At a Jan. 14 study session, the Burbank City Council and Housing Authority heard a presentation of the city parks master plan, a yearlong effort that included mapping, demographic analysis and more than 3,000 direct community responses. Diego Ceballos, assistant director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, and Zachary Muting of RJM Design Group presented the plan and answered council questions; the council did not take formal action at the study session.

The plan’s authors described the document as an implementation tool for parks and recreation investment and programming. “The role of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is meant to be that tool, the implementation guide for the future of Parks and Recreation here,” said Zachary Muting, the consulting presenter. Ceballos told the council that the plan “provides us a framework of how we do make decisions on a going forward basis.”

The nut of the plan is the community input and a needs analysis. Staff said the outreach produced more than 3,000 direct responses and roughly 8,700 mapped data points, including three in-person workshops (459 responses at Workshop 1, 383 at Workshop 2 and 1,146 at Workshop 3). The consultant reported that Burbank’s 2023 population was just over 100,000 and that the city has about 6.95 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents; staff said about 92% of residents live within a 5-, 10- or 15-minute walking radius of a park based on standard walk-shed analysis.

The community’s most frequent priorities, compiled across interview, focus groups and multimodal surveys, included: more soccer fields and youth sports capacity; expanded aquatic offerings and swim classes; additional pickleball courts grouped for flexible play; improved restrooms and routine maintenance; more walking paths and trails; dog park development; and arts/cultural programming including performance venues. Staff highlighted three projects the city manager has directed staff to prioritize from the plan: redevelopment tied to the George Izais Park master plan (including the Olive Recreation Center and the Burbank Little Theatre), McCambridge pool redevelopment (staff said $1,500,000 in grant funds has been secured), and work on the Starlight Bowl. Councilmember Mullens praised the outreach numbers: “I do applaud staff for having 81% approval in the community,” she said.

The consultant and staff described six key strategies that bundle recommended actions: (1) develop a multi‑use sports complex and expand youth sports fields and pickleball courts; (2) implement aquatic improvements, including expanded swim programming and smaller “splash pad” water features; (3) adopt a park enhancement program focused on sustainable maintenance, restroom improvements and universal‑design playgrounds; (4) create an interconnected greenway and improve walking, biking and parking access; (5) develop a cultural hub for performances and exhibitions; and (6) expand senior and day‑camp programming.

Staff presented high‑level cost estimates: roughly $45 million in planned Capital Improvement Program (CIP) park and recreation projects in the current CIP cycle and about $154 million in master‑plan recommendations if every recommendation were implemented. During the Q&A a council member referenced a figure of $154.7 million; staff and the consultant characterized the larger total as an order‑of‑magnitude planner’s estimate and emphasized the plan’s prioritized list and multi‑year approach.

Council members used the discussion to press for clarity about budget integration, partnerships and site uses. Ceballos said the master plan will inform annual CIP and budget requests: staff will return during budget deliberations with specific project requests tied to the plan’s priorities. The presentation also noted existing joint‑use agreements with the school district; staff said joint‑use funds are earmarked for recurring projects and that the city and district use a joint‑use committee to prioritize capital improvements on school sites.

Some council members raised broader land‑use questions for future study. Councilmember Rosati asked whether park sites could be leveraged for housing combined with recreation facilities (for example, senior housing over a replacement rec center). The consultant said he had not seen that model consistently in other park systems and cautioned, “never sell Parkland,” while staff said the plan is a living document and that more detailed iterations and feasibility work would follow. Staff also flagged maintenance and safety (lighting, restroom cleaning, cameras) as recurring community concerns and said they have sought contract augmentations to improve midday restroom and bleacher cleaning.

The study session closed with staff reminding the council that the plan will be used to prioritize projects over multiple budget cycles and that the plan’s public comment portal remains open; the presentation included a QR code and the page BurbankCA.gov/cityparksmasterplan for ongoing feedback. No motions or votes were taken at the study session; the council recessed for a brief break before the regular meeting and the plan will return later on the public agenda for formal action.

The presentation and Q&A are part of an iterative process: staff and the consultant said they will present the plan to advisory boards (Park and Recreation Board, Cultural Arts Commission, Burbank Athletic Federation) and to the school district and other commissions as projects move from concept to budget requests.