PURPOSE:

This report recommends that the City Council extend the sunset date of the 2006 ordinance that amended the Development Review application process to introduce additional discretionary findings and requirements for certain projects based upon their potential traffic impacts.  This report also discusses the economic and traffic planning analyses that have been conducted regarding the proposed General Plan development model that was the impetus for the Council�s adoption of the ordinance.

BACKGROUND:

General Plan

The General Plan is a policy document that establishes the land use and planning policies for the City of Burbank.  The document serves as a blueprint for future development and establishes the goals, objectives, and policies for all land development, transportation systems, capital improvements, and other aspects of how the City is developed.  All California cities are required by state law to have General Plans, and all development and capital improvements must be consistent with the General Plan.  The General Plan is composed of seven required chapters, or elements: Land Use, Circulation (Mobility), Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Noise, and Safety.

The Land Use and Mobility Elements are often viewed as the cornerstone elements because they focus on land use, development patterns, and transportation, which directly impact the built environment and quality of life.  Burbank�s Land Use Element was last comprehensively updated in 1988.  The Mobility Element was last updated in 1964.  Planning and Transportation Division staff began the process of updating these two elements in 2001 with a series of public meetings to establish the community�s vision.  After several years of public outreach and document creation, draft Land Use and Mobility Elements were released for public review in April 2006.

Development Forecasting and Street Capacity Analysis

State law requires the General Plan to discuss the maximum allowed density and intensity of development in a City.  In cities like Burbank where traffic congestion is a primary concern, it is important that the maximum allowed intensity of development not exceed the street system�s ability to carry the traffic generated by the development.  Intensity of development can be expressed in different ways for individual parcels, as discussed further below.  The total intensity of development Citywide is expressed as a development forecast of the total allowed and expected amount of square footage of commercial and industrial development in the City

Throughout 2004 and 2005, the City Council participated in a number of study sessions to develop a preferred development forecast through the year 2025.  This process resulted in several development scenario options with varying amounts of total square footage Citywide.  The scenarios were analyzed using the City�s computerized Travel Demand Model to determine what traffic impacts would result from each scenario and what street improvements would be needed to mitigate those impacts. 

To evaluate traffic impacts, the City of Burbank utilizes a measure of Level of Service to grade the street system�s ability to handle projected traffic demands.  Level of Service is a measure whereby the volume of expected traffic on a roadway is compared to the maximum capacity of the roadway.  This measure is expressed in terms of a volume-to-capacity ratio, or V/C ratio, and provides a measure of how much capacity of a given street segment or intersection is being utilized by projected traffic.  This scale is measured on a scale of A to F, with A representing free, unhindered movement and F representing completely congested, stop-and-go conditions.  Level of Service is a measure of vehicle congestion only.  It measures throughput of vehicles, rather than overall throughput of people.  Thus, it does not directly measure the effectiveness of other important components of the City�s transportation network including ridesharing, transit, pedestrian, or bicycling trips except to show how these alternative modes can reduce vehicle congestion.  Current City policy stipulates that an intersection is considered to operate within acceptable standards if its Level of Service is at category D or better.  Intersections that operate at Level of Service E or F are considered to be deficient, and the City looks to develop street improvements or other strategies to improve intersections that are expected to operate at E or F under future conditions.  Recent City Council deliberations have included discussions about when the City might vary from this Level of Service D standard, especially if the improvements needed to achieve it would have detrimental effect on sidewalk widths, neighborhood character and livability, or would require extensive property acquisition to widen public rights-of-way.

Burbank�s street system is an older, grid-based system consisting of many crisscrossing arterial, collector, and local streets.  Because of this configuration, congestion points and bottlenecks occur generally at intersections rather than along street segments.  Therefore, measuring and monitoring Burbank�s street network is accomplished by measuring Level of Service at major intersections throughout the City.  As part of the Mobility Element, the City�s 35 major intersections were selected for Level of Service Analysis.  Projected traffic output from the City�s Travel Demand Model was applied to turning movements for each intersection, and the Level of Service was projected under each land use development scenario.  These measures were then compared to one another to determine relative impacts between varying development scenarios and to identify locations where street improvements should be considered.  Through an iterative process, staff presented to City Council various development forecasts and their effects, as measured through Level of Service calculations that these forecasts would have on Burbank�s street network.  It was through this process that the Council ultimately selected the Reduced Growth Forecast for study under the Land Use and Mobility Element Update.

Based upon the results of this traffic and modeling analysis and the level of traffic deemed appropriate for Burbank, the City Council in October 2004 directed staff to study the �Reduced Growth Forecast� as the preferred development scenario.  This scenario includes 49.3 million square feet of total non-residential development.  This scenario was shown to provide for some new development, yet would still allow the City�s street network to operate within acceptable Level of Service standards with moderate intersection street improvements rather than major street widening.  After further discussions, the Council in June 2006 directed staff to also study the �Strategic Growth Forecast,� which includes 51 million square feet of total non-residential development.  This scenario was identified because it allowed for additional growth beyond the Reduced Growth Forecast with very similar traffic impacts. This is possible because this additional growth was directed in the Downtown and South San Fernando areas of the City where good connectivity to transit and the regional freeway system occurs.  The intent is that the additional square footage under the Strategic Growth Forecast would be allocated to strategic areas of the City as part of a pool of development credit through a discretionary approval process for individual projects.

One of the long-stated goals of the General Plan update is to ensure that both the Land Use and Mobility Elements are tightly integrated so that transportation policies and long-term street improvements correspond to the development forecast and other land use and development policies.  The City Council and the Burbank community have identified increased traffic congestion as one of the major issues to address in planning for Burbank�s future.  Throughout the Mobility and Land Use Element planning process, staff has sought to develop a policy or system that would directly correlate the maximum allowed intensity of development on each commercial and industrial parcel as called out in the Land Use Element to the development forecast that would serve as the basis for the street improvements and transportation systems called out in the Mobility Element.

Measures of Development Intensity

The standard measure of intensity used in land use planning is Floor Area Ratio, or FAR.  FAR is simply a ratio of a given parcel�s building square footage to its land area.  The Media District Specific Plan expresses limits to development in the Media District as a 1.1 FAR.  This generally means that 1.1 square feet of building space is allowed per one square foot of land, so a 10,000 square foot parcel could have an 11,000 square foot building.  Other limits to building size or bulk have been used to effectively limit intensity, such as limiting a building�s height or requiring certain setbacks.  Other than in the Media District area, building height is used as the only limiting factor for non-residential development in the current Land Use Element.

FAR, height limitations, and setback requirements can be effective means of controlling the bulk, massing, or scale of development.  However, these measures are deficient in relating development intensity to traffic impacts because building size is not the only determinant of how much traffic can be generated by a given development.  Traffic generation is derived by a combination of variables, namely the size of the development and the type of land use in the development.  Other variables may also be involved, such as a development�s location and its relationship to nearby uses and transit facilities.

The Media District Specific Plan recognized the limitations of a strict FAR-based control on density when it instituted the office-equivalency concept.  The Plan recognized that media businesses and other types of land uses within the Media District have widely varying traffic generation characteristics.  Comparing all types of development to a comparable amount of standard office space was a way to express the traffic generated by various types of land uses in terms of the equivalent size of office that would generate the same amount of traffic.  For example, medical offices have an office-equivalency rate in the Media District Specific Plan of 0.54.  This means that 100 square feet of standard office space generates the same amount of peak hour traffic as 54 square feet of medical office space.  To determine the maximum allowed size of a medical office building in the Media District, the maximum allowed size of a standard office building under the 1.1 FAR would be multiplied by 0.54.  The result is that the maximum allowed size of a medical office building is substantially less than the maximum allowed size of a standard office building because medical offices generate more traffic per square foot of floor area.  A 10,000 square foot parcel would allow for an 11,000 square foot standard office building (10,000 x 1.1) but only a 5,940 square foot medical office building (10,000 x 1.1 x 0.54).  This �apples-to-apples� comparison allows decision makers to compare different uses in terms of their traffic-generating characteristics and recognizes that size alone is not the only variable needed to compare developments if traffic generation is to be taken into account.

Under the draft Land Use and Mobility Elements, staff proposed to expand upon the office-equivalency concept by converting different land uses not to their office-equivalency traffic generation, but to the actual number of vehicle trips the development produces during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, when the volume of street traffic is highest.  By converting all development projects to the actual number of peak hour trips they generate, different projects and land uses can be directly compared to one another in terms of their traffic impacts.  Because FAR cannot be used as an adequate measure of density for traffic impact comparisons, staff proposed a new ratio that related peak hour vehicle trips to parcel land area rather than building square footage.  The ratio has been commonly referred to as the �Trip-Based Intensity Measurement Standard� or �TIMS.�

TIMS works by setting a ratio of peak hour vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of land area for each land use designation in the Land Use Element.  This would ensure that all new development would be consistent with the adopted growth forecast by limiting the overall number of vehicle trips that can be generated Citywide during the AM and PM peak traffic hours.  While the actual calculation is more complex, the basic concept behind TIMS is as follows:

• The long-term development forecast adopted by the City Council includes a total square footage of non-residential development Citywide.

• This square footage is translated into a total number of vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak traffic hours for the entire City.  This Citywide trip amount was validated against the Travel Demand Model.

• This total number of vehicle trips is allocated into each land use category based upon the type of uses expected and the land use goals and policies for the individual categories.

• The total land area for each land use category is divided into the total number of vehicle trips allocated to that category.  This results in a �trip budget� of the number of allowed vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of land area.  This trip budget can then be allocated to each parcel within the land use category, representing the maximum number of vehicle trips that may be generated by development on that parcel during the AM and PM peak traffic hours.  The larger the parcel, the more vehicle trips it is allowed to generate.

Every commercial and industrial parcel in Burbank would be allocated a trip budget.  It would then be up to the property owner to determine how to allocate that trip budget to development.  As noted above, the amount of traffic created by a development project is dependent not only on the size of the development but the mix of land uses.  A property owner could elect to use their property for any use or combination of uses (as permitted by the zoning) up to the maximum square footage such that the number of vehicle trips to be generated by the development is equal to or less than the trip budget allocated to the parcel.  The number of vehicle trips to be generated by the development would be calculated by multiplying the building square footage by an industry-standard traffic generation rate for the particular type of land use.  Traffic generation rates are based upon nationwide surveys of different types of land uses, and typically include those provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) or the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), with some adjustments made for local conditions.  The manner of the calculation is similar to the above example of office-equivalency from the Media District Specific Plan.  Trip generation rates might be adjusted for individual projects based upon various project-specific factors such as surrounding development and traffic patterns, proximity to transit, pedestrian orientation, and the mix of uses within the project.

Analysis and Review of TIMS

Following the release of the draft Land Use and Mobility Elements in April 2006, staff hosted two community meetings in June 2006.  Notice of the meetings was mailed to all commercial and industrial property owners in Burbank.  The purpose of the meetings was to explain and answer questions about TIMS and to discuss its possible impacts on the ability of commercial and industrial property owners to develop their properties.  Also in June 2006, staff presented the TIMS concept at a meeting with the Burbank Chamber of Commerce board of directors and other community business representatives.  The Chamber of Commerce, business owners, and property owners all expressed serious concern at these meetings about the potential impacts of TIMS.  TIMS as used to implement the Council-directed development forecast would introduce new restrictions on property development and in some cases could substantially reduce the amount of development that could be built on a property under existing General Plan and zoning requirements.  The Chamber and others shared these concerns with the City Council.

At the City Council meeting of June 27, 2006, staff provided a report to the City Council regarding the status of the update to the Land Use and Mobility Elements and TIMS.  In response to the concerns raised by the Chamber of Commerce and others, the Council directed staff to seek outside consultants to evaluate TIMS and make recommendations regarding its viability and appropriateness as a development control.  Specifically, the Council directed staff to hire a consultant to conduct an economic analysis to determine the potential impacts on the City�s economy; to contract with a land use expert to review and analyze the feasibility of TIMS as a development standard; and to hire a consultant with expertise in traffic engineering to review TIMS, the City�s Travel Demand Model, and the assumptions that were used in the model to create TIMS.  On August 15, 2006, the City Council directed staff to proceed with executing a Professional Services Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) for an economic analysis of TIMS and with Kaku Associates (now known as Fehr & Peers) for a traffic analysis.  Staff was directed to return at a later time with recommendations to hire a land use consultant once the economic and traffic analyses were substantially completed.  KMA and Fehr & Peers have completed their analyses, the results of which are discussed in the Analysis section below.

Development Review Ordinance

All new buildings and all additions to existing commercial and industrial buildings over 1,000 square feet, are required to go through the Development Review application process.  Development Review applications may be processed as ministerial or discretionary applications, depending upon the nature and location of the project.  Ministerial applications are those over which the City cannot exercise any discretion or conduct any review of environmental impacts.  If the proposed project is found to meet all zoning standards and other applicable Municipal Code requirements, the project must be approved.  Discretionary applications are those over which the City may exercise discretion.  Typically, some findings are required to be made before the project may be approved.  If the City finds that the findings cannot be met, the project may be denied.  One or more of the findings are typically related to the compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding neighborhood.  The City may also impose conditions of approval on discretionary projects.

As of June 2006 when the City Council was discussing the General Plan update and the proposed TIMS regulation, all Development Review applications for non-residential projects that were not located within 150 feet of a single family residential zone and did not meet certain criteria to be designated as regionally significant were required by the Zoning Ordinance to be processed as ministerial applications.  Ministerial applications must be approved by the City if they are found to meet all Municipal Code requirements; no traffic study is conducted.

This issue came to the Council�s attention during its discussion about TIMS at the Council meeting of June 27, 2006.  The Council directed staff to return as quickly as possible with recommendations for an interim measure to modify the Development Review process until the Council considered the General Plan update and TIMS.  The purpose of the interim measure was to provide a threshold above which traffic analysis would be required to ensure that potential traffic impacts from individual projects are adequately analyzed until the General Plan update is considered by the Council.  The Council also desired that the projects be reviewed by the Planning Board rather than being acted upon administratively by the Community Development Director as was the practice for all Development Review applications.

On July 25, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing to consider an ordinance that would modify the Development Review process to make certain projects subject to discretionary review.  The Council introduced the ordinance and adopted Ordinance No. 3702 (Exhibit A) at the second reading on August 8, 2006.  The ordinance changed the Development Review process such that all Development Review applications for non-residential projects that are expected to generate 50 or more vehicle trips during the AM or PM peak traffic hours are processed as discretionary applications and are subject to environmental review under CEQA (whether or not the project is within 150 feet of a single family residential zone).  Such applications are approved or denied by the Planning Board following a noticed public hearing and are not acted upon by the Community Development Director.  The ordinance also created additional discretionary findings that the Planning Board has to make before approving an application for such a project.  An application cannot be approved unless the Board finds that the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on traffic flow and circulation, or that the benefits to the community of the proposed project would outweigh the potential adverse impacts.

The 50-trip threshold that is used in the ordinance to trigger discretionary review and a Planning Board hearing is consistent with previously existing City policy for determining when a traffic study is required for a project.^[1]  The table below includes a sampling of uses and the respective square footage of each use that would exceed the 50-trip threshold.  The trip generation for a proposed project is calculated by staff at the time an application is submitted using standard ITE trip rates.  Project applicants have the ability to conduct their own research and submit their own suggested trip rates, but it is ultimately up to staff to determine the most appropriate rate to use.

Size of Various Land Uses Generating 50 Peak Hour Trips

1.       Based on greater of AM and PM peak hour trip generation rate.  Sizes are derived from trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers or San Diego Association of Governments.

2.       Rate derived from Media District Specific Plan office-equivalency factor of 1.33.

At the time the ordinance was adopted by the City Council, there were two Development Review applications in process for projects that would generate 50 or more AM or PM peak trips.  Both of these applications would have been processed as ministerial applications and would not have been subject to discretion or environmental review.  One of these applications was later withdrawn, and the other has been placed on hold indefinitely by the applicant.  Since the ordinance has been in effect, nearly all of the Development Review applications for projects that would generate 50 or more peak hour trips have been for projects that were already subject to a discretionary process and environmental review because of the other planning entitlements also required for the project (e.g. Conditional Use Permit or Planned Development).  Only one application has been received for a project expected to generate 50 or more peak hour trips that would have otherwise been subject to a ministerial Development Review process without any traffic impact analysis or environmental review.  That application is currently being processed.

The ordinance was intended by the City Council to serve as an interim measure until the Council considered the proposed General Plan update.  As such, the ordinance was approved with a sunset date of July 31, 2007.  This date was recommended by staff because it was believed at the time that the General Plan update would be completed within that time frame.  If the Council does not act to extend the ordinance, it will expire on that date.  The previous Development Review process would again take effect, where non-residential projects that are not regionally significant and not located within 150 feet of a single family residential zone are processed as ministerial applications without discretion.

ANALYSIS:

Effects of TIMS

In the Media District, commercial and industrial development is currently limited by the office-equivalent floor area ratio as discussed above.  Outside of the Media District, commercial and industrial development is limited only by setbacks, building height, and the ability to provide adequate parking for the building based upon the use.  The maximum allowed intensity of development outside of the Media District is based only upon the size of the building and is not related to the use of the building.  Two buildings of the same size could therefore have very different traffic impacts, since certain uses generate substantially more traffic than others.

TIMS introduces an additional development control and seeks to equalize the traffic disparity among different uses by limiting building size based upon the amount of traffic it would generate.  The result of this approach is that in many cases, traffic generation becomes the limiting factor when determining the maximum size of development.  In most cases, the maximum size of a building that could be built under TIMS is smaller than what could be built under existing zoning standards.  The equalization of land uses under TIMS based upon traffic generation means that uses that generate very high volumes of traffic such as restaurants, banks, and convenience stores are restricted substantially more than uses such as warehouses that generate relatively low volumes of traffic.  This issue is illustrated with the following example showing the different amounts of traffic that would be generated from the same 25,000 square foot building:

Although all three uses have the same floor area, a retail store would create almost eight times as much traffic during the PM peak traffic hour as a warehouse in the same building.  To continue the example, if the maximum number of vehicle trips allowed under TIMS based upon the parcel size was 10 trips, the following table shows the maximum size of each use type that would then be allowed on the hypothetical property:

This example clearly shows the potential effects of TIMS.  TIMS substantially reduced the maximum square footage of all three uses, and reduced by a greater relative amount the square footage for those uses generating the highest traffic volumes.  The effect is that most land uses will have their development potential reduced from what is possible under current zoning, and that certain land uses that generate large amounts of traffic may be rendered infeasible to build.  If the size of a building is so limited that the project will not function as intended or the property cannot be utilized to its maximum potential, it does not make sense to build the project.  Economics aside, it may not be possible for a fast food restaurant to function if its size is limited to, for example, 500 square feet.  Further, it is not practical to develop a parcel if the building size is limited such that it and its parking do not occupy the entire parcel.  This same issue could also occur with reuse of existing buildings.  If a property owner wished to change the use of an existing building to a different use that would generate more traffic than allocated under TIMS, the building would not be able to be changed to the new use.  This could hamper efforts to recycle and reuse existing buildings.

Another result of TIMS is a disparity among properties with different land use designations in the General Plan.  As discussed above, the trip budgets under TIMS were assigned from the Travel Demand Model based upon the land use designation in the draft General Plan Land Use Element.  The trip budget is based upon the assumed mix of land uses within each land use category.  Since warehousing and industrial uses have lower traffic generation rates and are more likely to be found in industrial areas, the industrial land use designations were assigned lower trip budgets than commercial areas.  This includes the mixed industrial/commercial areas that may include both commercial and light industrial land uses.  The trip budget, however, was formulated assuming a certain mix of industrial and commercial uses, and this assumption is averaged out among all parcels within that land use category.  Therefore, if any individual property owner that proposes a mix of land uses that would generate more traffic than the assumed mix, the size of the development will be further limited.

The Chamber of Commerce representatives raised particular concerns about this issue near the Downtown area.  The proposed Downtown Commercial land use category assumes a mix of retail, restaurant, and office uses with a relatively higher intensity of development.  The trip budgets for the Downtown area are the highest in the City due to these assumptions and due to the area�s pedestrian oriented environment and proximity to public transit services.  West and south of Downtown along the Olive Avenue and South San Fernando Boulevard corridors, the land use designation changes to the proposed Mixed Commercial/Industrial designation, as originally approved under the Burbank Center Plan.  Because of the different land use designation and different assumptions about the mix of uses, the intensity of development is substantially lower than that allowed in the core Downtown area.  The Chamber representatives questioned the logic of allowing high intensities of development in the Downtown and substantially limiting comparable development immediately adjacent to Downtown, when the adjacent areas are viewed as a gateway to the Downtown area and have similar land use goals.

There are a number of ways that the original TIMS proposal may be modified to address some of these concerns, as discussed later in this report.  One issue with TIMS that cannot be addressed through modifications to TIMS is that of regional traffic using Burbank�s streets.  The traffic on Burbank�s streets is composed of motorists traveling to and from homes and businesses in Burbank, but also includes motorists traveling through the City going to and coming from destinations outside of Burbank.  As regional traffic volumes continue to increase and as freeways become more congested, surface streets will continue to be attractive alternatives to freeway driving.  This means that the number of vehicles traveling through Burbank but not stopping here will continue to increase, regardless of any restrictions placed upon the intensity of development in Burbank.

An unintended side effect of TIMS could actually be an increase in the amount of regional traffic on Burbank�s streets.  While certain traffic conditions can be affected through local land use controls, traffic congestion is fundamentally a regional issue that cannot be solved at the local level alone.  As local development is limited, the relative amount of traffic from local development will decrease over time.  This will lead to lower traffic volumes and less congestion on Burbank�s streets that might have otherwise been experienced if TIMS were not adopted.  However, less local congestion would make Burbank�s streets an even more attractive alternative to regional commuters.  This would lead to increases in the amount of regional traffic and greater congestion.  This scenario is evident in the �No Growth Alternative� growth forecast that was considered by the City Council.  This scenario would lock in all development in Burbank at its current level including projects that have already been approved, and not allow any further development.  Even with this restrictive approach, the Travel Demand Model shows that traffic volumes on Burbank�s streets will continue to increase over time and will result in many intersections operating at Level of Service E or F.  Although the total traffic volume remains less than those where local growth is allowed to continue, it is still higher than that existing today.  This is an important policy issue to consider: to what extent is Burbank willing to restrict the intensity of local development when an unintended consequence of doing so is to make Burbank�s streets more attractive to regional commuters and to increase the percentage of motorists on Burbank�s streets that are not coming from or going to a Burbank destination.  The City could potentially find itself in the situation where development has been restricted through TIMS, but traffic congestion continues to grow due to regional growth, regardless of the local development intensity controls placed on Burbank growth.

Economic Analysis

The method utilized by KMA to analyze the potential economic impacts of TIMS involved comparing the economics of sample development projects that could be built under current zoning to comparable projects that could be built under the limitations of the Council-directed development forecast as implemented through TIMS if it were adopted.[2]  Staff and representatives from the Chamber of Commerce identified 11 sites to analyze as sample projects.  The sites were distributed across the City and represented the Downtown, South San Fernando, Media District, and Golden State areas, as well as other parts of the City.  A document showing the locations of the 11 sites is attached as Exhibit B-1.  The projects studied on eight of the 11 project sites were taken from actual development applications submitted to the City.  The projects on the remaining three sites were hypothetical projects that staff and the Chamber of Commerce representatives believed could be reasonably expected to occur within the planning period for the General Plan.  In addition, an alternative project as proposed under the Burbank Center Plan was studied for one of the sites located in the Downtown area, for a total of 12 sample projects studied.

For each project, KMA analyzed three economic factors for the project built under current zoning requirements as compared to the equivalent project that could be built under the limitations of the development forecast as implemented through TIMS.  The three factors studied were the land value that would be supported by the project, the number of jobs that would be generated by the project, and the tax revenue to the City that would be generated by the project through property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes.  For 10 of the 12 projects studied, the project that could be developed under TIMS was smaller than the project that could be developed under current zoning.  The two projects for which TIMS would not require a reduction in project size were both mixed-use commercial/residential projects with residential units over commercial space.  This is because residential units have very low traffic generation rates as compared to non-residential development, so the limitations of TIMS do not have much effect on the ability to develop residential units.

KMA�s analysis concluded that TIMS would result in adverse impacts relative to all three of the factors studied.  Of the 10 sites where TIMS would result in a reduced project size, TIMS would cause a negative impact on land values for seven out of the 10 project sites.  This means that the land would be valued less for those sites if the TIMS regulation were in place than under current zoning restrictions.  Five of these seven sites would have their land value reduced by more than 40 percent and the greatest reduction in land value would be nearly 70 percent.  For one of the three sites where land value would not be adversely affected, the reduced project intensity required under TIMS led to a reduction in required parking, which in turn led to a lower project cost and corresponding increase in the supportable land value.  The projects on the remaining two sites were deemed by KMA to be economically infeasible even under current zoning regulations given current market conditions and were found to have no supportable land value.  Reducing the intensity of the project under TIMS therefore did not affect the land value since it was already effectively zero.

KMA noted three primary reasons for the adverse affect of TIMS on land values based upon the economic analysis:

• The decreased intensity of development allowed under TIMS would result in an inefficient use of the land area.

• Construction and parking costs would not support higher land values due to decreased return on investment from a lesser intensity project.

• The decreased income resulting from a lesser intensity project would not support higher land values.

For several of the project sites where TIMS would decrease land values, KMA also studied an alternative project under TIMS that might be more economically feasible.  For example, Site 1 on Hollywood Way used the sample project of fast food restaurants that are currently under construction.  Under TIMS, the maximum allowed size of the restaurants would decrease substantially, along with the land value.  KMA studied an alternative project of light industrial buildings.  This alternative project would support a higher land value than the smaller restaurants, even under TIMS, although the land value would still be lower than that which could be supported without TIMS.  On one of the sites studied, the alternative project under TIMS actually supported a higher land value than the original project proposal; this result was an anomaly.

With regard to employment and public revenues, KMA found that TIMS would reduce the number of jobs created for 10 out of the 12 projects studied and reduce tax revenue for nine out of the 12 projects studied.  As with land value, the cause for the reduction is that the intensity of the projects allowed under TIMS are in most cases smaller, and in some cases substantially smaller, than the comparable project as built under current zoning regulations.

KMA concluded that �implementation of the TIMS requirements significantly reduces land value in a majority of the sites analyzed� and also reduces the number of jobs and public revenues that would be earned from the projects.  KMA�s complete report, including more detailed discussion of the analysis of each project site and the assumptions behind the analysis, is attached as Exhibit B-2.

Traffic and Transportation Planning Consultant Analysis

Fehr & Peers (formerly Kaku Associates) performed a review of TIMS to evaluate the general methodology, assumptions, and its potential as an accurate system to relate traffic impacts of specific projects to overall, long-range Citywide forecasts used to develop the General Plan update.  In conducting their review of TIMS, Fehr & Peers reviewed the City Council staff report of September 20, 2005, which documented the TIMS process and methodology.  They also met with Planning and Transportation Division staff, who provided additional material outlining further details of the calculations and methodologies used to develop the TIMS rates.  Using this information, Fehr & Peers evaluated the proposed methodology and compared its implementation to current established industry standards for determining traffic impacts.  They also conducted research of other jurisdictions that have similar trip-based development controls as part of the project review process, as discussed further below.  The results of their analysis were presented in a memorandum attached to this report as Exhibit C.

After review of the material provided by staff, Fehr & Peers concluded that the TIMS approach has merit as a method for informing elected officials and project applicants of projected traffic impacts of new development as they relate to the overall land use forecasts in the City.  However, the analysis did identify a number of technical issues that should be addressed if the TIMS standard were to be implemented.  These issues are detailed in the attached memorandum and are summarized below:

• Directionality of peak hour trips: Certain land uses (e.g. residential versus commercial uses) may exhibit very different directionality of peak hour trips, even though their overall trip generation may be similar.  TIMS compares trip generation only and does not consider directionality of trips.  Caution should be used when comparing uses that change from residential to commercial, and vice versa.

• Development of neighborhood center and mixed-use trip generation rates not consistent with industry standards: Staff has considered utilizing a lower shopping center trip generation rate for certain land uses located in mixed-use, retail areas along commercial corridors and centers where patrons were likely to park at a central location and walk between multiple destinations after parking once.  The purpose of this approach was to take maximum advantage of opportunities for reduced traffic generation to allow for additional development intensity in certain circumstances.  Fehr & Peers recommended that use of the standard ITE methodology for mixed-use development be used instead as it is more consistent with accepted industry practice.  As an alternative, custom ITE rates for mixed-use and strip commercial development specific to Burbank conditions could also be used.

• Parking availability and cost not accounted for in trip generation process: Fehr & Peers noted that trip generation can be influenced by the amount of parking that is available.  In particular, sites that are either over- or under-parked may have trip generation characteristics that vary from the ITE rates, which assume ample, off-site parking in suburban locations with little transit activity.  It was recommended that parking rates or a parking study be used to verify the TIMS calculations and rates for projects that are either very dense and under-parked or contain an oversupply of parking on-site.  It should be noted that this phenomenon is not specific to the TIMS methodology but applies to all project-level traffic analysis where site-specific characteristics differ from typical ITE developments.

• Necessity for guidelines and standards to account for trip reductions due to transit accessibility, Transportation Demand Management, or pedestrian facilities: Fehr & Peers noted that any reductions that take alternative transportation modes into account should be based on current industry standards.

In addition to these technical issues, Fehr & Peers identified some additional general issues that should be considered if TIMS were to be adopted as a development standard.  In particular, it was recommended that TIMS calculations and trip rates be administered by the City rather than computed by project applicants to prevent errors in TIMS calculations or incorrect use of trip rates.  Also, it was recommended that any entitlement for development approved under TIMS, or any approved application for additional development above and beyond TIMS (such as through a discretionary approval of trips through a trip credit pool or similar mechanism) be given an expiration date.  This would minimize the perception of available trips as a �finite resource� and lessen the possibility of developers rushing to develop new projects before this �resource� runs out.

Fehr & Peers further recommended that TIMS be calculated for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) rather than applying TIMS rates on a Citywide basis.  This local, geographic approach would provide a better sense of the geographic distribution of development intensity within Burbank, and would eliminate a calculation step used to generate the TIMS rates.  This additional calculation step used to develop the citywide TIMS numbers across land use categories introduces additional variability and assumptions about the future land use makeup of the City that could be eliminated with a direct, TAZ-by-TAZ geographic approach.  Finally, it was observed that while TIMS could gauge a project�s overall impact to the City�s transportation network, TIMS was ineffective in measuring a project�s site-specific traffic impacts.  Fehr & Peers remarked that moderate to large projects still required review of local traffic impacts even with implementation of TIMS.

Fehr & Peers summarized that TIMS, as proposed by staff, does have the potential to provide a connection between development intensity and traffic generation provided that certain caveats and technical issues are addressed.  In particular, the techniques used to rectify and correlate the citywide, travel demand model assumptions with the project-level, ITE-based trip generation methodology need to be carefully considered so that TIMS reflects as accurately as possible the traffic forecast studies as part of the General Plan Update.  Issues such as trip directionality, mixed-use development, and mode-split (the proportion of trips taken by car versus transit, bicycle, pedestrian, or other means), which are accounted for in the travel demand model for citywide modeling purposes are not reflected in ITE rates.  Because TIMS seeks to compare the citywide travel demand model methodology to the project-level ITE-based approach, these factors must be addressed for TIMS to be an accurate representation of the growth forecasts ultimately approved by the Council.  In addition, the assumptions made about land use makeup and the type and location of forecasted growth should be fully understood as they affect the TIMS calculations and rates that set development intensities.  Focusing on a geographic approach based upon TAZs rather than a citywide approach based upon land use category could simplify the TIMS calculations and reduce the number of assumptions that must be made to calculate the Citywide TIMS rates.  A geographic-based TAZ-by-TAZ approach could result in a better relationship between TIMS and the underlying traffic forecasts developed through the travel demand model.

Chamber of Commerce Working Group

When the City Council directed staff to conduct further analysis of TIMS and to seek assistance from outside consultants, the Council also directed staff to work closely with representatives from the Chamber of Commerce to ensure that the business and development community were involved in the TIMS review and had input into the process.  Staff has met regularly with Chamber representatives.  The Chamber provided input and helped select the sites to be studied by KMA.  When KMA completed their preliminary economic analysis in January 2007, KMA staff and City staff met with the Chamber representatives to share KMA�s initial results and the methodology behind the analysis.  The Chamber was given an opportunity to review KMA�s analysis and findings and to provide input before KMA�s report was finalized.

Since that time, staff and a Chamber of Commerce subcommittee have met to discuss alternative approaches to TIMS and the City�s development model.  The Chamber representatives have provided staff with perspective about current and future market conditions in Burbank as staff examines specific sites that are believed likely to recycle during the General Plan planning period.  As active members of the real estate and development community, the Chamber representatives have been able to provide insight about long-term lease arrangements and the likely future availability of properties throughout the City.

Staff and the Chamber have discussed the City�s Travel Demand Model and the assumptions about future growth upon which it is based.  These assumptions and the model form the basis for TIMS.  The Chamber representatives have provided staff with an alternative growth forecast that redistributes growth throughout the City based upon their knowledge and beliefs about future growth in Burbank.  Staff is currently reviewing this alternative growth forecast and will analyze it through the Travel Demand Model to determine whether it would be a viable alternative to address some of the concerns about the overly restrictive nature of TIMS while still adequately addressing concerns about future traffic impacts.

Traffic-Based Development Intensity Regulations Used in Other Communities

In previous discussions with the City Council, staff noted that it was aware of few communities that utilized a traffic-based development control similar to TIMS.  As part of its review, staff asked Fehr & Peers to research similar regulations used by other cities.  Fehr & Peers located three cities that currently utilize traffic-based development control standards.  The methods used by each of these cities and a comparison to the TIMS approach are below; further details are included as part of Fehr & Peers report (Exhibit C).

• Century City, California: The Century City North Specific Plan in the City of Los Angeles assigns a maximum number of vehicle trips that may be generated daily from each parcel in the Specific Plan area.  Further, each project is required to complete certain mitigation measures based upon the percentage of overall daily trips for the Specific Plan area that the project generates.  Trips may be transferred from one parcel to another to allow for development on one parcel in addition to what would otherwise be allowed. 

The Century City South Specific Plan includes trip generation limits for projects in certain zones.  Projects are required to monitor the actual number of vehicles entering and exiting their garages and provide reports to the City of Los Angeles of their AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily vehicle trips.  Projects exceeding the assigned trip limit must implement trip reduction measures to reduce the number of vehicles to within the trip limit.  If the number of trips generated by a project continues to exceed the limit, monetary fines are levied.

The approach used in the Century City North Specific Plan is very similar to that proposed under TIMS.  The ability to transfer a trip budget from one parcel as used in both Century City plans is also a proposed feature of TIMS.

• San Rafael, California: The City of San Rafael assigns a maximum number of vehicle trips that may be generated from projects on previously undeveloped parcels in certain areas of the city that are most impacted by traffic.  Parcels that are already developed are considered built-out and do not receive any additional trip allocation beyond what is generated by the existing development.  Excess trip budget capacity that is not used by a particular project is placed into a citywide trip reserve that may be allocated to other projects.

The concept of San Rafael�s approach is similar to TIMS.  However, San Rafael only addresses those areas of the city most impacted by traffic and does not apply the restriction citywide as would TIMS.  Further, San Rafael only addresses undeveloped parcels, and does not allow additional intensification on parcels that are already developed.  As proposed, TIMS would apply to all non-residential parcels in Burbank, regardless of the existing development.  In cases where parcels are already developed with more intensity than would be allowed under TIMS, the existing development would be considered non-conforming and would be required to rebuild under the limitations of TIMS if it were destroyed.  San Rafael�s approach favors existing development that exceeds the traffic-based development limitations, and could be viewed as unfair to properties that are already improved and generate less traffic than may be allowed by new development projects on neighboring parcels.

• Orlando, Florida: The City of Orlando is divided into 15 traffic districts.  A maximum number of allowed daily vehicle trips for all new development is allocated to each district on an annual basis.  Once the incremental trip capacity for a district has been reached in a given year, no additional development is allowed in the district until the next annual trip budget is allocated.  The City of Orlando evaluates the Level of Service on streets within each of the traffic districts twice per year.  Based upon the results of the Level of Service analysis and the additional number of vehicle trips that can be accommodated, the trip budget for the following year is created.

The City of Orlando�s approach is similar to TIMS but is different in that it is based on geographically distributed traffic districts rather than by land use category as under TIMS, and the trip budgets are reassigned annually based upon ongoing traffic analysis rather than assigned once for the entire General Plan planning period as under TIMS.  One of the possible modifications to TIMS that staff is recommending is to use a geographical distribution based upon TAZs, as recommended by Fehr & Peers and discussed further below.  Allocating a trip budget on an annual basis may provide a better approach from a traffic standpoint, since it can be revised each year as needed based upon measurements of actual traffic conditions.  However, such an approach would provide a great deal of uncertainty for property owners and developers, since there would be no guarantee as to how much new development would be allowed in a given year.  Annual traffic counts and analysis would also require a substantial dedication of staff resources and installation of additional traffic-monitoring equipment, and would require the hiring of additional transportation planning staff to administer.

In addition to these three cities, staff was recently contacted by planning staff from the City of West Des Moines, Iowa.  West Des Moines is considering a traffic-based development control system that would be very similar to TIMS.  West Des Moines is a growing city and is considering using the system as a way to ensure that the traffic generated by new greenfield development on open land does not exceed the capacity of the planned street system.  In their preliminary analysis, West Des Moines staff indicated that they are facing some of the same challenges as Burbank, in particular the disproportionate limitations on uses that generate high amounts of traffic such as restaurants and banks.

TIMS Options and Alternative Approaches

Given the potential impacts and side effects of TIMS discussed in this report, there are several modifications or alternative approaches to TIMS that may be considered.  Staff is recommending that the Council direct staff to pursue some of these approaches.

No TIMS

The most drastic alternative approach would be to abandon the idea of trying to use a traffic-based development control.  Staff would develop floor area ratios or similar controls for the different land use categories in the General Plan.  Floor area ratios could be used in conjunction with an office-equivalency concept as is currently done in the Media District, although such an approach is similar in concept to TIMS and would likely include many of the same impacts and issues as TIMS.  Floor area ratios would provide some certainty about the size of development throughout the community but, as discussed earlier in this report, would provide little certainty about the amount of traffic to be generated by development.  For development forecast and traffic modeling purposes, assumptions would be made about the expected mix of land uses to determine anticipated traffic levels.  However, there would be no way to guarantee that the same mix of land uses would actually occur or that actual traffic volumes would match the assumptions.  If the City Council wishes to directly control development based upon the amount of traffic it would generate, staff does not recommend this approach.  If the City Council is comfortable limiting development based on assumptions about traffic without directly controlling the amount of traffic generated, staff would recommend that a more traditional development control like floor area ratio be used instead of TIMS.

TIMS as a Guideline

TIMS could be utilized as a guideline rather than a development standard.  Under this approach, TIMS would be developed and trip budgets calculated in the same manner as the current proposal.  However, rather than being an absolute limit on development, the maximum number of trips could be used as a threshold to trigger additional discretionary review by the Planning Board or City Council.

One of the goals behind TIMS is that it equalizes the development potential of all properties and projects by not allowing the first development in the process to take up more than its �fair share� of the street capacity.  Future projects, which may be smaller and create less traffic, are then subject to a higher level of scrutiny even though they are causing lesser traffic impacts.  Using TIMS as a guideline would still achieve this goal because any individual project that would take up more than its share of the street capacity would be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny and public review.  When approving a project that exceeded its trip budget, the Planning Board and/or City Council would be required to consciously acknowledge that the project is taking up excess street capacity but that the benefits of the project outweigh its traffic impacts, or require traffic reduction through additional trip reduction and demand management measures that would be monitored to ensure that specified traffic generation rates are not exceeded.

Under this approach, some assumptions would still have to be made about the number of projects that would be expected to exceed the TIMS limitations so that the Travel Demand Model and the environmental analysis for the General Plan update could analyze the expected impacts on the street system.  If the City Council does not wish to use TIMS as an absolute limitation on development but wishes to create a system where each project must be carefully analyzed and considered in light of its traffic contribution to the overall street capacity, staff would recommend that this approach be further studied.

Geographically-Based TIMS

One option that staff has discussed with the Chamber of Commerce representatives, and that was recommended by Fehr & Peers as discussed above, is to calculate TIMS on a geographic basis rather than based upon land use designation.  As discussed earlier in this report, calculating TIMS based upon land use designation results in averaging of trip budgets across the City and can lead to disparities among different land use designations in the same geographic area.  It also requires an additional calculative step to derive these citywide numbers that introduces additional assumptions and variability in the calculation of the TIMS rates.  This could be addressed through geographically-based trip budgets.  Because traffic volumes and impacts on streets vary in different parts of the City, a geographic trip budget would more closely follow actual traffic conditions and directly manage development in sensitive areas, as opposed to controlling development through Citywide averages.  This method would also provide a more direct connection among expected development patterns, the Travel Demand Model and the geographic Traffic Analysis Zones used in the model, and the development control.  Trip budgets for specific areas would be directly linked to the land use goals for that particular area and the acceptable levels of traffic as determined by the Travel Demand Model.

This approach would also facilitate more direct planning for specific areas of the City through the General Plan and zoning.  The traditional approach to the General Plan has been to utilize different land use categories to designate different types of land uses and to distribute those land use categories throughout the City.  Expanding this approach to TIMS may not be appropriate, given the effect of trying to average traffic impacts and trip budgets across different areas of the City.  If the City Council wishes to continue pursuing TIMS as a development control, staff recommends that the Council direct staff to study this alternative approach and to develop new TIMS numbers that are geographically based.  Although a geographic approach may increase the allowed development intensity in some areas of the City from the current TIMS proposal, it could result in decreases in other areas.  Further, staff notes that even with a geographic approach, the development potential of individual properties Citywide is likely to be lower than under current zoning in most cases, which would still result in adverse impacts to land value, jobs, and City revenues.

Modified Buildout Assumptions

TIMS is based upon the assumption that all parcels in the City will build out to 100 percent of their potential.  This was done to ensure that traffic volumes on Burbank streets would not exceed the expected levels.  This was also because the total buildout assumed under the Reduced Growth Forecast is not significantly greater than what already exists today and has already been approved.  However, it is highly unlikely that every parcel in the City will ever be developed to its limitations.  Therefore, it may be argued that it is unfair to limit development based on an unrealistic assumption.  The Chamber of Commerce representatives have suggested that TIMS be recalculated based upon more realistic assumptions that not every parcel in the City will develop to the maximum allowed intensity.  Trip budgets would be set higher than in the current proposal under the assumption that only a certain percentage of properties in the City would ever reach that potential. 

Without some additional controls, this approach could eventually lead to higher traffic volumes and greater traffic impacts than expected if a larger number of properties actually built out to their maximum potential than what was originally assumed.  Determining a reasonable buildout assumption would require further analysis by staff if the Council was interested in pursuing this option.

As proposed, TIMS would include two features that address buildout concerns through discretionary approval processes.  First, TIMS would allow for trip budgets to be transferred from one parcel to another through a discretionary approval process, similar to the Transfer of Development Rights concept used in the Media District Specific Plan.  This recognizes that some parcels will not build out to their full potential, and allows the owners of those properties to sell their excess trip budgets to nearby property owners that wish to develop their properties to a higher level of intensity.  Second, TIMS includes an additional pool of trip budget credits that could be allocated to specific projects through a discretionary approval process.  This approach has the same end result as using modified buildout assumptions since it provides for additional development capacity on certain parcels.  The difference with these approaches is that the trip budget transfer and additional pool of development potential would not be granted by right and would require approval through a discretionary process.  Recalculating TIMS based upon revised development assumptions would allow a higher intensity of development by right.

Staff believes that the approach of assuming less than full buildout when calculating trip budgets under TIMS is worthy of further study.  It is important to note that changing buildout assumptions may affect the manner in which the environmental impacts of the General Plan are studied in the Environmental Impact Report.  Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to study this issue further and to continue discussions with the Chamber of Commerce about appropriate buildout assumptions.

Staff notes that some of the buildout assumptions utilized for the current TIMS proposal are likely to change based upon other input received from the community and the City Council since the draft Land Use Element was released for public review.  The draft element includes proposed �Neighborhood Centers� at various locations throughout the City.  Most of the centers were proposed to be located along major and secondary arterial streets and were intended as focal points for neighborhood serving commercial uses, with a higher intensity of development than other commercial areas.  Many of the proposed Neighborhood Centers were located adjacent to single family residential properties.  Given the ongoing concerns about the intensity of commercial development in proximity to single family neighborhoods, staff intends to remove the proposed Neighborhood Centers and the higher intensity of development assigned to them in the Travel Demand Model.

First Come, First Served

As discussed above, the City of Orlando, Florida uses a development control similar to TIMS but assigns trip budgets to entire traffic districts rather than to individual parcels of land.  The trips are then allotted to development using a �first come, first served� system.  Project applications that are submitted first receive the requested allotment from the trip budget, whether or not the number of trips from the project is relative to the size of the parcel.  Once the entire trip budget is used, no additional development is allowed.  This approach could be used with a geography-based TIMS model.

As noted earlier, one of the goals of TIMS is to create more equality among projects such that no single project is able to produce a disproportionately greater number of vehicle trips than other projects in the area and take up more than its share of the street system capacity.  A first come, first served system is contrary to this goal, since it would potentially allow the first project through the process to take up most or all of the trip budget for a particular area.  This would limit the ability of nearby property owners to improve their own properties and could potentially result in their not being able to make any improvements as a result of a neighboring development project.  Although this approach would allow for some property owners to improve their property to the intensity that they desired, it would negatively affect other property owners.  It may be argued that a trip budget that is renewed annually as in Orlando would provide an opportunity for a different project each year.  However, there would still be inequity as some property owners may have to wait multiple years before getting the trip budget needed to improve their properties.  Staff recommends against this approach.

Existing Development as Baseline

As discussed above, the City of San Rafael, California assigns a trip budget only to undeveloped parcels.  As a fully built out city, Burbank has little to no undeveloped parcels.  All development in Burbank is in-fill recycling of previously developed properties.  As such, San Rafael�s system could not be directly applied to Burbank.  However, a similar approach could be used that would take existing development as the baseline and assign an incremental trip budget to all parcels.    All parcels in a particular area would be assigned an additional trip budget based upon the size of the parcel.  If the parcel were redeveloped, trip budget credit would be given for the existing development and added to the increment.

Staff believes that such a system would have the same inequality as a first come, first served system since property owners with a higher intensity of existing development would be able to retain it.  Property owners with underdeveloped properties would be locked in at a lower intensity of development with no opportunity to improve their property to the same level as neighboring property owners.  Staff recommends against this approach.

Additional Data Gathering Required for any TIMS System

If the City Council directs staff to pursue implementation of TIMS or a related traffic-based development control, staff recommends that further data gathering be performed to quantify mode-splits, Transportation Demand Management reductions, pass-by credits, pedestrian reductions, and reductions due to bicycle usage for different land use categories or geographic areas of the City.  This information is critical to address the inequity between the generalized trip generation used in the Travel Demand Model, and the project-based, ITE methodology used to evaluate specific projects through a traffic study.  Using a TIMS approach without taking into account these issues will result in a total General Plan buildout that will be lower than the Council-approved Reduced Growth Forecast as the raw ITE rates used to compare against a TIMS trip budget do not take these factors into account.  In its current form, TIMS rates developed by staff do take into account some citywide reductions for transit and other factors.  These factors should be refined as part of an adoption of TIMS as a development standard.

In addition to this data collection, staff is currently beginning a process to update the City�s Travel Demand Model to ensure that it remains consistent with the latest Southern California Association of Governments� regional model.  If the Council directs staff to pursue TIMS or a related development control, staff recommends that the necessary information collected and quantified on mode-split, Transportation Demand Management reductions, and other transportation reductions be integrated into the new Travel Demand Model.  This will ensure a tighter integration between the projected traffic forecasts in the Travel Demand Model and the limits placed on development by TIMS.

Development Review Ordinance

As discussed earlier in this report, the Development Review ordinance was intended to serve as an interim measure to ensure that projects with potential traffic impacts were adequately analyzed.  The ordinance was intended as a stopgap measure until such time that the City Council considered the General Plan update and TIMS or considered some alternative means of ensuring that development applications were considered in light of their potential traffic impacts.  The City Council adopted the ordinance with a sunset date of July 31, 2007 because it was believed at the time that the additional requested analysis of TIMS could be completed and that the Council could consider adoption of the Land Use and Mobility Elements by or before that time.

The additional analysis of TIMS requested by the City Council has taken longer than anticipated.  The analysis was recently completed and is being presented to the Council in this report.  The Development Review ordinance will sunset in two months.  The following is a brief summary of the remaining tasks in the Land Use and Mobility Elements update process:

• Pending direction from the City Council, continue to develop and analyze alternative approaches to regulate development based upon its traffic impacts.  Continue to work with the Chamber of Commerce on these issues.

• Revise TIMS as necessary including revisions to the development forecast.  Analyze the revised forecast and TIMS provisions using the Travel Demand Model.

• Analyze and complete other revisions to the draft Land Use Element including possible elimination of Neighborhood Centers and changes to policies regarding promotion of mixed-use and residential development in commercial areas.  Modify land use designations if needed to conform to revised TIMS provisions, including possible geographically-based approach.

• Finalize the revised Land Use and Mobility Element drafts.  Prepare any ordinances necessary to implement TIMS or another traffic-based development control.

• Hire an environmental consultant to prepare a revised Environmental Impact Report including a traffic analysis and determination of necessary mitigation measures.  Staff is requesting a budget allocation of $300,000 in next year�s budget to fund the environmental impact analysis.

• Conduct additional public outreach and hold study sessions as needed with the Planning Board and City Council.

• Hold public hearings with the Planning Board and City Council.

Staff hopes that these tasks can be completed within one year and that the revised drafts of the Land Use and Mobility elements and the Environmental Impact Report can be back before the Council for consideration by July 2008.  Therefore, staff is recommending that that the ordinance be extended for one year through July 31, 2008.  Alternatively, the Council may adopt the ordinance permanently with no sunset provision.  Staff recommends against this approach because the ordinance is intended as an interim measure and is not intended to be permanent.  The Land Use and Mobility Elements, once adopted, and the subsequent implementing Zoning Ordinance amendments, will address the community�s ongoing concerns about traffic in a manner deemed appropriate by the City Council.

If the City Council takes no action and allows the ordinance to sunset on July 31, 2007, Development Review applications would again be processed under the procedures in place prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 3702.  Development Review applications for non-residential projects that are not considered regionally significant and are not located within 150 feet of a single family residential zone would be processed as ministerial applications not subject to environmental review or traffic impact analysis, regardless of the amount of traffic they would generate.

Additional Consultant Analysis

At the time the City Council directed staff to hire outside consultants to review TIMS, the Council requested that a land use consultant be hired following completion of the economic and traffic analyses.  If the Council wishes to pursue any of the modifications to TIMS that are recommended by staff in this report, staff believes that it would not be productive to bring in another consultant to review TIMS at this time.  The changes recommended by staff could substantially modify TIMS and the manner in which it limits development.  Staff recommends that any further consultant analysis be performed on the revised version of TIMS once the modifications directed by the Council are completed, if deemed necessary.  Staff believes that the analysis by KMA and Fehr & Peers, along with the additional analysis performed by staff, provides the Council with adequate information to decide whether to pursue modifications to TIMS.  If it is determined at a later time that further outside review of TIMS is desired, staff will return with recommendations for hiring a land use consultant.

Pros, Cons, and Alternatives

The pros and cons of moving forward with TIMS as a development control in the General Plan update, and possible alternative approaches, are discussed throughout this report.

The pros of extending the sunset date of the Development Review ordinance are that the City would continue to have the ability to carefully review and analyze development projects generating more than 50 vehicle trips during the AM or PM peak traffic hours until the updated Land Use and Mobility Elements are considered by the City Council.  These projects would continue to be reviewed by the Planning Board in light of their potential traffic impacts.  The ordinance provides the City with additional discretion over these projects and establishes a threshold for requiring traffic analysis that would not be possible if the ordinance were allowed to sunset.

The cons of extending the sunset date of the Development Review ordinance are mostly related to the project applicant.  The ordinance requires certain applications to be processed through a discretionary review process when they would otherwise be subject to ministerial review.  This can add weeks or months to the application processing time.  If it is determined that a full traffic study is needed, the application processing time can be increased up to several months and the applicant bears the cost of having the study prepared.  This situation may be especially burdensome for applicants with projects that exceed the 50-trip threshold by only a small amount.  Projects producing 55 or 60 peak hour trips, for example, have a reduced likelihood of causing traffic impacts since they just exceed the 50-trip limit.  Such projects are nonetheless subjected to the discretionary review process and its additional time and cost.  A discretionary application is also subject to environmental review of impacts other than traffic.  This could result in further cost to the applicant to fund the preparation of an environmental review document.  The cons to the City of the Development Review ordinance are a greater dedication of staff resources due to the additional time and effort that is required to process discretionary applications.

If the City Council wishes for the City to continue having discretionary review authority over projects with the potential to create traffic impacts, staff believes that extending the existing Development Review ordinance is the best approach.  The ordinance establishes a threshold at which additional traffic analysis and discretionary review is required.  This ordinance uses a measured approach that staff believes balances the interests of developers and property owners with the community�s concerns about traffic.  If this ordinance were to be adopted permanently, staff would recommend that additional analysis be conducted to determine if a different fixed threshold or sliding threshold would be more appropriate.  As noted above, projects that just exceed the 50-trip threshold may have little to no traffic impacts and it may not be necessary to subject them to additional analysis.  Staff�s administration of this ordinance has provided additional information that will be taken into consideration as TIMS is further refined and the General Plan update moves forward.  Staff believes that the ordinance as it exists is appropriate as an interim measure until the General Plan update and the traffic-related development controls, if any, are adopted.  However, further refinement would be desired before considering it for permanent adoption.

CEQA Determination:

The recommended extension of the Development Review ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.  This section provides that a project is exempt from environmental review where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.  The recommended action would extend the sunset provision on an existing ordinance that deals only with application process issues and would not change any development regulations of cause any development to occur.  It would therefore have no environmental impacts. 

CONCLUSION:

Staff and the City�s consultants have identified a number of impacts and side effects that TIMS would have on development in Burbank if it were adopted in its currently proposed form.  Some of these issues can be addressed through modifications to TIMS.  Staff recommends that if the City Council remains interested in pursuing TIMS as a development standard that staff be directed to explore various alternative options, as outlined in this report.  If so directed by the Council, staff will further analyze the options to determine the extent of the potential impacts on land values, employment, and public revenue that could result from the various alternatives.  While these issues are further analyzed by staff and considered by the Council, the Development Review ordinance can continue to ensure that the potential traffic impacts of development projects are adequately considered.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to extend the sunset date of Ordinance No. 3702 until July 31, 2008.  Staff seeks direction from the City Council regarding TIMS and whether it should continue to be included in the Land Use and Mobility Elements update in its currently proposed form or in a modified form as discussed in this report.

Specifically, staff recommends that if the City Council wishes to pursue a development control based on traffic generation, the Council direct staff to proceed with developing TIMS with the following modifications, as discussed in greater detail earlier in this report:

• Geographically based TIMS: Redistribute trip budgets under TIMS based on a geographical distribution rather than based upon land use designations.

• Additional data gathering: Recalculate trip budgets and traffic generation rates to better account for mode-splits, Transportation Demand Management reductions, pass-by credits, pedestrian reductions, bicycle reductions, and land use patterns.

• Buildout assumptions: Modify the Citywide buildout assumptions used to calculate TIMS to recognize that not every parcel will build out to its full potential, and consider studying a higher level of Citywide development.  The economic impacts and limitations on development that would be caused by TIMS are not a direct result of the TIMS methodology itself, but rather the development forecast from which it is derived.  Modifying the development forecast to allow for higher levels of development and/or changing the buildout assumptions used in the model would allow for higher trip budgets under TIMS and lesser reductions to the amount of building square footage that could be developed.

If the City Council does not wish to pursue a development control based on traffic generation, staff recommends that the Council direct staff to continue developing TIMS as a guideline rather than a limitation on development.  This would provide the Planning Board and City Council with additional information about the traffic impacts of each project and whether the project would exceed its fair share of the Citywide street capacity without directly limiting the ability of property owners to develop their parcels.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A         Ordinance No. 3702

Exhibit B-1      Summary of project sites studied by Keyser Marston Associates

             B-2      TIMS Land Value Analysis report prepared by Keyser Marston

                         Associates

Exhibit C         TIMS Methodology Evaluation report prepared by Fehr & Peers

go to the top