Burbank City Council
June 7, 2022

Draft Report
Burbank Development Impact Fee
Nexus Study
Prep
ared for:

City o
f Burbank
Prepa
red by:

Econo
mic & Planning Systems, Inc.

With su
pport from:

Fehr
& Peers Transportation Consultants
April
29, 2022
EPS #144032
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Use of AB 1600 Fees ............................................................................. 1 DIF Legal Context ................................................................................................... 2 Summary of Maximum Allowable Fees ....................................................................... 3 Estimated DIF Revenues Through Build-out ................................................................ 4

2. SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................... 5 Summary of Methodology ........................................................................................ 5 Demographic and Land Use Assumptions .................................................................... 6

3. FIRE FACILITIES ................................................................................................... 11 Capital Needs and Costs ........................................................................................ 11 Cost Allocations and Fee Calculations ....................................................................... 12

4. POLICE FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 15 Capital Needs and Costs ........................................................................................ 15 Cost Allocations and Fee Calculations ....................................................................... 17

5. PARKS FACILITIES ................................................................................................ 18 Capital Needs and Costs ........................................................................................ 18 Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation .......................................................................... 21

6. LIBRARY FACILITIES .............................................................................................. 22 Capital Needs and Costs ........................................................................................ 22 Cost Allocations and Fee Calculations ....................................................................... 25

7. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................... 27 Capital Needs and Costs ........................................................................................ 27 Cost Allocations and Technical Analysis .................................................................... 28

8. TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................. 30 Improvement Needs and Costs ............................................................................... 30 Cost Allocations and Technical Analysis .................................................................... 30 Appen
dix A: Fehr & Peers Technical Memorandum – Development Impact Fees for Transportation Appendix B: City of Burbank Development Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Maximum Allowable Fees ................................................................ 3 Table 2 Revenue Projections and Need for Outside Funding .............................................. 4 Table 3 Service Population Factors ................................................................................ 7 Table 4 Growth Projections for Burbank By Land Use ....................................................... 8 Table 5 Summary of Existing and Projected Population and Employment ............................ 9 Table 6 Land Use Density Assumptions ........................................................................ 10 Table 7 Fire Department Capital Facility Needs and Costs ............................................... 12 Table 8 Fire Department Calls for Service by Property Use Type (FY 17-18) ...................... 13 Table 9 Maximum Fire Facilities Fee Calculations ........................................................... 14 Table 10 Police Department Capital Needs and Cost Summary .......................................... 16 Table 11 Maximum Police Facilities Fee Calculation ......................................................... 17 Table 12 Burbank Existing Park Inventory and Level of Service ......................................... 19 Table 13 Parks Facility Capital Needs and Cost Estimates ................................................. 20 Table 14 Maximum Parks Facilities Fee Calculation .......................................................... 21 Table 15 Library Service Standard ................................................................................ 23 Table 16 Library Capital Needs and Cost Estimates Based on Service Standard ................... 25 Table 17 Maximum Library Facilities Fee Calculation ........................................................ 26 Table 18 Information Technology Capital Cost Summary .................................................. 28 Table 19 Maximum Information Technology Fee Calculations ............................................ 29 Table 20 Transportation Improvement Program Cost Summary ......................................... 30 Table 21 Change in Vehicle Trips, 2020-2035 ................................................................. 30 Table 22 Allocation of Transportation Project Costs to New Development ............................ 31 Table 23 Maximum Transportation Fees By Land Use ....................................................... 32

1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
This Nexus Study is designed to provide the City of Burbank with the necessary technical documentation to support an update of its comprehensive Development Impact Fee (DIF) program. It has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), with technical support from Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants for transportation fees, as well as input from City of Burbank staff.

Impact fees are one-time charges on new development collected and used by jurisdictions (e.g., a City or County) to cover the cost of capital facilities and infrastructure needed to serve new residential and non-residential growth. Impact fees are generally collected upon issuance of a building permit, although some jurisdictions collect them at certificate of occupancy or other points in the development process. The City of Burbank currently has a comprehensive DIF program that generates funding to support a range of capital improvements necessitated by new growth in the City. The City’s existing fee categories include capital facilities, which covers capital improvement needs for the police, fire, library, and parks departments; and transportation facilities. As part of its updated program, the City will maintain its existing fee categories, while adding information technology capital improvement needs to the capital facilities category.

The Fee Program described in this Report is designed to be consistent with the most recent relevant case law and the principles of Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (subsequently referred to as AB 1600) and subsequent related legislation. The Report provides the nexus argument and associated fee calculations for the maximum fees the City can charge for the facilities indicated pursuant to AB 1600.

Consistent with the existing practice, the fees calculated herein are proposed to be collected on a City-wide basis given the broad scope of capital improvements included in this study.

Purpose and Use of AB 1600 Fees
New development in the City of Burbank will increase the demand for certain public facilities and infrastructure. The DIF revenues would be collected and expended to fund the portion of these new infrastructure and facility improvements needed to accommodate growth and maintain public service standards. Specifically, the DIF revenues calculated in this study will be used to fund:
• Fire Facilities – this fee will fund fire department capital facilities and equipment (e.g. vehicles) necessary to accommodate growth.
• Police Facilities – this fee will fund police department capital facilities and equipment (e.g. vehicles) necessary to accommodate growth.
• Parks Facilities – this fee will fund park and recreation facility improvements necessary to accommodate growth. This fee as calculated will not fund parkland acquisition. In addition to its existing parks impact fee, the City currently levies a separate Park Facility Development Fee of $150 per bedroom on residential development that is used for ”acquisition, improvement, expansion, renovation, and replacement of public park, playground and/or recreation facilities, machinery, and other capital-type improvements and for administration, inspection, and engineering costs of the City directly related thereto.”1 • Library Facilities – this fee will fund library capital facilities and improvements necessary to accommodate growth.
• Information Technology – this fee will fund citywide information technology infrastructure and systems necessary to accommodate growth.
• Transportation Improvements – this fee will fund needed additions and improvements to the City’s transportation infrastructure to accommodate future traffic volumes projected as a result of new development. These improvements will include infrastructure that supports vehicle, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle modes.

DIF Legal Context
This Report is designed to provide the necessary technical analysis supporting a schedule of fees to be established by an update to the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance and Resolution. The City will need to approve an updated DIF Ordinance that enables the collection of fees for capital facilities, pursuant to AB 1600. As noted, AB 1600 is codified California Government Section 66000 et seq., which sets forth procedural requirements for establishing and collecting development impact fees. These procedures require that a reasonable relationship, or nexus, must exist between a governmental exaction and the purpose of the condition.

The guiding principles that determine the structure, scope, and amount of the proposed DIF Program are as follows:
• Collected for Capital Facility and Infrastructure Improvements Only. Development impact fee revenue will be collected and used to cover the cost of capital facilities and infrastructure that are required to serve new development in the City. Impact fee revenue will not be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure.
• Used to Fund Facility Needs Created by New Development Rather than Existing Deficiencies. Impact fee revenues will only be used to pay for new or expanded capital facilities needed to accommodate growth. Impact fee revenue will not be collected or used to cover the cost of existing deficiencies in the City’s capital facilities or infrastructure. In other words, the cost of capital projects or facilities that are designed to meet the needs of the City’s existing population must be funded through other sources. • Fee Amount is Based on a Rational Nexus. The impact fee amount is based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new development and the needs and corresponding costs of the capital facilities and improvements needed to accommodate it.

The costs associated with improvements that serve the needs of both new development and the existing population and employment are split on a “fair share” basis according to the proportion attributable to each.
1 Burbank Municipal Code, Section 9-4-1-1103: Park Facility Development Fee In September 2021, the State of California adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 602, which includes several new requirements related to the development and implementation of impact fee programs. The key provisions related to the calculations documented in this Nexus Report are summarized below.
• Capital Improvement Plan: AB 602 requires that impact fees be based on an approved capital improvement plan. This adoption can occur at the same time as the fee ordinance adoption. Accordingly, this Nexus Report relies on a City of Burbank Development Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan to be approved by the City Council in conjunction with the update to the City’s DIF Program. The CIP, presented in Appendix B of this Nexus Report, is derived from the capital improvements needs identified by the City (and included in this report), and is based on existing or target levels of municipal service. • Explanation of Level of Service and Fee Increase: AB 602 requires that the nexus study provide explanations if the fee calculation is based on a change in existing levels of service.

Except where otherwise noted in the report, the fee calculations contained within this Nexus Report are based on the City’s existing service standards.

Summary of Maximum Allowable Fees
Table 1 summarizes the City’s maximum allowable development impact fee schedule for facility and equipment needs as evaluated in this Nexus Study, separated into capital facilities and transportation infrastructure. The City can adopt fees below these maximum nexus-supported levels based on policy considerations.

Table 1 Summary of Maximum Allowable Fees
SF MF Retail
Office/
Institutional
Production
Studio / R&D
Flex
Warehouse /
Industrial Lodging2
Fire $502 $394 $0.28 $0.46 $0.31 $0.28 $53
Police $384 $302 $0.27 $0.45 $0.30 $0.27 $52
Parks & Recreation $2,786 $2,189 $1.99 $3.28 $2.18 $1.99 $374 Library $1,888 $1,483 $0.81 $1.34 $0.89 $0.81 $153
Information Technology1 $454 $356 $0.32 $0.53 $0.35 $0.32 $61 Total Capital Facilities Fee $6,014 $4,724 $3.67 $6.06 $4.03 $3.67 $693 Transportation Fee $10,514 $4,362 $26.62 $16.11 $9.62 $3.80 $6,599 TOTAL IMPACT FEES $16,528 $9,086 $30.29 $22.17 $13.65 $7.47 $7,292 (2) New fee category; fee is on a per room basis.

Source: Fehr & Peers; EPS
Non-Residential (/sq. ft. or room)
Fee Category
Residential (/unit)
(1) Proposed new fee.

Note: Fees include a five percent administration fee.

These development impact fees apply to new residential and nonresidential development based on a “fair share” allocation of specified facility and equipment costs. The maximum fee estimates include a 5 percent fee program administration fee.2
Estimate d DIF Revenues Through Build -out
Table 2 provides an estimate of the total capital facility and transportation funding generated by the maximum allowable DIF program through buildout. These revenue projections are based on buildout assumptions described in Chapter 2 of this Report. As shown, the proposed DIF program would generate revenue to cover about 30 percent of the total capital facilities and transportation improvements identified in the fee program. The City must find other sources of revenue to cover the remaining costs.

Table 2 Revenue Projections and Need for Outside Funding

2 The administration fee is designed to cover expenses for preparation of the development impact fee and subsequent updates as well as the required reporting, auditing, collection and other annual administrative costs involved in overseeing the program. The City includes a 5 percent administration fee in its current impact fees.

Total Cost of
Improvements Amount Cost
Allocation
% of Total
Cost Amount Cost
Allocation
Fire $12,486,164 $3,644,637 29.2% 2.7% $8,841,526 70.8% Police $4,925,327 $3,064,497 62.2% 2.3% $1,860,831 37.8% Parks & Recreation $105,652,468 $22,226,392 21.0% 16.4% $83,426,076 79.0% Library $13,099,741 $12,575,519 96.0% 9.3% $524,222 4.0% Information Technology $27,746,043 $3,619,544 13.0% 2.7% $24,126,499 87.0% Total Capital Facilities Fee $163,909,742 $45,130,587 27.5% 33.3% $118,779,155 72.5% Transportation Fee $303,476,044 $90,391,994 29.8% 66.7% $213,084,050 70.2% Total Impact Fees $467,385,786 $135,522,581 29.0% 100% $331,863,205 71.0% Sources: City of Burbank; Fehr & Peers; EPS
Fee Category
Amount Allocation to DIF Program By
Buildout Additional Funding Needs

2. SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS
This section provides a brief overview of the nexus methodology, the key assumptions, and the approach for allocating future capital facility needs between new and existing development and by land use category. It also summarizes the demographic and land use projections underlying the fee. Subsequent chapters provide more detailed calculations for each DIF category.

Summary of Methodology
While the nexus methodology employed in this study varies by fee category as appropriate given the range of capital facilities and improvements covered, there are a number of basic steps common to all. Specifically, for each fee category, EPS has applied the following general steps to calculate the nexus-supported fee amounts:

1. EPS established an estimate of existing and future population and employment in Burbank through buildout of the current General Plan in 2035 using a variety of sources, as described in the subsequent section.

2. The EPS consultant team identified the universe of new infrastructure and capital facility improvements needed to serve both existing and future residents and employees, based on interviews with City staff and analysis of existing city facility capacity and service standards.

3. EPS consultant team developed cost estimates for the capital facility estimates described in step 2 above. These cost estimates were developed based on information provided by City departmental staff as well as additional research and industry standards. The cost estimates utilized in this report were originally developed in 2019. To account for cost inflation in the intervening years, the EPS consultant team escalated the cost estimates by 16.6 percent, based on the change in the California Construction Cost Index from December 2019 to December 2021.3

4. EPS allocated the capital facility costs identified in step 3 above between existing and new development to determine the share included in the DIF program. These allocation shares were determined in a variety of ways, dependent on the given improvement, available data, and City guidance. In some cases where the facility or improvement is entirely triggered by new development, the costs are allocated 100 percent to the DIF program. In cases where the improvement is expected to service both the existing population and the future population equally, the share of costs attributable to new development are based on the City’s current versus future service population. These cost allocation assumptions are documented in subsequent sections.
3 The California Construction Cost index is developed based upon the Building Cost Index (BCI) cost indices average for San Francisco and Los Angeles ONLY as produced by Engineering News Record (ENR) and reported in the second issue each month. The index is maintained by the California Department of General Services (DGS) at the following website: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division- Resources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI.

5. Once costs have been allocated between new and existing development, they are further distributed among residential and non-residential uses. This process is dependent on facility or improvement type and the associated service population. For many improvements, costs are distributed based on ratios of residents to employees at General Plan buildout (as described further below). Some categories utilize alternative methodologies, such as Transportation, where costs are allocated based on trip rates, or Fire, where costs are allocated based on distribution of calls for service among land uses.

6. Once costs are allocated to residential and non-residential uses, each cost category is divided by the total residential or employment population to arrive at a “cost per resident” or “cost per employee”. The cost per user is multiplied by the people per household or trip rate factor for each residential fee category or by the employment density or trip rate factor for each non-residential fee category.

7. A 5 percent charge is added to the fee to cover the cost of administering the fee program.

The fee plus the 5 percent administration charge determines the maximum fee amount by land use. The administration charge is factored into the maximum allowable fee summary in Table 1, but is not calculated in the department-specific fee calculation tables found in the report sections below.

Demographic and Land Use Assumptions
This section describes the demographic and land use assumptions utilized in this study for both existing and future General Plan buildout conditions (i.e., in 2035). The estimates are used for the following primary purposes in the fee calculation:
• Estimates of existing population and employment levels are used to formulate service standards for specific capital improvement categories as well as to ascertain existing needs relative to existing standards.
• Estimates of future population and employment growth in the City are the basis for determining the future need for some of the capital facilities which can be appropriately funded by the fee.
• Estimates related to population and employment density (e.g., persons per household, square feet per employee, or employees per room) are used to allocate costs between land use categories.

Service Population Factor
The DIF is largely predicated on calculations that translate the population and employment projections (provided in the following section) into estimates of existing and future “service populations.” The “service population,” in turn, is derived from assumptions that compare residents and employees based on the relative service demands or typical service profiles of each, as further described in the following chapters.

While the service population characterization can differ by infrastructure category, in cases where detailed estimates are not available, EPS has relied upon a default service population calculation. This calculation is based on the City’s existing “daytime population” as derived using the number of existing residents and employees in the City, and commute patterns for each group, to estimate their relative time spent within the City. This approach is used to derive an employee to resident equivalency factor that can be used to allocate costs between existing and new growth and between residential and non-residential development. For Burbank, the equivalency factor calculation suggests that the service demands of one employee are roughly equivalent to 26 percent of the demands of one resident, as calculated in Table 3.

Table 3 Service Population Factors

Population and Employment Growth Projections
This fee study relies on estimates of projected growth in the resident and employee population likely to occur by buildout in 2035. Estimates of existing residential units and nonresidential square feet by land use type, and projected buildout of those spaces, were provided by the City of Burbank based on the 2035 General Plan. The base year utilized for these estimates is 2020.

Estimates of persons per household, based on data from the American Community Survey, were applied to the number of estimated new residential units to estimate residential population growth. Estimates of employment growth are based on dividing the existing square feet of non- residential space by the existing number of employees in Burbank (based on data from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program) and applying the square-foot-per- employee factor to the projected growth in non-residential space. These estimates are detailed in Table 4.

Number Distribution Weight2
Weighted
Average
Normalized
to 100%
a b = a * b
Burbank Residents
Employed in Burbank 12,509 14% 77% 11%
Employed outside of Burbank 36,773 43% 77% 33%
All Other Residents 37,205 43% 100% 43%
Total Residents 86,487 100% 87% 100%
Employees in Burbank
Live in Burbank 12,509 7% 23% 2%
Live outside of Burbank 162,179 93% 23% 21%
Total Jobs 174,688 100% 23% 26%
Source: U.S. Census LEHD; ACS 2016-2020; EPS
Labor Force &
Commute Patterns1 Resident to Employee Equivalencies
Service Population
Category
[1] Commute patterns data from U.S. Census Bureau and LEHD On The Map Application [2] Weighting based on percent of annual number of hours [8,760 or 24 hours * 365 days] relative to time at job [2,000 or 40 hours * 50 weeks].

Table 4 Growth Projections for Burbank By Land Use

As summarized in Table 4, this approach results in a total residential population of 125,100 and total employment of 210,390 at buildout. This equates to an increase of 13,056 residents and 35,702 jobs, representing an 11.7 percent and 20.4 percent increase over existing conditions, respectively.

Applying the resident equivalency factor calculated in Table 3, the City’s existing population, employment, and commute patterns suggest a total service population of 157,463, shown in Table 5. At buildout, the service population is projected to grow by 22,339 to 179,802, with this new growth accounting for about 12.4 percent of the total future service population. New residents are estimated to account for approximately 58 percent of the growth in service population, while new employees account for the remaining 42 percent. These proportions are used to allocate costs between residential and non-residential land uses for many of the facilities included in the DIF, unless otherwise indicated.

Use Type 2020 2035 Growth
Residential
Residential Units1 44,978 50,219 5,241
Avg. Persons Per Household2 2.5 2.5
Total Residents 112,044 125,100 13,056
Nonresidential
Nonresidential Square Feet3 43,177,184 52,001,675 8,824,491 Avg. Square Feet Per Employee4 247 247
Total Jobs 174,688 210,390 35,702
(2) Estimates of residential density are derived from 2016-2020 ACS data. (1) Current residential units as of 1/1/2020 per CA DOF, Table E-5 . Projected residential units from Burbank 2035 General Plan
(3) Current and projected nonresidential uses from City of Burbank. (4) Estimates of employment density for non-residential development derived from dividing 2020 City of Burbank nonresidential square footage numbers by LEHD 2019 total employment number.

Sources: City of Burbank; CA Department of Finance; LEHD; EPS Table 5 Summary of Existing and Projected Population and Employment

This study is based on population and development patterns projected through 2035 in documents adopted by the City. It does not analyze specific projects “in the pipeline” at the local level, as such projects are, at this point, largely speculative and do not cover all years in the planning horizon.

Land Use Density Assumptions
In addition to the demographic calculations described above, the DIF also utilizes assumptions related to population and employment densities by land use type. Specifically, DIF improvement cost estimates per capita or per job are converted to fee rates per unit or square foot based on average persons per household and square foot per employee factors. These assumptions are summarized in Table 6 and rely on a data from the U.S. Census and the 2035 General Plan Update.

Item Amount Percent
Population
Existing 112,044 90%
New 13,056 10%
Buildout 125,100 100%
Employment
Existing 174,688 83%
New 35,702 17%
Buildout 210,390 100%
Service Population1
Existing 157,463 87.6%
Residential 112,044
Employment 45,419
New 22,339 12.4%
Residential 13,056
Employment 9,283
Buildout 179,802 100%
Service Population Share
Total New Service Population 22,339
Residential 13,056 58%
Employment 9,283 42%
Sources: City of Burbank; EPS
(1) Service population is calculated by applying the resident equivalency factor to employees, as calculated in Table 3.

Table 6 Land Use Density Assumptions

Item Amount
Persons per Household (1) 2.5
Single Family 2.8
Multifamily 2.2
Square Feet Per Employee (2)
Retail/Service Commercial 500
Office 303
Studio/R&D Flex 457
Industrial 500
Employees Per Room (3)
Lodging 0.4
(1) Based on ACS 2016-2020 data.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau ACS; City of Burbank; EPS
(2) Employment density by use provided by City of Burbank. (3) Based on 2019 lodging employment density in Burbank of 1 employee per 585 sq. ft., and a room size of 220 sq. ft.

3. FIRE FACILITIES
This Chapter describes the technical methodology for calculating fees for Fire Facilities. It is assumed that both residential and non-residential development will pay the Fire fees.

Capital Needs and Costs
The City’s Fire Department provided information on the capital facility needs and costs required to serve both existing and future residents. The costs generally fall into two categories:

1. Vehicle purchase and life-cycle costs; and

2. New apparatus floor costs.

The Fire Department has provided cost estimates for all of its vehicle types, as well as for apparatus floors. The cost estimates for the vehicles and floors are summarized in Table 7. It is assumed that the need for new apparatus floors will increase the same proportion as the need for new vehicles. As described in Chapter 2, the cost estimates were provided in 2019, and increased by 16.6 percent to account for cost inflation in the intervening years.

Table 7 Fire Department Capital Facility Needs and Costs

Cos t Allocations and Fee C alculations
The total estimate of approximately $3.5 million for fire improvements is allocated to new development based on maintaining the same level of service for new development as is currently provided to existing residents. The portion of fire capital costs allocated to new development is based on the growth in the City’s service population relative to the total City service population at buildout, as described in Chapter 2.

The allocation of the $3.5 million in Fire Department improvements between residents and employees is based on the proportion of calls for service that the Fire Department responded to at residential versus non-residential locations in FY 2017-2018. Table 8 shows the total number of calls for service received, divided into residential and non-residential property uses, as coded by the Fire Department. The numbers exclude calls made to roads, airports, vacant lots or buildings, or locations not coded by the Fire Department. The distribution shows that Type of Improvement Formula Cost Per Unit Units Total Cost4 Percent growth in service population1 a 12.4%
EXISTING APPARATUS2
Vehicles
Fire Engines $874,350 6 $5,246,101
Fire Trucks $1,282,380 2 $2,564,760
Rescue Ambulances $349,740 3 $1,049,220
Hazardous Materials Trucks $582,900 1 $582,900
Battalion 1 Command Vehicle $116,580 1 $116,580
Station Alerting System $314,766 1 $314,766
Fire Prevention Bureau Staff Cars $46,632 9 $419,688
Total/Weighted Average b $447,566 23 $10,294,015
New Vehicles Attributable to New Growth c = b*a 2.9 $1,278,934 Avg. useful life / vehicle3 d 15
Number of Replacements in 15-Year Cycle e = 15/d 1.00
Total New Vehicle Cost Attributable to Growth f = c*e $1,278,934 Apparatus Floors (Sq. Ft.)
Station 11 $699 5,319
Station 12 $699 3,312
Station 13 $699 4,828
Station 14 $699 2,633
Station 15 $699 7,663
Station 16 $699 1,470
Total g 25,225
Additional New Floor Cost Attributable to Growth h = g*a $699 3,134 $2,192,149 TOTAL NEW COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH f + h $3,471,083
(1) This figure is derived in Table 5.
(3) Useful life includes ten years in front line and five years in reserve. (4) Cost estimates were originally developed in 2019 and escalated by 16.6 percent to account for cost inflation through end of 2021, per CA DGS.

Sources: City of Burbank Fire Department; CA DGS; EPS
(2) Costs and inventory provided by Burbank Fire Department staff. approximately 64 percent of calls were made to residential locations, while 36 percent were made to non-residential locations.

Table 8 Fire Department Calls for Service by Property Use Type (FY 17-18)

Table 9 allocates the $3.5 million between new residents and employees based on the relative share of calls for service. The fees are then calculated based on assumptions related to persons per household for residential and employees per square foot for non-residential land uses, as detailed in Table 6.

Category1 Count % of Total
Res idential 6,184 64%
Non
-Residential 3,444 36%
Institutional 820
Office 728
Retail 1,464
Studio/R&D Flex 61
Warehouse/Industrial 133
Lodging 238
TOTAL2 9,628
Source: City of Burbank Fire Department; EPS
(1) Categories were assigned by EPS, based on property codes provided by Burbank Fire Department. See Appendix A for full list of calls. (2) Total calls do not include calls made to roads, airports, vacant lots or buildings, or locations not coded by the Fire Department
Table 9 Maximum Fire Facilities Fee Calculations

Item Factor / Input
Future Residential/ Non-Residential Allocation Residential Non-Residential % Allocation1 100% 64% 36%
Fire Facilities Cost $3,471,083 $2,229,453 $1,241,630
Net Future Growth in Service Population2 13,056 9,283
Cost per Resident or Employee $171 $134
Land Use
Single Family (per unit) 2.80 persons/unit $478 per unit Multi-family (per unit) 2.20 persons/unit $376 per unit Retail / Svc. Commerical (per sq. ft.) 500 sq. ft./employee $0.27 per sq. ft.

Office (per sq. ft.) 303 sq. ft./employee $0.44 per sq. ft.

Production Studio / R&D Flex (per sq. ft.) 457 sq. ft./employee $0.29 per sq. ft.

Warehouse / Industrial (per sq. ft.) 500 sq. ft./employee $0.27 per sq. ft.

Lodging (per room) 0.4 employees/room $50 per room
(1) Based on calls for service, calculated in Table 8.
(2) Calculated in Table 5.

Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation
Building Density Maximum Fees

4. POLICE FACILITIES
This Chapter describes the technical methodology for calculating fees for Police Facilities. It is assumed that both residential and non-residential development will pay the Police fees.

Capital Needs and Costs
The costs associated with police activities fall into two categories: recurring facilities and one- time need facilities. The City’s Police Department provided estimated costs for specific upgrades and additions needed to help the police department serve new growth in the City. These include:
• A range training center
• Public safety security camera system
Since these new facilities will serve both the existing and new service population, the total cost for the facilities is allocated in a fair share proportion to both the existing and new service population, as calculated in Table 5.

The Police Department will also require the addition of new vehicles and other equipment (such as body-worn and in-car cameras) to maintain its current level of service to new population, as well as the replacement of these vehicles and equipment as typical wear and tear occur. The total cost of police vehicles is based on the replacement schedule of existing police vehicles as provided by the Police Department. These costs are allocated 100 percent to new development, as they are triggered directly by growth.

The cost estimates for the above items are summarized in Table 10 and sum to $2.9 million. As described in Chapter 2, the cost estimates for all items except the body-worn and in-car camera systems and security camera system were provided in 2019, and increased by 16.6 percent to account for cost inflation in the intervening years. The estimates for the camera systems were provided in 2022.

Table 10 Police Department Capital Needs and Cost Summary

Equipment/ Existing Life span Unit Cost2
% Attributable to
New Growth 3
Facility Type Number/Size (years )
a b= a*(1+12.4%)1 c = b-a d e = (15yrs /d)*c f g h = e*f*g Recurring Facilities
Unmarked Vehicles 38 43 5 5 14 $43,135 100% $610, 934
M
arked Vehicles 43 48 5 3 27 $46,631 100% $1,245,590
Motorcycles 20 22 2 6 6 $34,771 100% $215,999
Parking Control Vehicles 13 15 2 9 3 $36,594 100% $98,508 Body Worn Camera System 181 203 22 5 67 $6,300 100% $425,015 In-Car Camera System 29 33 4 5 11 $3,500 100% $37,831
One-Time Need Facilities
Range Training Center N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $291,450 12.4% $36,210 Security Camera System N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2,000,000 12.4% $248,481 Total $2,918,568
(1) Based on projected growth in service population of 12.4% as derived in Table 5.

Source: City of Burbank Police Department; CA DGS; EPS
(3) 'Recurring Facilities' are calculated to only account for facilities attributable directly to new growth; thus, these are assigned a 100% figure in this column. 'One-Time Need Facilities' are calculated as a total cost that is needed to serve the entire community, including the population not attributable to new growth; thus, the 12.4% figure is used to derive the total cost attributable solely to new growth. (2) Cost estimates for all items except body-worn and in-car cameras and security camera system were originally developed in 2019 and escalated by 16.6 percent to account for cost inflation through end of 2021, per CA DGS.

Total Needed by
2035
# of New
Units
Needed
# of New Units
Needed by 2035
Total Cost
Attributable to
New Gr
owth
Cost Allocations and Fee Calculations
Table 11 allocates the $2.9 million in future police facility costs based on the relative share of service population growth attributable to new residents and employees respectively, based on the calculations shown in Table 5. The fee is then calculated based on assumptions related to persons per household for residential and employees per square foot for non-residential land uses, as detailed in Table 6.

Table 11 Maximum Police Facilities Fee Calculation

Item Factor / Input
Future Residential/ Non-Residential Allocation Residential Non-Residential % Allocation 100% 58% 42%
Police Facilities Cost $2,918,568 $1,705,780 $1,212,788 Net Future Growth in Service Population1 13,056 9,283
Cost per Resident or Employee $131 $131
Land Use
Single Family (per unit) 2.80 persons/unit $366 per unit Multi-family (per unit) 2.20 persons/unit $287 per unit Retail / Svc. Commerical (per sq. ft.) 500 sq. ft./employee $0.26 per sq. ft.

Office (per sq. ft.) 303 sq. ft./employee $0.43 per sq. ft.

Production Studio / R&D Flex (per sq. ft.) 457 sq. ft./employee $0.29 per sq. ft.

Warehouse / Industrial (per sq. ft.) 500 sq. ft./employee $0.26 per sq. ft.

Lodging (per room) 0.4 employees/room $49 per room
(1) Calculated in Table 5.

Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation
Building Density Maximum Fees

5. PARKS FACILITIES
This Chapter describes the technical methodology for the Parks and Recreation Facilities fees, which includes parks and recreation facilities. It is assumed that both residential and non- residential development will pay parks facilities fees.

Capital Nee ds and Costs
The amount of new park land and facilities needed to serve future development is based on the City’s existing service level. Table 12 shows the inventory of existing parks and recreation facilities based on information provided by Parks and Recreation Department staff. It also calculates the department’s existing level of service, presented as acres per 1,000 people in the service population. This service level is used to calculate the maximum number of new park acres needed to maintain the service level for the projected new service population.

While the total acreage of developed parks in the City is 845.24 acres, Parks Department staff indicated that no expansion of regional parks is anticipated, and that improvements to the City’s golf facilities are to be funded by revenue sources other than the DIF program. Therefore, the service level excludes those parks categories and is based on a total of 128.28 acres of parkland, yielding a service level of 1.14 acres per 1,000 people. This level is applied to the projected growth in service population, demonstrating that an additional 25.48 acres of parkland would be required to maintain the City’s existing parks service level at buildout.

Table 12 Burbank Existing Park Inventory and Level of Service

While the parks fee can be based on the cost to acquire and improve an additional 25.48 acres of parkland, the Parks Department provided a detailed list of capital improvements and associated Facility / Park
Amount Unit type
Regio
nal Parks
Stough Park 103.57 Acres
Wildwood Canyon Park 500.00 Acres
Subtotal 603.57 3.82 acres/1,000 daytime pop
Community Parks
Brace Canyon Park 20.05 Acres
Izay Park/Olive Rec. Center 15.36 Acres
Johnny Carson Park 17.62 Acres
McCambridge Park 17.80 Acres
Subtotal 70.83 0.45 acres/1,000 daytime pop
Neighborhood Parks
Lincoln Park 2.50 Acres
Bel Aire Ballfield 1.75 Acres
Miller Park 1.60 Acres
Mt. View Park 2.48 Acres
Pacific Park (Larry Maxam) 5.29 Acres
Ralph Foy Park 10.00 Acres
Palm Ballfield 1.50 Acres
Valley Park 4.44 Acres
Verdugo Park 8.00 Acres
Robert E. Gross Park 4.85 Acres
Robert E. Lundigan Park 1.32 Acres
Robert R. Ovrom Park 1.40 Acres
Vickroy Park 1.40 Acres
Whitnall Highway Park North 4.50 Acres
Whitnall Highway Park South 4.40 Acres
Subtotal 55.43 Acres 0.49 acres/1,000 daytime pop
Pocket Parks
Compass Tree Park 0.25 Acres
EarthWalk Park 0.53 Acres
Maple Street Playground 0.40 Acres
Santa Anita Playlot 0.34 Acres
Five Points Plaza 0.50 Acres
Subtotal 2.02 0.02 acres/1,000 daytime pop
Other Facilities
DeBell Golf Course 113.39 Acres 0.72 acres/1,000 daytime pop Total Developed Parks 845.24 Acres 7.52 acres/1,000 daytime pop Total Developed Parks Covered by Fee (2)
(Excludes Regional Parks and Golf Facilities) 128.28 Acres 1.14 acres/1,000 daytime pop New S
ervice Population 22,339 People
New Parkland Supported by Growth 25.48 Acres
(1) Based on population and employment estimates shown in Table 5. (2) Parks Department does not anticipate expansion of regional parks, and City golf facilities are being funded through other means.

Source: City of Burbank Parks Department; EPS
Existing Inventory Existing
Level of Service (1)
costs that the Department anticipates undertaking to serve new population. Table 13 details these new facilities and their costs. Since the total acreage for these projects, at 23.45 acres, is below the maximum new acreage needed to maintain the level of service for new development, the costs of these projects—approximately $9.2 million—can be allocated 100 percent to new development. These costs include only improvements, not land acquisition, as it is anticipated that the new parks will be developed on land already owned by the City.

The parks development impact fee category also includes consideration of renovation needs for existing parks and recreation facilities. Table 13 provides the total estimated capital costs for these anticipated facility improvements, based on cost information provided by the Parks Department. Unlike new parks development, the renovation projects are needed to serve both City’s existing and future service population. Consequently, the costs for these improvements allocated to new development are based on the growth in service population as a percentage of the total service population at buildout, as calculated in Table 5. Total improvement costs attributable to growth sum to about $12 million. As described in Chapter 2, all cost estimates were provided in 2019, and increased by 16.6 percent to account for cost inflation in the intervening years.

Table 13 Parks Facility Capital Needs and Cost Estimates

Park Type Formula # of Acr es Cost Per Acre Total Cost3

NEW FACILITIES
New Facilities Needs Identified By City Staff 1
Dog Park 1.5 $544,040 $816,060
Com
munity Garden 0.3 $582,900 $174,870
Soccer Fields 2.25 $1,067,509 $2,401,894
New Park and Parking Lot over BWP Reservoir #1 19.00 $282,246 $5,362,681 Pocket Park 0.40 $1,067,509 $427,003
Total/Weighted Average a 23.45 $392,000 $9,182,508

EXISTING FACILITIES
Renovation Needs1
Hillside Trail Network and Mountain Bike Course Expansion $5,246,101 Arti
ficial Turf at Brace and Palm Ballfield $2,331,600
Starlight Bowl Renovation $20,984,402
Recreation Centers (MCC, ORC, VRC) Renovation $52,461,005 Joslyn Adult Center Modernization $1,165,800
Stough Canyon Nature Center Renovation $291,450
McCambridge Pool Replacement $13,989,601
Subtotal b $96,469,960
Percent Supportable by Growth2 c 12.4%
Renovation Costs Supportable by Growth d = b*c $11,985,484 TO
TAL COST SUPPORTABLE BY GROWTH e = d+a $21,167,992
(1) Needs and costs identified by Parks Department staff (2) Calculated in Table 5.
(3) Cost estimates were originally developed in 2019 and escalated by 16.6 percent to account for cost inflation through end of 2021, per CA Sources: City of Burbank Parks Department; CA DGS; EPS
Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation
Table 14 allocates the $21.1 million in future park facility costs attributable to growth between residential and non-residential development, based on the relative share of service population growth attributable to new residents and employees respectively, as shown in Table 5. The fee is then calculated based on assumptions related to persons per household for residential and employees per square foot for non-residential land uses, as detailed in Table 6.

Table 14 Maximum Parks Facilities Fee Calculation

Item Factor / Input
Futu
re Residential/ Non-Residential Allocation Res idential Non-Residential % Allocation 100% 58% 42%
Parks Facilities Cost $21,167,992 $12,371,802 $8,796,190 Net Future Growth in Service Population1 13,056 9,283
Cost per Resident or Employee $948 $948
Land
Use
Single Family (per unit) 2.80 persons/unit $2,653 per unit Multi-family (per unit) 2.20 persons/unit $2,085 per unit Retail / Svc. Commerical (per sq. ft.) 500 sq. ft./employee $1.90 per sq. ft.

Office (per sq. ft.) 303 sq. ft./employee $3.13 per sq. ft.

Production Studio / R&D Flex (per sq. ft.) 457 sq. ft./employee $2.08 per sq. ft.

Warehouse / Industrial (per sq. ft.) 500 sq. ft./employee $1.90 per sq. ft.

Lodging (per room) 0.4 employees/room $356 per room
(1) Calculated in Table 5.

Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation
Building Density Maximum Fees

6. LIBRARY FACILITIES
This Chapter describes the technical methodology for calculating fees for Library Facilities. It is assumed that both residential and non-residential development will pay the Library fees.

Capital Needs and Costs
The costs associated with library activities fall into two categories: existing facilities and new planned facilities. For existing facilities, the fee is calculated to account for the cost of growth in the City’s library system resources needed to accommodate new resident and employee growth.

Table 15 illustrates the library system’s existing service level, divided by resident and employee uses and broken out by facility type (i.e. books, AV materials, and public computers). A ”use,” which is the standard unit used by libraries to determine service level, is defined as a unique visit to a library. Therefore, there are more “uses” than actual residents or employees, accounting for multiple visits annually to the library by single individuals. Library Department staff indicated that approximately 70 percent of its uses are by City residents and 30 percent are by workers in the City.

Table 15 Library Service Standard

While the City’s current level of service for library facilities is 10.49 uses per square feet, Library Department staff indicated that this level of service is well below the average for other library systems in its market area, which include Glendale, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Thousand Oaks, and Torrance. The average service standard for this market area is 6.81 uses per square foot.

Category Formula Total
Amount
Existing Service Level
Total Existing Sq. Ft. a 77,500
Existing Uses Per Sq. Ft. b 10.49
Total Uses c = a*b 812,975
Resident Uses1 d = c * 0.7 569,083
Total Existing Residents e 112,445
Uses per Resident f = d/e 5.06
Employee Uses1 g = c * 0.3 243,893
Total Existing Employees h 174,688
Uses Per Employee i = g/h 1.40
Total Books j 348,656
Books Per Use k = j/c 0.43
Total AV Materials2 l 25,866
AV Materials Per 1,000 Uses m = l/(c/1000) 31.82
Total Public Computers n 89
Computers Per 1,000 Uses o = n/(c/1000) 0.11
New Service Standard
New Uses Per Sq. Ft. Service Standard3 u 6.81
New Residents p 13,097
New Resident Uses q = p * f 66,282
New Employees r 17,800
New Employee Uses s = r * i 24,852
Total New Uses t = q+s 91,133
Sources: City of Burbank Library Department; EPS
[2] Includes DVDs, audiobooks, and CDs
[3] Average for market library systems, including Glendale, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Thousand Oaks, and Torrance
[1] Library staff indicated that approximately 70% of uses are by residents and 30% are by employees
Given this shortfall, it was determined that library facility needs to accommodate future growth would be based on the market area service standard, rather than the existing level of service.

The bottom of Table 15 calculates the number of new library uses at buildout based on the market area service standard, divided by residents and employees. Table 16 details the costs associated with needed library facility growth to accommodate the updated service standard for new residents and employees.

The Library Department also provided estimated costs for new planned facilities, which include:
• A radio-frequency identification (RFID) system
• A makerspace
The new facilities projects are needed to serve both City’s existing and future service population.

Consequently, the costs allocated to new facilities are based on the growth in service population as a percentage of the total service population at buildout, as calculated in Table 5.

The cost estimates for the above items are summarized in Table 16 and sum to approximately $12 million. As described in Chapter 2, all cost estimates were provided in 2019, and increased by 16.6 percent to account for cost inflation in the intervening years.

Table 16 Library Capital Needs and Cost Estimates Based on Service Standard

Cost Allocations and Fee Calculations
Table 17 allocates the $12 million in future library facility costs between new residents and employees based on the distribution of library uses provided by the Library Department—70 percent to residential development and 30 percent to non-residential development. The fee is then calculated based on assumptions related to persons per household for residential and employees per square foot for non-residential land uses, as detailed in Table 6.

Category Formula Total Per Unit Total
Amount Cost Cost5

EXISTING FACILITIES
Total New Uses a 91,133
New Uses Per Sq. Ft. Service Standard1 b 6.81
New Sq. Ft. Attributed to Growth c = a/b 13,382 $807 10,795,949 New Books Attributed to Growth2 39,084 $23 $911,280 New AV Materials Attributed to Growth2 2,900 $35 $101,409 New Computers Attributed to Growth2 10 $874 $8,723 Service Standard Costs Attributable to Growth d $11,817,361

NEW FACILITIES
New Planned Facilities/Systems3
RFID System $582,900
Makerspace $699,480
Total Cost e $1,282,380
Percent Supportable by Growth4
f 12.4%
New Facilities Cost Attributable to Growth g = e*f $159,324 TOTAL COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH h = g+d $11,976,684
[3] Capital improvements planned by Library Department
[4] Calculated in Table 5
[5] Cost estimates were originally developed in 2019 and escalated by 16.6 percent to account for cost inflation through end of 2021, per CA DGS.

Sources: City of Burbank Library Department; CA DGS; EPS [1] Average for market library systems, including Glendale, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Thousand Oaks, and Torrance [2] Based on new service standard as calculated in Table 15 Table 17 Maximum Library Facilities Fee Calculation

Item Factor / Input
Future Residential/ Non-Residential Allocation Residential Non-Residential % Allocation1 100% 70% 30%
Library Facilities Cost $11,976,684 $8,383,679 $3,593,005 Net Future Growth in Service Population2 13,056 9,283
Cost per Resident or Employee $642 $387
Land Use
Single Family (per unit) 2.80 persons/unit $1,798 per unit Multi-family (per unit) 2.20 persons/unit $1,413 per unit Retail / Svc. Commerical (per sq. ft.) 500 sq. ft./employee $0.77 per sq. ft.

Office (per sq. ft.) 303 sq. ft./employee $1.28 per sq. ft.

Production Studio / R&D Flex (per sq. ft.) 457 sq. ft./employee $0.85 per sq. ft.

Warehouse / Industrial (per sq. ft.) 500 sq. ft./employee $0.77 per sq. ft.

Lodging (per room) 0.4 employees/room $146 per room
(1) Service allocation is based on input from Library staff regarding library usage by residents and non-residents (2) Calculated in Table 5
Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation
Building Density Maximum Fees

7. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
The Information Technology portion of the DIF covers facility needs associated with the City’s technology systems and infrastructure. Since these facilities will serve the needs of both residents and businesses, it is assumed that both residential and non-residential development will pay the Information Technology fee.

Capital Needs and Costs
City staff provided information on the Information Technology capital facility needs and costs required to serve both existing and future residents. Specifically, cost estimates were developed for new Smart City Edge technology infrastructure and for control and management systems.

Table 18 below shows the capital costs associated with each element of these systems. Since the new facilities are needed to serve both City’s existing and future service population, the costs of the facilities allocated to new growth are based on the growth in service population as a percentage of the total service population at buildout, as calculated in Table 5. The total cost allocated to new growth is approximately $3.4 million. As described in Chapter 2, all cost estimates were provided in 2019, and increased by 16.6 percent to account for cost inflation in the intervening years.

Table 18 Information Technology Capital Cost Summary

Cost Allocations and Technical Analysis
Table 19 allocates the $3.4 million in Information Technology facilities between residential and non-residential land uses based on the relative share of service population growth attributable to new residents and employees respectively, as calculated in Table 5. The fees are then calculated based on assumptions related to persons per household for residential and employees per square foot for non-residential land uses, as detailed in Table 6.

Category Formula Amount3
NEW FACILITIES1
Smart City Edge Technology Infrastructure
Video Cameras $886,008
Environmental Sensor $2,215,020
Sound Sensor $2,215,020
WiFi Access Point $3,544,032
Fiber Connectivity $6,645,061
Traffic & Parking Sensor $8,860,081
Casing $2,215,020
Control and Management Systems
Video System $349,740
Traffic & Parking Management System $582,900
Sensor Management System $233,160
Total Costs a $27,746,043
Percent Supportable by Growth2 b 12.4%
Costs Supportable by Growth c = a * b $3,447,184
Sources: City of Burbank; CA DGS; EPS
(1) Needs and costs for new facilities provided by IT Department staff. (2) Calculated in Table 5
(3) Cost estimates were originally developed in 2019 and escalated by 16.6 percent to account for cost inflation through end of 2021, per CA DGS.

Table 19 Maximum Information Technology Fee Calculations Item Factor / Input
Future Residential/ Non-Residential Allocation Residential Non-Residential % Allocation 100% 58% 42%
IT Facilities Cost $3,447,184 $2,014,734 $1,432,450
Net Future Growth in Service Population1 13,056 9,283
Cost per Resident or Employee $154 $154
Land Use
Single Family (per unit) 2.80 persons/unit $432 per unit Multi-family (per unit) 2.20 persons/unit $339 per unit Retail / Svc. Commerical (per sq. ft.) 500 sq. ft./employee $0.31 per sq. ft.

Office (per sq. ft.) 303 sq. ft./employee $0.51 per sq. ft.

Production Studio / R&D Flex (per sq. ft.) 457 sq. ft./employee $0.34 per sq. ft.

Warehouse / Industrial (per sq. ft.) 500 sq. ft./employee $0.31 per sq. ft.

Lodging (per room) 0.4 employees/room $58 per room
(1) Calculated in Table 5
Cost Allocation and Fee Calculation
Building Density Maximum Fees

8. TRANSPORTATION
The Transportation portion of the DIF covers improvement needs associated with the City’s transportation infrastructure. Since these facilities will serve the needs of both residents and businesses, it is assumed that both residential and non-residential development will pay the Transportation fee. The following chapter provides a summary of the improvement needs, cost allocations, and fee levels for the Transportation Fee. A detailed technical memorandum on the methodology used to calculate the Transportation Fee is included in Appendix A.

Improvement Needs and Costs
Fehr & Peers worked with City staff to identify the transportation improvement needs and costs required to serve both existing and future residents. The needs were divided into four categories:
roadway improvements, transit improvements, bikeway improvements, and pedestrian improvements. Table 20 below shows the costs associated with each category of transportation improvement. As described in Chapter 2, all cost estimates were provided in 2019, and increased by 16.6 percent to account for cost inflation in the intervening years.

Table 20 Transportation Improvement Program Cost Summary

Cost Allocations and Technical Analysis
The allocation of transportation improvement costs to new growth is based on vehicle trips generated. Table 21 shows the projected change in vehicle trips generated by new growth in the City.

Table 21 Change in Vehicle Trips, 2020-2035
City of Burbank Vehicle-Trips
PM Peak Hour
2020 62,375
2035 70,861
New Trips 8,486
% New Trips 11.98%

Transportation Improvement Program Total Cost
Roadway Improvements $89,485,894
Transit Improvements $87,129,350
Bikeway Improvements $66,380,380
Pedestrian Improvements $60,480,420
Total $303,476,044
Fehr & Peers conducted a PM Peak Hour select link analysis for each roadway and intersection improvement project to determine the number of new trips generated by growth in the City. A select link analysis tracks the origin and destination of trips on a specified roadway segment so that trips generated by City (trips that begin and/or end in the City) can be separated from other regional trips (External Trips). Select link results report the number of Internal (II), Internal to External (IX), External to Internal (XI), and External to External (XX).

The cost allocation for roadway and intersection projects is calculated by removing all External (XX) trips, since City development can’t pay for regional travel growth (e.g., if XX trips account for 10% of 2035 trips, then max fee is 90%). The cost allocation for all other types of projects is calculated by applying the percent growth (11.98%) to project cost.

Table 22 shows the fair-share to be contributed by new development and the transportation fee per PM peak hour trip.

Table 22 Allocation of Transportation Project Costs to New Development Project Type Total Cost New Development Fair
Share % of Total Cost
Roadway Improvements $89,485,894 $57,931,542 65%
Transit Improvements $87,129,350 $13,216,767 15%
Bikeway Improvements $66,380,380 $10,069,329 15%
Pedestrian Improvements $60,480,420 $9,174,356 15%
Total $303,476,044 $90,391,994 30%
PM Peak Hour New Growth Trips 8,486
Average Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip $10,652

Table 23 details the allocation of fees among land uses of the $90.4 million in transportation improvement costs attributable to new growth. Appendix A provides further detail on the methodology used to make this allocation.

Table 23 Maximum Transportation Fees By Land Use
Fee per PM Peak Hour Trip $7,212
Land Use Category Unit1 ITE Code2 PM % New City TIA Fee Trip Rate2 Trips3 per Unit
Single Family Residential DU 210 0.94 100% $10,013
Multi-Family Residential DU 221 0.39 100% $4,154
Lodging Room 310 0.59 100% $6,285
Retail/Service Commercial sq.ft. 820 3.4 70% $25.35
Office/Institutional sq.ft. 710 1.44 100% $15.34
Warehouse/Industrial sq.ft. 130 0.34 100% $3.62
Production Studio/R&D Flex OE-GSF --4 0.86 100% $9.16
Notes:
1) Units = Dwelling Units (DU), Hotel Rooms (Rooms), Square Feet (sq.ft.), and Office Equivalent-Gross Square Feet (OE-GSF).
2) ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition. PM peak hour trip rate per DU, Room, or KSF (1,000 sq. ft.). 3) Pass-by Trips are accounted for retail uses.
4) Trip Rate based on media office factor of 1.33 per the Media District Specific Plan.

Special Generators: If City determines that a proposed use cannot be classified under the land use categories listed in the TIA Fee table, then City will have the discretion to determine the appropriate data for input to the TIA Fee calculation.

This will likely require a study to determine the trip rate for the proposed use.

APPENDIX A:

Fehr & Peers Technical Memorandum - Burbank
Development Impact Fees for Transportation

MEMORANDUM

Date: April 15, 2022

To: Beverly Ibarra and David Kriske, City of Burbank
Julie Cooper and Jason Moody, EPS

From: Sarah Brandenberg and John Muggridge, Fehr & Peers Subject: Burbank Development Impact Fees for Transportation - Nexus Study Ref: LA14-2721.01
This memorandum provides the nexus analysis conducted for the transportation component of Burbank’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program. The transportation fees will fund needed improvements to the City’ s transportation infrastructure to accommodate future traffic volumes projected as a result of new development. The fees will fund infrastructure that supports vehicle, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel modes in the City. The transportation project list that reflects the City’s planned improvements and the nexus methodology and analysis completed for the DIF program update are provided below.

OVERVIEW
For transportation improvements needed to accommodate future growth, the purpose of a DIF program is to collect funding from new development to build the infrastructure needed. Funds collected are often used to augment other funding sources that can be secured by the City, such as the County’s sales tax for transportation improvements (Measures R and M) or State and local grant opportunities. The State of California Mitigation Act (AB 1600) (Government Code, sections, 66000, et seq.) establishes a requirement for “nexus” in the establishment of a development fee for transportation. The nexus requirements are as follows:
 A development fee is directly related to the impacts of the development.  The nature of the fee is roughly proportional to the impacts of the project.

The development of the transportation component of the DIF program consists of producing a list of transportation improvements to be funded, in part, by the impact fees collected from new development and then calculating the fair share portion of the funding that is the responsibility of new development. The City ’s transportation project list and the analysis completed to determine new developments fair-share is described in the following sections.

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
The transportation projects to be funded (in part) through the City’s DIF program consist of improvements that have been identified in previous City planning efforts needed to accommodate planned growth. The transportation improvement projects included in Infrastructure Blueprint for the 21st Century (March 9, 1993) were reviewed to determine if they were still applicable for the City’s DIF program. To determine applicability, these projects were compared to the transportation goals, policies, and infrastructure needs identified in the Burbank2035 General Plan. Transportation projects that were still required to accommodate future growth and consistent with Burbank2035 were included in the transportation improvement project list and infrastructure projects identified Burbank2035 were also added to the list. In addition, projects identified in other planning studies, such as the City’s Bicycle Master Plan, Safe Routes to School Plan or Citywide Complete Streets Plan, were included in the transportation project list. The following types of projects are contained in the transportation project list:

1. Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects : These improvements include roadway widenings, grade separations, and bridge enhancements that will increase vehicular capacity and improve safety at specific locations in the City.

2. Intersection Capacity Improvement Projects: These improvements include widening or restriping to provide additional turn lanes or through lanes and traffic signal upgrades at specific intersections in the City that will increase vehicular capacity and better accommodate all modes of travel through intersections.

3. Transportation System Management Projects : These improvements include data collection, monitoring, systemwide signal upgrades, and parking management that can be applied Citywide to effectively manage the transportation network through design and technology solutions.

4. Transit Improvement Projects: These improvements include additional service and facility upgrades for Metrolink, BurbankBus and Metro buses within the City, bus rapid transit improvements to provide additional regional travel opportunities by transit for those living and working in Burbank, and quiet zone treatments to mitigate the noise impacts of rail transit.

5. Path and Protected Bikeway Improvement Projects and On- Street Bicycle Improvement P rojects: These improvements include new path and separated bicycle facilities in the City and the improvements identified in the Bicycle Master Plan to improve accessibility for bicycle travel Citywide and fulfill the City’s goals of providing a complete streets network.

6. Pedestrian Improvement Projects: These improvements include sidewalk and pedestrian safety projects with many improvements focused on areas in the City where pedestrian travel is most concentrated, such as downtown and adjacent to schools.

Table 1 presents the transportation project list for the DIF program. As shown, the projects are organized by the type of improvement and mode of travel as described in the six categories above.

Table 1: Transportation Project List
Type Project Location Description
Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects
Hollywood Way: Avon to Thornton Widen to 6 lanes with Class IV protected bike lanes Olive Way: Six lanes – Barham to Lincoln Restripe and peak period parking removal Empire Ave / Vanowen St Construct railroad grade separation Buena Vista St / Vanowen St Construct railroad grade separation Victory Pl Rail Undercrossing Widen rail bridge for a second northbound lane and Class I Bikeway
Interstate 5 / Buena Vista Interchange
and Winona Rail Tunnel
Improve I-5 Ramps, Construct Winona Rail undercrossing
to connect Winona across rail tracks
Widen Olive Bridge
Widen bridge to provide turn lanes at First Street,
standard width lanes, shoulders/bike lanes, ped
improvements, seismic upgrades
Widen Magnolia Bridge
Widen bridge to provide turn lanes at First Street,
standard width lanes, shoulders/bike lanes, ped
improvements, seismic upgrades
North San Fernando Master Plan
Improvements
Construct improvements identified in the North San
Fernando Master Plan
Intersection Capacity Improvement Projects
Media District – Olive Ave, Alameda
Ave, and Riverside Dr
Signal enhancements: adaptive timing, signal
synchronization, advanced detection
Victory Blvd Corridor Signal enhancements: adaptive timing, signal synchronization, advanced detection
Olive Ave / Verdugo Ave Realign Verdugo, Modify Olive, Modify Traffic Signal, Pedestrian Crossing Treatments
Buena Vista St / NB I-5 Ramps Widen intersection approaches, upgrade signal Hollywood Way / Verdugo Ave Widen intersection approaches, upgrade signal Victory Blvd / Olive Ave Widen intersection approaches, upgrade signal Buena Vista St / Olive Ave Widen intersection approaches, upgrade signal Hollywood Way / Thornton Ave Widen intersection approaches, upgrade signal Pass Ave / Olive Ave Widen intersection approaches, upgrade signal Hollywood Way / Alameda Ave Widen intersection approaches, upgrade signal Buena Vista St / San Fernando Blvd Widen intersection approaches, upgrade signal Lake St / Alameda Ave Restripe intersection approaches, upgrade signal Hollywood Way / Riverside Dr Restripe intersection approaches, upgrade signal Hollywood Way / Olive Ave Restripe intersection approaches to covert parking to peak period travel lane

Table 1: Transportation Project List (continued)
Type Project Location Description
Transportation System
Management Projects Monitoring Program
Data collection and monitoring needed to maintain
transportation system performance and update City
Traffic Model
Neighborhood Protection Citywide Neighborhood Protection Program (NPP) Citywide Parking Management
Manage all public parking throughout the City, including commercial street parking, City parking lots, structures, and the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station
CSCS Full Adaptive Control Infrastructure hardware and communication upgrades CSCS Synchronization Signal phasing, detection, and hardware upgrades Transit Improvement Projects
BurbankBus Transit Capital and
Electrification
Ongoing 17 vehicle fleet replacement
2019-2035, 12-year lifespan, electrification after 2023 BurbankBus Transit Expanded
Operations Service expansion on existing routes and new service BurbankBus Maintenance, Storage,
and Operations Facility New bus maintenance facility
Media District Transit Center Bus transit facility with layover facilities BRT Extension to Burbank Airport Extend Orange Line to Airport as street-running BRT Downtown Metrolink Pedestrian Rail
Crossing Improvements
Construct Safety Gates and Rail Signal Modifications at the Downtown Metrolink Station Ped Crossings
Citywide Railroad Quiet Zones Construct Quiet Zone Improvements at Airport Quiet Zone/Grade Separation -
Vanowen/Clybourn
Clybourn rail grade crossing to improve safety and
access to Airport; initially a quiet zone improvement and ultimately a grade separation
Pasadena to North Hollywood BRT Local contribution towards Metro North Hollywood to Pasadena Corridor BRT Project
Path and Protected Bikeway
Improvement Projects
Chandler Bikeway Extension Class I: Mariposa St to Downtown Metrolink Station San Fernando Bikeway Class I: City limit to Downtown Metrolink Station Los Angeles River Bridge Class I: Bob Hope Dr to Forest Lawn Dr Palm Avenue Bridge Class I: Downtown Metrolink Station to Palm Ave/First St Pacific Park - Vanowen Path Class I: Vanowen St to Pacific Ave First Street Class IV Class IV: San Fernando Boulevard to Verdugo Avenue Third Street Class IV Class IV: Amherst Drive to Verdugo Avenue Glenoaks-Verdugo-Front Class IV Class IV: Glenoaks, Alameda, Verdugo, Front, Burbank Magnolia Boulevard Class II/IV Class II/IV: First Street to Glenoaks Blvd Angeleno Avenue Class IV Class IV: Glenoaks Blvd to First Street

Table 1: Transportation Project List (continued)
Type Project Location Description
On-Street Bicycle Improvement Projects
Top Priority Bike Master Plan Projects
On-Street Class II and Class III
Facilities
(see description for specific locations)
Clark Avenue Bicycle Boulevard,
Class III: Clybourn Ave to Victory Ave
Citywide Bicycle Boulevard Network
Verdugo Ave, Class III: Victory to Flower St
Empire Ave, San Fernando Blvd, Class II/III: Clybourn
Ave to Burbank Blvd
Olive Ave, Pass Ave, California St, Front St, Class III Amherst Dr, Third St, Third St, Glenoaks Blvd, Class II/III Riverside Dr, Class II/III: Clybourn Ave to California St, California St to Bob Hope Dr
Orange Grove Ave, Class II: Third St to Sunset Canyon
Other Priority Bike Master Plan
Projects;
On-Street Class II and Class III
Facilities
(see description for specific locations)
Vanowen St, Class II: Clybourn Ave to Buena Vista St
Ontario St, Class II: San Fernando Blvd to Empire Ave
Fairview St and Ontario St, Class III: Vanowen St to
Chandler Path
Mariposa St, Palm Ave, Lake St, Class III
Stough Canyon Ave, Walnut Ave, Walnut Ave, Class II/III Tulare Ave, 6th St, Class II/III
Lincoln St, Class II: San Fernando Blvd to Empire Ave
Cohasset St, Cohasset St, Avon St, Class II/III
Sunset Canyon, Class III: Walnut Ave to City limit
Harvard Rd, Class II: Wildwood Canyon to Sunset
Canyon
Alameda Ave, Class II: Glenoaks Blvd to Lincoln Street, SR-134 to Riverside
Coast Mainline Path, Pacific Ave, Class I/III
Eton Dr, Class II/III: Glenoaks Blvd to Kenneth Rd
Glenoaks Blvd, Class III: L.A. City limit to Providencia Ave Clybourn Ave, Class II: Victory Blvd to Chandler Path
Jeffries Ave, Class III: Clybourn Ave to Lincoln St
Olive Ave, Class III: L.A. City limit to Sunset Canyon Dr

Table 1: Transportation Project List (continued)
Type Project Location Description
Pedestrian Improvement Projects Sidewalk Improvements to General Plan Standards
Construct sidewalks to standard widths as identified
in Burbank2035
Pedestrian Safety Improvements
Construct curb extensions, crosswalks, traffic signal
modifications at 100 arterial and collector
intersections
Citywide Safe Routes to School Construct Safety Improvements per Safe Routes to School Program
Pedestrian Safety Assessment
Projects
Construct improvements identified in the Pedestrian
Safety Assessment
Downtown Sidewalk and Pedestrian
Safety Projects
Replace deteriorating brick/concrete sidewalk and
improve ped safety at intersections in Downtown
Subregional Equity Projects Subregional Equity Projects selected for implementation in City

NEXUS ANALYSIS
The purpose of a nexus study is to establish the relationship, referred to as the “nexus,” between new development expected to occur and the need for new and expanded major public facilities. After establishing the nexus, the transportation fees to be levied for various land use types are calculated based on the proportionate share of the total facility use. The nexus analysis is comprised of the following steps:
 Growth anticipated under Burbank2035 was input into the City’s travel demand forecasting model, and then the model was used to track vehicle-trip growth on each of the roadway infrastructure improvements contained in the project list and determine the number of new PM peak hour vehicle trips generated by overall growth in the City.  New development’s fair-share contribution to each of the improvements contained in the transportation project list w as calculated based on the model output and local cost contribution for each of the planned improvements.
 The number of trips generated by various land use types were used to calculate the transportation fees as part of the DIF program update.

Each of these steps is explained in further detail below.

Growth Forecasts
The Burbank travel demand model was used to generate traffic growth forecasts for use in the nexus analysis. The City’s model was previously used to determine the traffic impacts resulting from the future land uses envisioned under Burank2035. As part of that analysis, a detailed level of service (LOS) analysis was performed on key citywide intersections and roadways using the traffic volume forecasts, and the results were then used to identify the infrastructure improvements needed to accommodate the planned growth as reflected in the transportation project list.

For the nexus analysis, the model was updated to reflect a more current baseline ( Year 2016) and the final land use plan adopted in Burbank2035. The model was compiled with these updated land uses to determine overall travel demand growth anticipated by Year 2035. For the purposes of this study, the data was interpolated to obtain year 2020 trips. Table 2 summarizes the growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips for land uses in the City.

Table 2:

City of Burbank Vehicle-Trips
Year PM Peak Hour Trips
2020 62,375
2035 70,861
New Trips 8,486
% New Trips 11.98%
Fair-Share Contribution
To determine the fair- share contribution for new development in the City, the Burbank travel demand model was used to c onduct a select link analysis for each roadway and intersection improvement contained in the transportation project list. A select link analysis tracks the origin and destination of trips on a specified roadway segment so that trips generated by City of Burbank land uses (trips that begin and/or end in the City) can be separated from other regional trips ( external trips that travel through the City but do not begin or end in the City ). Since the DIF program only pertains to land use growth in the City, the fee program cannot include regional traffic growth generated by external trips. Therefore, the City’s model was used to track the number of Internal (II) trips, Internal to External (IX) trips, External to Internal (XI) trips, and External to External (XX) trips, and all external trips were removed from new developments fair-share contribution.

In addition to removing regional travel growth from the fair -share analysis, the City refined the transportation project list cost estimates for the DIF program to only reflect the portion of funding expected from local sources, including Federal, State and grant funding provided to the City for infrastructure needs. For the larger infrastructure projects that are considered regional in nature, such as the railroad grade separations, freeway interchange improvements, bridge widenings, and regional bus rapid transit projects, a minor local funding contribution (3% or less) was included in the DIF program. Table 3 shows the costs for the improvements in the transportation project list (see Attachment A for detailed cost estimates) . The total cost of the trans portation project list is approximately $303 million.

Table 3:

Transportation Project List Cost Estimates
Project Type Cost
Roadway Improvement Projects $89,485,894
- Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects $23,053,044
- Intersection Capacity Improvement Projects $26,351,600 - Transportation System Management Projects $40,081,250 Transit Improvement Projects $87,129,350
Bikeway Improvement Projects
(Pathway, Protected Lanes, and On-Street) $66,380,380
Pedestrian Improvement Projects $60,480,420
Total $303,476,044
Figure 1 shows the cost distribution by primary mode of travel. Roadway and transit improvement costs each comprise just under 30% of the fee program and bikeway and pedestrian improvement costs are each approximately 20% of the fee program.

The new development funding contribution was calculated for each project by multiplying the fair- share growth and the DIF program project cost to obtain the portion of the project cost attributable 29%
29%
22%
20%
Figure 1: Transportation Funding Distribution by Mode
Roadway Improvements
Transit Improvements
Bikeway Improvements
Pedestrian Improvements
to new growth. For the roadway and intersection capacity improvements, the City’s model was used to calculate the fair -share growth contribution for each project individually. For the other project types, the overall PM peak hour traffic growth resulting from new development in the City (11.98%, see Table 2) was used to calculate the fair -share funding contribution. Table 4 shows the portion of the DIF program that can be funded by new development for each project type.

Table 4:

Fair-Share Contribution to DIF Program for Transportation Improvements Project Type Total Cost New Development
Fair Share
% of Total
Cost
Roadway Improvements $89,485,894 $57,931,542 65%
Transit Improvements $87,129,350 $13,216,767 15%
Bikeway Improvements $66,380,380 $10,069,329 15%
Pedestrian Improvements $60,480,420 $9,174,356 15%
Total $303,476,044 $90,391,994 30%
As shown, new development would fund up to 30% of the transportation project list. This funding level represents the maximum funding that can be assessed to new development based on the results of the nexus study.

Fair-Share Cost by L
and Use Type
New development ’s fair-share funding contribution towards the transportation project list was compared to the PM peak hour trip growth in the City to determine the average cost per new trip.

As shown in Table 5 below, the average cost per new PM peak hour trip is $10,652.

Table 5:

Average Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip
New Development Fair-Share Funding $90,391,994
PM Peak Hour New Growth Trips 8,486
Average Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip $10,652
The average cost per trip was then used to generate the transportation fee by land use based on the PM peak hour trip generation rate for each land use type. The seven land use categories for the DIF program are listed in Table 6 below. Using the average trip generation rates for each of these land use types, the DIF fee was calculated on a per unit basis. As discussed previously, the fee s shown represent the maximum fee for transportation that can be attributed to new development based on the nexus study.

Table 6:

DIF Program Fees for Transportation
Land Use Category Unit1 ITE Code2 PM % New City TIA Fee Trip Rate2 Trips3 per Unit
Single Family Residential DU 210 0.94 100% $10,013
Multi-Family Residential DU 221 0.39 100% $4,154
Lodging Room 310 0.59 100% $6,285
Retail/Service Commercial SF 820 3.4 70% $25.35
Office/Institutional SF 710 1.44 100% $15.34
Warehouse/Industrial SF 130 0.34 100% $3.62
Production Studio/
R&D Flex/Media Office OE-GSF --4 0.86 100% $9.16
Notes:
1) Units = Dwelling Units (DU), Hotel (Rooms), Square Feet (SF), and Office Equivalent-Gross Square Feet (OE-GSF). 2) Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. PM peak hour trip rate per DU, Room, or KSF. 3) Pass-by Trips are accounted for retail uses.
4) Trip Rate based on media office factor of 1.33 per the Media District Specific Plan.

Special Generators: If City determines that a proposed use cannot be classified under the land use categories listed in the TIA Fee table, then City will have the discretion to determine the appropriate data for input to the TIA Fee calculation. This will likely require a study to determine the trip rate for the proposed use.

Attachment A
Cost Estimates for DIF Program Transportation Project List

Project Location Description DIF Cost Cost Reference
Hollywood Way: Avon to Thornton Widen to 6 lanes with Class IV protected bike lanes $1,749,000 Per mile cost assumptions applied for widening and Class IV bicycle facility improvements Olive Way: Six lanes – Barham to Lincoln Restripe and peak period parking removal $2,915,000 Per mile cost assumptions assuming 300 feet east of Riverside to LA River Remove peak period parking to provide 3 lanes each direction plus center turn lane Empire Ave / Vanowen St Construct railroad grade separation $1,923,900 Regional project with total estimate of $50 million based on Grade Separation Study 3% local contribution
Buena Vista St / Vanowen St Construct railroad grade separation $1,749,000 Regional project with total estimate of $50 million based on Grade Separation Study 3% local contribution
Victory Pl Rail Undercrossing Widen rail bridge for a second northbound lane and Class I Bikeway $1,749,000 Regional project with total estimate of $50 million based on Grade Separation Study 3% local contribution
Interstate 5 / Buena Vista Interchange and Winona Rail
Tunnel
Improve I-5 Ramps, Construct Winona Rail undercrossing
to connect Winona across rail tracks $1,749,000 Regional project with total estimate of $50 million based on Grade Separation Study 3% local contribution
Widen Olive Bridge
Widen bridge to provide turn lanes at First Street,
standard width lanes, shoulders/bike lanes, ped
improvements, seismic upgrades
$707,750 Regional project with total estimate of $20.2 million based on Bridge Feasibility Study 3% local contribution
Widen Magnolia Bridge
Widen bridge to provide turn lanes at First Street,
standard width lanes, shoulders/bike lanes, ped
improvements, seismic upgrades
$482,794 Regional project with total estimate of $20.2 million based on Bridge Feasibility Study 3% local contribution
North San Fernando Master Plan Improvements Construct improvements identified in the North San Fernando Master Plan $10,027,600 Estimate from North San Fernando Blvd Specific Plan Improvement Plan $23,053,044
Media District – Olive Ave, Alameda Ave, and Riverside Dr Signal enhancements: adaptive timing, signal synchronization, advanced detection $9,328,000 Assumes $400,000 per signal for new poles, conduit, detection, controllers, fiber connection to CSCS system, programming, implementation
Victory Blvd Corridor (ASTAC) Signal enhancements: adaptive timing, signal synchronization, advanced detection $9,328,000 Assumes $400,000 per signal for new poles, conduit, detection, controllers, fiber connection to CSCS system, programming, implementation
Olive Ave / Verdugo Ave Realign Verdugo, Modify Olive, Modify Traffic Signal, Pedestrian Crossing Treatments $4,197,600 Estimate based on Alternatives Selection Buena Vista St / NB I-5 Ramps Widen intersection approaches and upgrade traffic signal $466,400 Per mile cost assumptions for southbound approach widening, relocate curb, gutter, catch basin, streetlights Hollywood Way / Verdugo Ave Widen intersection approaches and upgrade traffic signal $466,400 Estimate from Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR Victory Blvd / Olive Ave Widen intersection approaches and upgrade traffic signal $466,400 Estimate from Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR Buena Vista St / Olive Ave Widen intersection approaches and upgrade traffic signal $349,800 Estimate from Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR Hollywood Way / Thornton Ave Widen intersection approaches and upgrade traffic signal $291,500 Estimate from Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects
Intersection Capacity Improvement Projects
Sub-total Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects
Project Location Description DIF Cost Cost Reference
Pass Ave / Olive Ave Widen intersection approaches and upgrade traffic signal $291,500 Estimate from Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR Hollywood Way / Alameda Ave Widen intersection approaches and upgrade traffic signal $233,200 Per mile cost estimate to restripe south leg of intersection for 300 feet. Modify traffic signal to install protected phasing.

Buena Vista St / San Fernando Blvd Widen intersection approaches and upgrade traffic signal $233,200 Estimate from Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR Lake St / Alameda Ave Restripe intersection approaches and upgrade traffic signal $233,200 Estimate from Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR Hollywood Way / Riverside Dr Restripe intersection approaches and upgrade traffic signal $233,200 Per mile cost estimate for intersection striping and signal upgrade Hollywood Way / Olive Ave Restripe intersection approaches to covert parking to peak period travel lane $233,200 Per mile cost estimate for intersection striping and signal upgrade $26,351,600
Monitoring Program
Data collection and monitoring needed to maintain
transportation system performance and update City
Traffic Model
$1,749,000
Assume one travel demand model update every 5 years for (2019-2035) at $350,000. Assume annual data collection for transportation system performance monitoring at $50,000 per year. Assume one General Plan Mobility Element Update for the life of the plan (2019-2035).

Neighborhood Protection Citywide Neighborhood Protection Program (NPP) $5,538,500 Assume 5 new neighborhood protection plans to be implemented Assume 950,000 per plan per Alameda North NPP completed in July 2019 Citywide Parking Management
Manage all public parking throughout the City, including commercial street parking, City parking lots, structures, and the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station
$17,490,000 Cost estimate to implement parking management plan CSCS Full Adaptive Control 225 signals, Vehicle 2 Infrastructure hardware and communication upgrades $6,558,750 Per signal cost estimate CSCS Synchronization 50 signals, signal phasing, detection, and hardware upgrades $8,745,000 Per signal cost estimate
$40,081,250
$89,485,894
BurbankBus Transit Capital and Electrification Ongoing 17 vehicle fleet replacement 2019-2035, 12-year lifespan, electrification after 2023 $17,490,000 Assume ongoing BurbankBus fleet replacement (12-year vehicle life) during life of plan 2019-2035 Assume replacement cost at $550k per bus, $625k after 2023 for electrification BurbankBus Transit Expanded Operations Includes all-day service on existing routes and new service $31,307,100 Assume two new 35-foot electric buses, 1.6 million per year operations costs above current operations BurbankBus Maintenance, Storage, and Operations Facility Const ruct new bus maintenance facility for BurbankBus $11,660,000 Cost estimate to construct new bus facility Transportation System Management Projects
Transit Improvement Projects
Sub-total Transportation System Management Projects
Total Roadway Projects
Sub-total Intersection Capacity Improvement Projects
Project Location Description DIF Cost Cost Reference
Media District Transit Center Construct bus transit facility with layover facilities for BurbankBus and Metro $11,660,000 Cost estimate for transit center located on north side of Riverside Drive between Olive and Hollywood Way in City and Caltrans right of way, potentially as part of freeway cap between Alameda and California BRT Extension to Burbank Airport Extend Orange Line to Bob Hope Airport as street- running BRT $559,680 Estimate from MGAPS Study
Downtown Metrolink Pedestrian Rail Crossing
Improvements
Construct Safety Gates and Rail Signal Modifications at the Downtown Metrolink Station Ped Crossings $874,500
Estimate for quiet zone ready pedestrian safety gates, lights, updated fencing, ped channelization at both at-grade ped rail crossings at Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station. Update track circuitry to separate ped crossings to allow each crossing to operate independently.

Citywide Railroad Quiet Zones Construct Quiet Zone Improvements at Burbank Airport South Station $1,457,500
Estimate for quiet zone ready pedestrian safety gates, lights, updated fencing, ped channelization at both at-grade ped rail crossings at the Burbank Airport South Metrolink Station, install quiet-zone ready grade crossing safety improvements at the Clybourn/Vanowen grade crossing.

Quiet Zone/Grade Separation - Vanowen/Clybourn
Clybourn rail grade crossing to improve safety and access to Burbank Airport; initially a quiet zone improvement
and ultimately a grade separation
$9,007,350 Estimate for quiet zone and partial funding for grade separation improvements.

Pasadena to North Hollywood BRT Local contribution towards Metro North Hollywood to Pasadena Corridor BRT Project $3,113,220 Regional project with estimate of $267 million total project cost 1% local funding for expanded station amenities, first-last mile improvements, capital for local transit connections $87,129,350
Chandler Bikeway Extension Class I: Mariposa St to Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station $4,430,800 Cost Estimate from Call for Projects Grant Application San Fernando Bikeway Class I: L.A. City limit to Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station $10,260,800 Cost Estimate from Call for Projects Grant Application Los Angeles River Bridge Cla ss I: Bob Hope Dr to Forest Lawn Dr $1,982,200 Cost Estimate derived from Burbank Channel Bikeway Costs and pre-fab bridge cost estimates Palm Avenue Bridge Class I: Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station to Palm Ave/First St $12,359,600 Cost Estimate from Bike Master Plan Pacific Park - Vanowen Path Class I: Vanowen St to Pacific Ave $3,498,000 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) First Street Class IV Class IV: San Fernando Boulevard to Verdugo Avenue $4,664,000 Assume Class IV at 5,000,000 per mile to relocate curb and gutter, streetlights, catch basins, traffic signals, trees Third Street Class IV Class IV: Amherst Drive to Verdugo Avenue $6,996,000 Assume Class IV at 5,000,000 per mile to relocate curb and gutter, streetlights, catch basins, traffic signals, trees Glenoaks-Verdugo-Front Class IV Class IV: Glenoaks; Alameda to Verdugo; Verdugo, Glenoaks to Front; Front, Verdugo to Burbank $6,413,000 Assume Class IV at 5,000,000 per mile to relocate curb and gutter, streetlights, catch basins, traffic signals, trees Magnolia Boulevard Class II/IV Class II/IV: First Street to Glenoaks Blvd $1,749,000 Assume Class IV at 5,000,000 per mile to relocate curb and gutter, streetlights, catch basins, traffic signals, trees Angeleno Avenue Class IV Class IV: Glenoaks Blvd to First Street $1,749,000 Assume Class IV at 5,000,000 per mile to relocate curb and gutter, streetlights, catch basins, traffic signals, trees Clark Avenue Bicycle Boulevard,
Class III: Clybourn Ave to Victory Ave $396,440 Bike Master Plan Cost Estimate Citywide Bicycle Boulevard Network $3,159,860 Bike Master Plan Cost Estimate Verdugo Ave, Class III: Victory to Flower St $139,920 Bike Master Plan Cost Estimate Path and Protected Bikeway Improvement Projects & On-Street Bicycle Improvements Sub-total Transit Improvement Projects
Top Priori
ty Bike Master Plan Projects
On-Street Class II and Class III Facilities
Project Location Description DIF Cost Cost Reference
Empire Ave, San Fernando Blvd, Class II/III: Clybourn Ave to Burbank Blvd $163,240 Bike Master Plan Cost Estimate Olive Ave, Pass Ave, California St, Front St, Class III $93,280 Bike Master Plan Cost Estimate Amherst Dr, Third St, Third St, Glenoaks Blvd, Class II/III $69,960 Bike Master Plan Cost Estimate Riverside Dr, Class II/iii: Clybourn Ave to California St, California St to Bob Hope Dr $69,960 Bike Master Plan Cost Estimate Orange Grove Ave, Class II: Third St to Sunset Canyon Dr $180,730 Bi ke Master Plan Cost Estimate Vanowen St, Class II: Clybourn Ave to Buena Vista St $378,950 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Ontario St,Class II: San Fernando Blvd to Empire Ave $204,050 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Fairview St and Ontario St, Class III: Vanowen St to
Chandler Path $75,790 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Mariposa St, Palm Ave, Lake St, Class III $104,940 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Stough Canyon Ave, Walnut Ave, Walnut Ave, Class II/III $227,370 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Tulare Ave, 6th St, Class II/III $355,630 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Lincoln St, Class II: San Fernando Blvd to Empire Ave $87,450 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Cohasset St, Cohasset St, Avon St, Class II/III $75,790 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Sunset Canyon Dr, Class III: Walnut Ave to Glendale City limit $75,790 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Harvard Rd, Class II: Wildwood Canyon Rd to Sunset
Canyon Dr $174,900 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Alameda Ave, Class II: Glenoaks Blvd to Lincoln Street, SR- 134 to Riverside $670,450 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Coast Mainline Path, Pacific Ave, Class I/III $4,675,660 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Eton Dr, Class II/III: Glenoaks Blvd to Kenneth Rd $69,960 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Glenoaks Blvd, Class III: L.A. City limit to Providencia Ave $174,900 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Clybourn Ave, Class II: Victory Blvd to Chandler Path $320,650 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Jeffries Ave, Class III: Clybourn Ave to Lincoln St $75,790 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) Other Prio
rity Bike Master Plan Projects
On-Street Class II and Class III Facilities
Top Priority Bike Master Plan Projects
On-Street Class II and Class III Facilities
Project Location Description DIF Cost Cost Reference
Olive Ave, Class III: L.A. City limit to Sunset Canyon Dr $256,520 Per mile cost estimate for bikeway projects ($10,000,000 per mile Class I; $5,000,000 per mile Class IV; $250,000 per mile Class II; $50,000 per mile Class III) $66,380,380
Sidewalk Improvements to General Plan Standards Construct sidewalks to standard widths as identified in Burbank2035 $8,162,000 Assume 5 percent of Burbank's 280 miles of streets will receive funding for sidewalk improvements Pedestrian Safety Improvements Construct curb extensions, crosswalks, traffic signal modifications at 100 arterial and collector intersections $29,150,000 Per intersection estimate of $250,000 Citywide Safe Routes to School Construct Safety Improvements per Safe Routes to School Program $11,018,700 Assume triple SR2S Cycle 10 Short Term improvements applied to all schools ($525,000 per school).

Improvements include curb extensions, ped ramps, signage, street narrowing, and other traffic calming elements.

Pedestrian Safety Assessment Projects Construct improvements identified in the Pedestrian Safety Assessment $489,720 Estimate from Pedestrian Safety Assessment costs Downtown Sidewalk and Ped Safety Project Replace deteriorating brick/concrete sidewalk and improve ped safety at intersections in Downtown Burbank $5,830,000 Per intersection cost estimate Subregional Equity Projects: 2018-2058 Subregional Equity Projects selected for implementation in City $5,830,000 Assume 1/2 percent local contribution to Measure M Subregional Equity Projects 2018-2058 $60,480,420
$303,476,044
Sub-total Bicycle Improvement Projects
Pedestrian Improvement Projects
Sub-total Pedestrian Improvement Projects
Total Transportation Project List

APPENDIX B:

City of Burbank Development Impact Fee Capital
Improvement Plan
Burbank DIF Capital Improvement List
Improvement/Project1 Approximate Location Time of Availability Size/Quantity Cost Per Unit Total Cost2 Source for Cost Appropriating Funds

FIRE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES
Vehicles Citywide 2022-2035 3 $447,566 $1,278,934.38 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Apparatus Floors (Sq. Ft.) Citywide 2022-2035 3,134 $699 $2,192,148.57 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Subtotal Fire Department $3,471,082.96

POLICE DEPARTMENT FACILITIES
Recurring Facilities
Unmarked Vehicles Citywide 2022-2035 14 $43,135 $610,933.78 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Marked Vehicles Citywide 2022-2035 27 $46,631 $1,245,590.12 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Motorcycles Citywide 2022-2035 6 $34,771 $215,999.42 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Parking Control Vehicles Citywide 2022-2035 3 $36,594 $98,507.88 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Body Worn Camera System Citywide 2022-2035 67 $6,300 $425,014.60 City Staff DIF and Other Sources In-Car Camera System Citywide 2022-2035 11 $3,500 $37,831.26 City Staff DIF and Other Sources One Time Facilities
Range Training Center Hillside 2022-2035 1 $291,450 $291,450.03 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Security Camera System Citywide 2022-2035 1 $2,000,000 $2,000,000.00 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Subtotal Police Department $4,925,327.07

PARKS FACILITIES
Renovation Needs
Hillside Trail Network and Mountain Bike Course Expansion See project name 2022-2035 1 $5,246,101 $5,246,100.52 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Artificial Turf at Brace and Palm Ballfield See project name 2022-2035 1 $2,331,600 $2,331,600.23 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Starlight Bowl Renovation See project name 2022-2035 1 $20,984,402 $20,984,402.08 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Recreation Centers (MCC, ORC, VRC) Renovation See project name 2022-2035 1 $52,461,005 $52,461,005.20 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Joslyn Adult Center Modernization See project name 2022-2035 1 $1,165,800 $1,165,800.12 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Stough Canyon Nature Center Renovation See project name 2022-2035 1 $291,450 $291,450.03 City Staff DIF and Other Sources McCambridge Pool Replacement See project name 2022-2035 1 $13,989,601 $13,989,601.39 City Staff DIF and Other Sources New Facilities (Acres)
Dog Park 2701 Riverside Drive 2022-2035 1.5 $544,040 $816,060.08 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Community Garden 2022-2035 0.3 $582,900 $174,870.02 C
ity Staff DIF and Other Sources
Soccer Fields 2022-2035 2.3 $1,067,509 $2,401,
894.33 City Staff DIF and Other Sources
New Park and Parking Lot over BWP Reservoir #1 See project name 2022-2035 19.0 $282,246 $5,362,680.53 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Pocket Park Citywide 2022-2035 0.4 $1,067,509 $427,003.44 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Subtotal Parks Department $105,652,467.96

LIBRARY FACILITIES
Expansion of Existing Facilities
New Square Feet Citywide 2022-2035 13,382 $807 $10,795,948.91 City Staff DIF and Other Sources New Books Citywide 2022-2035 39,084 $23 $911,279.89 City Staff DIF and Other Sources New AV Materials Citywide 2022-2035 2,900 $35 $101,408.69 City Staff DIF and Other Sources New Computers Citywide 2022-2035 10 $874 $8,723.20 City Staff DIF and Other Sources New Facilities
RFID System Citywide 2022-2035 1 $582,900 $582,900.06 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Makerspace Central Library 2022-2035 1 $699,480 $699,480.07 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Subtotal Library Department $13,099,740.81

IT FACILITIES
Smart City Edge Technology Infrastructure
Video Cameras Citywide 2022-2035 1 $886,008 $886,008.09 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Environmental Sensor Citywide 2022-2035 1 $2,215,020 $2,215,020.22 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Sound Sensor Citywide 2022-2035 1 $2,215,020 $2,215,020.22 City Staff DIF and Other Sources WiFi Access Point Citywide 2022-2035 1 $3,544,032 $3,544,032.35 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Fiber Connectivity Citywide 2022-2035 1 $6,645,061 $6,645,060.66 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Traffic & Parking Sensor Citywide 2022-2035 1 $8,860,081 $8,860,080.88 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Casing Citywide 2022-2035 1 $2,215,020 $2,215,020.22 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Control and Management Systems
Video System Citywide 2022-2035 1 $349,740 $349,740.03 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Traffic & Parking Management System Citywide 2022-2035 1 $582,900 $582,900.06 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Sensor Management System Citywide 2022-2035 1 $233,160 $233,160.02 City Staff DIF and Other Sources Subtotal IT Department $27,746,042.75

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects
Hollywood Way: Avon to Thornton See project name 2022-2035 1 $1,749,000 $1,749,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Olive Way: Six lanes – Barham to Lincoln See project name 2022-2035 1 $2,915,000 $2,915,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Empire Ave / Vanowen St See project name 2022-2035 1 $1,923,900 $1,923,900 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Buena Vista St / Vanowen St See project name 2022-2035 1 $1,749,000 $1,749,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources City
wide
Citywide
Improvement/Project1 Approximate Location Time of Availability Size/Quantity Cost Per Unit Total Cost2 Source for Cost Appropriating Funds Victory Pl Rail Undercrossing See project name 2022-2035 1 $1,749,000 $1,749,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Interstate 5 / Buena Vista Interchange and Winona Rail Tunnel See project name 2022-2035 1 $1,749,000 $1,749,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Widen Olive Bridge See project name 2022-2035 1 $707,750 $707,750 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Widen Magnolia Bridge See project name 2022-2035 1 $482,794 $482,794 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources North San Fernando Master Plan Improvements See project name 2022-2035 1 $10,027,600 $10,027,600 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Intersection Capacity Improvement Projects
Media District – Olive Ave, Alameda Ave, and Riverside Dr See project name 2022-2035 1 $9,328,000 $9,328,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Victory Blvd Corridor (ASTAC) See project name 2022-2035 1 $9,328,000 $9,328,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Olive Ave / Verdugo Ave See project name 2022-2035 1 $4,197,600 $4,197,600 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Buena Vista St / NB I-5 Ramps See project name 2022-2035 1 $466,400 $466,400 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Hollywood Way / Verdugo Ave See project name 2022-2035 1 $466,400 $466,400 Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR DIF and Other Sources Victory Blvd / Olive Ave See project name 2022-2035 1 $466,400 $466,400 Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR DIF and Other Sources Buena Vista St / Olive Ave See project name 2022-2035 1 $349,800 $349,800 Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR DIF and Other Sources Hollywood Way / Thornton Ave See project name 2022-2035 1 $291,500 $291,500 Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR DIF and Other Sources Pass Ave / Olive Ave See project name 2022-2035 1 $291,500 $291,500 Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR DIF and Other Sources Hollywood Way / Alameda Ave See project name 2022-2035 1 $233,200 $233,200 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Buena Vista St / San Fernando Blvd See project name 2022-2035 1 $233,200 $233,200 Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR DIF and Other Sources Lake St / Alameda Ave See project name 2022-2035 1 $233,200 $233,200 Burbank2035 Technical Studies/EIR DIF and Other Sources Hollywood Way / Riverside Dr See project name 2022-2035 1 $233,200 $233,200 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Hollywood Way / Olive Ave See project name 2022-2035 1 $233,200 $233,200 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Transportation System Management Projects 1
Monitoring Program Citywide 2022-2035 1 $1,749,000 $1,749,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Neighborhood Protection Citywide 2022-2035 1 $5,538,500 $5,538,500 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Citywide Parking Management Citywide 2022-2035 1 $17,490,000 $17,490,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources CSCS Full Adaptive Control Citywide 2022-2035 1 $6,558,750 $6,558,750 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources CSCS Synchronization Citywide 2022-2035 1 $8,745,000 $8,745,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Transit Improvement Projects
BurbankBus Transit Capital and Electrification Citywide 2022-2035 1 $17,490,000 $17,490,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources BurbankBus Transit Expanded Operations Citywide 2022-2035 1 $31,307,100 $31,307,100 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources BurbankBus Maintenance, Storage, and Operations Facility See project name 2022-2035 1 $11,660,000 $11,660,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Media District Transit Center See project name 2022-2035 1 $11,660,000 $11,660,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources BRT Extension to Burbank Airport See project name 2022-2035 1 $559,680 $559,680 MGAPS Study DIF and Other Sources Downtown Metrolink Pedestrian Rail Crossing Improvements See project name 2022-2035 1 $874,500 $874,500 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Citywide Railroad Quiet Zones See project name 2022-2035 1 $1,457,500 $1,457,500 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Quiet Zone/Grade Separation - Vanowen/Clybourn See project name 2022-2035 1 $9,007,350 $9,007,350 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Pasadena to North Hollywood BRT See project name 2022-2035 1 $3,113,220 $3,113,220 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources 2022-2035 1
Path and Protected Bikeway Improvement Projects & On-Street Bicycle Improvements Chandler Bikeway Extension See project name 2022-2035 1 $4,430,800 $4,430,800 Projects Grant Application DIF and Other Sources San Fernando Bikeway See project name 2022-2035 1 $10,260,800 $10,260,800 Projects Grant Application DIF and Other Sources Los Angeles River Bridge See project name 2022-2035 1 $1,982,200 $1,982,200 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Palm Avenue Bridge See project name 2022-2035 1 $12,359,600 $12,359,600 Bike Master Plan DIF and Other Sources Pacific Park - Vanowen Path See project name 2022-2035 1 $3,498,000 $3,498,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources First Street Class IV See project name 2022-2035 1 $4,664,000 $4,664,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Third Street Class IV See project name 2022-2035 1 $6,996,000 $6,996,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Glenoaks-Verdugo-Front Class IV See project name 2022-2035 1 $6,413,000 $6,413,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Magnolia Boulevard Class II/IV See project name 2022-2035 1 $1,749,000 $1,749,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Angeleno Avenue Class IV See project name 2022-2035 1 $1,749,000 $1,749,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Clark Avenue Bicycle Boulevard, Class III: Clybourn Ave to Victory Ave See project name 2022-2035 1 $396,440 $396,440 Bike Master Plan DIF and Other Sources Citywide Bicycle Boulevard Network See project name 2022-2035 1 $3,159,860 $3,159,860 Bike Master Plan DIF and Other Sources Verdugo Ave, Class III: Victory to Flower St See project name 2022-2035 1 $139,920 $139,920 Bike Master Plan DIF and Other Sources Empire Ave, San Fernando Blvd, Class II/III: Clybourn Ave to Burbank Blvd See project name 2022-2035 1 $163,240 $163,240 Bike Master Plan DIF and Other Sources Olive Ave, Pass Ave, California St, Front St, Class III See project name 2022-2035 1 $93,280 $93,280 Bike Master Plan DIF and Other Sources Amherst Dr, Third St, Third St, Glenoaks Blvd, Class II/III See project name 2022-2035 1 $69,960 $69,960 Bike Master Plan DIF and Other Sources Riverside Dr, Class II/iii: Clybourn Ave to California St, California St to Bob Hope Dr See project name 2022-2035 1 $69,960 $69,960 Bike Master Plan DIF and Other Sources Orange Grove Ave, Class II: Third St to Sunset Canyon Dr See project name 2022-2035 1 $180,730 $180,730 Bike Master Plan DIF and Other Sources Vanowen St, Class II: Clybourn Ave to Buena Vista St See project name 2022-2035 1 $378,950 $378,950 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Ontario St,Class II: San Fernando Blvd to Empire Ave See project name 2022-2035 1 $204,050 $204,050 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Fairview St and Ontario St, Class III: Vanowen St to Chandler Path See project name 2022-2035 1 $75,790 $75,790 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Mariposa St, Palm Ave, Lake St, Class III See project name 2022-2035 1 $104,940 $104,940 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Stough Canyon Ave, Walnut Ave, Walnut Ave, Class II/III See project name 2022-2035 1 $227,370 $227,370 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Tulare Ave, 6th St, Class II/III See project name 2022-2035 1 $355,630 $355,630 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Lincoln St, Class II: San Fernando Blvd to Empire Ave See project name 2022-2035 1 $87,450 $87,450 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Cohasset St, Cohasset St, Avon St, Class II/III See project name 2022-2035 1 $75,790 $75,790 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Sunset Canyon Dr, Class III: Walnut Ave to Glendale City limit See project name 2022-2035 1 $75,790 $75,790 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Harvard Rd, Class II: Wildwood Canyon Rd to Sunset Canyon Dr See project name 2022-2035 1 $174,900 $174,900 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Alameda Ave, Class II: Glenoaks Blvd to Lincoln Street, SR-134 to Riverside See project name 2022-2035 1 $670,450 $670,450 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Coast Mainline Path, Pacific Ave, Class I/III See project name 2022-2035 1 $4,675,660 $4,675,660 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Eton Dr, Class II/III: Glenoaks Blvd to Kenneth Rd See project name 2022-2035 1 $69,960 $69,960 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Glenoaks Blvd, Class III: L.A. City limit to Providencia Ave See project name 2022-2035 1 $174,900 $174,900 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Improvement/Project1 Approximate Location Time of Availability Size/Quantity Cost Per Unit Total Cost2 Source for Cost Appropriating Funds Clybourn Ave, Class II: Victory Blvd to Chandler Path See project name 2022-2035 1 $320,650 $320,650 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Jeffries Ave, Class III: Clybourn Ave to Lincoln St See project name 2022-2035 1 $75,790 $75,790 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Olive Ave, Class III: L.A. City limit to Sunset Canyon Dr See project name 2022-2035 1 $256,520 $256,520 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Pedestrian Improvement Projects
Sidewalk Improvements to General Plan Standards Citywide 2022-2035 1 $8,162,000 $8,162,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Pedestrian Safety Improvements Citywide 2022-2035 1 $29,150,000 $29,150,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Citywide Safe Routes to School Citywide 2022-2035 1 $11,018,700 $11,018,700 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Pedestrian Safety Assessment Projects Citywide 2022-2035 1 $489,720 $489,720 Pedestrian Safety Assessment DIF and Other Sources Downtown Sidewalk and Ped Safety Project See project name 2022-2035 1 $5,830,000 $5,830,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Subregional Equity Projects: 2018-2058 Citywide 2022-2035 1 $5,830,000 $5,830,000 City Staff/Fehr & Peers DIF and Other Sources Subtotal Transportation Improvements $303,476,044.00
(1) For
more detail
on improvements, see City of Burbank Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, April 29, 2022. (2) Cost estimates w
ere originally developed in 2019 and escalated by 16.6 percent to account for cost inflation through end of 2021, per CA DGS.