STAFF REP
ORT
DATE
: May 9
, 2022
TO: Plann
ing Board
FROM: Fred
Ramirez, Assistant Community Development Director
VIA: David K
riske, Assistan
t Community Development Director
BY: Beve
rly Ibarra, Sen
ior Administrative Analyst
SUBJ
ECT: Conside
ration for Recommendation to City Council of Zone Tex
t
Amendment (Project
No. 22 -000
2020) Amending
Title 10, Cha
pter 1,
Article
22 of the Burba
nk Municipal Code Pertaining to Community
Facil
ities Fees
RECOMMEND
ATION
Staff
recomm
ends that
the
Planning Board:
Ado
pt A RES
OLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BURBANK
(EXHIBIT
A) RECOMME
NDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUN CIL
OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 1,
ARTICL
E 22 OF THE BURB
ANK MUNICIPAL CODE (EXHIB
IT B) TO UPDAT
E
COMMUNITY
FACILITY FEES (Project No
. 22-000
2020).
EXE
CUTIVE SUMMARY
This repo
rt provides a comprehensive update of the City’s development impact fee (DIF) progra
m. DIFs a
re fees assessed on new development to h
elp pay their
fair share of the
cost for City
infrastructure needed to support that new development. DIFs must be assesse
d such that the fees
charged to the new development are proportional to the
impa
cts to existing
or planned infrastru
cture. A nexu
s study must
be p
repared to
dete
rmine a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project
on which the fee is charged.
The
Burbank City Council adopted the current DIF ordinance in 1993, and imposed DIFs on
new development to pay for im pac
ts to Community Facilities and Transportation
infrastruct
ure. Staff is no
w recom
mending tha
t the DIF ordinance be updated to account
for lan
d use policies and forecasts in the Burbank2035 General Plan adopted in 2013, as
well as the a
nticipated infrastructu
re improv
ements needed to a
ccommodate this growth.
To justify the propose
d zone text amend
ment, a Burban
k Development Impact Fee
Nexus
Study (Nexu
s Study) (Exhibit C) was prep a
red to identify the required infrastructure
need
ed to support new development and to determ
ine what the
proportional share of the
cost o f
this infrastructure related
to deve
lopment. The zone
text amen
dment and
propos
ed ordinance (Exhibit B) also respo
nds to i
nput provided by the City Council at
their me
etings held on February 4, 2019 and
December 14, 2021.
The DIF o
rdinance upda
te propos
es the following chang
es:
• Update
existing fees;
• Add an In
formation Technology fee;
• Implem
ent the Transportation fee on Residential uses;
• Establi
sh a separate fee for Lodging use; and
• Provide o
ther amendments to the Burbank Municipal Code to conform to upda ted
State la
w provisions relating t
o DIFs.
BACKGROUND
Under th
e California Mitigation Fee Act (Governme
nt Code Section 66000 and following)
cities and
counties have the authority to implement DIFs. This allows cities and counties
to coll
ect funds from new development projects to cover public infrastructure, facilities, improvem
ents, service, and community amenity costs related to the new deve lopmen t’s
proporti
onate share of impact on those facilities. DIFs are prohibited from funding operati
on and maintenance and cannot be collected or used to cover existing capital or infrastructu
re deficiencies.
The Ci
ty originally adopted the current DIF provisions by o rdin ance in 19 9
3, which
establi
shed funding for Libraries, Parks, Police, and Fire and Transportation facilities through
impact fees imposed on new developments. The 1993
DIFs were based
on two
studies
that provided the reasonable relationship, or n
exus, betwee
n the fee and purpose
of the
fee:
• A Community
Facilities Study , which identified
Library, Parks, Police and Fire
infrastructu
re needed to support new development; and
• A Transp
ortation Study (called
the Infrastructure Blueprint ) which iden
tified a list
of im
provements needed to address transportation and traffic growth caused by new de
velopment.
The Ci
ty of Burbank currently imposes DIFs on all new development to fund transportation projects a
nd certain community facilities (including Parks and Recreation, Police, Library, and
Fire) that are needed to offset impacts caused b y n e
w development 1. The
City
collects
DIFs at the time building permits are issued. These funds are then held in a DIF fund t
o be used to construct the necessary improvements in the future. 1 Certain cate
gories of infrastructure improvements, like water, sewer, storm drain, and electrical system improv
ements, are not funded by DIFs but instead are funded through other user fees , devel opment
charge
s, and fund
ing programs.
The Ci
ty’s DIF program has been instrumental in ensuring that th e City’s transportation
system a
nd community facilities grow in concert with the new development that impacts these
facilities. The Ci
ty uses a range of funding sources to pay for community facilities and
transportation improvements. DIFs are only one source of funding and represent the
share o
f the cost of the improvements generated by new development. For several City infrastructu
re project
s (particularly transportation projects), DIF s provide d local funding
leverage
to help the City secure much larger grants and other funding assistance for the projects.
With DIFs, the City’s community facilities and transportation system have been able t
o grow to accommodate needs caused by new developmen
t.
As pa
rt of the preparation of this report, a study
session with City Council was held in
February
2020 to provide general information on deve
lopment impa
ct fees and to provide
an u
pdate on the status of the City’s development impact fee nexus stud y. At this study
session, t
he City Council requested further information about the DIF program and its impact
on different types of development. The
February 2020 staff report is included in
Exhibit D.
On Decemb
er 14, 2021, staff presented a report to provide a
dditional information
including publi
c benefits provided from recent development projects, a comparison of Glenda
le and Pasadena’s DIFs, and to evalu
ate current and potential DIFs generated
from me
dium- to h
igher-density
projects to illustrate how different
fees could affect other
goals,
policies, and revenue sources. The D
ecember 2021 staff report is included as
Exhibit D.
On Ap
ril 6, 2022, staff held a virtu
al city-wide commu
nity meeting to discuss the
proposed
upda
te to the DIF prog
ram. The
meeting included an o
verview of the DIF, discussion
on
the rec
ommendations contained in this report, answers to any
questions, and
noted any
publi
c comme
nts.
DISCUSS
ION
Impact
Fee Update
As discusse
d above, t
he City’s current DIFs are ba
sed on studies completed in the 1990s.
Since th
at time, s everal
projects identified in the original study have been built and impacts
and development patterns throug
hout the City have
evolved. In ad
dition, the City
Council’s 20 1
3 adop
tion o f
the B
urbank2035 General Plan changed the level of
develo
pment expected over
the next 20 -25 ye
ars and also changed the types of
infrastructu
re projects the City expects to build to address that development . Thus, staff
belie
ves an important part of the impact fee update is to revise the list of infrastructure projects e
ligible for fu
nding by DIFs, particularly to account for the City Council’s desire to includ
e more multi-moda
l bicycle, pedestrian, and transit projects in the City’s capital improvem
ent program. According
ly, the DIF program
need
s be u
pdated to include the
revised growth
forecasts adopted with the Burban
k2035 Gene
ral Plan. Therefo
re, staff
unde
rtook a comprehensive update to the City’s DIF program and reviewed the infrastructu
re needed by the City to support the growth forecasts in th e General Plan.
Nexus Stu
dy
The Ci
ty hired the consulting team of Economic Planning Systems (EPS), with Fehr and Peers
providing the transportation component, to conduct a nexus study that identified
the pu
rpose of the fees, the use of the fees, the reasonable relationship between the fee and
facility or project for which the fee is imposed, and to suppo rt new fe
es or upda
ted
fees wi
thin the Ci
ty’s DIF program. Pursuant
to the M
itigation Fee Act, the Nexus Study
(Exhibit C) was designe
d to provide the City with the necessary analysi
s to sup
port an
upda
te to the DIF progra
m including
the associ
ated fee calculations for the maximum fees
the City ca
n charge for the facilities.
As a
result of the Nexus Stu dy, th
e proposed updated DIF program includes
updates to
the Ci
ty’s existing fee categories (Transp
ortation, Police, Fire, Library, and Parks and
Recreation) and propo
ses to ad
d an Infor
mation Technology (IT) fee fo
r citywide IT capital
improvem
ent needs. The IT
fee analysis was included to account for techn
ological
advan
cements related to infrastru
cture and the increase
d reliance
on technology.
Metho
dology
In ge
neral, each fee category used the f
ollowing metho
dology to calculate
the nexus-
suppo
rted maximum fee amounts:
1. Staff
and consultants referred to the B
urbank2035 Gene
ral Plan , which is th
e
bluepri
nt for the future development of the City, to estim
ate existing and f uture
popu
lation and employment;
2. Staff p
rovided a list of their
department’s new ca
pital improvements needed to
serve bo
th existing and future residents and employees durin
g the General Plan
horizo
n year;
3. Staff a
nd consultants developed cost estimates for the
projected capital needs;
4. Consultan
ts a lloca
ted the co
sts between existing and new development to
deter
mine the DIF share;
5. Consultan
ts d istributed the c
osts further among residential and non -residentia
l
uses;
6. Consultan
ts calculated cost
per resident or employee. This calculation provides
the maximu
m fee that can be justified by the Nexus Study;
7. The Ci
ty added a
5% admi
nistrative fee, which reflects th
e cost o
f administering
the DIF program.
This me
thodology provided
the necessary technical analysis to support a DIF fee a nd
program
upda
te. It is im
portant to note that the fees calculat
ed by the study justifies
the
fees that ca
n be charge
d by the City based on the projected new development and the need
s and corresponding costs of the capital facilities and improvements needed to accomm
odate it, but
the City can exercise
its discretion to charge less than the fee it may
legally
collect. For e
xample, charging the high
est fee justified
by the Nexus Study may
not n
ecessarily support other important City goals or objectives such a s bus iness
deve
lopment or the nee
d to facilita
te the development of new
housing at va
rious levels of
affo
rdability, or doing
so could
reduce the
ability to require developments to provide othe
r
categ
ories of comm
unity benefits. The
City Cou
ncil may wish to ado
pt fee
s at or below
these
nexus-supp
orted levels based on econ
omic, poli
cy, or o
ther con
siderations.
Nexus St
udy Find
ings
Base
d on the Nexus Stud
y, if th
e City charg
ed the maximum fee levels, new development
would a
ccount for abo
ut 30% of the total improvements costs
identified by each
Depart
ment to serve the City through 2035. The
analysis showed that the
cost needed to
fund
Capital Facilities and equipment nec essary
to accom
modate projected growth
totale
d approximately $45 milli
on. Additionally, a projected $ 90 milli
on in Transportation
improve
ments is needed to accommodate projected future impacts supporting vehicle, transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle modes as a result
of new development. The
City must find
othe
r revenue sources, such as grants or the General Fund, to cover the remaining costs.
Using
the infrastructure costs attri
butable to new development and the projected growth
assum
ed in the Burbank2035 General Plan, the Nexus Study
determined the per-squa
re
foot
or per-unit
fee tha
t may be legally charged for each fee category. These fees are shown
in Table 2.
Table
2: Maxim
um Fee Leve
ls by La
nd Use Type2
Community Fa
cilities
Resident
ial Uses (per dwelling unit)
Single-Famil
y Multi-Famil
y
Fire $50
2 $39
4 Polic
e $38
4 $30
2 Par
ks $2,786
$2,189
Library $1,8
88 $1,4
83 IT (N
ew) $45
4 $35
6 Tran
sportation DIF $10,514 $4,362
TOT
AL MAX FEE LEV
EL $16,528 $9,08
6 Current
FY 21-22 Fe
e $3,060 $2,264
2 Fees
include 5% adminis
trative fee.
Table
2: Maximum Fee Leve
ls by La
nd Use Type2 (continu
ed)
Community Fa
cilities
Non-Resident
ial Uses (per sq. ft. or room)
Retail
Office/
Instituti
onal Stud
io
Wareh
ouse/
Indu
strial
Lod
ging
(/roo
m)3
Fire $0.2
8 $0.4
6 $0.3
1 $0.2
8 $53
.00
Police $0.2
7 $0.4
5 $0.3
0 $0.2
7 $52
.00
Park
s $1.99 $3.28 $2.18 $1.99 $374.00
Library $0.8
1 $1.3
4 $0.8
9 $0.8
1 $15
3.00 IT (New) $0.3
2 $0.5
3 $0.3
5 $0.3
2 $61
.00
Tran
sportation DIF $26.6
2 $16.1
1 $9.62 $3.80 $6,599.00
TOT
AL MAX FEE LEV
EL $30.
29 $22.1
7 $13.65 $7.47 $7,29
2.00 Current
FY 21-22 Fe
e $8.35 $9.29 $7.79 $4.94 $4,17
4.00 As discuss
ed above, the Nexu
s Study
calculates the fees that the
City can cha
rge und
er
nexu
s fee law (Gove
rnment Code Section 66000 and following), ba
sed on infrastructure
nee
ds, and
exp
ected growth. This represents the maximum amo
unt tha
t may be charged,
but
does not take into account other considerations the City migh t keep
in mind when
estab
lishing fee
s. The
se considerations include:
• Guiding
policy considerations adopted by City Council,
• City’s Cost
Recovery Policy, an
d
• Maint
aining market
competitiveness with neighboring cities.
City Cou
ncil-ado
pted Policy Considerations
As DIFs are n
ot required to
be set at the maximum allowable fee established through the Nexus Study. Sta
ff recom
mends that the City Co
uncil consid
er three poli
cy criteria when
conside
ring upd
ates to t
he DIF Program:
• Align fee
levels with City goals - DIFs sh
ould align with
the City’s large
r goals of
facilita
ting housing production, retaining and protecting the growth of media produ
ction, office, and industrial sectors, and
should ensu
re that
new fees are
consiste
nt with the
City’s fisca
l policies . T h
ey should also maint
ain the City’s
market
competitiveness for ne
w growth within
the region.
• Balanc
e fee increases with b
uilding neighborhoods - DIFs mitiga
te the impacts of
new
development and fund needed public facilities and infrastructure to mainta in qua
lity of life. However, DIFs are only one piece of the larger puzzle that the City is reviewi
ng to build neighborhoods while also ensuring that new development of all
types pays its fair share of infrastructure costs. Othe r tools such as Planned
Developm
ents allow the City to request new infrastructure be built or funded by 3 Hotel proj
ects are currently charged the retail impact fee based on the total square feet of the hotel. The proposed separa
te new fee on hotels would be calculated on each hotel room instead. To bett er
compa
re the current fee to the new fee, staff conv
erted the curren
t per-square-foot r
etail fee to a per-
room f
ee.
new
development. Infrastructure required as part of Planned Developments can ofte
n be built sooner than infrastructure funded through DIFs.
• Facil
itate com
munity benefits that build neighborhoods while n o
t adversely
impa
cting the financial feasibility of a project or result in the loss of future growth opp
ortunities - DIFs ad
d to costs
to new construction and overall development
costs.
Therefore, it is impo
rtant to
strike a balance between providing an
app
ropriate level of facilities/infrastructure to new residents and businesses consiste
nt with the City’s goals/vision, while avoiding excessive costs that could
discourag
e deve
lopment.
City’s Cost
Recovery Poli
cy
Ano
ther policy guiding the proposed DIF pro
gram upd
ate is the City’s cost recovery policy
(adop
ted by the City Council with the Fiscal Year 2017 -201
8 budget) which g
ives
consiste
nt guidelines in establishing City fees and
allocating fair shares fo r co
sts. This
poli
cy can be illustrated through the City Cost
Recover Policy Pyramid (Figure 1). This
poli
cy helps the City to set fees for various City charges and services based on how much that
fee should recover the City’s cost for that service. Fees for core services that provide broad
public benefit should r
ecover a lower percentage of the City’s costs, while fees for service
s that provide more individual benefit to stakeholders should recover a higher percen
tage of the cost. Loo
king at the City ’s Cost
Recovery Policy Pyramid,
staff
dete
rmined that DIFs fall into the
Important Services Category that provide both
Ind
ividual
and
Public Benefit. It is an Important Service
because it provides
important infrastructure
and
gives the City th
e ability to provide for and sustain the added capacity.
Figu
re 1 - City Cos
t Recovery Policy Pyramid
The in
frastructure that these DIFs pay
for offer a public benefit, but since the fees are
only co
vering the added capacity from new development, DIF revenue delivers a higher ben
efit to the user, or in this case to the new development, than to the general taxpayer.
Base
d on this pricing po licy, DIF
would fall under the 20% to 80% cost recovery level.
Base
d on this understanding, staff
recommends adopting DIF levels in
the amount of 80%
of th
e maximum allowable fees iden
tified in the Nexus Study . In
addition, staff also
recomm
ends three exce ption
s to this 80% level for certain types of development that provide
other public benefits. The
se exceptions include:
1. Affo
rdable Housing – Staff
recommends the
City impose a charge on affo
rdable
hou
sing units in the extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income categories at 50%
of the maximum allowable fees , rat
her than 80 percent. This is because
the
City gains additional public benefit when developers buil d affo
rdable housing
units in th
e City.
2. Retail – Staff
recommends the City impose DIFs on retail developments at a level of 3
3% of the maximum allowable fees . The
maximum allowable fee attributable
to reta
il development is relatively high compared to other fee categories, primarily due
to the transportation impacts. However, retail uses provide recurring annual Gene
ral Fund
revenu
e in the form of sales taxes above and beyond the one -time fees
provided by DIFs. Thus, staff recommends the DIF fee be charged at a lower rate to
balance
the need to mitigate impacts with the desire for the City to continue to at
tract retail uses.
3. Hotels – Staff
recommends the City impose DIFs on hotel developments at a level of 6
7% of the maximum allowable fees. Like retail uses, hotel uses provide recurring
annual Gene
ral Fund
revenu
e in the form of transient occupancy taxes
in ad
dition to one -time
DIFs. Hotels
also support the City’s larger employers as
well as
attract touri
sts to stay in Burbank and patronize other businesses. Setting this lower D
IF will keep the City competitive in attracting new hotel uses.
Base
d on the City’s Cost Reco
very Policy and the
exceptions for certain land uses, staff
is recom
mending the
following fee levels for different residential and non-residen tial land
uses in
the updated DIF Program.
Table
3: Proposed Fees by Land Use Type
Community Fa
cilities
Resident
ial (Mark
et-Rate)
(per dwelling unit)
Resident
ial (Affordable)
(per dwelling unit)
Single-Famil
y Multi-Famil
y Single-Famil
y Multi-Famil
y
Fire $40
2 $31
5 $25
1 $19
7 Police $30
7 $24
2 $19
2 $15
1 Park
s $2,229 $1,751 $1,3
93 $1,0
95 Library $1,5
10 $1,1
86 $94
4 $74
2 IT (Ne
w) $36
3 $28
5 $22
7 $17
8 Tran
sportation DIF $8,411 $3,490 $5,2
57 $2,1
81 TOT
AL PROPOSED FEE $13,
222 $7,26
9 $8,2
64 $4,5
43 Table
3: Proposed Fees by Land Use Type (continu
ed)
Community Fa
cilities
Non-Resident
ial (per sq. ft. or room)
Retail Office/
Instituti
onal Stud
io Wareh
ouse/
Indu
strial
Lod
ging
(/roo
m)
Fire $0.2
2 $0.3
7 $0.2
5 $0.2
2 $42
Police $0.2
2 $0.3
6 $0.2
4 $0.2
2 $42
Park
s $1.59 $2.62 $1.74 $1.59 $299
Library $0.6
5 $1.0
7 $0.7
1 $0.6
5 $12
2 IT (Ne
w) $0.2
6 $0.4
2 $0.2
8 $0.2
6 $49
Tran
sportation DIF $7.0
0 $12.89 $7.70 $3.04 $4,356
TOT
AL PROP
OSED FEE $9.94 $17.7
4 $10.92 $5.98 $4,910
Maint
aining Market Competitiveness with Neigh
boring Cities
Whe
n considering the appropriate DIF levels, the City Council may con sider how existing
and
future fee levels charged in Burbank compare to those of the City’s neighbors. EPS
prepa
red an ana
lysis to compare the City’s proposed DIF fee
levels to those of Glendale
and
Pasadena (Exhibit E). Altho
ugh Glend
ale and Pasadena c har
ge DIFs on different
land
use types and collects funds for different infrastructure needs, a direct one -to-one
comp
arison is not possible. Howeve
r, a
comparison has
been prepared to sho
w how
Burba
nk’s current fees and new maximum allowable fees are rela tive to our neighbors.
Compa
red to those of the City’s neighbors, the proposed residential fees will still be lower than
Glendale and Pasadena.
Table
4: DIF Comparison Summary: Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena
Resident
ial
Land Use Ca
tegory
Burbank
(Proposed)
Burbank
(Current
)
Glendal
e
(Current
)
Pas
adena
(Current
)
Single Fa
mily Residential (Per Unit)
Capital Fa
cilities $4,811 $3,06
0 $23,7
33 $26,
702
Tran
sportation $8,411 None None $9,5
50 Tota
l $13,2
22 $3,06
0 $23,7
33 $36,2
52 Multifamily
Residential (Per Unit)
Capital Fa
cilities $3,779 $2,264 $20,
422 $20,908
Tran
sportation $3,490 None None $3,6
98 Tota
l $7,26
9 $2,264 $20,
422 $24,6
06 Table
4: DIF Comparison Summary: Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena (con tinued)
Non-Resident
ial
Land Use Ca
tegory
Burbank
(Proposed)
Burbank
(Current
)
Glendal
e
(Current
)
Pas
adena
(Current
)
Retail (Pe
r Sq. Ft.)
Capital Fa
cilities $2.94 $1.00 $6.96 None
Tran
sportation $7.00 $7.35 None $11
.57
Tota
l $9.94 $8.35 $6.96 $11
.57
Office
(Per Sq. Ft.)
Capital Fa
cilities $4.85 $1.94 $8.48 None
Tran
sportation $12.89 $7.35 None $8.7
1 Tota
l $17.
74 $9.29 $8.48 $8.7
1 Industrial
(Per Sq. Ft.)
Capital Fa
cilities $2.94 $0.89 $3.47 None
Tran
sportation $3.04 $4.04 None $1.2
0 Tota
l $5.98 $4.93 $3.2
4 $1.2
0 Lodging (Per Room)
Capital Fa
cilities $554 $49
9 None None
Tran
sportation $4,356 $3,6
75 None $3,6
98 Tota
l $4,910 $4,17
4 None $3,6
98 At first
glance, b oth Glend
ale and Pasadena reside
ntial DIFs are much higher than
Burba
nk’s proposed DIF fe e
s. How e
ver, this difference is because the majority of
Glend
ale’s and Pasadena’s residential DIF is to pay for land acquisition needed to build new
parks. Burba
nk also collects a Park
DIF but has
chosen to add park capacity by
makin
g improvements to existing parks and
City property, rather
than buying and clearing
prope
rty for new parks. Additionally, throu
gh other methods, Burba
nk encourages large-
scale p
rojects to include park space in their deve
lopments at th
e cost of the developer.
Fina
lly, Burbank’s proposed DIF on residential development would fund a much larger categ
ory of infrastructure improvements than those in Glendale and Pasadena.
On t
he other hand, Burbank’s proposed non -residen
tial DIF
fees will be higher than
Glend
ale and Pasadena . This
is because Burba
nk’s p
roposed fee would colle
ct fund
s
for a
wider variety of community facilities infrastructure than either city, includ ing impa
ct
fees f
or Police, Fire, and IT improvements.
Consisten
cy with the Burbank2035 General Plan
The
proposed amendments update existing DIFs and establishes additional transportation and
non -tra
nsportation-rel
ated fees, and provide other conforming amendments to the Bur
bank Municipal Code (BMC), c
onsistent with Land Use Element Goals 2
and 3, Pol
icy
No.
Pro
gram LU-8 a
nd Mobility Element Goal 1, Program M-1 o
f the Burbank2035 General
Pla
n. The
se goals are as follows:
• Lan
d Use Element Goal No. 2, Sus
tainability which notes “Bur
bank is committed to
bui
lding and maintaining a community that meets tod
ay’s needs while providing a
hig
h quality of life for future generations”.
• Lan
d Use Element Policy No. 2.3, w
hich “requ
ire[s] tha
t new development pay its
fai
r share of infrastructure improvements” and
“ensure that needed infrastructure
and
services are available prior to or at project completion”. • Lan
d Use Element Goal No. 3 : Com
munity Design and Character which notes
“Bu
rbank’s well d
esigned neighborhoods and buildings and enhanced streets and publ
ic spaces contribute to the strong sense of place and ‘small town’ feeling ref
lective of the past.”
• Lan
d Use Element Program LU -8: Dev
elopment Impact Fees whi
ch includes the
fol
lowing action items for future consideration by the City:
o Rev
iew and upd
ate the transportation impact fee program to implement Land Use
Element and Mobility Element goals and policies and to ensure that ide
ntified long-ter
m projects to improve transportation are adequately funded. o Rev
iew and revise the community facilities fee
program to ensure that fees
are
adequately addressing impacts on City services caused by new dev
elopment.
o Con
sider creating a public benefits program where project applicants for large pro
jects must provide public benefits through methods such as incorpor ating
des
ign features or programs into the project, constructing or providing funding for
off -sit
e improvements or facilities, and providing one -tim
e or ongoing
fun
ding for community programs and activities.
• Mob
ility Element Goal No. 1: Bal
ance, which note
s tha
t “Burbank’s transportation
sys
tem ensures economic vitality while preserving neighborhood character.” • Mob
ility Element Policies 1.1
through 1.7:
o Pol
icy 1.1 Con
sider eco
nomic gro
wth, tra
nsportation dem
ands, and
nei
ghborhood cha
racter in dev
eloping a com
prehensive tra
nsportation
sys
tem tha
t mee
ts Bur
bank’s nee
ds.
o Pol
icy 1.2 Rec
ognize tha
t Bur
bank is a bui
lt-out cit
y and who
lesale cha
nges
to str
eet rig
hts‐of-way are inf
easible.
o Pol
icy 1.3 Mai
ntain and enh
ance the cit
y’s tra
ditional str
eet and all
eyway gri
d
net
work.
o Pol
icy 1.4 Ens
ure tha
t fut
ure lan
d use
s can be ade
quately ser
ved by
the
pla
nned tra
nsportation sys
tem.
o Pol
icy 1.5 Des
ign tra
nsportation imp
rovements to be com
patible wit
h the
sca
le and des
ign of exi
sting inf
rastructure.
o Pol
icy 1.6 Use tec
hnology and int
elligent tra
nsportation sys
tems to inc
rease
str
eet sys
tem cap
acity and eff
iciency as an alt
ernative to str
eet wid
ening.
o Pol
icy 1.7 Ens
ure tha
t the tra
nsportation sys
tem ena
bles Bur
bank res
idents,
emp
loyees, and vis
itors oppor
tunity to liv
e, wor
k, and pla
y thr
oughout the
com
munity.
• Mob
ility Element Program M-1: Inf
rastructure Blueprint which calls for the following:
o Perfo
rm a nexus fee study to support a revised Transportation Impact Fee.
ENVIRONM
ENTAL ASSESSMENT
The prop
osed amendments to Title 10 Chapter 1 of BMC amend standards regulating the City’s d
evelopment impact fees and
is subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA
) The
proposed Zone
Text Amen
dment (ZTA) was reviewed
for compliance with
CEQA.
The
project b
eing considered does not constitute a " Project" p
ursuant to CEQA
Guideli
nes section 15378 (b)(4), which excludes items involving the general creation of gove
rnmental funding mechanisms or fiscal activities. The
proposed fee update and fee
structure
modification enables the collection and allocation of fees for the continued estab
lishment and rehabilitation community and transportation facilities. Therefore, the propo
sed DIF progra
m upd
ate doe
s not involve a c omm
itment to any specific project,
which m
ay result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. The capita
l projects described in the Burb
ank Development Impa
ct Fee Nexus Stu
dy will
maint
ain the level of service currently provided by the
City's existing community facilities
and
transportation infrastru
cture by e
nsuring that the impacts of new development will not
neg
atively impact existing service levels.
Add
itionally, even if it was a Project, the Project
would
not allow any new uses and
would
not
change the amount of physical development that is currently allowed pursuant to the City zoning
regul
ations. The propo
sed ZTA set fo
rth in the draft
Ordinance (Exhibit B
) will
not have
a significant adve
rse impact on
the environment and
is also exem
pt from CEQA
review p
ursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Article 18: Statutory Exemptions, Section 150
61(B)(3). This
section of CEQA establishes a statutory exemption for “ The activity is
covered
by the comm
on sense exem
ption
that CEQA applies only to projects which have
the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effe
ct on the environment,
the activity is not subject to CEQA.”
CONCLUS
ION
The
changes outlined in the proposed ZTA are
intended to upd
ate the City’s DIF prog
ram
on
new development to finance the capital costs of new development's fair share of the new
facilities and infrastru
cture necessary to accommodate that new development . Th e
propo
sed updates conside
r all
of the varia
bles presen
ted in this report in orde
r to strike
a
balan
ce between generating important revenue for needed infrastructure while at the same
time supporti
ng other City goals required to build and protect neighborhoods. Such goa
ls include the
need to maintain a healthy local economy, maint
ain economic resiliency
by p
roviding a variety of different City revenue sources , and facilitate new comm
ercial
and hou
sing developments to meet the various needs of the community.
For th
e update to the City’s Development Impact Fee Program
, staff recommends City
Council
ado
ption of the proposed Ordinance (Exhibit B), which includes the following:
• Add
ing an Information Technology fee.
• Imple
ment a specific fee for Lodging use.
• Ado
pt the capital improvement plan presented in Appendix B of the Nexus Stud y
Report (At
tachment D).
• App
ly City Council Cost Reco
very poli
cies and Gen
eral Plan goa
ls to the Nexus
Study
maximum allowable fees.
• Provide
a fee reduction for affordable housing by setting the rates for Community Facilities
and Transportation fees for qualifying dee
d-restricte
d affordable housing
units a
t 50% of the rates applicable to other housing units.
• Provide
a fee reduction for Retail and Lodging uses which both generate recurring revenu
e to the City in addition to one-time DI
F.
Consisten
t with State law, the pro
posed Ordina
nce will also provide
for futu
re fees to
be
estab
lished or updated by resolution, which is a
n alternative method allowed streamline
future DIF
fee updates.
Base
d on all of the analysis provided in this report, City staff recommends that the Plann
ing Board ado
pt the attached Resolution (Exhibit A).
EXHIBITS
EXHIB
IT A Draft
Resolution
EXHIB
IT B Draft
Ordinan
ce
EXHIB
IT C Burba
nk Development Impact Fee Nexus S
tudy
EXHIB
IT D Decemb
er 14, 2021 Report to Council Staff Report and Presentation (includ
es Febru
ary 4, 2019 Study Session Staff Report and
Presen
tation as a
ttachments)
EXHIB
IT E Developm
ent Impact Fee Program Comparison Analysis
Mem
orandum