talaria at burbank mixed use project

August 2014Rincon Consultants, Inc.www.r inconconsul tants .comEnv i ronmenta l Sc ien t i s ts P lanners Eng ineers

FINDINGS OF FACT

Talaria at Burbank Mixed Use ProjectEnvironmental Impact Report

EXHIBIT I1

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW BMV Investment Co., LLC has filed an application with the City of Burbank for the Talaria at Burbank Mixed-Use Project (Project) which is a 423,635 square foot, 4- and 5-story mixed-use residential apartment and commercial market building that would include 2.5 levels of at-grade and subterranean parking with a total of approximately 760 parking spaces, ground level retail and/or grocery uses (42,950 square feet), and 241 multi-family residential units. The residential units would include four levels located above the retail use with additional units located adjacent to the retail use. Loading for the retail use would be through an enclosed tunnel and dock area. The Project site is currently occupied by 16 structures totaling 67,650 square feet of building area. The buildings were built between 1932 and 1973. North Avon Street crosses the Project site. Additionally, there is an alleyway running east to west through part of the Project site. All structures, North Avon Street, and the alleyway are proposed for demolition. The City of Burbank has prepared this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for development of the proposed Project on the site. 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the following objectives are identified for the Talaria at Burbank Project: Provide quality living space for the residents of Burbank. Provide retail opportunities in an easily accessible location. Provide a high quality retail environment to support the needs of area residents. Provide employment opportunities for residents of Burbank and the surrounding area. Assist in fulfilling the City of Burbank’s Housing Element Goal 2 of providing mixed-use

development in the Media District. Create a financially viable project that will serve the residents of the City of Burbank. Provide a pedestrian friendly environment in the Media District.

Talaria at Burbank Mixed Use Project EIR Findings of Fact

1 EXHIBIT I2

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

2.1 PROCEDURAL FINDINGS The City Council of the City of Burbank finds as follows;

Based on the nature and scope of the Talaria at Burbank Project, SCH No. 2014021038, (herein after the “Project”), the City of Burbank Planning Department determined, based on substantial evidence, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and prepared a project environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the project. The EIR was prepared, noticed, published, circulated, reviewed, and completed in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.) as follows:

A. A Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of an EIR for review and comment by the public,

responsible, and reviewing agencies was circulated by the City from February 18, 2014 to March 21, 2014. A Scoping Meeting was held on March 5, 2014 and additional comments were received from the public.

B. A Notice of Completion (“NOC”) and copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse on May 27, 2014, to those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, or which exercise authority over resources that may be affected by the Project, and to other interested parties and agencies as required by law. The comments of such persons and agencies were sought. The City sought input on the Draft EIR between May 27, 2014 and July 11, 2014.

C. The City released the Draft EIR for an official 45-day public review period. The public comment period began on May 27, 2014 and ended July 11, 2014.

D. A Notice of Availability (“NOA”) of the Draft EIR was also mailed by the City to all owners and tenants of property located within 1,000 feet of the Project site and others who requested this notice. This NOA was also published in the Burbank Leader newspaper. The NOA stated that the City has completed the Draft EIR and that copies were available at:

http://www.burbankca.gov/planning and at:

City of Burbank Community Development Department Planning & Transportation Division 150 N. Third Street Burbank, CA 91502


2 EXHIBIT I3

Hardcopies of the documents are also available at all the Burbank Public Libraries.

E. The NOA was posted in the office of the Los Angeles County Clerk on May 27, 2014.

F. Following closure of the public comment period, all comments received on the Draft EIR during the comment period, the City’s written responses to the significant environmental points raised in those comments, and additional information added by the City were added to the Draft EIR to produce the Final EIR.

2.2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record before the City includes the following: The Draft EIR and all appendices to the Draft EIR The Final EIR and all appendices to the Final EIR All notices required by CEQA, staff reports, and presentation materials related to the Project All studies conducted for the Project and contained in, or referenced by, staff reports, the

Draft EIR, or the Final EIR All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared for the City and other

agencies All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings, study

sessions, and workshops and all transcripts and minutes of those hearings related to the Project, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR

For documentary and informational purposes, all locally-adopted land use plans and ordinance, including, without limitation, general plans, specific plans and ordinances, mater plans together with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs, and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area

Any additional items not included above if otherwise required by law

The Final EIR is incorporated into these findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, and the comparative analysis of alternatives. 2.3 FINDINGS In the findings that follow, impact numbers are provided. The impact numbers correspond to the sections of the EIR which contain an expanded discussion of impacts. Please refer to the referenced impact sections of the EIR for more detail. 2.3.1 Significant or Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than

Significant Level The following impacts of the Project are reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of policies and actions in the Project or separate mitigation measures and are set out below. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(1), as to each impact, the City of Burbank City Council, based on the evidence in the record before it, finds that changes or alterations incorporated into the Project by means of conditions or otherwise, mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen to a level of insignificance these environmental


3 EXHIBIT I4

impacts of the Project. Some changes or alterations are incorporated into the Project by means of policies and actions contained in the Project. In other cases, the City has provided separate mitigation measures, as needed, to address potentially significant impacts. The basis for the finding for each impact is set forth below. Each bolded impact listing also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows:

Class I, Significant and Unavoidable: An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved. Class II, Significant but Mitigable: An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings to be made. Class III, Not Significant: An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable. Class IV, Beneficial: An impact that would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

The section numbering used in the summary of findings below are the same used in the EIR. In addition to the supporting information presented below, please refer to the EIR, under separate cover, for greater detail. Air Quality Impact AQ-2 Construction of the proposed Project would generate temporary air pollutant

emissions including reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx),carbon monoxide (CO), and ), particulates less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5). During the construction phase, the generation of ROG and NOx would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional thresholds without mitigation. Impacts would be Class II, less than significant with mitigation.

The Project would generate temporary pollutant emissions during construction. These would exceed the thresholds established by SCAQMD. Project construction activity would be required to comply with the SCAQMD Rule 403, which identifies measures to reduce fugitive dust and is required to be implemented at all construction sites located within the South Coast Air Basin. Even with the use of low-volatile organic compound (VOC) paint, maximum daily ROG emissions associated with application of architectural coatings would exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Maximum daily emissions of NOX would also exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.


4 EXHIBIT I5

Mitigation Measures AQ-2(a) Architectural Coatings Phase. The applicant shall use low-VOC architectural

coatings for all buildings, including the proposed parking levels. At a minimum, all architectural coatings shall comply with the most recent standards in SCAQMD Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. In addition, no more than 45 gallons of paint shall be used per day for architectural coatings, including both interior and exterior surfaces.

AQ-2(b) Tier 3 Construction Equipment. All construction equipment used for the

proposed Project shall meet federal Tier 3 standards for off-road equipment, at a minimum. These standards limit the level of emissions, including emissions of NOx, and are met through advanced engine design. This requirement shall be included as a note on all building and grading permits.

Finding The mitigation measures listed are expected to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level by requiring low-VOC architectural coatings for all buildings and all construction equipment to meet federal Tier 3 standards for off-road equipment. Cultural Resources Impact CR-1 The Project would have the potential to disturb previously undiscovered

archaeological resources. Impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable. The Project site has been previously graded and paved; therefore, the likelihood that intact archaeological resources are present is low. The site is relatively flat and does not contain unique geologic features. Because the Project site has been developed previously, any surficial archaeological resources that may have been present at one time have likely been disturbed. However, the proposed subterranean parking structure and foundation for the building would require excavation into the deeper soils and potentially uncover undocumented archaeological resources. Although Project implementation is not expected to uncover archaeological resources, the possibility for such resources exists and impacts would be potentially significant. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures CR-1 Resource Recovery Procedures. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed

during Project construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Native American representative shall be retained to monitor any mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material.


5 EXHIBIT I6

Finding The mitigation measures listed are expected to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level by requiring all work to stop if archaeological resources are uncovered and any resources would need to be evaluated by an archaeologist. Impact CR-2 The Project would have the potential to disturb previously undiscovered human

remains. Impacts would be Class II, significant but mitigable The Project site has been previously graded and paved; therefore, the likelihood that human remains are present is low. Because the Project site has been developed previously, any surficial remains that may have been present at one time have likely been disturbed. However, the proposed subterranean parking structure and foundation for the building would require excavation into the deeper soils and potentially uncover undiscovered human remains. Although Project implementation is not expected to uncover human remains, the possibility for such resources exists and impacts would be potentially significant. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures CR-2 Human Remains Recovery Procedures. If human remains are unearthed, State Health

and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission. Additional surveys will be required if the Project changes to include unsurveyed areas.

Finding The mitigation measures listed are expected to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level by requiring all work to stop if human remains are uncovered and the County Coroner to be called. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1 The proposed Project would place residents adjacent to State Route (SR) 134,

which would create cancer risk for residents in excess of the SCAQMD threshold. Mitigation would reduce this impact to Class II, less than significant with mitigation.

The proposed Project includes multi-family residential units which would expose on-site residents to potentially significant carcinogenic health risks associated with vehicle emissions, specifically diesel exhaust particulates, based upon SCAQMD health risk guidelines and current vehicle travel characteristics for SR 134. The three receptors would exceed the threshold for residents who live in the area for 70 years.


6 EXHIBIT I7

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1(a) Interior Dust Control. Prior to issuance of final occupancy permits, the Project

applicant shall show proof (e.g., plans) that forced air ventilation with filter screens on outside air intake ducts have been provided for the residences. The filter screens shall be capable of removing at least 85% of the particulate matter including fine particulate matter (PM<2.5 micron). These screens shall be maintained by the property owner to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the Project. The Project applicant shall also provide proof (e.g., plans) that windows and doors have been fully weatherproofed with caulking and weather-stripping that is rated to last at least 20 years. Weatherproof will be maintained and replaced by the property owner, as necessary, to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the Project.

HAZ-1(b) Resident Notification. A brochure notifying the future residents of the property

owner’s responsibility for maintaining the filter screens shall be prepared and provided at the time of occupancy. A sample of this brochure shall be provided to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of final occupancy permits for the Project. In addition, a notice of the diesel particulates risk hazard and the need for screen maintenance shall be placed in the property title.

Finding The mitigation measure listed previously is expected to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level by requiring forced air ventilation in the proposed apartments and a brochure notifying residents of the property owner’s responsibility for maintaining the filter screens and weatherproofing on all windows and doors. Noise Impact NOI-4 Construction of the proposed Project would create a substantial temporary or

periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity. With incorporation of mitigation, impacts would be considered Class II, less than significant with mitigation.

Project construction would intermittently generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the Project site. Temporary noise impacts associated with construction may adversely affect nearby residential, institutional, and medical uses. The main sources of noise during construction activities would include heavy machinery used in demolition, grading, and clearing the site, as well as equipment used during building construction. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.


7 EXHIBIT I8

Mitigation Measure NOI-4(a) Construction Equipment. If electrical service is available within 150 feet, electrical power

should be used to run air compressors and similar power tools. Internal combustion engines should be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer and in good repair. All diesel equipment should be operated with closed engine doors and should be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers. Construction equipment that continues to generate substantial noise at the Project boundaries should be shielded with temporary noise barriers, such as barriers that meet a sound transmission class (STC) rating of 25, sound absorptive panels, or sound blankets on individual pieces of construction equipment. Stationary noise-generating equipment, such as generators and compressors, should be located as far as practically possible from the nearest residential property lines.

NOI-4(b) Neighbor Notification. Provide notification to residential occupants adjacent to the

Project site at least 24 hours prior to initiation of construction activities that could result in substantial noise levels at outdoor or indoor living areas. This notification should include the anticipated hours and duration of construction and a description of noise reduction measures being implemented at the Project site. The notification should include a telephone number for local residents to call to submit complaints associated with construction noise. The notification should be posted on Cordova Street, Avon Street, Lima Street, and California Street adjacent to the Project site, and should be easily viewed from adjacent public areas.

Finding The mitigation measures listed previously are expected to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level by requiring construction equipment to use electrical power where feasible, internal combustion engines to have mufflers, noise barriers to be used, and residential neighbors to be notified of construction activities. Impact NOI-5 The proximity of the proposed Project to SR 134 could lead to interior noise

levels in excess of 65 dBA. Incorporation of mitigation would reduce this impact. Impacts would be considered Class II, less than significant with mitigation.

The proposed Project would be located in an area that currently experiences noise levels that exceed the normally acceptable range for residential uses according to the Burbank2035 Noise Element. On-site measurements ranged from 65 to 67 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) over most of the site to as high as 78 dBA CNEL in the southwest corner of the site adjacent to SR 134. The 78 dBA CNEL level is within the normally unacceptable range for residential multi-family mixed use and the other measurement sites were within the conditionally acceptable range. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure NOI-5 Interior Noise Attenuation. Design techniques shall be applied to reduce the exposure of


8 EXHIBIT I9

residents to noise, as described in the Burbank2035 General Plan. Design features may include, but are not limited to:

Weather proofing of windows and doors Air conditioning or mechanical ventilation systems that allow windows and

doors to remain closed while being operated Glass in windows and doors with a Sound Transmission Classification (STC)

of at least 35 for units facing SR 134 and at least 25 for all other units Boxing or baffling of roof or attic vents facing the noise source

Finding The mitigation measure listed previously is expected to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level by requiring design techniques as described in the City of Burbank General Plan 2035 to reduce interior noise levels. Transportation and Traffic Impact TRA-1 Traffic generated by the construction of the proposed Project would increase

traffic on local streets, including trips to and from the site by construction trucks and equipment. Although temporary in nature, the impact would be Class II, less than significant with mitigation.

Construction would primarily be accomplished using diesel-powered heavy equipment. This would temporarily increase traffic on local streets, including construction trucks and equipment. Traffic from these various activities would be ongoing throughout the demolition, excavation, and building processes for the Project site. Impacts are less then significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 Construction Management Plan. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits for the

Project site, the applicant shall prepare a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by City staff. The provisions of the plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

In order to minimize impacts from construction-related traffic, the Project

contractor shall ensure that heavy vehicle traffic from the Project site only occur between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.

The Project contractor shall identify and enforce truck haul routes deemed acceptable by the City for construction trucks.

Signs shall be posted along roads identifying construction traffic access or flow limitations due to single lane conditions during periods of truck traffic if needed.

Construction equipment shall be stored on the Project site and construction vehicles shall not be allowed to park within the residential neighborhood during the construction phase of the Project.


9 EXHIBIT I10

Finding The mitigation measure listed previously is expected to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level by requiring the applicant to prepare a construction management plan that will outline the hours that heavy vehicle traffic can occur, the designated truck haul routes, signs identifying construction traffic, and where construction equipment and vehicles shall be stored. Impact TRA-2 The Project would generate traffic on local roadways which could cause

congestion at intersections. This could conflict with applicable roadway thresholds. Impacts would be Class II, less than significant with mitigation.

Existing plus the proposed Project traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the projected volume to capacity ratios (V/C) and level of service (LOS) for each of the analyzed intersections under this scenario. Two intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or F during either peak hour. After applying the aforementioned City of Burbank and City of Los Angeles significant impact criteria, it is determined that the proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts to the intersection of Hollywood Way and Alameda Avenue under existing plus Project conditions. Impacts are less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure TRA-2 Intersection Restriping. Prior to issuance of final occupancy permits for the proposed

Project, the eastbound leg of Hollywood Way and Alameda Avenue shall be restriped to convert one left turn lane to a through lane.

Finding The mitigation measure listed previously is expected to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level by requiring the eastbound leg of Hollywood Way and Alameda Avenue to be restriped. Impact TRA-6 The Project along with cumulative projects in the area would generate traffic that

could lead to a cumulative impact. The impact would be Class II, less than significant with mitigation.

Using the criteria for determination of significant impacts, the proposed Project would result in significant traffic impacts at four study intersections (Hollywood Way and Alameda Avenue, Hollywood Way and Riverside Drive, Hollywood Way and Olive Avenue, and Buena Vista Street and Olive Avenue under future plus Project conditions. Under cumulative plus project conditions, the traffic would increase the volume to capacity ratio V/C by more than the allowed threshold. Impacts are less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure TRA-6 Intersection Improvements. The project applicant shall design and construct the

following improvements prior to the City issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the


10 EXHIBIT I11

project. Alternatively, developer shall pay the applicable transportation development impact fee in lieu of constructing the improvements, and the City shall construct the improvements when they are needed to maintain the City’s LOS D standard. The City will measure the LOS of all study intersections every two years to evaluate traffic impacts of development projects, or more frequently if necessary to identify or confirm LOS. The mitigation will be implemented prior to the point at which the intersection is expected to deteriorate to LOS to E or F, accounting for reasonable variability in daily traffic demand. This mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented consistent with the Burbank2035 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. These improvements include the following:

Hollywood Way and Alameda Avenue: restripe the northbound approach to add a

second dedicated left turn lane. Modify the traffic signal phasing along Hollywood Way from protected/permitted phasing to protected phasing.

Hollywood Way and Riverside Drive: restripe the westbound approach to convert the shared through and right turn lane into separate right turn and through lanes. Restrict parking on the north side of Riverside for 100 feet east of Hollywood Way.

Hollywood Way and Olive Avenue: establish a peak period parking restriction (4:30 to 7:30 p.m. Monday through Friday) in the westbound direction of Olive Avenue to provide one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one shared through/right lane.

Buena Vista Street and Olive Avenue: restripe the eastbound approach (Olive Avenue) from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane. Restripe the westbound approach (Olive Avenue) from one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Modify the traffic signal phasing along Olive Avenue from protected/permitted phasing to protected phasing. Restrict parking on both sides of Olive Avenue for approximately 250 feet east and west of Buena Vista Street.

Finding The mitigation measure listed previously is expected to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level by requiring restriping of the four impacted intersections or payment of the City’s transportation development impact fee. 2.3.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Based on the analysis in the Final EIR, the City finds that the project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. 2.3.3 Environmental Effects Determined to not be Significant in the EIR The section numbering used in the summary of findings below are the same used in the EIR. In addition to the supporting information presented below, please refer to the EIR, under separate cover, for greater detail.


11 EXHIBIT I12

Aesthetics Impact AES-1 The Project site is currently occupied with one and two story structures that would

be demolished in order to construct the proposed four and five story building. This would change the visual character of the site. However because the new uses would be compatible with the surrounding urbanized environment, impacts would be Class III, less than significant.

The existing aesthetic character of the Project site and vicinity is highly developed and urban in character. Many multi-story structures including residential buildings, hotels, and other facilities are located in Burbank, including the Media District in which the Project site is located. Although the proposed Project would be taller than adjacent development, it would be consistent with the urban character of the vicinity and the general height profile. The Project is proposed to be a maximum of 75 feet 2 inches tall at its highest point. This is consistent with the buildings to the south that are approximately 100 feet and 85 feet tall. Finding Impacts to visual character of the site would be less than significant since the surrounding area is urban in nature and the height of the Project would be consistent with the heights of the buildings south of the site. Impact AES-2 The proposed Project would involve an increase in structural development and

intensity of use on the Project site, including new and increased shadow impacts on the surrounding properties. However, these impacts would be Class III, less than significant.

Mid- and high-rise buildings are the primary source of prolonged shadows within the planning area. During most of the day in the summer months, shadows would fall primarily on North Cordova Street not onto any residential structures. Therefore, no new impact to the nearby single-family properties would occur. In the afternoon, shadows would fall to the east on North Lima Street and West Olive Avenue. However, neither of the land uses are shadow-sensitive and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Finding The project would not cause significant shadow impacts to surrounding properties since it would not cast shadows over shadow-sensitive uses. Impact AES-3 The proposed Project would involve an increase in structural development,

intensity of use on the Project site, including new and increased lighting. Due to the urbanized nature of the area, these impacts would minor and impacts would be Class III, less than significant.

The Project site is within a highly urbanized area that includes various existing sources of light and glare, including street lights, security lighting, signage, parked vehicles and reflective building surfaces. Overall, Project lighting is expected to be similar to that of the surrounding buildings within the vicinity. The Project would have more lighting than the existing site development. This would increase lighting in the area and would effect the residences adjacent to the Project site, north


12 EXHIBIT I13

of Alameda Avenue. The MDSP requires that Project lighting be designed to eliminate glare onto adjacent properties. Finding Compliance with the requirements of the MDSP would ensure that the Project’s impact associated with lighting and glare would be less than significant. Air Quality Impact AQ-1 The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the

applicable air quality management plan. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.

The 2012 AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, return clean air to the region, and minimize the impact on the economy. Projects that are considered consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant. Finding The Project would not conflict with implementation of the applicable air quality management plan since it would be consistent with the growth forecasts for the area provided by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Impact AQ-3 Construction of the proposed Project would not generate emissions that would

exceed Local Significance Thresholds. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.

As stated under Methodology and Significance Thresholds, the proposed Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s LST. Emissions from the construction of the Project would not exceed the LST. Impacts would be less than significant. Finding The Project would not generate emissions that would exceed Local Significant Thresholds. Impact AQ-4 Operation of the proposed Project would not generate air pollutant emissions

that would exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, long-term impacts to regional air quality would be Class III, less than significant.

The majority of Project-related operational emissions would be due to vehicle trips to and from the site. Project-generated emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 or PM2.5. Therefore, the Project’s long-term regional air quality impacts (including impacts related to criteria pollutants, sensitive receptors and violations of air quality standards) would be less than significant.


13 EXHIBIT I14

Finding The operation of the Project would not generate air pollutant emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds. Impact AQ-5 The proposed Project would not generate high concentrations of CO emissions

during construction, or operation. The parking structure would be designed and operated such that risks related to CO would be Class III, less than significant.

CO is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas that is found in high concentrations near areas of high traffic volumes, such as enclosed parking structures. The proposed parking structure would be both at-grade and underground, whereas the upper levels of the structure would be open, as defined in the California Building Code (CBC), the enclosed level of the structure would include a CO alarm. Impacts would be less than significant. Finding Due to the relatively low level of additional traffic on local roadways and intersections, the Project would not be expected to cause a significant increase in CO levels that would exceed thresholds. Greenhouse Gas Impact GHG-1 The proposed Project would not conflict with California GHG reduction goals, or

any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This impact would be Class III, less than significant.

Construction of the proposed Project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily due to the operation of construction equipment and truck trips. Site preparation and grading typically generate the greatest amount of emissions due to the use of grading equipment and soil hauling. Operation of the proposed Project would generate GHG emissions due to energy use (electricity and natural gas use), area sources (consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating), waste generation, water use, wastewater generation, and traffic. The emissions associated with the Project represent less than 0.001% of California’s total 2011 emissions of 448 MMT. Impacts would be less than significant. Finding The Project would not conflict with any GHG reduction goals or adopted GHG reduction plans for the area. Noise Impact NOI-1 The proposed Project would increase traffic in the Project area would result in

increased noise. This increase in noise would be under the threshold at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore impacts would be Class III, less than significant.

The proposed Project would result in increased noise on area roadways due to increased traffic to and from the Project site. Existing roadway noise levels are between 65 and 74 dBA on the segments


14 EXHIBIT I15

of Alameda Avenue and Olive Avenue in the vicinity of the Project site. A one (1) dBA noise increase attributable to the Project would be significant. The expected noise level increase associated with Project traffic on these roadway segments would be 0.7 dBA or less. Therefore, the Project’s impact on these segments would be less than significant. Finding The noise associated with the traffic generated by the project would not exceed thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. Impact NOI-2 The Project would intensify on-site uses on the site, which would result in an

increase in noise level over existing uses. However, this increase would be incremental and impacts would be considered Class III, less than significant.

The proposed Project would introduce a new multi-use building on the Project site, which would include a supermarket and apartments. Existing sensitive uses near the Project site and proposed new uses on-site may periodically be subject to noise associated with operation of the proposed Project, including stationary equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, vehicles entering and exiting the parking structure, and other general activities associated with the proposed uses. Due to the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors and the design of the Project, impacts would be less than significant. Finding The Project would increase the noise level over existing uses, but the increase would be incremental and impacts would be less than significant. Impact NOI-3 Construction of the proposed Project would result in groundborne vibration that

could exceed acceptable levels at neighboring residences. Impacts would be considered Class III, less than significant.

Project construction would occur over the duration of a single 28-month construction period, during which demolition, grading, and construction would occur. The primary and most intensive vibration source associated with the development of the Project would be the use of pile drivers during the construction of the subsurface portions of the Project and the use of larger bulldozers and excavators during demolition and construction activities. These types of equipment can create intense noise that is disturbing and can result in ground vibrations. Construction vibration at 100 feet would not exceed the 100 VdB threshold for structural damage. Impacts would be less than significant with compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. Finding The Project would not cause groundborne vibration that would exceed acceptable levels at sensitive receptors. Impact would be less than significiant.


15 EXHIBIT I16

Transportation and Traffic Impact TRA-3 The Project would generate traffic on surrounding street segments. This traffic

would not cause local street segments to exceed local thresholds, the impact would be Class III, less than significant.

In order for the addition of Project traffic to be considered significant, it would have to increase the volume on the Avon Street segment and the California Street segment by 12 percent and the Lima Street segment by 20 percent. The proposed Project would add 8.2 percent to Avon Street, 8.1 percent to Lima Street and 6.2 percent to California Street. All of these additions are under Burbank’s thresholds, therefore impacts would be less than significant. Finding The Project would not cause local street segments to exceed local thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact TRA-4 The Project would not conflict with local mass transit, bicycle, or pedestrian plans

or facilities, the impact would be Class III, less than significant. The proposed Project consists of multi-family residential units and a grocery store. A significant transit impact would occur if the Project disrupts existing transit services or facilities, bicycle facilities, or pedestrian facilities. Due to the configuration of the Project and the site, impacts to mass transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. Finding The Project would not conflict with mass transit, bicycle, or pedestrian plans or facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact TRA-5 The Project would not conflict with the Congestion Management Plan, the impact

would be Class III, less than significant. The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) guidelines indicate that if a proposed development project would add 150 or more trips in either direction during either the morning or evening peak hour to the mainline freeway monitoring location, then a CMP freeway analysis must be conducted. If a proposed project would add 50 or more peak hour trips (of adjacent street traffic) to a CMP arterial intersection, then a CMP arterial intersection analysis must be conducted. The Project does not meet these criteria therefore a CMP analysis does not need to conducted and impacts would be less than significant. Finding The Project would not conflict with the Congestion Management Plan and impacts would be less than significant.


16 EXHIBIT I17

2. 4 FINDINGS RELATED TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts were analyzed in each environmental topic section of the EIR. Findings for any cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts are included in Section 2.3. 2.5 FINDINGS RELATED TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIROMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the Project’s balancing of local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance of long-term productivity: As the Project is implemented, certain impacts would occur in the short term. Where feasible,

policies and actions have been incorporated in the Project and mitigation measures added to the Project, as appropriate, to mitigate these potential impacts.

The Project would result in the long-term commitment of resources to implement the Project, including water, natural gas, fossil fuels, and electricity. The long-term implementation of the Project would provide important social, economic, and environmental benefits to the City of Burbank. The Project will encourage economic vitality by providing for employment development, and in particular, local job development that can take advantage of existing economic assets. The Project would also provide a net gain in residential opportunities and short term and long term employment for the area. The proposed commercial component would be an amenity for the community.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, some long-term impacts would result from implementation of the Project.

Despite short-term and long-term adverse impacts that would result from implementation of the Project, the short-term and long-term benefits of implementation of the Project justify implementation. 2.6 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires that an EIR:

Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.

The proposed Project would be located in a developed residential and commercial area, generally served by existing infrastructure. The Initial Study included as Appendix A of the EIR found that the Project would not create the need for any upgrades to the area’s existing water, sewer, or drainage connection infrastructure that would facilitate development beyond the Project site. Any needed improvements would be sized to accommodate the Project’s contribution to existing service needs.


17 EXHIBIT I18

The proposed Project would not provide for any capacity-increasing transportation and circulation improvements. No new roadways are proposed. The Project is considered infill development within an urbanized area and does not require the extension of new infrastructure through undeveloped areas. The proposed Project includes changes to the zoning designations for the site, which would increase the allowed density. However, this would only affect the Project site and would not affect any additional properties. Therefore, the proposed Project would not facilitate growth in the surrounding area by removing any land use, zoning, or density restrictions, which could currently be considered obstacles to such growth. Finding The City hereby finds that the Talaria at Burbank Project does not result in any significant growth inducing impacts. Facts in Support of Finding

Removal of Obstacles to Growth. Obstacles to growth are a lack of infrastructure or correct zoning in an area. A project would be considered to have removed obstacles to growth if it extended roads or sewer into an area that was previously unserved or if large areas of zoning were changed to allow for development. Proposed project components would be an infill project located in an urbanized area, generally served by existing infrastructure. The proposed Project would not provide for any capacity-increasing transportation and circulation improvements. No new roadways are proposed. The Project would not expand services so as to provide for additional opportunities for growth. The proposed Project includes changes to the zoning designations for the site, which would increase the allowed density. However, this would only affect the Project site and would not affect any additional properties. Therefore, the proposed Project would not facilitate growth in the surrounding area by removing any land use, zoning, or density restrictions, which could currently be considered obstacles to such growth. 2.7 CEQA PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The feasibility of the alternatives is considered at two different points, with two different standards, in the EIR process. “The issue of feasibility arises at two different junctures: (1) in the assessment of alternatives in the EIR and (2) during the agency’s later consideration of whether to approve the project.” (Cal. Native Plants Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 981.) For the first phase - inclusion in the EIR - the standard is whether the alternative is potentially feasible. By contrast, at the second phase – the final decision on project approval-the decision making body evaluates whether the alternatives are actually feasible. At that juncture, the decision makers may reject any infeasible alternatives that were identified in the EIR as potentially feasible. (Cal. Native Plants Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 981.) These findings represent the second phase of the alternatives analysis, and the City is making the final decision on whether the alternatives are feasible. As noted under the heading “Findings Required under CEQA,” an alternative may be “infeasible” if it fails to achieve the applicant’s underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. Thus,


18 EXHIBIT I19

“‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” of a project (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417). Any one of the stated reasons identified under an alternative is sufficient to find that alternative infeasible. 2.7.1 Alternatives A comparison of the impacts of the proposed Project and the alternatives selected for further evaluation is provided in this section for each of the environmental topics addressed in the EIR. This comparison of impacts assumes, for each topic, that the mitigation measures identified in this EIR for the proposed Project would also be incorporated into the alternatives. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of the environmental effects of the alternatives in an EIR may be less detailed than provided for in the proposed Project but should be sufficiently detailed to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. 2.7.2 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed Consideration The State CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. The State CEQA Guidelines states the following:

The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the Lead Agency's determination...Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

Several alternatives were initially considered for further evaluation in this EIR based on the potential for each to reduce or eliminate the significant environmental impacts identified for the Project. The City of Burbank considered alternate configurations of the site including not vacating North Avon Street. This was determined to not be feasible due to the size of the parcel that would be left to the west of North Avon Street. This parcel would be long and narrow and would not be able to be developed in a similar dimension as the proposed Project. Therefore this alternative was ultimately rejected. 2.7.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered The following alternatives were identified for evaluation: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 2: General Plan Buildout Alternative 3: Residential Only Alternative 4: Commercial Only


19 EXHIBIT I20

Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Finding Alternative 1: The No Project Alternative is infeasible because it fails to meet key Project objectives. Facts in Support of Finding of Infeasibility With the implementation of the No Project Alternative, no new development would occur within the project component areas. Since new development would not occur, potential impacts related to construction and long-term site disturbances would also not occur. This includes impacts to: aesthetics; air quality; greenhouse gas emissions; noise, and traffic. In addition, since no construction-related vehicle trips would be added to local roadways, temporary impacts to the transportation network would not occur. However, this alternative would not accomplish any of the objectives of the proposed project, including providing living space and retail opportunities within the Media District, and assisting in achieving the Housing Element goals for the City of Burbank. Alternative 2: General Plan Buildout Finding Alternative 2: The General Plan Buildout Alternative is infeasible because it would have greater air quality and traffic impacts than the proposed Project and fails to meet key Project objectives. Facts in Support of Finding of Infeasibility This alternative assumes that the proposed Project would not be constructed and that the site would be developed in accordance with the Burbank2035, which currently designates the site as Media District Commercial. This designation would allow for the construction of commercial space at a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 1.1 with 58 units per acre with discretionary approval. This alternative would not require the vacation of North Avon Street, but would involve the demolition of all 16 of the existing onsite structures. The site would then be developed with at least two buildings that would house up to 184,956 square feet of commercial space and 223 residential units. Parcels would need to be merged to allow for the full development of this alternative. This alternative would have a commercial FAR of 1.1, which is three and a half times more than that of the proposed Project. The residential density would be 58 units per acre which is an 8 percent reduction in unit density. This alternative would not provide as much housing as the proposed Project which would mean that it would not be able to provide as many housing units toward fulfilling the Housing Element goal for mixed-use development. Additionally, this alternative would result in greater impacts to air quality and traffic than the proposed Project. Alternative 3: Residential Only Finding Alternative 3: The Residential Only Alternative is infeasible because it fails to meet key Project objectives.


20 EXHIBIT I21

Facts in Support of Finding of Infeasibility This alternative assumes that the only the residential component of the proposed Project would be constructed. This alternative would require the vacation of North Avon Street and the demolition of all 16 of the existing onsite structures. The site would be developed with one four story building that would house 241 residential units. This alternative would not fulfill the Project objectives of providing retail opportunities and employment opportunities. Alternative 4: Commercial Only Finding Alternative 4: The Commercial Only Alternative is infeasible because it fails to meet key Project objectives. Facts in Support of Finding of Infeasibility This alternative assumes that only the commercial component of the proposed Project would be constructed. This alternative would require the vacation of North Avon Street and the demolition of all 16 of the existing onsite structures. The site would be developed with one single story building with 42,950 square feet of commercial space. This alternative would not fulfill the Project objectives of providing quality living space for the residents of the City of Burbank.


21 EXHIBIT I22

talaria at burbank mixed use project

Documents