hour notice is required).

Please contact the ADA Coordinator at (818) 238-5051 with questions or concerns.

1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
a
.

Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.9(d)(1)
b
.

Name of Case: Marissa O'Brien v. City of Burbank
c
.

Case No.: 25STCV16099
d
.

Brief description and nature of case: Labor and Employment Matter

2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
a
.

Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.9(d)(1)
b
.

Name of Case: Aleg Alman v. City of Burbank, et al.
c
.

Case No.: 24NNCV05106
d
.

Brief description and nature of case: Trip and fall

3. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation a. Initiation of litigation pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.9(d)(4) City as Potential Plaintiff b. Number of potential case(s): 1
Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
April 21, 2026

2 C.

Study Session: 5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. – Council Chamber
:

1. Update on the Proposed Burbank Housing Corporation Master Loan Agreement Phase II Related to Activity Center Programming; and Proposed Financing for 2321-2335 North Fairview Street Development (The Village at Fairview Street) – Community Development Department
(with Housing Authority)
D.

Call to Order: 6:00 p.m.

Moment of Reflection
:

Flag Salute
:

Roll Call
:

Announcements
:
(The Mayor will make announcements on various topics in addition to any listed) I.

Council Presentations/Recognitions
: (The Mayor will make presentations to various
groups/persons)

1. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring April 12-18, 2026, as "National Animal Control Officer Appreciation Week" in the City of Burbank – City Council

2. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring April 19-25, 2026, as “National Library Week” in the City of Burbank – City Council

3. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring April 29, 2026, as "Denim Day" in the City of Burbank – City Council

4. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring April 2026 as “Records and Information Management Month” in the City of Burbank – City Council

5. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring April 24, 2026, as “Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day” in the City of Burbank – City Council
J.

City Manager Report
:
(Updates on Notable Events, if any)
K.

Presentations
:

1. Presentation of an Update on the Status of the City’s Specific Plans – Community Development Department
L.

Reporting on Closed Session
:
(The City Attorney will report the Closed Session items and report out actions taken)
M.

Joint General Public Comment
:
(On any matter concerning City business and/or any agenda

Attachments
:

SR - BHC Loan Agreement
Att1 - BHC Neighborhood Map
Att2 - The Village at Fairview Project Site
PowerPoint Presentation

Attachments
:

PowerPoint Presentation

Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
April 21, 2026

3 items.) To Comment, please telephone into the meeting at (818) 238-3335 or to speak in person, a YELLOW
Public Comment Card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk prior to the comment period.)
N.

Council, City Manager, and/or City Attorney Comment
:
(Responses to General Public
Comment, if any, shall be brief and in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act) O.

Consent Calendar
: (Items on the Consent Calendar are generally routine matters and should be adopted by one motion without an oral report)

1. Council Minutes – City Clerk's Office

2. Housing Authority Minutes – City Clerk’s Office

3. Update on the Process of Considering the Installation of an Armenian Memorial, with a Designated Proposed Location of Johnny Carson Park – City Manager's Office P.

Public Hearing
:

Recommendation
:

Approve the City Council Minutes of the Joint Meeting of April 7, 2026, and the Dark Meeting of April 14, 2026.

MOTION: Approved 4-0 (Perez, absent)

Attachments
:

Council Minutes
Dark Meeting Minutes

Recommendation
:

Approve the Housing Authority Minutes of the Joint Meeting of April 7, 2026.

MOTION: Approved 4-0 (Perez, absent)

Attachments
:

Housing Authority Minutes

Recommendation
:

Note and file.

MOTION: Noted and Filed 4-0 (Perez, absent)

Attachments
:

SR - Update on Armenian Memorial
Att1 - First Step Report 10.17.23

Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
April 21, 2026

4 1.

Introduction of an Ordinance for a Zone Map Amendment to Establish a Zoning Designation of Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Adoption of a Resolution Amending the General Plan Land Use Map to Establish a Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential, for Portions of 17 Properties Located on the 600-700 Block of Roselli Street that are Proposed for Annexation into the City of Burbank, to Pre-Zone the 17 Properties Related to Same; Finding of CEQA Exemptions (14 CCR §§ 15319, 15601(b)(3).) – Community Development Department
Q.

Reports to Council
: (Items listed under this section will have an oral report provided)

Recommendation
:
1 .

Introduce AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK

AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH ZONING DESIGNATIONS OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE FOR PORTIONS OF 17 PROPERTIES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY (PROJECT NO. 25- 0004181; ZONE MAP AMENDMENT).
2 .

Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING

THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO ESTABLISH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PORTIONS OF 17 PROPERTIES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY (PROJECT NO. 25-0004181).

*** If Additional Documents/Correspondences are submitted for this item, they will be periodically posted to the City website for public viewing.*** Public Hearing Public Comment
: To comment, please telephone into the meeting at (818) 238-3335. To speak in person, a
SALMON
Public Comment Card must be completed and
presented to the City Clerk prior to the comment period.

Council Action
: Introduced and Adopted 5-0 (Resolution No. 26-29,692)

Attachments
:

SR - Roselli Street Annexation
Att1 - Proposed Ordinance
Att2 - Proposed Resolution
Att3 - Resolution No. 24-29,567
Att4 - LAFCO Application
Att5 - Surrounding Area Designations
Att6 - 02.23.26 Meeting Staff Report, Resolution, and Minutes Correspondences
PowerPoint Presentation

Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
April 21, 2026

5 1.

Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Sections 4-2-113 and 4-2-122 of the Burbank Municipal Code, Relating to Procedures for Enrollment Upon Prior Notice in Solid Waste Collection Services – Public Works Department

2. Update on View Obstructing Fences in the Designated Hillside Area – Community Development Department

3. Update on the Initial Assessment of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Standards and Forthcoming Recommendations – Community Development Department

Recommendation
:

Introduce AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 4-2-113 (SOLID WASTE GENERATOR REQUIREMENTS) AND 4-2-122 (HAULER LICENSE AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS)

RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR ENROLLMENT UPON PRIOR NOTICE IN SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES.

Public Comment
: To speak in person, a
YELLOW
Public Comment Card must be completed
and presented to the City Clerk prior to the comment period.

Council Action
: Introduced 5-0

Attachments
:

SR - Solid Waste Collection Ordinance
Att1 - Ordinance
PowerPoint Presentation

Recommendation
:

Maintain the current regulations related to view obstructing fences in the designated hillside area.

Public Comment
: To speak in person, a
YELLOW
Public Comment Card must be completed
and presented to the City Clerk prior to the comment period.

Council Action
: Provided direction to maintain the current regulations 5-0

Attachments
:

SR - View Obstructing Fences in Hillside Area
Att1 - Memo to Council
Att2 - Ordinance No. 2758
Att3 - Ordinance No. 3748
Att4 - BMC 10-1-603(H)
Att5 - Existing Fence Exception Process and Submittal Requirements Att6 - Existing HDP Process and Submittal Requirements
PowerPoint Presentation

Recommendation
:

Note and file.

Public Comment
: To speak in person, a
YELLOW
Public Comment Card must be completed
and presented to the City Clerk prior to the comment period.

Council Action
: Noted and Filed 5-0

Attachments
:

Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
April 21, 2026

6 R.

Council Comments
:
(Including reporting on Council committee assignments, attendance at conferences, regional meetings, and community events)
S.

Introduction of Additional Agenda Items
:
(Council Members may request future agenda items)
T.

Adjournment
: To Tuesday, May 5, 2026, for a Joint Meeting in the Council Chamber –
275 East
Olive Avenue, Second Floor.

SR - Wireless Telecommunication Facilities
Att1 - FCC Comments
PowerPoint Presentation

Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
April 21, 2026

7 1

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 21, 2026
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager/Housing Authority Executive Director FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director/Housing Authority Assistant Executive Director
BY: Maribel Leyland, Assistant Community Development Director SUBJECT: Update on the Proposed Burbank Housing Corpo ration Master Loan Agreement Phase II Related to Activity Center Programming; and Proposed Financing for 2321-2335 North Fairview Street Development (The Village at Fairview Street)

BACKGROUND
This Study Session will provide the City Council an overview of Burbank Housing Corporation’s (BHC) financial and operational analysis of its Activity Centers; present information related to future proposed amendments to the Master Loan Agreement Phase II (MLA II); and provide a comprehensive update on the Village at Fairview affordable housing development. This study session is for information purposes only. The actions requested by BHC will be presented at a later date for Council and Housing Authority Board consideration.

Related to Activity Center programming, the future actions include the proposed transition of Activity Center programming off-site and allowing those existing spaces to be utilized for other uses including affordable housing units . Furthermore, BHC proposes changes for the MLA II specific to the City’s and Housing Authority’s proposed financial participation in the Village at Fairview projec t that includes removing existing properties from BHC’s portfolio for that new development . In summary, the Study Session will present information to the Council and Housing Authority Board for proposed, future actions.

BHC Partnership
The City and BHC ’s long-standing (25- year) relationship has created more than 320 affordable units utilizing the City’s restricted housing funds. These funds include federal

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
Study Session
Item #1
8 2
funds of the former Redevelopment Agency. 1 BHC’s units have restricted rents for Extremely-Low, Very -Low, Low - and Moderate- Income households. The affordability restrictions are in place for a minimum of 55 years, and City staff work closely with BHC on an annual basis to ensure affordability requirements are met. In 2024, BHC reported financial challenges affecting long‑ term sustainability and committed to returning with a financial analysis and plan for stability and portfolio growth.

MLA Phase I Approved in January 2025
Study sessions were held at City Council meetings on August 13, 2024 and November 26, 2024 to discuss the partnership between the City and BHC and present a proposal from BHC for amendments to the MLA to help improve their long-term financial outlook.

Proposed amendments have been divided into phases to ensure proper review and implementation. Phase 1, approved January 14, 2025, made global accounting and oversight changes for BHC. Specifically, MLA Phase I modified the City’s loan to BHC reducing the amount owed by BHC to the Authority and amended and restated several documents to reflect the new loan terms, extended the affordability covenant for an additional 55 years, and made other Council/Housing Authority Board approved changes.

As the Housing Authority no longer receives ongoing restricted housing funds to assist BHC, these amendments gave BHC flexibility to apply for other funding sources, such as grants to help finance existing projects. MLA Phase I also put BHC in a more favorable position to investors for future development, which would require Authority/City action, and may involve state and federal tax credits or private funds such as BHC’s The Village at Fairview project.

DISCUSSION
The presentation will describe BHC’s need to transition activity centers off-site, and how the financial benefit from the proposed change will allow BHC to develop additional affordable housing. BHC will also present an overview of The Village at Fairview project including:
i. The release of the Fairview properties from the MLA and cross-collateralization of properties including no impact to the Golden State Focus Neighborhood in removing the Fairview properties from the portfolio.
ii. The Village at Fairview Tax Credit application. BHC will describe its first proposed application and its request for conditional commitment letters for City and Housing Authority proposed financing, including financing terms. iii. Introduction of their development partner, Homes & Hope Development, who has experience with tax credit projects.
1 Redevelopment Agencies were dissolved in the State of California as of February 1, 2012.

HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds and Low - and Moderate-Income Housing 9 3
The following summary is for informational purposes only. Consideration of the proposed actions by the City Council and Housing Authority Board is scheduled for next month.

T
ransition of Activity Centers Programming Off-Site
BHC has declining participation at its onsite Activity Centers. Several households who originally benefited have aged out of school -based programming or attend elsewhere.

The proposal amends several documents related to the operation of four activity centers:

1. Grismer Activity Center in the Peyton Grismer Neighborhood adjacent to the BHC Corporate office.

2. Verdugo Activity Center in the Verdugo Lake Neighborhood.

3. Catalina Activity Center in the Golden State Neighborhood.

4. The Elmwood Achievement Center in the Elmwood Neighborhood.

B
HC is proposing transitioning programming off -site for the Grismer, Verdugo and Catalina Activity Centers in June 2026. Programming for the Elmwood Achievement Center would transition in the fall of 2027 (Map - Attachment 1).2 BHC would realize financial benefit with transitioning the current onsite activity center programming to school site programming in partnership with Boys and Girls Club at 14 Burbank Unified School District Campuses. BHC has signed a five -year agreement with Boys and Girls Club, at discounted rates, for after- school programming which begins Fall 2026. BHC will work with families to provide financial assistance to offset fees by applying for grant funding and private donations.

C
onsideration of this proposed transition at a later date w ill add four new affordable housing units to BHC’s portfolio. BHC will present financial information that demonstrates the 10-year impact to BHC cash flow by transitioning Activity Center programming off-site and creating four new affordable housing units during the study session presentation.

The V
illage at Fairview
In February 2025, BHC received entitlements to construct an apartment-style multi-family residential building with 60 units (44 net new units) on the properties located at 2321, 2325, 2331, and 2335 N Fairview Street (Project) (Attachment 2). The project site includes four separate lots along Fairview Street that are not tied together. The total area of the four lots combined is 27,192 square feet or 0.6 acres . The Project utilize d state density bonus law to demolish 16 existing units and develop 60 new affordable dwelling units on the site. State density bonus law does not require parking; however, the Project includes 60 parking spaces.
2 There is no activity center in the Lake Alameda Neighborhood. 10 4
During the Development Review process, staff held a community meeting on January 30, 2025, to inform the public of the proposed Project and solicit feedback. In addition, a Replacement Housing plan and Relocation plan for the existing 16 units on site was completed. The Replacement Housing Plan was approved with the MLA amendments in January 2025, and a Relocation Plan will be presented with final financing approval of the City Council and Housing Authority Board.

P
roposed Financing
The Village at Fairview is estimated to cost $51 million. BHC has submitted a financing proposal requesting financial assistance from the City and Housing Authority to finance the development with Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset funds (LMIHAF), federal Home Investment Partnerships funds (HOME) and project -based vouchers. In addition, BHC will submit a 4% tax credit application in May 2026 – noted as Limited Partner/Capital Contribution in the following chart:

To s
ubmit their tax credit application, BHC has requested the City Council and Housing Authority Board consider authorizing the City Manager/Executive Director to execute conditional commitment letters for the City/Authority requested funds. If BHC is awarded funds through the tax credit application, staff will return to Council and the Housing Authority Board to execute complete loan documents and subordination agreements along with the Relocation Plan referenced above.

Permanent Sources
Source Amount
Conventional Permanent Loan $4,557,000
Housing Authority Low & Moderate
Income Housing Asset Fund** $5,772,883
City HOME Funds** $2,592,389
Existing BHC Debt Rollover $2,879,425
Regional Housing Trust Fund $475,000
Senator Portantino’s Office $2,000,000
Deferred Developer Fee $3,214,193
General Partner/Capital Contribution $100
Limited Partner/Capital Contribution $29,347,881
Total $50,838,871
11 5
**City/Authority Proposed Assistance
and Funding Sources
Total
Authority Loan to BHC (LMIHAF) $5,772,883
City Loans to BHC (HOME) $2,592,389
Total City/Authority Sources $8,365,272
P
roject Based Vouchers
The Burbank Housing Authority released a Request for Proposals in July 2024 accepting invitations for the utilization of project -based vouchers (PBVs). PBVs is a financing tool authorized by the federal department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to utilize a portion of its Housing Choice Voucher allocation ( Section 8 voucher allocation) for the financial benefit of a project-specific affordable housing project. BHC was the only respondent and requested 20 PBVs for The Village at Fairview project. Of the 20 vouchers requested, 15 will be utilized for formerly homeless households. To support those households, BHC will provide services via a local service provider. In addition to conditional commitment letters for LMIHAF and HOME funds as described, BHC is also requesting a conditional commitment letter for the PBV allocation.

P
roposed MLA Phase II
To support The Village at Fairview tax credit application, BHC is requesting the City and Housing Authority Board authorize the City Manager/Executive Director to execute conditional commitment letters. Upon a tax credit award, staff will return to the Cit y Council and Housing Authority Board to approve loan and subordination documents. The Fairview properties must be removed from all MLA-related agreements, and these actions constitute MLA Phase II . Once a tax credit award is received, additional City/Aut hority actions would be required, including:
• Amendment of the MLA and MLA Promissory Notes
• Termination of Affordable Housing Agreements relating to the Fairview parcels • Reconveyance and release of MLA deeds of trust and regulatory agreements • Execution of a new regulatory agreement reflecting revised affordable unit counts and 55-year affordability requirements
A
s previously mentioned, the MLA Phase I put BHC in a more favorable position for investors for future development. The Village at Fairview project is BHC’s next affordable housing opportunity for the community. The proposed actions for MLA Phase II summarized above, along with the proposed changes to transition the activity center programming off-site, will provide BHC with the financial ability to develop The Village at Fairview project. These proposed MLA Phase II changes will allow BHC to pursue funding for this new development without affecting BHC’s financial stability that was the goal of the MLA Phase I approved by the City Council and Housing Authority Board. 12 6

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This study session is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under State CEQA Guidelines § 15060(c)(2), in that no action is being taken, Council is only discussing future document modifications related to activity center programming and conditional commitment letters for financing will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The study session is further and independently exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under State CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), in that it can be seen with certainty there is no possibility the modification documents and conditional commitment letters will have a significant effect on the environment. The underlying Village at Fairview project is subject to environmental assessment under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it uses federal funds . CEQA and NEPA review is complete, and the Council/Housing Authority Board will adopt that compliance at final financing consideration at a later date.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City or Housing Authority with this study session, which is for informational purposes only. Information on the fiscal impact, if any, on transitioning Activity Center programming off-site, and the proposed conditional commitment letters to The Village at Fairview project will be a separate item for consideration of the City Council and Housing Authority Board.

CONCLUSION
This study session will p rovide the City Council and Housing Authority Board with a comprehensive overview of BHC’s operational and financial restructuring efforts, preview proposed Phase II amendments to the MLA, and the financing strategy for The Village at Fairview development. The summary of the proposed actions will help reinforce BHC’s long-term financial stability, enhance the City’s affordable housing portfolio, and support production of new units that address identified community housing needs. After the study session, the City Council and Housing Authority Board will consider modifying documents for the transition of Activity Center programming off-site and authorizing the execution of conditional commitment letters for H ousing Authority and City funds in the amount of $8,365,272, and the reservation of 20 PBV’s. That future item will present the draft legal documents and draft financing letters for the Council and Housing Authority Board’s approval approving these actions.

TTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – BHC Neighborhood Map
Attachment 2 – The Village at Fairview Project Site
13 ATTACHMENT 1 – 1
Burbank Housing Corporation Neighborhood Map

Activity Center Locations
14 ATTACHMENT 2 – 1

THE VILLAGE AT FAIRVIEW

PROJECT SITE

2321 – 2335 N Fairview Street
15 116
BHC Focus
Neighborhoods: 326 Units
• Elmwood: 65 Units
• Peyton-Grismer: 77 Units
• Lake/Alameda: 15 Units
• Golden State: 78 Units
• Verdugo/Lake: 72 Units
• Special Projects: 8 Units
 Veteran Bungalows: 11 Units
217
Maintain Fiscal
and Operational
Stability
Position BHC
for Growth
318
Challenges of BHC’s Activity Centers
After-School Program

1. Low Attendance

2. Change in Demographics

3. Other After-School Programs

4. High Cost Per Participant

5. Low Grant Funding Opportunities
419
The BHC Bridge Program – Fall 2026
• Transition the Activity Center after-school program to a Boys and Girls Club (BGC)-operated school-site program at 14 BUSD campuses
• Legacy Participants will be fully supported
• Negotiated rates: $60–$70 per month per child
• BHC will cover 100% of fees for participating families • Total Cost: $18,000
520
The BHC After-School Access Program
Spring 2027 & Beyond
• 5-Year Program Agreement with BGC
• Affordable Monthly Rates
• Expansion of Access Program to Entire Housing Portfolio • Participant Eligibility
• BHC’s Continued Commitment to our Families
621
Change of Use of Activity Centers
Close Center: June 2026
Future Use: Management Office – a 1-bedroom Very Low-Income Unit will become available at 1815 Grismer upon the management offices move.

Unit Available: September 2027
Grismer
Activity
Center
Close Center: June 2026
Future Use: 2-bedroom Moderate Income Unit (Single Family Home) Unit Available: January 2028
Verdugo
Activity
Center
Close Center: June 2026
Future Use: 2-bedroom Moderate Income Unit (Single Family Home) Unit Available: January 2028
Golden State
Activity
Center
Close Center: Fall 2027
Future Use: 2; 1-bedroom Moderate Income Units
Units Available: December 2028
Elmwood
Achievement
Center
722
Activity Center
Transition
• High cost and
low usage
• Adds 4 affordable
housing units
• Allows for
redevelopment
of a portion of
Fairview
properties
Maintain
Fiscal and
Operational
Stability
Fairview Development
• Portfolio Can Absorb
Revenue Loss for 16
Fairview Units
• Redevelopment of 16
units to generate 60
affordable units
• Portfolio increases to
363 affordable units
Position
BHC for
Growth
823
BHC Portfolio Stabilization
Portfolio 299 Units with
Activity Centers
• 10-Year Cumulative Cash
Flow
• -$1,850,415
Portfolio 299 Units without
Activity Centers
• 10-Year Cumulative Cash
Flow
• $403,343
924
BHC Portfolio Expansion Feasibility
Golden State
Neighborhood Fairview Properties Redevelop portion of site Remove 16 units to develop
60 new units
Financial
Viability Positive Impacts of MLA
Amendment
Revenue impact of removing
the 16 units
16 units represent 41% of
Golden State Focus
Neighborhood Revenue
Larger Revenue Generating
Units Being Removed
1025
Financial Viability as the
Foundation for Growth
•New Development: 60 Units
•Total Affordable Housing Portfolio: 363 Units
•Projected 10-Year Cumulative Cash Flow: $403,343
•Advancing City Housing Element (RHNA) Goals
1126
 7 existing buildings, with a total of 16 units
 2321 N Fairview St – One, 2-story, 6-unit
building on a 6,885 sq. ft. lot.
 2325-2327 N Fairview St – Two single story
houses on a 6,793 sq. ft. lot.
 2331-2333 N Fairview St – One single story house
& one duplex on a 6,787 sq ft lot.
 2335 N Fairview St – One single story house & 2
story, 5 unit building on a 6,796 sq. ft. lot.
1227
Burbank Housing Corporation
Sylvia Moreno – Executive Director, [email protected] Raha Arnold – Vice President of Operations, [email protected] Homes & Hope
Alexander Russell – Chief Executive Officer, [email protected] Y & M Architects
Manuel Salazar – Lead Architect, [email protected]

1328
1429
1530
 2,660 sq. ft. central courtyard
featuring a tot lot, gaming
tables, and sitting areas
 3,172 sq. ft. rear courtyard with
outdoor exercise equipment
 60 Subterranean Parking Spaces
 Onsite Managers Unit
1631
 60 parking spaces
 7 bicycle spaces
1732
Development Review
Planning and
environmental review
completed.
Public appeal period
concluded.

Tenant Relocation Plan
Relocation Plan prepared
and submitted to City for
approval.
Existing tenants have right
to return to comparable
units.
•Required concessions and waivers utilized
•Public appeal period concluded
1833
Home Again Los Angeles (HALA)
60 Families Served
 15 PBV to serve Homeless Families
 5 PBV to serve Very Low-Income Families
On-Site Services
Core Support
 Case Management
 Benefit Access
 Employment Support
 On-Site Staffing
 1 On-site Case Manager
 Community Workshops
 Homeless Resource Center Nearby
1934
20 35
Permanent Source Amount
Conventional Permanent Loan $4,099,000
Housing Authority Low & Moderate
Income Housing Asset Fund $5,772,883
City HOME Funds $2,592,389
Existing BHC Debt Rollover $2,879,425
Regional Housing Trust Fund $475,000
Senator Portantino’s Office $2,000,000
Deferred Fee Paid Over Time $3,082,336
General Partner/Capital Contribution $100
Limited Partner/Capital Contribution ( Low-Income Tax
Credits) $28,911,576
Total Source of Funds $49,812,709
2136
Activity Center Change of Use
• MLA II Modifications Reflecting Change of Use
Existing Fairview City Loan Rollover: $2,879,425
• Use: Permanent Financing
• Interest Rate: Greater than the AFR or 3%
• 55 Year Term
• Third Lien Position
New Fairview City and Housing Authority: $8,365,272
• Use: Construction and Permanent Financing
• 3.0% simple interest
• 55-year loan
• Second Lien Position
Burbank Housing Authority Project Based Vouchers
• 15 Homeless units and 5 Very Low-Income units. 2237
Ownership and Management
23 38
2439
Specific Plans Update
City Council Meeting

4.21.2026
1 COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
40 Why Are We Here?
- Housing Affordability, Availability,
Demand, and State-mandates
- City Council goal to facilitate 12,000
units by 2035
- State-mandate to facilitate 8,772 units
by 2029
241
Specific Plans Goals
- Reflect community vision
through objective standards
- Ensure contextual design
- Facilitate housing development
- Align housing with transit
opportunities
Airport/Golden State Area
342
Specific Plan Timelines
Winter 2026 Spring 2026 Summer 2026 Fall 2026
MDSP Release Draft EIR Respond to
Comments/prepare
Final EIR or Recirculate
Draft EIR
Release revised policy
document
Planning Commission
and City Council
Consideration
DTN TOD Complete draft
policy document
Release draft policy
document
Release Draft EIR Release Final
EIR
Planning
Commission and
City Council
GSSP Continue work on
draft policy
document
Complete draft policy
document
Release draft policy
document
Release Draft
EIR
Release Final
EIR
Planning
Commission and
City Council
Rancho Visioning Policy Formulation Outreach and
Preparation of Draft EIR
Release Draft
EIR and Policy
Document
Public Outreach
443
A Closer Look: Media District Specific Plan
- Draft Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) released
- Extensive public comments
related to utility infrastructure
- Additional analysis required
Media District Specific Plan Area
544
New “Alternative” has been developed
Focuses on concurrency between land use and
utility/infrastructure capacity
Critical for informing long term utility planning
Information will be used beyond the planning
period
NEW: Sustainable Infrastructure Alternative
645
MDSP EIR/CEQA Next Steps
7 Distribute Notice of Preparation
Prepare Draft EIR
File Notice of Completion & Notice of
Availability of Draft EIR
Public Review (45 days)
Prepare Final EIR, Responses to
Comments
Prepare Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
Based on
p
ublic

comments these
steps will be
repeated
Decision; file Notice of Determination
We
Are
Here
Public Scoping Period (30 days)
746
Benefits of Completing the Specific Plans
Facilitate and streamline compatible housing
Promote economic development
Additional flexibility in development standards
Greater transparency and certainty
Road map for future progress
847
City Planning Contact Information

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
Specific Plan Project Manager
Media District Amanda Landry [email protected]
Downtown TOD Leonard Bechet [email protected]
Golden State Daniel Villa [email protected]
Burbank Rancho
Neighborhood
Amanda Landry [email protected]
Greg Mirza Avakyan [email protected]
Fred Ramirez, Assistant Director
[email protected]
Scott Plambaeck, Planning Manager
[email protected]
948
1 CITY OF BURBANK

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

JOINT MEETING WITH THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY, HOUSING AUTHORITY,

PARKING AUTHORITY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND YOUTH

ENDOWMENT SERVICES FUND BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 2026
Call to Order:

A Closed Session Meeting of the City Council of the City of Burbank was held in the Council Chamber, 275 East Olive Avenue, on the above date. The meeting was called to order at 4:07 p.m. by Mayor Takahashi.

Present: Council Member(s) Anthony, Perez, Rizzotti, Vice Mayor Mullins, and Mayor Takahashi

Absent: None
Also Present: City Manager Hess, City Attorney McDougall, and City Clerk Clark Closed Session Public Comment:

There being no response to the Mayor's invitation for Public Comment on Closed Session matters, the City Council recessed at this time to the City Hall First Floor Conference Room to hold a Closed Session on the following:

1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
a. Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.9(d)(1)
b. Name of Case: Marine Bezhanyan v. City of Burbank
c. Case No.: 25STCP03832
d. Brief description and nature of case: Civil Rights

2. Conference with Real Property Negotiator
a. Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.8
b. Property: 6 West Burbank Blvd., Burbank, CA 91502; Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 2449-031-003
c. Parties Whom Agency or City is Negotiating with: Mark A. Alvarado (property owner) through his Broker, Greg Barsamian of CBRE
d. City Negotiator: Simone McFarland, Assistant Community Development Director – Business & Economic Development
e. Terms Under Negotiation: Potential Real Estate Purchase

3. Conference with Labor Negotiator
a. Pursuant to Govt. Code §54957.6
b. Name of the City Negotiator: Betsy McClinton, Management Services Director c. Name of Organizations Representing Employee: Burbank City Employees' Association
Consent Calendar
Item #1
49 2
Call to Order:

A Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Successor Agency, Housing Authority, Parking Authority, Public Financing Authority, and Youth Endowment Services Fund Board of the City of Burbank was held in the Council Chamber, 275 East Olive Avenue, on the above date. The meeting was called to order at 6:07 p.m. by Mayor Takahashi.

Moment of Reflection:

Mayor Takahashi held a Moment of Reflection to begin the meeting with positive and collective support for our beloved community.

Flag Salute:

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Takahashi.

Roll Call:

Present: Council Member(s) Anthony, Perez, Rizzotti, Vice Mayor Mullins, and Mayor Takahashi

Absent: None
Also Present: City Manager Hess, City Attorney McDougall, and City Clerk Clark Mayor Takahashi indicated there would be six (6) periods of Public Comment at this evening's meeting and those who wish to participate in the General Public Comment and Public Hearing Public Comment periods may call in at (818) 238-3335. The Reports to Council Public Comment period will only be taken in person.

Announcements:

Mayor Takahashi displayed a PowerPoint presentation announcing the following: (1) eComment; (2) Ban on Gas Leaf Blowers; (3) Central Library and Public Plaza Community Workshops; and (4) Earth Day Artwork Presentation.

Council Presentations/Recognitions:

1. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring April 1–30, 2026, as "Arts, Culture and Creativity Month" in the City of Burbank
Mayor Takahashi presented a proclamation declaring April 1–30, 2026, as "Arts, Culture and Creativity Month" in the City of Burbank and introduced members of the Burbank Cultural Arts Commission.

2. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring April 1–30, 2026, as "Autism and Neurodiversity Celebration and Acceptance Month" in the City of Burbank Mayor Takahashi presented a proclamation declaring April 1–30, 2026, as “Autism and Neurodiversity Celebration and Acceptance Month" in the City of Burbank and introduced Trey Mihal and Lucas Thornbury from Burbank ACEing Autism, who made remarks.

3. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring April 12–18, 2026, as "National Public Safety Telecommunications Week" in the City of Burbank
Mayor Takahashi presented a proclamation declaring April 12–18, 2026, as "National Public Safety Telecommunications Week" in the City of Burbank and 50 3
introduced Communications Supervisor Brianna Berridge, Operators Brittany Lerian and Ashley Gastil, and Police Chief Rafael Quintero, who made remarks.

4. Presentation by the Burbank Tournament of Roses Association for Receiving the 137th Tournament of Roses Parade Theme Award
Mayor Takahashi presented a Certificate of Recognition to the Burbank Tournament of Roses Association for receiving the 137th Tournament of Roses Parade Theme Award and introduced Linda Cozakos, Association President, who made remarks.

5. Presentation of a Certificate of Recognition to Roosevelt Elementary School for the Roosevelt Bike Bus Program
Mayor Takahashi presented a Certificate of Recognition to Roosevelt Elementary School for the Roosevelt Bike Bus Program and introduced Roosevelt’s Planeteers Member Valen Rosenman, who made remarks.

City Manager Report:

City Manager Hess indicated there were no items to report.

Reporting on Closed Session:

City Attorney McDougall reported that the City Council met in Closed Session regarding the agendized Closed Session items and City Council took no reportable action.

City Attorney McDougall reported the Council met in a special meeting on March 13, 2026, to discuss existing litigation case,
Nicholas Gutierrez v. City of Burbank, and took
no reportable action. The City has subsequently entered into a settlement agreement, the terms of which were summarized in a press release available on the City's website.

Joint General Public Comment:

Appearing to comment were: Ron Bax, Cynthia Pease, Jeff Ferguson, Phil Booth, Debbie Kaye, Mark Scroggs, Michael Stanley, Eric Hawk, Diana Pulver, Shelby Grimm, Michael Graves, Jim Festante, Daniel Cronin, Dan K., Janet Diehl, Forrest Childers, Juliane Crump, Alfonso Directo Jr., Jo Pimienta, Elizabeth Bax, Nathan Adair, Kreigh Hampel, and David Donahue.

Calling in to comment were: Jonathan Wilder and Corey Mensing.

Council, City Manager, and/or City Attorney Comment:

Council Members and Staff responded to Public Comment.

Consent Calendar:

It was moved by Vice Mayor Mullins, seconded by Council Member Perez, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried 5-0 with the following roll call vote: AYES:

Anthony, Perez, Rizzotti, Mullins, and Takahashi. NOES: None.

1. Council Minutes
Approve the City Council Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 24, 2026; the Special Meeting of March 30, 2026; and the Dark Meeting of March 31, 2026. 51 4

2. Successor Agency Minutes
Approve the Successor Agency Minutes of the Joint Meeting of January 13, 2026.

3. Housing Authority Minutes
Approve the Housing Authority Minutes of the Joint Meeting of January 13, 2026.

4. Parking Authority Minutes
Approve the Parking Authority Minutes of the Joint Meeting of March 10, 2026.

5. Public Financing Authority Minutes
Approve the Public Financing Authority Minutes of the Joint Meeting of September 9, 2025.

6. Youth Endowment Services Fund Board Minutes
Approve the Youth Endowment Services Fund Board Minutes of the Joint Meeting of January 13, 2026.

Public Hearing:

1. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Burbank Public Housing Agency Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 and Proposed Administrative Plan Updates (with Housing Authority)
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:56 p.m. There were no Conflict of-Interest disclosures. City Clerk Clark affirmed receipt of Proof of Publication; confirmed there was a complete file of exhibits and correspondence including emails and other documents, and that no written correspondence was received.

Odet Ayvazyan, Housing Development Manager, presented the PowerPoint Presentation and responded to City Council inquiries. Maribel Leyland, Assistant Community Development Director – Business and Economic Development, also responded to Council inquiries.

Council Member Perez left the dais at 7:59 p.m.

Public Comment:

Appearing to comment was: None.

Calling in to comment was: None.

The Public Hearing was closed at 8:32 p.m.

Council Action:

It was moved by Council Member Anthony, seconded by Vice Mayor Mullins, to:

RESOLUTION NO. H-26-276
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING: 1) THE PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY ANNUAL PLAN 52 5
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027; 2) UPDATES TO THE SECTION 8
ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN; AND 3) AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

TO EXECUTE THE CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

The motion carried 4-0 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Anthony, Rizzotti, Mullins, and Takahashi. NOES: None. ABSENT: Perez.

Reports to Council:

1. Introduction of an Ordinance Amending and Restating Title 2, Chapter 1, Article 4 (Boards, Commissions, and Committees) of the Burbank Municipal Code Kimberley Clark, City Clerk, presented the report and responded to City Council inquiries. Joseph McDougall, City Attorney, also responded to Council inquiries.

Council Member Perez returned to the dais at 8:39 p.m.

Public Comment:

Appearing to comment was: None.

Council Action:

It was moved by Council Member Anthony, seconded by Council Member Rizzotti, as amended, to:

Introduce AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING AND RESTATING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 4 (BOARDS,

COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES) OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE

RELATING TO COMPOSITION AND FUNCTIONS OF BOARDS,
COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.

The motion failed 2-3 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Anthony and Rizzotti. NOES: Perez, Mullins, and Takahashi.

2. Review of City Treasurer’s Investment Portfolio Report for December 31, 2025 (with All Agencies)
Krystle Palmer, City Treasurer, presented the PowerPoint Presentation and responded to City Council inquiries.

Public Comment:

Appearing to comment was: None.

Council Action:

It was unanimously approved by Council consensus to note and file.

3. Discussion and Update on Measure A Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency Funding
53 6
City Attorney McDougall announced that Council Member Anthony requested a copy of Measure A and copies are available to the public.

Kasey Lee, Housing Development Manager, presented the PowerPoint Presentation and responded to City Council inquiries. Maribel Leyland, Assistant Community Development Director – Business and Economic Development; Justin Hess, City Manager; and Joseph McDougall, City Attorney, also responded to Council inquiries.

Public Comment:

Appearing to comment was: None.

Council Members voted by consensus to continue with City business past 11:00 p.m.

Council Action:

It was unanimously approved by Council consensus to provide direction to staff on possible Measure A projects and programs.

4. Update on Homelessness Programs and the Homeless Solutions Center; Approval to Withdraw the Request for Grant Funding from the Burbank- Glendale-Pasadena Regional Housing Trust Joint Power Authority; and Discussion of Potential Options for Property Previously Slated for Homeless Solutions Center
Simone McFarland, Assistant Community Development Director – Business and Economic Development, and Kasey Lee, Housing Development Manager, presented the PowerPoint Presentation and responded to City Council inquiries.

Maribel Leyland, Assistant Community Development Director – Business and
Economic Development; Robert Newman, Administrative Analyst II - Community Development Department; Justin Hess, City Manager; and Joseph McDougall, City Attorney; also responded to Council inquiries.

Public Comment:

Appearing to comment were: MJ Kinney and Ron Bax.

Council Action:

It was moved by Council Member Anthony, seconded by Council Member Perez, to:

1. Direct the City Manager, or his designee to withdraw the grant funding request made to the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Regional Housing Trust in the amount of $3,450,000.

2. Direct staff to research alternate options for the City-owned site located at 211, 323, and 333 S. Front Street, 10 E. Verdugo Avenue, and a portion of 54 7
the adjacent Downtown Metrolink Parking Lot in Burbank, previously proposed for the Homeless Solutions Center.

The motion carried 5-0 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Anthony, Perez, Rizzotti, Mullins, and Takahashi. NOES: None.

Council Comments:

Council Members reported out on Council committee assignments and attendance at conferences, regional meetings, and community events.

Introduction of Additional Agenda Items:

Mayor Takahashi requested a status update on her previous request for an informational memo on the community/special events process, including requirements for hosting events and applicable insurance requirements.

Adjournment:

There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m. to Tuesday, April 21, 2026 for a Joint Meeting in the Council Chamber – 275 East Olive Avenue, Second Floor.
__________________________
Kimberley Clark
City Clerk
__________________________
Tamala Takahashi
Mayor
APPROVED DATE:
55 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

DARK MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2026

A Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Burbank was not held on the above date.

_________________________________
Kimberley Clark
City Clerk

__________________________________
Tamala Takahashi
Mayor

APPROVED DATE:
56 1

HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES

A JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 2026
Call to Order:

A Joint Meeting of the Housing Authority and the City Council of the City of Burbank was held in the Council Chamber, 275 East Olive Avenue, on the above date. The meeting was called to order at 6:07 p.m. by Chair Takahashi.

Moment of Reflection:

Chair Takahashi held a Moment of Reflection to begin the meeting with positive and collective support for our beloved community.

Flag Salute:

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Takahashi.

Roll Call:

Present: Commissioner(s) Anthony, Perez, Rizzotti, Vice Chair Mullins, and Chair Takahashi

Absent: None
Also Present: Executive Director Hess, City Attorney McDougall, and Clerk Clark Closed Session, Announcements, Council Presentations/Recognitions, City Manager Report, Reporting on Closed Session, Council Comments, and Introduction of Additional Agenda Items were City Council items only and can be found in the City Council Meeting Minutes.

Joint General Public Comment:

Calling in to comment were: Jonathan Wilder and Corey Mensing.

Council, City Manager, and/or City Attorney Comment:

Commissioners and Staff responded to Public Comment.

Consent Calendar:

It was moved by Vice Chair Mullins, seconded by Commissioner Perez, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried 5-0 with the following roll call vote: AYES:

Anthony, Perez, Rizzotti, Mullins, and Takahashi. NOES: None.

Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1–2 and 4–6 were City Council items only and can be found in the City Council minutes.

Consent Calendar
Item #2
57 2

3. Housing Authority Minutes
Approve the Housing Authority Minutes of the Joint Meeting of January 13, 2026.

Public Hearing:

1. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Burbank Public Housing Agency Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 and Proposed Administrative Plan Updates The Public Hearing was opened at 7:56 p.m. There were no Conflict of-Interest disclosures. Clerk Clark affirmed receipt of Proof of Publication; confirmed there was a complete file of exhibits and correspondence including emails and other documents, and that no written correspondence was received.

Odet Ayvazyan, Housing Development Manager, presented the PowerPoint Presentation and responded to Housing Authority inquiries. Maribel Leyland, Assistant Community Development Director - Business and Economic Development, also responded to Authority inquiries.

Commissioner Perez left the dais at 7:59 p.m.

Public Comment:

Appearing to comment was: None.

Calling in to comment was: None.

The Public Hearing was closed at 8:32 p.m.

Council Action:

It was moved by Commissioner Anthony, seconded by Vice Chair Mullins, to:

RESOLUTION NO. H-26-276
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING: 1) THE PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY ANNUAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027; 2) UPDATES TO THE SECTION 8
ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN; AND 3) AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

TO EXECUTE THE CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

The motion carried 4-0 with the following roll call vote: AYES: Anthony, Rizzotti, Mullins, and Takahashi. NOES: None. ABSENT: Perez.

Commissioner Perez returned to the dais at 8:39 p.m.

Reports to Council:

Reports to Council Item Nos. 1 and 3–4 were City Council items only and can be found in the City Council minutes.
58 3
Commissioners voted by consensus to continue with City business past 11:00 p.m.

Public Comment:

Appearing to comment was: None.

Council Action:

It was unanimously approved by Authority consensus to note and file.

Adjournment:

There being no further business to come before the Housing Authority, the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m. to Tuesday, April 21, 2026 for a Joint Meeting in the Council Chamber – 275 East Olive Avenue, Second Floor.
__________________________
Kimberley Clark
Clerk
__________________________
Tamala Takahashi
Chair
APPROVED DATE:
59 STAFF REPORT
CITY MANAGER’S
OFFICE
DATE: April 21, 2026
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Courtney Padgett, Assistant City Manager
By: Cathryn LaBrado, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Update on the Process of Considering the Installation of an Armenian Memorial, with a Designated Proposed Location of Johnny Carson Park

RECOMMENDATION
Note and file.

BACKGROUND
At the September 27, 2022, City Council meeting, then Council Member Sharon Springer requested a first step staff report on the installation of an Armenian Genocide Memorial in the City of Burbank. At the October 17, 2023, City Council meeting , the report was presented and Council directed staff to return with a second step staff report on a potential Armenian Genocide Memorial in the City of Burbank, with a broader and more comprehensive project outline.

DISCUSSION
Staff has worked collaboratively with the Chair of the A rmenian National Committee of America (A NCA), since late 2023 to explore potential locations for the memorial .

Locations that were discussed as potential options include:
1 Consent Calendar
Item #3
1) Chandler Bike Path
2) City Hall
3) Corner of Third Street and Palm Avenue
4) Foy Park
5) Ovrom Park
6) Johnny Carson Park
7) Lincoln Park
60 The locations on the list were evaluated based on various factors, including design flexibility, impact on existing uses, visibility and access, opportunities for gathering and reflection, regulatory considerations, and maintenance and longevity. After car eful consideration, ANCA and staff agreed on Johnny Carson Park as an appropriate site for recommendation to City Council. Johnny Carson Park is a suitable location for the Armenian Memorial due to its accessibility, openness, and community -oriented setting.

The park is well utilized and provides ample space for a thoughtful design that will integrate appropriate land use and maintenance, as well a respectful commemorative space for the memorial.

While ANCA’s preferred location is City Hall, it was determined that City Hall is not an ideal location for the memorial due to the site’s designation as a historic resource and the need to preserve the integrity of its architecture and civic design. A new installation at City Hall would require extensive review to ensure compatibility with the building’s historic character, materials, and setting. Additionally, the review process can be complex and lengthy, while a park location was found to provide more f lexibility and timeliness in honoring the intent of the memorial. Placing the memorial in a City park location provides greater flexibility and ensures a prominent setting that will honor the intent of the memorial more efficiently.

As a next step in the process, staff recommends that the proposal be routed through the Parks and Recreation Department, including the Parks and Recreation Board, for determination of a specific location at the park and preliminary review. Once completed, staff will return to City Council for consideration and final approval with the following details:
• Proposed memorial location within Johnny Carson Park; • Conceptual design and artistic features;
• Dimensions, materials, and inscriptions of memorial;
• Any related hardscape, seating, lighting, or landscaping; • Long-term maintenance, repair, and stewardship responsibilities; • Funding details; and
• Any required agreements, licenses, or approvals for placement on City property.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
2 8) Palm Paseo/AMC Walkway
9) Whitnall Highway Park North
This activity involves reports and direction on continued discussions on a potential location for a monument , and has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the 61 environment, and as such, is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

CONCLUSION
City staff has collaborated closely with ANCA to evaluate multiple potential locations and identify an option that balances the City’s needs with ANCA’s preferences. With Johnny Carson Park as the proposed site, staff will continue working with ANCA to refine project details. Following review by the Parks and Recreation Board, the item will return to Council for final approval.

ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 – First Step Report 10.17.23
3 62

ATTACHMENT 1

STAFF REPORT
CITY MANAGER’S
OFFICE
DATE: October 17, 2023
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Judie Wilke, Assistant City Manager
By: Viviana Garzon, MPA, Senior Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Consideration of the Installation of an Armenian Genocide Memorial in the City of Burbank

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council could:
1) Note and file the report, or
2) Direct staff to return with a second step staff report on a potential Armenian Genocide Memorial in the City of Burbank , with a broader and more comprehensive project outline.

BACKGROUND
At the September 27, 2022, City Council meeting, then Council Member Springer requested a first step staff report on the installation of the Armenian Genocide Memorial in the City of Burbank. While Council Member Springer is no longer serving on the Council, staff is presenting this request as it was originally proposed by the Burbank Chapter of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) and remains a project of ongoing interest for the organization.

DISCUSSION
To further explore this request, staff engaged in discussions with Sarkis Simonian, the Chair of the ANCA. Mr. Simonian emphasized that the objective behind this request is to install a memorial in front of Burbank City Hall, which serves as the annual gathering place for the Armenian community to commemorate Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day on April 24
th. He expressed ANCA’s intention for the memorial to be complement the 1 63

historical City Hall building and made a firm commitment that ANCA would bear the majority of the expensed associated with the memorial.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and as such, is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this first step report.

CONCLUSION
As part of the one- step, two-step process, Council Member S pringer initially requested the opportunity for Council to consider the installation of an Armenian Genocide Memorial.

Should the Council be interested in further exploring this request, staff should be directed to return with a second step report. This report should encompass comprehensive information, including details on the suggested location, estimated cost, materials to be used, artistic features, dimensions, arrangements for perpetual maintenance, as well as the financial commitment from the ANCA.
2 64
1 STAFF REPORT
DAT
E: April 21, 2026
T
O: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director
VIA: Fred Ramirez, Assistant Community Development Director Scott Plambaeck, Planning Manager
Daniel Villa, Principal Planner
BY: Karen C. Hernandez, Associate Planner
S
UBJECT: Introduction of an Ordinance for a Zone Map Amendment to E stablish a Zoning Designation of Single- Family Residential (R- 1) and Adoption of a Resolution Amending the General Plan Land Use Map to Establish a Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential, for Portions of 17 Properties Located on the 600- 700 Block of Roselli Street that are P roposed for Annexation into the City of Burbank, to Pre-Zone the 17 Properties Related to Same; Finding of CEQA Exemptions (14 CCR §§ 15319, 15601(b)(3).) RE

COMMENDATION

1. Introduce A N ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK

AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH ZONING DESIGNATIONS OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R -1) ZONE FOR PORTIONS OF 17

PROPERTIES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY (PROJECT NO. 25-0004181; ZONE MAP AMENDMENT) (Attachment 1).

2. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK

AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO ESTABLISH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PORTIONS OF 17

PROPERTIES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY (PROJECT NO. 25-0004181) (Attachment 2).

EXEC

UTIVE SUMMARY
The City is correcting a jurisdictional boundary issue affecting 17 residential properties on Roselli Street that currently receive City of Burbank services, but are partially within City

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
Public Hearing
Item #1
65 2

of Glendale. This misalignment , in addition to a recent precinct boundary change, has resulted in incorrect voter ballots and property tax allocation to Glendale instead of Burbank. Staff recommends approval of a General Plan Map Amendment (GPA) and Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) to pre-zone the affected portions, in advance of the LAFCO reorganization application. These actions are required to complete the annexation process and ensure residents are fully incorporated into the City of Burbank.

BACKGROUND
Roselli Block Characteristics and Issues Raised
On the even side of the 600 and 700 block of Roselli Street there are 17 properties that are bisected by the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Burbank and the City of Glendale (Subject Properties). This leaves the rear approximately 50 feet of each of the Subject Properties in the City of Glendale, while the majority of each lot of the Subject Properties is within the City of Burbank. The Subject Properties front Roselli Street in the City of Burbank and therefore have City of Burbank addresses. In addition, these properties receive municipal services from the City of Burbank, including water, electricity, sewer, and solid waste collection services.

Figure No. 1: Subject Properties

66 3

Until recently, the boundary bisection had no known impact on the residents. However, during the November 2022 election, the Burbank City Clerk’s Office became aware that residents living on the Subject Properties did not receive vote-by-mail ballots that included Burbank election contests for City Council, City Clerk, City Treasurer, and the Burbank Unified School Board. The City Clerk’s Office determined that this issue resulted from a precinct boundary change implemented during the 2021 redistricting process that was affected by the existing jurisdictional boundaries. As a result, property taxes for the Subject Properties were credited to the City of Glendale rather than the City of Burbank.

Since voter ballot assignments are based on the jurisdiction in which property taxes are paid, residents of the Subject Properties currently receive City of Glendale ballots instead of City of Burbank ballots.

To correct this situation, the jurisdictional boundaries must be adjusted so that the Subject Properties are completely within the City of Burbank. This would require the annexation, into Burbank, of portions of the Subject Properties currently within the City of Glendale.

In addition, this will require the City of Glendale to concurrently detach the properties from its jurisdictional boundaries. The proposed annexation and concurrent detachment will also amend the City Limit Boundaries for both Burbank and Glendale and must be approved by the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) 1 The City of Burbank initiated coordination with the City of Glendale, including communication with their City Clerk and City Manager, to apprise them of the boundary issue and its impact on residents’ voting rights. Glendale’s City Manager confirmed Glendale’s cooperation in correcting the boundary lines, enabling Burbank to move forward with the annexation process for the noted portions of the Subject Properties.

Burbank City Council Request to Initiate Annexation Proceedings On October 29, 2024, the Burbank City Council adopted Resolution No. 24- 29,567 (Attachment 3) requesting that the LAFCO initiate proceedings for the annexation to the City of Burbank and concurrent detachment from the City of Glendale of portions of the Subject Properties (collectively, the “Reorganization”), and directing Staff to process any and all documents as necessary to effectuate the Reorganization.

Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Annexation Process and Application To initiate proceedings for the Reorganization, the City of Burbank needs to submit a completed application to the LAFCO for review and consideration (LAFCO Application).

The LAFCO Application identifies several submittal requirements that must be included (Attachment 4). One requirement is the submittal of a “Pre-Zoning Ordinance,” which is a

1 The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is an independent public agency with countywide jurisdiction over the boundaries of cities and certain special districts within their respective counties. All requests for jurisdictional reorganization, inc luding annexations, are coordinated by each county’s LAFCO.

67 4

Zoning Ordinance that would preemptively establish Zoning Designations for the portions of the Subject Properties proposed for annexation (Zoning Ordinance). To be able to submit to the LAFCO the required Zoning Ordinance along with the LAFCO Application, the City needs to preemptively establish a Zoning Designation for the properties proposed for annexation into the City. In addition, the City also needs to preemptively establish a General Plan Land Use Designation for these same properties. The designations would only take effect upon the LAFCO’s approval of the Reorganization. This would ensure that the portions of the Subject Properties proposed for annexation have established General Plan and Zoning Designations.

To complete and submit the LAFCO Application, the City needs to undertake a GPA and ZMA. Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) Sections 10-1-101 and following, governs the GPA.

BMC Sections 10-1-1961 and following, governs the ZMA. From the date an application is submitted, this process typically takes approximately two to three years to complete.

City of Glendale’s Role in the Process
The LAFCO Application will be submitted by the City of Burbank. The City of Glendale will not be a party to the application. However, as part of the LAFCO process, the LAFCO will provide public notice to all impacted stakeholders and agencies, including the City of Glendale. The City of Glendale will have an opportunity to provide public comments and reaffirm if they are in favor of the proposed Reorganization. The LAFCO will consider any comments from the City of Glendale in their decision on the proposed Reorganization.

Existing Neighborhood Context
The GPA and ZMA must meet findings that the proposed GPA amendme nts are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The portion of the Subject Properties located within the City of Burbank have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential, a Zoning Designation of Single Family Residential (R -1), and are currently developed with single family homes and have been such for decades. The surrounding neighborhood also consists of General Plan Land Use Designations of Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential; and Zoning Designations of Single-Family Residential (R-1) and High Density Residential (R- 4). The surrounding neighborhood is generally improved with a mix of single family and multifamily homes, and therefore the amendments will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood (Attachment 5).

DISCUSSION

Proposed General Plan Map Amendment (GPA) and Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) A GPA is required before the ZMA, because Zoning Map Amendments must be consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan. Accordingly, Staff proposes two amendments:

68 5

1) A General Plan Map Amendment to Burbank2035 would, by resolution, amend the General Plan Land Use Map in Exhibit LU -1. (Land Use Diagram ) to establish General Plan Land Use Designations of Low Density Residential for portions of the 17 properties that are proposed for annexation into the City.

2) A Zone Map Amendment which would, by ordinance2, amend the City of Burbank Zoning Map, as referenced in BMC § 10-1-302(A), to establish a Zoning Designation of Single Family Residential (R-1) for portions of 17 properties that are proposed for annexation into the City.

These designations would be consistent with (1) the existing designations of those portions of the Subject Properties currently within the City of Burbank; (2) the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs of the Burbank2035; and (3) would be consistent with the existing development pattern on site and in the surrounding neighborhood. The amendments would become effective upon the properties being annexed into the City.

Findings for Approval of a General Plan Map Amendment
Pursuant to BMC § 10-1-102 (Amendment of General Plan), the GPA requires Planning Commission consideration and City Council approval. The City Council can make amendments to the General Plan as often as it deems it necessary or advisable for the best interests of the City, and after making required findings (see generally Gov. Code §65300.5.) (Attachment 2, p. 3-6). It is staff’s assessment that the proposed GPA meets the findings and is compatible with the Burbank2035 General Plan, the Low-Density Residential designation for the whole parcel and with the surrounding neighborhood, and is progression towards fulfilling the City Council’s request through Resolution No. 24-29,567.

Findings for Approval of a Zone Map Amendment
Pursuant to BMC § 10-1-107 (Zone Map Amendments Consistent With General Plan) and 10-1-1961 (Zone Map Amendment) , and following, zone map amendments require Planning Commission consideration and City Council approval. The City Council can make amendments to the Zoning Map after making the required findings (Attachment 1, p. 3-4). It is staff’s assessment that the proposed ZMA meets the findings and is compatible with the Burbank2035 General Plan, the Zoning Designation for the whole parcel and with the surrounding neighborhood, and is progression towards fulfilling the City Council’s request through Resolution No. 24-29,567.

Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission considered the proposed GPA Resolution and ZMA Ordinance during their noticed meeting on February 23, 2026, following a presentation by staff. Staff received six phone calls prior to the public hearing inquiring about the purpose of the GPA

2 This would fulfill the Zoning Ordinance requirement referenced in the Background discussion above. 69 6

and ZMA, and impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Two public comments were received at the public hearing in support of the GPA and ZMA. During deliberation for the item, the Commissioners discussed the project background and clarification on the next steps (Attachment 6). After consideration and discussion, the Planning Commission voted 4-0, with one absence, to adopt a Resolution recommending that City Council approve the proposed GPA Resolution and ZMA Ordinance (Attachment 6).

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Staff provided public notice of the City Council’s public hearing to consider the GPA Resolution and ZMA Ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on March 28, 2026, in accordance with BMC § 10-1-1964. Additional notifications were distributed via the City Calendar and the Planning Division website.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed GPA Resolution and ZMA Ordinance are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15319, annexations of existing facilities and lots for exempt facilities, because it includes the annexation of property to the City of Burbank containing existing private structures developed to the density allowed by the pre- zoning designation, and there is sufficient utility capacity to serve the Subject Properties. In addition, the GPA Resolution and ZMA Ordinance are exempt from CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15061(b)(3), the commonsense exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the annexation and concurrent detachment may have a significant effect on the environment. These items simply apply the existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations to the Subject Properties that already exist but are allocated in part to the City of Glendale, without any c hange in use, and match them with the existing designations for the immediate neighborhood. Such findings are incorporated into the proposed resolution and ordinance for City Council’s consideration and potential approval/adoption.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of completing this annexation project is anticipated to total $50,000 ( legal fees, the LAFCO application fees, community outreach, etc.) with the funding coming from the City Clerk’s Office and City Attorney’s Office. These costs are anticipated to be recovered over time in the form of increased property tax revenue.

CONCLUSION
The proposed GPA Resolution and ZMA Ordinance will establish a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential and a Zoning Designation of Single- Family Residential (R-1) for portions of 17 properties located on the 600- 700 block of Roselli Street that are proposed for annexation into the City of Burbank. The amendments would ensure that the newly annexed land be zoned for single family purposes consistent with 70 7

the existing development pattern on site and in the surrounding neighborhood. The Subject Properties are currently improved with single family homes and will continue to enjoy the benefit of single-family home uses.

The proposed GPA Resolution and ZMA Ordinance is progression towards fulfilling the City Council’s request, through Resolution No. 24- 29,567, to process the necessary documents and initiate proceedings for the Reorganization to annex portions of the Subject Properties into the City of Burbank and concurrently detach those portions from the City of Glendale. If the City Council approves the GPA Resolution and ZMA Ordinance, Staff will be able to submit a complete LAFCO Application for review and consideration. Upon the LAFCO’s approval, the portions of the Subject Properties will be officially annexed into the City of Burbank, and residents of the Subject Properties will thereafter receive City of Burbank ballots.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Proposed Ordinance
Attachment 2 – Proposed Resolution
Attachment 3 – Resolution No. 24-29,567
Attachment 4 – LAFCO Application
Attachment 5 – Surrounding Area Designations
Attachment 6 – February 23, 2026 Meeting Staff Report, Resolution, and Minutes Correspondences
71 ATTACHMENT 1 – 1
ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BURBANK AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH

ZONING DESIGNATIONS OF SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R -1) ZONE FOR PORTIONS OF 17

PROPERTIES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION
INTO THE CITY (PROJECT NO. 25 -0004181; ZONE MAP

AMENDMENT)

City Attorney’s Synopsis

This Ordinance amends the Zone Map to establish Zoning Designations of Single Family Residential ( R-1) zone for portions of 17 properties that are proposed for annexation into the C ity, and concurrent detachment from the City of Glendale. The effectiveness of this Ordinance is contingent on successful annexation and approval of the General Plan Amendment that is being presented with this Ordinance.

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK FINDS:

A. On or about October 29, 2024, the City Council of the City of Burbank adopted Resolution Number 24- 29,567 titled “A Resolution of the Council of the City of Burbank: 1) Requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Los Angeles (LAFCO) to Initiate Proceedings for Reorganization to Include Annexation to The City Of Burbank and Concurrent Detachment of the Subject Properties from the City of Glendale, and 2) Directing Staff to Process Documents as Necessary to Effectuate Same.”

B. As background, during the November 2022 election, the Burbank City Clerk’s Office became aware that residents living on the even numbered side of the 600 and 700 blocks of Roselli Street (“Roselli Street Properties”) in Burbank did not receive mail-in ballots containing the Burbank election contests for City Council, City Clerk, City Treasurer, and School Board. The City Clerk’s Office further became aware that this occurred because the precinct boundary for these addresses was changed during the 2021 redistricting, with this boundary bisecting (dividing) the Roselli Street Properties.

C. There are 17 properties that are affected by the bisecting of the City of Burbank/City of Glendale jurisdictional lines. These properties are included as Exhibit A to this Ordinance and are referred to as the Subject Properties. Due to this, the property tax paid on the Subject Properties is credited to the City of Glendale, even though the residents live in the City of Burbank, have their frontage on Burbank streets, and receive Burbank services. The place where residents pay their property taxes determines which ballots they receive. Therefore, at the moment, the residents of the Subject Properties receive City of Glendale ballots, and not City of Burbank ballots.

72 ATTACHMENT 1 – 2
D. The boundary between the City of Burbank and the City of Glendale bisects the Subject Properties, leaving approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties in the City of Glendale, while the remainder of the parcels of the Subject Properties are located within the City of Burbank.

E. The City of Burbank is in the process of applying to LAFCO to correct the bisecting boundary so that the entirety of the Subject Properties fall within the City of Burbank’s jurisdiction and are detached from the City of Glendale.

F. It is important that the bisecting boundary between the cities of Burbank and Glendale be corrected to ensure equity for both City of Burbank and City of Glendale residents. To do so, the City of Burbank must apply to LAFCO for LAFCO to initiate proceedings to annex the back approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties into the City of Burbank, as well as detach the approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties from the City of Glendale.

G. As part of the application to LAFCO to correct the boundaries of the Subject Properties, Burbank is required to preemptively establish the proper Zoning Designation that would apply to the portions of the Subject Properties being annexed into the City.

Therefore, the City must amend the Zone Map to properly reflect that the portions of the Subject Properties being annexed into the City will be designated as Single- Family Residential.

As part of the application to the LAFCO, the City must submit a “Pre-Zoning Ordinance,” which is a Zoning Ordinance that would preemptively establish Zoning Designations for the properties proposed for annexation (“Zoning Ordinance”). To be able to provide LAFCO the required Zoning Ordinance as part of the submission of the LAFCO application, the City needs to preemptively establish a Zoning Designation for the properties proposed for annexation into the City. The designations would only take effect upon LAFCO’s approval of the Reorganization and ensures that the properties proposed for annexation into the City have established zoning regulations.

I. On February 23, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this Ordinance (Project No. 25-0004181) and at such hearing recommended that the City Council of the City of Burbank (“Council”) approve the amendments to the Zoning Map, and this Ordinance to establish the Zoning Designation of portions of the Subject Properties to Single-Family Residential (R-1).

J. On *__________, the Council at its regular meeting, held a public hearing on Project No. 25-0004181, to amend the Zoning Map to establish Zoning Designations of portions of the Subject Properties to Single-Family Residential (R-1).

K. Said hearing was properly noticed in accordance with the provisions of BMC Section 10-1-1969.

73 ATTACHMENT 1 – 3
L. The Council considered the report and recommendations of the City Planner, the action and recommendations of the Planning Commission as evidenced by its Resolution *_________, and the evidence and testimony presented at such hearing.

M. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65860, the proposed Zone Map Amendment and Ordinance have been determined to be consistent with the Land Use Element of the Burbank2035 General Plan and compatible with the specified objectives, policies, general land uses and programs , as well as Title 10, Chapter 1 (Zoning) of the BMC.

The Project has been evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and requires no further CEQA review. It is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to California State Regulations, 14 Cal. Code Regs Section 15319, annexations of existing facilities and lots for exempt facilities, because it includes the annexation of property to the City of Burbank containing existing private structures developed to the density allowed by the pre- zoning designation, and there is sufficient utility capaci ty to serve the Subject Properties. In addition, the Project has also been determined to be exempt from the CEQA pursuant to California State Regulations, 14 Cal. Code Regs Section 15061(b)(3), common sense exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the annexation and concurrent detachment may have a significant effect on the environment. The 17 Subject Properties are single family homes and have been such for decades. This Project is merely to correct an improper boundary bisection that occurred in the past. To correct the improper boundary bisection, the City of Burbank must apply to LAFCO for LAFCO to initiate proceedings to annex the back approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties into the City of Burbank, as well as detach the approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties from the City of Glendale. The adoption of the proposed Zone Map Amendment , and this Ordinance, is exempt from CEQA and no further analysis under CEQA is required.

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Project No. 25 -0004181, which includes a request to amend the Zoning Map, as referenced in BMC Section 10- 1-302(A), to establish Zoning D esignations for approximately 17 properties on the 600-700 block of Roselli Street (Project sites) to Single Family Residential (R-1) once the properties have been annexed into the City of Burbank, and detached from the City of Glendale (as shown on Exhibit A to this Ordinance), is hereby approved based upon the following findings:

FINDINGS FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT:

I. The proposed Zone Map Amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Burbank and the provisions of Title 10, Chapter 1 (Zoning) of the Burbank Municipal Code, and are compatible with the specified objectives, policies, general land uses and programs.

74 ATTACHMENT 1 – 4
Currently, the boundary between the City of Burbank and the City of Glendale bisects the Subject Properties, leaving approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties in the City of Glendale, while the remainder of the parcels of the Subject Properties are located within the City of Burbank. To correct the improper boundary bisection, the City of Burbank has applied to LAFCO to initiate proceedings to annex the back approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties into the City of Burbank, as well as detach the approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties from the City of Glendale. Once annexed into the City of Burbank, the portions being annexed will need to have an established zoning designation.

The Zone Map Amendment establishes a Zoning Designation of Single Family Residential (R-1) for portions the Subject Properties that are being annexed into the City of Burbank. This designation is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, density and programs of Burbank2035. The Zone Map Amendment would ensure that the newly annexed land be zoned for single family purposes consistent with (1) the existing development pattern on site and in the surrounding neighborhood, which is zoned R -1 and (2) the Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation that would be established for portions the Subject Properties once annexed into the City of Burbank. The proposed Zone Map Amendment will not cause any internal inconsistencies in the General Plan and would not change any policy direction or intent of the General Plan. The Subject Properties are currently improved with single family homes. With the Zone Map Amendment these Subject Properties will continue to enjoy the benefit of single-family home uses.

2. The City Planner is instructed and authorized to establish a Zoning Designation for the Project Sites subject to this approval (i.e., 17 properties on the 600- 700 block of Roselli Street ) to Single Family Residential (R -1). The City Planner is also instructed and authorized to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Burbank, as referenced in BMC Section 10-1-302(A), to incorporate the changes set forth in this Ordinance.

3. The City Manager, with the approval of the City Attorney, of the City of Burbank, is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute any and all documents to effectuate this Zoning Map Amendment related to the annexation of the Subject Properties, that is consistent with this Ordinance.

4. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, sections, or applications of the Ordinance, which can be given effect without the invalid provisi on or application, and to this end each phrase, section, sentence, or word is declared to be severable.

75 ATTACHMENT 1 – 5

5. This Ordinance shall become effective once the subject properties have been annexed into the City of Burbank , and no earlier than 12:01 a.m. on the thirty -first (31st) day after the date of adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of _, 2026.

_________________________
Tamala Takahashi
Mayor

Attest: Approved as to Form:

Office of the City Attorney

______________________________
_______________________
Kimberley Clark, City Clerk Joseph H. McDougall
City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

CITY OF BURBANK )

I, Kimberley Clark, City Clerk of the City of Burbank, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Burbank at its regular meeting held on the ______day of _________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

I further certify that said Synopsis was published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Burbank, California within 14 days following its _________, 2026 adoption.

___________________________
Kimberley Clark, City Clerk

76 ATTACHMENT 1 – 6

EXHIBIT A

77 ATTACHMENT 1 – 7

EXISTING ZONING MAP/DESIGNATIONS

78 ATTACHMENT 1 – 8

PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT/DESIGNATIONS

79 ATTACHMENT 2 – 1
RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BURBANK AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

MAP TO ESTABLISH LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PORTIONS OF 17

PROPERTIES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION
INTO THE CITY (PROJECT NO. 25-0004181)

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK FINDS:

A. On or about October 29, 2024 , the City Council of the City of Burbank adopted Resolution Number 24- 29,567 titled “A Resolution of the Council of the City of Burbank: 1) Requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Los Angeles (LAFCO) to Initiate Proceedings for Reorganization to Include Annexation to The City Of Burbank and Concurrent Detachment of the Subject Properties from the City of Glendale, and 2) Directing Staff to Process Documents as Necessary to Effectuate Same.”

C. There are 17 properties that are affected by the bisecting of the City of Burbank/City of Glendale jurisdictional lines. These properties are included as Exhibit A (Existing Conditions) to this Resolution and are referred to as the Subject Properties. Due to this, the property tax paid on the Subject Properties is credited to the City of Glendale, even though the residents live in the City of Burbank, have their frontage on Burbank streets, and receive Burbank services. The place where residents pay their property taxes determines which ballots they receive. Therefore, at the moment, the residents of the Subject Properties receive City of Glendale ballots, and not City of Burbank ballots.

D. The boundary between the City of Burbank and the City of Glendale bisects the Subject Properties, leaving approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties in the City of Glendale, while the remainder of the parcels of the Subject Properties are located within the City of Burbank.

80 ATTACHMENT 2 – 2
F. It is important that the bisecting boundary between the cities of Burbank and Glendale be corrected to ensure equity for both City of Burbank and City of Glendale residents. To do so, the City of Burbank must apply to LAFCO for LAFCO to initiate proceedings to annex the back approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties into the City of Burbank, as well as detach the approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties from the City of Glendale.

G. As part of the application to LAFCO to correct the boundaries of the Subject Properties, the City of Burbank is required to preemptively establish the proper General Plan Land Use and Zoning D esignation that would apply to the portions of the Subject Properties being annexed into the City. Therefore, the City must amend the General Plan Land Use Map to properly reflect that the portions of the Subject Properties being annexed into the City will be designated as Low Density Residential , which is required before the City may amend its zoning map.

H. On February 23, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution (Project No. 25-0004181) and at such hearing recommended that the City Council of the City of Burbank (“Council”) approve the amendments to the General Plan and the General Plan’s Land Use Map, and associated Resolution to establish the land use designation of portions of the Subject Properties to Low Density Residential.

I. On *__________, the Council at its regular meeting, held a public hearing on Project No. 25-0004181, to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to establish land use designations of portions of the Subject Properties to Low Density Residential.

J. Said hearing was properly noticed in accordance with the applicable law.

K. The Council considered the report and recommendations of the City Planner, the action and recommendations of the Planning Commission as evidenced by its Resolution *_________, and the evidence and testimony presented at such hearing.

L. As part of Staff’s review, it was established that this General Plan Amendment, and this Resolution, is not subject to California Government Code Section 65350.5, because it does not involve a substantial amendment of the City’s General Plan, but rather just applying a General Plan Land Use Designation to the remainder of a subset of residential properties on a street.

M. The Project has been evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and requires no further CEQA review. It is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15319, annexations of existing facilities and lots for exempt facilities, because it includes the annexation of property to the City of Burbank containing existing private structures developed to the density allowed by the pre- zoning designation, and there is sufficient utility capacity to serve the Subject Properties. In addition, the Project has also been determined to be exempt from the CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 81 ATTACHMENT 2 – 3
15061(b)(3), common sense exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the annexation and concurrent detachment may have a significant effect on the environment. The Subject Properties are single family homes and have been such for decades. This Project is merely to correct an improper boundary bisection that occurred in the pas t. To correct the improper boundary bisection, the City of Burbank must apply to LAFCO for LAFCO to initiate proceedings to annex the back approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties into the City of Burbank, as well as detach the approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties from the City of Glendale. The adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment , and this Resolution, is exempt from CEQA and no further analysis under CEQA is required.

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK RESOLVES:

1. The Project request to amend the General Plan and update the General Plan Land Use Map in Exhibit LU- 1 Land Use Diagram (as shown on Exhibit A to this Resolution) to establish designations for approximately 17 properties on the 600- 700 block of Roselli Street (Project sites) to Low Density Residential once the properties have been annexed into the City of Burbank, and detached from the City of Glendale, is hereby approved based upon the following findings:

I. The proposed General Plan Map Amendment is consistent with the Burbank2035 General Plan goals and policies and any of the plan goals that may be affected by the Project’s implementation. Specifically, the proposed General Plan Map Amendment is consistent with the following Burbank2035 General Plan goals and policies:

• Policy 1.3 of Goal 1: Maintain and protect Burbank’s residential neighborhoods by avoiding encroachment of incompatible land uses and public facilities.

• Policy 1.8 of Goal 1: Ensure that development in Burbank is consistent with the land use designations presented in the Land Use Plan and shown on the Land Use Diagram, including individual policies applicable to each land use designation.

• Policy 2.7 of Goal 2: Make and enforce land use policy in an equitable fashion to protect all people equally from adverse environmental effects.

• Policy 3.4 of Goal 3: Avoid abrupt changes in density, intensity, scale, and height and provide gradual transitions between different development types.

• Goal 7: Community Participation: Burbank encourages community engagement and provides a wide range of opportunities to participate in the planning process.

82 ATTACHMENT 2 – 4
• Policy 7.3 of Goal 7: Consistently seek direct public involvement in the planning process for new projects and plans, as well as for everyday planning matters.

Currently, the boundary between the City of Burbank and the City of Glendale bisects the Subject Properties, leaving approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties in the City of Glendale, while the remainder of the parcels of the Subject Properties are located within the City of Burbank. To correct the improper boundary bisection, the City of Burbank will apply to LAFCO to initiate proceedings to annex the back approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties into the City of Burbank, as well as detach the approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties from the City of Glendale. Once annexed into the City of Burbank, the City Limits Boundary will be amended and the portions being annexed will need to have an established General Plan Land Use Designation.

The General Plan Map Amendment establishes a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential for portions the Subject Properties proposed for annexation into the City of Burbank. It would not cause any internal inconsistencies in the General P lan, would not change any policy direction or intent of the General Plan, would contribute to the purposes of the General Plan, and would accurately reflect the same land use designation as the portions of the Subject Properties currently within City boundaries.

Further, the General Plan Map Amendment will ensure that the portions being annexed into the City of Burbank receive the same General Plan Land Use Designations as the remainder of the parcels as well as the surrounding parcels, thereby confirming consiste ncy and compatibility with existing land uses. It will ensure that the portions being annexed into the City of Burbank comply with the policies applicable to the Low Density Residential designation, such as limiting buildings to a size and scale that is consistent with the predominant neighborhood character. The General Plan Map Amendment will ensure that the portions being annexed into the City of Burbank follow consistent land use policies as the surrounding neighborhood in order to protect all people from adverse environmental effects. It will also ensure that there are no abrupt changes in density, intensity, scale, and height since the portions being annexed into the City of Burbank will have the same General Plan Land Use Designation as the portions of the lot that are already within the City of Burbank.

The General Plan Map Amendment has encouraged community participation along many milestones, including confirming that the impacted residents support the planning process to correct the improper boundary bisection and informing the occupants and owners of property within a radius of 1,000 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property to be rezoned about the planning process. This General Plan Map Amendment is an example of how a 83 ATTACHMENT 2 – 5
community can come together in order to raise awareness about an issue that is impacting a block within the City of Burbank, and bring about a change through a planning process.

II. The potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Map Amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare.

The amendment to establish General Plan Land Use Designations of Low Density Residential for portions the Subject Properties that are being annexed into the City of Burbank is not anticipated to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The boundary between the City of Burbank and the City of Glendale bisects the Subject Properties, leaving approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties in the City of Glendale, while the remainder of the parcels of the Subject Properties are located within the City of Burbank.

The portions of the Subject Properties that are located within the City of Burbank currently have a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential. Correcting the bisecting boundary so that the Subject Properties fall entirely within the City of Burbank’s jurisdiction would result in a consistent General Plan Land Use Designation for the whole parcel. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not result in a detrimental impact to public health, safety, or welfare.

III. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The proposed amendment is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15319, annexations of existing facilities and lots for exempt facilities, because it includes the annexation of property to the City of Burbank containing existing private structures developed to the density allowed by the pre-zoning designation, and there is sufficient utility capacity to serve the Subject Properties. In addition, the Project has also been determined to be exempt from the CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3), common sense exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the annexation and concurrent detachment may have a significant effect on the environment. The Subject Properties are single family homes and have been such for decades. The proposed amendment is merely to correct the improper boundary bisection and annex the back approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties into the City of Burbank, as well as detach the approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties from the City of Glendale. Therefore, the proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of CEQA and has been determined to be exempt from CEQA and no further analysis under CEQA is required.
84 ATTACHMENT 2 – 6

2. The approved General Plan Amendment and associated changes to the Land Use Map shall only come into effect once the subject properties have been annexed into the City of Burbank.

3. The City Manager, with the approval of the City Attorney, of the City of Burbank, is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute any and all documents to effectuate the General Plan Amendments related to the annexation of the Subject Properties , consistent with this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of _______, 2026.

____________________
Tamala Takahashi
Mayor

Attest:

Approved as to Form:

Office of the City Attorney

__________________________
__________________________
Kimberley Clark, City Clerk Joseph H. McDougall
City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

CITY OF BURBANK )

I, Kimberley Clark, City Clerk of the City of Burbank, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Burbank at its regular meeting held on the ______day of _________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

___________________________
Kimberley Clark, City Clerk

85 ATTACHMENT 2 – 7

EXHIBIT A

86 ATTACHMENT 2 – 8

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN MAP/DESIGNATION

87 ATTACHMENT 2 – 9

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/DESIGNATION

88 RESOLUTION NO. 24-29,567

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURBANK: 1) REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY

FORMATION COMMISSION FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS

ANGELES (LAFCO) TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR

REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION TO THE

CITY OF BURBANK AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT

OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES FROM THE CITY OF
GLENDALE, AND 2) DIRECTING STAFF TO PROCESS

DOCUMENTS AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE SAME
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK FINDS:

A. The City of Burbank desires to have the Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Los Angeles (LAFCO) initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for a change of organization that would annex territory into the City of Burbank.

8. The City of Burbank understands that the City of Glendale does not object to concurrently detach the territory from the City of Glendale.

C. This annexation and concurrent detachment are being proposed upon a Resolution of Application to Initiate Proceedings for annexation and concurrent detachment filed by the City of Burbank.

D. The territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited (6 or more registered voters).

E. The territory proposed to be detached is inhabited (6 or more registered voters).

F. The proposed annexation is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b )(3), common sense exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the annexation and concurrent detachment of the Subject Properties that currently have land within the City of Glendale that would be included as part of the City of Burbank post annexation approval may have a significant effect on the environment.

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK RESOLVES:

1. The recitals are accurate and are herein incorporated. 1 ATTACHMENT 3 - 1
89 24-29,567

2. The proposal is hereby made to LAFCO for a change of reorganization as follows:
a. This proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code.
b. The nature of the proposed change of reorganization is the annexation of the territory to the City of Burbank and the concurrent detachment from the City of Glendale.
c. The affected territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited. d. The boundaries of the proposed area are described in the geographic description and generally depicted on the corresponding map, Exhibit "A", for annexation and concurrent detachment, which is incorporated herein by reference. Although not depicted with measurement accuracy, the map depicted in Exhibit 8, which is incorporated herein by reference, shows generally the zoning of the Subject Properties. e. The affected territory is not within the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City. f. It is desired that the proposed annexation is made subject to the following terms and conditions:
i. The negotiated exchange of property tax revenue between affected agencies resulting from said annexation to the City.
ii. The annexed territory shall be subject to the payment of such service charges, assessments, or taxes as the City may legally impose. iii. Any taxes, fees, charges, or assessments for the City may be collected by the County of Los Angeles Tax Collector in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes or otherwise allowed by law.
g. The description of the proposal area is as follows: 17 properties located on the even side of the 600 and 700 blocks of Roselli Street (600, 606, 612, 616, 622, 626, 630, 632, 638, 700, 704, 710, 718, 722, 728, 730, and 740 Roselli Street), where the cities of Burbank and Glendale jurisdictional lines bisect. The properties shall be referred to as the Subject Properties. See Exhibits A and 8 attached to this Resolution. h. The reason for this proposal is as follows: The boundary between the City of Burbank and the City of Glendale bisects the Subject Properties, leaving approximately ten (10) feet of the Subject Properties in the City of Glendale, while the remainder of the area of the parcels of the Subject Properties are located within the City of Burbank. This application is to correct the bisecting boundary so that all square footage/area of the Subject Properties falls within the City of Burbank's jurisdictional boundaries. 2 ATTACHMENT 3 - 2
90 ATTACHMENT 3 - 3
91 ATTACHMENT 3 - 4
92 ATTACHMENT 3 - 5
93 ATTACHMENT 3 - 6
94 LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING AN APPLICATION FOR

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION

COMMISSION FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

1. RESOLUTION (PETITION) MAKING APPLICATION
If the application to initiate proceedings before the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is initiated by a registered voter or landowner, submit the original petition (See Landowner/Registered Voter Petition). If initiated by an affected agency, submit one certified copy of a resolution of said agency.

2. APPLICAT

ION FORM
Submit a signed original application form and 25 Copies.

NOTE: BEFORE SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION PLEASE CALL THE

LAFCO OF
FICE FOR A PROPOSAL DESIGNATION NUMBER. WHEN

INQUIRING ABOUT YOUR APPLICATION THIS IS THE NUMBER YOU WILL USE. LAFCO DOES NOT TRACK PROPOSALS BY TRACT NUMBER OR APN.

3. GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION
Use EXHIBIT “A” and LAFCO Designation number as the title.

EXHIBIT “A”
Annexation No. 2005-21
To Los Angeles County Waterworks District 40
,
Antelope Valley
See State Board of Equalization “Changes of Jurisdiction Boundary”, for further written description requirements.

Submit 5 prints (not copies) of the description.

4. M A P
Use Exhibit “B” and the LAFCO designation number as the title.

Subject territory must be extended to the centerline of the street.

ATTACHMENT 4 - 1
95 All Parcels within the subject territory must be drawn and identified. Parcels outside subject territory must be drawn.

Preferred map size is 11 x 17.

Minimum Scale: 1-20 acres 1” = 200’ or 1” =300’
21-1000 acres 1” = 400’ or 1” =800’
Over 1000 acres 1” = 800’ or 1”= 1200’
See State Board of Equalization “Changes of Jurisdictional Boundary”, for further map requirements.

Submit 5 original prints (not copies) of the map to scale.

Submit 5 legible copies of the map reduced to 8 ½ x 11 (scale doesn’t matter).

5. RADIUS MAP AND CORESPONDING MAILING LABELS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 56157 LAFCO requires notification of all landowners and registered voters within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the subject area, as shown upon the most recent assessment roll and the most recent index of affidavits prepared by the county el
ections official. The radius map should contain subject area and each parcel of land lying entirely or partially within a 300 foot radius.

Submit one map no larger than 11 x 17.

Submit one set of mailing labels of the landowners and registered voters that are within a 300 foot radius of the exterior boundary of the subject area. On the labels (1 x 2 inches), please include assessor parcel number, name, and address of each landowner and/or registered voter.

Provide a separate list of the names an address of all landowners that are within the boundaries of the subject territory and a corresponding set of labels.

6. FEES
The applicant must submit the appropriate fees with the applica tion. Where the fee is based
upon the actual cost of work to be performed, as set forth in the Fee Schedule, the applicant shall deposit with the application an amount equal to one-third of the estimated cost of the work, as determined by the Executive Officer, and may be required to make progress payments during the proceedings. All other fees must be paid in full with the application.

All checks are made payable to the
Local Agency Formation Commission.

No application shall be accepted for filing until all applicable filing fees have been deposited with the Executive Officer and the application is in all other respects complete.

Fees are non-refundable.

ATTACHMENT 4 - 2
96 A request for waiver or reduction of any filing fee or other fee must be submitted in writing no later than the date of submittal of the application and shall specify the reason(s) for the request. The request will be considered by the Commission at the next meeting for which the item can be legally placed on the agenda.

The payment of any filing fee should not be construed to either obligate the applicant to pay any additional processing fees pursuant to Government Code Section 56383.

Note: Upon completion of proceedings the applicant is also responsible for payment of the State Board of Equalization processing fees based on acreage category.

Please DO NOT include State Board of Equalization fees at the time of application submittal. The applicant will be notified by LAFCO Staff of the amount and when the fee must be submitted to this office.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
California Environmental Quality Act compliance is required for most LAFCO actions.

If the application is initiated by a public agency, submit as applicable, 25 copies of the Notice of Determination with the Ne
gative Declaration and Initial Study attached. Submit
the same amount where applicable of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Determination of Exemption, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, or other related environmental documents. In the case of an Environmental Impact report please submit two (2) hard copies of the full report and a copy of the same on disk (CD is preferable by this office, but not mandatory).

In order for LAFCO to consider the CEQA requirement met all environmental documents must have the stamp from the County Clerk and a copy of the Certificate of Fee Exemption or a copy of the receipt indicating all fees required by the Fish and Game Commission have been paid. Documents submitted without the County Clerk’s will not be considered as CEQA compliance by this office.

If the application is initiated by petition, the applicant may be required to submit additional information for an environmental assessment.

8. PRE-ZONING ORDINANCE
If the proposal involves annexation to a city, submit one copy of the pre-zoning ordinance.

9. LIST OF LIMITING ADDRESSES
For city boundary change proposals only, submit two copies of either a map or list of all streets and addresses within the proposal. If addresses will be changed upon completion of the proposal, please submit both current and new numbers.

ATTACHMENT 4 - 3
97 10. SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION MATERIALS
All application materials must be mailed or delivered to the following address:

Local Agency Formation Commission
80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 870
Pasadena, CA 91101
If you have any questions, contact LAFCO staff by telephone at 626/204-6500 or Fax at 626/204-6507.

ATTACHMENT 4 - 4
98 Zoning Designations for Surrounding Neighborhood Legend 5 February 2026
Project ID:

Issued For:

Map Documentation
Prepared By:

Date Printed:

Project
Notes:

This map is a user generated static output from
an Internet mapping site and is for reference
only. Data layers that appear on this map may
or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise
reliable.

THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR

NAVIGATION
4,000
0 Miles
Projection:

0.1 SCALE 1:

0.1 NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_V_FIPS_0405_Feet
Parcels
Zoning
R-1 Single Family Residential
R-1-H Single Family Residential Horsekeeping
R-2 Low Density Residential
R-3 Medium Density Residential
R-4 High Density Residential
MDR-3 Media District R-3
MDR-4 Media District R-4
NSFC - North San Fernando Commercial
C-2 Commercial Limited Business
C-3 Commercial General Business
C-4 Commercial Unlimited Business
M-1 Limited Industrial
M-2 General Industrial
MDC-2 Media District Limited Commercial
MDC-3 Media District General Business
MDC-4 Media District Commercial/Media Production
MDM-1 Media District Industrial
NB Neighborhood Business
GO Garden Office
RC Rancho Commercial
C-R Commercial Recreation
RBP Rancho Business Park
BCC-1 Burbank Center Commercial Retail-Professional
BCC-2 Burbank Center Commercial Limited Business
BCC-3 Burbank Center Commercial General Business
BCCM Burbank Center Commercial Manufacturing
AD Auto Dealership
MPC-1 Magnolia Park Commercial Retail-Professional
MPC-2 Magnolia Park Limited Business
MPC-3 Magnolia Park General Business
CEM Cemetery
AP Airport
RR Railroad
OS Open Space
PD Planned Development
Park
School
Library
Airport
City Boundary
Roselli Street
Project Site
ATTACHMENT 5 - 1
99 General Plan Land Use Designations for Surrounding Neighborhood Legend 5 February 2026
Project ID:

Issued For:

Map Documentation
Prepared By:

Date Printed:

Notes:

This map is a user generated static output from
an Internet mapping site and is for reference
only. Data layers that appear on this map may
or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise
reliable.

THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR

NAVIGATION
4,000
0 Miles
Projection:

0.1 SCALE 1:

0.1 NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_V_FIPS_0405_Feet
Parcels
General Plan Land Use
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Corridor Commercial
Regional Commercial
Open Space
Institutional
Airport
Downtown Commercial
South San Fernando Commerical
North Victory Commerical/Industrial
Rancho Commercial
Media District Commercial
Golden State Commercial/Industrial
Park
School
Library
Airport
City Boundary
Road
Freeways
Major Boulevards
Streets
Railroad
County Relief
High : 254
Low : 0
Roselli Street
Project Site
ATTACHMENT 5 - 2
100
Attachment 6: February 23, 2026
Meeting Staff Report, Resolution, and
Minutes
ATTACHMENT 6 - 1
101
P
lanning Commission Staff Report,
Dated February 23, 2026
ATTACHMENT 6 - 2
102
ATTACHMENT 6 - 3
103
ATTACHMENT 6 - 4
104
ATTACHMENT 6 - 5
105
ATTACHMENT 6 - 6
106
ATTACHMENT 6 - 7
107
ATTACHMENT 6 - 8
108
ATTACHMENT 6 - 9
109
ATTACHMENT 6 - 10
110
ATTACHMENT 6 - 11
111
ATTACHMENT 6 - 12
112

Planning Commission Resolution, Dated
February 23, 2026
ATTACHMENT 6 - 13
113
ATTACHMENT 6 - 14
114
ATTACHMENT 6 - 15
115
ATTACHMENT 6 - 16
116
ATTACHMENT 6 - 17
117
ATTACHMENT 6 - 18
118
ATTACHMENT 6 - 19
119
ATTACHMENT 6 - 20
120
ATTACHMENT 6 - 21
121
ATTACHMENT 6 - 22
122
ATTACHMENT 6 - 23
123
ATTACHMENT 6 - 24
124
ATTACHMENT 6 - 25
125
ATTACHMENT 6 - 26
126
ATTACHMENT 6 - 27
127
ATTACHMENT 6 - 28
128
ATTACHMENT 6 - 29
129
ATTACHMENT 6 - 30
130
ATTACHMENT 6 - 31
131
ATTACHMENT 6 - 32
132
ATTACHMENT 6 - 33
133
ATTACHMENT 6 - 34
134
ATTACHMENT 6 - 35
135
ATTACHMENT 6 - 36
136
ATTACHMENT 6 - 37
137
ATTACHMENT 6 - 38
138
ATTACHMENT 6 - 39
139
ATTACHMENT 6 - 40
140
ATTACHMENT 6 - 41
141
ATTACHMENT 6 - 42
142
ATTACHMENT 6 - 43
143

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
for the February 23, 2026, Public
Hearing Date
ATTACHMENT 6 - 44
144

Planning Commission Minutes

February 23, 2026

CALL TO ORDER 6:00 p.m.

MOMENT OF

REFLECTION

Chair Wick led the moment of reflection.

FLAG SALUTE

Chair Wick led the flag salute.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

ORAL

COMMUNICATION

HEARINGS

1. Project No. 25-
0004181, A General
Plan Map
Amendment and
Zone Map
Amendment to
consider
establishing General
Plan Land Use
Designations and

Assistant Community Development Director announced the
Starlight Bowl meeting is being held at the same time but virtually.

None.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

A proposal for a General Plan Map Amendment to establish a General Plan Land Use Designation to Low Density Residential and Zone Map Amendment to establish Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone for portions of 17 properties located on the 600- 700 block of Roselli Street that are proposed for annexat ion into the City of Burbank.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

ROLL CALL

Present:

Planning Commission Members: Bennett, Van Gorder, Vice
Chair Safarian, and Chair Wick.

Absent: Commissioner Mendez.

Also Present: Senior Assistant City Attorney; Ray Johal; Assistant Community Development Director, Fred Ramirez; Planning Manager, Scott Plambaeck; Principal Planner, Daniel Villa; Associate Planner, Karen C. Hernandez; Intermediate Clerk, Diana Arias.

ATTACHMENT 6 - 45
145
Zoning Designations
for portions of 17
properties located in
the 600-700 block of
Roselli Street that
are proposed for
annexation into the
City of Burbank.

It is Staff’s assessment that the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Map Amendment, and associated Resolution and Ordinance are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15319, annexations of existing facilities and lots for exempt facilities, because it includes the annexation of property to the City of Burbank c ontaining existing private structures developed to the density allowed by the pre - zoning designation, and there is sufficient utility capacity to serve the Subject Properties. In addition, the Project has also been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that annexation and concurrent detachment may have a significant effect on the environment.

The Subject Properties are single family homes and have been such for decades. This Project is merely to correct an improper boundary bisection that occurred in the past. To correct the improper boundary bisection, the City of Burbank must apply to the LAFCO to initiate proceeding to annex the back approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties into the City of Burbank, as well as detach the approximately fifty (50) feet of each of the Subject Properties from the City of Glendale. The adopt ion of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Map Amendment, and associated
Resolution and Ordinance are exempt from CEQA and no further analysis under CEQA is required.

Meeting Disclosures:

None.

Notices Given:

Assistant Community Development Director Ramirez confirmed for the Commission that notices were given per the Burbank Municipal Code requirements.

Written Communication:

None.

Staff Report:

Karen C. Hernandez, Associate Planner, presented the project to the Commission.

Public Comment:

Appearing to comment were: Leslie Bravin and Michael Bravin.

Calling in to comment: None.

ATTACHMENT 6 - 46
146
Staff Comment:

None.

D
eliberation:

It was moved by Commissioner Bennet, seconded by Commissioner Van Gorder, and carried 4-0 by roll call vote, to approve Project No. 25-0004181, a General Plan Map Amendment and Zone Map
Amendment to consider establishing General Plan Land Use Designations and Zone Designations for portions of 17 properties located on the 600-700 block of Roselli Street that are proposed for annexation into the City of Burbank.

REPORTS TO

COMMISSION

None.

APPROVAL OF

MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by
Commissioner Van Gorder, and carried 4- 0 by roll call vote, to approve the minutes for Planning Commission of January 12 , 2026.

INTRODUCTION

OF ADDITIONAL

AGENDA ITEMS
None.

CITY PLANNER

COMMENTS

ADJOURNMENT

TO THE PLANNING

COMMISSION

MEETING OF
MARCH 9, 2026
None.

Respectfully Submitted,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
ATTACHMENT 6 - 47
147

Correspondences

Please Note: If Additional
Documents/Correspondences are
submitted for this item, they will be
periodically posted to the City website
for public viewing.
148
Introduction of an
Ordinance and Adoption of
a Resolution for the Roselli
Street Annexation
Project No. 25 -0004181
City Council
April 21, 2026
1 COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
149
Background
17 Properties on Roselli Street
are bisected by the
jurisdictional boundaries of
the City of Burbank and the
City of Glendale
2 150
Background (cont.)
East Roselli Street West Roselli Street
3 151
Background (cont.)
• Residents have received City of Glendale voter ballots instead of Burbank.
• October 29, 2024, Burbank City Council adopted
Resolution No. 24-29,567.
• City needs to undertake a:
• Zone Map Amendment (ZMA) and
• General Plan Map Amendment (GPA).
4 152
Amendment 1: Zone Map Amendment (ZMA)
Existing Zoning Designation Proposed Zoning Designation 5 Single Family Residential (R -1)
Single Family Residential (R -1)
153
Amendment 2: General Plan Map Amendment (GPA)
Existing General Plan Land Use
Designation
Proposed General Plan Land Use
Designation
6 Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
154
• February 23, 2026, Planning Commission hearing.
• With 4-0 vote, Planning Commission recommended
City Council adoption.

Planning Commission (PC) Recommendation
7 155
• Consistent with the Burbank2035 General Plan.
• Consistent with the Zoning Designation.
• Progression towards fulfilling the City Council
request.

ZMA Findings and Consistencies
8 156
• Consistent with the Burbank2035 General Plan.
• Consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Designation.
• Progression towards fulfilling the City Council
request.

GPA Findings and Consistencies
9 157
The proposed ZMA Ordinance and GPA Resolution is
Exempt from CEQA:

1. Annexations of Existing Facilities and Lots for
Exempt Facilities (CEQA Guidelines § 15319)

2. Common-sense Exemption (CEQA Guidelines
§ 15061(b)(3)).

Environmental Assessment
10 158
Recommendation

1. Introduce an Ordinance for a Zone Map Amendment
and Adopt a Resolution Amending the General Plan
Land Use Map.

2. Find the Ordinance and Resolution exempt from
CEQA.
11 159
Next Steps
• 2nd Reading for ZTA on May 5, 2026.
• Submit a complete LAFCO Application for review and
consideration.
• If approved by the LAFCO, the annexation will be
complete, and residents of the Subject Properties will
thereafter receive City of Burbank ballots.
12 160
Thank you!
Contact:

Karen C. Hernandez, Associate Planner
818-238-5250
[email protected]
13 COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
161
Introduction of an
Ordinance and Adoption of
a Resolution for the Roselli
Street Annexation
Project No. 25 -0004181
City Council
April 21, 2026
14 COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
162
1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 21, 2026
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Damian Skinner, Public Works Director
VIA: John Molinar, Assistant Public Works Director – Street and Sanitation BY: Amber Duran, Recycling Coordinator
SUBJECT: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Sections 4-2- 113 and 4-2- 122 of the Burbank Municipal Code, Relating to Procedures for Enrollment Upon Prior Notice in Solid Waste Collection Services.

RECOMMENDATION
Introduce AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 4 -2-113 (SOLID WASTE GENERATOR REQUIREMENTS) AND 4 -2-122 (HAULER LICENSE AND PERMIT

REQUIREMENTS) RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR ENROLLMENT UPON PRIOR NOTICE IN SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES (Attachment 1).

BACKGROUND
The City of Burbank is responsible for ensuring compliance with California’s solid waste and recycling mandates, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, Senate Bill (SB) 1383 – the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016 - and related legislation such as Assembly Bill (AB) 1276 and SB 54.

Title 4, Chapter 2 of the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) establishes the City’s framework for solid waste management, Hauler licenses and permit s, Generator requirements, and waste reduction regulations. Since the adoption of Title 4, Chapter 2 of the BMC in 2022, implementation has revealed opportunities for clarification and refinement to better support compliance and streamline program operations.

The City seeks to ensure all G enerators, a person or entity that creates or accumulates PUBLIC
WORKS
Reports to Council
Item #1
163
2 or manage, are subscribed to recycling and organics services by implementing procedures to enroll Generators in such services, upon prior notice, when they do not voluntarily establish service within required timeframes.

DISCUSSION
BMC §4-2-113 requires all G enerators to subscribe to a Solid Waste collection service that includes collection of Garbage, Organic Waste, and Recyclable Materials, furnished by an Authorized Collector. Under the current framework, Generators’ compliance with service subscription is largely dependent on voluntary enrollment and subsequent staff follow-up and/or audits. In practice, s ome Generators delay or fail to subscribe to the required Solid Waste collection services, creating gaps in participation and increasing the City’s risk of non-compliance with State mandates under SB 1383.

To improve compliance and reduce the need for formal enforcement actions, staff recommends adding a notice and enrollment process to the BMC. Under the proposed amendment, Generators will be required to subscribe to garbage, recycling, and organic waste collection services within seven (7) days after occupying a property. If a Generator fails to establish service and has not obtained a waiver pursuant to BMC §4-2- 117, the City will initiate a notification and service enrollment process.

The proposed amendment states that if a Generator fails to subscribe to required services within seven (7) days of occupying its premises, the City or its Authorized Collector will provide written notification advising the Generator that collection service is required. If the Generator does not initiate service within fifteen (15) days of the notice being mailed, the Authorized Collector will establish the required service on behalf of the Generator and continue service thereafter. The G enerator will be responsible for all associated service fees and charges.

This process ensures Generators timely subscribe to and receive required recycling and organic waste collection services , while providing clear notice and an opportunity to voluntarily establish service prior to automatic enrollment.

The notice and enrollment process also supports the City’s compliance with SB 1383 enforcement requirements. State regulations require jurisdictions to issue Notices of Violation and subsequent citations to G enerators that do not subscribe to required services and have not received an approved waiver. By proactively enrolling Generators that fail to initiate service, the City can reduce the number of Notices of Violation and administrative citations that would otherwise be necessary to bring G enerators into compliance.

Generators who believe they qualify for a waiver may apply pursuant to BMC §4-2- 117. garbage, organic waste, recyclable materials, or other solid waste on property they own 164
3 approved criteria, including generation of only a small amount of organic waste or lack of adequate physical space for the required containers. Generators granted a waiver are exempt from mandatory service requirements consistent with State regulations.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff recommends that the City Council find that this amendments to BMC §4-2-113 and BMC §4 -2-122, relating to procedures for enrollment upon prior notice in solid waste collection services is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections:
15060(c)(2), because the proposed amendments will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; 15061(b)(3), because the proposed ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant negative effect on the environment; and 15308, because the proposed ordinance involves regulatory actions to assure protection of the environment. As such, the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no anticipated fiscal impacts associated with this report.

CONCLUSION
Adopting these amendments will strengthen Burbank’s solid waste regulations and ensure continued compliance with State mandates under SB 1383. By establishing notice and enrollment procedures for non-subscribed generators, the City promotes universal participation, improves program efficiency, and reinforces its commitment to waste reduction and sustainability.

ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 – Proposed Ordinance
Waiver requests are evaluated by City staff to determine eligibility based on State- 165
ATTACHMENT 1
1 ORDINANCE NO.________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CO UNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BURBANK AMENDING BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTIONS 4 -2-113 (SOLID WASTE GENERATOR
REQUIREMENTS) AND 4 -2-122 (HAULER LICENSE AND

PERMIT REQUIREMENTS) RELATING TO PROCEDURES

FOR ENROLLMENT UPON PRIOR NOTICE IN SOLID

WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES
City Attorney’s Synopsis:

This Ordinance updates Title 4 of the Burbank Municipal Code (“BMC”) by amending Sections 4-2- 113 and 4-2- 122 of the BMC, to include updates to the City of Burbank’s (“City”) solid waste management program in compliance with California Senate Bill (“SB”) 1383 and accompanying state regulations, to introduce procedures for enrollment upon prior notice of Generators in required solid waste collection services.

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

A. The Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016 (Senate Bill (“SB”) 1383) requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (“CalRecycle”) to develop regulations to reduce organics in landfills as a source of methane (“SB 1383 Regulations”). As adopted by CalRecycle, these SB 1383 Regulations place requirements on multiple entities, including the City, residential households, commercial businesses and business owners, commercial edible food generators, haulers, self -haulers, food recovery organizations, and food recovery services, to support achievement of statewide organic waste disposal reduction targets.

B. In accordance with the SB 1383 Regulations , the City adopted Ordinance No. 22-3,969 on March 15, 2022, to implement relevant provisions of the SB 1383 Regulations.

C. Any Generator, who is a person or entity that creates Garbage, Organic Waste, Recyclable Materials, or other Solid Waste, or who otherwise allows the accumulation of such Solid Waste on real property owned by the person or entit y, is required to subscribe to a Solid Waste collection service furnished by an Authorized Collector.

D. The City is responsible for ensuring compliance with SB 1383 Regulations, and has identified instances of Generators’ failure to subscribe to a required Solid Waste collection service.

E. Based on the foregoing, it is necessary to amend Sections 4-2- 113 and 4- 2-122 of the BMC in order to update the City’s solid waste management program to implement a process to enroll Generators in a Solid Waste collection service furnished by an Authorized Collector, upon prior notice.
166
ATTACHMENT 1
2 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Incorporation of Findings. The City Council of the City of Burbank hereby finds that the above findings are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference.

Section 2. Amend BMC Section 4 -2-113. Section 4-2- 113 (Solid Waste Generator Requirements) of the BMC is hereby amended and restated to read as follows (additions are reflected in underline):
4-2-113: SOLID WASTE GENERATOR REQUIREMENTS:

Generators shall fully comply with all applicable requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.

A. All Generators in the City, including Single- Family, Multi- Family and Commercial Business Generators, shall:
(1) Subscribe to a Solid Waste collection service that includes collection of Garbage, Organic Waste, and Recyclable Materials, furnished by an Authorized Collector. Generators shall maintain for their relevant residential or commercial real property, separate Garbage, Compost and Recycling containers, supplied by the City or another Authorized Collector. Generators shall arrange for a sufficient number of such containers to adequately store all Garbage, Source Separated Recyclable Materials and Source Separated Organic Waste generated in connection with the real property between the times designated for collection. The City shall have the right to review the number and size of such containers to evaluate the adequacy of capacity provided for each type of collection service and to require additional or larger containers (or additional service days) and to review the separation and containment of materials. Generators shall adjust service levels for their collection services as requested by the City in order to meet the standards set forth in this Article. Nothing in this subsection prohibits a Generator from preventing or reducing Solid Waste generation, managing Organic Waste on site, and/or using a Community Composting site pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(c), to the extent permitted by other applicable laws.
(2) Participate in the Solid Waste collection services provided by the City or another Authorized Collector(s), by placing designated materials in designated containers as described below, and not placing Prohibited Container Contaminants (including, but not l imited to, Excluded Waste) in collection containers. Unless otherwise directed by its Authorized Collector, Generators shall place Source Separated Organic Waste in the Compost Container; Source Separated Recyclable Materials in the Recycling Container; and Garbage in the Garbage Container. If the City finds that a Generator has placed Prohibited Container Contaminants in a container, 167
ATTACHMENT 1
3 the City will notify the Generator of the violation in accordance with 14 CCR 18984.5(b).
(3) Place Garbage Containers, Recycling Containers, and Compost Containers at the Designated Collection Location on the day specified by the Authorized Collector for collection, but no more than eighteen (18) hours prior to collection, unless otherwise authorized by the Public Works Director.

All containers so placed for collection shall be removed from the Designated Collection Location within twelve (12) hours after the contents thereof have been collected. Garbage, Compost and Recycling Containers shall not be placed anywhere that will cause them to become a nuisance or danger to the public health and safety.
(4) Maintain Garbage Containers, Recycling Containers and Compost Containers in a sanitary condition at all times. All containers containing any type of Solid Waste shall be kept tightly covered at all times and be resistant to access by vectors. Any bulky mat erial must be reduced in size so that it may be placed in the appropriate container not overflowing and with the cover tightly closed and without excessive tamping, so that the container may be easily emptied.
(5) Drain Garbage, Organic Waste and Recyclable Materials of all liquid before placement in the appropriate container, and wrap loose, light materials to prevent windblown litter.
(6) For locations where the City serves as the Authorized Collector, Generators shall not place more than 200 pounds of Solid Waste in any one City-issued container at any given time.
(7) If a Generator fails to subscribe to a required Solid Waste collection service that includes collection of Garbage, Organic Waste, and R ecyclable Materials within seven (7) days of occupancy of its premises and has not obtained an approved waiver under Section 4-2- 117, the City or its Authorized Collector shall provide written notification to the Generator that such service is required. If service is not initiated within fifteen (15) days from the d ate of mailing of the notice, then the Authorized Collector shall initiate and continue service for the Generator. The Generator shall be liable for all associated fees and charges.

B. In addition to the requirements in subsection A above, Commercial Business Generators, other than Multi-Family residential dwellings, shall also:
(1) Provide containers for the collection of Source Separated Organic Waste and Source Separated Recyclable Materials in all areas where the commercial business provides disposal containers for employees, contractors, tenants, customers, and other users of the premises, except for 168
ATTACHMENT 1
4 restrooms (“User Disposal Containers”). If a Commercial Business does not generate any of the materials that would be collected in one type of User Disposal Container, then the business does not have to provide that particular type of container in all areas where disposal containers are provided. Pursuant to 14 CCR Section 18984.9(b), the User Disposal Containers provided by the business shall have either:
(a) A body and/or lid that conforms with the following container colors:
gray or black containers for Garbage, blue containers for Recyclable Materials, and green containers for Organic Waste; or
(b) Container labels (including imprinted text or graphic images) that include language and/or graphic images indicating the primary materials accepted and the primary materials prohibited in that container.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Commercial Business is not required to replace functional containers that do not comply with this requirements prior to the earlier of (1) the end of the useful life of those containers, or (2) January 1, 2036.
(2) Prohibit employees from placing Organic Waste in a container not designated to receive such Organic Waste.
(3) Periodically inspect Organic Waste Containers for contamination and inform employees if containers are contaminated and of the requirement to only use those containers for Organic Waste.

C. Generators may be exempt from certain requirements of this Section if they obtain a waiver issued by the City pursuant to this Article, or if they qualify as Self-Haulers and comply with all Self -Hauler requirements outlined in this Article.

Section 3. Amend BMC Section 4 -2-122. Section 4-2- 122 (Hauler License and Permit Requirements) of the BMC is hereby amended and restated to read as follows (additions are reflected in underline):
4-2-122: HAULER LICENSE AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS:

A. The Hauler License and Permit consists of the following:
(1) Hauler Permit: Single permit issued, and renewed annually, to the Authorized Collector.
(2) Hauler Vehicle License: License(s) issued on a per vehicle basis, and renewed annually, to the Authorized Collector’s fleet. Each waste collection vehicle must clearly display the license in the front window of every waste collection vehicle operating within the City of Burbank. 169
ATTACHMENT 1
5 B. Application: Application for an Annual Private Hauler Contractor License and Permit shall be made on a form provided by the City, and in conjunction with procedures established in the Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations. The information provided in the application shall be certified by the applicant as being true and accurate. The Public Works Director may require additional information as authorized by law.

C. Review: Upon receipt of a completed application and deposit of applicable fees, the Public Works Director shall examine each application for conformity with the requirements of this Article and the Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations. If the applicant is in compliance with all such requirements, the application shall be accepted and approved, and such approval shall be so noted upon the face of the application. Prior to approval of a permit renewal, applicants must be in compliance with the previously issued Hauler Permit and License and current on all reports and fees due to the City. If the Public Works Director determines that the applicant does not conform to applicable requirements, the application shall be rejected, and the applicant shall be notified of the grounds for the rejection.

D. Denial and Appeal: The Public Works Director may deny an application upon a determination that the proposed waste collection operation is not consistent with either the City’s Solid Waste Management plan, or cannot conform to State standards, or to any provision of this Article. The Public Works Director shall give written notice of the denial to the applicant and any other person who has requested in writing that such notice be given. The applicant shall have the right to appeal any decision of the Publi c Works Director by filing with the City Manager within ten (10) days of any such decision a written appeal specifying the decision complained of and the reasons for the appeal. The decision of the City Manager shall be final.

E. If a Hauler License and Permit has been revoked or not renewed, it may be reinstated by application filed in the same manner as an application for a new permit. However, nothing in this Article is intended to preclude the City from considering the revocation or nonrenewal and grounds therefor in reviewing the application. The Authorized Collector must be able to demonstrate that the reasons for permit revocation or nonrenewal have been rectified.

F. Permit Fees: Fees charged to Authorized Collectors for issuance of a Hauler License and Permit shall be established by the City Council in the Burbank Fee Schedule.

G. Permit Conditions: Every Authorized Collector shall comply with Hauler License and Permit conditions as set forth in this Article, in the Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations, and as otherwise specified on the issued permit. If the City chooses to allow an Authorized Collector to operate under a written agreement or other contract, the Hauler License and Permit conditions 170
ATTACHMENT 1
6 shall be incorporated into the agreement or contract At a minimum, the Hauler License and Permit shall include the following conditions:
(1) Authorized Collectors shall comply with the following SB 1383 conditions:
(a) Provide written notice to the City identifying the facilities to which they will transport Solid Waste including facilities for source separated Recyclable Materials and Source Separated Organic Waste. (b) Transport Source Separated Recyclable Materials and Source Separated Organic Waste to a facility, operation, activity, or property that recovers Recyclable Materials and/or Organic Waste, as applicable, as defined in 14 CCR, Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 2.

Authorized Collectors providing Organic Waste collection service shall comply with applicable requirements of 14 CCR Division 7, Chapter 12, Article 3.
(c) Notwithstanding subsection G(1)(i) and (ii), the SB 1383 conditions outlined in this Subsection G(1) shall not apply to Authorized Collectors who are transporting Source Separated Organic Waste to a Community Composting site or lawfully transporting C&D in a manner that complies with the requirements 14 CCR Section 18989.1, Burbank Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 1, Article 11, and all other applicable laws.
(2) Each Authorized Collector shall arrange for the disposal of any Solid Waste collected in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and laws. The City shall assume no liability which may arise due to the Solid Waste disposal arrangements of the Authorized Collector. (3) If a Generator fails to subscribe to a required Solid Waste collection service that includes collection of Garbage, Organic Waste, and Recyclable Materials within seven (7) days of occupancy of its premises and has not obtained an approved waiver under Section 4-2- 117, the City or its Authorized Collector shall provide written notification to the Generator that such service is required. If service is not initiated within fifteen (15) days from the d ate of mailing of the notice, then the Authorized Collector shall initiate and continue service for the Generator. The Generator shall be liable for all associated fees and charges.
(4) The Authorized Collector shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any liability arising out of its Solid Waste collection operation, including liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
(5) Each Authorized Collector, including all C&D waste collectors, shall remit a 171
ATTACHMENT 1
7 solid waste management fee in an amount equal to a percentage of the Gross Receipts generated by solid waste collection, transfer, or disposal from customers within the City, to the Public Works Director on a quarterly basis. The percentage shall be established by the City Council in the Burbank Fee Schedule. Gross Receipts are monies charged to account holders and not monies received from account holders, including account holder defaults. Monies paid for Recyclable Materials or recycling shall not be rebated or counted against the Gross Receipts. The failure of an Authorized Collector to submit the solid waste management fee on or before the dates stipulated in the Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations shall constitute just cause for revocation of the Hauler License and Permit. (6) Authorized Collectors collecting and transporting C&D are also subject to the requirements set forth in Title 9, Chapter 1, Article 11 of the Burbank Municipal Code.

H. Changed Circumstances: All permit applicants and Authorized Collectors shall notify the Public Works Director of any change in the information provided in the permit application including, but not limited to, changes in routing and/or changes in services offered that are initiated by the permit applicant or Authorized Collector. Notice shall be given not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date the change is effective.

I. Failure to submit the payments or the reporting forms required by this section or related rules and regulations within the time provided shall result in late charges as outlined in the Burbank Fee Schedule.

J. All fees collected hereunder shall be used exclusively to pay the costs of preparing, adopting and implementing an integrated waste management plan for the City and complying with SB1383 Regulations pursuant to the state mandates included in the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.

Section 4. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, sections, or applications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end each phrase, section, sentence, or word is declared to be severable.

Section 5. Environmental Review. This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308 of the California CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations) on the grounds that it can be seen with certainty that the enhanced solid waste regulations, as provided for in this Ordinance will not have a significant effect on the environment and that the new requirements, which strengthen requirements for the handling of solid waste, represent actions by a regulatory agency (the City) for the 172
ATTACHMENT 1
8 protection of the environment.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first (31st) day after the date of adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2026.
__________________________
Tamala Takahashi
Mayor
Approved as to Form
Attest: Office of the City Attorney
______________________________ By: _______________________ Kimberley Clark, City Clerk Sei-Hee Park
Assistant City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

CITY OF BURBANK )
I, Kimberley Clark, City Clerk of the City of Burbank, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Burbank at its regular meeting held on the day of , 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

I further certify that the City Attorney’s Synopsis was published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Burbank, California within 14 days following the Ordinance’s adoption on ____________________, 2026. ______________________________
Kimberley Clark, City Clerk
173
PUBLIC
WORKS
Solid Waste &
Organics Recycling
Ordinance Update
City Council
April 21, 2026
1 Amendments to BMC Title 4, Chapter 2
174
2 175
• Strengthen compliance with SB 1383 recycling
and organics requirements
• Close gaps where individuals or businesses
(“Generators”) fail to subscribe to required
waste collection services
• Reduce prolonged periods of non-compliance
• Improve efficiency of City’s compliance efforts
3 176
Current Enrollment Process
• Relies on voluntary enrollment by Generators
• Requires staff follow-up through Notices of Violation and citations in cases of non-compliance
Challenges
• Some Generators delay or never enroll in waste services • Results in extended non-compliance
• Staff time focused on enforcement rather than program support
4 177
Step 1 - Notification Letter
Generators are notified when required waste services
have not been established within 7 days of occupancy of its premises
Step 2 – Opportunity to Comply
Generators have 15 days from the date of the notice to
subscribe to required services
Step 3 – Automatic Enrollment
If no action is taken, the Authorized Collector subscribes the Generator in the minimum required services
5 178
6 • Public Works will coordinate
with the Community
Development Department to
provide education during the
business license application
process.
• New businesses must
subscribe to garbage,
recycling, and organics
services within 7 days of
occupancy.
179
7 1. Recycle Center staff will coordinate with
Authorized Collectors to identify
Generators not subscribed to services

2. A written notice letter is sent

3. Generators have 15 days to subscribe

4. If service is not established, the
Authorized Collector initiates minimum
service
180
Waiver
• De minimis organic waste generation
• Physical space constraints
Self-Haul
• Generator transports materials to a permitted facility • Must maintain documentation of recycling
8 181
9 182
10 183
11 184
Amber Duran
Recycling Coordinator
[email protected]
818-238-3900
12 185
1 STAFF REPORT
DA
TE: April 21, 2026
T
O: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director Via: Fred Ramirez, Asst. Community Development Director - Planning Scott Plambaeck, Planning Manager
Amanda Landry, Principal Planner
By: Ryan Allen-Esquivel, Assistant Planner
SUBJ
ECT: Update on View Obstructing Fences in the Designated Hillside Area RECO

MMENDATION
Maintain the current regulations related to view obstructing fences in the designated hillside area.

CKGROUND
At the February 4, 2025, City Council meeting, Councilmember Konstantine Anthony requested a memorandum describing any changes to the Single- Family Residential Zoning and Hillside Ordinance requirements with regards to View Protection since 2022.

In response to this request, Planning staff prepared a memorandum to the City Manager (Attachment 1). On April 8, 2025, Councilmember Nikki Perez requested a first step report to analyze existing fence regulations and procedures in the designated Hillside area.

Thi
s first step report outlines all existing fence standards and procedures, including the City’s review of perceived impacts on privacy and protected views. Furthermore, the report discusses several alternative options to update current regulations to potentially address community concerns regarding new fences in the Hillside area.

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
Reports to Council
Item #2
186
2 For over 40 years, the City has implemented regulations to protect the character of the designated Hillside Area by recognizing the values of the unique views of Burbank and the surrounding area when considering reasonable new development. On January 8, 1980, Council adopted Ordinance No. 2758 ( Attachment 2) that added a Division to the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) establishing Hillside specific development standards and instituting a Hillside Development Permit (HDP) requirement . This ordinance was intended to regulate development within the designated Hillside area of the City . This Hillside area is defined in BMC Section 10 -1-606(A) as the area bounded by the City boundaries with Glendale and Los Angeles and by Sunset Canyon Drive, Walnut Avenue, Bel Aire Drive, Cambridge Drive, Kenneth Road, and Scott Road, as shown in the following diagram.

Over time, and in response to community concerns about the potential impact of fences on views in the Hillside, Council adopted Ordinance No. 3748 in 2008, which required the approval of a Minor or Major Fence Exception permit for the construction of fences and walls within the Hillside area ( Attachment 3). This requirement remained in effect until March 15, 2022, when Council adopted Ordinance No. 22- 3,970, which eliminated the Minor and Major Fence Exception permits for fences and walls in the Hillside that comply with the height limits set forth in the BMC § 10-1-603. This was done in conjunction with a larger effort to update the R -1 (Single-Family) zone development standards that was Figure 1 City of Burbank – Hillside Area (Shaded) (BMC 10-1-606(A):) 187
3 intended to streamline the planning process and reduce permit processing times. The removal of the Hillside fence requirement was based on the belief that fences or walls in the Hillside that met the objective standards in the BMC would not pose significant view impacts and thus not require any discretionary review.

H
owever, following the elimination of the fence exception permits in 2022, concerns were raised to staff and Council regarding potential view obstruction impacts associated with fence and wall construction in the Hillside.

SCUSSION
Existing R-1 Fence Standards
BMC § 10-1-603(H) (Attachment 4) contains the existing development standards for fences and walls in the R -1 zone, including the designated Hillside. Fences and walls within the front yard setback area have a maximum allowed height of four feet. The first two feet of fencing in the front may be fully solid, however, any portion of the fence above two feet must meet a 50% open-design standard. Fences and walls located outside of the front setback area are permitted to be a maximum height of eight feet, by-right. For corner lots, additional height restrictions apply to the street facing setback area. The maximum allowed height for fences within the street yard setback area is six feet to the rear of the house, if the fence utilizes an open design concept. If the fence is solid, then the maximum height allowed is four feet. The fence is allowed a maximum height of eight feet along the street side yard at the end of the house to the rear of the property.

C
urrently, freestanding fences and walls do not require discretionary review. Staff is able to review applications for freestanding fences and walls over the counter, and most Figure 2 Open Design Fence/Wall Example
188
4 applicants are able to receive their zoning approval within the same day. The current zoning review process requires that staff check the proposed fencing against the existing R-1 development standards for fences and walls located within BMC § 10-1-603(H). If the proposed fence or wall in the Hillside area conforms with all applicable development standards, then the application is approved. Presently, only retaining walls are required to receive approval through an HDP, as the construction of retaining walls often requires grading of the subject property, which is one of the established triggers for the requirement of an HDP.

E
xisting Fence Exception Process
Exceptions to the fence standards in BMC § 10-1-603(H) may be requested through a Minor Fence Exception or a Major Fence Exception application. These fence exception applications are discretionary reviews and require a number of findings to be made to approve the application. The Community Development Director is the review authority for Fence Exceptions, with the decision being appealable to the Planning Commission.

Alternatively, residents in the Hillside area can apply for an exception to the single-family development standards through the HDP process. These exception requests can apply to a number of development standards, including maximum allowed height, setbacks, retaining wall height, and other standards. An exception request made through an HDP requires an additional set of four findings to be made in the affirmative before the exception can be granted. The fee is $3,237.43 for a Major Fence Exception and $2,808.47 for a Minor Fence Exception. The submittal requirements and a process flow chart for the Fence Exception process are included in Attachment 5.

Ex
isting HDP Process
BMC § 10-1-607(H) contains the HDP thresholds and procedural requirements. The HDP is a discretionary review process that is intended to protect hillside views to the extent feasible, ensure neighborhood compatibility, and to balance the reasonable development with the values placed upon views of Burbank and surrounding communities. The HDP fee is $11,397.86 and typically takes eight to twelve months to process. The submittal requirements and a process flow chart for the HDP process are included in detail in Attachment 6.

NALYSIS
Following review and analysis of existing fence standards and procedures, City Planning has identified four proposed approaches to address the potential view impacts of fences and walls in response to concerns shared by the residents and consistent with Council’s request for this first step report. When developing these proposed approaches, staff considered the ability of each approach to address the concerns of the Hillside residents, 189
5 the overall processing time, cost, and impact on other mandatory reviews by Planning staff. Each approach with a brief description of the pros and cons are listed below. #1:

Revert to the Pre-2022 Major and Minor Fence Exception Permit Requirement.

Revert back to the Minor or Major Fence Exception permit for the development of any fences or walls as established by Ordinance No. 3748 (Attachment 3). These regulations were in place prior to 2022 and under these regulations , all proposed fences or walls required a Minor or Major Fence Exception permit prior to construction. Attachment 2 to this report contains previous BMC sections establishing the requirements for the entitlement and a description of the full requirements and procedures for the approval of a Minor and Major Fence Exception. The typical processing time for such applications is approximately 4-6 months, and the current fee is $3,237.43 for a Major and $2,808.47 for a Minor Fence Exception.

Pr
o: This approach would adequately address the concerns of Hillside residents and would enable staff to mitigate potential impacts on protected views and privacy.

Co
n: This procedure was repealed by Council in 2022 as a means to streamline the permitting and approval process for minor applications. The requirement was removed because fences or walls that met the objective development standards set forth in the BMC would not pose significant view impacts to neighboring properties. This approach would apply to an estimated 10 to 15 projects annually and generally would add considerable cost and review time for these projects in the Hillside area.
#2:

Impose A New HDP Requirement for all Fences and Walls in the Hillside.

This approach would require that all freestanding fences and walls that are less than 50 percent open design within the Hillside area be approved through a modified HDP process, regardless of height or location. This would require residents to submit a full application package to Planning staff and the application would be processed in the same manner as an HDP. A new process and application fee would have to be established.

Pr
o: This approach would allow staff the opportunity to fully address any concerns from neighbors regarding potential view or privacy impacts for all new fences regardless of height or location. Creating a discretionary process for the review of fences and walls in the Hillside area will allow staff the ability to impose conditions of approval to mitigate potential view impacts.
190
6 Con: Based on recent permit history, this approach would apply to an estimated 10 to 15 projects a year and generally would add considerable costs and review time for these projects in the Hillside area. Additional application submittals may affect the City’s ability to process other housing development projects within state- mandated timelines, which could result in potential risk and liability for the City. #3: I
mpose a New HDP Requirement for only Fences and Walls with a H igher Likelihood of Having a View Impact on the Hillside
Similar to Approach #2 above, this approach would create a new HDP discretionary process but would only apply to a more limited scope of fences. This HDP requirement would be focused only on view obstructing fences. A view obstructing fence would be defined as any fence or wall over five feet in height. Therefore, this new entitlement process, would only apply to those proposed fences greater in height than five feet. To be exempted from the requirement, property owners would have to demonstrate the proposed fence will utilize a fifty percent, open- design concept for the portion of fence which exceeds five feet in height. This would be verified by staff via an over -the-counter zoning clearance.

Pr
o: This approach will focus only on those fence projects, which are most likely to generate view impacts, rather than applying a universal entitlement requirement to all fences in the Hillside area. This approach provides a path for staff and neighbors to evaluate potential view impacts and allows staff to impose reasonable conditions to mitigate impacts when they arise. This approach also improves the City’s ability to address view impacts while ensuring that residents proposing low impact fencing will avoid the cost and time delay of an involved discretionary process.

C
on: This approach would generally add considerable costs and review time for these project s. A dditional application submittals may affect the City’s ability to process other housing development projects within state- mandated timelines, which could result in potential risk and liability for the City. However, there likely would not be as many new submittals under this Approach #3 as anticipated under Approach #2.
#4:

Maintain the Existing Regulations
This approach would maintain the existing regulations as -is. Fences and walls would be subject to the existing development standards, and if found to be consistent, applications would be approved over the counter.
191
7 Pro: Maintaining the existing approach allows efficient review of fence and wall applications while not affecting the review time for other Planning projects, as fence and wall zoning reviews do not require significant administrative work.

Additionally, the existing review and approval process does not require extensive analysis of a view study or public noticing, and the current fee of $169.62 would be maintained.

Co
n: Although there are few code enforcement cases for fences and walls in the Hillside, if complaints are made about individual fences or walls in the Hillside this approach will not enable staff to review potential view impacts caused by fences outside of those inherently addressed by the objective development standards already set forth in the BMC.

The f
our proposed approaches provide a range of options for addressing Council’s concerns about view obstruction in the Hillside area. As there are very few complaints submitted to the City, staff recommends that the existing regulations be maintained.

If
further action is desired, based on the ability to best address Council’s concern through a streamlined review process for applicants, Approach #3 offers a more balanced alternative by establishing a new discretionary process that would only apply to fences that have the greatest potential to create a view impact, which are fences over five feet in height. This approach creates a more focused review for fences that are most likely to obstruct views while allowing low impact fences to be exempted. This approach will introduce additional review time for certain projects; however, it does directly respond to Council’s concerns in a more limited way.

MMUNITY OUTREACH
If directed by the City Council to pursue an applicable project alternative, staff will return with a second step report that outlines the potential components and language to be included in future a Zone Text Amendment (“ZTA”). Pursuant to BMC Section 10-1-1994 and Government Code Section 65854(b)(2) , ZTAs require a minimum 20- day public notification prior to the public meeting. A public notice will be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City for the proposed ZTA to be heard by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting. Notifications of the Planning Commission meeting will also be distributed through the City’s social media channels, the City Calendar and the Planning Division website. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this ZTA, City Council would consider the proposed ZTA at a noticed public hearing, and residents and members of the community will have the opportunity to learn more about the proposed ZTA and provide comments at the public hearing. 192
8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This staff report is for informational purposes about potential approaches to addressing view concerns within the Hillside area pertaining to fences and walls and has no potential for resulting in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment and falls outside the definition of a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15378 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

ISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this first step report. If City Council directs staff to adopt new development standards or new processes, a detailed fiscal impact analysis would be prepared and include discussion about new entitlement fees based on the City’s cost recovery policy and actual staff time and resources required to process the application.

NCLUSION
This first step report outlines all existing City fence standards and procedures, including the City’s review of perceived impacts on privacy and protected views . The report also provides several alternative approaches for Council to consider potentially updating the current regulations to address community concerns regarding new fences in the Hillside area. Staff recommends that the City Council select Proposed Approach #4 and maintain the existing regulations and procedures regarding fences in the Hillside area.

TTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Memo to Council – Changes to Hillside Ordinance with Regards to View Protection
Attachment 2 – Ordinance No. 2758
Attachment 3 – Ordinance No. 3748
Attachment 4 – BMC 10-1-603(H) – Existing Fence Standards Attachment 5 – Existing Fence Exception Process and Submittal Requirements Attachment 6 – Existing HDP Process and Submittal Requirements 193
ATTACHMENT 1 - 1

MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 25, 2025

TO: Justin Hess, City Manager

FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: Memo to Council: Changes to Hillside Ordinance with R egards to View Protection

BACKGROUND
At the February 4, 2025, City Council meeting, Councilmember Konstantine Anthony requested a memorandum describing any changes to the Single- Family Residential Zoning and Hillside Ordinance requirements with regards to View Protection since 2022.

ANALYSIS
On March 15, 2022, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 22- 3,970, which amended the development standards in the S ingle-Family Residential (R-1 and R-1-H) zones. These amendments became effective on April 15, 2022. The primary goals of this ordinance were to:

1. Maintain effective single-family development standards that limit the mass and bulk of single-family homes in the R-1 and R-1-H zones.

2. Streamline the planning review process by eliminating the Single- Family Special Development Permit (SFSDP) process. The elimination of the SFSDP has reduced the planning review time by 76% for initial reviews.

3. Facilitate better design and remove redundant or unclear information, which includes the implementation of objective zoning standards 1 that previously
hindered the consistent application of the code.

1 Objective zoning standards mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal that previously hindered the consistent application of the code. (Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (b); 66411.7, subd. (c))

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
194
ATTACHMENT 1 - 2

One of the key changes in the Ordinance was the elimination of Minor Fence Exceptions (MFE) permit requirements for fences in R -1-H hillside lots, provided the fences comply with the height requirements specified in BMC Section 10-1-603(A). The height standards include:
• 4 feet within the front yard,
• 4 feet if solid to 6 feet if 50% open within the street-facing side yard, • 8 feet outside the front and street-facing side yards.

Before this amendment, all fences in the R -1-H zone, even those that complied with the BMC’s height requirements, required MFE permits, which could take several months to process. The code section’s findings for MFE approval in BMC Section 10- 1-19200 are subjective, often leading to conflicting considerations of views , privacy, and aesthetic impact.

The 2022 Ordinance did not make any changes to the building permit requirements for fences. Fences and walls of a certain height continue to require building permits and must be submitted into Plan Check. Before 2022, all fences in the hillside that required a building permit had to first be approved through the MFE process. After the Ordinance adoption, fences in the hillside that require permits can be submitted directly into Plan Check.

CONCLUSION
The 2022 amendments to the development standards in the R -1 and R -1-H zones effectively streamlined the planning process by eliminating the SFSDP review and MFE permits for fences that comply with height requirements. This has resulted in a reduction in pr ocessing time by several months. The Ordinance did not specifically address changes related to the protection of views. Any future consideration to apply an alternate approach for fences in the hillside would require the establishment objective zoning standards that would also have to establish objective requirements when evaluating privacy and view concerns by applicants and/or neighboring property owners.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 –Minor Fence Exceptions Requirements and Findings

195
ATTACHMENT 2 - 1
196
ATTACHMENT 2 - 2
197
ATTACHMENT 2 - 3
198
ATTACHMENT 2 - 4
199
ATTACHMENT 2 - 5
200
ATTACHMENT 2 - 6
201
ATTACHMENT 2 - 7
202
ATTACHMENT 3 - 1
203
ATTACHMENT 3 - 2
204
ATTACHMENT 3 - 3
205
ATTACHMENT 3 - 4
206
ATTACHMENT 4 – 1

ATTACHMENT 4: BMC 10-1-603(H) – Existing Fence Standards

207
ATTACHMENT 4 – 2

208
ATTACHMENT 4 – 3

209
ATTACHMENT 4 – 4

210
ATTACHMENT 5: EXISTING FENCE EXCEPTION PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS F

ENCE EXCEPTION PROCESS FLOWCHART
ATTACHMENT 5 - 1
211
ATTACHMENT 6: EXISTING HDP PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS
A
n HDP is required when a project meets one of four codified triggers. These triggers include:

1. The project involves the creation of a new building pad, cut or fill activity to expand an existing building pad, or any other grading activity.

2. The structure extends beyond the front or rear yard setback lines per Subsection (D).

3. The height of the proposed structure to the top of the roof exceeds 16 feet.

4. The total gross square footage of all structures and spaces that are included in the floor area ration calculation is greater than 3,000 square feet.

A
ll HDP projects are required to submit a complete application form and mandatory submittal requirements. Applicants are also required to submit the necessary fee for project processing, inclusive of other administrative fees.

O
nce an application is determined to be complete, the Project plans are routed to other city Departments and Divisions of the Community Development Department to review for compliance with all applicable development standards.

A
fter the Project has been deemed to be in conformance with the BMC, Planning staff prepare a view study to analyze the potential view impacts a project may have on the neighboring properties. The view study includes the installation of story poles, which reflect the footprint of the proposed structure. The story poles aid staff in understanding if the Project will unreasonably encroach upon the views of any neighboring properties. As part of the view study, staff will also send a notice to the immediate neighbors informing them about the project and providing them with an opportunity to comment on potential view impacts from the project. All comments received during the initial noticing period are investigated fully for any perceived impacts to neighboring views. If an impact is identified, staff will work with the applicant to mitigate the impact to the extent feasible. In addition, all residents within 300 feet of the subject property will receive a notice indicating staff’s intent to render a decision. Approval of all HDPs requires staff to make in the affirmative, four required findings of fact. These findings require that a project does not negatively impact the surrounding area’s safety and circulation, be consistent with the existing hillside topography, avoid substantially altering the natural topography of the hillside, and not encroach upon neighboring scenic views. If no appeal of the Director’s Decision is filed within 15 days of the decision date, then the HDP decision is final.

ATTACHMENT 6 - 1
212

HDP PROCESS FLOWCHART
ATTACHMENT 6 - 2
213
Update on View
Obstructing Fences in the
Designated Hillside Area
City Council
April 21, 2026

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
214

PURPOSE
- Respond to Council request for
information about existing
Hillside fences and;
- Discuss possible alternatives
to address scenic view
obstructions .

Photo of Hillside Taken from Downtown Burbank
2 215

REGULATORY BACKGROUND
- Hillside Development Permit
(HDP) introduced in 1980.
- Minor or Major Fence
Exception requirement
codified in 2008.
- Fence exception requirement
repealed in 2022.

City of Burbank – Hillside Area (Shaded) (BMC 10-1-606(A):) 3 216

EXISTING HDP PROCESS
- Discretionary Review
- Public notification and a view
impact study
- Review Authority is the
Community Development
Director
- Findings in BMC Section 10 -1-
607
Story Poles Used for View Impact Assessment
4 217

EXISTING FENCE STANDARDS
- BMC 10 -1-603(H) contains
fence development
standards for single -family
zones.
- Height, location, design,
opacity
- Exceptions granted through
a Minor or Major Fence
Exception
Existing Fence Open-Design Standard Diagram
5 218
PROPOSED APPROACH #1
- Revert to Hillside fence requirements prior to 2022.
- Hillside fences and walls will require Minor or Major Fence Exception Permit
- Addresses view concerns
- Will significantly increase cost and review time for Hillside residents.
6 219
PROPOSED APPROACH #2
- Require modified HDP for all fences and walls in the Hillside - Processed in same manner as current HDPs
- Addresses view impacts
- Estimated to apply to 10 -15 projects per year and;
- Increase cost and review time for Hillside residents
7 220
PROPOSED APPROACH #3
- Require modified HDP,
but only for fences that
are likely to have impact
- Applies to fences over
five feet in height, fully
solid design
- Serve to address view
concerns
- Will increase cost and
review time, would impact
fewer fences
Photo of Burbank from the Hillside Area
8 221
PROPOSED APPROACH #4
- Maintain existing standards and procedures for Hillside fences - Fences will continue to be processed with streamlined review times - Would not allow an interactive public process to address view impacts
- Would not add additional review time or cost for residents.

Photos of Burbank Hillside
from the Burbank2035 General
Plan
9 222

RECOMMENDATION
Maintain the current regulations related to
view obstructing fences in the designated
hillside area.
10 223
Thank you!
Contact:

Ryan Allen-Esquivel, Assistant Planner
818-238-5250
[email protected]

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
11 224
Update on View
Obstructing Fences in the
Designated Hillside Area
City Council
April 21, 2026

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
225
1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 21, 2026
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director
VIA: Fred Ramirez, Assistant Community Development Director - Planning
Scott Plambaeck, Planning Manager
Amanda Landry, Principal Planner
BY: Sara Durghalli, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Update on the Initial Assessment of Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Standards and Forthcoming Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION
Note and file.

BACKGROUND
On October 29, 2024, the City Council considered an appeal of the Director’s decision to approve a new unmanned roof-mounted WTF on the roof of an existing 35-foot tall, three- story commercial office building (Project) located at 800 S . Main Street . During the hearing, Council heard significant public comments regarding general community concerns about potential health effects of WTFs and comments on the adequacy of the City’s regulations for the siting of WTFs. Council denied the appeal and approved the Project, however, directed staff to return with a report providing an overview of the ordinance regulating the installation of WTFs in light of the various community concerns that were raised . This report provides an overview of the existing WTF development standards provided in the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) and broadly evaluates their alignment with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations and California State law. The report outlines the City’s next steps to address community concerns while ensuring continued compliance with state and federal WTF permitting regulations.

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
Reports to Council
Item #3
226
2 DISCUSSION
WTFs are primarily licensed and regulated by the FCC, which establishes comprehensive guidelines governing their deployment and operation. While local jurisdictions have some authority to regulate certain aspects of WTFs, this authority is significantly limited.

Local
governments can develop regulations addressing the time, manner, and location of WTF installations, such as setting zoning requirements, design standards, and aesthetic guidelines. However, these regulations must comply with federal law and cannot effectively prohibit the provision of wireless services. The FCC also imposes strict shot clocks, requiring local authorities to act on WTF applications within specific timeframes to prevent undue delays.

Mor
eover, local jurisdictions have no authority to regulate radiofrequency (RF) emissions, as the FCC maintains exclusive jurisdiction over RF safety standards. Any local regulations must not conflict with federal objectives, including the rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure. As a result, while municipalities can influence certain aspects of WTF placement and design, their control is narrowly constrained by federal preemption and legal standards.

Fed
eral WTF Regulations
During the initial phase of wireless telecommunications infrastructure deployment nationwide, local jurisdictions exercised significant authority over their placement and design. This created complex, inconsistent regulations that, while addressing local concerns, hindered network expansion and ultimately impeded interstate commerce. To address these challenges, the FCC has implemented regulations to standardize and limit local review of wireless infrastructure. These measures aim to accelerate deployment, reduce regulatory barriers, and meet the nation’s growing demand for wireless capacity.

By streamlining processes and minimizing local obstacles, the FCC seeks to ensure timely access to reliable, high-speed service nationwide.

Ci
ty of Burbank WTF Regulations
Parallel to the adoption of Federal regulations, in 1996, the City of Burbank adopted development standards regarding the placement of WTFs. Since then, the development standards were updated in 2010, 2011, 2015, and 2017 in response to the various state and federal regulations limiting local control. Each update aimed to clarify the City’s approach and to ensure the City complied with all applicable federal, state and local health and safety regulations required for WTF development projects.

The C
ity continues to carefully balance community concerns related to potential health effects of wireless technology and its visual impact on the built environment, while ensuring compliance with applicable federal regulations. The City’s current strategy faces significant challenges related to compliance with federal regulations, including the 227
3 restrictive shot clocks, and the discretionary review strategy for certain classes of WTFs creating an expectation for residents that the City can condition or deny projects based on perceived health effects.

ANALY
SIS
The City regularly updates its wireless permitting process to align with FCC rules, refining workflows, adopting best practices, and training staff to ensure effective compliance.

Recently, staff from the Planning Division of the Community Development Department (CDD) and City Attorney’s Office (CAO) completed training on the federal regulations governing WTFs and common challenges that local governments face. Through this training, staff identified key areas of the City’s review process and objective development standards that require further review and modification to maintain compliance with federal regulations.

Gi
ven the complexity of this review, the City has retained BBK, a law firm with a specialized telecommunications practice group, to assist staff in conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the City’s wireless facility regulations. As part of this review, BBK and the staff will undertake a comprehensive analysis of the Zoning Code and a thorough evaluation of the City’s administrative procedures for processing wireless permit applications. This review will also identify opportunities to address and, where feasible, mitigate community concerns regarding health and aesthetics . The proposed approach aims to:
• Ensure compliance with FCC shot clock requirements;
• Minimize the risk of legal challenges related to federal preemption; • Streamline staff workload and improve application processing efficiency; and • Facilitate the timely deployment of next-generation wireless infrastructure.

In addition, staff has been proactively coordinating with the City’s federal lobbyists, the Ferguson Group, to advocate for local governance and protect the City’s interests in alignment with the City’s adopted Legislative Platform. The FCC proposed to broaden the qualifications for mandatory approval requirements, limit local authority over aesthetic and permit conditions, and consider an expedited federal process to resolve siting disputes.

In December 2025, with the assistance of the Ferguson Group, staff submitted a formal comment letter in response to the FCC’s recent rulemaking announcement proposing to further expand federal preemption over the siting and approval of wireless facilities (Attachment 1).

Sta
ff is also reviewing and updating administrative guidelines and procedures related to the application intake process, which will help the City adhere to some of the shot clock requirements. A preliminary review of the City’s WTF regulations determined that a comprehensive analysis was necessary to identify additional regulatory measures the 228
4 City may be able to implement that address recent community concerns while maintaining federal compliance. Staff anticipates a completed analysis from BBK at the end of June 2026. Following BBK’s review, staff will present a detailed report to the City Council outlining findings and providing recommendations for next steps . Staff will return to council within six to twelve months, depending on the analysis and recommended adjustments provided by BBK.

ENVI

RONMENTAL REVIEW
This report is an informational item only and has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and as such, is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.

SCAL IMPACT
The preparation of this report has no impact on the General Fund. The preparation of the BBK aided review of the City’s regulations and development of recommendations is collaboratively funded by CDD, CAO, B urbank Water and Power, and P ublic Works through existing budget allocations for professional services . The estimated cost for the project’s scope of work is approximately $20,000 to $25,000, as projected by BBK and reviewed by CAO.

CONCL
USION
As demand for mobile broadband continues to grow, wireless technologies are becoming more compact and visually unobtrusive, reducing the need for intensive design and siting review. At the same time, increased small ‑cell deployment and evolving FCC regulations—particularly strict application “shot clocks”—further limit the City’s discretion to apply additional standards or conduct extended reviews. In response, staff, with input from BBK, will develop recommendations to update the City’s WTF regulations and processes in a way that maintains community input, streamlines internal procedures, improves efficiency, and ensures continued compliance with federal requirements. This effort includes an ongoing review of the existing WTF ordinance and policy guidance t o identify potential amendments and address regulatory gaps or ambiguities to improve clarity and consistency. BBK will also continue to provide legal guidance regarding whether an expanded scope of work or additional measures may be needed as statutory and regulatory requirements evolve.

ATT

ACHMENT
Attachment 1 – City of Burbank, CA-FCC NPRM Comments-WT Docket 25-276 229
B
efore the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
I
n the Matter of )
)
Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless ) WT Docket No. 25-276 Deployments
C

OMMENTS OF THE CITY OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA
D
avid Hoover
Principal
TFG-The Ferguson Group
1901 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20006
J
ustin Hess, City Manager
City of Burbank
City Hall
275 East Olive Avenue
Burbank, CA 91502
D
ecember 31, 2025
ATTACHMENT 1 - 1
230
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY ........................................ ........................................................................................... 3 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ ............................................................... 4 A. Overview of the City ............................................................................................... 4 B. Interest in this Proceeding ....................................................................................... 5

II. BURBANK'S WIRELESS PERMITTING FRAMEWORK AND DEMONSTRATED TRACK RECORD ....................................................................................................... 6 A. Legal and Regulatory Framework ......................................................................... 6 B. Consistent Compliance with Federal Shot Clocks .................................................. 7 C. Application Processing and Internal Coordination ................................................. 7

III. BURBANK'S REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE FACILITATING DEPLOYMENT .. 8 A. Consistent Compliance with Federal Shot Clocks .................................................. 8 B. Primary Sources of Delay: Applicant-Caused Incompleteness ............................. 9 C. Proper Application of Section 6409(a) Standards ......... ......................................11

IV. RESPONSES TO SECTION 6409(a) PROPOSALS ................................................ 11 A. Concealment Elements: Support for Clarification with Request for Additional Guidance .............................................................................................................. 11 B. Conditions Associated with Siting Approval: Support for Codification .............. 14 C. Time-Limited Permits and Renewals: Critical Need for Clarification ................. 15 D. Shot Clock Start and Completeness Determinations ........................................ ... 18

V. RESPONSES TO SECTIONS 253 AND 332(c)(7) PROPOSALS .......................... 19 A. Macro Towers and Other Wireless Facilities........................................................ 19 B. Shot Clocks: Existing Framework Functions Effectively ..................................... 20 C. Deemed Granted Remedies: Strong Opposition ................................................... 22 D. Fees and Cost Recovery: Preserve Cost-Based Standard While Recognizing Legitimate Variations............................................................................................ 24 E. Aesthetic Standards: Current Framework Provides Sufficient Guidance ............. 26

VI. REGULATORY IMPEDIMENTS ............................................................................. 27 A. Radiofrequency Emissions: Support for Continued Federal Preemption and Enhanced Public Education .................................................................................. 28 B. Conditional Use Permits: Time-Limited Permits Serve Legitimate Purposes ...... 28 C. Moratoria: Support for Preemption of Specific Examples ................................... 29

VII. REGULATORY CLARITY AND PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION ................. 29 A. Clear Federal Definitions as Solution to Real Impediments ................................. 29 B. Value of Objective Standards and Local Knowledge ........................................... 30

VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................ .................................................................. 31 ATTACHMENT 1 - 2
231
3 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA

Burbank supports rapid deployment of advanced wireless infrastructure and has demonstrated that commitment through its track record of timely application processing, collaborative problem-solving with carriers, and facilitation of numerous successful deployments. The City's permitting process works efficiently because the City implemented clear, objective standards in good faith while preserving appropriate flexibility to address legitimate local variations.

However, Burbank respectfully opposes several aspects of the NPRM that would undermine effective local governance without corresponding deployment benefits. Specifically, the City opposes overly broad deemed granted remedies that would create significant safety risks in Burbank's unique environment, inflexible national aesthetic standards that fail to account for legitimate local variations, rigid fee caps divorced from actual local cost realities, and the imposition of restrictions on time-limited permits that serve legitimate safety and compliance purposes distinct from Section 6409(a) eligibility determinations.

Rather than presuming municipal obstruction and imposing categorical federal mandates, the Commission should provide clear, objective, and stable federal definitions of key statutory terms that enable both applicants and local governments to predict outcomes with certainty. The primary impediment to efficient wireless deployment is not local process but rather shifting federal definitions, inconsistent industry submittal practices, and incomplete applications lacking basic technical data. Burbank urges the Commission to adopt balanced rules that facilitate rapid deployment by providing definitional clarity while preserving reasonable local authority to address legitimate safety, structural integrity, and compatibility concerns that vary based on local conditions.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 3
232
4 Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )
)
Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless ) WT Docket No. 25-276 Deployments

COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Overview of the City
The City of Burbank, California (“Burbank” or “City”) appreciates the opportunity to file these initial Comments in response to the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 25-276 concerning potential “barriers” to wireless broadband deployment in the public rights-of-way.1 Burbank is a charter city located in southeastern Los Angeles County, California, serving approximately 107,000 residents in a compact 17-square-mile area. The City’s geography includes dense mixed-use infill development, hillside neighborhoods with significant topographical variations, and mature urban infrastructure that creates unique engineering and compatibility challenges for wireless deployments. Governed under a council- manager system, the City places a strong emphasis on public safety, infrastructure investment, economic development, and community services.

Burbank functions as a vital regional employment center, home to major film and television production studios, including Warner Bros., Disney, and numerous production

1 Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 25-67 (rel.

Sep. 30, 2025), published at 90 Fed. Reg. 55066 (Dec. 1, 2025).

ATTACHMENT 1 - 4
233
5 facilities. The City operates its own municipal utilities—Burbank Water and Power—providing electricity, water, and fiber services, which enhances local control over infrastructure and reliability. In addition, the City is home to Bob Hope Airport (Hollywood Burbank Airport), requiring careful coordination of wireless facility siting with Federal Aviation Administration requirements and established flight paths.

B. Interest in this Proceeding
Burbank administers comprehensive wireless telecommunications permitting processes to separately address facilities in the public right of way and facilities on private property. The City has developed application materials, templates, and review protocols that provide applicants with clear guidance and streamlined processing pathways.

The City has invested substantial resources over many years in developing objective standards, streamlined intake procedures, and internal coordination protocols designed to facilitate compliant deployments while ensuring consistency with the City’s adopted land-use, zoning, and public safety requirements. These investments reflect Burbank's recognition that efficient wireless infrastructure deployment serves both the public interest and the City's economic vitality.

Burbank has a direct and substantial interest in this proceeding. The proposed rules would fundamentally alter the regulatory framework governing wireless facility permitting and potentially preempt portions of Burbank's carefully developed municipal code. The City's planning staff processes wireless telecommunications facility applications alongside residential housing projects subject to stringent state-mandated processing timelines, commercial development proposals with separate review requirements, and other land use applications, each ATTACHMENT 1 - 5
234
6 governed by distinct regulatory frameworks with separate shot clocks and procedural requirements.

Burbank currently hosts numerous wireless facilities including rooftop installations, public right-of-way small cells, and collocation sites on existing structures. The City must balance federal mandates for rapid deployment with legitimate local concerns regarding public safety near airport operations, compatibility with ongoing film and television production activities sensitive to visual intrusions and interference, structural integrity requirements in seismically active areas, and community character preservation in established residential neighborhoods. The NPRM's proposals regarding deemed granted remedies, permit renewals, fee limitations, and aesthetic standards would directly impact the City's ability to fulfill these responsibilities.

II. BURBANK’S WIRELESS PERMITTING FRAMEWORK AND

DEMONSTRATED TRACK RECORD

A. Legal and Regulatory Framework
Burbank's wireless telecommunications permitting structure reflects years of careful development aimed at implementing federal requirements while addressing the City's unique characteristics. The framework establishes multiple permitting pathways tailored to different deployment scenarios, providing certainty for applicants while ensuring appropriate review of legitimate local concerns.

The City uses a tiered structure , which allows different permitting processes, including, by-right approval, streamlined processing for installations requiring limited assessment of site- specific factors, and complex deployments involving greater potential impacts. This tiered approach enables the City to process straightforward applications quickly while preserving necessary flexibility for unusual circumstances. These provisions were developed through ATTACHMENT 1 - 6
235
7 extensive consultation with wireless carriers to ensure they facilitate deployment rather than obstruct it. The different permitting pathways allow for evaluation of site-specific factors including proximity to airport flight paths, hillside stability concerns, and visual compatibility with surrounding development.

B. Application Processing and Internal Coordination
The City utilizes an appointment-based intake system that enables staff to conduct a real- time completeness review during application submission. Contrary to industry claims that appointment requirements create delay, Burbank has received no carrier complaints about appointment availability, and the system has proven highly effective at preventing the iterative incompleteness determinations that plague many jurisdictions.

The City employs ProjectDox and DigitalPlanRoom software platforms to coordinate multi-departmental review of wireless facility applications. These systems enable simultaneous review by planning, building and safety, public works, fire, and other relevant departments, eliminating sequential review delays. Staff can track application status in real time, identify pending issues immediately, and coordinate responses efficiently. This digital infrastructure represents a substantial municipal investment that has significantly improved processing timelines.

Burbank has developed standardized review templates for Administrative Use Permits, Conditional Use Permits, and Eligible Facilities Requests that provide staff with clear evaluation criteria and ensure consistent application of objective standards. The templates reduce processing time, improve consistency, and provide transparency for applicants regarding approval criteria.

C. Application Processing and Internal Coordination
ATTACHMENT 1 - 7
236
8 The City's planning staff processes applications for wireless telecommunications facilities on private property within a complex regulatory environment that includes numerous overlapping mandates with competing priorities and inflexible deadlines. The same planners who review wireless applications also process residential housing development projects, including hundreds of accessory dwelling unit applications, which are subject to California's Housing Accountability Act and other state-mandated timelines, commercial development proposals, and various other land use matters, each with distinct procedural frameworks.

Consistent with most cities with a population of under 110,000 residents, Burbank does not maintain a dedicated wireless telecommunications permitting division. Planning staff with generalist land use expertise handle wireless applications alongside their other responsibilities, requiring them to maintain current knowledge of evolving FCC regulations, court decisions interpreting federal wireless law, state telecommunications statutes, and local zoning requirements. The cumulative burden of administering multiple overlapping regulatory regimes with different substantive standards, procedural requirements, and processing deadlines creates significant workload pressure on small and mid-sized local governments that the NPRM's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis should acknowledge and address. When the Commission imposes new requirements or alters existing definitions, the resulting need for legal consultation, staff training, and procedure revision diverts resources from actual application processing. The Commission should recognize that regulatory complexity and instability create more deployment delay than local process requirements.

III. BURBANK’S REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE FACILITATING

DEPLOYMENT

A. Consistent Compliance with Federal Shot Clocks
ATTACHMENT 1 - 8
237
9 Burbank meets FCC shot clock requirements for the majority of wireless facility applications. The City's internal tracking systems monitor all pending applications against applicable shot clock deadlines, and staff prioritize timely processing to avoid violations. In the rare instances where processing timelines approach shot clock expiration, City staff proactively communicate with applicants to negotiate mutually acceptable short extensions based on specific circumstances requiring additional review time.

These mutual tolling agreements benefit both parties. Carriers prefer cooperative extensions enabling thorough review over rushed denials that would trigger costly litigation. The City benefits from additional time to resolve legitimate issues and develop complete administrative records supporting decisions. The Commission's existing shot clock framework, which permits tolling under specified circumstances, accommodates this practical reality and should not be replaced with inflexible deemed granted remedies that would eliminate beneficial cooperative extensions.

B. Primary Sources of Delay: Applicant-Caused Incompleteness Burbank’s experience demonstrates that the primary source of wireless application processing delay is applicant-caused incompleteness rather than municipal obstruction. Despite the City's appointment-based intake system designed to identify deficiencies immediately, applications frequently arrive with missing technical radiofrequency (“RF”) data necessary for interference analysis, incomplete application forms lacking basic information about facility specifications, coverage maps of insufficient quality to evaluate network need, and inaccurate site photographs making it impossible to assess existing conditions.

These deficiencies stem largely from carrier reliance on third-party expediter firms that often transmit incomplete or misunderstood information between carriers and local governments.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 9
238
10 When City staff identify specific data gaps and request supplemental information, carriers typically provide it quickly and processing proceeds efficiently. The delay occurs in the initial submission and subsequent iterative exchanges, not in municipal processing once complete information is received.

This reality is critical to the Commission's consideration of deemed granted remedies. If shot clock violations resulted primarily from municipal bad faith or obstruction, deemed granted might be justified as an enforcement mechanism. However, when violations result from incomplete applications that prevent staff from conducting legally required analysis, deemed granted would inappropriately punish cities for applicant failures and potentially approve facilities that violate legitimate safety or zoning requirements.

On rare occasions, the City will facilitate the review of controversial small cell proposals, where community opposition is based primarily on perceived radiofrequency health concerns and aesthetic impacts. Despite federal preemption of RF-based objections under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), residents will direct their concerns to the City and appear at public hearings demanding denial or an overturning of an approved application. 2 When this happens, City staff works closely with the carriers to navigate the appeals process and develop accurate information, including education of the public and decision makers regarding federal RF preemption, the limits of local authority, and the legal standards governing wireless facility review.

The City also coordinates with applicants to identify minor design modifications to addressed legitimate aesthetic concerns within federal parameters while maintaining the technical functionality required for network coverage.

2 Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) ATTACHMENT 1 - 10
239
11 C. Proper Application of Section 6409(a) Standards
Burbank’s good-faith implementation of federal law is further demonstrated by the City's proper application of Section 6409(a) substantial change standards.3 In several instances, applicants initially characterized proposed modifications as eligible facilities requests when City review determined they would substantially change physical dimensions under applicable criteria. Rather than improperly denying expedited review based on pretext, City staff will provide applicants with detailed explanations of why the proposed modifications exceeded Section 6409(a) thresholds, cite specific regulatory provisions and measurements supporting that determination, and offer alternative designs that would qualify for expedited approval.

These experiences demonstrate Burbank's fidelity to federal law and willingness to apply substantial change rules objectively rather than as tools for obstruction. The City's transparent analysis and constructive engagement with applicants exemplify the collaborative approach that best serves deployment goals.

IV. RESPONSES TO SECTION 6409(a) PROPOSALS

A. Concealment Elements: Support for Clarification with Request for Additional Guidance

The Commission proposes to codify the 2020 Declaratory Ruling's clarification that concealment elements are "elements of a stealth-designed facility intended to make the facility look like something other than a wireless tower or base station," and that a modification defeats concealment when it would "cause a reasonable person to view the structure's intended stealth design as no longer effective after the modification."
4 Burbank supports these proposed
definitions as providing useful clarity and reducing potential disputes.

3 Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a). 4 FCC 25-67, ¶¶ 20-21.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 11
240
12 The proposed "reasonable person" standard for determining when concealment is defeated provides an objective framework superior to purely subjective aesthetic judgments. The distinction between concealment elements (e.g., features making facilities look like something other than wireless infrastructure) and aesthetic siting conditions (e.g., features minimizing visual impact of acknowledged wireless facilities) appropriately addresses the Ninth Circuit's concerns in League of California Cities v. Federal Communications Commission (9th Cir. 2024) while providing workable guidance for local implementation. 5 Burbank also supports the Commission's proposal to codify specific examples illustrating application of these standards, such as the guidance that placing coaxial cable on the outside of a stealth facility would be unlikely to defeat concealment given the typically small size of such cables, and that color changes defeat concealment only if they would cause a reasonable person to view the intended stealth design as no longer effective. 6 These concrete examples enable staff
to apply standards consistently and provide applicants with predictability regarding likely outcomes.

However, Burbank requests additional clarification regarding application of these standards to legacy installations approved in the 1980s and 1990s when concealment technologies and community aesthetic expectations differed substantially from current practices.

The City hosts several rooftop facilities approved decades ago with concealment elements reflecting the technology and design approaches available at that time. Determining whether proposed modifications to these legacy installations would defeat concealment requires staff to make difficult judgment calls about whether historical stealth designs remain effective after modification.

5 League of California Cities v. Federal Communications Commission, 118 F.4th 995 (9th Cir. 2024). 6 FCC 25-67, ¶ 21.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 12
241
13 Burbank requests additional guidance addressing how to evaluate concealment defeat for facilities approved 30-40 years ago. Should the analysis focus on whether the stealth design was effective when originally approved and would remain effective after modification? Or should it consider whether the original design concept remains effective by current standards? The NPRM's monopine example provides helpful guidance for one scenario, but additional examples addressing vintage rooftop installations, old monopole tree designs, and other legacy concealment approaches would assist local governments in consistent application. 7 Burbank also seeks clarification regarding the appropriate evidentiary standard for demonstrating that particular features were "concealment elements" included in the original approval. In some cases, permits approved decades ago contain limited documentation of specific concealment requirements, making it difficult to determine with certainty whether particular features were conditions of approval intended to provide stealth design. The Commission should clarify what evidence suffices to establish that features qualify as concealment elements—original permit conditions, staff reports, design drawings, or other documentation—and how to resolve ambiguities when historical records are incomplete.

With the clarifications requested above, the City believes these proposed rule changes would help spur wireless facilities deployment by providing clarity and reducing permitting disputes. Clear definitions reduce disputes by enabling both staff and applicants to predict outcomes. However, the benefits of clarity depend on the Commission providing sufficient detail and examples to address the full range of scenarios municipalities encounter, particularly regarding legacy installations that constitute a significant portion of existing wireless infrastructure.

7 FCC 25-67, ¶ 21.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 13
242
14 B. Conditions Associated with Siting Approval: Support for Codification Burbank supports the Commission's proposal to codify the 2020 Declaratory Ruling's determinations regarding siting approval conditions, clarifying that such conditions—including aesthetics-related conditions designed to address visual impact—cannot be used to prevent modifications specifically allowed under Section 1.6100(b)(7)(i)-(iv).8 This clarification appropriately implements Section 6409(a)'s mandate for expedited approval of non-substantial modifications while preserving local authority to enforce reasonable conditions that do not conflict with federal parameters.

The proposed guidance regarding shroud requirements exemplifies a workable approach:
if a locality imposed a condition requiring a three-foot shroud for a three-foot antenna, the locality could not prevent replacement with a four-foot antenna permitted under the rules, but could enforce the shrouding requirement by requiring a four-foot shroud to cover the new antenna if such shroud could be reasonably installed.
9 This balanced approach respects both
federal preemption of substantial change determinations and legitimate local authority to enforce reasonable design conditions that do not prohibit allowed modifications.

Similarly, the Commission's proposed treatment of walls and fences around non-stealth facilities as aesthetic conditions rather than concealment elements provides helpful clarification.

The guidance that localities may require reasonable efforts to extend such barriers if there was express evidence they were conditions of approval intended to obscure equipment from view appropriately balances federal and local authority.
10 8 FCC 25-67, ¶ 23.
9 FCC 25-67, ¶ 24.
10 FCC 25-67, ¶ 25.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 14
243
15 Burbank requests that the Commission emphasize in any final rules that enforcement of existing, reasonable siting conditions that do not prevent modifications allowed under the substantial change criteria remains permissible and serves legitimate purposes. These conditions frequently reflect site-specific factors such as structural load limitations, setback requirements based on property line locations, electrical service capacity constraints, and other technical factors unrelated to improper aesthetic preferences. Local governments should retain authority to enforce such reasonable conditions even when facilities undergo Section 6409(a) modifications.

C. Time-Limited Permits and Renewals: Critical Need for Clarification The NPRM asks whether the Commission should adopt a rule providing that once a deployment is found to be an eligible facilities request and a permit is granted, the state or local jurisdiction may not seek to impose new conditions as part of a permit renewal process. 11 This
question raises issues of critical importance to Burbank and requires careful analysis distinguishing between different scenarios.

As an initial matter, Burbank's wireless facility conditional use permits are issued for ten- year terms, and the City has not yet reached the first renewal cycle for most facilities permitted under the current framework. Burbank's renewal requirements are intended to serve several legitimate purposes distinct from the threshold eligibility determination addressed by Section 6409(a): ensuring that obsolete or abandoned facilities are removed or remain structurally safe; evaluating whether technological advances enable improved concealment while maintaining equivalent functionality; confirming continued compliance with original permit conditions; and addressing changed circumstances such as alterations in surrounding development patterns or natural events affecting site conditions.

11 FCC 25-67, ¶ 27.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 15
244
16 Section 6409(a) addresses modifications, not renewals. The statute requires approval of "any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station."12 This language plainly addresses changes to existing facilities, not periodic renewals of permits authorizing unchanged facilities to remain in place. Reading Section 6409(a) to prohibit all conditions at renewal would improperly extend the statute beyond its text and Congressional intent.

Burbank requests that the Commission distinguish between two distinct renewal scenarios with different legal implications. First, renewals that seek to impose entirely new conditions unrelated to the original permit approval and not justified by changed circumstances.

For example, if a facility was approved subject to certain concealment conditions, and at renewal the locality seeks to impose different concealment requirements based solely on changed aesthetic preferences, such action would be problematic. This scenario essentially treats renewal as an opportunity to revisit the original approval and impose conditions that should have been addressed initially.

Second, renewals that seek to ensure continued compliance with original conditions or address changed circumstances. For example, if original approval required the facility to maintain certain structural specifications, and renewal review identifies deterioration requiring remediation, conditioning renewal on bringing the facility into compliance serves a legitimate safety purpose. Similarly, if a natural disaster has altered terrain around the facility such that original setback requirements are no longer met, conditioning renewal on addressing the changed circumstances is appropriate.

12 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)(1).

ATTACHMENT 1 - 16
245
17 Burbank urges the Commission to adopt a framework that: (1) prohibits localities from using renewal as a pretext to impose new conditions unrelated to original approval criteria or changed circumstances; (2) preserves local authority to condition renewal on continued compliance with original permit conditions; (3) permits reasonable new conditions when justified by changed circumstances including natural disasters, alterations in surrounding development, or technological obsolescence creating safety concerns; and (4) requires any new conditions at renewal to satisfy the same standards applicable to initial permit approval, including non-discrimination and reasonable relationship to legitimate governmental interests.

A facility approved as an eligible facilities request under Section 6409(a) because it did not substantially change physical dimensions could subsequently lose compliance with original permit conditions due to natural disasters, structural deterioration, changed surrounding conditions, or other factors. In such circumstances, renewal conditioned on returning to compliance or addressing changed circumstances is appropriate and does not conflict with Section 6409(a).

For example, if a facility was approved as an eligible facilities request based on specific height, width, and equipment volume measurements, and subsequent inspection reveals that additional equipment has been added without authorization exceeding the parameters that supported expedited approval, conditioning renewal on removing the unauthorized equipment serves a legitimate enforcement purpose. Similarly, if a hillside facility was approved subject to certain structural bracing requirements, and a subsequent earthquake or soil movement calls into question whether those requirements remain adequate, conditioning renewal on updated structural analysis is appropriate safety oversight.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 17
246
18 Therefore, Burbank requests that the Commission provide guidance making clear that permit renewals, when properly used to ensure continued safety and compliance rather than as pretexts for imposing new aesthetic requirements, serve legitimate purposes and do not conflict with Section 6409(a)'s mandate for expedited approval of non-substantial modifications.

Creating absolute immunity from all renewal conditions after initial Section 6409(a) approval would eliminate necessary local oversight and create safety risks.

D. Shot Clock Start and Completeness Determinations
The Commission seeks comment on whether there is a need to further clarify when the timeframe for review is deemed to have begun and on issues regarding shot clock tolling for incomplete applications.
13 Burbank's experience demonstrates that the existing framework functions well when properly implemented, but that certain practices deserve Commission recognition and endorsement.

Burbank's appointment-based intake system has proven highly effective at preventing shot clock disputes and improving application quality. By requiring applicants to schedule appointments for application submission, the City enables staff to conduct real-time completeness review during the submission process. Staff can immediately identify missing information, explain exactly what additional materials are needed, and in many cases enable applicants to provide supplemental information on the spot or withdraw and resubmit complete applications. This approach prevents applications from being formally filed in incomplete condition, avoids shot clock tolling disputes, and eliminates the iterative back-and-forth that characterizes many jurisdictions' review processes.

13 FCC 25-67, ¶ 28.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 18
247
19 Despite the clear benefits of this approach, some industry representatives have characterized appointment requirements as improper barriers to filing. The Commission should explicitly recognize that appointment-based intake systems, when operated reasonably with adequate appointment availability, represent good-faith efforts to improve efficiency rather than improper obstacles. Burbank has received no carrier complaints about appointment availability, and applications are typically scheduled within days of initial contact.

Burbank requests that the Commission also address the problematic practice of applicants submitting draft-level or intentionally incomplete applications for the purpose of starting shot clocks while continuing to develop necessary technical information. This practice forces local governments to issue incompleteness determinations to preserve shot clock tolling rights, creates administrative burden, and undermines the purpose of completeness requirements. The Commission should clarify that shot clocks begin only when applications contain the basic information necessary for staff to conduct required analysis, and that submission of placeholder applications lacking essential technical data does not trigger shot clock obligations.

V. RESPONSES TO SECTIONS 253 AND 332(c)(7) PROPOSALS

A. Macro Towers and Other Wireless Facilities

The Commission seeks comment on whether to extend Small Cell Order reforms to macro cell towers and other wireless facilities, and on potential barriers to such extension. 14 Burbank recognizes the continued importance of macro facilities to wireless network infrastructure while noting that such facilities present different considerations than small cells that may warrant tailored approaches.

14 FCC 25-67, ¶¶ 30-32.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 19
248
20 Macro facilities typically involve greater height, larger equipment volumes, more substantial visual impacts, greater structural engineering requirements, and potentially greater land use conflicts than small cells. These differences may justify different procedural frameworks and standards. However, the fundamental principles underlying the Small Cell Order—that fees must reasonably approximate costs, that processing must occur within reasonable timeframes, and that aesthetic requirements must be reasonable, objective, and published in advance—apply equally to macro facilities.

Burbank's existing CUP and AUP framework for macro facilities has functioned effectively. The City processes most macro applications as collocations on existing structures, which present fewer concerns than new tower construction. The Conditional Use Permit process for new towers enables evaluation of site-specific factors while providing clear approval criteria and timelines. The Commission should recognize that this type of flexible framework, when implemented in good faith with objective standards, facilitates deployment without requiring federal micromanagement.

The Commission should not assume that all macro facility regulations mirror the problematic small cell fees and requirements that prompted the Small Cell Order. Many jurisdictions, including Burbank, already apply reasonable cost-based fees, process applications within federal shot clocks, and impose only objective aesthetic requirements to macro facilities.

Extending prescriptive Small Cell Order reforms to macro facilities risks disrupting functioning local systems and should be undertaken only after careful evaluation of whether problems actually exist and whether federal intervention is necessary.

B. Shot Clocks: Existing Framework Functions Effectively ATTACHMENT 1 - 20
249
21 The Commission asks whether the codified shot clocks have helped expedite service delivery and whether additional shot clocks would improve efficiency.15 Burbank's experience demonstrates that the existing shot clock framework functions effectively when both parties act in good faith. The City consistently meets applicable shot clocks, and in the rare instances where circumstances justify additional review time, staff and applicants cooperatively negotiate short extensions through mutual tolling agreements.

The Commission's existing framework properly balances deployment speed with adequate time for necessary review. The 60-day shot clock for Small Wireless Facility collocations, 90-day shot clock for Small Wireless Facility new construction and non-Small collocation applications, and 150-day shot clock for non-Small new facilities provide sufficient time for competent review of complete applications while preventing indefinite delay.

Shortening these timeframes would create unnecessary pressure and increase error rates without corresponding deployment benefits.

The more significant issue is application quality and completeness rather than shot clock duration. When applications arrive complete with all necessary technical data, Burbank processes them efficiently within applicable shot clocks. When applications arrive incomplete or require multiple rounds of supplemental information, processing time extends regardless of shot clock duration. The Commission should focus on improving application quality—potentially through industry best practices guidance or standardized submittal requirements—rather than further shortening shot clocks.

Regarding completeness determinations and tolling, Burbank respectfully disagrees with any suggestion that local governments improperly request multiple rounds of supplements or

15 FCC 25-67, ¶¶ 34-36.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 21
250
22 issue late incompleteness determinations. The City's appointment-based intake system prevents these issues by identifying deficiencies immediately. When localities do issue late incompleteness determinations, this typically reflects the complexity of reviewing highly technical wireless applications with limited staff resources rather than bad faith. The Commission should preserve existing tolling provisions that enable reasonable incompleteness determinations while preventing abuse through the requirement that such determinations be specific regarding needed information.

C. Deemed Granted Remedies: Strong Opposition
The Commission seeks comment on whether to reconsider its prior decision not to adopt deemed granted remedies for shot clock violations.
16 Burbank strongly opposes adoption of
deemed granted remedies for wireless facility applications. Such remedies would create significant safety risks, undermine legitimate local authority, punish cities inappropriately when delays stem from applicant-caused incompleteness, and increase public distrust and litigation.

Safety Risks in Burbank's Unique Environment. Automatic approval of wireless facilities without regard to site-specific safety concerns would create serious risks in Burbank's environment. The City's proximity to Bob Hope Airport and established flight paths requires careful coordination with FAA requirements for any structure that might penetrate imaginary surfaces or create interference with navigation systems. Deemed granted approval could result in facilities that violate FAA requirements, creating aviation safety hazards.

Burbank's major film and television production studios conduct highly sensitive audio and video recording that can be disrupted by improperly designed wireless facilities. While carriers generally work cooperatively to address these concerns, automatic approval without

16 FCC 25-67, ¶¶ 38-39.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 22
251
23 review could authorize facilities that interfere with production activities worth billions of dollars annually to the regional economy. Similarly, automatic approval could authorize facilities in locations that interfere with existing utility infrastructure, creating service disruption risks.

The City's hillside neighborhoods present significant seismic and structural concerns.

Facilities sited without proper geotechnical review could be located on unstable slopes or designed with inadequate structural bracing for seismic loads. Automatic approval of such facilities could create public safety hazards and property damage risks that far exceed any deployment speed benefits.

Inappropriate Punishment of Local Governments. Deemed granted remedies would punish local governments even when shot clock delays stem entirely from applicant-caused incompleteness or other factors beyond municipal control. Burbank's experience demonstrates that most processing delays result from incomplete applications, third-party expediter errors, or the need for applicants to provide supplemental technical data required for proper evaluation.

Automatically approving applications under these circumstances would punish cities for applicant failures.

Moreover, deemed granted remedies would eliminate the beneficial practice of cooperative shot clock extensions. When both parties agree that circumstances justify additional review time—for example, when complex technical issues require expert consultation or when applicants need time to revise designs to address legitimate concerns—mutually agreed extensions enable superior outcomes. Deemed granted would eliminate this flexibility and force either rushed denials or automatic approvals of potentially problematic facilities.

Increased Public Distrust and Litigation. Automatic approval over community objections would exacerbate public opposition to wireless facilities by eliminating any ATTACHMENT 1 - 23
252
24 perception that local concerns receive consideration. This would increase organized opposition campaigns, encourage frivolous litigation attempting to overturn deemed granted approvals, and undermine public trust in both local government and wireless carriers. Burbank's collaborative approach demonstrates that local engagement and problem-solving produce better long-term outcomes than steamrolling community input.

Alternative Approaches. Rather than deemed granted remedies that assume all local governments are bad actors, the Commission should focus enforcement on demonstrated obstruction. The existing framework enabling carriers to seek judicial relief for shot clock violations, combined with the rebuttable presumption that violations constitute failure to act, provides adequate remedies against truly recalcitrant localities while preserving necessary flexibility for good-faith delays.

If the Commission concludes that additional enforcement mechanisms are necessary, it should consider targeted remedies such as requiring localities that repeatedly violate shot clocks to implement corrective action plans, providing for FCC review of patterns of violations rather than case-by-case automatic approvals, or creating expedited dispute resolution procedures that address specific problematic provisions while preserving local authority over legitimate concerns. These alternatives would address genuine obstruction without the collateral damage created by broad deemed granted remedies.

D. Fees and Cost Recovery: Preserve Cost-Based Standard While Recognizing Legitimate Variations

The Commission seeks comment on whether to codify Small Cell Order findings regarding fees, adopt additional safe harbors, and further define reasonable costs. 17 Burbank

17 FCC 25-67, ¶¶ 43-50.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 24
253
25 supports the fundamental principle that fees must reasonably approximate actual costs and be non-discriminatory, but opposes rigid national fee caps that fail to account for legitimate cost variations among jurisdictions.

Burbank's Cost-Based Fee Structure. The City's wireless facility fees derive from a formal cost study conducted by independent consultants analyzing actual staff time requirements for different application types. The study documented time spent by planning, building and safety, public works, and other departments reviewing applications, conducting site inspections, preparing staff reports, and administering permits. Fees are set to recover only direct staff costs and do not include overhead allocations or profit margins.

Third-party radiofrequency review is charged through refundable deposits only in the rare circumstances where applications raise complex technical issues requiring expert consultation beyond staff expertise. These costs are actual expenses invoiced by qualified RF engineers, not marked-up charges. The City has received no carrier complaints regarding fee reasonableness, and fees have not deterred deployment.

Legitimate Cost Variations Among Jurisdictions. The Commission must recognize that wireless facility review costs vary legitimately based on numerous factors beyond municipal control. High-cost urban areas such as Southern California have substantially higher labor costs than rural regions, directly affecting the staff time costs that constitute the majority of review expenses. Jurisdictions in seismically active regions require more extensive structural engineering review than areas without seismic concerns. Complex urban environments with dense existing infrastructure require more coordination with utility providers, transportation agencies, and other entities than simple deployments in greenfield locations.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 25
254
26 Rigid national fee caps that work in low-cost rural areas would fail to cover actual review costs in high-cost urban regions, forcing cities either to subsidize wireless deployment from general revenues (effectively requiring all taxpayers to pay for private infrastructure that benefits carrier shareholders) or to curtail necessary review creating safety risks. Neither outcome serves the public interest
Preserve Flexibility While Preventing Abuse. The Commission should maintain the cost-based standard from the Small Cell Order while providing flexibility for localities to document higher costs when justified by local conditions. The burden-shifting framework from the Verizon Clark County Dismissal Order—requiring localities to demonstrate why fees above safe harbors are reasonable—provides appropriate discipline while recognizing legitimate variations.
18 The Commission should clarify that reasonable costs include direct staff time for all departments involved in review (planning, building, public works, fire, utilities, airport coordination), actual costs for necessary expert consultants when specialized expertise exceeds staff capabilities, and direct costs for site inspections and monitoring. The Commission should also clarify that joint and common costs not directly attributable to wireless facility review— such as general municipal overhead, facility costs, or administrative expenses unrelated to application processing—cannot be recovered through wireless fees.

E. Aesthetic Standards: Current Framework Provides Sufficient Guidance The Commission seeks comment on whether to clarify standards for unreasonable discrimination regarding aesthetic requirements and whether to adopt rules addressing aesthetic

18 Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Clark County, Nevada Ordinance No. 4659 is Unlawful Under Section 253 of the Communications Act as Interpreted by the Federal Communications Commission and is Preempted, WT Docket No. 19-230, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 278 (2021).

ATTACHMENT 1 - 26
255
27 regulations.19 Burbank submits that the Ninth Circuit's decision in City of Portland provides sufficient guidance and that additional Commission rulemaking is unnecessary.20 Burbank's aesthetic requirements are objective, codified in municipal ordinances, published in advance, and applied consistently to all carriers. The requirements include concealment standards requiring facilities to blend with surrounding streetscape elements, spacing rules preventing excessive clustering in residential areas, and design criteria addressing equipment enclosure appearance, antenna configuration, and cable routing. These requirements are calibrated to minimize visual impact while permitting all technically feasible deployments.

Applicants generally appreciate the clarity provided by objective standards. Rather than subjective case-by-case aesthetic judgments creating uncertainty and delay, Burbank's codified requirements enable carriers to design facilities meeting known criteria and receive predictable approvals. This approach exemplifies how reasonable aesthetic regulation facilitates rather than impedes deployment.

The City of Portland framework—requiring aesthetic regulations to be reasonable and permitting comparisons only to functionally equivalent services rather than all infrastructure— provides workable standards.
21 The decision appropriately recognizes that Section 332(c)(7) permits some differentiation in treatment as long as it is reasonable and non-discriminatory.22 Additional Commission rulemaking attempting to define "reasonable" more precisely risks creating rigid rules that fail to account for legitimate local variations in community character, development patterns, and aesthetic values.

VI. REGULATORY IMPEDIMENTS

19 FCC 25-67, ¶¶ 58-59.
20 City of Portland v. United States (9th Cir. 2020) 969 F.3d 1020. 21 Ibid.
22 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)
ATTACHMENT 1 - 27
256
28 A. Radiofrequency Emissions: Support for Continued Federal Preemption and Enhanced Public Education

Burbank strongly supports the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction over radiofrequency emissions standards and agrees that localities may not use placement regulations as pretexts for RF emissions regulation. The City scrupulously respects federal RF preemption and does not base siting decisions on RF emissions concerns for facilities certified as compliant with Commission standards.

However, Burbank's experience demonstrates that RF health concerns remain the primary source of public opposition to wireless facilities despite federal preemption. The Commission can assist local governments and improve deployment outcomes by developing enhanced public education materials regarding RF safety. Current FCC resources are technical documents designed for scientific audiences rather than concerned residents. The Commission should develop plain-language explanations of RF safety standards, accessible summaries of research findings, visual materials illustrating exposure levels in context, and fact sheets addressing common misconceptions. These materials would enable local officials to educate communities, facilitate more informed public dialogue, and reduce opposition based on misunderstanding.

B. Conditional Use Permits: Time-Limited Permits Serve Legitimate Purposes The Commission seeks comment on whether time-limited Conditional Use Permits effectively prohibit service.
23 Burbank respectfully submits that time-limited permits serve legitimate purposes and do not prohibit service when renewal is not used as a pretext for imposing new aesthetic requirements unrelated to safety or changed circumstances.

23 FCC 25-67, ¶¶ 63-65.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 28
257
29 Time-limited permits enable periodic review ensuring that facilities remain structurally safe, that obsolete or abandoned facilities are identified and removed, and that technological advances enabling improved concealment while maintaining functionality can be evaluated.

These reviews serve legitimate public interests in safety, efficient spectrum use, and urban design that do not conflict with deployment goals.

Burbank requests that the Commission distinguish between improper use of renewal to revisit aesthetic preferences and legitimate renewal conditions addressing safety, structural integrity, or changed circumstances. The framework outlined in Section IV.C above would appropriately preserve beneficial aspects of time-limited permits while preventing abuse.

C. Moratoria: Support for Preemption of Specific Examples Burbank does not impose express or de facto moratoria on wireless deployment and supports Commission preemption of the specific examples identified in the NPRM. 24 Jurisdictions that entirely prohibit wireless facilities for extended periods clearly violate federal law and should face preemption. The Commission should act decisively to preempt identified moratoria while recognizing that well-functioning jurisdictions like Burbank should not be subject to prophylactic restrictions based on other localities' violations.

VII. REGULATORY CLARITY AND PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION
A. Clear Federal Definitions as Solution to Real Impediments The Commission asks whether additional actions would clarify the permitting process and improve efficiency.
25 Burbank submits that the most significant impediment to efficient wireless deployment is not local process but rather shifting federal definitions, inconsistent industry practices, and incomplete applications.

24 FCC 25-67, ¶ 67.
25 FCC 25-67, ¶ 28.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 29
258
30 When the Commission issues orders providing one interpretation of "collocation," "base station," or "substantial change," then subsequent orders or declaratory rulings provide different interpretations, localities must repeatedly consult legal counsel, revise internal procedures, and retrain staff and decisionmakers. This regulatory instability creates delay and cost far exceeding any burden imposed by reasonable local requirements. Burbank requests that the Commission prioritize definitional stability and clarity over additional preemption.

Similarly, when different carriers or their expediter firms interpret FCC requirements differently and submit applications based on inconsistent assumptions, localities must expend resources reconciling these variations and determining which interpretation is correct. Burbank requests that the Commission develop standardized application forms, clear technical submittal requirements, and industry best practices guidance that reduce variations in application quality and interpretation.

B. Value of Objective Standards and Local Knowledge
The Commission should encourage and facilitate local adoption of objective standards through guidance, best practices, and technical assistance rather than through preemption and federal micromanagement. Objective standards benefit all parties: applicants receive predictability, staff can process applications efficiently, and communities receive assurance that legitimate concerns are addressed systematically.

Burbank's experience demonstrates that objective standards facilitate deployment when they are clear, reasonable, and consistently applied. The Commission should recognize that well- designed local frameworks deserve support and protection rather than displacement by one-size- fits-all federal mandates that fail to account for legitimate local variations in geography, development patterns, and infrastructure.

ATTACHMENT 1 - 30
259
31 VIII. CONCLUSION
The City of Burbank strongly supports efficient deployment of advanced wireless infrastructure and has demonstrated that commitment through years of collaborative problem- solving, efficient application processing, and good-faith implementation of federal requirements.

Burbank's permitting framework works because it implements clear, objective standards while preserving appropriate flexibility to address legitimate local concerns that vary based on site- specific circumstances.

Burbank requests that the Commission build upon successful local frameworks rather than presuming dysfunction and imposing categorical federal restrictions. The NPRM's proposals regarding deemed granted remedies, permit renewal restrictions, and rigid fee caps risk undermining effective local governance without corresponding deployment benefits. These proposals would create safety risks in complex urban environments like Burbank, eliminate beneficial cooperative practices between cities and carriers, and punish good actors for the sins of bad actors in other jurisdictions.

Burbank respectfully urges the Commission to:

1. Adopt clear, stable definitions of Section 6409(a) terms including collocation, base station, concealment elements, and defeating concealment, with sufficient examples to address legacy installations and edge cases;

2. Distinguish between permit renewals and Section 6409(a) modifications, recognizing that renewals serve legitimate safety and compliance purposes when not used as pretexts for new aesthetic requirements;

3. Affirm local authority to adopt objective, non-discriminatory aesthetic standards that facilitate deployment by providing certainty;

4. Reject deemed granted remedies that would create safety risks and punish cities for applicant-caused delays, focusing instead on targeted enforcement against demonstrated bad actors;
ATTACHMENT 1 - 31
260
32 5. Preserve cost-based fee recovery while recognizing legitimate cost variations based on local labor rates, seismic requirements, and infrastructure complexity;

6. Recognize appointment-based intake and similar efficiency measures as good- faith process improvements rather than improper obstacles;

7. Develop enhanced public education materials regarding RF safety to assist local governments in community relations;

8. Acknowledge in the IRFA the cumulative burden of multiple overlapping regulatory mandates on municipal capacity; and

9. Provide adequate transition time for localities to update regulations in response to final rules.

The goal of federal wireless infrastructure regulation should be clarity and certainty that enable efficient deployment while preserving appropriate local authority to address legitimate concerns varying based on local conditions. Burbank's track record demonstrates that these objectives are not mutually exclusive. The Commission should adopt rules that facilitate collaborative approaches like Burbank's rather than presuming obstruction and imposing rigid mandates that would undermine effective local systems.

Respectfully submitted,

CITY OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA

By: ___________________________
David Hoover
Principal
The Ferguson Group

December 31, 2025

ATTACHMENT 1 - 32
261
33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 31 day of December, 2025, a copy of the foregoing Comments was filed electronically via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) in WT Docket No. 25-276.

David Hoover

ATTACHMENT 1 - 33
262
Update on the Initial
Assessment of Wireless
Telecommunication Facilities
Standards and Forthcoming
Recommendations
City Council
April 21, 2026

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
1263
WTF Regulatory Authority
• WTFs are licensed and regulated by the
Federal Communications Commission
• Local regulations may address zoning,
design, aesthetics, and placement
• Local authority is limited by federal law:
• Local jurisdictions cannot regulate
Radio Frequency (RF) emissions
• Local rules must not conflict with
federal objectives for rapid
deployment or result in an “effective
prohibition”
• FCC shot clocks require timely action on
applications
2 264
Why Is Local Control Limited?
• Early regulations resulted in:
• Strong local control
• Inconsistent rules nationwide
• Delays in network expansion,
interfered with inter-state
commerce
• FCC stepped in to facilitate faster,
reliable wireless deployment
3 265
City of Burbank Regulations
• WTF development standards
introduced in 1996
• Updated in 2010, 2011, 2015, and 2017
• To align with evolving federal,
state, and local health and
safety regulations
• To balance community concerns
• Current Challenges:
• Restrictive FCC shot clocks
• Limits on regulating perceived
health impacts
4 266
Regulations/ Permitting Updates
• Staff completed specialized WTF
training
• City retained Best, Best & Kreiger LLP
(BBK) for comprehensive review of
Zoning Code and procedures
• Staff is coordinating with federal
lobbyists on FCC rulemaking impacts
• Staff will return to Council with a
report summarizing the findings and
recommendations of the BBK analysis
5 267
Questions
Sara Durghalli, Assistant
Planner
Community Development
Department, Planning Division
(818) 238-5250
[email protected]
6268

Burbank City CouncilApril 21, 2026

Burbank City Council
April 21, 2026