Agenda packet, joint meeting, first session — Burbank City Council, October 13, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

Second Choice
SECOND choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

Describe any qualifications, experience, and education, as well as any technical or professional background you may have relative to the duties of this position
Leona A Rollins
246
247
248
249
If you answer yes, explain in detail any potential conflicts in the same manner as required by the Fair Political Practices Commission’s Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700). (If you should have any questions about this matter or need further information as it relates to your situation, please advise the City Clerk prior to submitting your application.) AB 1234 Training
Some Boards, Commissions, and Committees may receive City reimbursement for attending trainings or conferences. Therefore, under State Law, all members of the Board of Library Trustees, Burbank Water and Power Board, Infrastructure Oversight Board, Planning Commission, and Police Commission must receive at least two hours of ethics training, as prescribed by the Fair Political Practices Commission, within one year of appointment and once every two years thereafter.

First Choice
FIRST choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

Burbank Housing Corporation Board
Describe any qualifications, experience, and education, as well as any technical or professional background you may have relative to the duties of this position.

I am currently a senior member of the BHC Board with over 18 years of experience. For the past 8 years I have served as Board president. One of my core strengths as a leader is my ability to build and foster collaborative relations. This strength and experience has been an asset in developing our present board who bring extensive expertise in areas that contribute positively to the organization’s growth and mission. During my tenure as Board Director and most recently as President, the organization has made enormous strides in planning for a financially sound and sustainable future. I am confident that my experience in policy development, financial management, and community development enables me to provide effective leadership and make meaningful contributions to the boards continued efforts to expand and improve affordable housing. I am equally committed to ensuring that the organization remains fiscally responsible, mission-driven, and responsive to the needs of the community while effectively representing the cities interests.

What are your goals in serving on this Board/Commission/Committee? My goal in continuing to serve on this board is to build upon the progress we have made and help position the organization for a strong, sustainable future. I also want to strengthen the relationship between the organization and the City, ensuring that BHC remains a good steward of public resources and effective partners in addressing Burbank's affordable housing needs. Ultimately, my goal is to help ensure that the organization remains financially sound, forward thinking and capable of creating lasting benefits for our BHC residents and the broader community.

Second Choice
SECOND choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:
none
Chris T Welker
250
251
252
253
If you answer yes, explain in detail any potential conflicts in the same manner as required by the Fair Political Practices Commission’s Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700). (If you should have any questions about this matter or need further information as it relates to your situation, please advise the City Clerk prior to submitting your application.) AB 1234 Training
Some Boards, Commissions, and Committees may receive City reimbursement for attending trainings or conferences. Therefore, under State Law, all members of the Board of Library Trustees, Burbank Water and Power Board, Infrastructure Oversight Board, Planning Commission, and Police Commission must receive at least two hours of ethics training, as prescribed by the Fair Political Practices Commission, within one year of appointment and once every two years thereafter.

First Choice
FIRST choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

Burbank Housing Corporation
Describe any qualifications, experience, and education, as well as any technical or professional background you may have relative to the duties of this position.

With extensive leadership experience in Colorado—including serving as Secretary of a senior citizens’ advisory board for the City of Lakewood, an elected member of a county planning commission, and board president for both a water and sanitation district and a historical society—I bring a strong background in public service. My commitment to community involvement is further demonstrated by my work as a volunteer firefighter and numerous other volunteer roles. With 25 years of experience as an investigator, I bring a strong foundation in research, fact-finding, and analytical thinking. My career has required me to synthesize complex information into clear summaries and conclusions, followed by precise report writing. I pride myself on maintaining concise, accurate, and professional communication standards, which I believe are essential for effective board deliberation and decision-making.

What are your goals in serving on this Board/Commission/Committee? After attending Assemblymember Nick Schultz’s community meeting on housing, I was struck by the statistics regarding Burbank and the concerns raised by the audience. I am eager to learn more and contribute to BHC’s mission. I would welcome the opportunity to join the team and support your goals.

Second Choice
SECOND choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

N/A
Kat Thompson
254
255
Kat Thompson, PHR, SHRM-CP, EEOINV, AWI-CH
EEO/HCI Investigator
Burbank CA 91501

Education, Training, and Certifications
Some college - Associate of Applied Science, Business Administration - No degree Arapahoe Community College, Denver, CO
• PHR Certified since May 2002
• EEOC Investigator Certificate, Title VII, December 2003 to current • Association of Workplace Investigators Certificate, September 2021 • Certified Mediator, August 2004
• Title VI & Title IX Certified, August 2010
• Certified EEO Counselor, July 2011
• Certified Fact-Finder Federal Sector, February 2015
• SHRM-CP Certified since December 2015
SHRM, Society for Human Resource Management – Member in Good Standing since 2002 AWI, Association of Workplace Investigators – Member in Good Standing since 2021 Professional Summary
• Certified Professional with a 25-year career in EEO and Harassment Complaint investigations and experience in employee and labor relations, HR management, and legal compliance. • Average monthly caseload = 15 open cases. Highest monthly caseload = 35 cases. • Six years as a Paralegal in corporate and criminal law.

Professional Experience
Sr. Workplace Investigator, Ethics & Workplace Investigations Team, May 2021 – December 2024 (retired)
SoCal Gas, Los Angeles, CA. Managed a caseload of numerous investigations, working autonomously and collaboratively with fellow team members, business leaders, human resources, labor relations, internal audit, corporate security, and legal. Regularly interact with employees at all levels, helping to build understanding, transparency, and trust around the company’s investigative function. Perform prompt, thorough, and fair investigations from intake to completion, including conducting investigative interviews of employees and others, reviewing, analyzing, and synthesizing documents and data collected as part of the investigations. Make objective and analytically sound investigative findings. I am skilled in crafting thorough and reliable credibility assessments. Provide recommendations and advice about options for corrective action. Draft detailed investigation reports and other documents, and correspondence related to the 256
investigations. Prepare executive summaries and provide appropriate investigation updates to management and legal. Drive impact by helping the company create and sustain a complianceoriented culture. Provide advice and consulting for leaders and employees to support continuous improvement related to issues identified in investigations, as broadly defined. Work with Organizational Effectiveness to develop and deliver compliance education programs and training designed proactively to address workplace issues.

Lead EEO Investigator/HCI Investigator/Program Manager March 2017 – May 2021

HR Anew, Columbia, MD, Corporate Office (client of Vantage Partners, Inc. conducted EEO and Workplace Fact-Finding investigations and created an investigations department for the firm.

Trained and mentored new investigators, created processes, and developed the program.) Certified EEO Investigator/HCI Investigator December 2003 – May 2018 President/CEO, Vantage Partners, Inc., Los Angeles, CA
EEO and Workplace Fact-Finding Investigator/mediator/compliance officer for several government agencies on contract basis including but not limited to: U.S. Postal Service, NEEOISO, Department of Labor, State Department, General Services Administration, The Internal Revenue Service, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, The Bureau of Fiscal Services, The Social Security Administration, U.S. Mint, Department of the Treasury, The Department of the Interior, The Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau of Land Management, The National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, The Department of Veterans Affairs, The U.S. Geological Society, The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Department of Justice, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Agriculture. In addition, I served corporate offices, including HRSOS, LLC; Circuit Media, LLC; and PRI Enterprises, LLC. The role includes but is not limited to reviewing case files, determining the basis, identifying involved parties, and developing investigative procedures/plans. Prepare correspondence and communicate effectively with parties to allegations to obtain affidavits, corroborating materials, supporting documentation, and evidence. Conduct face-to-face or telephonic interviews or written interrogatories/affidavits. Compile affidavits or prepare interview statements and evidentiary materials in compliance with federal regulations.

Review all related documents requested and received. Create and write an investigative report summarizing the case precisely and unbiasedly, resulting in a proper and professional presentation of the activities regarding allegations and issues for the record. Provide verbal briefing of the findings telephonically or in person upon completion of the investigation, if applicable. Quality and timeliness of investigation are always priorities. HR consultant, covering labor relations, promotions, attendance issues, disciplinary actions, terminations, policy/procedures, regulatory compliance, harassment/hostile work environment topics, and training-the-trainer on various HR issues.
257
Attachment 2
Redevelopment Agency
Resolution No. R-1878
258
259
260
Attachment 3
Housing Authority
Resolution No. H-209
261
262
263
264
1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Kimberley Clark, City Clerk
BY: Maria Sanchez, Administrative Analyst II
Yasleen Robinson, Intermediate Clerk
SUBJECT: Appointment to Fill One Vacancy on the Burbank Cultural Arts Commission for an Unexpired Term

RECOMMENDATION
Appoint one member to the Burbank Cultural Arts Commission (Commission) to fill an unexpired term ending July 31, 2029.

BACKGROUND
All Board, Commission, and Committee (BCC) Members shall be appointed by a threefifths (3/5) vote of all Council Members and serve without compensation from the City. No person shall serve on more than one BCC at the same time. Vacancies on a BCC occurring during the term of office shall be filled within 90 days from the date the vacancy occurs. Any person appointed to fill a vacancy shall hold office for the remainder of the unexpired term and must complete the term before applying to serve on another board, commission, or committee. In addition, all applicants must reside within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Burbank (per Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) §§ 2-1-404, 2-1- 405, 2-1-406, and 2-1-407).

Once a vacancy is established, the City Clerk advertises the vacancy for 30 days, accepts applications, and provides the applications received to Council for consideration.

Applicants can submit up to two applications to BCCs, indicating their first and second choice.

CITY CLERK’S
OFFICE
Reports to Council
Item #2
265
2 The established voting process allows for each Council Member to vote as many times as there are vacancies on the BCC being considered; the applicants receiving a majority of the votes in the first round are either appointed or move into the second round, if necessary. The process continues for as many rounds as are necessary to attain the correct number of applicants to fill each vacancy.

Burbank Cultural Arts Commission
The Burbank Cultural Arts Commission shall make policy and funding recommendations on matters related to the implementation of the City’s Cultural Arts Plan, help engage the community by participating in various public education, outreach, and promotional activities related to cultural arts and conduct other duties as requested by Council. The Burbank Cultural Arts Commission shall have the duties to: act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in establishing policy on all matters as described; engage the participation of the community; provide community support for advancing policy initiatives and programs; advise the City Council in the maximizing and leveraging efficient use of resources in the community; advise the City Council in the review of proposals, programs, practices, and goals; and other duties as requested by Council.

DISCUSSION
On September 2, 2026, the City Clerk's Office began advertising and accepting applications for one vacancy on the Commission for an unexpired term ending July 31, 2029, created by the resignation of Commissioner Jacqueline Brenneman.

To obtain qualified candidates, a Notice of Vacancy was advertised through the following:
• City website
• City Council meeting announcements
• All social media platforms managed by the City Clerk’s Office • Press releases sent to the Burbank Leader and MyBurbank.com • Notices posted on the City Hall Bulletin Board
• Community groups and organizations
• Constant Contact email notification
The deadline for submitting applications to the City Clerk’s Office was Friday, October 2, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The City Clerk’s Office received a total of four applications: Stephen Newman, Gabriel Feinberg, Ralph Massey and Brenton Douglas. The applications are listed in the order received.

Please note that applicant Gabriel Feinberg also applied for the Sustainable Burbank Commission. If appointed to the Burbank Cultural Arts Commission, this applicant’s name will be removed from consideration for the Sustainable Burbank Commission 266
3 appointment, which will be presented to the Council at the October 13, 2026, City Council Meeting.

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 item.

CONCLUSION
The City and the community both realize substantial benefits from civic involvement.

Appointments to the Boards, Commissions, and Committees help encourage public participation in the governmental process and ensure Burbank residents have a voice.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Applications and Resumes
Attachment 2 – Burbank Municipal Code § 2-1-425
267
Attachment 1
Applications and Resumes
268
269
270
If you answer yes, explain in detail any potential conflicts in the same manner as required by the Fair Political Practices Commission’s Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700). (If you should have any questions about this matter or need further information as it relates to your situation, please advise the City Clerk prior to submitting your application.) AB 1234 Training
Some Boards, Commissions, and Committees may receive City reimbursement for attending trainings or conferences. Therefore, under State Law, all members of the Board of Library Trustees, Burbank Water and Power Board, Infrastructure Oversight Board, Planning Commission, and Police Commission must receive at least two hours of ethics training, as prescribed by the Fair Political Practices Commission, within one year of appointment and once every two years thereafter.

First Choice
FIRST choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

Burbank Cultural Arts Commission.

Describe any qualifications, experience, and education, as well as any technical or professional background you may have relative to the duties of this position.

I retired from 50+ years in the technical side of the entertainment industry. I am a retired member of NABET-CWA Local 53 here in Burbank. I performed many types of music in my early life. Currently I am a musician with the Burbank Community Band. I was the first president of the Burbank Community Band after it incorporated as a 501c3 non-profit, serving in that position for approximately eleven years.

What are your goals in serving on this Board/Commission/Committee? I feel the Cultural Arts Commission would benefit from the the perspective of a Senior Burbank Citizen who has experience in a performing group whose main purpose is community cultural enrichment through live music. I also would like to be an advocate for improvement in the availability of live performance spaces in Burbank.

Second Choice
SECOND choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

N/A
Describe any qualifications, experience, and education, as well as any technical or professional background you may have relative to the duties of this position
Stephen C Newman
271
272
273
274
AB 1234 Training
Some Boards, Commissions, and Committees may receive City reimbursement for attending trainings or conferences. Therefore, under State Law, all members of the Board of Library Trustees, Burbank Water and Power Board, Infrastructure Oversight Board, Planning Commission, and Police Commission must receive at least two hours of ethics training, as prescribed by the Fair Political Practices Commission, within one year of appointment and once every two years thereafter.

First Choice
FIRST choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

Burbank Cultural Arts Commission
Describe any qualifications, experience, and education, as well as any technical or professional background you may have relative to the duties of this position.

I'm a seasoned television writer and producer. Culture and art have been at the core of my career, stemming back to my college degree which combined a focus on American History and its Art & Culture. Moreover, as a Union member, I strongly believe in that power of collective action in creating a better, more inclusive community.

What are your goals in serving on this Board/Commission/Committee? I hope to harness Burbank's unique access to world class artists to improve the visibility and engagement in Burbank's rich cultural programming. I'd love to create more regular, free-toaccess cultural events for the public across traditional and new media. From classical music and film screenings, to culinary showcases and videogame design. Burbank is home to so many artists in so many different disciplines, it would be a waste not to tap their expertise to enrich our community.

Second Choice
SECOND choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

Sustainable Burbank Commission
Describe any qualifications, experience, and education, as well as any technical or professional background you may have relative to the duties of this position
N/A
What are your goals in serving on this Board/Commission/Committee? Improve & expand visibility, access and understanding of Burbank's rebate programs to public. Host more events on composting, gardening and other low-cost sustainability programs. Create more community garden spaces, covert portions of existing Burbank park spaces into drought tolerant/native landscape educational gardens, and increasing use of renewable energies (such as solar panels) on municipal properties.

Supplemental Questions (Infrastructure Oversight Board Only) Gabriel Feinberg
275
276
Gabriel L. Feinberg
Creative professional with 10+ years in primetime television, delivering high-impact storytelling to millions through innovative problem-solving and cross-functional collaboration.

EXPERIENCE
HANK’S BAGELS (2025)
Front of House
● Deliver friendly, efficient customer service during high-volume breakfast & lunch rushes ● Accurately process 200-500 customized customer orders each day ● Operate Toast POS system while handling cash, card & gift transactions ● Coordinate with kitchen staff to ensure fast, accurate order fulfillment ● Assist customers, delivery drivers, & catering clients with precision & professionalism ● Open & close restaurant, prep coffee & beverages & restock all fresh foods ● Maintain a clean, organized, food-safe front-of-house environment NBCUNIVERSAL / CHICAGO MED (2015 - 2024)
Writer/Producer
● Write & produce over one dozen hours of high budget scripted television programming ● Ideate, collaborate & revise compelling narrative content for 5+ million weekly viewers ● Supervise junior creatives & support cross-functional teams to execute brand vision ● Consistently provide high quality deliverables on tight schedule within budget ● Offer real-time creative solutions in collaboration with executives, directors and talent Researcher
● Liaise with experts & technical advisors to ensure consistent brand voice & authenticity ● Build & maintain custom reference material database for project tracking Executive Assistant
● Draft, revise & publish key documentation for publicity & marketing ● Liaise, coordinate & collaborate with multiple teams across production, studio & network WARNER BROS TELEVISION / THE FOLLOWING (2013 – 2015)
Executive Assistant
● Draft, revise & distribute series feedback from studio & network stakeholders ● Manage high volume schedule & executive travel throughout series production NBC UNIVERSAL (2012- 2013)
Page: SyFy Network, Universal Television Studio, Program Standards ● Support multiple VP executives with document management & scheduling ● Identify & distribute publicity & promotional material for multiple projects ● Independently manage department talent tracking database ● Support multiple EVP & SVP executives from ideation through production on over two down high budget creative projects.
● Manage & reconcile travel and expenses for department of nine upper-level executives ● Log & distribute mandated Standards Reports to ensure FCC compliance

280

281
282
283

284

285

286
Attachment 2
Burbank Municipal Code
Section 2-1-425:

Burbank Cultural Arts Commission
287
Attachment 2
Burbank Municipal Code 2-1-425: Burbank Cultural Arts Commission A. Establishment: The Burbank Cultural Arts Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. The Commission shall make policy and funding recommendations on matters related to the implementation of the City’s Cultural Arts Plan, help engage the community by participating in various public education, outreach, and promotional activities related to cultural arts and other duties as requested by Council.

B. Composition of the Commission:

1. The Burbank Cultural Arts Commission shall be composed of nine (9) members appointed by the City Council as follows: from the business community at-large, who is engaged in the arts, or who represents a diversity of art disciplines such as: arts education; art in public places; dance; live theater; film, studio and recording industry; media affiliated resources; music; and visual arts.

2. The Commission shall have the constituted offices of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. a. Chairperson – The Chairperson shall maintain the general supervision and direction and control of the business and meetings of the Commission. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Commission, and shall have the power to appoint subcommittees of the Commission and subcommittee Chairpersons as necessary, and shall receive reports of the subcommittee’s activities.
b. Vice Chairperson – The Vice Chairperson shall act in the absence of the Chairperson, perform all the duties of the Chairperson, and in so acting, shall have all the powers of the Chairperson.

3. Liaison with Council: The Mayor shall designate two members of the City Council to meet with the Commission, but such members shall not be members of the Commission.

C. Powers and Duties:

1. The Burbank Cultural Arts Commission shall have the duties to:
a. Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in establishing policy on all matters as described in Section A.
b. Engage the participation of the community.
c. Provide community support for advancing policy initiatives and programs. d. Advise the City Council in the maximizing and leveraging efficient use of resources in the community.
e. Advise the City Council in the review of proposals, programs, practices, and goals. f. Other duties as requested by Council.

D. Meetings: The Burbank Cultural Arts Commission shall meet as needed, on a day and time and place to be determined and fixed by the Commission at its August meeting and in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Additional noticed meetings may be scheduled as necessary by the Commission. All meetings shall be open to the public. Minutes of each meeting shall be maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department.

E. Quorum: A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. (Added by Ord. No. 16-3,874; amended by Ord. No. 25-4,032, eff. 9/26/2025; 25-4,028, 22-3,983) 288
1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Kimberley Clark, City Clerk
BY: Maria Sanchez, Administrative Analyst II
Yasleen Robinson, Intermediate Clerk
SUBJECT: Appointment to Fill One Vacancy on the Sustainable Burbank Commission for an Unexpired Term

RECOMMENDATION
Appoint one member to the Sustainable Burbank Commission (Commission) to fill an unexpired term ending July 31, 2029.

Once a vacancy is established, the City Clerk advertises the vacancy for 30 days, accepts applications, and provides the applications received to Council for consideration.

Applicants can submit up to two applications to BCCs, indicating their first and second choice.

CITY CLERK’S
OFFICE
Reports to Council
Item #3
289
2 The established voting process allows for each Council Member to vote as many times as there are vacancies on the BCC being considered; the applicants receiving a majority of the votes in the first round are either appointed or move into the second round, if necessary. The process continues for as many rounds as are necessary to attain the correct number of applicants to fill each vacancy.

Sustainable Burbank Commission
The Sustainable Burbank Commission shall advise and make recommendations to the City Council on matters related to the implementation of the City of Burbank Sustainability Action Plan and help engage the community by participating in various public education, outreach, and promotional activities related to environmental sustainability. The Sustainable Burbank Commission shall be composed of nine (9) members to be appointed by Council. When appointing persons to the Commission, Council should consider representation of the business community at large who is engaged in environmental issues, the real estate or development industry, or faith-based and nonprofit communities.

DISCUSSION
On September 3, 2026, the City Clerk's Office began advertising and accepting applications for one vacancy on the Commission for an unexpired term ending July 31, 2029, created by the resignation of Commissioner Charles Wilson.

To obtain qualified candidates, a Notice of Vacancy was advertised through the following:
• City website
• City Council meeting announcements
• All social media platforms managed by the City Clerk’s Office • Press releases sent to the Burbank Leader and MyBurbank.com • Notices posted on the City Hall Bulletin Board
• Community groups and organizations
• Constant Contact email notification
The deadline for submitting applications to the City Clerk’s Office was Monday, October 5, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. The City Clerk’s Office received a total of four applications: Douglas Carlson, Tony Cimolino, Gabriel Feinberg, and Joshua Glass. The applications are listed in the order received.

Please note that applicant Gabriel Feinberg also applied for the Burbank Cultural Arts Commission. If appointed, this applicant’s name will be removed from consideration for the Sustainable Burbank Commission.
290
3 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 item.

CONCLUSION
The City and the community both realize substantial benefits from civic involvement.

Appointments to the Boards, Commissions, and Committees help encourage public participation in the governmental process and ensure Burbank residents have a voice.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Applications and Resumes
Attachment 2 – BMC § 2-1-424
291
Attachment 1
Applications and Resumes
292
293
Upload a Resume
Why are you interested in serving on a board, commission or committee? Environmental issues of fire prevention / structural fire resilience; trash / recycling; water consumption, storm water runoff & replenishing our water table; increased electrical usage for car charging & AI graphics / solar power promotion, for me are all important issues that we are facing as a community. I love living in Burbank and being in a town where being a resident, we can make a difference in Our City, by getting involved. At the age of 16, I worked with a local Professor, to change a storm water drainage system that was going to destroy the DeGraaf Nature Center, in my hometown of Holland, Michigan. The storm water system called The Lela Drain, is functioning fine, and the DeGraff Nature is still a wonderful 18 acre preserve where everyone can learn about the native plants. See this link - https://outdoordiscovery.org/degraaf/ I've lived in Burbank since 1995, and I installed (2) drywells on my property to take all of my storm water runoff from the Main House, Guest House, and 3-car garage to deep root water my trees on my double lot property. These wells have never overflowed during the heaviest of our winter storms, and as a drainage option for our residence city wide, can be very useful to limit flooding and replenish our water table. I organic garden using compost bins, mulching grass & leaves, and use a push mower and electric gardening tools. I strongly believe in limiting use of gasoline engines. I have (6) citrus trees and an avocado tree that are thriving in very healthy soil. I also have a 50' pine tree, and several 30' tall Ash and Sycamore trees that shade my property and reduce the need for Airconditioning. I was the Chairman for the Rancho Providencia traffic advisory commission from 1996 to 2001. We had 40 committee meetings, 3 area wide meetings, and ultimately our traffic calming devises were implemented by the Burbank City Council in 2001. These traffic calming measures have been very useful to reduce traffic volume and speed for our residential area, during the Media Expansions for Disney / ABC and what was the NBC properties. I recently requested our Burbank Public Pools to change their hours of closures / partial usage, to maximize pool usage. The fall of 2025, the Pool Staff have implemented dramatic changes that is increasing pool usage and public access.

Education
Holland High School - graduate 1976 Hope College, Holland Michigan, majored in Geology and Marketing - 1976 to 1978 SCI-ARC (Southern California Institute of Architecture) - 1980 to 1982
Additional Pertinent Courses or Training
LEED certified for sustainable construction.

Other Pertinent Skills, Experience or Interests
I been a California licensed General Contractor since 1985. Please see my resume on by website - www.pointswestconstruction.com I was Chairman of the Board for The Torch Foundation, a non-profit organization that provides free leadership trainings to mainly innercity teenagers. I participated on this Board from 2016 to 2023.

Community Involvement
Specify current or prior service on a City Board, Commission or Committee:
1996 - 2001, Chairman of the Rancho Providencia traffic commission.

Douglas S Carlson
294
295
296
297
298
If you answer yes, explain in detail any potential conflicts in the same manner as required by the Fair Political Practices Commission’s Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700). (If you should have any questions about this matter or need further information as it relates to your situation, please advise the City Clerk prior to submitting your application.) AB 1234 Training
Some Boards, Commissions, and Committees may receive City reimbursement for attending trainings or conferences. Therefore, under State Law, all members of the Board of Library Trustees, Burbank Water and Power Board, Infrastructure Oversight Board, Planning Commission, and Police Commission must receive at least two hours of ethics training, as prescribed by the Fair Political Practices Commission, within one year of appointment and once every two years thereafter.

First Choice
FIRST choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

Burbank Sustainability Commission is the only board I am interested in.

Describe any qualifications, experience, and education, as well as any technical or professional background you may have relative to the duties of this position.

See above for details.

What are your goals in serving on this Board/Commission/Committee? Help Burbank to continue to be a leader in environmental stewardship.

Second Choice
SECOND choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

N/A
Describe any qualifications, experience, and education, as well as any technical or professional background you may have relative to the duties of this position
What are your goals in serving on this Board/Commission/Committee? Supplemental Questions (Infrastructure Oversight Board Only) Tony A Cimolino
299
300
301
302
AB 1234 Training
Some Boards, Commissions, and Committees may receive City reimbursement for attending trainings or conferences. Therefore, under State Law, all members of the Board of Library Trustees, Burbank Water and Power Board, Infrastructure Oversight Board, Planning Commission, and Police Commission must receive at least two hours of ethics training, as prescribed by the Fair Political Practices Commission, within one year of appointment and once every two years thereafter.

First Choice
FIRST choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

Burbank Cultural Arts Commission
Describe any qualifications, experience, and education, as well as any technical or professional background you may have relative to the duties of this position.

Second Choice
SECOND choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

Supplemental Questions (Infrastructure Oversight Board Only) Gabriel Feinberg
303
304
Gabriel L. Feinberg
Creative professional with 10+ years in primetime television, delivering high-impact storytelling to millions through innovative problem-solving and cross-functional collaboration.

EDUCATION
OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE (May 2011)
Bachelor of Arts: Film & Media Studies, American Studies ● Graduated with Distinction, Magna Cum Laude & Phi Beta Kappa honors SKILLS
• Microsoft Office Suite, Google Workspace, ChatGPT, Final Draft, Screenwriting, Creative Writing, Copywriting, Technical Writing, Physical Production, Branding, Publicity, Project 305
Gabriel L. Feinberg
Management, Team Management, Budgeting, Leadership, Collaboration, Research, 306
307
308
AB 1234 Training
Some Boards, Commissions, and Committees may receive City reimbursement for attending trainings or conferences. Therefore, under State Law, all members of the Board of Library Trustees, Burbank Water and Power Board, Infrastructure Oversight Board, Planning Commission, and Police Commission must receive at least two hours of ethics training, as prescribed by the Fair Political Practices Commission, within one year of appointment and once every two years thereafter.

First Choice
FIRST choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

Sustainable Burbank Commission
Describe any qualifications, experience, and education, as well as any technical or professional background you may have relative to the duties of this position.

Thought the Television Academy was part of a “climate storytelling” group/commission that focused on supporting filmmakers promote and develop climate-related stories in media and entertainment.

What are your goals in serving on this Board/Commission/Committee? Learn more about and aid in furthering Burbank’s climate goals during the immediate and foreseeable future.

Second Choice
SECOND choice for Board/Commission/Committee appointment:

Describe any qualifications, experience, and education, as well as any technical or professional background you may have relative to the duties of this position
What are your goals in serving on this Board/Commission/Committee? Supplemental Questions (Infrastructure Oversight Board Only) Acknowledgment
Joshua B Glass
309
310
311
Attachment 2
Burbank Municipal Code
§ 2-1-424: Sustainable Burbank
Commission
312
Attachment 2
Burbank Municipal Code
§ 2-1-424: Sustainable Burbank Commission
A. Establishment of the Commission: The Sustainable Burbank Commission shall advise and make recommendations to the City Council on matters related to the implementation of the City of Burbank Sustainability Action Plan and help engage the community by participating in various public education, outreach, and promotional activities related to environmental sustainability.

B. Composition of the Commission:

1. The Sustainable Burbank Commission shall be composed of nine (9) members to be appointed by Council. When appointing persons to the Commission, Council should consider representation of the business community at large who is engaged in environmental issues, the real estate or development industry, or faith-based or non-profit community.

2. The Commission shall have the constituted offices of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.
a. Chairperson – The Chairperson shall maintain the general supervision, direction and control of the business and meetings of the Sustainable Burbank Commission. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Commission and shall have the power to appoint subcommittees of the Commission and subcommittee Chairpersons as necessary and shall receive reports of the subcommittee’s activities.
b. Vice Chairperson – The Vice Chairperson shall act in the absence of the Chairperson, perform all the duties of the Chairperson, and in so acting, shall have all the powers of the Chairperson.

3. Liaison with Council: The Mayor shall designate two members of the City Council to meet with the Commission, but such members shall not be members of the Commission.

C. Powers and Duties of the Commission:

1. The Sustainable Burbank Commission shall have the duties to:
a. Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in establishing policy on all matters as described in Section A.
b. Engage the participation of the community.
c. Provide community support for advancing policy initiatives and programs. 313
Attachment 2
d. Advise the City Council in the maximizing and leveraging efficient use of resources in the community.
e. Advise the City Council in the review of proposals, programs, practices, and goals.

D. Meetings: The Sustainable Burbank Commission shall meet regularly at least every other month, on a day and time and place to be determined and fixed by the Commission and in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. Additional noticed meetings may be scheduled as necessary. All meetings shall be open to the public.

Regular minutes of each meeting shall be maintained by the Public Works Department. Agendas of the Commission shall be posted as required by the laws of the State of California.

E. Quorum: A majority of the members of the Sustainable Burbank Commission shall constitute a quorum.
314
1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Eric Lashley, Library Services Director
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Progressive Design-Build Contract with Clark Construction Group – California, LP for the Burbank Library and Civic Center Project and Authorizing the Library Services Director, as Designee of the City Manager, to Execute the Agreement and Future Task Orders and/or Amendments Provided that Funds Are Budgeted

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING

A PROGRESSIVE DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT WITH CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP – CALIFORNIA, LP FOR THE BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE LIBRARY SERVICES DIRECTOR, AS DESIGNEE

OF THE CITY MANAGER, TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND FUTURE TASK ORDERS AND/OR AMENDMENTS PROVIDED THAT FUNDS ARE BUDGETED.

BACKGROUND
The New Burbank Library and Civic Center Project (Project) represents a transformative opportunity to vitalize Burbank’s downtown core, advance City Council goals, and respond to the evolving needs of the community. The Project provides the opportunity to create an essential downtown neighborhood through the replacement of aging facilities with modern, sustainable, and flexible spaces designed to serve Burbank residents, businesses, and visitors for generations to come. The Project will also serve as a catalyst for the continued transformation of Downtown Burbank, creating a more vibrant, connected, and active civic destination while making a significant long-term investment in the heart of the community.

The City of Burbank's Civic Center includes the Administrative Services Building (ASB), Central Library, City Hall, Community Services Building (CSB), Police and Fire Headquarters, and associated parking areas. A 2003 Development Agreement

LIBRARY

SERVICES
Reports to Council
Item #4
315
2 associated with Planned Development (PD) 2002-2 aimed to upgrade the Civic Center, however, only the CSB was replaced before the Development Agreement expired in 2018. The Project includes the proposed new Central Library and Civic Center Building, parking structure, and associated public open space improvements consistent with the previously approved PD2002-2 framework.

The Central Library, built in 1963, was first identified as needing renovation or replacement by the City in 1989. The building’s only significant updates occurred in 1992, which included new carpet and paint, followed by additional systems upgrades throughout the years. Past efforts, such as Measure L (the Library Improvement Bond) was passed by Burbank voters in 2003, but was contingent on obtaining State matching funds. The City was unsuccessful in obtaining matching funds at the time when the State ceased funding for public library construction.

The ASB houses the City’s Financial Services and Management Services Departments in a former bank building constructed in 1966. The departments moved into the building in 2001, which was intended to be a temporary location until the new ASB and a replacement Library were constructed, neither of which were ever completed.

In 2018, Burbank voters passed Measure P (Burbank Infrastructure and Community Services Protection Transactions and Use Tax) to fund infrastructure through a new local tax, creating an important funding mechanism and renewed opportunity for the City to advance long-standing infrastructure priorities, including the Civic Center and Central Library. This provided the impetus to continue the Project’s development with the following efforts.

In 2020, the City engaged with consultants to complete an updated study of options for the Library, including gathering public input on space-use priorities for a future building.

In February 2021, Council received the study, A Vision for the New Burbank Central Library (Vision Study) and directed staff to explore a plan to finance construction of a replacement Library.

In October 2021, the City contracted with the engineering consulting firm ARUP to assess the proposed Project and explore potential alternatives. Through that process, the City determined to proceed with a Progressive Design/Build (PDB) project delivery model.

This model offers the key benefits of risk transfer for design and construction to a PDB contractor, close collaboration between designers and builders, flexibility during the design phase for cost-benefit analysis including operations and maintenance considerations, and community and stakeholder input.

In November 2024, staff provided an update to Council explaining the Project’s next step was to procure a full-service project management firm with the expertise and experience 316
3 to assist City staff with delivering the Project. Consistent with this effort, the City Council included activity 1C under “Quality of Life” in the adopted City Council Priority Action Plan for 2025-26, which aimed to secure project management services for the Project to refine the Project scope and complete a solicitation for a design-builder.

In August 2025, the City approved a Professional Services Agreement with MOCA Systems, Inc. (MOCA) for Project Management services for the Project. Since then, MOCA and City staff conducted extensive outreach, community engagement, financial analysis, and other background work to refine the project definition, create a preliminary concept design to support the project definition and budget. Additionally, the team completed the necessary environmental review and obtained required planning entitlements through the City’s Development Review Process (Attachment 5) in preparation for a comprehensive competitive solicitation for a progressive design builder (PDB Team) to design and construct the Project.

In March 2026, City staff presented an update to Council outlining a more focused Project definition that will serve the evolving needs of Burbank residents, City staff, and the broader community. The Project is envisioned as a new cultural, intellectual, civic, and community hub, a place where residents can learn, create, gather, access services, participate in community life, and connect with one another. The proposed facility moves well beyond the traditional concept of a library by bringing together a broad range of educational, cultural, creative, social, and community-serving amenities in one contemporary civic destination. The Project will accommodate modern programming including adult, senior, teen and children’s areas, co-working spaces, and multipurpose rooms, as well as special programming such as public art, performance spaces including a large flexible auditorium, a coffee shop/café, social services, maker space, media lab, music recording studio, teaching kitchen, rooftop event space, and staff areas.

City offices will include staff workstations and offices, conference and training rooms, and break areas. The Project will also include a new above grade parking garage with EV charging, bike storage, Bookmobile storage, and other amenities. The outdoor area will include contemplative and active spaces, including an outdoor reading area, event lawn, and plaza that can accommodate public art and/or other outdoor community programs.

These spaces will extend the Project beyond the walls of the buildings and create new opportunities for residents, visitors, and the broader community to gather, attend events, enjoy public art, and experience Downtown Burbank as a civic and cultural destination.

MOCA and City staff estimate the design and construction costs for the Project will be approximately $155 million dollars, with funding planned through a combination of available City infrastructure funds, grants, and bond financing. Final Project costs will be developed in collaboration with the selected PDB Team through a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP), which will be presented to the City Council for final approval. 317
4 DISCUSSION
With the Project definition established and the necessary planning, environmental, financial, and community engagement work substantially advanced, the City has reached a significant milestone in moving the Project from planning and visioning toward implementation.

Working with MOCA, the City completed a two-step competitive solicitation by issuing a Request for Qualifications (RFQu) (Attachment 2) and Request for Proposal (RFP) (Attachment 3) identify and recommend a PDB Team for the Project. The RFQu was released on May 11, 2026. In response, 18 teams submitted Statements of Qualification (SOQs), which were evaluated and scored by a panel comprised of City staff from the City Manager’s Office, and the Community Development, Library Services, and Public Works Departments. Evaluation was based on the criteria outlined in the RFQu, including each firm’s experience, background, past performance, project team qualifications, understanding of the Project and proposed approach to the PDB delivery method. After the SOQ review process, the panel short-listed four teams to advance to the RFP phase.

The four short-listed teams were: (1) Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC and The Miller Hull Partnership, LLP; (2) Clark Construction Group – California, LP (Clark) and Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill LLP (SOM); (3) Gilbane Building Company and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC; and (4) Swinerton Builders, RIOS, Inc., and Noll & Tam Architects.

The RFP was released on July 20, 2026, and each team submitted a proposal by a deadline date of August 14, 2026. Interviews with the teams were held on August 27 and 28, 2026. Teams were scored based on criteria identified in the RFP, including but not limited to, their project understanding and approach, staffing and management plan, cost proposal, and ability to effectively collaborate as demonstrated through an interactive exercise activity and the interview process. Based on a best value evaluation, the scoring panel identified Clark/SOM as the top scoring team (Attachment 7) and invited the team to engage in negotiations for a final PDB Contract.

Evaluation criteria included scoring regarding: Proposals – 90 points, Cost Proposal Form – 10 points, Team Presentation – 50 points, Collaborative Activity – 75 points, and Question and Answer (Q&A) – 75 points.

Clark and SOM scored highly amongst all the firms in the Presentation, Collaborative Project Delivery, and Q&A Section of the evaluation criteria. Clark and SOM were rated highly in the Collaborative Activity and Team Presentations, due to the history of the two firms working together on several projects using the PDB method. Their experience with large and complex municipal and cultural projects was demonstrated in their responses in the Q&A. Additionally, they expressed a high-level understanding of the project goals, budget, constraints, programming, and guiding principles. 318
5 Clark is one of the nation's most prominent building and civil construction firms, recognized for delivering complex, high-profile infrastructure and architectural projects across the United States. Founded in 1906, the firm handles a broad spectrum of builds— ranging from major transportation hubs, civic centers, and healthcare institutions to sports stadiums, educational facilities, and commercial skyscrapers. Operating frequently through collaborative delivery methods such as PDB, Clark is distinguished by its deep technical expertise, focus on sustainable construction standards, and ability to manage massive engineering challenges while integrating cutting-edge technology and safety protocols throughout the construction lifecycle.

SOM is a globally influential architectural, urban planning, and engineering firm renowned for shaping modern skylines and pioneering advancements in high-rise design. Founded in Chicago in 1936, the practice became synonymous with mid-century International Style glass-and-steel skyscrapers, later designing landmark supertall structures such as the Burj Khalifa, Willis Tower, and One World Trade Center. SOM's work integrates architectural expression with sophisticated structural engineering and sustainable civic design, spanning high-density master planning, transportation infrastructure, and public institutions worldwide. Through collaborative project delivery, the firm emphasizes structural clarity, environmental performance, and context-driven design that balances technical innovation with human-centered space.

Together, Clark and SOM bring the City a combination of PDB experience, architectural and engineering expertise, and experience delivering complex civic and cultural projects that is well aligned with the scale and aspirations of the Project.

Clark/SOM has agreed to deliver the Project in accordance with the following projected schedule established by the City:

Projected Schedule
Phase 1 – Commence Design Work, Develop Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP)
Fall 2026
Phase 2 – Sign GMP, Complete Design Work, Commence
Construction Work
Summer 2027
Project Completion Spring 2029
Additionally, the proposed PDB Contract (Attachment 6) includes the following key terms:
• PDB Contract will be entered into between the City and Clark. SOM will provide architectural services as a design subcontractor to Clark. SOM will be part of 319
6 Clark’s key personnel, who may not be replaced without the City’s express consent.
• Total negotiated lump sum fee for Phase 1 is $9,954,233, subject to identified allowances for preconstruction services and reimbursable expenses. • Phase 1 fee paid through monthly progress payments based on the following tasks:
o Task 1 – Project initiation and management
o Task 2 – Site investigations
o Task 3 – Program validation and budget validation
o Task 4 – Design scoping workshops
o Task 5 – Scoping documents/preliminary GMP
o Task 6 – 50% construction documents/Final GMP
o Task 7.1 – 100% construction documents for parking garage and enabling work
• Phase 2 Price is calculated on an open-book basis between the City and PDB Team through development of a GMP.
• Prior to initiation of Phase 2, PDB Team must submit a GMP Proposal for City’s review and final negotiation. Based on the GMP Proposal, the Parties may execute a Contract Amendment establishing the final GMP as well as the final scope of services for Phase 2, with approval by the City Council. The Final GMP will not result in a total contract price exceeding $155 million, unless otherwise approved by the City Council.
• Award of the PDB Contract and completion of Phase 1 does not guarantee the City will proceed with Phase 2. Phase 2 will only be initiated upon approval of the final GMP Amendment by the City Council.
o If the Parties cannot agree to a final GMP Amendment, the City may: allow the PDB Team to complete the Phase 1 design work; complete the Project as a traditional design-bid-build project; terminate the PDB Team and take possession of any work product; and/or complete the Project through any other project delivery method.
• Upon mutual agreement, the Parties may execute Contract Amendments prior to Phase 2 for early construction work (such as site preparation, demolition, and longlead time material purchases). • Throughout the life of the PDB Contract, the PDB Team may earn an additional performance-based quality satisfaction fee up to a total amount of $300,000, at the City’s sole discretion, based on the PDB Team’s ability to maintain the original requested Project scope, fully maintain the Project schedule, maintain the total Contract cost equal to or less than $155 million, and effectively collaborate and 320
7 maintain positive working relationships with the City throughout the life of the Project.
• As further outlined in the PDB Contract, the PDB Team, including all subcontractors, must comply with standard public works construction general conditions, furnish requisite insurance and bonds for the Project, and agree to standard indemnity and defense provisions protecting the City.

To award the PDB Contract to Clark, the Council is required to adopt the proposed Resolution (Attachment 1). Burbank City Charter (Charter) Section 1205 and Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) § 2-2-116 provide that a public works construction contract may be awarded through a method other than formal bidding, such as a solicitation for design build, if the City Council waives the requirement for competitive bidding by resolution finding that it is in the best interest of the City, and award the contract on a best value basis.

Staff recommends that the Council waive formal competitive bidding and award the PDB contract to Clark, as the use of the alternative delivery method of progressive design-build is in the City’s best interests because of its ability to mitigate risks to overall Project completion by combining responsibility for design and construction under one PDB contractor. This approach facilitates continuous alignment of design, cost, and schedule while allowing the City to remain activity engaged in collaboratively developing and overseeing Project direction and progression. Through this process, staff believes the Project will be delivered on time and within the GMP. Further, as a result of evaluating firm qualifications, proposals and conducting interviews, staff believes Clark/SOM provides the best value to the City due to their expertise in PDB contracting, portfolio of civic and library work, and demonstrated ability to collaborate as a team.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Community engagement was instrumental in introducing the Project to the public and gathering initial feedback ahead of design and construction. As part of MOCA and the City’s Phase 1 Work, the City worked with public relations firm The Robert Group on an extensive community outreach and engagement strategy from early Fall 2025 through Spring 2026. The aim was to raise awareness and gain consensus on programs and amenities that are working well within the current library system and to identify priorities for new futures and programming within the Project. This extensive engagement helped shape the Project definition and ensured that the proposed facility responds not only to current facility deficiencies, but also to the community’s vision for a modern library and civic center.

The engagement approach combined multiple interactive and data-driven methods to reach residents—including a community-wide survey, pop-up events, workshops, virtual 321
8 community meetings, town halls, and digital materials to capture input from a diverse group of community members of all ages, stakeholder groups (e.g. arts, families with young children, youth, teens, seniors, business sector, cultural groups, education) thus yielding a high level of participation, including:
• Five Community workshops (in-person and virtual)
• 35 Pop-Up Events at popular City events and destinations • Three Town Halls to share collected feedback
• 525+ Attendees across community workshops and meetings • 6,700 visits to the project website
• 400+ survey respondents
• 12 presentations to City Boards, Commissions and Organizations • Staff Engagement (City Leadership, internal departments, Library staff) All outreach materials, such as the workshop boards and the community survey, were translated into Spanish and Armenian to reach a broad range of Burbank residents and library users.

The breadth of this engagement reflects the community-wide significance of the Project and provided residents, businesses, community organizations, and City staff with meaningful opportunities to help shape the future of the City’s downtown core. Through this extensive outreach, residents provided valuable feedback on their desired priority amenities and programs for the Project. A comprehensive Community Engagement Report is available in Attachment 4.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Project is located within the Planned Development No. 2002-2 (PD2002-2) zone, which was approved in March 2003 as part of the original Civic Center Master Plan for the City of Burbank. As part of the 2003 approval, the City completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002- 42 (MND).

Prior to approval of the recent 2026 Development Review application for the Project, Staff determined that the Project is in compliance with the previously prepared environmental assessment and therefore prepared an Addendum to the MND in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines § 15164. The Addendum concluded that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred, as indicated in the Development Review Decision Letter (Attachment 4). Therefore, no further environmental review is required at this time. 322
9 FISCAL IMPACT
The Fixed Limit of Construction Cost (FLCC), which includes all design and construction costs to complete the Project, is $155,000,000 (one-hundred-fifty-five million dollars).

Clark Construction will provide a Preliminary Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) as part of the contract, with a GMP Amendment Signing to occur in Summer 2027.

Currently, the City has sufficient funds budgeted in the New Central Library and Civic Center project account to facilitate design and related Phase 1 expenses up through the establishment of the GMP. Once the GMP is established, the City will issue a lease revenue bond to fund the construction phase through the completion of the project, with the annual debt service to be paid out of the Municipal Infrastructure Fund.

Staff from the Financial Services Department, City Attorney’s Office, and City Treasurer’s Office are currently in the process of assembling a team of professionals to assist the City with the bond financing process so that work can commence in January of 2027. The proposed financing plan will be presented to the City Council for approval once the GMP is established, with the goal of issuing the bond in time for Phase 2 (construction) to begin in Summer 2027.

CONCLUSION
The proposed New Central Library and Civic Center Project represents a transformational opportunity for the City to reimagine its downtown core and make a lasting investment in the future of the community. The Project will replace aging, outdated facilities with modern, sustainable, and contemporary spaces that will serve the community and City for generations to come.

The Project will create a new destination in the heart of Downtown Burbank, bringing together library, civic, cultural, and community services in a cohesive and welcoming environment. The new facilities will provide residents with contemporary spaces and expanded opportunities for learning, creativity, collaboration, recreation, and community connection, while creating flexible spaces that can adapt to the City’s evolving needs.

In addition to modernizing essential civic facilities and services, the Project will provide significant new public gathering spaces, multi-functional open space, public art opportunities, event areas, and other amenities that will extend the life of the Project beyond its buildings and into the surrounding Downtown. Together, these improvements will strengthen Downtown Burbank as a vibrant, active, and contemporary neighborhood and establish a civic destination that reflects the character and aspirations of Burbank. 323
10 Through the proposed progressive design-build approach, the City can move this longstanding vision into implementation while maintaining active oversight of the Project’s scope, cost, schedule, and quality. Staff recommends Council adopt a Resolution Approving a Progressive Design-Build Contract with Clark Construction Group – California, LP for the Burbank Library and Civic Center Project and Authorize the Library Services Director, as Designee of the City Manager, to Execute the Contract and Future Change Orders and/or Amendments Provided that Funds are Budgeted (Attachment 1).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – RFQu
Attachment 3 – RFP
Attachment 4 – Community Engagement Report
Attachment 5 – Development Review Decision Letter
Attachment 6 – Draft Progressive-Design Build Contract (link) Attachment 7 – Evaluation Scores
324
ATTACHMENT 1
1 RESOLUTION NO. ____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BURBANK APPROVING A PROGRESSIVE DESIGN-BUILD
CONTRACT WITH CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP –

CALIFORNIA, LP FOR THE BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC

CENTER PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE LIBRARY

SERVICES DIRECTOR, AS DESIGNEE OF THE CITY

MANAGER, TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND

FUTURE TASK ORDERS AND/OR AMENDMENTS

PROVIDED THAT FUNDS ARE BUDGETED
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK FINDS:

A. Section 1205 of the Burbank City Charter (“Charter”) and Burbank Municipal Code (“BMC”) Section 2-2-116 provide that the City Council may waive formal competitive bidding for a public works construction contract by resolution and approve alternative project delivery methods, such as design build or progressive design build (“PDB”), when it is in the best interest of the City, and award the contract based on best value.

B. The City Council desires to complete the New Central Library and Civic Center Project (“Project”), which includes construction of a new Central Library and Civic Center Building, a new parking structure, and new public open space improvements. The Project represents a transformative opportunity to meet City Council goals and community needs while creating a critical downtown neighborhood asset in a sustainable and fiscally responsible manner.

C. The progressive design-build project delivery method offers key benefits of risk transfer for design and construction to a PDB contractor, minimizes change orders through early and close collaboration between designers and builders, offers flexibility during the design phase for cost-benefit analysis including operations and maintenance considerations, and community and stakeholder input.

D. As a result, the Library Services Department (“Department”) desires to utilize the PDB project delivery method to complete the Project. The PDB method is both appropriate for this Project and in the best interests of the City due to the size and complexity of this Project and the benefits outlined above.

E. In furtherance of the Project, the Department, in conjunction with the Purchasing Manager, completed a two-step competitive solicitation for a PDB team by issuing a Request for Qualifications (“RFQu”) followed by a Request for Proposals (“RFP”). Eighteen statements of qualifications were received in response to the RFQu, which were evaluated and scored by a panel of City staff consisting of members from the Public Works, Library Services, and Community Development Departments, and the City Manager’s Office. Based on this evaluation, four teams were invited to submit proposals in response to the RFP and participate in interviews. City Staff independently evaluated 325
ATTACHMENT 1
2 each team’s proposal and interview pursuant to a best value analysis based on scoring criteria outlined in the RFP. Clark Construction Group – California, LP (“Clark”) was determined to be the top scoring team and was invited to engage in negotiations for a final PDB Contract (“Contract”).

THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK RESOLVES:

1. Pursuant to Charter Section 1205 and BMC Section 2-2-116(I) and (J), the City Council hereby waives formal competitive bidding requirements for the Project and determines that awarding the Project through a best value competitive solicitation using the progressive design build delivery method is in the best interests of the City.

2. The progressive design-build Contract between the City and Clark, for the design and construction of the New Central Library and Civic Center Project is on file at the City Clerk’s Office and the Purchasing Division, and is hereby approved. This approval and award is based upon the City Council’s determination that Clark will offer the best value to the City as further outlined in the recommendation presented by City Staff in the Staff Report and attachments dated October 13, 2026.

3. The Project is located within the Planned Development No. 2002-2 (“PD2002-2”) zone, which was approved in March 2003 as part of the original Civic Center Master Plan for the City of Burbank. As part of the 2003 approval, the City completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 (“MND”). Prior to approval of the recent 2026 Development Review application for the Project, Staff determined that the Project is in compliance with the previously prepared environmental assessment and therefore prepared an Addendum to the MND in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. The Addendum concluded that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred. Therefore, no further environmental review is required at this time.

4. The total negotiated lump sum fee for the performance of Phase 1 work under the Contract, which includes but is not limited to, all Phase 1 design work, is $9,954,233, subject to identified allowances for preconstruction services and reimbursable expenses.

5. Approval of the Contract at this time does not commit the City to proceed with Phase 2 of the Contract, which includes but is not limited to construction services for the Project. Further, approval of the Contract at this time does not guarantee any work to Clark under Phase 2. Prior to the initiation of Phase 2 of the Contract, the City and Clark will execute a Contract amendment to establish the final Project Guaranteed Maximum Price (“GMP”) including Phase 2 work. The Contract amendment establishing the final Project GMP will be subject to approval by the City Council at a future meeting date. If the City and Clark cannot agree on a final GMP amendment, the City shall be entitled to exercise any options available to it as outlined in the Contract. 326
ATTACHMENT 1
3 6. The Library Services Director, as the City Manager’s designee, is authorized to execute the Contract with Clark for the Project with such non-substantive modifications as may be approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office, and the City Clerk is authorized to attest. Further, the City Council hereby authorizes the Library Services Director, as the City Manager’s designee, to approve any future change orders and/or amendments under the Contract provided that available funds for such change or amendment are budgeted for the Project, and subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. This authorization shall not extend to the final GMP amendment required prior to initiation of Phase 2, as described in Section 5 of this Resolution.

7. Final approval of any technical specifications, plans, and drawings for the Project shall be in accordance with the delegations outlined in BMC Section 2-2-104(D).

PASSED and ADOPTED this ______ day of October, 2026.
__________________________
Tamala Takahashi
Mayor
Approved as to Form:

Attest: Office of the City Attorney
____________________________ By: ________ _______________ Kimberley Clark, City Clerk Lisa Kurihara
Senior 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 Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by a vote of the Council of the City of Burbank at its regular meeting held on the ____ day of October, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES
NOES:

ABSENT:
_____________________________
Kimberley Clark, City Clerk
327
Mandatory Pre-SOQ Conference: Buena Vista Branch Library, 300 N. Buena Vista, Burbank, May 20, 2026 @ 10am RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
DUE DATE:

June 19, 2026

BIDDING INQUIRIES
Cliff Chroust, Purchasing Manger
[email protected]
(818) 238-5466
ATTACHMENT 2
328

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. DEFINITIONS AND COMMON ACRONYMS ..................................................................... 3

2. PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE........................................................................................... 3

3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TERMS OF RFQu ................................................................. 4

4. CITY INFORMATION......................................................................................................... 4

5. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION............................................................... 4

6. OBJECTIVE ....................................................................................................................... 6

7. SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT (CONE OF SILENCE)....................................................... 6

8. PROGRESSIVE DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT PROCESS ........................................ 6

9. PRE-SOQ CONFERENCE INFORMATION ....................................................................... 8

10. QUESTIONS; REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION (PLANETBIDS) ............................... 8

11. ADDENDA AND NOTICES............................................................................................. 8

12. SOQ EVALUATION CRITERIA AND REVIEW PROCESS............................................. 8

13. SCOPE OF SERVICES (REFER TO ATTACHMENT A) ................................................ 9

14. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS CONTENT ........................................................... 9

15. REQUIRED DOCUMENTS; RESPONDENTS CHECKLIST..........................................16

16. NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT AND AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENTS........................17

17. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS SUBMISSION .....................................................17

18. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS.......................................................17

19. CONTRACT AWARD / PERFORMANCE TERM...........................................................18

20. PROTEST PROCEDURES; CITY’S DECISION IS FINAL.............................................19

21. OTHER SOLICITATION TERMS...................................................................................20

22. ATTACHMENTS ...........................................................................................................21 ATTACHMENTS:

ATTACHMENT A: SCOPE OF SERVICES
ATTACHMENT B: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RFQU FORM
ATTACHMENT C: SAMPLE PROGRESSIVE DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT
ATTACHMENT D: EMR
ATTACHMENT E: SURETY DECLARATION
ATTACHMENT F: NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT
ATTACHMENT G: CHECKLIST
329
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 2
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQu)
The City of Burbank is soliciting competitive proposals from qualified firms to contract for:

PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD SERVICES (PDB)

FOR THE BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01
330
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 3

1. DEFINITIONS AND COMMON ACRONYMS
Any capitalized terms herein not defined, shall have the meaning set forth in the General Conditions of the Contract.

2. PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE
The anticipated schedule for the City of Burbank’s (City) selection of a Design-Builder to provide Progressive-Design Build (PDB) services for the New Burbank Library and Civic Center Project (Project) is listed below. The schedule is subject to change at the sole discretion of the City. Please check the City’s PlanetBids website for the latest schedule. The PlanetBids website is located at:
https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/14210/portal-home. All times below are listed in Pacific Daylight Time (PDT).

Procurement Phase Date
RFQU Release May 11, 2026
Pre-SOQ Conference (Mandatory) May 20, 2026 @ 10am
Deadline for submission of written questions or requests for clarification May 29, 2026 @ 5pm Addendum Issued (if necessary) June 5, 2026
Statement of Qualifications Due June 19, 2026 @ 5pm
SOQ Evaluation Period Up to July 10, 2026
Selection and Notification of Shortlisted Firms July 14, 2026 Pre-RFP Release Meeting with Shortlisted Firms July 16, 2026 RFP Release to Shortlisted Firms July 20, 2026
Proposals Due August 14, 2026
Interviews with Shortlisted Firms Week of August 31
Negotiations with Top-Ranked Firm Up to September 25
Selection of Specialty Subconsultants Week of September 28 Recommendation to City Council – Contract Award October 13, 2026 Notice to Proceed October 19, 2026
STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS MUST REMAIN VALID FOR 120 DAYS FROM DUE DATE 331
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 4

3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TERMS OF RFQu
With this Request for Qualifications (RFQu), the City is requesting Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) from qualified design-builders (Respondents) to provide PDB services for the Project. By submitting an SOQ, Respondent acknowledges receipt of all content of the RFQu package, including any addenda, and certifies that it takes no exceptions to this RFQu. The City will use SOQs to screen Respondents and develop a shortlist of Respondents who will be invited to submit a proposal for the Project. The successful Respondent will be expected to execute the PDB contract (Contract) included with this RFQu.

4. CITY INFORMATION
The City of Burbank was incorporated in 1911 and currently has a population of approximately 105,000 residents. The City operates under the Council-Manager form of government. The City’s fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30.

Burbank is the fourteenth largest city in Los Angeles County and is located northeast of Los Angeles in the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains. Burbank is traversed by the Golden State (5) and Ventura (134) freeways and home to Hollywood Burbank Airport. Burbank is noted for its excellent residential areas, schools, shopping facilities, libraries, parks, hospitals, business environment, and motion picture production companies.

Burbank is one of the most livable cities in Southern California, with beautiful well-established residential neighborhoods, a walkable downtown district, a top-rated school system, and numerous parks and recreational facilities located all within the 17.3 square miles of the City. The Burbank Town Center mall offers a choice of more than 170 retail shops, restaurants, entertainment venues and lifestyle choices. The Empire Shopping Center is one of Los Angeles’ highest grossing shopping centers and is the go-to destination for major national retailers and great restaurants.

Burbank offers a variety of other banking, financial, entertainment and business institutions that increase the daytime population to well over 250,000.

5. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
The City of Burbank’s Civic Center includes the Community Services Building (CSB), Administrative Services Building (ASB), Police and Fire Headquarters (Police/Fire HQ), Central Library (Library), City Hall, and associated parking areas. The Library, built in 1963, was first identified as needing renovation or replacement by the City in 1989. The building’s only significant updates occurred in 1992, which included new carpet and paint, followed by additional systems upgrades throughout the years.

The Civic Center is part of a larger 965 acres that is currently being studied through the City’s upcoming Downtown Burbank Transit-Oriented Development Specific Plan (Downtown Specific Plan), which is evaluating redevelopment opportunities and related land use, infrastructure, transportation, pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and opportunities for new housing within the plan area.

It is intended the New Burbank Library and Civic Center (Library) will become a cultural and intellectual hub for the residents of Burbank. The Library will accommodate modern programming including adult, senior, teen and children’s areas, co-working spaces, multipurpose rooms, public art, performance spaces including a large flexible auditorium, a coffee shop/café, social services, maker space, media lab, music recording studio, teaching kitchen, rooftop event space, and staff areas. City offices will include staff workstations and offices, executive offices, meeting rooms, break areas, and training rooms. The Project 332
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 5
will also include a new above grade parking garage which includes EV charging, bike storage, physical rehabilitation center, locker room and showers, Bookmobile storage, and an art studio. The outdoor space will include contemplative and active spaces, including an outdoor reading area, event lawn, plaza that can accommodate the Burbank Farmer’s Market, public art, and other programmable outdoor spaces.

In August of 2025, the City procured MOCA Systems, Inc. (MOCA) as its Owner’s Project Manager to oversee the Project from Project definition through completion. MOCA’s Project definition scope has included visioning, space programming, site planning and entitlement approval, Project guidelines, comprehensive implementation planning, community engagement, funding and finance planning, and commissioning requirements planning.

In October of 2025, MOCA facilitated a visioning workshop with City leadership to identify the City’s vision for the Project. Collectively, the City leadership identified four guiding principles to govern all aspects of the work:

Community – The New Library and Civic Center will cultivate collaboration, inclusion, and a shared sense of identity by providing spaces, resources, and experiences that are welcoming to all. By celebrating and reflecting Burbank’s unique culture, the design strengthens civic connections and contributes to an enhanced quality of life for the community.

Beautiful – While beauty is inherently subjective, thoughtfully designed spaces foster inspiring, welcoming, and enduring environments that enrich daily experience. By integrating natural light, art, and landscape, the design enhances sensory
engagement, supports well-being, and creates meaningful places that inspire both staff and patrons.

Flexible – As libraries transform beyond traditional boundaries, flexible spatial strategies and integrated systems support multifunctional use that responds to evolving technologies and the diverse needs of the City. The design shall thoughtfully balance adaptability and performance, delivering spaces that are comfortable, durable, and future-ready while creating an inviting experience.

Safety – A secure, healthy, and accessible environment should promote safety without creating barriers or exclusion. This shall be accomplished through considered design strategies that prioritize visibility, durable materials, and clarity of circulation, safety supports comfort, confidence, and well-being across all spaces.

Following the vision workshop, the Project program was developed and refined to currently consist of:
• A new 97,310 gross sf Library and Office Building with a breakdown as follows:
o Library of 40,850 gross sf
o City Offices of 22,080 gross sf
o Shared Program (including a large flexible auditorium, rooftop event space, exhibit space, and meeting rooms) of 25,980 gross sf
o Entry / Lobby of 8,400 gross sf
• A new above grade parking structure of 310 stalls
• New public open space and adjacent site work of 88,400 sf • Associated site and infrastructure improvements
The City has established a Fixed-Limit of Construction Cost (FLCC) of $155 million. It is all-inclusive of the Project design and construction costs for the complete Project (including but not limited to the cost of construction, all mark-ups, pre-construction fees, general conditions/construction, insurance/bonds, contractor fee, and A/E professional services fees). The FLCC may not be exceeded.

The City’s current projected schedule is to complete all work and occupy all spaces no later than Spring 2029.
333
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 6
An update on the Project was provided to City Council on March 10, 2026 and can be viewed at the following link:
https://burbank.granicus.com/player/clip/11209?meta_id=466569 Additional information can be found on the City’s Project website: www.newburbanklibrary.com

6. OBJECTIVE
The City is seeking a highly qualified and collaborative PDB team (PDB team or Design-Builder) with a proven record of delivering exceptional work on similar projects to design and construct this generational Project with the City and the City’s Project management team. Required services include, but may not be necessarily limited to, program validation, design, and construction of a library, city offices, parking structure, and public open space as part of the Project.

7. SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT (CONE OF SILENCE)
During the solicitation period, Cliff Chroust, Procurement Services Manager, shall serve as the City’s sole point of contact for all matters related to this solicitation (Contact Person). Mr. Chroust’s contact information is located on the cover sheet of this RFQu. All questions, requests for clarification, or other inquiries should be submitted in PlanetBids, other communications may be directed exclusively to the Contact Person.

Respondents shall not contact, either directly or indirectly, any other City officers, employees, agents, or representatives, including the Owner’s Project Manager (as defined in Section 8, below), regarding this solicitation. Unauthorized contact with any City personnel other than the Contact Person may result in disqualification of the Respondent, at the sole discretion of the City.

8. PROGRESSIVE DESIGN-BUILD PROCUREMENT PROCESS
The procurement of the selected Design-Builder will be conducted in two stages, the Qualification Phase and the Proposal Phase.

Qualification Phase - The issuance of this RFQu initiates the first phase of the procurement process.

SOQs will be evaluated and scored and the City will identify shortlisted teams to move forward to the Proposal Phase. All Respondents submitting SOQs will be notified of the list of Respondents shortlisted for the Proposal Phase. Scoring from the Qualification Phase will not carry over to the Proposal Phase.

Proposal Phase – Subsequent to the Qualification Phase, the City will issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to the shortlisted Respondents. Only shortlisted Respondents are eligible to submit a Proposal and interview with the City. Following the complete review and scoring of the Proposals (proposal scoring criteria will be provided with the RFP) and the scoring of the interview, the selected Design-Builder will have achieved the highest total combined score from the Proposal score and the interview score. Further information regarding the Proposal and interview process will be detailed in the RFP issued only to the shortlisted Respondents.

The City has identified PDB as the project delivery method for this Project due to its advantages in quality, cost, and budget control. The City expects the selected PDB team to foster a collaborative team environment with all parties (City, Owner’s Project Manager, Contractor, and Architect) at the table with all voices contributing.

Through the Project definition process, the City has developed a space program, set of Project guidelines, a FLCC and projected schedule. It is expected that the PDB team will bring their ingenuity and expertise to deliver the best possible project for the allocated budget while meeting (or beating) the projected schedule. The City is looking for creative ways to add value-enhancements to the Project through smart and efficient use of the available funds. 334
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 7
It is anticipated the Project will require strategic fast-tracking packages to meet the City’s projected schedule.

The PDB work will be divided into two phases:

Phase 1 – Project Validation and Collaborative Design Scoping (concluding in the signing of the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Amendment equal to or less than the FLCC).

Phase 2 – Final Design/Documentation, Permitting and Construction.

Below is an outline of the City’s projected schedule, subject to change through collaboration with the City, the Owner’s Project Manager, and the selected PDB team:

Phase 1 (9 Months)
Notice to Proceed Oct 2026
Project Kick Off and Program Validation 4 Weeks
Collaborative Design Scoping Workshops (6 in total) 12 Weeks (3-day in-person, bi-weekly) 50% Scoping Documents (Preliminary GMP Set) 10 Weeks (Preliminary GMP submitted 4 weeks after)
100% Scoping Documents (Final GMP Set) 10 Weeks
Final GMP Amendment Review 4 Weeks
GMP Amendment Signing July 2027
The selected Design-Builder will perform the Phase 1 services consistent with the requirements of the Contract, during which the selected Design-Builder shall propose to City a GMP to finish design and construct the Project and, if accepted by City, the parties will enter into a GMP Amendment to the Contract for the selected Design-Builder’s performance of Phase 2.

It is anticipated that mobilization and enabling work will begin upon execution of the GMP Amendment and commencement of Phase 2, therefore the selected PDB team should anticipate the advancing and permitting of an enabling work package during Phase 1. The selected PDB team will collaborate with the City and the Owner’s Project Manager to develop the detailed Phase 1 schedule.

The City is not obligated to proceed into Phase 2 with the selected PDB team. Should the City and the selected PDB team be unable to come to agreement and execute a GMP Amendment that is within the FLCC and projected schedule requirements, or should the City elect for any other reason to discontinue the services of the PDB team, the City reserves the right to terminate the Contract with the PDB team.

Work product(s) developed during Phase 1, including, but not limited to, design documents, will become the property of the City and all electronic files of the PDB team, will be provided to the City. In the event the City and PDB team do not continue into Phase 2, the City may use this work product in any manner the City wishes, including, without limitation, as bridging documents for subsequent contracts. The General Conditions in the Contract provide further details on the foregoing.

Phase 2 (21 Months)
Notice to Proceed and Mobilization July 2027
Substantial Completion December 2028
Project Closeout and Grand Opening Spring 2029
It is anticipated that a separate permit package will be developed to expedite the completion of the parking garage in advance of the Library and City Office Building. The selected PDB team will collaborate with the City and the Owner’s Project Manager to develop the final permitting approach and detailed Phase 2 schedule.
335
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 8

9. PRE-SOQ CONFERENCE INFORMATION
There will be a mandatory Pre-SOQ Conference (Conference) in the Buena Vista Branch Library, 300 N.

Buena Vista, Burbank, CA 91505. Refer to Paragraph 2 – Procurement Schedule for date and time. At least ONE representative from the Contractor of the PDB team must be present at the Conference for a Respondent’s SOQ to be considered responsive.

A Project overview will be provided at the Conference and questions will be documented and either addressed at that time, or after via PlanetBids if not possible at the Conference. All questions and answers documented either during the Conference or submitted afterward will be answered and issued to all interested firms via PlanetBids. Any changes in the requirements of the RFQu that results from the Conference will be made by addendum to this RFQu and posted on PlanetBids.

10.QUESTIONS; REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION (PLANETBIDS)
No interpretation or clarification regarding this RFQu will be made verbally to any firm. Any inquiries or requests for clarification concerning this solicitation must be in writing and submitted through the City’s eprocurement website portal, PlanetBids, via the Q&A tab. Any substantive replies will be issued as a written addendum and posted on PlanetBids. No questions or requests for clarifications will be accepted after 5:00 p.m. on May 29, 2026.

When submitting a request for interpretation via the Q&A tab, Respondents are encouraged to reference the RFQu or Attachment page and section pertinent to the question(s). Respondents shall not rely upon any oral instructions given by the City. Any questions submitted after the date and time specified will not be considered.

11.ADDENDA AND NOTICES
Addenda, if issued, will be posted on PlanetBids. Neither City nor any Respondent will be bound by any representation, clarification, interpretation, or change made to this RFQu unless such information is posted on PlanetBids. It is the responsibility of each potential Respondent to check PlanetBids on a daily basis through the SOQ due date and time for any addenda or updates. PlanetBids sends email notifications to ONLY those registered on their website. Respondent must acknowledge all addenda in its SOQ.

12. SOQ EVALUATION CRITERIA AND REVIEW PROCESS
Respondent’s SOQ will be evaluated and scored using the following selection criteria and based on information contained in a complete SOQ:
o Progressive Design-Build Entity Overview (20 points)
o Experience and Past Performance (40 points)
o Organization and Key Personnel (40 points)
o Acceptable Safety Record (Pass/Fail)
o Bonding Capacity (Pass/Fail)
o Compliance with Insurance Requirements (Pass/Fail)
o Recent Audited and Current Financial Statements (Pass/Fail) Total of 100 Points
The City is looking for the PDB team that most completely addresses the requested information consistent with the goals and aspirations of the City. The reviews of SOQs will be by independent evaluators and all scores will be totaled to arrive at a combined score. The top-qualified PDB teams who both pass the Pass/Fail portion of the evaluation and have the highest scores will be invited to participate 336
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 9
in the Proposal Phase. It is the intent of the City to identify at least three most qualified Design-Builders to shortlist and invite to the Proposal Phase. The City reserves the right to adjust the number of shortlisted teams based upon submissions received and resultant scoring.

The City may contact recent clients and references for information and verification of experience and past performance, and Respondent expressly consents, releases from all liability and holds the City harmless in all respects, with respect to the City making such contacts. The City may obtain background information from other sources, such as Dunn and Bradstreet.

13.SCOPE OF SERVICES (REFER TO ATTACHMENT A)
The selected PDB team shall provide best-in-class, comprehensive PDB services as preliminarily described in Attachment A – Scope of Services. An updated scope of services will be provided in the RFP. The City reserves the right to modify the scope of services at any time, including during negotiations with the top-rated PDB team during the Proposal Phase. The final scope of services will be included in the PDB Contract.

14.STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS CONTENT
The SOQ shall be prepared in 8.5x11 single-sided digital format with no smaller than 9-point font (including captions and footers) and ½ inch minimum margins. Page number limitations are listed below in the chapter descriptions. Cover sheets and tabs do not count towards page counts. Tabs dividing sections C thru I below must be included. Page numbers shall start sequentially with 1 beginning with the table of contents page.

SOQs shall be submitted via PlanetBids in digital, bookmarked PDF format. PDF files that are not bookmarked may not be accepted. Files must be submitted with the naming convention:

SOQ_FirmName.pdf.

The Respondent’s SOQ must adhere to the format, order, and requirements listed below to be considered a responsive SOQ.

A. Front Cover – 1 page maximum and shall include: Primary Respondent’s firm name, date of submission, RFQu #, and title of solicitation
B. Table of Contents – 1 page maximum
C. Acknowledgement of RFQu – 1 page form, see Attachment B D. Acknowledgement of Addenda – 1 page form per addenda E. Cover Letter – 2 pages maximum and shall include:

1. Respondent’s contact information – provide the name, title, telephone, and email of the contact responsible for communication with the City regarding Respondent’s SOQ.

2. Provide a summary of the SOQ highlighting why the Respondent’s firm(s) is (are) the City’s best choice to help deliver the Project. Include a statement that if selected, Respondent agrees to execute the attached Contract (Attachment C), to provide proof of insurance as noted in the Contract, and to obtain and maintain a City of Burbank Business License for the duration of the Contract. The Cover Letter shall include a statement indicating that the Respondent’s proposed Project Managers (from both Contractor and Architect) are available and fully committed to this effort for the entire duration of the Project. 337
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 10

3. Signature of person(s) authorized to legally bind the Respondent submitting the SOQ.

4. Potential conflicts: Respondents are responsible for compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local competitive advantage and conflict of interest rules, regulations, and policies including, but not limited to, California Government Code section 1090 et seq. and 2 Code of Federal Regulations 200.319(b). Provide a brief statement as to whether Respondent and/or its team have any potential conflicts that may arise in the performance of the services requested in this RFQu.

F. Progressive Design-Build Team Overview – 24 pages maximum and shall include (20 POINTS):

The City envisions Respondents to consist of teams of design professionals and contractors that collectively possess all of the experience required to perform the entire Project. Respondent should include an Architect and Contractor as part of its team. The Architect is the individual, partnership, corporation, joint venture, or other legal entity that is properly licensed to complete the design work for the Project. The Contractor is the individual, partnership, corporation, joint venture, or other legal entity that is licensed as a California general contractor and is the prime contractor on the Project.

1. Team Overview - 4 pages maximum and shall include:
i. Description of Partnership – Describe why you have formed this teaming partnership and why your proposed team is ideally suited to deliver a world-class Central Library, City Offices, Public Open Space, and Parking Garage to the City of Burbank. ii. Past Teaming Experience – Summarize shared history of the proposed firms working together.
iii. Shared Design-Build Culture – Describe firm cultures (both Contractor and Architect) in approaching design-build projects of this scale and magnitude. iv. Approach to Collaboration – Describe how your firms foster a collaborative environment internally and externally.

2. Firm Background (Contractor) – 10 pages maximum and shall include:
i. Overview of Firm

1. Legal name and physical business street address, as well as address of servicing office, if not the same address as Respondent’s headquarters office.

2. Number of years in business under the business name set forth in the SOQ.

3. Current number of employees both firm-wide and within the local office servicing this Project.

4. Include a brief description of the Contractor’s history, capabilities, resources, structure, ownership, size, and services offered.
ii. Portfolio of Work – Demonstrate Contractor’s body of work as a constructor, including illustrating Contractor’s exemplary work.
iii. Ability to Self-Perform – Describe Contractor’s ability to self-perform work. Provide two succinct examples of how this ability has benefited the outcome of a design-build 338
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 11
project for the owner. Examples can be from the same project. List all trades Contractor is licensed and capable of self-performing.
iv. Quality Control and Craftsmanship – Describe record of delivering high-quality, longlasting projects with exceptional craftsmanship. v. Safety – Describe Contractor’s safety record and commitment to executing projects with safety excellence.
vi. Collaboration – Describe Contractor’s culture of collaboration with trades, design partners, and ownership teams to achieve exceptional results. vii. Design-Build Acumen – Describe Contractor’s familiarity and experience with designbuild and, in particular, PDB. viii. Schedule Innovation – Provide two succinct examples of innovative approaches to construction techniques, planning strategies, and/or on-site logistics that led to delivering projects ahead of schedule.

3. Firm Background (Architect) – 10 pages maximum and shall include:
i. Overview of Firm

1. Legal name and physical business street address, as well as address of servicing office, if not the same address as Respondent’s headquarters office.

2. Number of years in business under the business name set forth in the SOQ.

3. Current number of employees both firm-wide and within the local office servicing this Project.

4. Include a brief description of the Architect’s history, capabilities, resources, structure, ownership, size, and services offered.
ii. Portfolio of Work – Demonstrate Architect’s body of work as a designer, including illustrating Architect’s exemplary work.
iii. Research and Innovation – Describe Architect’s research and innovation initiatives and commitment to transforming the building industry.
iv. Sustainability and Wellness – Describe Architect’s commitment to delivering sustainable and healthy buildings. Provide two succinct project examples demonstrating excellence in health, wellness, and sustainability. The City is interested in seeing innovative examples that go above and beyond standard sustainability practices.
v. Collaboration – Describe Architect’s culture of collaboration with subject matter experts, trades, construction partners, and ownership teams to achieve exceptional results.
vi. Technical Excellence – Describe Architect’s record of delivering high quality projects through quality control and oversight.
339
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 12
vii. Design-Build Acumen - Describe Architect’s familiarity and experience with designbuild and, in particular, PDB. viii. Cost Innovation – Provide two succinct examples of innovative approaches to design and construction techniques that led to delivering projects in a cost-effective manner without sacrificing quality.

4. Lawsuits and Claims (Contractor and Architect) – Separate file (will not count towards the 24- page maximum)
i. Provide information regarding any lawsuits and claims to which either Contractor or Architect have been a party to within the last 5 years. Describe for each case if you were the plaintiff or defendant, a brief summary, Including the date filed, amount in question, a summary of reasons for the litigation, and the outcome. If there has been none, make that statement. These shall be provided for both the Contractor and Architect, and must be submitted electronically in PlanetBids in separate files entitled ‘Lawsuits_FirmName_Confidential.pdf”.

5. Progressive Design-Build Contract Acknowledgement Statement (will not count towards the 24-page maximum)
i. The draft Contract is included in Attachment C.

The City is seeking input on the Contract and will consider suggested revisions to the Contract that improve the parties’ understanding of risk allocation and improve clarity of any terms of the Contract where ambiguities or uncertainties may arise in their application or interpretation. In no case will the City entertain proposed provisions from Respondents that would limit the selected DesignBuilder’s liability to a certain amount under the Contract or waive consequential damages. Respondent must include in its SOQ an acknowledgement statement indicating either: (i) Respondent will execute the Contract as presented; or (ii) Respondent has suggested revisions to the Contract. If Respondent has suggested revisions to the Contract, then Respondent must identify the Contract language of concern and shall submit alternate Contract language for consideration by the City for each area of concern and explain the rationale for the proposed revisions and the associated benefits to the parties. The City is under no obligation to accept the alternate proposed language and the City at its sole discretion may choose not to alter the Contract language. By failing to comment on the Contract, Respondent waives its right to request any future changes to the Contract, including, but not limited to, during the Proposal Phase.

The scope, nature, and severity of the alternative contract language submissions (particularly as it relates to the indemnification requirement) will be considered as part of the Progressive Design-Builder Entity Overview evaluation criteria. The City reserves the right at any time to alter the Contract, including, but not limited to, after selection of a Design-Builder.

G. Experience and Past Performance – 12 pages maximum and shall include (40 POINTS):

1. Project Experience (1 page maximum per project) – Submit example projects completed within the last 15 years of similar scale and complexity. Demonstrate projects that meet the City’s guiding principles of Community, Beautiful, Flexible and Safety. For each project, include location, size, client/agency name, original budget, final cost, original schedule 340
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 13
duration, final schedule duration, and brief explanations for variances in original and final numbers. Projects shall be submitted as follows:
i. 5 Projects (Contractor) – 5 pages maximum and shall include:

1. At least one design-build project over $100 million in construction cost

2. At least one project for a California public entity
ii. 5 Projects (Architect) – 5 pages maximum and shall include:

1. At least one design-build project over $100 million in construction cost

2. At least one library

2. References (2 pages maximum) – Submit client references including project name, agency/company name, client contact, title, phone number, and email address. References must be from the submitted projects. Submit 3 references for the Contractor and 3 references for the Architect.

H. Organization and Key Personnel (40 POINTS)
NOTE: The changing or substituting of proposed team members for either the Contractor, the Architect, or any of the subconsultants listed within an SOQ will not be allowed and will constitute possible disqualification of the Respondent from further consideration. Furthermore, there shall be no substitution of any proposed Key Personnel listed by the selected Design-Builder in its SOQ or Proposal for a minimum of one year after award of the Contract, with the exception for employees terminated from the firm. In the event that the employee is terminated or leaves the firm, Design-Builder must provide written proof to the City that the qualifications and experience of the proposed replacement is equal to or greater than the employee that departed. The General Conditions in the Contract provide further information on Key Personnel for the Project.

1. Team Organization Chart – 1 page maximum

2. Design Subconsultant Firm Profiles – ½ page maximum per design subconsultant and shall include subconsultant company name, discipline(s), primary contact name, address, phone number, email and brief description of relevant experience in design-build, libraries, and other public projects.

Note: Teams are prohibited from submitting a Library Consultant, as the City and the Owner’s Project Manager will fulfill this role.

At a minimum provide the following disciplines. If the discipline is provided in-house by the Architect please note as such:
i. Civil Engineer
ii. Structural Engineer
iii. M/E/P/FP Engineer (may be multiple firms)
iv. Technology, Low Voltage, Security, A/V Engineer (may be multiple firms) 341
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 14
v. Sustainability Consultant
vi. Parking Designer

3. Specialty Subconsultant Firm Profiles (1 page maximum per discipline) – The City has identified four disciplines that are critical to the success of the Project and is requesting Respondent submit three qualified firms that Respondent will partner with and are comfortable that the firms are qualified performing the work for each of the following disciplines. For each firm, provide a list of five relevant projects completed. It is the intent that the City, Owner’s Project Manager, and the selected Design-Builder will collaboratively select these subconsultants from the submitted list together after the selected Design-Builder is identified, but prior to award of the Contract:
i. Landscape Architect
ii. Lighting Designer
iii. Acoustical Engineer
iv. Theater Consultant

4. Construction subcontractors – At this time, the City requests that no construction subcontractors be included in this submission, to allow for a competitive process following contract award. The process for subcontractor selection will be developed collaboratively with the City, Owner’s Project Manager, and the selected Design-Builder.

5. Resumes (1 page maximum per resume) – Provide a resume for Key Personnel that speaks specifically to expertise as it relates to specialized knowledge, experience and technical ability as related to this Project and design-build. Identify any projects that were delivered through design-build and individuals that are DBIA Certified Professionals.

At a minimum include (Respondent may include other Key Personnel at their discretion):
i. Contractor

1. Project Executive (Must be a licensed general contractor in the State of California)

2. Project Manager

3. Superintendent

4. Safety Coordinator

5. Pre-Construction Manager

6. Design Manager

7. Estimating Lead
ii. Architect

1. Principal-In-Charge (Must be a licensed architect in the State of California) 342
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 15

2. Project Manager

3. Design Lead

4. Technical Lead

5. Interior Design Lead
iii. Subconsultants (1 individual resume per discipline maximum, all submitted personnel must be licensed professionals in their field of expertise, if applicable)

1. Civil Engineer

2. Structural Engineer

3. M/E/P/FP Engineer (may be multiple firms)

4. Technology, Low Voltage, Security, A/V Engineer (may be multiple firms)

5. Sustainability Consultant

6. Parking Designer
iv. Specialty subconsultants (1 individual resume per firm maximum, all submitted personnel must be licensed professionals in their field of expertise, if applicable)

1. Landscape Architect

2. Lighting Designer

3. Acoustical Engineer

4. Theater Consultant
I. Back Cover – 1 page maximum and shall include: Primary Respondent’s firm name, primary point of contact name, address, phone number, and email address.

J. Pass/Fail Section

1. Audited Financial Statements (Pass/Fail) – Separate file Provide the most recent audited financial statements and current financial statement for this year. These shall be provided for the Contractor, and must be submitted electronically in PlanetBids in separate files entitled ‘FinancialStatement_FirmName_Confidential.pdf”. Pages of the audited statements should be clearly marked confidential. The evaluation will involve the review of industry norms for acceptable ratios for the design-build industry. Contractor shall have a financial ratio of 1.0 for current assets to current liabilities (cash, accounts receivable net of allowance for uncollectible receivables) / (accounts payable, current portion of long term debt), to pass this section.

Respondent shall provide its most recent independently audited financial statements and current year interim financial statements for the Contractor entity. At a minimum, the audited 343
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 16
financial statements shall include the Independent Auditor’s Report (Auditor’s Opinion), Balance Sheet (Statement of Financial Position), Income Statement (Statement of Operations), Statement of Cash Flows, Statement of Changes in Equity, and all accompanying notes to the financial statements. Interim financial statements for the current fiscal year shall include, at minimum, a current Balance Sheet and Income Statement. Financial statements shall be prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and clearly identify the legal entity submitting the SOQ. All financial statement documents shall be uploaded as separate confidential PDF files and clearly marked “Confidential.”

2. Acceptable Safety Record (Pass/Fail)
Respondent shall complete the EMR form and provide information to demonstrate that Respondent has an acceptable safety record. A Respondent’s safety record shall be deemed acceptable if its experience modification rate for the most recent three-year period is an average of 1.00 or less.

3. Bonding Capacity (Pass/Fail)
Respondent shall provide a notarized letter from its surety admitted and authorized to issue bonds in the State of California (i.e., approved by the California Department of Insurance) verifying that Respondent has a minimum bonding capacity sufficient to provide both a performance bond and a payment bond, each in the amount of $155 million, for this Project.

The surety letter shall also include the Respondent’s total bonding limit, current amount of outstanding bonds, and ability to bond the Project.

4. Compliance with Insurance Requirements (Pass/Fail)
Respondent shall provide a notarized letter from Respondent’s insurance company or broker (or copies of insurance certificates) indicating that Respondent is capable of complying with the insurance requirements as set forth in the Contract.

K. Required SOQ Forms
Respondent must complete and execute the SOQ Forms, attached hereto as Attachments, including any and all required forms, listed as follows:

Attachment B: Acknowledgement of RFQu
Attachment D: EMR
Attachment E: Surety Declaration
Attachment F: Non-Collusion Affidavit

15.REQUIRED DOCUMENTS; RESPONDENTS CHECKLIST
All SOQs must include complete information as required in Section 14 (Statement of Qualifications Content) to be considered for evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, the items contained in Respondent Checklist included hereto as Attachment “G”. The checklist is provided as a courtesy.

Respondent need not return the checklist.

Failure to submit information in accordance with this RFQu’s requirements may be cause for disqualification.
344
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 17

16.NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT AND AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENTS.

Respondent, certifying that the SOQ is not the result of and has not been influenced by collusion, shall sign the Non-Collusion Affidavit in the form contained in the RFQu. The signature on the Non-Collusion Affidavit must be subscribed and sworn to before a Notary Public. Any SOQ made without such Affidavit, or believed to be made in violation thereof, may not be considered. Any Respondent making a false NonCollusion Affidavit may be excluded from future procurements. If at any time it shall be found that selected Design-Builder collude with any other party or parties, then the Contract shall be voidable at the option of City who may arrange for performance or completion of the Contract as may be determined to be in City's best interest, and the selected Design-Builder shall be held liable to City for all loss or damage which City may suffer thereby.

17.STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS SUBMISSION
SOQs shall be submitted electronically to the City by uploading to the PlanetBids website by the time as indicated in Item 3, Procurement Schedule. Late, emailed, faxed, mailed, hand delivered submissions will not be accepted. It is solely the responsibility of each Respondent to see that its SOQ is submitted in proper form and Respondent assumes full responsibility for the timely delivery of its SOQ through PlanetBids.

SOQs shall be addressed to:

City of Burbank, Cliff Chroust, CPPO, NIGP-CPP
RE: SOQ for RFQu No. LS-2026-01 - Progressive-Design Build Services for the New Burbank Library and Civic Center Project (Project No. 24218)
305 E Olive Avenue, Suite 305
Burbank, CA 91502
Select “Place e-Bid” to enter SOQ information. All information is visible only to Respondent. Data may be “saved” (preliminary) or “submitted” (final), revised and withdrawn up to the closing deadline. Respondent will receive a confirmation after final “submitting” of an e-bid. SOQs and other required separate files must be successfully and completely uploaded and e-bid confirmation received by submitting party prior to deadline; therefore, plan response time accordingly. Respondents are cautioned to completely check their SOQ for accuracy prior to submission. The City strongly recommends that each Respondent research the “Place E-bid” tab prior to submission in order to understand how the components of the response (i.e., SOQ) are to be uploaded in the General Attachments and Response File tabs.

Please contact PlanetBids directly at 818-992-1771 for technical assistance with your submission, as the City does not have access to the Vendor Portal.

18.COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS
A. Federal Funding.

The Project is funded in whole or part by federal funding (“Funding Requirements”). The Funding Requirements will be provided in the Proposal Phase. Respondent will be expected in its Proposal to certify to the City that it has reviewed, understands, and will comply with the Funding Requirements and their applicability to this Project.

B. Public Works Prevailing Wage and Contractor Registration. 345
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 18
Certain labor categories under this Project may be subject to prevailing wages as identified in the State of California Labor Code commencing at sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq. If applicable, employees working in these categories at the site must be paid not less than the basic hourly rates of pay and fringe benefits established by the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of the State of California wage schedules are available for review at www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/. In addition, a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages will be made available at the City’s office upon request. The selected Design-Builder shall post a copy of the prevailing wage rates at each job site. It shall be mandatory upon the selected Design-Builder to whom the Contract is awarded, and upon any subcontractors, to comply with all applicable Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to the payment of not less than the said specified prevailing wage rates to all workers employed by them in the execution of the Contract, employment of apprentices, hours of labor and debarment of contractors and subcontractors.

Pursuant to Labor Code sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, all contractors and subcontractors that wish to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, or enter into a contract to perform public work must be registered with the DIR. No SOQ will be accepted nor any contract entered into without proof of the Respondent’s and subcontractors’ current registration with the DIR to perform public work. If awarded a contract, selected Design-Builder and its subcontractors shall maintain active registration with the DIR for the duration of the Project. The Contract awarded pursuant to the RFP is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR.

If the Contract is subject to the Davis-Bacon Act, the federal minimum wage rates for this Project are predetermined by the United States Secretary of Labor. These rates are available directly from the Department of Labor at http://www.wdol.gov and included in the Contract Documents. If there is a difference between the minimum wage rates predetermined by the Secretary of Labor and the general prevailing wage rates determined by the director of the DIR for similar classifications of labor, the selected PDB team and its subcontractors shall pay not less than the higher wage rate.

19.CONTRACT AWARD / PERFORMANCE TERM
If awarded, the Contract will be awarded to the highest ranked PDB team selected on the basis of information provided in the SOQ and Proposal, the results of the City’s research and investigation and oral interviews. After identification of the highest ranked PDB team, the PDB team will meet with the City to review its SOQ and Proposal, to reconfirm that the SOQ and Proposal conforms to all minimum requirements established the RFQu and RFP, to clarify any items contained in the RFQu and RFP, and to determine if the PDB team is aware of any ambiguities, inconsistencies, conflicts, errors or omissions in this RFQu and the RFP.

If the final negotiation of the Contract with the highest ranked PDB team is not successful, the City reserves the right to terminate the negotiations and begin negotiations with the next highest ranked PDB team. This right shall be continued until a satisfactory Contract can be negotiated or until the City elects to reject all Proposals.

After negotiating a Contract that is mutually agreeable, the City’s staff will make the final recommendation to the City Council concerning the Contract. The City Council has the final authority to approve or reject the Contract.

1. PUBLIC RECORD
All SOQs submitted by Respondents and any other correspondence in connection therewith will become the exclusive property of City, will not be returned, and will become public records and open to inspection under the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 7920.000 et seq.). It is City’s intent, to the extent permitted by law, to keep all SOQs confidential until award of the Contract. City will have no liability to any Respondent or other party as a result of any public disclosure of any SOQ. 346
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 19
If any Respondents claims any part of its SOQ is exempt from disclosure and copying, they shall so indicate in the transmittal letter. Respondent shall clearly label and stamp the specific portions of the SOQ that the Respondent considers confidential, identify those portions in the transmittal letter, and state the specific provision in the California Public Records Act which provides the exemption as well as the factual basis for claiming the exemption. For example, if a Respondent submits trade secret information, Respondent must plainly mark the information as “Trade Secret” and refer to the appropriate section of the California Public Records Act which provides the exemption as well as the factual basis for claiming the exemption.

By submitting a SOQ, Respondent acknowledges that City may determine in its sole and absolute discretion whether information that Respondents considers confidential is subject to disclosure as a matter of law, including the California Public Records Act, and Respondent waives any challenge to the City’s decision in this regard. Respondent shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, and its officers, directors, employees, and agents from and against all liability, loss, cost, or expense (including attorney's fees) arising out of a legal action brought to compel the release of information submitted by a Respondent that is withheld by the City from public disclosure at Respondent’s request.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Respondent recognizes that City will not be responsible or liable in any way for claims or losses that Respondent may suffer from the disclosure of information or materials to third parties.

20.PROTEST PROCEDURES; CITY’S DECISION IS FINAL
The protest and appeal procedures and time limits set forth in this section are mandatory and constitute any protestor’s sole and exclusive remedy in the event of an appeal or protest. A protestor’s failure to timely complete the protest or appeal procedures shall be deemed a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or failure to comply otherwise with these procedures, shall constitute waiver of any right to further pursue the protest or appeal, including filing a California Government Code claim or legal proceedings. These provisions are included in this RFQu expressly as consideration for such waiver and agreement by any protestor.

A. Protest Contents of RFQu.

If any prospective Respondent has questions, concerns, or needs clarifications about the contents of the RFQu, they must submit a written question to the City by the designated deadline for submittal of written questions. If the prospective Respondent is not satisfied with the City’s response, they may protest the contents of the RFQu. Any such protest shall be limited to the prospective Respondent’s unresolved question, concern, or requested clarification submitted by the designated deadline for questions.

Protests based on the content of the RFQu shall be submitted in writing to the City no later than 5:00 p.m. on the 5th calendar day after the City issues the final addendum for the RFQu. The notice of protest must be submitted in writing via email to the Contact Person. Any protest submitted untimely will be rejected by the City as invalid.

Any protest must include the following:
• The name, address, and telephone number of the person representing the protestor; • A detailed statement of the legal and/or factual grounds for each material issue identified in the protest; and
• All factual and legal documentation in sufficient detail to establish the merits of the protest.

Any matters not set forth in the protest shall be deemed waived. The City will review and evaluate the basis of the protest provided the protest is filed in strict conformity with the foregoing. The City will provide 347
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 20
the protestor with a written statement responding to the protest. Action by the City relative to the protest will be final and not subject to appeal or reconsideration.

B. Protest SOQ Shortlisting.

A Respondent may appeal the rating of a timely and complete SOQ submitted by the Respondent. To appeal the City’s determination failing to shortlist the Respondent, Respondent must deliver to the City written notice of its appeal no later than 5:00 p.m. on the fifth (5th) business day after the City issues notice of the shortlisted Respondent (not the date Respondent receives such notification). The notice of appeal must be submitted in writing via email to the Contact Person. Failure to timely appeal a nonshortlisted determination waives any and all rights of the Respondent to further challenge the City’s determination.

Respondent’s notice of appeal must include a complete statement of the reasons and facts for the appeal, refer to the specific portions of all documents that form the basis for the appeal, and include the name, address, email address, and telephone number of the person representing the Respondent.

Any matters not set forth in the notice of appeal shall be deemed waived. City will review and evaluate the basis of the notice of appeal provided the notice of appeal is filed in strict conformity with the foregoing.

City will provide the Respondent with a written statement responding to the notice of appeal. The written decision shall be final. It is the intention of the City that the date for the submission of Proposals in response to the RFP will not be delayed or postponed to allow for completion of this appeal process.

21.OTHER SOLICITATION TERMS
A. City’s Reservation of Rights.

City reserves, holds without limitation, and may exercise, at its sole discretion, the following rights, and conditions with regard to this procurement process without incurring any obligations or liabilities. By responding to this RFQu, Respondent acknowledges and consents to the City’s rights and conditions, including, without limitation, the right to:
• Amend or modify the RFQu through issuance of an addendum. • Investigate the qualifications of any Respondent by, among other things, contacting project references, visiting referenced facilities, accessing public information, contacting independent parties, or any other means.
• Seek or obtain information from any source related to SOQs. • Hold meetings and conduct discussions and correspondence with Respondents. • Require additional information, or confirm information, from a Respondent concerning its SOQ. • Seek and receive clarifications from a Respondent in writing of a SOQ. • Require from a Respondent additional evidence of qualifications to perform the work required to design and construct the Project.
• Disqualify any Respondent that submits an incomplete or inadequate SOQ, is not responsive to the requirements of the RFQu, or is otherwise deemed to be unqualified during the procurement process.
• Extend, suspend, postpone, withdraw, modify, or cancel the RFQu at any time. • Revise the information and other content included in the RFQu or Contract. • Waive any non-material defects, deficiencies, informalities, technicalities, or irregularities in an SOQ, or any non-material deviations from the requirements set forth in the RFQu and accept and review a non-conforming SOQ.
• Reject any or all SOQs at any time.
348
RFQu NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 21
• Reject any SOQ containing exceptions, additions, qualifications, or conditions not called for in the RFQu or otherwise not acceptable to the City including where the requested information and materials are not provided.
• Expand the number of Respondents added to the shortlist. • Incorporate any design ideas and/or construction approaches that are presented by those Respondents that are not selected for the Project.
• Issue a new RFQu or re-advertise and/or re-solicit the requirements set forth in the RFQu at any time.
• Not allow an appeal from a denial due to an incomplete or late SOQ.

This RFQu does not commit the City to enter into a Contract nor does it obligate the City or any of its agents, employees, advisors, or representatives to pay for any costs incurred by Respondents in preparation and submission of a SOQ, in anticipation of award of the Contract, or in any other activities included as part of the procurement process. By submitting a SOQ, Respondent disclaims any right to be paid for such costs.

22.ATTACHMENTS
RFQu Attachments (all are incorporated by reference herein):

Attachment A: Scope of Services
Attachment B: Acknowledgement of RFQu Form
Attachment C: Sample Progressive Design-Build Contract
Attachment D: EMR
Attachment E: Surety Declaration
Attachment F: Non-Collusion Affidavit
Attachment G: Checklist
349
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
DUE DATE:

August 14 , 2026

BIDDING INQUIRIES
Cliff Chroust, Purchasing Manager
[email protected]
(818) 238-5450
ATTACHMENT 3
350

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. DEFINITIONS AND COMMON ACRONYMS ..................................................................... 3

2. RFQu No. LS-2026-01 ....................................................................................................... 3

3. SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT .......................................................................................... 3

4. SHORTLISTED TEAMS; ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TERMS OF RFP .............................. 3

5. PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE........................................................................................... 3

6. PRE-RFP RELEASE CONFERENCE INFORMATION....................................................... 4

7. PRE-PROPOSAL MEETINGS WITH INDIVIDUAL FIRMS................................................. 4

8. REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS; QUESTIONS.......................................................... 5

9. PHASE 1 SCOPE OF WORK (REFER TO ATTACHMENT B) ........................................... 5

10. SPECIALTY SUBCONSULTANT SELECTION .................................................................. 5

11. SUBCONTRACTOR SELECTION...................................................................................... 6

12. BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS (FOR INFORMATION ONLY)........................................... 6

13. PROJECT DEFINITION DOCUMENTS.............................................................................. 6

14. PROJECT ENTITLEMENT................................................................................................. 7

15. PROJECT CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION....................................... 7

16. VOLUME I - PROPOSAL ................................................................................................... 9

17. VOLUME II - COST PROPOSAL FORM ...........................................................................11

18. REQUIRED DOCUMENTS ...............................................................................................11

19. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION ...............................................................................................12

20. INTERVIEWS....................................................................................................................12

21. EVALUATION AND SCORING..........................................................................................12

22. TEAM CONTINUITY .........................................................................................................13

23. PROGRESSIVE DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT .................................................................13

24. CONTRACT AWARD PROCEDURE.................................................................................13

25. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS...........................................................13

26. PROTEST PROCEDURES; CITY’S DECISION IS FINAL.................................................14

27. PUBLIC RECORDS AND DISCLOSURE..........................................................................15

28. CITY’S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ................................................................................16

29. ATTACHMENTS ...............................................................................................................17 351
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 2

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
The City of Burbank is soliciting competitive proposals from qualified firms to contract for:

PROGRESSIVE DESIGN BUILD SERVICES (PDB)

FOR THE BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
RFP NO. LS-2026-01
352
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 3

1. DEFINITIONS AND COMMON ACRONYMS
Any capitalized terms herein not defined, shall have the meaning set forth in the General Conditions of the Contract.

2. RFQu No. LS-2026-01
This Request for Proposals (RFP) is the second and final stage of procurement (Proposal Phase) for Progressive Design Build (PDB) Services for the New Burbank Library and Civic Center Project (Project).

Please see RFQu LS-2026-01 (RFQ) and related addenda from the first stage of procurement (Qualifications Stage) for information shared and disclosed by the City about procurement of a PDB team for the Project. If Respondent identifies a conflict between this RFP and RFQu LS-2026-01 that requires clarification, Respondent must submit a request for clarification per the instructions in this RFP.

3. SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT
During the solicitation period, Cliff Chroust, Procurement Services Manager, shall serve as the City’s sole point of contact for all matters related to this solicitation (Contact Person). Mr. Chroust’s contact information is located on the cover sheet of this RFP. All questions, requests for clarification, or other inquiries should be submitted in PlanetBids; other communications may be directed exclusively to the Contact Person. Respondents shall not contact, either directly or indirectly, any other City officers, employees, agents, or representatives, including the Owner’s Project Manager (as defined in Section 6, below), regarding this solicitation. Unauthorized contact with any City personnel other than the Contact Person may result in disqualification of the Respondent, at the sole discretion of the City.

4. SHORTLISTED TEAMS; ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TERMS OF RFP
During the Qualifications Phase, the City shortlisted qualified design-builders (Respondents) and invited each Respondent to submit a proposal (Proposal) in response to this RFP to provide PDB services for the Project. Firms not shortlisted by the City during the Qualifications Phase are ineligible to participate in the Proposal Phase and are strictly prohibited from submitting a Proposal. By submitting a Proposal, Respondent acknowledges receipt of all content of the RFP package, including any addenda, and certifies that it takes no exceptions to this RFP. The successful Respondent will be expected to execute the PDB contract (Contract) included with this RFP.

5. PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE
The anticipated schedule for the Proposal Phase is listed below. The schedule is subject to change at the sole discretion of the City. Please check our PlanetBids website for the latest schedule. All times below are listed in Pacific Daylight Time (PDT).

Procurement Phase Date
Pre-RFP Release Conference with Shortlisted Firms July 16, 2026 RFP Release to Shortlisted Firms July 20, 2026
Deadline to Submit Pre-Proposal Meeting Waiver July 24 @ 5pm Pre-Proposal Meetings with Individual Firms July 29, 2026 353
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 4
Deadline for submission of written questions or requests for clarification August 4 @ 5pm Proposals Due August 14, 2026
Interviews with Shortlisted Firms Week of August 31
Negotiations with Top-Ranked Firm Up to September 25
Selection of Specialty Subconsultants Week of September 28 Recommendation to City Council – Contract Award October 13, 2026 Notice to Proceed October 19, 2026
PROPOSALS MUST REMAIN VALID FOR 365 DAYS FROM THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE

6. PRE-RFP RELEASE CONFERENCE INFORMATION
As indicated in the notification of shortlisted firms, there will be a mandatory Pre-RFP Release Conference (Conference) in the Central Library 2nd floor auditorium, 110 N. Glenoaks Blvd., Burbank, CA 91502. Refer to Section 5 Procurement Schedule for date and time. Parking is provided for attendees on site, adjacent to CSB, or at the Orange Grove parking structure. Teams should ensure at a minimum the following representatives from both the Contractor and Architect of the PDB team are present at the Conference for a Respondent’s Proposal to be considered responsive:
• Contractor – Project Executive
• Contractor – Project Manager
• Contractor – Pre-Construction Manager
• Architect – Principal-in-Charge
• Architect – Project Manager
• Architect – Design Lead
Teams are asked to bring no more than eight (8) individuals from their respective teams due to limited space. Teams may include individuals from their subconsultant teams as a part of those eight (8) personnel. Representatives may be substituted upon request and approval by the City.

A detailed project presentation will be provided by the Owner’s Project Manager, MOCA, including a thorough summary of the information in the Project Definition Documents and other RFP attachments.

The Owner’s Project Manager will provide an overview of the Proposal Stage at the Conference, and questions will be answered at the Conference, if possible, and documented in the RFP.

7. PRE-PROPOSAL MEETINGS WITH INDIVIDUAL FIRMS
Respondents will have the opportunity to meet with MOCA in one-hour individual meetings prior to submittal of a Proposal. The City will schedule these mandatory meetings with each Respondent individually. Respondents must at a minimum bring the following individuals:
• Contractor – Project Executive
• Contractor – Project Manager
• Contractor – Pre-Construction Manager
• Architect – Principal-in-Charge
354
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 5
• Architect – Project Manager
• Architect – Design Lead
Teams are asked to bring no more than eight (8) individuals from their respective teams due to limited space. Teams may include individuals from their subconsultant teams as a part of those eight (8) personnel. Meetings will take place at the Central Library 2nd floor auditorium, 110 N. Glenoaks Blvd., Burbank, CA 91502. Representatives may be substituted upon request and approval by the City.

Refer to Section 5 Procurement Schedule for the dates of these meetings. The intent of the Pre-Proposal meeting is to afford shortlisted Respondents the opportunity to ask questions and provide initial feedback on the RFP, Project Definition Documents, and other information provided within the RFP or an attachment, including but not limited to budget, scope, and schedule for the Project. Respondents should not present design solutions but may provide suggestions and recommendations regarding the procurement process, budget, scope and schedule for consideration by the City. Answers to questions not provided to all Respondents will be documented and issued to all shortlisted Respondents within an addenda. Recommendations from the meetings will be carefully considered for potential inclusion in RFP by addenda, issued to all shortlisted Respondents. No aspect of these meetings is intended to provide any Respondent with access to information that is not similarly available to other Respondents. PreProposal meetings are not scored.

Unless changes to the RFP or Contract result by the issuance of addenda, the content of the individual meetings will not be shared with other Respondents. The meetings will be subject to ground rules.

Respondents will be required to execute a Proprietary Meeting Procedures and Waiver acknowledging the City’s process for these meetings and agreeing that by participating in the meetings Respondent waives any right to protest the pre-Proposal meeting process. A copy of the waiver is attached hereto as Attachment A, and must be submitted to the City via email to [email protected] by the date listed in Section 5.

8. REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS; QUESTIONS
No interpretation or clarification regarding this RFP will be made verbally to any firm. Any inquiries or requests for clarification concerning this solicitation must be in writing and submitted through the City’s eprocurement website portal, PlanetBids, via the Q&A tab. Any substantive replies will be issued as a written addendum and issued to shortlisted Respondents. No questions or requests for clarifications will be accepted after 5:00 p.m. on August 4, 2026.

When submitting a request for clarification or interpretation, Respondents are encouraged to reference the RFP or Attachment page and section pertinent to the question(s). Respondents shall not rely upon any oral instructions given by the City. Any questions submitted after the date and time specified may not be considered.

9. PHASE 1 SCOPE OF WORK (REFER TO ATTACHMENT B)
The selected Design-Builder shall provide best-in-class, comprehensive Progressive Design-Build services as described in Attachment B – Phase 1 Scope of Services. This scope of services will be included in the PDB Contract. The City reserves the right to modify the scope of services at any time, including during negotiations with the top-rated PDB team.

10. SPECIALTY SUBCONSULTANT SELECTION
355
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 6
Respondents were required in their SOQ to submit three (3) qualified firms for each of the following specialty disciplines in the Qualifications Stage:

1. Landscape Architect

2. Lighting Designer

3. Acoustic Engineer

4. Theater Consultant
Respondents are prohibited from substituting specialty subconsultants in the Proposal Stage, as the specialty subconsultants provided were a critical consideration for the City when scoring SOQs and determining the shortlisted Respondents.

After notice of intent to award to the highest-ranking PDB team, interviews of the proposed specialty subconsultant disciplines will be conducted collaboratively with the PDB team, City and MOCA. The Cost Proposal Form shall include costs from all three (3) firms submitted for each specialty discipline. The selected specialty subconsultant for each discipline will be determined based on a best-value selection, inclusive of qualifications, personnel, interview, and cost.

11. SUBCONTRACTOR SELECTION
Subcontracting is essential to the Project. The success of the Project will largely depend on selecting the right subcontractors, particularly in a PDB project delivery. It is anticipated there will be key subcontractors that will be selected and procured in Phase 1 to take advantage of the collaborative delivery model design-build offers. Subcontractors will be selected collaboratively with the Design-Builder, City, and MOCA including a competitive proposal and interview process. For more information pertaining to the selection of Subcontractors, see the General Conditions.

12. BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS (FOR INFORMATION ONLY)
Attachments C through H, and T, of this RFP include Background Documents and they are provided for information only to help Respondents better understand the Project conditions and requirements.

Respondents are expected to perform their own investigations to fully determine existing conditions on the site as part of the Phase 1 Scope of Services. The Background Documents attached to this RFP include:

1. Geotechnical Investigation

2. Site Survey

3. Boundary Survey

4. Environmental Site Assessment (Phase 1)

5. Environmental Site Assessment (Phase 2)

6. Facility Condition Assessments for ASB

7. Sewer Study and Sewer Conceptual Plan
See Attachment B – Phase 1 Scope of Services for more information regarding Background Documents.

13. PROJECT DEFINITION DOCUMENTS
Attachments I through N of this RFP include Project Definition Documents and must be adhered to by the selected Design-Builder when designing the Project. The City and MOCA have developed several Project Definition Documents in collaboration, to determine the Project guiding principles, guidelines, program, 356
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 7
scope, budget, schedule, and other requirements. The Project Definition Documents attached to this RFP include:

1. Comprehensive Implementation Plan

2. Project Guidelines

3. Staff Survey Results

4. Community Engagement Report

5. Project Program Report

6. Commissioning Owner’s Project Requirements
See Attachment B - Phase 1 Scope of Services for more information regarding Project Definition Documents.

14. PROJECT ENTITLEMENT
The Project site is bounded by North Glenoaks Boulevard, East Olive Avenue, North Third Street, and East Orange Grove Avenue. The Project is located within Planned Development No. 2002-2 (PD2002-2) zone, which was approved in March 2003 as part of the Civic Center Master Plan for the City of Burbank.

PD2002-2 established the development framework for the Civic Center campus, including the Community Services Building, new library facilities, city offices, parking structures, and associated public open space/landscaping improvements.

The first phase of PD2002-2 included the construction of the Community Services Building, which was completed in 2008. The remaining phase of the master plan included the future development of the new library and Administrative Services Building (city offices).

The New Burbank Library and Civic Center Project, Development Review No. 26-0000745, includes the proposed new Library and Civic Center Building, parking structure, and associated public open space improvements consistent with the previously approved PD2002-2 framework. The Project was reviewed for compliance with applicable Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) requirements, Planned Development standards, and associated conditions of approval, and was approved, subject to conditions of approval included in Development Review Decision Letter, Attachment O.

An Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 to evaluate the Project. The Addendum concluded that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred (refer to Development Review Decision Letter, Attachment D).

15. PROJECT CONDITIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Respondents shall thoroughly review the Background Documents, Project Definition Documents, and other attachments provided to this RFP. Outlined below are other Project conditions and background information to assist teams in a comprehensive understanding of the Project and requirements:

1. Adjacent properties / relationship to City
Adjacent uses include City Hall, Police and Fire Headquarters, and the Los Angeles County Courthouse. The existing Central Library, located across Glenoaks Boulevard, will continue to be used as a library annex. Any future use of the existing library building is outside the scope of this Project and will be studied separately.

The site is highly accessible by multiple modes of transportation, located along Glenoaks 357
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 8
Boulevard, one of the City's primary east-west corridors, with bicycle facilities along Third Street, nearby transit stops on Olive Avenue, and convenient pedestrian connections to surrounding civic, commercial, and residential areas.

2. Swing space
As part of the phasing and sequencing analysis, the City is considering the use of a swing space to accommodate City functions currently housed in the Administrative Services Building (ASB), which is proposed to be demolished as part of the Project.

3. Demolition and abatement of ASB and Wells Fargo Building

The proposed Project includes the demolition and abatement of the Administrative Services Building (ASB) and the former Wells Fargo building located at the corner of Orange Grove Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard. Prior to demolition, both structures will require hazardous materials assessment and removal, including asbestos-containing materials, in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

4. ESA Phase 2 requirements
A Phase II ESA was completed to assess potential environmental concerns associated with the site's former gas station and fire station uses. No underground storage tanks or significant hazardous material impacts were identified; however, limited PFAS associated with historical firefighting activities may require soil management and environmental oversight during future earthwork activities.

5. Traffic and Parking studies
The City’s Transportation Division led a parking demand study to evaluate Civic Center parking needs as a whole and help determine the appropriate size of the proposed parking structure for this Project. Based on the study, the current concept includes approximately 310 parking stalls.

Furthermore, a traffic study was conducted to evaluate vehicular ingress and egress, traffic circulation, queuing, and emergency vehicle access associated with the proposed parking structure. The study findings are reflected in the current parking structure concept in the Project Definition documents.

6. CSB utilities to remain / CSB to remain fully operational

The existing CSB building is currently served by a transformer and emergency generator located within a utility enclosure to the east of the building, accessed via an alleyway. The CSB utilities are to remain in place, and the CSB building will remain fully operational throughout construction.

7. On site sewer upgrade

The existing sewer line is located within an easement at the center of the block. A Sewer Load Analysis and Conceptual Plan is included as an RFP attachment.

8. Power upgrade / feasibility study
The City has initiated a feasibility study with Burbank Water and Power (BWP) to determine electrical routing and develop a preliminary cost estimate. The initial assessment indicates an estimated load of approximately 2 MW, which is expected to be served from the existing system; however, system upgrades will be required to accommodate the new development. 358
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 9

16. VOLUME I - PROPOSAL
The Proposal shall be prepared in 8.5x11 single-sided digital format with no smaller than 9-point font (including captions and footers) and ½” minimum margins. Page number limitations are listed below in the chapter descriptions. Cover sheets and tabs do not count towards page counts. Tabs dividing sections E through J below must be included. Page numbers shall start sequentially with 1 beginning with the table of contents page. Project schedules and other similar graphics may be on 11x17.

Proposals shall be submitted electronically via PlanetBids in digital, bookmarked PDF format. PDF files that are not bookmarked may not be accepted. Files must be submitted with the naming convention:

Proposal_FirmName.pdf.

Proposals shall be developed in response to the Project Definition Documents and other attachments and information provided to date. Respondents are discouraged from submitting design solutions as part of this proposal, as the City fully intends to be an integral participant to the design process. Teams are highly encouraged to share thoughts on process, identify risks, as well as any observations from the City’s Project Definition Documents.

The Respondent’s Proposal must adhere to the format, order, and requirements listed below to be considered a responsive Proposal:

A. Front Cover – 1 page maximum and shall include: Respondent’s firm name, date of submission, RFP #, and title of solicitation
B. Table of Contents
C. Acknowledgement of RFP – 1 page form, see Attachment P D. Acknowledgement of Addenda – 1 page form per addenda E. Cover Letter – 1 page maximum, signed by an authorized individual representing the Respondent.

F. Executive Summary – 4 pages maximum and shall include (5 POINTS):

The Executive Summary shall be written in a non-technical style and shall contain sufficient information for reviewers with both technical and non-technical backgrounds to become familiar with the Proposal and Respondent’s ability to satisfy the technical requirements of the Project. The Executive Summary shall not include any information regarding pricing. Provide a summary of the Respondent’s team and contents of the Proposal.

G. Certification of No Changes Since Submission of SOQ
Respondent shall certify that, since submission of its SOQ, there have been no material changes to the information provided in its SOQ, including, but not limited to, changes in ownership, management, Key Personnel, financial condition, bonds, licensing, insurance, conflicts of interest, or other matters that could reasonably affect Respondent’s qualifications or ability to perform the Work. If any material changes have occurred, Respondent shall fully disclose such changes in its Proposal, together with an explanation of the nature and impact of the changes. City reserves the right to review any disclosed material changes and determine, in its sole discretion, whether the changes affect Respondent’s qualifications. Any Proposal containing a disclosed material change may be deemed non-responsive or the Respondent may be determined to be no longer qualified if the City concludes that the change materially affects the Respondent’s ability to perform the Work or otherwise alters the basis upon which the Respondent was 359
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 10
deemed qualified under the RFQu. Failure to disclose a material change may result in disqualification of the Proposal.

H. Project Understanding and Approach – 35 pages maximum and shall include (50 POINTS):

1. Project Understanding – Based upon Respondent’s review of the Guiding Principles and Project Definition Documents, provide information about your team’s understanding of the Project and how the proposed team is best suited to realize the goals of the City.

2. Project Approach – Based upon the Respondent’s Project understanding, provide the team’s project approach to delivering a world-class Library, City Offices, Parking Garage, and Public Plaza for the City of Burbank. Describe how you will partner with the City and MOCA, and the unique processes your proposed team will bring to this generational project. i. Collaboration / Engagement with Stakeholders – Describe how you will interact with the City, MOCA, and other City Departments and key stakeholder groups. Describe how you will facilitate decision making and keeping the Project on-track. ii. Collaborative Scoping Workshops – The Project will begin with a series of collaborative scoping workshops to develop the design approach with all key team individuals from the PDB team, City and MOCA in a collaborative and inclusive environment. See Attachment B – Phase 1 Scope of Services for more details pertaining to the collaborative scoping workshops. Please describe how your team will participate in the workshops to develop comprehensive design solutions that are considerate of the City’s vision, budget, schedule and scope. iii. Progressive Design-Build (PDB) Approach – Describe the Respondent’s understanding of Progressive Design-Build and how the team will approach PDB for this particular Project. Describe any potential early work packages or trades that should be considered to be brought on the Project within Phase 1. Describe the Architect’s capabilities and experience working in a collaborative PDB environment. iv. Coordination with Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ’s) – Describe the Respondent’s familiarity with the AHJ’s, code requirements, and the approach to ensuring the Project is permitted timely.
v. Project Budget and Schedule – Provide the Respondent’s understanding and assessment of the Project budget and schedule goals, as well as the approach to ensuring the Project stays on budget and schedule through the design process, culminating in a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) that stays under the Fixed Limit of Construction Cost (FLCC) of $155 million. Provide a high level Project schedule and discuss key strategies to meeting the City’s schedule goals. As a reminder, the FLCC is all-inclusive of the Project design and construction costs for the complete Project (including but not limited to the cost of construction, all mark-ups, preconstruction fees, general conditions/construction, insurance/bonds, contractor fee, and A/E professional services fees). The FLCC may not be exceeded. vi. Preliminary Cost Model – Provide a Preliminary Cost Model demonstrating an approach to the project budget, complying with the FLCC. Upon Contract award, the selected team will utilize the submitted Cost Model during the Design Scoping Workshops. See Attachment B – Phase
.
360
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 11
vii. Project Risks and Opportunities – Based on the Respondent’s understanding of the Project, PDB delivery, the budget and schedule goals, and the Project Definition Documents, describe the potential risks and opportunities with the Project and how the proposed team will mitigate those risks and take advantage of those opportunities.
viii. Sustainability – The City has aspirational goals for sustainability including LEED Platinum, Net Zero Energy, and Net Zero Carbon. Describe the team’s approach to providing a cost-effective yet highly sustainable and healthy building for the community and staff that will occupy the building and site. ix. Safety – Provide Respondent’s approach to job site safety and security through the construction process. Describe how you will not only remedy but prevent safety incidents to provide a safe construction environment.
x. Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) – Provide Respondent’s approach to QA/QC both during design and construction. Describe tools to ensure quality is maintained and controlled to deliver a high-quality project with care and craftsmanship, and how the team will involve the City and MOCA when issues arise pertaining to quality and workmanship.

I. Project Management Plan – 20 pages maximum and shall include (35 POINTS):

1. Team Roles and Responsibilities – Describe your team’s organization, Key Personnel, and each firm and team member’s responsibility on the Project. Describe how each team member will contribute to the success of the Project.

2. Staffing Plan – Describe your team’s approach to staffing the Project, including percentages of availability throughout the duration of the Project.

3. Communication Plan – Describe your team’s approach to communicating with the City, MOCA, and other external stakeholders. Describe how your team will communicate issues as they arise to facilitate resolutions and decisions.

4. Self-Performance Plan – Describe any trades your team is proposing to self-perform, if any, and any relevant information pertaining to the benefits of utilizing the self-performing teams.

The City recognizes that as the design evolves, these trades may need to be re-considered.

J. Required RFP Forms
Respondent must complete and execute the RFP Forms, attached hereto as Attachment Q.

17. VOLUME II - COST PROPOSAL FORM
Respondents must complete the Cost Proposal Form in Attachment R and submit the form in a separate file from the Proposal. The Cost Proposal Form must be submitted with the naming convention:

CostProposal_FirmName.pdf. Refer to Attachment R for cost proposal instructions.

18. REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
361
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 12
All Proposals must include complete information as required in Sections 16 and 17 (Volume I – Proposal and Volume II – Cost Proposal Form) to be considered for evaluation. Failure to submit information in accordance with this RFP’s requirements may be cause for disqualification.

19. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
Proposals shall be submitted electronically to the City by uploading to the PlanetBids website https://vendors.planetbids.com/portal/14210/portal-home by the time as indicated in Item 5, Procurement Schedule. Late emailed, faxed, or hand delivered submissions will not be accepted.

Proposals shall be addressed to:

City of Burbank, Purchasing Division
Cliff Chroust, Purchasing Manager
RE: RFP No. LS-2026-01 - Progressive Design-Build Services for the New Burbank Library and Civic Center Project (Project No. 24218)
305 E Olive Avenue, Suite 305
Burbank, CA 91502

20. INTERVIEWS
All shortlisted Respondents will be invited to participate in formal interviews. Refer to Section 5 Procurement Schedule. Final interview instructions, dates, times, and location will be provided to teams after Proposal submission. Tentatively, the interview format will be as follows:

Total Interview Time 2 Hours
Team Presentation 30 Minutes
Collaborative Activity 1 Hour
Question and Answers 30 Minutes
Teams will be asked to bring representatives from both the Contractor and Architect teams and must include individuals performing the daily work on the Project. No more than 8 individuals from the PDB team may be present at the interview.

21. EVALUATION AND SCORING
Scores from the Qualifications Stage are not carried over to the Proposal Stage. The scoring for Proposals and interviews will be cumulative to determine the highest-ranked PDB team. The highestranked PDB team will be invited to negotiate with the City for contract award.

Scoring Criteria:

Volume I – Proposal 90 Points
Executive Summary 5 Points
Project Understanding and Approach 50 Points
Staffing and Management Plan 35 Points
Volume II – Cost Proposal Form 10 Points
Proposal Total 100 Points
362
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 13
200 Points
Team Presentation 50 Points
Collaborative Activity 75 Points
Questions and Answers 75 Points
TOTAL MAXIMUM SCORE 300 POINTS

22. TEAM CONTINUITY
The changing or substituting of proposed team members for either the Contractor, the Architect, or any of the subconsultants listed within an SOQ will not be allowed and will constitute possible disqualification of the Respondent from further consideration of this RFP. Furthermore, there shall be no substitution of any proposed Key Personnel listed by the selected Design-Builder in its SOQ or Proposal for a minimum of one year after award of the Contract, with the exception for employees terminated from the firm. In the event that the employee is terminated or leaves the firm, the selected Design-Builder must provide written proof to the City that the qualifications and experience of the proposed replacement is equal to or greater than the employee that departed. The General Conditions in the Contract provide further information on Key Personnel for the Project.

23. PROGRESSIVE DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT
Respondent included in its SOQ an acknowledgement statement indicating either: (i) Respondent will execute the Contract as presented; or (ii) Respondent has suggested revisions to the Contract. If the selected Design-Builder had suggested revisions to the Contract and submitted alternate Contract language for consideration by the City, the City has taken these suggested revisions under consideration.

However, the City is under no obligation to accept the proposed language and the City at its sole discretion may choose not to revise the Contract language when negotiating the Contract with the selected DesignBuilder. The City reserves the right at any time to revise the terms of the Contract, including, but not limited to, after selection of a Design-Builder and prior to execution of the Contract with the selected DesignBuilder.

A revised draft Contract and General Conditions is included with this RFP as Attachment S. Changes are reflected in redline for transparency.

24. CONTRACT AWARD PROCEDURE
Upon determination of the highest ranked PDB team, City and Respondent will, among other things, meet to review the Proposal, clarify any items contained in the Proposal and negotiate a mutually agreeable Contract. If the final negotiation of the Contract with the highest ranked PDB team is not successful, the City reserves the right to terminate the negotiations and begin negotiations with the next highest ranked PDB team. This right shall be continued until a satisfactory Contract can be negotiated or until the City elects to reject all Proposals.

After negotiating a Contract, the City’s staff will make the final recommendation to the City Council concerning the Contract. The City Council has the final authority to approve or reject the Contract.

25. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS
A. Federal Funding.
363
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 14
The Project is funded in whole or part by federal funding (“Funding Requirements”). The selected DesignBuilder shall comply, and assist City in complying with, all duties, requirements, and obligations in and arising out of the Funding Requirements. The Funding Requirements are included as Attachment 10 to the draft Contract (see Attachment S).

B. Public Works Prevailing Wage; Contractor Registration.

Certain labor categories under this Project may be subject to prevailing wages as identified in the State of California Labor Code commencing at sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq. If applicable, employees working in these categories at the site must be paid not less than the basic hourly rates of pay and fringe benefits established by the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of the State of California wage schedules are available for review at www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/. In addition, a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages will be made available at the City’s office upon request. The selected Design-Builder shall post a copy of the prevailing wage rates at each job site. It shall be mandatory upon the selected Design-Builder to whom the Contract is awarded, and upon any subcontractors, to comply with all applicable Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to the payment of not less than the said specified prevailing wage rates to all workers employed by them in the execution of the Contract, employment of apprentices, hours of labor and debarment of contractors and subcontractors.

No Proposal will be accepted nor any Contract entered into without proof of the Respondent’s and subcontractors’ current registration with the DIR to perform public work. If awarded a contract, selected Design-Builder and its subcontractors shall maintain active registration with the DIR for the duration of the Project. The Contract awarded pursuant to this RFP is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR.

26. PROTEST PROCEDURES; CITY’S DECISION IS FINAL
A. Waiver; Effect of Failure to Protest or Appeal.

The protest and appeal procedures and time limits set forth in this section are mandatory and constitute any protestor’s sole and exclusive remedy in the event of an appeal or protest. A protestor’s failure to timely complete the protest or appeal procedures shall be deemed a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or failure to comply otherwise with these procedures, shall constitute waiver of any right to further pursue the protest or appeal, including filing a California Government Code claim or legal proceedings. These provisions are included in this RFP expressly as consideration for such waiver and agreement by any protestor.

B. Protest Contents of RFP.

Only a short-listed Respondent may protest the contents of the RFP. Any protest by someone other than a short-listed Respondent will be subject to summary rejection without further consideration and the person or entity will have no right to any relief.
364
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 15
If a Respondent has questions, concerns, or needs clarifications about the contents of the RFP, they must submit a written question to the City by the designated deadline for submittal of written questions. If the Respondent is not satisfied with City’s response, they may protest the contents of the RFP. Any such protest shall be limited to the Respondent’s unresolved question, concern, or requested clarification submitted by the designated deadline for questions.

Protests based on the content of the RFP shall be submitted in writing to the City no later than 5:00 p.m. on the 5th calendar day after the City issues the final addendum for the RFP. The notice of protest must be submitted in writing via email to the Contact Person. Any protest submitted untimely will be rejected by City as invalid.

Any protest must include the following:
• The name, address and telephone number of the person representing the Respondent; • A detailed statement of the legal and/or factual grounds for each material issue identified in the protest; and
• All factual and legal documentation in sufficient detail to establish the merits of the protest.

Any matters not set forth in the protest shall be deemed waived. A failure to timely file a protest will waive a Respondent’s right to protest the content of the RFP. City will review and evaluate the basis of the protest provided the protest is filed in strict conformity with the foregoing. City will provide the Respondent with a written statement concurring with or denying the protest. Action by City relative to the protest will be final and not subject to appeal or reconsideration.

C. Protest Selection of Respondent After RFP Process
A Respondent may protest the selection of the highest ranked Respondent at the conclusion of the RFP process. Any protest by someone other than a shortlisted Respondent will be subject to summary rejection without further consideration and the person or entity will have no right to any relief. Protests based on the selection of the highest ranked Respondent shall be submitted in writing to City no later than 5:00 p.m. on the fifth (5th) business day after receipt of notification of City’s recommended selection to the City Council.

The protest must be submitted in writing via email to the Contact Person. Any protest submitted untimely will be rejected by City as invalid and Respondent’s failure to timely file a protest will waive Respondent’s right to protest.

Respondent’s protest must include the following:
• The name, address and telephone number of the person representing Respondent; • A detailed statement of the legal and/or factual grounds for each material issue identified in the protest; and
• All factual and legal documentation in sufficient detail to establish the merits of the protest.

Any matters not set forth in the protest shall be deemed waived. City will review and evaluate the basis of the protest provided the protest is filed in strict conformity with the foregoing. City will provide the protestor with a written statement responding to the protest. Action by City relative to the protest will be final and not subject to appeal or reconsideration.

27. PUBLIC RECORDS AND DISCLOSURE
Proposals submitted by Respondents and any other correspondence in connection therewith will become the exclusive property of City, will not be returned, and will become public records and open to inspection under the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 7920.000 et seq.). It is City’s intent, to 365
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 16
the extent permitted by law, to keep all Proposals confidential until award of the Contract. City will have no liability to any Respondent or other party as a result of any public disclosure of any Proposal.

If any Respondents claims any part of its Proposal is exempt from disclosure and copying, they shall so indicate in the Executive Summary. Respondent shall clearly label the specific portions of the Proposal that the Respondent considers confidential, identify those portions in the Executive Summary, provide the basis for claiming the exemption, and reference the specific provision in the California Public Records Act that provides the exemption. For example, if a Respondent submits trade secret information, Respondent must plainly mark the information as “Trade Secret”, refer to the appropriate section of the California Public Records Act that provides the exemption, and provide the basis for claiming the exemption.

By submitting a Proposal, Respondent acknowledges and agrees that City may determine in its sole and absolute discretion whether information that Respondents considers confidential is subject to disclosure as a matter of law under the California Public Records Act or any other law, and Respondent waives any challenge to the City’s decision in this regard. Respondent shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, and its officers, directors, employees, and agents from and against all liability, loss, cost, or expense (including attorney's fees) arising out of a legal action brought to compel the release of information submitted by a Respondent that is withheld by the City from public disclosure at Respondent’s request.

28. CITY’S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
City reserves, holds without limitation, and may exercise, at its sole discretion, the following rights, and conditions with regard to this procurement process without incurring any obligations or liabilities. By responding to the RFQu and this RFP, Respondent acknowledges and consents to the City’s rights and conditions, including, without limitation, the right to:
• Amend or modify the RFP through issuance of an addendum. • Seek or obtain information from any source related to a Proposal. • Hold meetings and conduct discussions and correspondence with Respondents. • Require additional information, or confirm information, from a Respondent concerning its Proposal.
• Seek and receive clarifications from a Respondent in writing of a Proposal. • Disqualify any Respondent that submits an incomplete or inadequate Proposal or is not responsive to the requirements of the RFP.
• Extend, suspend, postpone, withdraw, modify, or cancel the RFP at any time. • Revise the information and other content included in the RFP or Contract. • Waive any non-material defects, deficiencies, informalities, technicalities, or irregularities in a Proposal, or any non-material deviations from the requirements set forth in the RFP and accept and review a non-conforming Proposal.
• Reject any or all Proposals at any time.
• Reject any Proposal containing exceptions, additions, qualifications, or conditions not called for in the RFP or otherwise not acceptable to the City including where the requested information and materials are not provided.
• Incorporate any design ideas and/or construction approaches that are presented by those Respondents that are not selected for the Project.
• Issue a new RFP or re-advertise and/or re-solicit the requirements set forth in the RFP at any time.
• Not allow an appeal from a denial due to an incomplete or late Proposal. 366
RFP NO. LS-2026-01

PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER

LIBRARY SERVICES
Page | 17
This RFP does not commit the City to enter into a Contract nor does it obligate the City or any of its agents, employees, advisors, or representatives to pay for any costs incurred by Respondents in preparation and submission of a Proposal, in anticipation of award of the Contract, or in any other activities included as part of the procurement process. By submitting a Proposal, Respondent disclaims any right to be paid for such costs.

29. ATTACHMENTS
RFP Attachments (all are incorporated by reference herein):

Attachment A: Proprietary Meeting Procedures and Waiver Attachment B: Phase 1 Scope of Services
Attachment C: Background Documents (For Information Only) - Geotechnical Investigation by Terracon, dated November 11, 2024
Attachment D: Background Documents (For Information Only) - Site Survey by MNS Engineers, dated October 2025 Attachment E: Background Documents (For Information Only) - Boundary Survey by MNS Engineers, dated October 2025
Attachment F: Background Documents (For Information Only) - Environmental Site Assessment (Phase 1) by Terracon, dated September 30, 2024
Attachment G: Background Documents (For Information Only) - Environmental Site Assessment (Phase 2) by Terracon, dated June 9, 2026
Attachment H: Background Documents (For Information Only) – Facility Condition Assessment for ASB, by Bureau Veritas, dated January 11, 2024
Attachment I: Project Definition Document – Comprehensive Implementation Plan Attachment J: Project Definition Document – Project Guidelines Attachment K: Project Definition Document – Staff Survey Results Attachment L: Project Definition Document – Community Engagement Report Attachment M: Project Definition Document – Project Program Report Attachment N: Project Definition Document – Commissioning Owner’s Project Requirements Attachment O: Development Review Decision Letter
Attachment P: Acknowledgement of RFP Form
Attachment Q: Required RFP Forms
Attachment R: Cost Proposal Form
Attachment S: Progressive Design-Build Agreement
Attachment T: Background Documents (For Information Only) Sewer Study and Sewer Conceptual Plan 367
APRIL 2026

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORT
RFP NO. LS-2026-01 PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER ATTACHMENT 4 368

HOW TO USE PROJECT DEFINITION DOCUMENTS
01 COMPREHENSIVE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Comprehensive Implementation Plan (CIP) serves as the primary guide for the project. It is intended to be used in conjunction with the supporting reference documents, which collectively capture the project’s vision, community priorities, stakeholder input, program requirements, design criteria, technical requirements, and implementation strategies.
02 PROJECT GUIDELINES
The Project Guidelines define the project’s vision, guiding principles, quality expectations, and the key drivers that are most important to the City. It serves as the primary reference for evaluating project decisions and ensuring the project remains aligned with the City’s goals and aspirations.
03 STAFF SURVEY RESULTS
The Staff Survey Results document detailed input from Library and City department staff regarding current operations, service delivery, workflows, functional relationships, operational needs, challenges, and opportunities. These findings informed the project’s operational requirements, functional planning, and program development. 04 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORT
The Community Engagement Report captures the voices of the community through extensive public outreach and engagement events. It documents the community’s priorities, aspirations, values, and expectations that shaped the project vision and program, and will continue to guide future planning and design.
05 PROJECT PROGRAM REPORT
The Project Program Report defines the project’s program, space requirements, operational requirements, functional relationships, planning assumptions, and design criteria. The report provides the foundation for future design by documenting the project’s programmatic and functional requirements.
06 COMMISSIONING OWNER’S PROJECT

REQUIREMENTS
The Commissioning Owner’s Project Requirements define the Owner’s technical requirements and performance expectations for the project.

These requirements will guide future design, commissioning, and longterm operations. 369
Engagement
370
The Robert Group | April 2026 2

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Community engagement was instrumental in introducing the New Burbank Central Library and Public Plaza project to the public and gathering initial feedback ahead of design and construction.

Community outreach and engagement took place from early fall 2025 through spring 2026 to raise awareness and gain consensus on programs and amenities that are working well, and what the community wants to include in the future library and plaza. This phase of the Burbank Central Library and Public Plaza Project centers on gathering input to understand how the new space could best serve the community.

The engagement approach combined multiple interactive and datadriven methods to reach residents where they are, which includes a community-wide survey, pop-up events, workshops, virtual community meetings, town halls, and digital materials to capture input from a diverse group of community members and identify priorities for new features and programming for the New Central Library and Public Plaza.

All outreach materials, such as the workshop boards and the community survey, were translated into Spanish and Armenian to reach a broad range of Burbank residents and library users.

Through this extensive outreach, residents provided valuable feedback on their desired priority amenities and programs for the future library and plaza, such as art classes, performance spaces, and special markets.

Figure 1. Engagement from Burbank Library Book Festival Engagement
371
525+
Attendees across community
workshops and meetings
400+
Survey responses
6,200+
Visitors at pop-ups and
focus groups
35 Pop-up events
6,700+
Online visits to project
website
3 Town Hall community
meetings
3 Open house workshops
1 Teen workshop
1 Virtual workshop
1 City Council Study Session
12 City Boards, Commissions
and Organizations
30 Community Focus Groups
12 Guided Tours of Existing
Library

ENGAGEMENT BY THE NUMBERS
The Robert Group | April 2026 3

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
372

OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL
Workshop 2:

December 11, 2025
Pop-up 3:

Burbank Farmers Market
December 13, 2025
Pop-up 4:

Burbank Adaptive
Sports Expo
February 21, 2026
Workshop 3:

February 21, 2026
Workshop 4 (Virtual):

February 25, 2026
Pop-up 5:

Burbank Town Center
March 7, 2026
Pop-up 6:

Burbank Town Center
March 13, 2026
Town Hall 1:

March 25, 2026
Pop-up 7:

Eggstravaganza
March 28, 2026
Town Hall 2 (Virtual):

April 9, 2026
Town Hall 3:

April 11, 2026
Workshop 1:

October 29
Pop-up 1:

Burbank Book Festival,
November 8
Pop-up 2:

Holiday in the Park,
November 21

ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE
The Robert Group | April 2026 4

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
373
The Robert Group | April 2026 5

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
A range of multilingual engagement materials were developed to support outreach activities for the project. These materials were distributed during the workshops, community events, and meetings to inform residents and encourage participation. Key materials included a community survey available in English, Spanish, and Armenian to ensure broad accessibility. Interactive workshop boards were used during community meetings and pop-ups to gather feedback on potential programming and design ideas for the future library and public plaza.

To support online engagement, a dedicated project website was developed and updated with project information, along with a list of frequently asked questions and answers (FAQs) to provide transparency and clarity to common questions from the community. Additional outreach tools included a children’s coloring sheet to engage younger community members and encourage family participation. Together, these materials helped make the outreach process more accessible, interactive, and inclusive, while providing multiple ways for community members of all ages and language backgrounds to participate. All engagement materials were available in Spanish and Armenian.

Engagement
Figure 2. Workshop 3 Boards
Figure 3. Coloring sheet for kids provided at community meetings Figure 4. Website Banner
Figure 5. Community Survey
374
Community Workshops
375
The Robert Group | April 2026 7

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
The team conducted the first engagement event for the Burbank Library and Public Plaza project on Wednesday, October 29, 2025, from 6-8 pm at the Burbank Central Library. The workshop provided an overview of the project. Participants were also given the opportunity to take a library tour of the behind-the-scenes of the current facilities and offices by library staff. Multiple tours were conducted throughout the workshop to allow for ample participation.

The workshop was conducted as an open house with interactive boards that captured feedback via sticker dots to prioritize current and future amenities and programs for the library and public plaza.

Participants also answered questions about how they typically travel to the library and how often they visit. Additionally, the workshop boards collected community input on existing barriers to participating in library programming and whether current programs are meeting community members’ needs.

Notification Efforts
Notifications, including eblasts, flyers, social media graphics, outdoor banners, and posters, were developed to promote the first community workshop and increase awareness of opportunities for public participation in the planning process for the new library and public plaza. These materials helped reach a broad audience by sharing event details and directing residents to learn more about the project by attending a workshop.

Figure 7. Workshop 1 Instagram Post Notification
Figure 8: Workshop 1 Flyer
Community Workshops
3 Social Media
Posts
2900+ Eblasts
Sent
750+ Flyers
Distributed
20 Signage
Placed
Workshop 1
Approximately 65+ Attendees | Wednesday, October 29, 2025 Figure 6. Workshop 1 Attendees Engaging with Boards
376
The Robert Group | April 2026 8

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
The second community workshop was held on Thursday,
December 11, 2025, from 5-7 pm. The workshop was held as an open house and provided an overview of feedback from the first workshop and previous pop-up events, including the community’s preferences for current and future amenities and programs, as well as how they typically travel to the library.

In addition to the feedback heard, an interactive activity was conducted to narrow down the prioritization of future library and public plaza amenities. In this activity, participants were given 20 fake dollar bills and asked to distribute those funds into ballot boxes displaying 18 future amenity options. Each amenity was given a price ranging from $1 to $5, requiring participants to budget their $20 as they best saw fit. The amenities were weighted based on the potential higher costs of construction.

Notification Efforts
To notify members of the community about the second community workshop, eblasts, flyers, social media graphics, outdoor banners, and posters were developed. These materials provided information on how residents can attend a workshop to learn more about the project.

Figure 10. Workshop 2 Instagram Notification
Community Workshops
2 Social Media
Posts
3000+ Eblasts
Sent
750+ Flyers
Distributed
20 Signage
Placed
Workshop 2
Approximately 45+ Attendees | Thursday, December 11, 2025 Figure 9. Workshop 2 Attendees Engaging with Activity
377
The Robert Group | April 2026 9

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
The third community workshop was held on Saturday, February 21, 2026, from 10:30 am to 12:30 pm at the Burbank Central Library.

Participants were invited to view the results and feedback compiled from all the outreach that has been conducted thus far, as well as the community-wide survey. To provide an alternative to a weekday evening, this workshop was held on a Saturday morning, and pastries were provided as they explored the open-house style workshop. Interactive boards highlighted what we heard from previous outreach and how the guiding principles of beauty, safety, community, and flexibility could be reflected in the design of the new library and plaza buildings. Additionally, an interactive “Where are you coming from when you visit the library?” board invited attendees to place a pushpin on a map of Burbank to indicate where they live, work, study, or recreate. Pins were color-coded based on mode of transportation. Two library tours were offered during the workshop, allowing participants to view parts of the library not available to the public.

Notification Efforts
For the final in-person workshop, the project team notified the public to help promote attendance by developing eblasts, flyers, social media graphics, outdoor banners, and posters. These communication materials invited the community to attend by sharing event details and outlining what participants could expect at the workshop across a variety of platforms.

Figure 12. Workshop 3 Instagram Notification
Community Workshops
2 Social Media
Posts
3000+ Eblasts
Sent
750 Flyers
Distributed
20 Signage
Placed
Workshop 3
Approximately 65+ Attendees | Saturday, February 21, 2026 Figure 11. Workshop 3 Attendees Reviewing Community Feedback 378
The Robert Group | April 2026 10

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Workshop 3 Map Activity - Where are You Coming From?
Figure 13. Workshop 3 Map Activity
Figure 14. Workshop 3 Map Activity
Burbank Central Library:

Visitors who arrive by car
Visitors who arrive by walking
Visitors who arrive by biking
Visitors who arrive by transit
379
The Robert Group | April 2026 11

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
The first virtual community workshop was held on Wednesday, February 25, 2026, and provided similar information from the third workshop in a virtual format with poll questions and Q&A. The poll questions focused on how participants usually travel to the library and other community events, as well as how the guiding principles of the project (safe, flexible, beautiful, and community-driven) can be reflected in the proposed library and civic center, plaza, and parking structure buildings. Poll questions also asked participants what their favorite memories are of the Burbank Central Library.

Respondents of the poll and Q&A expressed interest in a flexible indoor/outdoor space, safety as a consistent priority, and programming that serves all ages. Participant questions primarily focused on project funding and timeline, design approach, the balance between traditional library services and expanded community uses, parking and site design, and opportunities for continued community engagement.

Notification Efforts
To encourage participation from a wide audience for the virtual community workshop, notifications, including eblasts, flyers, social media graphics, outdoor banners, and posters, were developed to promote attendance. These materials included event details as well as how one can register to reserve their spot.

Figure 15. Virtual Workshop Instagram Notification
Community Workshops
2 Social Media
Posts
3000+ Eblasts
Sent
Virtual Workshop
Approximately 64+ Attendees | Wednesday, February 25, 2026 380
Town Halls
381
The Robert Group | April 2026 13

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
The first Town Hall was held on Wednesday, March 25. As the attendees arrived, they were signed in and provided with comment cards. Informational boards were displayed throughout the room to provide background on the project and offer community members an opportunity to reflect on and share their favorite memories of the library. The Town Hall featured a presentation that highlighted feedback collected from the community during the pop-up events and workshops. The presentation also introduced several design concepts for the new library and civic center space and touched on an overview of the project timeline and costs. At the end of the session, members of the project team responded to questions submitted on comment cards and during the open mic portion.

The second Town Hall was held on Thursday, April 9, as a virtual session. The meeting included the project presentation as well as an opportunity for community members to ask questions and engage directly with the project team during a Q&A session.

The final Town Hall was held on Saturday, April 11. The session served as the concluding opportunity for community members to learn about the project, review key information, and share questions or feedback with the project team. The Town Hall featured the same informational presentation as the previous sessions, along with an opportunity to hear directly from the community through comment cards and an open mic.

Town Halls
Town Hall 1
Approximately 34 Attendees | Wednesday, March 25, 2026
Town Hall 2
Approximately 30 Attendees | Thursday, April 9, 2026
Town Hall 3
Approximately 18 Attendees | Saturday, April 11, 2026
382
The Robert Group | April 2026 14

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Town Hall Notification Efforts
Email blasts and social media graphics were created to publicize the three-part Town Hall series. These outreach efforts broadened community involvement in the project process by reaching community members through various outlets and in multiple languages. Notifications shared key event details and invited residents to participate in a public opportunity to share ideas and feedback on the New Central Library and Civic Center plan.

Town Halls
3 Social Media
Posts
3100+ Eblasts
Sent
Figure 16. Town Hall Meetings Instagram Notification in English Figure 17. Town Hall Meetings Instagram Notification in Spanish Figure 18. Town Hall Meetings Instagram Notification in Armenian 383
The Robert Group | April 2026 15

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
• Community members asked for more clarity on the overall vision and rationale for the project, including why the library is being pursued through a design-build model, what the teams see as the project’s main risks or concerns, what would happen if the project exceeded the available budget, and whether the public would have input on the final design. • Several comments focused on the architectural character and civic identity. Attendees expressed interest in a design that reflects the nearby City Hall and surrounding buildings, as well as stronger library-themed design features.
• Performance and gathering spaces were a major theme. Participants wanted more details on the flexible auditorium and community event space, including stage design, sightlines, capacity, and whether an outdoor performance shell or gazebo is being considered. • Outdoor space and site planning drew significant interest, with questions about the size and function of the plaza and lawn, the amount of shade, impacts on trees, whether removed trees would be replaced, and whether a parking garage would be necessary. • Several comments focused on operations and management, including whether the new library would increase staffing and operating costs, whether some amenities would have fees, and how the café would be run.
• Attendees also asked about continuity and community impact, including what would happen to the existing library, if the farmers market would return after construction, and how the project would address security and issues related to unhoused residents. • Many comments highlighted a desire for the library to function as an active community hub with interest in coworking areas, makerspace, local artists display spaces, and a more vibrant, welcoming atmosphere. A few comments mention the need for more accessible bookshelves and a place for library relics such as the Rose Parade portraits. • When asked about their favorite Burbank Central Library memory, several comments mentioned the program Job Connect. Other comments mention musical performances, coloring nights, children’s events, and reading at the Burbank Central Library. • Community members expressed a strong interest in maintaining the library’s core function as a quiet reading space, including questions about soundproofing and ensuring adequate space for books, study, and individual use. Some participants were concerned that the current concept emphasizes event and community space over traditional library uses. • There were multiple requests for clarification on key project elements, including the future of the existing library, details of the proposed theater (size, programming, and operations), and how outdoor spaces (plaza, lawn, garden deck) will be differentiated and used year-round. • Participants also raised questions about project design and delivery, including the rationale for the selected design approach (progressive design-build), the role of the architect, and the process and criteria for upcoming RFQ/RFP selection.
• Funding and cost was a recurring theme, with several questions about project affordability, reliance on sponsorships or naming opportunities, and contingency plans if anticipated funding does not materialize.
• Sustainability and infrastructure were also highlighted, with interest in LEED certification, solar energy, and ensuring ample electrical access throughout the building. Additional amenities such as bicycle parking were also mentioned.
• Community members expressed interest in staying involved, asking about opportunities to contribute (e.g., volunteering or community build days), as well as requests for ongoing communication about project milestones, events, and timelines (including the bookmobile launch and future workshops).

Feedback Summary
Town Hall 1 Town Hall 2
384
Pop-Up Events
385
At each pop-up, project staff and consultants were on hand to share information, engage passersby in discussions about the project, and invite ongoing input. The events provided informal, accessible venues for community members to learn about the project and contribute feedback. To engage hard-to-reach community members and those who may not be aware of the project, pop-up engagement efforts were held at community events and high-traffic locations to raise awareness and invite broader participation.

The outreach team conducted community engagement at several local events, including the Burbank Book Festival, Holiday in the Park, and the Burbank Farmers Market, reaching over 350 participants. Across these events, interactive boards and activities were used to gather input on preferred library and plaza amenities, programming, and overall perceptions of current offerings. The Holiday in the Park event generated over 500 interactions through dot sticker feedback and sign-ups for library cards, reflecting strong community interest and enthusiasm for a future library and public space. Similarly, the Farmers Market featured a dollar-prioritization activity that engaged participants of all ages in envisioning future amenities. While feedback was largely positive, some community members raised questions about the project timeline, the future of the existing Central Library building, and potential impacts of construction on the Farmers Market.

Figure 20. Holiday in the Park
Figure 22. Eggstravaganza
The Robert Group | April 2026 17

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Activities & Format
Figure 19. Burbank Book Festival
Figure 21. Farmers Market
386
Q&A
Survey Feedback
Survey Feedback
Post-it Comments & Voting Board
Survey Feedback
Survey Feedback
Survey Feedback
Q&A
Survey Feedback
Q&A
Q&A
Q&A
Q&A
The Robert Group | April 2026 18

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
DATE

NUMBER OF

PARTICIPANTS
Holiday in the Park Pop-Up
Dia de los Muertos Festival
Farmers Market Pop-Up
Teen Engagement
Homenetmen Burbank Sipan
Muir Middle School
Tuttle Senior Center
Burbank Adaptive Sports Expo
Burbank Boys & Girls Club
Joslyn Adult Center
November 21, 2025
November 1, 2025
December 13, 2025
December 2025 - January 2026
January 17, 2026
January 20, 2026
February 19, 2026
February 21, 2026
February 24, 2026
February 26, 2026
Burbank Book Festival Pop-Up November 8, 2025 Approximately 110+ Participants Post-it Comments & Voting Board Survey Feedback
Post-it Comments & Voting Board
Survey Feedback
Approximately 200+ Participants
Approximately 250 Participants
Approximately 50+ Participants
During Children’s Programming (19 Events) January, 2026 Approximately 200+ Participants Survey Feedback Approximately 52 Participants
Approximately 30 Participants
Approximately 150+ Participants
Approximately 40 Participants
Approximately 90 Participants
Approximately 7 Participants
Approximately 30 Participants

TYPE OF FEEDBACK

COLLECTED
Overview
Approximately 100 Participants
Approximately 200 Participants
Approximately 20 Participants
Approximately 20 Participants
Approximately 20 Participants
Burbank Town Center Pop-Up
Eggstravaganza Pop-Up
Washington Elementary English Language Advisory Committee (ELAC) Disney Elementary English Language Advisory Committee (ELAC) Harte Elementary English LanguageAdvisory Committee (ELAC) March 13, 2026
Burbank Town Center Pop-Up March 7, 2026 Approximately 160 Participants March 28, 2026
April 17, 2026
April 22, 2026
April 30, 2026
387
Community Feedback:

Workshops, Pop-Ups, & Survey
388
Community Feedback
A community survey was developed to gather public input on desired amenities as well as programming opportunities for the proposed new Burbank Library and Public Plaza. The survey asked participants to identify which potential library features were most important to them, including options such as a dedicated teen space, language learning hub, makerspace, café, and performance space, to name a few. Similarly, for the public plaza component of the project, the survey asked respondents what programming or amenities they would most like to see, including cultural events, art displays, and outdoor film screenings. The survey also touched on how well current library programs and activities serve the community and whether any barriers to participation exist. The survey concluded with optional demographic questions to help ensure feedback reflected a broad cross-section of the community. Printed copies of the survey in all languages were available at the first workshop, and the survey QR code was shared at all community workshops and pop-up events.

The Robert Group | April 2026 20

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Figure 23. Survey, Pop-up, and Workshop Feedback Results 389
Community Feedback - Most Important Library Program & Amenities

21.23%
Programs for
Kids & Families

11.9%
Spark!

14.31%
Computers/
Wi-Fi/Printing

8.22%
Auditorium

5.38%
Wi-Fi Hotspot
Lending

5.81%
Sound Booth

11.9%
Study Rooms

12.46%
Children’s
Rooms

20.68%
E-library & Digital
Materials

6.09%
Job Connect

3.26%
Other

12.42%
Programs for
Teens

22.17%
Programs for
Adults

14.62%
Career
& Job
Support

21.23%
Technology & Digital
Skills Classes

6.13%
Adult Literacy
Services

2.2%
Other
Programs for Adults Programs for Kids &
Families
Technology and
digital skills classes
Career & Job
Support Programs for Teens E-library and digital materials Computers/Wi-Fi/
Printing Children’s Rooms Spark! Study Rooms
The Robert Group | April 2026 21

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
390
Community Feedback - Future Library and Plaza Programming

13.18%
Performing Arts

18.13%
Weekly Farmers
Market

18.35%
Festivals &
Cultural Events

14.95%
Concerts &
Performances

15.93%
Special Fairs &
Markets

3.96%
Business &
Organizational Expos

8.24%
Rotating Art
Exhibitions

8.46%
Wellness Classes

10.11%
Outdoor Library
Programs

1.87%
Other

12.5%
Guest Speakers

9.8%
Book Club

4.05%
Homework Help

6.76%
Preschool
Enrichment Classes

6.76%
College Prep 20.61%
Art/Crafting Classes

16.22%
Cultural Events

10.14%
Other
Art/Crafting Classes Cultural Events Performing Arts Guest Speakers Other Festivals &
Cultural Events
Weekly Farmers
Market
Special Fairs &
Markets
Concerts &
Performances
Outdoor Library
Programs
The Robert Group | April 2026 22

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
391
Community Feedback - Future Library and Plaza Amenities

4.96%
Dedicated Teen
Space 6.1%
Language
Learning Hub

9.66%
Seating

8.28%
Free Wi-Fi

5.35%
Picnic Areas

14.77%
Shade Trees

7.37%
Native Plants

5.7%
Water Features

5.62%
Paved Walking
Paths

5.86%
Playground

5.62%
Food
Concessions

10.57%
Performance
Space

10.77%
Restrooms

6.3%
Lighting

3.37%
Bike
Parking

0.75%
Other

11.8%
Makerspace

10.03%
Loanable Craft
& DIY Tools

7.87%
Media Lab

11.97%
Café/Coffee Shop

7.24%
Lounge Space

6.21%
Incubator/CoWorking Space

7.53%
Art Gallery/
Display/Murals 9.92%
Performance Space/
Blackbox Theater 7.81%
Kids Play Space

7.35%
Dedicated
Outdoor Space

1.2%
Other
Café/Coffee Shop Makerspace Shade Trees Restrooms
Loanable Craft & DIY
Tools Performance Space
Performance space/
blackbox theater Media Lab Seating Free Wi-Fi
The Robert Group | April 2026 23

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
392
Survey Responses
Which best describes you? How often do you visit the Burbank Central Library?

51.49%
I live within a few
blocks of the library

9.79%
A few times a
week or more

17.87%
About once
a week

30.64%
About once
a month

27.66%
A few times a year

9.36%
About once
a year

4.68%
Never

11.06%
I work and/or attend
school nearby

3.4%
I access
services nearby

3.83%
My child attends
school nearby

4.68%
I have friends or family that
live in the neighborhood

2.55%
I catch my bus
near the location
I live within a few
blocks of the library About once a month I work and/or attendschool nearby Other A few times a year About once a week

22.98%
Other
The Robert Group | April 2026 24

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
393
Survey Responses
How do you get to the Burbank Central Library? What prevents you from using library amenities and participating in programming?

5.53%
Public Transit

2.68%
Too difficult to access via my
transportation method

18.75%
Don’t have time

2.23%
Too far from
where I live

6.7%
Too difficult to
find parking

22.77%
Don’t offer programs I
need/would like to see 4.46%
Programs fill up too
quickly for me to join

21.88%
Don’t know what
amenities and
programs are available 20.54%
Other

67.23%
Personal Vehicle

2.98%
Carpool with
Friends/Family

0.43%
Rideshare Services/Taxi

1.7%
Bike/Scooter

21.28%
Walk/Roll

0.85%
Other
Personal Vehicle Don’t offer programs I need/ Walk/Roll would like to see Don’t know what amenities
and programs are available Public Transit Other
The Robert Group | April 2026 25

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
394
Survey Responses
Do current library programs and activities match you
and your family’s interests?
When you want to participate in a library program, how
easy is it to participate?

13.62%
Yes, very much

31.91%
Always easy

23.4%
Sometimes
difficult

3.83%
Often difficult

40.85%
I haven’t tried
to sign up for
a program

54.04%
Somewhat

17.87%
No, not really

14.47%
I’m not familiar
with current
programs
The Robert Group | April 2026 26

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
395
Survey Responses
Which of the following priorities do you see as most important for the new Central Library and Public Plaza?

7.4%
Beauty

13.79%
Welcoming to
the community

10.89%
Sustainability

2.9%
Accessibility via
all transit modes

11.32%
Accessibility for
people of all abilities

16.4%
Cleanliness

3.63%
Increased outdoor
space for plantings

13.64%
Increased outdoor
space for a diverse
range of activities

5.52%
Maintenance

13.35%
Safety

1.16%
Other
Cleanliness Welcoming to the community Increased outdoor space for a diverse range of activities
The Robert Group | April 2026 27

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
396
Community Feedback:

Demographic-Specific
397
Teen Workshops Responses
What do you want to see in a new Central Library & Public Plaza? How could a new Library help you with school or studying?

30.77%
Café/
Coffee Shop

24.51%
Study Rooms

10.78%
Group Study
Areas

8.82%
TV or Smartboards

10.54%
Whiteboards

19.36%
Technology
Borrowing

25.98%
Printing

23.78%
Video Games

13.11%
Gaming Area

10.31%
Art/Crafting
Space

13.99%
Blackbox Theater

8.04%
Makerspace
Café/Coffee Shop Video Games Blackbox Theater Printing Study Rooms Technology Borrowing The Robert Group | April 2026 29

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
398
The Robert Group | April 2026 30

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Teen Open Ended Responses
“A public closet for
those who lack access
to professional clothing”
“Lessons on how to do
practical, adult, real-world
stuff (taxes, sewing)” “Resume building &
interview practice”
“Free teen
therapy sessions”
“Job opportunities”
“Teen art
studio nights”
“Perhaps a space in
the library where teens
could have easy access
to see what internships,
jobs, or opportunities
that they can take
advantage of” "An area for
tutoring kids and
helping them with
schoolwork"
399
Senior Workshops Responses
Which services and amenities would you like in the new library? How do you currently get to the library or how would you prefer to get there in the future?

19.33%
Free Printing or
Copies
25%
Public Transit

10.42%
Dropped Off/
Picked Up

4.17%
I use the
online Library

4.17%
I can’t get there

8.33%
Bike/Scooter

14.58%
Walk

33.33%
Drive & Park

18.49%
Technology Help
Classes

11.76%
Library of Things

10.08%
Technology
Borrowing

17.65%
Café/Coffee Shop

10.08%
1-on-1 Help with
Documents, etc.

9.24%
Tax Prep/
Legal Help

3.36%
Telehealth
Free Printing or Copies Technology Help Classes Café/Coffee Shop Drive & Park Public Transit Walk The Robert Group | April 2026 31

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
400
Senior Workshops Responses
Time of Day
When do you prefer to visit the library?
Day of the Week

44.44%
Morning
(8AM – 12pm)

19.23%
Wednesday 15.38%
Sunday

7.69%
Monday

7.69%
Friday

11.54%
Tuesday

15.38%
Thursday

23.08%
Saturday

44.44%
Afternoon
(12pm – 5pm)

11.11%
Evening
(5pm – 9pm)
The Robert Group | April 2026 32

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
401
Working Adults Community Survey
What would make you more likely to come to the Library? How do you currently get to the library, or how would you prefer to get there in the future?

15.09%
Concerts/Cultural
Celebrations

19.29%
Walk

8.63%
Dropped Off/
Picked Up

13.71%
I use the
online Library

4.06%
Bike/Scooter

4.06%
I can’t get
there

4.57%
Rideshare/
Carpool

12.18%
Public Transit

35.53%
Drive & Park

16.5%
Safe & Clean
Environment

11.27%
Bilingual Library
Programs

10.26%
Blackbox
Theater

21.73%
Café/Coffee Shop

9.66%
Makerspace

8.05%
Co-Working
Spaces

3.42%
Tax Prep Services/
Legal Help

4.02%
English Conversation
Groups/Adult
Literacy Tutoring
Café/Coffee Shop Safe & Clean Environment Concerts/Cultural Celebrations Drive & Park Walk I use the online Library The Robert Group | April 2026 33

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
402
Parents with Young Children Community Survey
What do you want to see in a new Central Library & Public Plaza? Which services and amenities would you like the library to offer for children?

15.2%
Enclosed Outdoor Play Area

24.66%
Toys & Play
Structures

9.13%
Furniture for
Parents

15.98%
Arts & Crafts
Supplies

3.2%
Safe Technology
for Preschoolers

13.7%
Enclosed Play
Areas for Babies
& Toddlers

33.33%
Comfortable
Reading Areas

17.6%
Sensory Area

10.78%
Blackbox Theater

7.84%
Safe/Secure
Children’s Room

26.96%
Café/Coffee Shop

6.86%
Children’s
Makerspace

6.86%
Family Lounge

3.92%

4.41% Teen Space
Tutoring/Study
Rooms
Café/Coffee Shop Sensory Area Enclosed Outdoor
Play Area Comfortable Reading Areas Toys & Play Structures Arts & Crafts Supplies The Robert Group | April 2026 34

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
403
Non-Native English Speakers Survey
What services do you use in the library now?

18.75%
Use Wi-Fi on
my own device

12.5%
Use library
computers

18.75%
Use study room

3.13%
Print documents

15.63%
Attend library
programs

31.25%
Borrow items
Borrow items Use Wi-Fi on my own device Use study room Have you heard that we are proposing a new library?

14.29%
No

85.71%
Yes
The Robert Group | April 2026 35

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
404
Non-Native English Speakers Survey
What programs and services would you want to see in a new Library?

10.53%
Safe & Clean
Environment

17.54%
Café

8.77%
Bilingual Programs

8.77%
Concerts/
Performances

8.77%
Holiday/Cultural
Celebrations

21.05%
English conversation
groups/literacy tutoring

7.02%
Children’s
Makerspace

5.26%
Makerspace

5.26%
Co-Working Space

3.51%

3.51% Legal Assistance
Tax Preparation
English conversation
groups/literacy tutoring Café Safe & Clean Environment
The Robert Group | April 2026 36

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
405
The Robert Group | April 2026 37

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Race and
Ethnicity
Age
Gender
Demographic
Female

61.64%

27.59%

2.59% 7.33%

0.86%
Male Non-binary Prefer not to say Self-describe
Under 18

1.29% 2.16%

24.14%

41.38%

17.67% 13.36%
18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+
Black/African
American

2.69% 10.76% 16.14%

2.69%

73.09%

5.38%
Asian Pacific
Islander
Hispanic/
Latino
Native
American
White/
Caucasian
Other
406
The Robert Group | April 2026 38

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Are you a person
with a disability?
Annual
Earnings
Demographic
Yes

13.04%

79.57%

7.39%
No Prefer not to say
Under
$5,000

2.91%

0.49% 1.94%

3.4%

5.83% 5.83%

11.65%

9.22% 8.25%

19.9%

30.58%
$5,000 -
$9,999
$10,000 -
$14,999
$15,000 -
$24,999
$25,000 -
$34,999
$35,000 -
$49,999
$50,000 -
$64,999
$65,000 -
$79,999
$80,000 -
$99,999
$100,000 -
$149,000
$150,000 or
more
407
Community Feedback:

Recurring Comments
408
The Robert Group | April 2026 40

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Future Library and Plaza Programming
“Public health weekly
activities/events/
blood donation”
“Please keep coloring
night (color me calm)”
“Legal library for
tenant rights”
“Publicize your great
local archives!”
“Business/tech
incubator labs”
“Workshops and
programming in
collaboration with
studios or directly with
the animation guild” “Career
fairs”
"Native plant/
waterwise,
demonstration
garden"
409
The Robert Group | April 2026 41

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Potential Library and Plaza Amenities
“New additional
languages such
as Chinese in the
language hub”
“Free community
meeting space
with tech for
Zoom”
“Meeting space for up
to 200 people or make
it an adjustable meeting
room where overall will
hold many but could be
made smaller”
“Bike path/parking, I
would love to see a lot
of light, warm wood.

Very eco-friendly
overall”
“Autism-friendly
space and sensoryfriendly activities”
“Large areas for local
events like craft and
art fairs on weekends +
farmers markets”
“Study
rooms”
410
The Robert Group | April 2026 42

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Library Feedback
• Community members want more
programs and dedicated spaces for
people with disabilities, including
safe environments for both children
and adults.
• Suggestions include autismfriendly spaces and sensory-friendly activities.
• Respondents recommended
partnerships with organizations such
as the Lanterman Regional Center to
support inclusive programming.
• Residents also noted the importance
of considering the needs of seniors
and ensuring accessible facilities,
including family and gender-neutral
restrooms and ergonomic computer
areas.
• Suggestions include expanded
archives for historical materials,
better storage and access to
historical collections, and displays
highlighting local history.

Accessibility and Inclusive
Programming
Programs, Workshops, and
Educational Opportunities
Community Spaces and Events Library Amenities and Features Arts, Culture, and Creative Spaces
• Residents expressed strong interest
in hands-on enrichment workshops,
such as sewing, woodworking,
gardening, painting, drama, and
cooking classes.
• Suggested programs include career
fairs, public health events, blood
drives, and collaborations with local
creative industries such as animation
studios or guilds.
• Community members would like
business and technology incubator
labs, legal resources such as tenant
rights information, and media labs
for creative production.
• Additional ideas include podcast
studios, sound booths, recording
studios, and photo printing facilities.
• Residents would like flexible
community gathering spaces,
including meeting rooms of
varying sizes and large rooms
accommodating up to 200 people.
• Suggestions include event spaces
for author talks, performances,
film screenings, craft fairs, and
community markets.
• Respondents requested additional
amenities such as study rooms,
soundproof recording booths,
nursing/nap areas for babies, and
comfortable lounge areas separated
from quiet reading areas.
• A cafe or coffee bar and a visible,
expanded Friends of the Library
bookstore were frequently requested.
• Residents also suggested toollending and craft-lending libraries, allowing users to borrow items such
as sewing machines or tools or try
them on-site.
• Additional features mentioned
include seed libraries, bike parking,
and repair workshops, and kitchen
spaces for classes.
• Residents want the library to support
local artists through gallery and
exhibit spaces.
• Suggestions include art exhibit areas,
community art collaborations, and
creative maker spaces for mixed
media projects.
• Community members also proposed
display areas for Rose Parade floats
and memorabilia.
• There was interest in film-related
installations for the DVD section
and creative programming such as
author signings and musical events.
411
The Robert Group | April 2026 43

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Library Feedback
• Respondents emphasized the need
for modern, functional facilities and
improved staff workspaces.
• Many recommended that the library’s
exterior design complement nearby
civic buildings such as City Hall.
• Some residents raised concerns
about limited library hours and
suggested expanding access.

Building Design, Infrastructure,
and Operations
Sustainability and Design History, Archives, and Cultural Preservation
• Many respondents emphasized
eco-friendly design, including solar
panels, natural lighting, warm wood
materials, and environmentally
sustainable architecture.
• Residents also proposed ecoworkspaces for environmental education and after-school
programs.
• Community members emphasized
the importance of preserving and
promoting Burbank’s history.
• Suggestions include expanded
archives for historical materials,
better storage and access to
historical collections, and displays
highlighting local history.
412
The Robert Group | April 2026 44

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Plaza/Open Space Feedback
• Community members emphasized
the importance of preserving and
promoting Burbank’s history.

History and Cultural
Preservation
Community Spaces and Events Sustainability and Outdoor
Spaces
Parking
• Outdoor community activation
ideas include gazebos, food trucks,
weekend markets, and local art fairs.
• Community members also
suggested a performance venue
with a stage and good acoustics to
support local performing arts groups
lacking adequate space in the city.
• Flexible design of the plaza
hardscape to allow for various types
of programming.
• Suggestions include community
gardens, native plant gardens,
demonstration gardens, and seed
banks focused on water-wise
landscaping.
• Improved bike infrastructure and
outdoor gathering spaces were also
suggested.
• There is a need to provide flexible
parking options, such as extending
time limits for library programs and
offering free or validated parking for
library and community service users,
while also discouraging overflow
parking in surrounding areas.
• Some comments emphasize
avoiding building a large parking
structure and instead encouraging
biking and improving access to
public transportation. Existing
parking capacity should be evaluated
before building a new garage
to minimize reliance on a large
structure.
• A few comments suggest activating
sidewalks on all sides and potentially
transforming parking structures into
community assets with features like
rooftop gardens and green walls.
413
The Robert Group | April 2026 45

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
Overall Project Feedback
• Residents encouraged stronger partnerships with the
school district (BUSD), community organizations, and
city departments.
• Suggestions included engaging parents through schools and collaborating with police, public works, artists, and nonprofits on programming.

Partnerships and Community Engagement Support for Unhoused Individuals • Community members support providing services for
unhoused individuals but emphasize the need for
stronger security and faster response times to maintain safety for families and children.
• Suggestions include on-site showers, restrooms, a
sheltered area, and space where unhoused individuals
can safely access amenities and resources.
• Community members recommend expanded social
services, including access to social workers, case
managers, and resource connections at the library.
• Additional ideas include temporary storage for personal belongings and improved technology access and
infrastructure for unhoused users.
• Some respondents emphasized that public restrooms
should remain accessible even when the library is closed. 414
[PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
RFP NO. LS-2026-01 PDB BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER ATTACHMENT 5

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DECISION LETTER
415
416
417

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AMENDMENT DRAFT
APRIL 21, 2026

NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
DRAFT
418
2 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026
Text by MOCA Systems, Inc.

All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any other information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from MOCA Systems, Inc.

Issued in 2026 for printed softcover and digital reading in the United States by:

MOCA Systems, Inc.
210 Progress Suite 240
Irvine, CA 92618
www.mocasystems.com
DRAFT
419

PROPOSAL
Project Cover Sheet
Site Plans:

Existing
Demo
Diagram of Limits
Proposed
Circulations
Site Plans with Program:

Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Site Elevations with Program:

East Olive Ave
North 3rd St
East Orange Grove Ave
` North Glenoaks Blvd
05 06
07 08
09 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
3 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DRAFT
420

PROPOSAL
DRAFT
421
N
SITE ADDRESS: 301 East Olive Ave
APN: 2453-008-900, 2453-008-903, 2453-008-905,
2453-008-908, 2453-008-910, 2453-008-912
ZONING: PD2002-2
LOT AREA: 3.33 ACRES*
PROJECT AREA:

Total Project Site Area 157,000 GSF**
Library and Civic Center Building (Max) 119,000 GSF
4 levels
Program Breakdown (Min)
• Entry/ Lobby 8,400 SF
• Library 40,850 SF
• Shared Programs 25,980 SF
• City Offices 22,080 SF
Structured Parking Facility 310 Stalls
4 levels
Public Plaza and Open Space (Min) 38,280 GSF***
Other Site, Circulation, Street-scape 32,440 GSF
* refer to Boundary of Work on Site Plan - Existing
** refer to Property Line on Site Plan - Existing
*** refer to Plaza boundary on Site Plan - Diagram of Limits Isometric Aerial of Site Boundary of Work - Proposed

PROJECT COVER SHEET

OVERALL SITE
5 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026
DRAFT
422
654
653
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
652
651
650
649
648
647
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
628
629
630
631
630
632
633
655
648
(DEMO) 7 SPACES UNDERNEATH
ASB
103 E OLIVE AVE
APPROX 39,000 GSF
354 E
ORANGE

GROVE AVE
APPROX
3,000 GSF

UTILITY YARD
284'-1"
330'-4"
480'-2"
CSB
150 N 3RD ST
65,954 GSF
141 N GLENOAKS BLVD
7,600 GSF
325'-4"

OLIVE AVE

ORANGE GROVE AVE
3RD ST

GLENOAKS BLVD
N SCALE: 1” = 50’
Property Line
Boundary of Work
6 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026

EXISTING SITE PLAN DRAFT
423
654
653
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
652
651
650
649
648
647
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
628
629
630
631
630
632
633
655
648
(DEMO) 7 SPACES UNDERNEATH
ASB
103 E OLIVE AVE
APPROX 39,000 GSF
354 E
ORANGE

GROVE AVE
APPROX
3,000 GSF
284'-1"
330'-4"
480'-2"
CSB
150 N 3RD ST
65,954 GSF
141 N GLENOAKS BLVD
7,600 GSF
325'-4"

OLIVE AVE

ORANGE GROVE AVE
3RD ST

GLENOAKS BLVD

EXISTING

UTILITY YARD
N SCALE: 1” = 50’
Property Line
Boundary of Work
Demolition
7 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026

DEMO SITE PLAN DRAFT
424
654
653
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
652
651
650
649
648
647
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
628
629
630
631
630
632
633
655
648
50'-0"
40'-0"
30'-0" 50'-0"
0' SETBACK
0' SETBACK 5' SETBACK
0' SETBACK

PARKING GARAGE

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
33,990 GSF

LIBRARY & CIVIC CENTER

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE

BUILDING FOOTPRINT
34,810 GSF
PLAZA

MINIMUM
38,280 GSF
0' SETBACK
CSB
150 N 3RD ST
65,954 GSF

OLIVE AVE

ORANGE GROVE AVE
3RD ST

GLENOAKS BLVD

SETBACK DEDICATION TO ACHIEVE
15' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY PER THE
CITY OF BURBANK CSODS.

NOT

BUILTABLE

EXISTING

UTILITY YARD
CORNER

CUT OFF
CORNER

CUT OFF
45'-0"
MIN
134'-0" 145'-0"
250'-2" 230'-0"
254'-1"
MIN
30'-0"
20'-0"
MIN
153'-0" 15'-0"
15'-0"
N SCALE: 1” = 50’
Property Line
Boundary of Work
Maximum Boundary
8 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026

SITE PLAN - DIAGRAM OF LIMITS DRAFT
425

SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
N SCALE: 1” = 50’
654
653
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
652
651
650
649
648
647
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
628
629
630
631
630
632
633
655
648
CSB
150 N 3RD ST
65,954 GSF

PROPOSED PARKING
GARAGE

PROPOSED LIBRARY
& CIVIC CENTER

PROPOSED PLAZA

OLIVE AVE

ORANGE GROVE AVE
3RD ST

GLENOAKS BLVD
6'-5" 39'-8" 180'-0" 16'-0" 5'-0" 20'-0" 5'-0"
78'-2" 5'-0"
4'-0"
5'-0" 31'-0"
-1'
641'
+0'
642'
+0'
642'
+0'
642'
+0'
642'
+7'
649'
+8'
650'
-4'
638'
30'-0"
55'-0"

EXISTING

UTILITY YARD
Property Line
Boundary of Work
Maximum Boundary
Building Outline
Building Entry/Exit
Parking Entry/Exit
9 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026
DRAFT
426

SITE PLAN - CIRCULATIONS
N SCALE: 1” = 50’
654
653
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
652
651
650
649
648
647
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
628
629
630
631
630
632
633
655
648
CSB
150 N 3RD ST
65,954 GSF

PROPOSED PARKING
GARAGE

PROPOSED LIBRARY
& CIVIC CENTER

PROPOSED PLAZA

OLIVE AVE

ORANGE GROVE AVE
3RD ST

GLENOAKS BLVD
MIN
20'-0"
15'-0"
31'-0"
16'-0"
16'-2"

UTILITY YARD
5'-0" 20'-0"
MIN
R = 24'-0"
R = 14'-0"
Property Line
Boundary of Work
Maximum Boundary
Building Outline
Building Entry/Exit
Parking Entry/Exit
Service and Emergency
Vehicle Path
Pedestrian Zone
Loading Zone
Transformer Yard
10 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026
DRAFT
427
654
653
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
652
651
650
649
648
647
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
628
629
630
631
630
632
633
655
648
CSB
150 N 3RD ST
65,954 GSF

PROPOSED PARKING
GARAGE

LIBRARY

PROGRAM

PROPOSED PLAZA

OLIVE AVE

ORANGE GROVE AVE
3RD ST

GLENOAKS BLVD
LARGE

FLEXIBLE

AUDITORIUM
LOBBY

MEETING
ROOMS
CAFE

EXISTING

UTILITY YARD
SITE PLAN - LEVEL 1

LOBBY & ATRIUM
SHARED

LIBRARY
OFFICE

OPEN SPACE
CAFE

LOADING ZONE

LIBRARY TRANSFORMER
11 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026
DRAFT
428
654
653
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
652
651
650
649
648
647
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
628
629
630
631
630
632
633
655
648
CSB
150 N 3RD ST
65,954 GSF

PROPOSED PARKING
GARAGE

CHILDREN &

TEENS AREA

PROPOSED PLAZA

OLIVE AVE

ORANGE GROVE AVE
3RD ST

GLENOAKS BLVD

PLAY ZONE

OPEN TO BELOW

MEETING
ROOMS

EXISTING

UTILITY YARD
SITE PLAN - LEVEL 2

LOBBY & ATRIUM
SHARED

LIBRARY
OFFICE

OPEN SPACE
12 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026
DRAFT
429
654
653
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
652
651
650
649
648
647
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
628
629
630
631
630
632
633
655
648
CSB
150 N 3RD ST
65,954 GSF

PROPOSED PARKING
GARAGE

PROPOSED PLAZA

OLIVE AVE

ORANGE GROVE AVE
3RD ST

GLENOAKS BLVD

CITY OFFICES

LIBRARY

ADMIN &

COWORKING

CREATIVE
SITE PLAN - LEVEL 3

LOBBY & ATRIUM
SHARED

LIBRARY
OFFICE

OPEN SPACE
13 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026
DRAFT
430
SITE PLAN - LEVEL 4
654
653
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
652
651
650
649
648
647
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
628
629
630
631
630
632
633
655
648
CSB
150 N 3RD ST
65,954 GSF

PROPOSED PARKING
GARAGE

PROPOSED PLAZA

OLIVE AVE

ORANGE GROVE AVE
3RD ST

GLENOAKS BLVD

CITY OFFICES SHARED

AMENITIES

LOBBY & ATRIUM
SHARED

LIBRARY
OFFICE

OPEN SPACE
14 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026
DRAFT
431
N 3RD ST

N GLENOAKS BLVD

E ORANGE GROVE AVE

E OLIVE AVE
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’ 120’
N
15 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026

ELEVATION - EAST OLIVE AVE

PROJECT HEIGHT

SEA LEVEL HEIGHT

LOBBY & ENTRIES
SHARED

LIBRARY
OFFICE

OPEN SPACE
DRAFT
432
N 3RD ST

N GLENOAKS BLVD

E ORANGE GROVE AVE

E OLIVE AVE
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’ 120’
N
16 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026
ELEVATION - NORTH 3RD ST

LOBBY & ENTRIES
SHARED

LIBRARY
OFFICE

OPEN SPACE

PROJECT HEIGHT

SEA LEVEL HEIGHT
DRAFT
433
N 3RD ST

N GLENOAKS BLVD

E ORANGE GROVE AVE

E OLIVE AVE
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’ 120’
N
17 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026

ELEVATION - EAST ORANGE GROVE AVE

LOBBY & ENTRIES
SHARED

LIBRARY
OFFICE

OPEN SPACE

PROJECT HEIGHT

SEA LEVEL HEIGHT
DRAFT
434
N 3RD ST

N GLENOAKS BLVD

E ORANGE GROVE AVE

E OLIVE AVE
0’ 15’ 30’ 60’ 120’
N
18 NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | APRIL 2026

ELEVATION - NORTH GLENOAKS BLVD

LOBBY & ENTRIES
SHARED

LIBRARY
OFFICE

OPEN SPACE

PROJECT HEIGHT

SEA LEVEL HEIGHT
DRAFT
435

END OF DOCUMENT
MOCA SYSTEMS, INC. | NEW BURBANK LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER 19 DRAFT
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
Addendum to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Planned Development No. 2002-2
with Development Review No. 2002-42
LEAD AGENCY:

City of Burbank
Community Development Department
Planning Division
150 North Third Street
Burbank, CA 91502
Contact: Federico “Fred” Ramirez, Assistant Community Development Director (818) 238-5250
PREPARED BY:

Michael Baker International
3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 270
Long Beach, California 90806
Contact: Madonna Marcelo
(213) 627-1036
April 2026
466
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 1 April 2026

1.0 INTRODUCTION
On March 18, 2003, the City Council of the City of Burbank (City Council) adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002- 42 (2003 MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines for the establishment of a Planned Development for the Civic Center Master Plan. The project evaluated in the 2003 MND consisted of the redevelopment of the Civic Center block bounded by North Glenoaks Boulevard on the northeast, East Olive Avenue on the southeast, North Third Street on the southwest, and East Orange Grove Avenue on the northwest (encompassing 3.60 acres), as well as the southern corner of East Orange Grove Avenue and North Third Street (approximately 0.72 acre). This project proposed the demolition of institutional buildings and surface parking lots and the construction of a new Development and Community Services Building (DCSB), New Central Library, a new Administrative Services Building (ASB), a parking structure, and a public plaza (i.e., Approved Project). The 2003 MND analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Approved Project and determined that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated for the following issue areas: (1) construction air emissions; (2) indirect impacts to Burbank City Hall, a nationally-registered historical landmark located adjacent to the Approved Project Site; and (3) hazards to vehicular traffic during construction.; and (3) hazards to vehicular traffic during construction.

The City is now proposing modifications to the Approved Project by eliminating the ASB and expanding the New Central Library to accommodate the administrative office functions originally planned for the ASB. More specifically, the modifications would consist of development of a single building that would combine library and civic uses, while retaining the previously approved parking structure and open space (i.e., Revised Project).

In considering the approval for the Revised Project, the City of Burbank (City), as the Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA, is required to consider the environmental consequences of the Revised Project. This addendum addresses the environmental impacts of the Revised Project when compared to those of the Approved Project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

2.0 STATUTORY BACKGROUND
In accordance with CEQA, when a Lead Agency considers further discretionary approval on a previously approved project, the Lead Agency is required to consider if the previously certified/adopted CEQA document provides adequate basis for rendering a decision on the proposed discretionary action. When making such a decision, the Lead Agency must consider any changes to the project or its circumstances that have occurred and any new information that has become available since the project’s CEQA document was certified/adopted.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b), an addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for a subsequent negative declaration have occurred. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, if substantial changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information of substantial importance becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the Lead Agency shall prepare a subsequent negative declaration or subsequent environmental impact report (EIR). More specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) states:
467
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 2 April 2026
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

As stated above, an addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions to the adopted negative declaration are necessary or none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for a subsequent negative declaration have occurred. The addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be attached to the adopted negative declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c)).

This addendum evaluates the Revised Project to determine whether any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for a subsequent negative declaration have occurred.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPROVED PROJECT
Project Background
In June 1997, the City approved the Burbank Center Plan (BCP) and certified the EIR for the project. The 2003 MND, which was prepared for the Approved Project, tiered off the BCP EIR.

This EIR looked at the development permitted in the BCP Area, including 10 opportunity sites, such as the Project Site (Opportunity Area 3). The BCP concentrated new development on these opportunity sites to present both flexibility and opportunity for several development options on 468
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 3 April 2026
each site, depending on future needs and conditions. CEQA allows lead agencies to “tier” a negative declaration off a broader specific plan EIR, in which the EIR considered development allowed but did not focus on details of a specific project. Therefore, the 2003 MND considered specific details of the Approved Project that the BCP EIR considered only generally. Nonetheless, the BCP envisioned a much larger development than was proposed under the Approved Project (i.e., 350,000 square feet of mid-rise office versus 185,000 square feet of office/library), as described below.

Approved Project
As shown in Figure 1, the Approved Project proposed the construction of the following: a threestory, 66,000-square-foot DCSB; a two-story, 80,000-square-foot New Central Library; a five-level (including two underground levels), 500-space new parking structure; and 20,500 square feet of public plaza on the City block bounded by North Glenoaks Boulevard, East Olive Avenue, North Third Street, and East Orange Grove Avenue. The Approved Project also proposed the construction of a new two-story, 39,000-square-foot ASB with subterranean parking containing a minimum of 89 parking spaces on the City parcel located at the southern corner of East Orange Grove Avenue and North Third Street, which was occupied by the former Municipal Services Building and adjacent to Burbank City Hall.

In addition, the Approved Project proposed the narrowing of North Third Street adjacent to the Approved Project Site from 46 feet to 35 feet by eliminating one lane of motor vehicle traffic and widening the sidewalk by 5.5 feet on both sides of the street.

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Existing Conditions
As shown in Figure 2, the Civic Center block is currently developed with the Community Services Building (CSB), which was proposed as part of the Approved Project (previously referred to as the DCSB) at the western corner of the block; the old ASB at the southern corner of the block; an existing vacant structure that was formerly occupied by a Wells Fargo Bank branch at the northern corner of the block; a small temporary trailer structure that is currently used by the Burbank Bike Angels along East Orange Grove Avenue between the CSB and the vacant structure; and surface parking areas for use by City offices and visitors in the remaining portions of the block.

Revised Project
As shown in Figure 3, the Revised Project involves eliminating the new ASB that was proposed to be constructed immediately adjacent to City Hall at the southern corner of the intersection of East Orange Grove Avenue and North Third Street under the Approved Project and expanding the New Central Library proposed under the Approved Project to accommodate the administrative office functions originally planned for the proposed ASB. This proposed structure, now referred to as the Revised Project’s New Library and Civic Center Building, would involve constructing a fourstory, 119,000-square-foot building as compared to the two-story, 80,000-square-foot New Central Library and the two-story, 39,000-square-foot ASB under the Approved Project. As such, while the Revised Project proposes a taller single building, it would merely consolidate the two buildings under the Approved Project to combine the library and civic functions without increasing the square footage. In addition, the Revised Project would retain the parking structure proposed under the Approved Project at the northern corner of the Project Site; however, only four levels with 310 parking spaces are currently proposed as compared to the 5.25 levels with 500 parking 469
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 4 April 2026
470
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 5 April 2026
471
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 6 April 2026
472
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 7 April 2026
spaces proposed under the Approved Project. Similarly, the Revised Project would retain the public plaza proposed under the Approved Project at the southern corner of the Project Site; however, it would occupy a larger area as a 42,430-square-foot public plaza/open space is proposed as compared to the 20,500-square-foot public plaza proposed under the Approved Project. As with the Approved Project, the building heights proposed for the Revised Project’s New Library and Civic Center Building and parking structure would be well under the 90-foot limit allowed by-right in the Civic Center area of the City Center Subarea of the BCP area. The Project would also require a parcel map to be processed in accordance with Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) Title 11 (Subdivisions) to build out the Project on new parcels within the Project Site that align with each component of the Civic Center Master Plan—the existing CSB building, new open space/plaza area, new library and civic center building, and new parking structure.

The Revised Project’s New Library and Civic Center Building and parking structure would incorporate energy and water conservation features in compliance with the requirements of the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code.

As with the Approved Project, Development Review will be processed for the proposed improvements on-site under the Revised Project to verify that the Revised Project would comply with all BMC requirements, Planned Development standards, and the associated conditions of approval.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section discusses the environmental factors potentially affected based on current information and the description of the Revised Project. The analysis presented herein compares the impacts in the adopted 2003 MND to those of the Revised Project, described above. Specifically, the following subsections address environmental topics that were evaluated in the 2003 MND to determine if the impacts of the Revised Project are similar to the impacts discussed in the 2003 MND or whether the Revised Project would result in new significant environmental effects, a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or new information of substantial importance. This section also presents the mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval from the 2003 MND that are applicable to the Revised Project.

5.1 AESTHETICS
According to the 2003 MND, the height of the approved DCSB was proposed to be approximately 61 feet above average grade, while the New Central Library, Parking Structure, and ASB were proposed to be approximately 30 feet, 35 feet, and 35 feet, respectively. The 2003 MND determined that these building heights would not have a substantial adverse effect on any scenic vistas or damage scenic resources. In addition, the 2003 MND concluded that the Approved Project would not significantly impact the aesthetics of the neighborhood or generate significant levels of light or glare. Compliance with the BMC required lighting for the Approved Project to be focused on the site and shielded away from surrounding properties, and the use of glareproducing building materials would be limited. Therefore, the 2003 MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in no impact on aesthetics.

Under the Revised Project, the previously proposed two-story, 35-foot-tall ASB would no longer be constructed adjacent to City Hall, whose architecture as a historic structure is considered a scenic resource by the City. The ASB’s administrative service uses would instead be incorporated into the proposed structure located farther away near the North Glenoaks Boulevard/East Olive Avenue 473
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 8 April 2026
intersection. The Revised Project’s New Central Library and Civic Center Building would increase the height of the previously proposed New Central Library from two stories (30 feet) to four stories with heights ranging from 65 feet to 70 feet. As such, the height of the New Library and Civic Center Building would be comparable to the 61-foot tall CSB, which has already been constructed under the Approved Project. The New Library and Civic Center Building would continue to be located in an urbanized area, where scenic views of the Verdugo Mountains are not readily available from the Project Site. In addition, while the Revised Project would increase the height of the proposed parking structure near the North Glenoaks Boulevard/East Orange Grove Avenue intersection from 35 feet to 42 feet, the structure would remain reduced in scale when compared to the adjacent CSB. As described above and as with the Approved Project, the building heights proposed for the Revised Project’s New Library and Civic Center Building and parking structure would be well under the 90-foot limit allowed by-right in the Civic Center area of the City Center Subarea of the BCP area.

Furthermore, the Revised Project would expand the proposed plaza and open space from 20,500 square feet to 42,430 square feet, providing more open space and a greater setback of the proposed New Library and Civic Center Building from the historic City Hall building and enhance the visual character and quality to the Project Site. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would comply with BMC requirements related to light and glare, and the use of glare-producing building materials would be limited. Therefore, consistent with the determination in the 2003 MND, the Revised Project would not result in aesthetics impacts. As such, there are no material changes in circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts that would affect the no impact determination in the 2003 MND.

5.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
According to the 2003 MND, there are no agricultural resources in the vicinity of the Approved Project Site. The City of Burbank does not contain farmland resources or any land zoned for agricultural use. As such, the 2003 MND concluded that no impacts related to agricultural resources would occur under the Approved Project.

5.3 AIR QUALITY
According to the 2003 MND, the City of Burbank, which is located within the South Coast Air Basin, consistently generated the highest levels of smog in the United States (U.S.). The 2003 MND determined that the Approved Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan and would comply with BMC trip reduction requirements, where applicable. Therefore, the 2003 MND concluded that the Approved Project would not conflict with applicable air quality plans. 474
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 9 April 2026
However, the 2003 MND determined that construction of the Approved Project could result in shortterm deterioration in air quality in the immediate vicinity of the Approved Project Site due to emissions from construction equipment and possible fugitive dust during grading and excavation.

To reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level, the 2003 MND identified mitigation measures consistent with the SCAQMD guidelines. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the 2003 MND concluded that air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures from the 2003 MND

1. The developer shall use energy efficient equipment that produces low particulate and nitrogen oxide emissions, when available.

2. The developer shall cease use of equipment during second and third stage smog alerts as issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

3. The developer shall cease grading and water truck use during periods of high winds (greater than 25 mph).

4. The developer shall use a water truck during grading and excavation phases to control fugitive dust (twice per day at minimum).

In addition, the 2003 MND determined that operation of the Approved Project would not result in a net increase of criteria pollutants, contribute to a non-stationary source “hot spot,” expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors. Thus, no operational-related impacts were anticipated.

Under the Revised Project, the previously proposed ASB, including its subterranean and aboveground structure, would no longer be developed, while the scale of other proposed uses would slightly increase. As discussed in Section 4.0, the CSB has already been constructed under the initial phase of development of the Approved Project. As such, the overall duration and intensity of construction activities under the next phase of development as proposed under the Revised Project are not anticipated to exceed those of the Approved Project. Moreover, daily construction activities of the Revised Project would not be more intense than daily construction activities of the Approved Project. In addition, due to increasing construction equipment emission regulations, construction fleets in 2026 (consisting primarily of Tier III and Tier IV equipment) generate less emissions than those in 2003, as considered in the adopted 2003 MND. With implementation of applicable SCAQMD air quality requirements and the same mitigation measures proposed by the Approved Project, the Revised Project would result in similar or less daily maximum emissions during construction.

Regarding operation, the combined square footage of the previously proposed New Central Library (80,000 square feet) and ASB (39,000 square feet) would be the same as that proposed for the New Central Library Building (119,000 square feet) under the Revised Project. Accordingly, the Revised Project would not exceed the staff/occupant capacity of the Approved Project and associated vehicle trip generation as the Revised Project would simply consolidate the uses associated with the New Central Library and the new ASB under the Approved Project. In addition, as described above, the Revised Project’s New Library and Civic Center Building and parking structure would incorporate energy and water conservation features in compliance with the requirements of the CALGreen Code, which would be an improvement over the Approved Project as green building standards (developed in 2007) have greatly improved and become more stringent when compared to the building standards that were in effect in 2003 for the Approved 475
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 10 April 2026
Project. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would comply with BMC trip reduction requirements. As such, the Revised Project’s long-term operational emissions would not exceed those of the Approved Project, including those generated by energy usage and on-site area sources. Therefore, because (1) the Revised Project would be required to comply with air quality regulations and mitigation measures identified in the 2003 MND during construction, (2) there are no new sensitive receptors located adjacent to the Project Site, and (3) given the scale and duration of construction activities, there are no material changes in circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts to air quality that would affect the determinations of no impact and less-than-significant impact with mitigation in the 2003 MND.

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
According to the 2003 MND, the Approved Project Site did not contain any apparent rare, threatened, endangered, special-status, or sensitive animal or plant species identified by the California Department of Fish and Game1 or the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife,2 as the site was located in a commercial area within an urbanized region. Additionally, the 2003 MND determined that no riparian or wetland habitats existed or could be impacted in the Approved Project area, and the Approved Project would not conflict with any adopted local, regional, or State policies, ordinances, or conservation plans. Therefore, the 2003 MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in no impact to biological resources.

The Revised Project would eliminate the previously proposed ASB and incorporate its administrative service uses into the proposed New Library and Civic Center Building. The Revised Project would also retain the previously approved parking structure and public plaza with only modifications to their size. These design changes would not alter the biological setting of the Project Site. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project Site is located within a fully developed, urban commercial area that does not support any rare, threatened, endangered, special-status, or sensitive animal or plant species identified by CDFW or USFWS.3 The Project Site continues to lack riparian, wetland, or other sensitive habitat types, and the Revised Project would remain consistent with all applicable local, regional, and State biological resource policies and conservation plans. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts to biological resources that would affect the no impact determination in the 2003 MND.

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
According to the 2003 MND, the Approved Project was located on a developed site in an urbanized area that was not listed in the City’s Historic Preservation Plan as a potentially 1 California Department of Fish and Game is currently known as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2 U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife is currently known as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 3 For the Revised Project, a desktop literature (i.e., California Natural Diversity Database and iNaturalist) and photographs review was conducted to verify that the Project Site and the surrounding areas do not support any sensitive species. Since there are no riparian areas on the Project Site and in the immediate vicinity, no suitable habitat to support the least Bell’s vireo is present to result in any impact to this species. With regard to bats, the street trees along the perimeter of the Project Site and immediate vicinity do not have overgrown, thick canopies in which bats could roost; as such, the potential for bats to occur on-site or utilize the street trees is not anticipated. With regard to the monarch butterflies, photographs associated with the iNaturalist records were reviewed, but none showed any roost locations on the Project Site and in the immediate vicinity. In addition, the Project Site and the immediate vicinity are far inland to provide suitable roost for the winter. 476
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 11 April 2026
significant site. The 2003 MND determined that there were no known sites or areas in the vicinity associated with archaeological or paleontological resources, ethnic cultural heritage, human remains, or religious or sacred uses. As such, the 2003 MND concluded that no related impacts would occur under the Approved Project.

With regard to historic resources, since the ASB was proposed for development immediately adjacent to Burbank City Hall, which is a nationally registered historic landmark, the City of Burbank Historic Preservation Commission would have been required to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the ASB design. The 2003 MND stated that the environmental review was based on the information available at that time and that subsequent review could be necessary upon the selection of the ASB’s design. With implementation of such mitigation as related to the ASB design review process, the 2003 MND concluded that impacts to historic resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

Under the Revised Project, the previously proposed ASB would no longer be developed immediately adjacent to City Hall, and no other development is proposed at that location. As such, the mitigation measure under the Approved Project would no longer be required under the Revised Project, and impacts related to historic resources would not occur. In addition, with the elimination of the ASB and its subterranean parking, the overall ground disturbance required by the Revised Project would be reduced when compared to the Approved Project. The Revised Project would not require any additional ground disturbance than that proposed under the Approved Project. Accordingly, under the Revised Project, the impact determinations related to archeological resources, paleontological resources, ethnic cultural heritage, human remains, or religious or sacred uses would be consistent with those of the Approved Project. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts to cultural resources that would affect the determinations of no impact and less-than-significant impact with mitigation in the 2003 MND.

5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
According to the 2003 MND, the Approved Project Site is located within two miles of the Verdugo Fault and is on alluvial and alluvial fan deposits identified as Qyf2. The 2003 MND determined that the site is also located on a stable geologic unit with no known history of landslide, spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The 2003 MND noted that compliance with the Uniform Building Code would be required during project review and determined that the Approved Project would not expose people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, or similar hazards (e.g., seismic ground shaking; inundation; expansive soils) to any extent greater than what already existed on the site and in the surrounding area. Additionally, the 2003 MND stated that the Approved Project was located in Zone X of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map, an area determined to be outside of the 500-year floodplain. As such, the 2003 MND concluded that no impacts from these issues would be anticipated. Furthermore, the 2003 MND determined that the Approved Project would not result in soil erosion but could result in the loss of some soil during excavation. Nonetheless, the 2003 MND concluded that such impacts would be less than significant.

As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be located in an urbanized area that has been built out with civic uses, including the CSB, which has already been constructed under the Approved Project. The Revised Project would eliminate the previously proposed ASB, including 477
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 12 April 2026
its subterranean structure, and would expand the New Central Library to accommodate those administrative functions and consolidate the uses originally proposed in the ASB and the New Central Library under the Approved Project into one building. The Revised Project would also retain the previously approved parking structure and public plaza with only modifications to their size. Similar to the Approved Project, as seismic issues are predominantly site-specific, these changes would not alter the Project Site’s geologic context, result in the loss of a unique geologic feature, or exacerbate any existing geologic conditions on the Project Site. As with the Approved Project, the Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone, remains in Zone X of the FEMA Flood Map, and is underlain by stable alluvial deposits with no documented landslide, liquefaction, subsidence, spreading, or collapse risks.4,5 Consistent with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be required to comply with applicable seismic building standards under the California Building Code,6 as adopted by the City, including, but not limited to, those related to soil conditions, foundations, and building design. Furthermore, the Revised Project would comply with all applicable regulations and best management practices related to soil and erosion control during construction activities and would not be expected to result in soil erosion.

Because the Revised Project does not introduce new geologic constraints or increase the severity of geologic hazards, there are no material changes in circumstances. Implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe geology and soils impacts that would affect the determinations of no impact and less-than-significant impact in the 2003 MND.

5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
According to the 2003 MND, development of the Approved Project would not result in the release of hazardous materials or other hazardous conditions. The 2003 MND noted that an explosion or other hazardous conditions could occur during construction if natural gas or other pipelines were damaged or punctured; however, the 2003 MND concluded that, because the developer would be required to comply with all applicable City codes, the likelihood of such an incident would be eliminated. The 2003 MND stated that most construction work would occur outside of the public rights-of-way; therefore, significant impacts related to interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan were not anticipated. Any street excavation or other use or blockage of the public right-of-way would be required to conform to the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and the State of California Traffic Manual or other regulations as required by the City’s Public Works Department at the time of permit approval. Additionally, the 2003 MND determined that the Approved Project would not result in the exposure to wildfire risk as the Civic Center area is not located in any fire hazard severity zones7 or potential hazards to airport/airstrip uses as there are none located within two miles of the Civic Center area. The Approved Project Site was not listed on the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site list, and a 4 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/, accessed on February 6, 2026. 5 FEMA, National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer, FIRM Panel 06037C1345F, https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd, accessed on February 6, 2026. 6 The Uniform Building Code was last published in 1997 and has been superseded by the International Building Code.

The California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Part 2 of Title 24) now includes the International Building Code, as well as California amendments. 7 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-wedo/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones, accessed February 12, 2026. 478
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 13 April 2026
“Phase 1 analysis” performed for a portion of the site (former Fire Department Headquarters at 353 East Olive Avenue) indicated that previous uses may have had only minimal impact on the environment and that any hazardous materials stored on-site appeared to have been stored properly. Therefore, the 2003 MND concluded that no impacts related to such hazards and hazardous materials concerns would occur.

The 2003 MND identified Bellarmine-Jefferson High School as the nearest school, located approximately 330 feet from the Approved Project Site. However, based on the details provided above and in the 2003 MND, the Approved Project would not be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. As such, impacts on schools related to hazardous materials were determined to be less than significant under the Approved Project.

The Revised Project would eliminate the previously proposed ASB and would expand the New Central Library to incorporate and consolidate those administrative functions and the library into one building. The Revised Project would retain the previously approved parking structure and public plaza with only modifications to their size. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would include limited use of hazardous materials that are typical of office and civic uses; these hazardous materials generally include, but are not limited to, cleaning solvents, painting supplies, pesticides for landscaping, and chemicals used for building maintenance, which are not considered significant hazards to the public or the environment. Project construction would likewise include limited hazardous substances, but use of those substances is also closely regulated and would be controlled. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be required to comply with all applicable City building codes and safety standards, including requirements intended to reduce the likelihood of utility damage, accidental releases of hazardous materials, or other hazardous conditions. With regard to the previous use identified in the “Phase 1 analysis” referenced in the 2003 MND for the Approved Project, for further clarification, the case associated with the underground storage tanks (USTs) formerly located in the eastern portion of the Civic Center block was closed as of March 10, 2000; according to the closure report, a site investigation and remedial action for the USTs formerly located at 353 East Olive Avenue were completed.8 Any necessary work in the public right-of-way would continue to conform to the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and the State of California Traffic Manual, ensuring that emergency access and evacuation routes are maintained. The Project Site remains in a fully urbanized area that is not subject to wildfire hazards, and there are still no airports within two miles of the site. Therefore, no impacts related to the hazards concerns above would occur under the Revised Project.

While the 2003 MND identified Bellarmine‑Jefferson High School as the nearest school, the school subsequently closed in 2019.9 Accordingly, under existing conditions, the nearest school to the Project Site is Saint Robert Bellarmine Elementary School, which is located approximately 630 feet to the northeast. As with the Approved Project, because the Revised Project would not introduce new hazardous materials uses, it would not pose a risk to nearby students, staff, or school operations. Any surrounding hazardous materials storage would continue to be properly regulated and contained in accordance with existing applicable regulations related to the 8 California State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, Burbank Fire Station #11 (T0603702510), https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0603702510, accessed February 11, 2026. 9 California Department of Education, California School Directory, Bellarmine-Jefferson High School, https://www.cde.ca.gov/schooldirectory/details?cdscode=19643376934236, accessed February 10, 2026. 479
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 14 April 2026
transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts to schools would remain less than significant under the Revised Project.

Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials that would affect the determinations of no impact and less-than-significant impact in the 2003 MND.

5.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
According to the 2003 MND, surface runoff and drainage impacts under the Approved Project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with City-mandated codes and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations. The 2003 MND also stated that the Approved Project Site was not located within a 100-year flood hazard area or in an area prone to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Approved Project was determined to be located in Zone X of the FEMA Flood Map, which is an area determined to be outside of the 500-year floodplain.

Therefore, the 2003 MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in no impacts related to floodplains or flood flows.

The Revised Project would eliminate the previously proposed ASB and would expand the New Central Library to incorporate and consolidate those administrative functions and the library into one building. The Revised Project would retain the previously approved parking structure and public plaza with only modifications to their size. These design changes would not alter the site’s hydrologic setting. The Project Site has been developed and is predominantly impervious prior to and since the publication of the 2003 MND, and, as such, similar to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not deplete or interfere with groundwater supply or recharge. Buildout of the Revised Project would result in a similar amount of impervious surface area compared to that of the Approved Project. Accordingly, the flow rate and volume of stormwater runoff and discharges from the Revised Project would not exceed those considered for the development of the Approved Project. In addition, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be required to comply with all applicable City requirements and RWQCB regulations regarding stormwater discharge, including, but not limited to, low impact development and control of stormwater flow and runoff. Accordingly, such impacts would remain less than significant under the Revised Project. In addition, the Project Site remains in an area mapped as FEMA Zone X, outside of areas prone to 100-year flood hazards, seiche, tsunami, and mudflow. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts to hydrology and water quality that would affect the determinations of no impact and less-than-significant impact in the 2003 MND.

5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
According to the 2003 MND, the Approved Project would not physically divide an established community and was intended to complement the surrounding area, including Burbank’s Downtown. The 2003 MND determined that the Approved Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation of City Center Commercial, which allows development of City offices and a public library. The property was zoned BCC-2 (Burbank Center Commercial Limited Business) and BCC-3 (Burbank Center Commercial General Business); however, the 2003 MND noted that a Planned Development process would be required to allow reduced 480
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 15 April 2026
setbacks, landscaping, and other specific development standards proposed. Nonetheless, the 2003 MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in no impact related to land use and planning.

5.10 MINERAL RESOURCES
According to the 2003 MND, the Approved Project was not expected to cause a loss in the availability of known mineral resources. No actual mineral resources were known to exist on the Approved Project Site, which is located in an urbanized area designated for non-mining compatible land uses. The 2003 MND identified that Approved Project Site as being located in an MRZ-3 zone (areas containing mineral deposits of which the significance cannot be evaluated) on the State of California Mineral Land Classification map. Therefore, the 2003 MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in no impact on mineral resources.

The Revised Project would eliminate the previously proposed ASB and would expand the New Central Library to incorporate and consolidate those administrative functions and the library into one building. The Revised Project would retain the previously approved parking structure and public plaza with only modifications to their size. These changes do not alter the mineral resource context of the Project Site. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project Site remains within an MRZ‑3 zone in an urbanized portion of the City that contains no known mineral resources and is not designated for mineral extraction. In addition, although Burbank2035 acknowledges that the City could be underlain by significant mineral resources, mining would not be feasible and that the City is not considered to be a potential future source for mineral resources.10 As such, the Revised Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts to mineral resources that would affect the no impact determination in the 2003 MND.
10 City of Burbank, Burbank2035: General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, adopted February 19, 2013. 481
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 16 April 2026

5.11 NOISE
According to the 2003 MND, the Approved Project would not result in the exposure of people to severe noise levels, other than minor and short-term occurrences during construction. The 2003 MND determined that short-term noise and vibration impacts from demolition, excavation, and construction activities could affect the surrounding residential and commercial properties; however, the 2003 MND determined that compliance with the City’s adopted construction hours and the Building and Safety Division’s imposed requirement to provide a barrier surrounding the construction site would reduce these construction impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Under the Revised Project, the previously proposed ASB, including its subterranean and aboveground structure, would no longer be developed, while the scale of other proposed uses would slightly increase. As discussed in Section 4.0, the CSB has also already been constructed under the initial phase of development of the Approved Project. As such, the overall duration and intensity of construction activities under the Revised Project are not anticipated to exceed those of the Approved Project. Moreover, daily construction activities of the Revised Project would not be more intense than daily construction activities of the Approved Project. In addition, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would adhere to City-permitted hours for construction activities and comply with the imposed requirement to provide a noise barrier surrounding the construction site. Therefore, construction noise and vibration impacts resulting from the Revised Project would not exceed the impact identified in the 2003 MND for the Approved Project.

During operation, when compared to the Approved Project, the Revised Project would provide a total of 310 parking spaces (190 fewer parking spaces in the proposed parking structure and elimination of 89 parking spaces in the ASB). The Revised Project would comply with BMC trip reduction requirements and would not exceed the staff/occupant capacity of the Approved Project and associated vehicle trip generation. Furthermore, the Revised Project would locate stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units on rooftops or within the proposed structure(s), in order to minimize on-site noise. Also, while the Revised Project would increase the proposed plaza/open space from 20,500 square feet to 42,430 square feet, the resulting noise from persons using the space would result in a negligible increase because the area would continue to consist of a civic plaza and passive, pedestrian-oriented open space.

Therefore, operational noise impacts of the Revised Project would not exceed the impact identified in the 2003 MND for the Approved Project.

Additionally, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not result in excessive noise levels within the vicinity of airport/airstrip uses as there are none located within two miles of the Project Site.

Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts related to noise that would affect the determinations of no impact and less-than-significant impact in the 2003 MND.

5.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
According to the 2003 MND, the Approved Project involved demolition of institutional buildings and surface parking lots and construction of new City facilities. The Approved Project did not include development of residential units or the demolition of existing housing as no residential 482
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 17 April 2026
units existed on the Approved Project Site. As such, the 2003 MND determined that the Approved Project would have no impact to population and housing.

Accordingly, the Revised Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth that would exceed regional or local population estimates. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts to population and housing that would affect the no impact determination in the 2003 MND.

5.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
According to the 2003 MND, the Approved Project would increase the availability of library resources within the City, and the proposed buildings would accommodate City offices located in on-site buildings proposed for demolition. The 2003 MND concluded that the Approved Project would have no impact on public services in the City.

5.14 RECREATION
According to the 2003 MND, the Approved Project was expected to increase recreational facilities within the City through the development of the New Central Library and passive plaza at the northeastern corner of East Olive Avenue and North Third Street. These components of the Approved Project were anticipated to serve as amenities for users of nearby City facilities and surrounding properties. The 2003 MND concluded that the Approved Project would improve the overall environment of the Civic Center area and its vicinity and would have no adverse environmental impacts related to recreation.
483
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 18 April 2026
The Revised Project would eliminate the previously proposed ASB and would expand the New Central Library to incorporate and consolidate those administrative functions and the library into one building. The Revised Project would retain the previously approved parking structure and public plaza with only modifications to their size. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would increase the availability of recreational facilities within the City through the construction of the passive plaza. As stated in Section 5.12. Population and Housing, the Revised Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth that would, in turn, increase in the use of neighborhood parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts to recreation that would affect the no impact determination in the 2003 MND.

5.15 STORMWATER
According to the 2003 MND, the Approved Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations governing stormwater discharge. The 2003 MND determined that the Approved Project would not involve the use of any environmentally harmful or hazardous materials that could adversely affect biological systems or overall water quality. Therefore, the 2003 MND concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would have no impacts related to stormwater.

Under the Revised Project, the previously proposed ASB would no longer be developed directly adjacent to City Hall, and no other development would occur at that location. As discussed in Section 4.0, the CSB has already been constructed under the initial phase of development of the Approved Project. Compared to buildout of the remaining development proposed under the Approved Project, the Revised Project would result in a similar amount of impervious surface area. Accordingly, the flow rate and volume of stormwater runoff and discharges from the Revised Project would not exceed those anticipated from the development of the Approved Project. In addition, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would comply with all applicable regulations regarding stormwater discharge, including, but not limited to, soil and erosion control during construction, low impact development, control of stormwater flow and runoff, and hazardous materials use and disposal. Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts to stormwater that would affect the no impact determination in the 2003 MND.

5.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The 2003 MND determined that construction of the Approved Project would result in substantial, but temporary, increases in truck and equipment traffic and short‑term modifications to local vehicular circulation patterns. As such, the 2003 MND included mitigation measures requiring (1) signage and traffic personnel to control ingress/egress for construction vehicles and (2) construction worker parking management. With incorporation of these mitigation measures, traffic impacts on the street system were determined to be less than significant.

The 2003 MND identified that the BCP EIR had anticipated a substantially higher development intensity (i.e., 380,000 square feet of general office use and 50,000 square feet of library use) for the Approved Project Site and, thus, a higher trip generation. However, the BCP EIR had not required traffic‑related capital improvements to maintain adequate levels of service (LOS) for 484
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 19 April 2026
nearby intersections. As such, the 2003 MND concluded that no impacts related to LOS would occur under the Approved Project.

According to the 2003 MND, the Approved Project would not be expected to result in inadequate emergency access or create hazardous design features, and the City would implement corner‑radius improvements at several intersections as required by the City’s Public Works Department. The 2003 MND also analyzed the narrowing of North Third Street from 46 to 35 feet and found the change would not significantly affect traffic circulation, and the streetscape modifications (wider sidewalk, mid‑block crossing, and narrowed roadway) were determined to improve pedestrian circulation. Furthermore, the Approved Project would be located within a transit-rich area with commercial uses within walking distance and would comply with transportation demand management and trip reduction requirements, such as rideshare/transit incentive programs. As such, the Approved Project would not conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation.

With regard to vehicle parking, parking requirements were evaluated for the phased development of the DCSB, ASB, and New Central Library under the Approved Project. The 2003 MND concluded that, although on‑site parking could be reduced during early phases, adequate parking would remain available within the Downtown Parking District and on nearby City properties. At full buildout, the 2003 MND determined that the Approved Project would be expected to meet its parking demand, and parking impacts would be less than significant.

Finally, the 2003 MND concluded that the Approved Project would not affect air traffic patterns.

Mitigation Measures from the 2003 MND

1. During construction, ingress and egress of trucks and equipment from the site shall be noticed by appropriate warning signs and controlled by flagmen on duty throughout each work day as determined necessary by the Public Works Department.

During operation, the Revised Project would generate trips based on 119,000 square feet of library and civic office uses. However, when compared to the Approved Project, the combined square footage of the previously proposed New Central Library (80,000 square feet) and ASB (39,000 square feet) would be the same as that proposed for the New Central Library Building (119,000 square feet) under the Revised Project. As described above, the 2003 MND identified that the BCP EIR had anticipated a substantially higher development intensity (i.e., 380,000 square feet of general office use and 50,000 square feet of library use) for the Approved Project 485
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 20 April 2026
Site and, thus, a higher trip generation. Therefore, the Revised Project would not exceed the trip generation assessed for either the Approved Project or BCP EIR. Further, as neither the BCP EIR nor the Approved Project required traffic‑related capital improvements to maintain adequate LOS at nearby intersections, the LOS-related impacts of the Revised Project would not exceed the no impact determination in the 2003 MND.

The Revised Project would also be designed to ensure that adequate emergency access and visibility of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities are maintained. During construction of the CSB, North Third Street was narrowed to one lane in each direction, and the sidewalk on the east side of North Third Street between East Orange Grove Avenue and East Olive Avenue was widened by narrowing the street.11 A Class II bike lane that was constructed as part of a separate project was also maintained with the CSB street improvements. The Revised Project would extend the widened sidewalk on the east side of North Third Street to East Olive Avenue consistent with the 2003 MND and the improvements constructed with the CSB, while maintaining the bike lane and travel lanes on North Third Street. As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would provide a new corner radius12 at the northeastern corner of East Olive Avenue and North Third Street and the southeastern corner of East Orange Grove Avenue and North Third Street. The Revised Project would not include any substandard circulation improvements or incompatible vehicle usage and, thus, would not increase traffic-related hazards. Furthermore, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would be sited within a transit-rich area, with commercial uses within walking distance, and would comply with transportation demand management and trip reduction requirements, such as rideshare/transit incentive programs. As such, the Revised Project would not conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation.

The Revised Project would provide 310 spaces in the proposed parking structure, which would result in 190 fewer parking spaces than what were proposed in the Approved Project. However, the City prepared a shared parking analysis of the Revised Project that considered how parking demand generated from the specific uses within the Library, as well as the existing parking demand of the CSB and existing ASB, fluctuate throughout the day. Using parking rates and timeof-day occupancies from the Urban Land Institute and other parking sources, this shared parking analysis determined that the Revised Project would require a 358-space parking structure to meet the expected peak parking demand. Operation of the Revised Project would also shift all CSB and ASB employee parking to nearby City garages by restricting where City employees can park.

Accordingly, although the Revised Project would only provide a 310-space parking structure onsite, these nearby City parking garages have sufficient parking capacity to accommodate the shift in employee parking and meet the overall expected parking demand in the Civic Center area. .As with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not affect air traffic patterns as no air spacerelated uses or tall structures are proposed, and no airport/airstrip uses are located within the vicinity of the Project Site.
11 The 2003 MND studied narrowing North Third Steet from 46 feet to 35 feet to provide one lane in each direction and widen the sidewalk by 5.5 feet. Construction of the CSB narrowed North Third Street and widened the sidewalk on the east side of Third by 2 feet instead of 5.5 feet. This change was to accommodate a striped Class II bike lane along North Third Street that was constructed subsequent to the 2003 MND. The remaining 3.5 feet of widened sidewalk was achieved by constructing the sidewalk within the CSB’s setback. 12 A corner radius or corner cutoff is a small radius or 45-degree cutoff of the intersection of two property lines at intersecting streets, usually required to ensure visibility at the intersection of two streets. BMC Section 7-3-106 requires developments located on corner lots to dedicate a 15-foot radius to “round off” the 90-degree intersection of two property lines.
486
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 21 April 2026
Therefore, there are no material changes in circumstances, and implementation of the Revised Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts related to transportation or traffic that would affect the impact determinations of no impact, lessthan-significant impact, and less-than-significant impact with mitigation in the 2003 MND.

5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
According to the 2003 MND, the Approved Project was not expected to substantially increase the demand for sewer or utility services. The Approved Project Site was already developed with City offices that were served by existing utility infrastructure. The 2003 MND noted that the Approved Project would continue to utilize these systems, with only limited upgrades or relocations required to comply with City requirements and policies. Based on these findings, the 2003 MND concluded that implementation of the Approved Project would have no impact on utilities and service systems.

5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the 2003 MND, the Approved Project would not adversely affect animal or plant life, would not eliminate examples of California history, and would not result in short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The 2003 MND also noted that the BCP EIR had evaluated cumulative impacts associated with development in the Civic Center area, and the Approved Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, the 2003 MND determined that mandatory findings of significance would result in no impact.

Based on the analysis above, as with the Approved Project, the Revised Project would not adversely affect animal or plant life, would not eliminate examples of California history, would not result in achieving short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, would not result in increased cumulatively considerable impacts, and would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, the Revised Project would not change the conclusions in the 2003 MND, and there would be no mandatory finding of significance.

6.0 CONCLUSION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) states that the Lead Agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously adopted negative declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are 487
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 22 April 2026
necessary or none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration have occurred. The revisions to the Approved Project (i.e., Revised Project) described above do not result in significant modifications or have any occurrences within the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. In addition, the impact comparison provided above demonstrates that no new potentially significant impacts would occur and that no substantial increase in the severity of impacts would occur upon implementation of the Revised Project.

On the basis of the evaluation contained in this document, there are no changes in the Approved Project or the circumstances under which the Revised Project is being undertaken or any new information of substantial importance that was not known to the Lead Agency at the time the 2003 MND was adopted that trigger any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which would require a subsequent CEQA document. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, this addendum has been prepared to document the changes to the adopted 2003 MND for the Revised Project to explain the Lead Agency’s decision not to prepare a subsequent CEQA document or a new MND.
488
Addendum to the MND for Planned Development No. 2002-2 with Development Review No. 2002-42 City of Burbank Page 23 April 2026

MITIGATION MEASURES
The mitigation measures from the 2003 MND that are applicable to the Revised Project are presented below. No new mitigation measures are required as a result of implementing the Revised Project. The City of Burbank (inclusive of the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department), as the CEQA lead agency, is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the following adopted mitigation measures:

AIR QUALITY

1. The developer shall use energy efficient equipment that produces low particulate and nitrogen oxide emissions, when available.

2. The developer shall cease use of equipment during second and third stage smog alerts as issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

3. The developer shall cease grading and water truck use during periods of high winds (greater than 25 mph).

4. The developer shall use a water truck during grading and excavation phases to control fugitive dust (twice per day at minimum).

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

2. During construction, all workers shall park on-site or within the designated area as approved under an encroachment permit. For those unable to park in these areas, an offsite parking location shall be provided and workers shall be shuttled to and from that site. 489
Memo
Date: March 12, 2026
To: David Kriske, Assistant Community Development Director – Transportation, City of Burbank From: John Muggridge, Kellie Dugdale, and Marie Bedogne Subject: New Burbank Library & Civic Center Parking Demand Study Introduction
This Memorandum presents the Parking Demand Study prepared for the New Burbank Library & Civic Center Project (“Project”) in Burbank, California. Fehr & Peers prepared a parking demand analysis which estimated future parking demand, as well as the size needed for a new on-site parking facility to be constructed. The analysis methodology utilized data from the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI’s) Shared Parking, 3rd Edition,
1 the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE’s) Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition,
2 and the 2024 Downtown Burbank Parking Study. 3 Subsequently, Fehr & Peers analyzed how the parking demand generated by the Project (during and after construction) could be accommodated on-site or in other nearby Downtown Burbank public parking facilities to reduce the size of the on-site parking facility needed.

The Memorandum is organized into the following sections:
• Project Background
o Existing Conditions
o Project Description
• Parking Demand Analysis
o Methodology
o Results
• Conclusion
o Construction Considerations
1 Shared Parking, 3rd Edition (Urban Land Institute, 2020). 2 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 2023) 3 Downtown Burbank Parking Study (Fehr & Peers, 2024).
490
Project Background
Existing Conditions
Project Site
The Project site, commonly referred to as the Civic Center Block, is located in Downtown Burbank.

The site is 157,0000 square feet (SF) and bounded by North Glenoaks Boulevard, east Olive Avenue, North Third Street, and East Orange Grove Avenue. Currently, the Project site has a mix of civic buildings, surface parking, and the Community Service Building (CSB) which was built in 2008.

Table 1 provides details on the Project site’s current land uses and their respective sizes. Figure 1 displays the existent Project site and adjacent land uses.

Table 1: Existing Project Site Land Uses and Approximate Size Land Use Approximate Size
Community Services Building (CSB) 66,000 SF
Associated Services Building (ASB) 26,000 SF
Parking Lot 13 145 spaces
Parking Lot 14 56 spaces
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

Figure 1: Existing Project Site
Source: New Burbank Library and Civic Center Development Review Draft, MOCA Systems Inc. (2025) 491
Under the proposed Project, the existing parking lots and city-owned Associated Services Building (ASB) will be demolished and replaced by the New Burbank Library & Civic Center building and parking garage. The two parking lots that will be redeveloped (Parking Lots 13 and 14)4 provide permitted parking spaces for City employees, City vehicles, and City Directors that work in the CSB and ASB offices, and 2-hour parking spaces for their visitors. The CSB has been previously redeveloped and will remain as is. The Project site is located adjacent to the existing Burbank Library, City Hall, Courthouse, and Fire Department Headquarters.

Existing Library
The existing Burbank Library is adjacent to the Project site, across North Glenoaks Boulevard. Table 2 provides details on the existing library’s characteristics.

Table 2: Existing Library Characteristics
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

The existing Burbank Library building does not include any uses other than the library, unlike what is proposed for the Project. The following section describes the changes proposed by the Project. 4 The numbering of the Project site parking lots was adapted from the labeling used in the Downtown Burbank Parking Study (Fehr & Peers, 2024) for consistency.

Characteristic Description
Hours of Operation 10:00 AM – 9:00 PM (Monday – Thursday) 10:00 AM – 6:00 PM (Friday – Saturday)
Visitor Peak Demand 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM (weekdays & weekends) Monthly Visitors 13,000 visitors
Daily Staff 25 employees
Building Size 44,600 SF
Parking 45 spaces
492
Project Description
Figure 2 below displays the proposed Project site plan which includes the New Burbank Library & Civic Center building, plaza, and parking facility in Downtown Burbank.

Source: New Burbank Library and Civic Center Development Review Draft, MOCA Systems Inc. (2025) Table 3 below provides a detailed description of the land uses proposed for the Project site and states whether the uses proposed are replacing existing facilities or new developments on-site.

Table 3: Project Land Uses
Proposed Land Use Description New on-site? (Yes/No)
Library & Civic Center Public library space with public meeting rooms and workspaces Yes
ASB City employee office space No - replacing existing ASB Parking Garage Parking for visitors to the Project No - replacing Parking Lots 13 & 14 Café Public café with front and back of
house space Yes
Black Box Theater Versatile and flexible performance
space, used for special events Yes
Special Event Space Outdoor and indoor special event
space
Yes
Open Space Public plaza and open park space Yes
Source: Burbank Library Test Fits, MOCA Systems Inc., shared with Fehr & Peers January 2026.

Note: Apart from the outdoor space and parking garage, all the land uses included will be in the same building. 493
Parking Demand Analysis
Methodology
Our parking demand analysis considered:

1. Parking demand generated by the new land uses added to the Project site, including:
a. New Burbank Library and Civic Center
b. Café
c. Black Box Theater
d. Special event space

2. Parking demand generated by existing land uses, which are currently accommodated by Parking Lots 13 and 14. These existing uses are:
a. Associated Services Building (ASB)
b. Community Services Building (CSB)
To determine the parking demand of the uses listed above, Fehr & Peers conducted a shared parking analysis. The shared parking analysis evaluates the extent to which multiple land uses can share the same parking supply at different times of day based on their respective daily parking demand patterns. This maximizes the utilization of the parking supply to most efficiently meet demand.

As such, our analysis estimates accommodate parking demand from the new and existing land uses, and considers how the differences in daily parking demand patterns between each land use can maximize the use of parking spaces provided, to minimize excessive parking.

Table 4 on the following page describes the methodologies and assumptions utilized to estimate future parking demand.
494
Table 4: Parking Demand Analysis Methodology
Land Use Demand Patterns Methodology
New Burbank Library &
Civic Center, café, and
public plaza
Peak demand in the AM on
weekdays and weekends.

Demand estimated based upon the ULI Shared
Parking, 3rd Edition methodology,
5 and Parking
Generation Manual, 6th Edition6
Black Box Theater and
special event space
Peak demand reached
when a special event
occurs. Black Box Theater
assumed to peak during
events in the evening on
weekdays and weekends.

Demand estimated based upon the ULI Shared
Parking, 3rd Edition methodology7 , using data
from Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition.
8 ASB & CSB Peak demand in the AM.

Demand estimated based upon parking data
for Lots 13 and 14 from the Downtown Burbank
Parking Study.
9 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

Note: Please see Appendix A for the land use inputs utilized as part of the ULI Shared Parking, 3rd Edition methodology.

Results
The following section presents the parking demand analysis findings. The findings are displayed in the following figures:
• Figures 1 & 2: Demand generated only by the New Burbank Library & Civic Center, café, and plaza.
• Figures 3 & 4: Demand generated by all new proposed land uses, including the special event spaces (New Burbank Library & Civic Center, café, plaza, Black Box Theater, and special event space).
• Figures 5 & 6: Demand generated by all new proposed land uses (New Burbank Library & Civic Center, café, plaza, Black Box Theater, special event space), and existing parking demand from Parking Lots 13 and 14 (ASB and CSB employees).

Figures 5 and 6 represent all the demand generated by the Project. Figures 1-4 provide context on the demand generated by specific uses without the need to accommodate the existing ASB and CSB parking demand. As such, Figures 1-4 build upon each other to display how different land uses impact the daily demand curve and ultimately the final parking demand and inventory of the future parking facility.
5 Shared Parking, Third Edition (Urban Land Institute, 2020). 6 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 2023) 7 Shared Parking, Third Edition (Urban Land Institute, 2020). 8 Parking Generation Manual, 6th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 2023) 9 Downtown Burbank Parking Study (Fehr & Peers, 2024).
495
Figures 1 and 2 display the parking demand curves generated by the New Burbank Library & Civic Center, café, and plaza during the weekday and weekend, respectively. These figures reveal how the new land uses, with typical daily operations, would contribute to parking demand when there is not a special event taking place at the Black Box theater, the other special event spaces, or accommodation of existing ASB and CSB parking demand.

Figure 1: Weekday Parking Demand - New Burbank Library & Civic Center, Café, and Plaza Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

Figure 2: Weekend Parking Demand – New Burbank Library & Civic Center, Café, and Plaza
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

Considering exclusively the New Burbank Library & Civic Center, café, and plaza, on a typical day when there is not a special event, the peak parking demand occurs at 10:00 AM on both weekdays and weekends, with a demand for 93 and 86 spaces, respectively.

Figures 3 and 4 display the parking demand curves generated by all the new proposed land uses (the New Burbank Library and Civic Center, café, plaza, Black Box Theater, and special event space) 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
8AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM
Parking Demand (Spaces)
Library Café Public Plaza
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
8AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM
Parking Demand (Spaces)
Library Café Public Plaza
496
during weekdays and weekends, respectively. These figures present the parking demand that would occur during a special occasion in which the Black Box Theater and special event space are in use.

However, this scenario does not consider the existing parking demand from Parking Lots 13 and 14.

Figure 3: Weekday Parking Demand – All New Proposed Land Uses Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

Figure 4: Weekend Parking Demand – All New Proposed Land Uses Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

The peak hour of demand for the combination of all new proposed land uses, when the special event spaces are being utilized, occurs at 12:00 PM on the weekday and 2:00PM on the weekend, with a demand for 161 and 170 spaces, respectively.
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
8AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM 9PM 10PM Parking Demand (Spaces)
Library Café Public Plaza Black Box Theater 4th Floor Event Space 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
8AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM 9PM 10PM Parking Demand (Spaces)
Library Café Public Plaza Black Box Theater 4th Floor Event Space 497
Figures 5 and 6 display the typical demand curves generated by all new proposed land uses (the New Burbank Library & Civic Center, café, plaza, Black Box Theater, special event space), and the ASB and CSB demand parking in existing Parking Lots 13 and 14, during weekdays and weekends, respectively. The demand for ASB and CSB is 170 parking spaces at the peak hour in these facilities, and was layered on the demand generated by the new proposed land uses.

Figure 5: Weekday Parking Demand – All New Proposed Land Uses and Existing Parking Lots 13 and 14
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

Figure 6: Weekend Parking Demand – All New Proposed Land Uses and Existing Parking Lots 13 and 14
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.

The peak hour for all new proposed land uses and the existing parking demand from Parking Lots 13 and 14 occurs at 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM on the weekday and 2:00PM on the weekend, at a demand for 325 and 319 and spaces, respectively.
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
8AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM 9PM 10PM Parking Demand (Spaces)
Lot 13 Lot 14 Library Café Public Plaza Black Box Theater 4th Floor Event Space 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
8AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM 9PM 10PM Parking Demand (Spaces)
Lot 13 Lot 14 Library Café Public Plaza Black Box Theater 4th Floor Event Space 498
Conclusion
As demonstrated in Figures 5 and 6, the demand for all land uses at the Project site (new and existing demand) during operations with special events is 325 parking spaces.

When building a parking facility, a 10% buffer should be added to the estimated parking demand to provide a margin of available spaces in the recommended parking supply (which accounts for vehicle turnover and other inefficiencies).

Thus, with a 10% buffer, 358 spaces are needed to accommodate peak parking demand from the Project. The following section explores how demand can be accommodated on-site in the new parking facility and potentially off-site in nearby public parking facilities. Multiple scenarios were analyzed in which varying levels of demand were assumed to move to other downtown parking facilities. These scenarios are presented in Appendix B for reference.

Although the Project will need 358 parking spaces to accommodate the peak demand for the Project, the future parking facility is anticipated to provide 310 spaces. This is a difference of 48 spaces.

However, instead of building a larger garage to accommodate all peak demand, these extra 48 spaces could be accommodated off-site in other existing downtown parking facilities.

The 48 parking spaces could be accommodated by moving the ASB and CSB employees, currently parking in Lots 13 & 14, into other downtown parking facilities. Parking Lots 13 and 14 are composed of spaces reserved for:
• 80 employees
• 39 city vehicles
• 4 city directors
Table 5 below provides an inventory of all city-owned off-street parking facilities within a one block radius of the Project site during the peak hour. These are the parking facilities that could accommodate the vehicles currently parked in Lots 13 and 14.

Table 5: Downtown Parking Facilities (within 1 block radius) Facility Available Spaces
Lot 9 (Gangi Structure) 247
Lot 11 (Village Walk Structure) 40
Lot 16 (Orange Grove Lot) 2
Lot 15 (Courthouse Structure)
*excludes spaces reserved for courthouse use 219
Lot 17 (City Hall Lot) Full
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2026.
499
Thus, to meet the demand and accommodate the 48 parking spaces needed, employee parking can be dispersed to any of the available facilities. As such, 310 spaces provided at the new parking garage on the Project site should be sufficient to accommodate demand for visitors and employees of the New Burbank Library & Civic Center.

Construction Considerations
While under construction, Parking Lots 13 and 14 will be completely removed. However, no demand will be generated from the New Burbank Library & Civic Center until the Project’s completion. As such, only the 170 vehicles currently parking in Parking Lots 13 and 14 during the peak hour must be accommodated during construction. Employees and visitors of the ASB and CSB can park temporarily in the nearby facilities presented in Table 5, in any combination, until the completion of the Project.
500
Appendix A
501
Proposed Burbank New Library & Civic Center - Shared Parking Analysis Inputs Proposed
Land Use Size ULI Land Use
Weekday Weekend
Estimated
Parking Demand
(12 PM)
Estimated
Parking Demand
(2 PM)
Café 1,250 SF Fast casual/
Fast Food
Visitors 1 0
Employees 3 1
Library 42,150 SF Public Library
Visitors 77 36
Employees 10 9
Open Space 1 acre
Public Park/
Destination
Open Space
Visitors 3 4
Employees 1 1
Black Box
Theater
200 seats Live Theater
Visitors 1 40
Employees 4 13
Special Event
Space 10,450 SF Convention
Center
Visitors 58 58
Employees 6 6
Total 161 167
Source: ULI Shared Parking, 3rd Edition, 2023.
502
Appendix B
503
New Burbank Library & Civic Center Parking Demand Study Scenarios for
Accommodating Demand
SECTION 05
504
Scenarios
New Burbank Library & Civic Center Parking Demand Study The Project would replace existing demand and generate new demand.

Instead of building a garage to accommodate all demand – some demand could be accommodated on - street or in other downtown parking facilities.

The City Hall Structure may be removed in the future and therefore excluded from the analysis.

Downtown Facilities Inventory
Lot 16 (Orange Grove Lot) 22
Lot 17 (City Hall Lot) 56
Lot 15 (Courthouse Structure) *excludes spaces
reserved for courthouse use
283
Lot 9 (Gangi Structure) 491
Lot 11 (Village Walk Structure) 133
On - Street Parking (within 2 blocks) 147
Lot 10 (City Hall Structure) *excluded from
analysis as it may be demolished in the future
115 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 Downtown Burbank Parking Study – Thursday Occupancy Potential Zone for Demand
505
New Burbank Library & Civic Center Parking Demand Study Presentation Name or Project Title Scenarios for Accommodating Demand
# Scenario Demand
Accommodated Supply Considered Existing Demand
New
Demand
Demand that
can be
accommodated
off- site
Size of New
Facility
(+10%
buffer)¹
1 Max Accommodation
(on - street & off - street
facilities)
+ New Library & Civic Center
+ Existing ASB & CSB Parking
+ Off - Street Facilities
+ On - Street facilities 170 + 155 - 569 0
2 Partial Accommodation
(off - street only)
+ New Library & Civic Center
+ Existing ASB & CSB Parking + Off - Street Facilities 170 + 155 - 505 0 3 50% Accommodation (50% of
available spaces)
+ New Library & Civic Center
+ Existing ASB & CSB Parking
+ Off - Street Facilities (only
utilizing 50% of available
spaces)
170 + 155 - 252 81
4 Smaller Area Accommodation
(excluding Lots 9 & 11)
+ New Library & Civic Center
+ Existing ASB & CSB Parking
+ Off - Street Facilities
(excluding Lot 9 & 11) 170 + 155 - 218 118
5 Smaller Area & 50%
Accommodation (excluding
Lots 9 & 11, 50% of available
spaces)
+ New Library & Civic Center
+ Existing ASB & CSB Parking
+ Off - Street Facilities
(excluding Lot 9 & 11, and
only utilizing 50% of available
spaces)
170 + 155 - 109 238
6 No Accommodation
(all demand in new garage)
+ New Library & Civic Center
+ Existing ASB & CSB Parking
+ Only New Civic Center
Facility 170 + 155 - 0 358

1. 10% buffer added to the demand for recommended supply, so that estimated demand is 90% of the supply 506
Scenarios for Accommodating Demand
Burbank Library & Civic Center Parking Demand Study
# Scenario Description Demand
Accommodated
Supply
Considered
1 Max
Accommodation
On - street & off -
street facilities
+ New Library & Civic Center
+ Existing ASB & CSB Parking
+ Off - Street Facilities
+ On - Street facilities
2 Partial
Accommodation Off - street only + New Library & Civic Center + Existing ASB & CSB Parking + Off - Street Facilities 3 50%
Accommodation
Only utilizing 50% of
available spaces off -
site
+ New Library & Civic Center
+ Existing ASB & CSB Parking
+ Off - Street Facilities
(only utilizing 50% of
available spaces)
4 Smaller Area
Accommodation
Off - street facilities
excluding Lots 9 & 11
+ New Library & Civic Center
+ Existing ASB & CSB Parking
+ Off - Street Facilities
(excluding Lot 9 & 11)
5 Smaller Area & 50%
Accommodation
Off - street facilities
excluding Lots 9 &
11, Only utilizing 50%
of available spaces
off- site
+ New Library & Civic Center
+ Existing ASB & CSB Parking
+ Off - Street Facilities
(excluding Lot 9 & 11,
and only utilizing 50%
of available spaces)
6 No Accommodation All demand in new
garage
+ New Library & Civic Center
+ Existing ASB & CSB Parking
+ Only New Civic
Center Facility
Scenarios account for new demand
from the Library & Civic Center, and
the existing demand from the ASB &
CSB buildings.

All scenarios assume:
• On - street parking can
accommodate up to 85%
occupancy.
• Off - street facilities can
accommodate up to 90% occupancy.
• City Hall Structure may not be
available in the future, and therefore
was excluded from the scenarios.
507
Results
Burbank Library & Civic Center Parking Demand Study
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 Downtown Burbank Parking Study – Thursday Occupancy Potential Zone for Demand
• If demand is assumed to spread as far as Lots 9 & 11, then a new parking structure is not needed ( Scenarios 1 & 2 ). • However, the structures are 3+ blocks away and this may not be realistic. • If only 50% of the available spaces are utilized ( Scenario 3 ), then 81 spaces are needed. • If Lots 9 & 11 are excluded from the analysis ( Scenario 4 ), then a new parking structure of 118 spaces is needed. • If Lots 9 & 11 are excluded and 50% of the available spaces are utilized ( Scenario 5 ), then 238 spaces are needed. • If it is assumed the new parking structure will accommodate all of the existing and new demand ( Scenario 5 ) then 358 spaces are needed (325 vehicle demand + 10% buffer). 508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
Reports to Council Item No. 4
October 13, 2026 City Council Meeting
Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Progressive
Design-Build Contract with Clark Construction Group
– California, LP for the Burbank Library and Civic
Center Project and Authorizing the Library Services
Director, as Designee of the City Manager, to Execute
the Agreement and Future Task Orders and/or
Amendments Provided that Funds Are Budgeted
Attachment 6:

Draft Progressive-Design Build Contract
Attachment 6 of this City Council item may be viewed
via the following link:
https://newburbanklibrary.com/resources
Please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 818-238-5851 or email [email protected] to review or request a
copy of this document.
537
ATTACHMENT 7
Evaluation Scores for Progressive Design Build Contract Proposer
Proposals
(90)
Collaborative
Activity
(75)
Q&A
(75)
Average
w/o
Cost
Average
W/Cost
Balfour Beatty + Miller Hull 79.25 30.00 48.75 191.75 196.61 Clark Construction + SOM 75.00 72.50 70.00 262.75 272.75 Gilbane Building Company +
Perkins Eastman 60.50 53.00 65.00 219.75 227.65
Swinerton Builders + Rios +
Noll & Tam 59.50 32.25 38.75 154.25 160.56
Proposer Points $/Point Cost Weight Cost Points
Balfour Beatty + Miller Hull 191.75 $70,331 10 4.86
Clark Construction + SOM 262.75 $34,199 10 10.00
Gilbane Building Company +
Perkins Eastman 219.75 $43,313 10 7.90
Swinerton Builders + Rios +
Noll & Tam 154.25 $54,209 10 6.31
538
1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 13, 2026
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Betsy McClinton, Management Services Director
BY: April Rios, Human Resources Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Establishment of the Salary for the Classification of Accounting Technician; and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Citywide Salary Schedule

RECOMMENDATION

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

APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SALARY FOR THE
CLASSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN (Attachment 1).

2. Adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE CITYWIDE SCHEDULE (Attachment 2).

BACKGROUND
The Management Services Department (MSD) manages the City’s Position Classification and Pay Plan, which includes all classifications utilized by the City. MSD periodically requests amendments to the City’s Position Classification and Pay Plan to assist the departments in ensuring that titles and job specifications for the City’s classifications remain relevant and include the necessary essential functions and employment standards to meet the needs of the departments and the City. Maintaining updated job specifications and having competitive salaries also assists the City with its recruitment and retention efforts.

Pursuant to Civil Service Rule I, § 4, the Civil Service Board (CSB) approved the establishment of the title and specification for Accounting Technician on October 7, 2026.

Therefore, MSD is seeking Council approval of the salary for this classification.

MANAGEMENT

SERVICES
Reports to Council
Item #5
539
2 Additionally, per California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) regulations, MSD requests Council adopt a resolution approving the updated Citywide Salary Schedule which includes the proposed salary for Accounting Technician.

DISCUSSION
The Financial Services (FS) Department is proposing to establish a new classification titled Accounting Technician. This newly established position will create an entry level path into the accountant series and offer more technical support for other divisions in the FS Department. The current accountant classification requires two years of government/auditing experience but most candidates in college or graduating from college have not had the opportunity to obtain this type of experience, which has created the need for the newly proposed Accounting Technician position.

The proposed Accounting Technician classification will be responsible for a range of duties performing technical support functions in the preparation, maintenance, and processing of financial transactions and specialized and complex financial data.

Furthermore, establishing the Accounting Technician position will promote career advancement for employees and support the FS Department’s ability to recruit and retain talented staff in a competitive market.

The proposed salary range for Accounting Technician was determined based on the salaries of comparable classifications identified among the City’s survey cities. Therefore, staff is proposing the monthly salary range be set at $5,240.46 - $7,224.04 (bi-weekly $2,418.67 – $3,334.17).

The proposed Accounting Technician will be a Civil Service classification represented by the Burbank City Employees’ Association (BCEA). The BCEA has been advised of this proposed establishment, and the Financial Services Director concurs with this recommendation.

Citywide Salary Schedule
In accordance with Government Code § 20636 and California Code of Regulations § 570.5, CalPERS requires public agencies to post a publicly available salary schedule that is approved by Council at a public meeting for CalPERS to determine earnable income.

Therefore, staff is requesting Council adopt an updated salary schedule that includes the proposed salary for Accounting Technician.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
These activities have 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.
540
3 FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed position of Accounting Technician was included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 Adopted Budget. Therefore, this request is cost neutral and there is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.

CONCLUSION
The proposed establishment of the salary for the classification of Accounting Technician meets the current and ongoing needs of the City.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Resolution for the Classification of Accounting Technician Attachment 2 – Resolution Approving the Citywide Salary Schedule 541
1 RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BURBANK APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE

SALARY FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTING

TECHNICIAN
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK RESOLVES:

1. The Position Classification, adopted by Resolution No. 9240 on the 16th day of June, 1953, as amended, was further amended by the addition thereto of the classification of Accounting Technician. This classification is added with a title and specification as set forth in Exhibit A, and a biweekly salary as follows:

CTC Barg. Code Job Series Grade Step 1 Step 14
0013 B Financial B.1946 $2,418.67 $3,334.17

2. The Financial Services Director is authorized to make such revisions, changes in summaries, fund totals, grand totals, and other portions of the budget document as necessary to reflect and implement the terms and provisions of this resolution.

PASSED and ADOPTED this ___ day of October, 2026.
__________________________
Tamala Takahashi
Mayor
Approved as to Form:

Attest: Office of the City Attorney
____________________________ By: _______________________ Kimberley Clark, City Clerk Joseph H. McDougall
City Attorney
Attachment 1
542
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Kimberley Clark, City Clerk
543
3 Exhibit A
Resolution for the Classification of Accounting Technician

CITY OF BURBANK

ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN

DEFINITION
Under general supervision, to perform accounting, accounts payable, and accounts receivable related support duties; and to perform related work as required.

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS
Performs technical accounting support functions in the preparation, maintenance, and processing of accounting records and financial transactions; inputs, reviews, and approves financial transactions and data in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and City policy for accuracy; identifies, researches and resolves discrepancies; balances accounts and makes adjusting and closing entries; prepares and analyzes schedules, statements and reports, in various formats including spreadsheets; performs computations utilizing specialized and complex financial data; reconciles accounts and financial information; establishes and maintains systems to assure accountability and financial control; processes accounting and financial transactions; provides technical information and instruction regarding applicable procedures and methods to City departments and staff; participates in the training of various departments in the use of computer accounting programs; may supervise the work of assigned staff and provide training.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
Employment Standards:
• Knowledge of – principles and techniques of governmental and proprietary fund accounting and other financial roles such as accounts payable and accounts receivable.
• Skill in – the use of computerized accounting systems; the use of automated spreadsheet and word processing programs.
• Ability to – maintain and improve advanced automated accounting systems and procedures; effectively supervise, train, and evaluate clerical employees; communicate effectively, both orally and in writing; establish and maintain effective working relationships with supervisors, fellow employees, and the public.

Education/Training: Graduation from high school or equivalent, and two years of progressively responsible experience in one or more of the following areas: general 544
4 accounting, payroll, accounts payable, purchasing, treasury operations, or other financial applications; OR graduation from an accredited college or university with a bachelor’s degree in public administration, business administration, finance, accounting, or a closely related field.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
None.
545
1 RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BURBANK APPROVING THE CITYWIDE SALARY

SCHEDULE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK RESOLVES:

In accordance with Government Code Section 20636 and Title 2 of California Code of Regulations Section 570.5 and as required by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”), the citywide salary schedule, attached as Exhibit A, is hereby approved.

PASSED and ADOPTED this ____ day of October, 2026.
___________________________
Tamala Takahashi
Mayor
Approved as to Form:

Attest: Office of the City Attorney
____________________________ By: _______________________ Kimberley Clark, City Clerk Joseph H. McDougall
City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Kimberley Clark, City Clerk
Attachment 2
546
Reports to Council Item No. 5
October 13, 2026 City Council Meeting
Adoption of a Resolution Approving the
Establishment of the Salary for the Classification of
Accounting Technician; and Adoption of a Resolution
Approving the Citywide Salary Schedule
Attachment 2:

Resolution Approving the Citywide Salary Schedule
Exhibit A for Attachment 2 of this City Council item may be viewed via the following link:
https://cloud.burbankca.gov/s/P9A2zWDKLeegFEi
Please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 818-238-5851 or email [email protected] to review or request a
copy of this document.
547

Burbank City CouncilOctober 13, 2026

Burbank City Council
October 13, 2026