1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 12, 2022
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director BY: David Kriske, Assistant Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Approval of a Metro North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Project Final Environmental Report Comment Letter
RECOMMENDATION
1) Approve a comment letter to Metro’s Final Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 1) for the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Project and direct staff to submit it to Metro prior to the Metro Board of Directors Planning and Programming Committee Meeting on April 20, 2022.
2) Select Opti on 1 as the City Council’s preferred project configuration as it collaborates with Metro on the project’s final design, and to communicate the preferred configuration to Metro as part of the comment letter.
BACKGROUND
Metro is currently conducting environmental review and public outreach for its North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project. This 18- mile project would construct a BRT between the North Hollywood Red Line / Orange Line Station and the Gold Line in Pasadena, passing through the cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena. BRT is high- capacity bus transit that offers fewer stops and speed improvements over a traditional bus route. Unlike a traditional transit project operating in Metro right of way, the project uses local city street right of way for operations as well as location of stations.
The proposed route (Attachment 2) would generally run from North Hollywood via Lankershim Boulevard and the Route 134 freeway before exiting the freeway in Burbank to serve the Burbank Media District. From there, the route would proceed east along Olive Avenue through Downtown Burbank, then south on Glenoaks Boulevard where it would leave the City and travel eastward to Downtown Glendale, the Los Angeles community of Eagle Rock, and Pasadena. The project would construct five stations in
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
2 Burbank: 1) Hollywood Way at Olive Avenue / Riverside Drive, 2) Alameda Avenue at Naomi Street / Buena Vista Street, 3) Olive Avenue at Verdugo Avenue / Sparks Street, 4) Olive Avenue at Lake Street , 4) Olive Avenue at San Fernando Boulevard, and 5) Glenoaks Boulevard at Alameda Avenue.
To achieve higher speeds and capacities, BRT generally operates in dedicated bus lanes on city streets , but is also flexible to operate in mixed- flow traffic using traffic signal technology or small bypass lanes to speed up travel times. In some cases, dedicated bus lanes can be built within roadway medians or other excess right of way, but often their implementation requires converting travel lanes or parking lanes into bus lanes. In addition to bus lanes, however, BRT also offers additional speed and reliability improvements such as all-door level boarding, payment required prior to boarding, further space between stations, and traffic signal priority. In Burbank, the route is proposed to operate mostly as a dedicated bus lane along portions of Alameda Avenue in the Media District, Olive Avenue, and Glenoaks Boulevard. Depending on the street configuration and width, the bus lane would be constructed by eliminating a vehicle travel lane and converting it into a bus lane. However, BRT has inherent flexibility. D epending on the neighborhood context of a particular BRT segment and the availabil ity of right-of-way to construct dedicated BRT lanes, dedicated lanes are not required in all areas to provide a viable transportation alternative.
DISCUSSION
Staff has followed Metro’s development of the project since 2016, and both Staff and City Council have provided written input and comments on the project throughout its environmental review which began in 2018. On October 26, 2020, Metro released a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and provided the public and stakeholders the opportunity to provide comments on the project. The purpose of the DEIR is for Metro to describe the proposed project, analyze how the project would impact the environment, and identify if there are mitigations available to mitigate identified impacts.
Based on staff’s review of the proposed project and the DEIR, staff believes that the NoHo to Pasadena BRT project supports several of the City’s goals and policies:
• Supports Burbank’s 12,000 Housing Unit Goal
• Relieves Transportation Impacts caused by Jobs-Housing Imbalance • Connects Burbank Residents to Regional Transit and Eases Impact of Regional Traffic on Neighborhoods
• Supports Metrolink Capital Investments to Achieve 15-Minute Service • Supports General Plan and Specific Plans
• Avoids Sensitive Corridors
While the project would implement several important City land use and transportation Goals and Policies, Metro’s DEIR for the project revealed that its choice for how it proposes to implement elements of the project would cause impacts to the City. The City Council approved a DEIR comment letter that discussed several of these impacts (Attachment 3).
3 In 2020, s taff recommended to the City Council that while the project has benefits for Burbank, it needs to be constructed in a way that respects Burbank’s land use patterns and transportation priorities, and should be modified in a way that allows Burbank to enjoy its mobility benefits while still building and protecting neighborhoods.
Since release of the DEIR in 2020, Metro staff has modified the project in Burbank to address some of the City Council’s concerns. Notable modifications to the project in Burbank include:
• Converting one travel lane each direction on Olive Avenue into Bus Lanes.
The original project description proposed to implement bus lanes on Olive Avenue by removing parking and narrowing sidewalks to achieve bus lanes along with two travel lanes in each direction (“curb-running”). In response to the City’s comments in the DEIR, Metro now proposes to implement bus lanes on Olive by removing one travel lane in each direction instead, which would preserve street parking and sidewalk widths (“side-running”). The City’s comment asked that this segment be implemented as “mixed-flow” where buses operate in regular traffic lanes. • Realigning the project to serve Disney and St. Joseph’s Hospital. The original project bypassed these major employment and medical destinations, and in response to the City’s concerns, Metro has modified the alignment in the Media District to utilize Alameda Avenue between Olive Avenue and Buena Vista Street, and Buena Vista Street between Alameda Avenue and Olive Avenue, with a stop planned at Alameda Avenue and Naomi Street / Buena Vista Street. Bus lanes are proposed on Alameda Avenue by r emoving limited street parking and converting the parking lane into a curb-running dedicated bus lane. • Removing the Olive Bridge station and relocating it to Olive Avenue and Lake Street. Metro’s proposed implementation of the Olive Bridge station involve d making minimal modifications to this 63-year-old structure that Staff believed were not feasible. In response, Metro has opted to relocate this station off the bridge entirely, and to locate it at Olive Avenue and Lake Street. This new location would require a 1/3 mile walk for BRT passengers to connect to Metrolink along the Olive Avenue frontage roads near the BWP campus and Borrmann Steel. • Removing the Olive Avenue / Buena Vista Street station and adding an Olive Avenue / Verdugo Avenue Station. Metro removed the Olive / Buena Vista station to accommodate the project’s realignment to serve Disney and St. Joseph’s Hospital while maintaining proper station spacing. In addition, a new station was added at the Olive / Verdugo / Sparks intersection (previously this station was identified as optional). T his station would be integrated with the City’s planned intersection realignment.
On March 25, 2022, Metro released a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the project. The purpose of the FEIR is to provide written responses to all the comments received during the DEIR, provide updated documentation and/or analysis in response to comments that Metro believes have merit, and potentially modify elements of the project in response to comments received. In response to the FEIR, staff reviewed Metro’s 4 response to comments for each of the City’s comments submitted with the DEIR and ascertained whether Metro’s response adequately addressed the City’s concern. In some cases, Metro clarified or modified the document in response to the City’s comments, and these adjustments were sufficient to address the City’s concerns. In other areas, Metro’s response did not adequately address the City’s concern, and in those cases , staff recommends the City submit a follow-up comment letter that responds to the FEIR. The City Council’s DEIR comment letter included the following major issues, which Metro responded to in the FEIR:
• Construction of Some Dedicated Bus Lane Segments Incompatible with General Plan Policies and Adjoining Land Uses . The City’s DEIR comment letter stated that the implementation of bus lanes in some areas would create impacts to surrounding residential and strip commercial land uses due to loss of parking, and that required street widening would reduce sidewalk widths to below the standards of the Burbank2035 General Plan. In response, Metro has introduced a new “side-running” bus lane option that would maintain parking and sidewalk widths at the expense of removing a vehicle lane on Olive Avenue, and therefore addresses the City’s concerns (albeit at the expense of increased vehicle congestion on this major arterial roadway).
• Proposed Station at Olive Avenue Bridge as designed Creates Safety and Mobility Element Policy Impacts. The City’s DEIR comment letter stated that Metro’s p roposed implementation of the Olive Bridge station would introduce safety, design, and constructability impacts, and would reduce vehicle lanes on Olive Avenue. In response, Metro has relocated this station to the intersection of Olive and Lake, which addresses the City’s concerns, but introduces additional issues related to poor connectivity to the Downtown Metrolink Station. • Project Should Help Implement Media District Transit Center. The City’s DEIR comment letter indicated that Metro should analyze wh ether the project supports or inhibits the creation of a transit center in the Media District according to Burbank2035 General Plan Policy 4.3. In response, Metro indicated that the project would not preclude the creation of a transit center in the Media District, but did not address whether the project’s implementation would support this policy. • Metro Should Mitigate Public Service Impacts. The City’s DEIR comment letter stated that the DEIR failed to disclose whether the project would impact police and fire public service impacts. In response, Metro indicated that the project would not change population levels in Burbank that would affect public services, and indicated that dedicated bus lanes could improve emergency access times by providing a clearer lane of travel for emergency vehicles. However, it did not address the substance of the City’s comment relating to the DEIR’s lack of information on the effects of how new bus riders might require the need for more emergency services, and where the costs to enforce motor vehicle laws related to dedicated bus lanes would be paid.
• Project DEIR Should Resolve Policy Impacts. The City’s DEIR comment letter stated that the DEIR should address potential significant impacts related to General Plan policies. Many of the City’s policy impact concerns are resolved with 5 Metro’s proposed changes to configuration of the bus lanes (from curb-running to side-running) and elimination of some bus lane segments such as on Glenoaks Boulevard. These changes come at the expense of introducing additional congestion on Olive Avenue, which is no longer an impact under CEQA, and introducing the potential for increased cut -through traffic into residential neighborhoods, which could conflict with other Burbank2035 General Plan Goals and Policies related to neighborhood protection. The FEIR also discloses that reducing a travel lane on Olive Avenue “may” conflict with the General Plan Mobility Element Street Classifications, but cites other portions of the Mobility Element policies related to Major Arterial, Transit Corridor streets that support the project.
A full analysis of Metro’s response to t he City’s comments is included as Attachment 4 .
In response to the FEIR, staff recommends the City Council direct staff to submit a comment letter to identify issues raised in the DEIR that have not been addressed. Below is a summary of some of the remaining issues identified by staff to be included in the City’s comments to Metro.
Apart from the technical comments discussed above, staff believes there are two significant project concerns that should be communicated to Metro. These issues are summarized below.
Bus Lanes on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista and Lake Streets Staff, the City Council, and the community have continued to voice concerns over the potential impacts of bus lanes on Olive Avenue. Metro’s change from “curb-running” (bus lanes created from parking lane) to “side-running” (bus lanes created from a travel lane) has eliminated the primary concerns of parking and economic impacts to adjacent strip- commercial land uses on Olive Avenue, the risk for parking spillover into single famil y neighborhoods, and impacts to sidewalk widths and pedestrian access along and across Olive Avenue caused by street widening. The side-running option removes these issues from the project.
The side-running option would affect transportation and land use along Olive Avenue in different ways. Removing a travel lane on Olive Avenue would increase congestion and delay for motor vehicles traveling along the street, given the amount of traffic that currently uses Olive Avenue. Metro indicates that converting a travel lane to a bus lane would cause vehicle traffic to shift onto other streets (to bypass the resulting vehicle delays), and that the traffic that continues to use Olive Avenue would see improved travel times because the signal improvements made for the BRT would also improve travel for cars.
Staff agrees that traffic will shift to other streets in response to the conversion to a bus lane, but disagrees with Metro’s assessment of the amount of traffic that will shift. Metro’s analysis of how other s treets in Burbank can accept the traffic shifts from Olive Avenue fails to account for the delays caused by that shifted traffic to other arterial intersections in the City. Metro’s traffic analysis looks at the mid- block street segment capacity of the alternate streets, but doesn’t analyze the available capacity at those streets’ intersections.
In urban street networks like Burbank, the roadway capacity constraints are at 6 intersections, not along the street segments. Staff believes that had Metro looked at intersections instead, they would have found far less “spare capacity” on these alternate streets to accept the traffic shifts from Olive , and more congestion on Olive Avenue caused by the conversion of mixed- flow lanes to bus lanes. This increased congestion would therefore increase the potential for cut-through traffic that would impact residential neighborhoods adjacent to the intersections on Olive that will experience greater volumes and delay.
Staff has not conducted a parallel traffic modelling exercise that looks at intersection capacity, However, based on staff’s experience in analyzing traffic conditions in Burbank for development projects, as well as looking at other lane reduction projects such as the Verdugo Avenue reconfiguration, converting a travel lane on Olive Avenue to a bus lane would result in some lesser amount of traffic shifts to other streets (due to less available intersection capacity elsewhere) and would result in higher lev els of intersection congestion and delay on Olive Avenue during peak periods that would be noticeable to the driving public. Staff believes that congestion would likely be minimal during off-peak periods, but would be increased during morning and evening weekday commute periods and possibly during some mid- day periods as well. Some of this could be offset by the proposed traffic signal improvements, but would be at the expense of delay on intersecting arterial streets.
As discussed above, Staff believes that the increased intersection congestion and delay at intersections along Olive Avenue (particularly Buena Vista, Verdugo, and Victory), would increase the risk of peak -period cut-through traffic into adjoining neighborhoods near these intersections. This increased risk could be ameliorated through a neighborhood protection program, which should be included as part of the project’s development. Staff believes that a protection program for Burbank’s neighborhoods must be included if bus lanes are implemented on Olive Avenue.
Necessity of an Olive Bridge Station at Metrolink
Metro’s removal of the Olive Avenue Bridge station and its relocation to Lake Street will significantly compromise the project’s ability to meet the goals and objectives of providing a convenient, reliable, regional transit service alternative for Burbank residents and employees. Staff believes that connecting the proposed BRT project to Metrolink is critical to creating a travel alternative to the automobile, to support the region’s investments in Metrolink service, and to accommodate the traffic caused by Burbank’s three-to-one jobs -housing imbalance. The proposed station at Olive and Lake would require passengers to walk 1/3 mile to connect to Metrolink along an uninviting and narrow pedestrian path alongside and under the Olive overpass , which would unduly burden patrons with disabilities . While the environment can be improved with first -last mile pedestrian improvements, the travel time needed to make this connection is to o lengthy for this connection to be convenient. Connecting the BRT to Metrolink must be a high priority for the project.
Staff believes that the City Council should insist that the Metro Board of Directors direct Metro staff to work with the City to develop a program to upgrade the Olive Avenue Bridge 7 to include a BRT station, with vertical connections to the Metrolink Station below, and with necessary pedestrian improvements made to the bridge to increase rider safety and convenience. This will likely re quire a substantial modification or reconstruction of the Bridge, and would likely take longer to implement than the BRT project’s 2024 timeline for opening. Nonetheless, Staff recommends that the City Council request that Metro do more than offer to move the station should the City reconfigure the bridge, but instead should ask Metro to actively work with the City to seek outside state and federal funding for the necessary improvements, and to include this project as one of its formal funding priorities. The City has already committed a portion of its Measure R Arroyo Verdugo Highway Operations Improvement Funds to the project that could be leveraged with other outside funding. Metro could identify the Olive / Lake station as an interim station while the Olive Bridge program is developed, designed, and constructed.
City of Burbank’s Position
Staff recommends that the City C ouncil submit an FEIR comment letter that communicates to Metro the City’s remaining concerns about the project, including concerns regarding bus lanes on Olive Avenue and necessity of an Olive Bridge Station.
In addition to comments on the FEIR, staff recommends the City Council communicate a clear position on the project so that the Metro Board of Directors understands the City’s requirements for the project to serve the City. Given the changes Metro has made to the project, the current recommended approach to Olive bus lanes and the Olive bridge, along with Staff’s position that the BRT project still supports several overall city goals and policies, staff recommends Council take the Option 1 position to be communicated to Metro. A second option is presented for Council’s consideration
Option 1 – Support BRT Project and install Mixed-flow Operations on Olive Avenue until Ridership Goal Met
Under Option 1, the City Council would support the project as proposed by Metro with the caveat that no side- running bus lanes on Olive Avenue be installed until the project achieves 17,500 average daily weekday boardings, which is 50 percent of the year 2042 project ridership predicted by Metro. This option would mean that Metro would delay implementation of the bus lanes until such time as ridership on the route rises to a level where the project is carrying about half of the people currently travelling on Olive in motor vehicles, and would therefore represent a point at which removing vehicle capacity for people travelling in cars is offset by improving the travel for a similar number of people travelling by transit. Staff believes this delayed implementation is possible because of the relatively minor signing and striping changes needed to reconfigure Olive from mixed-flow to side-running bus lane. Staff recommends the City Council recommend Option 1 to Metro.
Option 2 – Support BRT Project and Install Side-running Bus Lanes for 36-Month Trial Under Option 2 , the City Council would support the project as proposed by Metro, including the inclusion of side- running bus lanes on Olive Avenue. However, the implementation of bus lanes would be subject to the project achieving at least 17,500 average daily weekday boardings within 36 months of opening day. Should the project 8 not achieve that ridership level, then the City would have the right to direct Metro to remove the lanes and return the roadway to mixed-flow operations. This would allow the City to test the implementation of the bus lanes, measure traffic shifts and delays, and establish a performance period for the project to achieve the ridership goals predicted by Metro. If these ridership goals are not met, then Metro would commit to restoring the street and allow the project to operate as mixed-flow after 36 months. Metro may be more amenable to pursuing the Olive Bridge and neighborhood protection improvements (discussed further below) if the City Council chose Option 2 because it would allow Metro to implement the project with dedicated bus lanes to start. Metro’s goal is to implement as many miles of dedicated bus lanes as possible with the opening of the project.
Additional Conditions for Both Options
In addition to requesting Metro implement either Option 1 or Option 2, staff recommends the City request that the Metro Board of Directors establish the Olive Avenue Bridge program as an official project pursued by Metro, and t o work with the City to define a project scope, budget, and funding strategy to seek outside funding to construct the improvement. Should funding be secured, Metro would implement this project in collaboration with the City to design and construct the improvements and move the station to the new/reconfigured bridge once complete. This would follow the strategy used for the Empire Avenue Interchange, which was led by Caltrans in close collaboration with the City.
Finally, staff believes that both options require investments in additional first -last mile improvements as well as neighborhood protection measures to ensure Olive Avenue vehicle traffic does not divert into adjoining neighborhoods. Staff recommends the City Council request an additional $5 mill ion be allocated to the City for first -last mile and neighborhood protection elements beyond those already provided by the project. This ensures that the City continue to protect neighborhoods as it builds necessary regional transit connections that support its other goals and policies.
Staff recommends the City Council select Option 1 to require mixed- flow operations on Olive Avenue and direct staff to clearly indicate to Metro that allowing the project to proceed in Burbank will be contingent on Metro constructing the project as requested by the City Council and addressing these issues. Staff continues to believe that the project advances several important City goals and policies, while addressing needed regional transit and reducing vehicle miles travelled into the City. But, as stated through the City Council’s comment letter in 2020, it must be done in a manner that protects Burbank neighborhoods and respects Burbank’s land use and transportation priorities.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City by submitting comments on Metro’s FEIR. Ensuring that Metro addresses the City’s concerns will allow the City to advance several land use and transportation goals while protecting neighborhoods. The proposed conditions will also reduce the likelihood that impacts born to the City by the project will have to be mitigated with City funds.
9 CONCLUSION
Metro is proposing to construct a high capacity, BRT route between the North Hollywood Red Line / Orange Line Station and the Gold Line in Pasadena with a route that would pass through the City of Burbank. The project has the potential to support several City Council goals related to land use, mobility, housing production, and easing impacts of the jobs-housing imbalance. While staff believes the City Council should support the project, this support should be contingent on Metro resolving the remaining issues related to bus lanes on Olive Avenue, a station on the Olive Avenue Bridge, and addressing other items not adequately responded to in the FEIR.
To ensure that the project supports the City’s General Plan and builds and protects Burbank neighborhoods, staff recommends the City Council approve the attached FEIR comment letter, and recommends the City Council select Option 1 included in this staff report to request mixed-flow operations on Olive Avenue. The proposed comment letter would be transmitted to Metro ahead of the Metro Planning and Programming Committee meeting on April 20, 2022 when approval of the project will be discussed. In addition, staff and the City Council should continue to work with its regional, county, and state officials to ensure the project is implemented in a way that serves the City of Burbank.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Draft FEIR Comment Letter
Attachment 2: North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Proposed Project Route Attachment 3: City Council 2020 Draft EIR Comment Letter Attachment 4: Matrix of City’s DEIR Comments and Metro’s FEIR Responses