Agenda packet — Burbank City Council, May 20, 2026

BURBANK CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2026
3:00 p.m. – Council Chamber
275 E. Olive Avenue, Second Floor

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special City Council Meeting will be held in the Council Chamber – 275 East Olive Avenue, Second Floor, on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., to discuss matters on the attached agenda.

Members of the public have the option to participate in the meeting via in-person and/or telephonically for Closed Session Public Comment. They may also submit their written comments regarding City business using the eComment feature on the City website.

Auxiliary aids and services are available for individuals with speech, vision, or hearing impairments (24- hour notice is required). For more information, please contact the ADA Coordinator at (818) 238-5051.

Interpretation Requests
:

If you would like to participate in Public Comments and require an interpreter, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (818) 238-5851 at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

Si desea participar en los comentarios públicos y necesita un intérprete, por favor llame a la Oficina de la Secretaria Municipal al (818) 238-5851 al menos 24 horas antes de la reunión.

How to View the Meeting
:

Local Cable: Spectrum Channel 6 or AT&T Uverse Channel 99.

YouTube Live Streaming Channel:

Click here
.

City Website Live Streaming:

Click here
.

Public Comment Options
:
1 .

To speak during Special Meeting Public Comment, members of the public may speak in-person in the Council Chamber or call
(818) 238-3335
. Speaker time limits will be determined by the
Presiding Officer, depending on how many public comment cards are received and how many callers are in the queue at the commencement of each public comment period (as shown below).

Additional public comment cards and calls will not be accepted once the public comment period commences.
1 – 20 Total Speakers – 3 minutes each
21 – 39 Total Speakers – 2 minutes each
40+ Total Speakers – 1 minute each
2 .

Written public comment may be submitted via eComment, available on the City website (
www.burbankca.gov/web/city-clerks-office/ecomment
) from the time the agenda is posted until
2:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. eComments will be distributed to the City Council in advance of the meeting.
3 .

The Presiding Officer has the discretion to reduce speaking time for each speaker in order to ensure that City business can be completed at a reasonable hour.

Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
May 20, 2026

1 A.

Call to Order: 3:00 p.m.

Moment of Reflection
:

Flag Salute
:

Roll Call
:

Reports to Council
:

1. Update on Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority North Hollywood to Pasadena Corridor Bus Rapid Transit and Senate Bill 79 – Community Development Department
Special Meeting Public Comment
: (On Special Meeting items only.) To Comment, please
telephone into the meeting at (818) 238-3335 or to speak in person, a TAN
Public Comment
Card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk prior to the comment period.

Council Action
:

Adjournment
:

To Tuesday, June 2, 2026, for a Joint Meeting in the Council Chamber – 275 East Olive Avenue, Second Floor.

Public Disclosure
:

Please be advised that any communication submitted to the City of Burbank, its officials, staff or City consultants, may be considered a public record under the Brown Act and California Public Records Act.

This means that any information contained in the communication, including personal information, may be subject to public disclosure. The City reserves the right to disclose such information in accordance with the law.

This agenda contains a summary of each item of business which the City Council may discuss or act on at this meeting. The agenda packet consisting of the staff reports and all other documentation relating to each item on this agenda will be posted on the City's website at www.burbankca.gov
. Any writings or
documents provided to the City Council regarding any item on this agenda subsequent to distribution of the agenda packet will be posted on the City's website at www.burbankca.gov
. If you have a question
about any matter on the agenda, please call the Office of the City Clerk at (818) 238-5851. The Council Chamber is disabled accessible. Auxiliary aids and services are available for individuals with speech, vision, or hearing impairments (24-hour notice is required). Please contact the ADA Coordinator at (818) 238-5051 with questions or concerns.

Attachments
:

SR - BRT and SB 79 Update
Att1 - Project Alignment
Att2 - 04.12.22 SR & EIR Comment Letter
Att3 - 03.26.24 SR & Cooperative Agreement
Att4 - 01.27.26 SR
Att5 - HCD SB79 Guidance
Att6 - TOD Stops & Development Areas
Att7 - Letter Requesting Environmental Review
Att8 - Letter re BRT 100 Percent Plans
Att9 - Response to Request for Environmental Review
Att10 - Response to Letter re 100 Percent Plans
Att11 - Request for Level 2 Dispute Resolution
Att12 - City Response and Offer re Dispute Resolution
Att13 - Letter to SCAG

Burbank City Council Meeting Agenda
May 20, 2026

2 1

STAFF REPORT

DATE: May 20, 2026

TO: Justin Hess, City Manager

FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director BY: David Kriske, Assistant Community Development Director, Transportation

SUBJECT: Update on Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority North Hollywood to Pasadena Corridor Bus Rapid Transit and Senate Bill 79

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides Council and the community with an update on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) North Hollywood to Pasadena Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (BRT or Project) and the Project’s potential for designating higher residential densities around transit stops pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 79. Staff will cover:

1. Metro’s current BRT Project timing;

2. Confirmation of the BRT Project’s potential SB 79 stop designations at five of six Burbank stations; and

3. City proposals made to Metro to ensure SB 79 densities do not impact the City’s infrastructure without proper environmental analysis.

BACKGROUND
This staff report provide s an update on the latest status of Metro’s BRT Project, staff action taken regarding SB 79 since Council’s January 27, 2026 direction, as well as the City’s o verlapping concern that the Olive Avenue segment of the BRT Project could trigger SB 79 densities that were not considered in the BRT Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and for which the City’s infrastructure cannot currently handle.

BRT Project’s Historical and Current Status
The Project aims to construct an 18-mile BRT between the North Hollywood B / G Line Station and the A Line in Pasadena, passing through Los Angeles, Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena (Attachment 1). BRT is high-capacity bus transit offering fewer stops and 3 2

speed improvements over a traditional bus route. Unlike traditional transit operating in Metro right of way, the BRT uses local city right of way for travel and station locations.

The City has supported the BRT by participating in its planning, environmental review, and design stages. During the Project’s environmental review, the City Council requested mixed-flow on one BRT segment along Olive Avenue between Buena Vista and Lake Streets due to concerns about intersection congestion and related spillover traffic impacts into adjoining residential neighborhoods, which impacts were not fully analyzed in Metro’s Final EIR. Concerns over Olive Avenue traffic operations and spillover traffic were raised by the City in Metro’s environmental process as early as 2020, and the City’s mixed-flow position was communicated to the Metro Board of Directors via comment letter submitted to the Project’s Final EIR in 2022 (Attachment 2). Yet, the Metro Board disregarded the request and instead designated one vehicle travel lane on this Olive Avenue segment in each direction be reconfigured as a dedicated bus lane when it approved the Project.

The City and Metro’s continued collaboration on Project design and deliver y came next through a jointly-approved Cooperative Agreement (Attachment 3). At the meeting where the Cooperative Agreement was approved, the Council reiterated its position for mixed- flow on Olive Avenue and invited Metro staff to respond. Metro ’s Executive Officer indicated that the Project design and lane configuration was not yet final and urged the Council not to include a specific project description with mixed-flow in the Cooperative Agreement so that the parties could jointly work together to agree on final design, including mixed flow, essentially deferring the dispute. To date, the two agencies have not resolved the issue. Metro is completing design for its BRT Project, including submitting the most recent final plans on April 16, 2026, with final City comments due on or before May 18, 2026. City staff have indicated to Metro that construction permits cannot be issued while the configuration of Olive remains unresolved. This designation now has impacts for development under SB 79.

SB 79 Overview & Relevance to BRT Project
SB 79 was signed by the Governor on October 10, 2025 and takes effect July 1, 2026.

The new law is intended to facilitate transit-oriented housing development by establishing new development standards near qualifying transit facilities such as the proposed stations along the BRT Project . As a result, SB 79 densities along the BRT, particularly along Olive Avenue , would present significant challenges related to development intensity, utilities, infrastructure, capacity and environmental review, and may intro duce additional complexity to ongoing local planning efforts. Newly imposed impacts will result in significant environmental concerns that need to be analyzed and considered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

SB 79 land use concerns, and the unresolved configuration of the BRT Project have become intertwined because the configuration of BRT striping and station locations 4 3

impact how and where SB 79 may affect residential densities throughout Burbank.

Without changes to Metro’s 2022 BRT Project description, t he designation of five of six current Burbank BRT stations will trigger changes to residential land use densities under SB 79 , which would require subsequent environmental review of the Project before permits can be issued.

Follow-up to January 27, 2026 SB 79 Update to Council
On January 27, 2026 the Council received a report on SB 79 with some of the above information as well as staff recommendations for pursuit of SB 79 policy clarifications and a legislative clean-up (Attachment 4). Such efforts were unsuccessful. Specifically, staff attempted to influence legislation meant to “clean up” SB 79 and clarify interpretations that could lessen its impacts to the City. In February 2026, staff met with legislative representatives from the offices of Senator Menjivar, Assemblymember S chultz, and Senator Wiener (sponsor of SB 79). At these meetings, staff discussed the City’s concerns regarding impacts of SB 79, offered example language for legislation that would limit SB 79’s local applicability, and suggested other changes to the law’s applicability to BRT stations along routes with a mix of bus lanes and mixed-flow operation. Staff did not receive any favorable responses nor a commitment from any legislative representative to pursue clean-up language. Staff also attempted to meet with staff and consultants from Senate Housing and Local Government Committees, but the meetings were declined.

Staff also investigated SB 1361, introduced in April 2026 originally aimed at adjusting the applicability of SB 79 to certain projects in Los Angeles County including BRT. Th e bill was substantially revised and is no longer helpful in lessening SB 79’s impact on the City.

Instead it aims to curtai l cities’ opposition for projects involving planned transit-oriented (TOD) stops.

DISCUSSION
The BRT Project Triggers SB 79
The proposed BRT Project alignment and stations could trigger new residential density in several areas throughout the City where SB 79 designates the stop as TOD stops, which allow higher densities within specified radii of the stop. The BRT will construct six stations in Burbank: (1) Hollywood Way at Olive Avenue, (2) Buena Vista Street at Alameda Avenue, (3) Olive Avenue at Verdugo Avenue / Sparks Street, (4) Olive Avenue at Lake Street, (5) Olive Avenue at San Fernando Boulevard, and (6) Glenoaks Boulevard at Alameda Avenue.

BRT stations qualify as TOD stops under SB 79 if the station is served by bus service that 1) operates in full-time dedicated bus lanes at or near the station , and 2) runs at a frequency of 15 minutes or greater during weekday peak periods . Staff’s analysis, with subsequent guidance from California Department of Housing and Community Development (Attachment 5), suggests that five of six BRT stations could be designated SB 79 TOD stops, depending on the final lane configuration of the Project and the Project 5 4

definition used by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the agency drawing official maps designating TOD stops and radii (Attachment 6).

SB 79’s Application to the BRT Will Create New Environmental Impacts SB 79’s d evelopment potential around BRT TOD stops is a substantial change to the environmental circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken . This new development potential was not evaluated by Metro in its EIR for the Project. The BRT EIR determined that the Project would have a less -than-significant Land Use and Planning Impact because it would be limited to operating entirely within existing transportation corridors and would not impact land uses. But SB 79 has changed the circumstances around which the BRT was analyzed, and now potentially causes cumulative impacts caused by increased residential development, particularly with respect to trans portation operations, utilities, public services, and other City infrastructure . As a Responsible Agency under CEQA, the City is responsible for considering whether further BRT approvals with unstudied land use impacts in City rights of way need additional environmental review.

On January 30, 2026, the City communicated to Metro that, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, it could not issue permits for the BRT unless subsequent environmental review was conducted (Attachment 7). On February 17, 2026, the City reiterated this in its 100 percent project plan comments (Attachment 8). Metro responded to both communications indicating their disagreement (Attachment 9 and Attachment 10).

City and Metro Attempt Dispute Resolution
The City’s recent concern about BRT stations trigger ing SB 79 has compounded its longstanding, preexisting concern about Metro’s preferred configuration of dedicated bus lanes on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista and Lake and the likelihood of spillover traffic into adjoining neighborhoods due to increased congestion at intersections along Olive Avenue. The Cooperative Agreement includes a dispute resolution process when disagreements arise in the development of the Project. To attempt to resolve both the SB 79 con cern and the Olive Avenue configuration conflict, the City requested a “level 2 dispute resolution” meeting (Attachment 11), which was held on April 2, 2026. On April 22, 2026 the City proposed terms to Metro to resolve conflicts and allow the Project to move forward (Attachment 12).

BRT Project Changes Could Substantially Lessen SB 79 Impacts Several small physical modifications to the BRT Project could substantially lessen the impacts caused by increased SB 79 residential densities and honor the City’s previous request for mixed-flow operations on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista and Lake. Metro could modify the BRT as proposed which allows the BRT to move forward to construction, begin operating, and provide improved regional transit service to the public. Specifically, the City proposed the following:
6 5

• Address the City’s long-standing request to construct the Project as mixed-flow on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista and Lake. Relevant BRT stations are already designed to be served by either mixed-flow or bus lane service. This would result in two stations not meeting the operational criteria for SB 79 TOD stop designation. • Make minor modifications to bus lane striping near the Olive/Hollywood and San Fernando/Olive stations where bus lanes currently transition to mixed -flow, including removing up to 200 feet of bus lane striping to ensure that bus lanes transition to mixed -flow at least 200 feet from entrance to the station area . This would result in two additional stations not meeting the operational criteria for SB 79 TOD stop designation.
• Maintain the BRT mixed-flow design at the Buena Vista/Alameda station currently included in Metro’s 100 percent plans , so that it remains ineligible from being classified as a SB 79 TOD stop.

By making design changes around four stations and maintaining the current design at a fifth, staff believes that SB 79 would not apply to five of six BRT stations in Burbank. Only the Glenoaks/Alameda station would remain an SB 79 TOD stop because it is served by an extensive, full-time dedicated bus lane in the median of Glenoaks Boulevard that extends from Providencia Avenue in Burbank to Central Avenue in Glendale. That station is located on the boundary with Glendale and its SB 79 TOD stop radius of eligibility is only half in Burbank (half in Glendale) . The half radius is located in an area that already contains primarily higher density multifamily and commercial zoning that is closer to the densities prescribed by SB 79, and would be located closer to the transit -rich neighborhoods. Eliminating SB 79 density from five stations while strategically accepting it at one would lessen the overall cumulative environmental Land Use and Planning impacts caused by the BRT.

Alternative Approach to Lessen SB 79 Impacts – Peak Period Bus Lanes The City’s current proposal requires modifications to the bus lane limits to reduce their proximity to stations . An alternative option could be an agreement that dedicated bus lanes in Burbank only operate during peak periods instead of full time, because SB 79 only applies to TOD stops served by full -time bus lanes. Changing bus lanes to peak - period operation could similarly result in five of six BRT stations no longer being classified as SB 79 TOD stops; however, this approach would not address the City’s original concerns about vehicle congestion on Olive Avenue and neighborhood spillover traffic in adjacent residential neighborhoods during peak hours. Installing peak-period bus lanes on the BRT at Olive may still cause congestion during the four peak hours (two AM and two PM) daily during weekday travel, but would not affect traffic conditions at any other day or time. The City and Metro could also agree to make a combination of changes.

7 6

SCAG SB 79 Map Approval and Metro Cooperation
SB 79 tasks SCAG with drawing maps around eligible TOD stops to identify where SB 79 densities apply. SCAG has indicated that it intends to present final maps for approval by the SCAG Regional Council in June 2026 (https://scag.ca.gov/housing). Staff believes that SCAG’s approval of SB 79 maps that impart new residential densities with the potential for environmental impacts is an action subject to CEQA, and communicated this position via letter sent March 3, 2026 (Attachment 13). The City’s proposal to Metro could substantially lessen the land use impacts caused by SB 79’s application to the BRT.

Analyzing SB 79 densities and application around t he BRT is complex because it is unbuilt, but the law will nonetheless consider and designate qualifying TOD stops July 1, 2026. For unbuilt projects, SB 79 states that SCAG should identify TOD stops based on the preferred alternative selected by the transit agency’s governing board (e.g. Metro Board of Directors), or the project description that is included in a regional transportation plan. There is uncertainty on how SCAG w ill designate TOD stops along the BRT, especially if the final design plans are updated as described above, but the preferred alternative adopted by the Metro Board in 2022 contains designated lanes on Olive Avenue and at stations. If the City and Metro agree to changes described above, the City should request Metro’s cooperation informing SCAG of project changes.

Next Steps
As of the date of this report, the City and Metro continue to disagree on two issues related to BRT:
1) dedicated versus mixed flow operations on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista Street and Lake Street and
2) the ability of the City to issue permits for the Project without Metro’s subsequent environmental review.

The City has continued to collaborate with Metro on project design and has timely reviewed all other elements of Metro’s 60, 85, and 100 percent plans to ensure they meet City standards for construction. Metro has indicated that it will allocate full construction funding for the project in late May 2026 , would like to break ground on construction in Burbank in July, and complete the project in 2027.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Metro conducted extensive community outreach and engagement throughout the development of the BRT, during both conceptual project development as well as through the CEQA analysis and related EIR process. This outreach helped Council develop its formal position supporting the project with mixed-flow on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista Street and Lake Street. Metro has conducted no outreach regarding SB 79 and BRT. The City Council received a presentation on SB 79, including its relation to the BRT, on January 27, 2026.

8 7

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Metro as the lead agency for the Project conducted environmental review pursuant to CEQA and an EIR was prepared pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15080 et seq., which was certified by the Metro Board of Directors on April 28, 2022. On January 30, 2026 the City, as Responsible Agency, informed Metro that the EIR is now inadequate because the adoption of SB 79 and its potential application to five of six BRT stations is new information that changes the circumstances under which the BRT was analyzed, and therefore the City cannot issue permits without subsequent environmental analysis.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact with this update, however, implementation of the BRT’s design which triggers SB 79 densities around five of six stations could have significant fiscal impacts due to unanticipated and unplanned increased demands on City infrastructure.

CONCLUSION
The City has continued to collaborate with Metro to deliver the BRT Project, while continuing to assert the Council’s request for mixed -flow operations on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista Street and Lake Street. The adoption of SB 79 has now introduced the potential for higher densities around five of six BRT stations, depending on how the Project is designed and constructed . The City has communicated that SB 79 requires Metro to conduct subsequent environmental review for the Project if its design triggers increased residential densities around proposed BRT stations due to SB 79 . Metro has declined and continues to reiterate its preference to designate Olive Avenue with dedicated bus lanes between Buena Vista Street and Lake Street. Staff from both agencies have conducted administrative dispute resolution, and the City’s proposal offers a solution that would allow the project to move forward.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Project Alignment
Attachment 2 – April 12, 2022 City Council Staff Report and Final EIR Comment Letter Attachment 3 – March 26, 2024 City Council Staff Report and Cooperative Agreement Attachment 4 – January 27, 2026 SB 79 City Council Staff Report Attachment 5 – California Housing and Community Development Dept. SB 79 Guidance Attachment 6 – Metro BRT TOD Stops and SB 79 Development Areas Attachment 7 – Letter to Metro Requesting SB 79 Subsequent Environmental Review Attachment 8 – Letter to Metro Regarding BRT 100 Percent Plans Attachment 9 – Metro Response to Request for Subsequent Environmental Review Attachment 10 – Metro Response to Letter Regarding 100 Percent Plans Attachment 11 – City Request for Level 2 Dispute Resolution Attachment 12 – City Response and Offer to Metro RE: Level 2 Dispute Resolution Attachment 13 – Letter to SCAG (and Response) regarding SB 79 TOD Stop Designations and CEQA Obligations
9 Project Alignment

ATTACHMENT 1-1
10 Project Alignment – Detailed Burbank View

ATTACHMENT 1-2
11 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
ATTACHMENT 2-1
12 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 availability 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).

ATTACHMENT 2-2
13 In 2020, staff 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 removing 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). This 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 ATTACHMENT 2-3
14 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 whether 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 ATTACHMENT 2-4
15 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 the 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 ATTACHMENT 2-5
16 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 levels 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 ATTACHMENT 2-6
17 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 Council 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 ATTACHMENT 2-7
18 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 million 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.

ATTACHMENT 2-8
19 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 s everal 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

ATTACHMENT 2-9
20 ATTACHMENT 2-10
21 ATTACHMENT 2-11
22 ATTACHMENT 2-12
23 ATTACHMENT 2-13
24 ATTACHMENT 2-14
25 Attachment 2

North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Project
Proposed Project Route

ATTACHMENT 2-15
26 ATTACHMENT 2-16
27 ATTACHMENT 2-17
28 ATTACHMENT 2-18
29 ATTACHMENT 2-19
30 ATTACHMENT 2-20
31 ATTACHMENT 2-21
32 ATTACHMENT 2-22
33 ATTACHMENT 2-23
34 ATTACHMENT 2-24
35 ATTACHMENT 2-25
36 ATTACHMENT 2-26
37 MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 30, 2020

TO: David Kriske, Assistant Community Development Director

FROM: Daniel J. Rynn, Chief Assistant Public Works Director – City Engineer

SUBJECT: Project No. Metro Bus Rapid Transit Project
Located at North Hollywood to Pasadena

Project Description:

On October 26, 2020, Metro released a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for its North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Project. The Proposed Project would run from the North Hollywood Red/Orange Line Station in the City of Los Angeles through the Cities of Burbank and Glendale and into the City of Pasadena ending at Pasadena City College. Bus Rapid Transit is high capacity, frequent bus service that operates on local streets in both mixed-flow and dedicated bus lanes with fixed transit stops like a rail line. The Proposed Project would operate along a combination of local roadways and freeway sections with various c onfigurations of mixed- flow and dedicated bus lanes depending on location. Attachment 1 shows the project corridor. In Burbank, the route is proposed to operate as a dedicated bus lane along Olive Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard.

The bus lane would be constructed by generally widening these streets by one to two feet on each side and eliminating on- street parking. Stations are proposed in public right of way on Olive Avenue at Hollywood Way, Alameda Avenue, I-5 Olive overpass / Metrolink Station, and San Fernando. A station is also proposed on Glenoaks Boulevard at Alameda Avenue. The project would be served by electric transit buses.

ATTACHMENT 2-27
38 ENGINEERING DIVISION

General Requirements:

 The City’s arterial paving program has identified portions of Olive Ave to be repaved by 2022. Any impacts to the pavement on these segments of Olive Ave will have to be repaired per the City of Burbank Standards.

 Bus pads will be required at all bus stops.

 The Olive Ave bridge currently has two lanes of traffic in each direction. Creating one lane in each direction as a dedicated bus lane may cause additional traffic congestion and additional pedestrian traffic over the bridge and to the Metrolink access point. The DEIR should consider widening the bridge to create the dedicated bus lanes and/or bus turnouts. At a minimum, the sidewalk widths should be increased and the substandard safety barrier rails on both sides of the bridge should be upgraded.

For additional information or questions, please contact Anthony Roman, Civil Engineer Associate, at (818) 238-3945.

Checked by: ___Anthony Roman Date: _November 18, 2020_

WATER RECLAMATION AND SEWER

SECTION 2.9 – CONSTRUCTION:
 Proposed stations/stops located near City of Burbank and/ or County of Los Angeles catch basins must include trash receptacles.

SECTION 2.10 – PERMITS AND APPROVALS:
 Altering any part of the existing storm drain infrastructure requires approval and permits from the City of Burbank and/ or the County of Los Angeles.

SECTION 4.1.3 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:
 In addition to SWPPP and County SUSMP requirements, the City of Burbank has a Low Impact Development (LID) ordinance. Due to the proposed construction activities, revise document to include the aforementioned City LID ordinance.

SECTION 4.1.9 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:

ATTACHMENT 2-28
39  Best Management Practices shall apply to all construction projects and shall be required from time of land clearing, demolition or commencement of construction.

Refer to BMC 9-3-407 for additional information.

 Certain construction and re-construction activities on private property will need to comply with post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), which include Sections 8-1- 1007 and 9-3- 414.D of the BMC authorizing the City to require projects to comply with the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan provisions and the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) ordinance. For questions on these requirements, please contact the City’s Building Division at (818) 238-5220.

 The project will disturb more than 5,000 SF within the City’s transportation corridors (i.e., public streets, parkway areas, and public parking) and as such, is subject to the City’s Green Streets Policy requirements. This policy can be reviewed at the following address:
http://file.burbankca.gov/publicworks/OnlineCounter/permits/app_docs_procedur es/greenstreet/gspolicy.pdf

For additional information or questions, please contact Eden Lopez at (818) 238-3930.

Checked by: __Stephen Walker_________ Date: _November 19, 2020_

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

General Requirements:

CONDITIONS:
 An operational analysis shall be performed to show traffic congestion caused by narrowing of Olive Avenue to one lane in each direction.

 The DEIR should provide a feasibility study to address the impacts and review whether the proposed station loading platforms with midblock crosswalk on the Olive bridge is feasible. Midblock crosswalk on the Olive bridge is hazardous for pedestrians and vehicles due to visibility issue on the vertical curve. A signalized crosswalk cannot be constructed on the existing Olive bridge because any types of heavy construction including station platforms, ADA ramps, signal foundations, pull boxes, and underground conduits will compromise the structural integrity of the existing bridge. Metro may need to reconstruct the bridge to maintain 4 travel lanes with bus turnouts or dedicated bus lanes, sidewalk widening, and new pedestrian signals.

ATTACHMENT 2-29
40  An operational analysis shall be performed to show traffic congestion caused by narrowing of Olive Avenue to one lane in each direction.

 The DEIR also fails to identify the feasibility of street widening with respect to existing overhead and under ground utilities, drainage, sidewalk width, sidewalk furniture, landscape, etc.

 Making a left turn from the far-most right turn lane also violates California Vehicle Code Section 22100(b) and may cause other drivers to unintentionally copy the same movement, thereby introducing a new hazardous condition for pedestrians and road users.

 The proposed project allows right-turning vehicles to merge with the curb-running bus lane approaching each intersection and allows right turns be made from the bus lane. Existing right turn lanes with protected right turn signal indication cannot be merged with the curb- running bus lane due to the complexity of the signal operation at these locations. Removing the protected right turn indication will compromise vehicular safety at these locations. The DEIR failed to analyze the impact of traffic circulation should these protected right turn lanes be removed.  The DEIR fails to analyze a potential transportation impact caused by hazardous geometric design feature by proposing to integrate the bus stations into the sidewalk area and using a curb extension to facilitate access and pedestrian circulation. The DEIR does not disclose traffic congestion as a result of the dedicated bus lanes in combination with narrowing of the roadway at bus stations via curb extension.

 The DEIR showed cross sections but fails to identify locations where existing lane width is substandard and fails to analyze the potentially hazardous condition as a result of addition of dedicated bus lanes in the already congested and substandard travel lanes. City of Burbank requires minimum 10.5 feet travel lane and 12 feet curb lane where there is transit service. The DEIR should analyze how the geometric configuration of BRT elements, such as dedicated lanes, curb extensions, and bus stations may create hazardous geometric design features, ATTACHMENT 2-30
41 particularly where the alignment is required to make left or right turns, enter, exit, and cross freeway ramps, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian crossings at intersections. Should curb parking be modified to provide a dedicated bus lane or queue jump, the project DEIR should analyze how these elements may reduce travel lanes below 10.5 feet, curb lanes below 12 feet.

For additional information or questions, please contact Vikki Davtian, Principal Engineer – Traffic, at (818) 238-3922.

Checked by: Vikki Davtian Date: _November 30, 2020

FIELD SERVICES

General Comments:

Utilities and Service Systems:

 The proposed project would utilize electric -powered vehicles, which may require recharging using electrical networks. The project should analyze the potential to create electrical system impacts associated with powering required transit vehicle charging stations located in the City of Burbank.

 The proposed project would potentially conflict with, or require the relocation/reconstruction of, storm water drainage facilities in roadways along the project’s alignment. The Project DEIR should analyze the project’s impact of City and County storm water facilities within the project alignment.

 The unique nature of a BRT project, whereby a regional transit agency constructs capital improvements and operates transit vehicles on public infrastructure owned by another agency, could result in additional impacts to City of Burbank public service systems. In particular, the project DEIR should identify impacts to roadway maintenance of local streets including the increased maintenance needed for pavement, signage, striping, station maintenance, lighting, and other roadway infrastructure used by the project and owned and maintained by the City. Also, the DEIR should analyze right -of-way impacts to land adjacent to streets along the alignment, including any land acquisition required for stations or roadway widening. Also, the City seeks clarification on whether public easements necessary for the project will be required within City right of way.

Transportation:

 Refer to attached letter.

ATTACHMENT 2-31
42 For additional information or questions, please contact Public Works Field Services at (818) 238-3800.

Checked by: John Molinar ______ Date: _November 23, 2020_

ATTACHMENT 2-32
43 Comment # Burbank Comments Metro Response
1 Introduction
2 The DEIR fails to include an adequate range of project alternatives to mitigate potential project impacts. Specifically, the nature of Bus Rapid Transit allows for different BRT elements and roadway cross sections to be implemented depending on the local context of the project. The DEIR includes a project alternative with full BRT implementation including dedicated bus lanes and transit priority lanes on virtually the entire corridor. It also includes an “Improved Existing Bus Service Alternative” that would implement regular transit service frequency improvements but would construct no BRT improvements. This “all or nothing” project alternative approach fails to comply with CEQA’s requirement to evaluate a reasonable range of feasible alternatives.

The DEIR does not acknowledge that the implementation of targeted BRT elements, like bus lanes or queue jumps, installed at high-congestion and other critical areas, can dramatically improve travel time and potentially meet project objectives without creating a significant adverse environmental impact. To be legally adequate, the DEIR should include a project alternative that includes targeted BRT elements in areas where they would have highest impact to improving transit service in the corridor.

The comment mischaracterizes the definition of project alternatives. While the comment characterizes the Proposed Project as implementing dedicated BRT lanes along “virtually the entire corridor,” the Proposed Project has been planned and designed with the local context in mind. There are multiple instances along the proposed route where the Project has foregone proposing dedicated bus lanes and other BRT features based on local considerations and contexts. For example, the Proposed Project would operate in mixed-flow traffic for a portion of the route on Central Avenue between Glenoaks Boulevard and Doran Street and for the entirety of the route in Pasadena. The Alternatives Analysis prepared as a predecessor to the Draft EIR evaluated multiple route alignments and street configurations, and the Proposed Project is the outcome of a multi-year planning process taking into account local considerations and contexts.

The alternatives to the Proposed Project are the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Improved Existing Bus Service Alternative (Alternative 2). The comment asserts that the Draft EIR must include an alternative that includes targeted BRT elements to satisfy legal requirements for a reasonable range of alternatives. As stated on page 6-8 of Chapter 6, Alternatives to the Project, Alternative 2 would be a local express service with some BRT characteristics. The service may be as frequent as that proposed for BRT with buses that would operate in mixed-flow traffic with transit signal priority systems (i.e., queue jumps as mentioned in the comment). Stops would be more frequent than the BRT line but less frequent than local bus lines (typically every 0.6 miles on average). Travel times would be faster than for local service but slower than the travel times expected from the BRT project. Stops would occur at existing bus stations and there would be no median-running, center-running, or side-running configuration. Alternative 2 includes the targeted BRT elements requested in the comment. In accordance with Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines, Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project, an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. This requirement has been satisfied in the Draft EIR. 3 Also, more disruptive BRT elements, such as dedicated bus lanes, have tradeoffs with existing roadway elements like sidewalks, travel lanes and parking. And BRT elements have varying levels of transit improvement relative to adjoining vehicle traffic congestion and delays. The DEIR does not include adequate information on the existing congestion levels and delays on the corridor relative to the proposed transit service for the public and decision makers to evaluate the relative improvement and tradeoffs that BRT elements like dedicated bus lanes have along different segments of the project corridor. The DEIR therefore does not include adequate project alternatives nor information on existing roadway congestion levels to fully disclose the relative benefits, tradeoffs, and impacts that the project has on the environment. In particular, there is insufficient information in the DEIR for the public and decision makers to evaluate whether the proposed bus lanes on Olive Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard should be implemented as peak-only bus lanes, or whether buses should travel in more mixed-flow segments because existing vehicle congestion and delay in the existing general purpose lanes is low and therefore bus lanes are not warranted.

The 2020 CEQA Guidelines do not require traffic congestion analyses. Metro is not required to consider traffic congestion in the CEQA process, although it may be considered by the Board of Directors during the decision-making process. Traffic analysis information has been provided to the City of Burbank outside of the CEQA process. Based upon the traffic analysis, signalized intersections along Olive Avenue are projected to operate at LOS D or better with the exception of the intersections at Buena Vista Street, Verdugo Avenue/Sparks Street, and Victory Boulevard, which are forecast to operate at LOS E or F in 2042 for No Project and/or Proposed Project Scenarios. Signalized intersections along Glenoaks Boulevard are projected to operate at LOS D or better under the No Build and With Project Scenarios. These results are generally consistent between the No Project and Proposed Project Scenarios.

Matrix of Burbank DEIR Comments and Metro FEIR Responses Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 2-33
44 4 The project alternative proposes to install a new BRT transit station at the top of the Olive Avenue overpass to directly connect BRT riders to the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station below. The City of Burbank suggested and proposes this direct connection. However, the implementation of this connection as described in the DEIR introduces substantial transportation policy and safety impacts by reducing travel lanes on Olive Avenue contrary to the Burbank General Plan and creating a pedestrian crossing and travel lane merge movements along an old bridge vertical curve that will likely introduce new safety impacts. The construction of the proposed station is also likely infeasible because any types of heavy construction including station platforms, ADA ramps, signal foundations, pull boxes, and underground conduits will likely compromise the structural integrity of the existing bridge. The DEIR should include a project alternative that implements this station by widening the Olive Avenue bridge to expand pedestrian sidewalks, improving substandard bridge railings, creating a bus turnout and station platform outside of the existing Olive Avenue roadway, and constructing a second elevator on the south side of Olive Avenue to eliminate the proposed hazardous pedestrian crossing. This project alternative would eliminate several project impacts identified above, and would likely contribute to an environmentally superior project alternative.

Metro has revised the design of the Proposed Project to eliminate the proposed station on the Olive Avenue bridge and is no longer considering implementing dedicated bus lanes in this location. The location of the station has instead been shifted to Olive Avenue at Lake Street.
5 The Project Alternatives section identifies that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior, and then identifies the “Improved Existing Bus Service Alternative” (Alternative 2) as the environmentally superior alternative of the remaining two build alternatives. The project alternative is not identified as environmentally superior and the DEIR fails to address how the project alternative meets the stated project objectives better than the environmentally superior alternative to warrant it being chosen over the environmentally superior Alternative 2. Based on this omission, the public and decision makers are led to believe that Alternative 2 should be selected as the preferred project, rather than the proposed project. As such, the alternatives analysis is legally inadequate.

The comment misinterprets the purpose of identifying the environmentally superior alternative in a Draft EIR. The comment suggests that the Proposed Project could be the environmentally superior alternative, which is not accurate. As stated on page 6-17 of Chapter 6, Alternatives to the Project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be identified among the alternatives that are evaluated in the Draft EIR to foster informed decision-making. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the fewest adverse impacts when compared to the Proposed Project while attaining most of the basic objectives of the Project. For the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project, the No Project Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative because there would be no physical changes to the existing environment resulting in construction or operational impacts. If the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA requires identification of the environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative from among the Proposed Project and the other alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR. Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives because, as compared to the Proposed Project, it avoids or reduces all construction impacts related to transportation, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources. It also avoids or reduces operational impacts related to transportation, aesthetics, cultural resources, and geology and soils. CEQA does not require that the alternatives analysis in the EIR address how the Project or its alternatives meet the stated Project Objectives, simply that a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or the location of the project, be identified for decision-making purposes. The comment does not take issue with the ability of either the Proposed Project or Alternative 2 to meet the Project Objectives. CEQA does not require the feasibility determination (including discussion of the degree to which the alternatives meet the objectives) to be included in the EIR (Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603.).

The decision to the approve the Project will require a finding on the feasibility of the alternatives to the project weighing the desirability of the project “based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors against the benefits of the Environmentally Superior Alternative. This decision is left to the Metro Board of Directors as the decision-making body for the Proposed Project.
6 Policy compliance intro
ATTACHMENT 2-34
45 7 The DEIR fails to disclose the significant adverse impact the project will cause on maintaining the City’s circulation network and street classifications. The Burbank General Plan designates Olive Avenue as a Major Arterial (General Plan Exhibit M-2) with five travel lanes. Major arterials should give priority to regional transit and auto traffic, and should encourage good transit and automobile progression using traffic signal timing (General Plan Page 4-11). The DEIR indicates that Olive Avenue would retain two travel lanes on Olive Avenue in each direction, but fails to disclose that the project would remove one travel lane in each direction on the Olive Avenue overpass of Interstate 5, which reduces the number of travel lanes from five lanes to three and conflicts with the General Plan street classification and roadway cross section requirements for major arterials which requires two lanes in each direction. The DEIR is inadequate in disclosing this significant roadway policy impact and in failing to identify appropriate mitigation measures for this impact. The DEIR must disclose congestion and potential impacts to public safety caused by narrowing of Olive Avenue to one lane in each direction. The DEIR must include a project alternative or mitigation measure that implements this station by widening the Olive Avenue bridge to expand pedestrian sidewalks, improving substandard bridge railing, creating a bus turnout and station platform outside of the existing Olive Avenue roadway, and constructing a second elevator on the south side of Olive Avenue to eliminate the proposed hazardous pedestrian crossing.

The comment incorrectly states that the Draft EIR must disclose and mitigate significant congestion impacts related to reducing travel lanes on Olive Avenue. The 2020 CEQA Guidelines do not require traffic congestion analyses. Metro is not required to consider traffic congestion in the CEQA process, although it may be considered by the Board of Directors during the decision-making process.

Review of the City’s Mobility Element and street classification system did not identify a requirement for Major Arterials to provide and maintain two travel lanes in each direction but rather a requirement for Major Arterials to maintain a 76-foot Traveled Way and a 100-foot Right of Way (Mobility Element on page 4-11). Regardless of the lane configuration of Olive Avenue, the existing width of right-of-way would by maintained by the Project. Further, the City’s Mobility Element street classification system identifies several priorities and requirements for Major Arterials. In order, the priorities are (1) Where transit conflicts with cars, design streets to maximize person versus vehicle throughput, (2) On-street parking may be removed to accommodate transit stops or turn lanes. Maximize traffic signal coordination; consider transit signal priority, and (3) Property dedication may be required to maximize sidewalk widths or to provide intersection capacity enhancements. To the extent that the Project presents a conflict between transit and cars due to the conversion of a travel lane to a side- running bus lane, the Project maximizes person versus vehicle throughput by providing a premium transit service along Olive Avenue, consistent with the street classification list of priorities.

Metro has revised the design of the Proposed Project to eliminate the proposed station on the Olive Avenue bridge and is no longer considering implementing dedicated bus lanes in this location thereby maintaining the existing lane configuration through the Olive Avenue Bridge.
8 The DEIR is inadequate in failing to disclose a roadway policy impact with Burbank General Plan Mobility Element Policy 1.2.

The project proposes to widen the entire length of Olive Avenue by one to two feet through the entire length of the City to accommodate a transit-only bus lane. Burbank2035 General Plan Policy 1.2 does not support “wholesale changes to street rights-of-way,” therefore the project is inconsistent with Policy 1.2.

The comment mischaracterizes the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project does not include street widening (i.e., narrowing of the sidewalk).
9 The DEIR is inadequate in identifying roadway policy significant impacts with the Burbank General Plan Mobility Element. The project would require the curb-to-curb street width of Olive Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard to be widened by up to four feet along the entire length of the project, which conflicts with Mobility Element Policy 3.4. The DEIR does not investigate feasible mitigation measures to address this policy impact, such as project alternatives that preserve the existing street roadway width consistent with this policy. Further, the DEIR does not identify the numerous locations along Olive Avenue where the half-street street right-of-way width is only 40 feet, , which may be insufficient to accommodate the proposed project’s 36-foot wide half- street width (72-foot total width)without eliminating sidewalks. Providing ADA-accessible sidewalks in these locations may require property acquisition which is not disclosed in the DEIR, and which is inconsistent with Policy 3.4.

The comment mischaracterizes the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project does not include street widening (i.e., narrowing of the sidewalk). The Proposed Project has been designed to avoid widening and acquisitions as feasible. This is consistent with Policy 3.4 which states, “Consider street widening and right-of-way acquisitions as methods of last resort.” Details of the size and location of any potential acquisitions have not been identified at this stage in the design process. 10 The DEIR is inadequate in assessing the proposed project's impact on Olive Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard arterial street efficiency, and does not disclose whether the project will cause arterial spillover traffic into adjacent residential neighborhoods.

The proposed project sincludes transit signal priority and queue jumps at intersections, but does not disclose how therse improvements may influence arterial street traffic. In particular, Olive Avenue isa diagonal street that intersects other north- south and eas-weststreets near the proposed project, and may prevent the City from synchronizing its other arterial streets.

The DEIR must disclose and analyze how potential transit system signal priority will affect the City's arterial traffic signal coordination and synchronization.

Where proposed, the curb-running bus lanes configuration is not anticipated to result in spillover traffic into residential neighborhoods, since the curb-running bus lanes configuration maintains the existing number of travel lanes throughout most of Burbank. The side-running bus lanes configuration, which reduces the number of travel lanes on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista Street and Lake Street, is expected to result in a shift of traffic to parallel streets including Alameda Avenue and Burbank Boulevard. Not much traffic is expected to divert to local residential roadways, since out-of-direction travel would be required resulting in longer travel distances and longer travel times, especially considering the speed impediments along the local residential roadways (e.g., stops signs, speed bumps). 11 The proposed corridor passes by, but does not serve, the Disney Studio Campus and St. Joseph's Hospoital and related medical complxes at the intersection of Buena Vista and Alameda Avenue….SEIR should study a route alternative to divert the project alignment onto Alameda Avenue and Buena Vista Street to serve this major employment and community center, and including a stop at the Buena Vista Street/Alameda Avenue intersection.

The Proposed Project follows the Alameda Avenue and Buena Vista Street alignment suggested in the comment and includes a station in proximity to the Alameda Avenue and Naomi Street intersection.

ATTACHMENT 2-35
46 12 The Burbank2035 General Plan identifies a future bus transit center to be located within the Burbank Media District, at a location where local and regional bus lines intersect. The proposed project includes a station located where this future transit center is identified. However, the DEIR fails to analyze how the proposed project supports or inhibits the development of this transit center. The DEIR should evaluate how the construction of the proposed project's stop at Hollywood Way/Riverside Drive/Olive Ave can serve as the foundation for a future bus transit center in the Media District, specifically how the proposed project's station will provide connections to BurbankBus, Metro Local, and Metro Express Service in the MEdia District while supporting required first-last mile improvements necesary to support the station.

The Proposed Project would not acquire land in Burbank that would potentially be used for a transit center in the Media District. The Proposed Project would improve, and not interfere, with the City’s ability to create a new transit center in the Media District, as set forth in Policy 4-3 of the Burbank2035 General Plan Mobility Element. 13 The DEIR fails to analyze how the propsoed project is compatible with Burbank2035 General Plan Mobility Element Policy 4.8 relating to the project's seamless connection between the Downtown Metrolink Station as well as the City's existing and planned off-street bicycle network that serves the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station. The proposed transit station on the Olive Avenue overpass does not support a seamless connection to the existing Burbank Channel Class I Bikeway, and the future Chandler Extension Class I Bikeway because it requires eastbound riders to navigate a circuitous route across Olive Avenue and down the existing elevator. The proposed project should promote a more seamless connection to these other transportation systems by implementing this station by widening the Olive Avenue bridge to expand pedestrian sidewalks, improving substandard bridge railings, creating a bus turnout and station platform outside the existing Olive Avenue roadway, and constructing a second elevator on the south side of Olive Avenue to eliminate the proposed hazardous pedestrian crossing.

Metro has revised the design of the Proposed Project to eliminate the proposed station on the Olive Avenue bridge. The location of the station has been shifted to Olive Avenue at Lake Street. 14 The DEIR fails to analyze the proposed project’s potential ridership impacts to the existing BurbankBus Pink Route service in conflict with Burbank2035 General Plan Mobility Element Policy 4.8. The Pink Route provides local service along the Olive Avenue corridor and connects the Universal City Red Line Station and Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station to the Media District. This impact is especially pertinent as the City is being asked to become the primary local transit provider in the corridor due to the NextGen Bus Plan eliminating Metro 155 service.

The alignment of the Proposed Project overlaps with the BurbankBus Pink Route between Hollywood Way/Riverside Drive/Olive Avenue in the Media District and the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station. The Proposed Project’s limited-stop service will complement the local service provided by the BurbankBus Pink Route. In addition, the BurbankBus Pink Route will obtain travel time and reliability benefits from the dedicated bus lanes implemented for the Proposed Project. 15 The DEIR fails to disclose a significant policy impact with Burbank2035 General Plan Mobility Element standard sidewalk width requirements. The project would widen Olive Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard by one to two feet in both directions to convert the existing on-street parking into a bus-only lane. This would require sidewalks widths on Olive Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard to be reduced below the standard widths identified in the Burbank2035 General Plan (Table M-2 – Sidewalk Standards, Page 4-21). The sidewalk width standards are generally 15 feet along the project corridor, and the required street widening would reduce these widths to 14 feet. In some locations on Olive Avenue, sidewalk widths would be reduced to 4 feet, which does not meet ADA minimum width standards. The DEIR fails to identify a significant transportation impact, nor does it identify feasible mitigation measures to this significant impact. Burbank General Plan Mobility Element Policy 9.2:

Address the needs of people with disabilities and comply with the requirements of the ADA during the planning and implementation of transportation improvement projects. The DEIR fails to disclose a significant policy impact with the Burbank General Plan Mobility Element because the project proposes to reduce sidewalk widths on Olive Avenue in certain segments to four feet wide, which is below the ADA minimum width.

The comment mischaracterizes the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project does not include street widening (i.e., narrowing of the sidewalk).
16 The DEIR fails to disclose a policy impact with the Burbank General Plan Mobility Element Planned Bicycle Routes and the Bicycle Master Plan Top Priority Projects, which both include the addition of Class II bicycle lanes on Glenoaks Boulevard between Providencia Avenue and Alameda Avenue, with connections to the Class III bicycle route on Providencia Avenue.

Further, the project precludes the City from connecting this planned facility to the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station via Glenoaks Boulevard between Providencia Avenue and Verdugo Avenue, which is a bicycle network gap identified in the City’s Complete Streets Plan. The DEIR must identify a mitigation measure for this policy impact.

The Proposed Project would operate in mixed-flow traffic on Glenoaks Boulevard between Olive Avenue and Providencia Avenue; thus the Project would not impact the City of Burbank’s ability to address a gap in the bicycle network on Glenoaks Boulevard between Verdugo Avenue and Providencia Avenue.

ATTACHMENT 2-36
47 17 The DEIR fails to disclose a potential transportation impact by introducing a hazard due to a geometric design feature. The project proposes to construct a transit station at the top of the Olive Avenue Overpass, and install a signalized pedestrian crosswalk at the crest of the overpass. The DEIR did not analyze of the placement of this pedestrian crossing at the top of a 60 year old overpass with poor vehicle sightlines due to high roadway grades caused by the profile of the overpass. The project proposes to construct two roadway travel lane drops on the overpass immediately approaching the proposed station platform, and the DEIR does not disclose or analyze whether the introduction of this roadway design feature on the existing overpass creates a potentially significant adverse impact. The project also proposes to introduce additional pedestrian traffic travelling to and from the new station platform. These pedestrians will be boarding and alighting buses mixed with through pedestrian traffic on the bridge’s existing seven foot sidewalks. These sidewalks are located along bridge railings that are of substandard height (39 inches) separating pedestrian traffic from falling to the Interstate 5 freeway below Metro has revised the design of the Proposed Project to eliminate the proposed station on the Olive Avenue bridge. 18 The DEIR fails to analyze whether the proposed station loading platforms with midblock crosswalk on the Olive bridge is feasible. A midblock crosswalk on the Olive bridge is likely hazardous for pedestrians and vehicles due to creating a visibility issue on the bridge’s vertical curve. The DEIR did not adequately investigate whether a signalized crosswalk can be constructed on the existing Olive bridge given the types of heavy construction including station platforms, ADA ramps, signal foundations, pull boxes, and underground conduits that will be required and may likely compromise the structural integrity of the existing bridge. The DEIR is inadequate in analyzing these potential safety impacts and identifying mitigation measures for those potentially significant adverse impacts. The DEIR should include a project alternative or mitigation measure that implements this station by widening the Olive Avenue bridge to maintain four travel lanes, expand pedestrian sidewalks, improve substandard bridge railings, creating a bus turnout and station platform outside of the existing Olive Avenue roadway, and constructing a second elevator on the south side of Olive Avenue to eliminate the proposed hazardous pedestrian crossing.

Metro has revised the design of the Proposed Project to eliminate the proposed station on the Olive Avenue bridge. 19 The DEIR fails to analyze a potential transportation impact caused by a hazardous geometric design feature by proposing bus left turn movements to westbound Olive Avenue from the far-most right turn lane of northbound Glenoaks Boulevard. The DEIR does not disclose this potential hazardous condition or identify mitigation measures to reduce potential significant impacts. Making a left turn from the far-most right turn lane also violates California Vehicle Code Section 22100(b) and may cause other drivers to unintentionally copy the same movement, thereby introducing a new hazardous condition for pedestrians and road users.

The Proposed Project will operate in mixed-flow traffic on Glenoaks Boulevard on the approach to Olive Avenue; thus, the proposed BRT will execute a left-turn to westbound Olive Avenue from the left-turn lane shared with automobile traffic. 20 The DEIR fails to analyze a potential transportation impact caused by a hazardous geometric design feature by proposing to install center-running median bus lanes on Glenoaks Boulevard at the Alameda Avenue and Providencia Avenue intersections across conflicting left turn movements to these streets. The DEIR does not disclose this potential hazardous condition or identify mitigation measures to reduce potential significant impacts.

The Proposed Project would be designed in the engineering phase to confirm that left-turn movements can be executed in a safe manner at the Glenoaks Boulevard intersections with Providencia Avenue and Alameda Avenue. The eastbound-westbound left turns would operate under a protected signal phase. If geometric analysis demonstrates a conflict between the routing of the eastbound and westbound left turns if they operate concurrently, lead-lag signal phasing can be implemented so the eastbound and westbound left turns occur during separate protected signal phases.
21 The proposed project allows right-turning vehicles to merge with the curb-running bus lane approaching each intersection and allows right turns be made from the bus lane. Existing right turn lanes with protected right turn signal indication cannot be merged with the curb-running bus lane due to the complexity of the signal operation at these locations. Removing the protected right turn indication will compromise vehicular safety at these locations. The DEIR failed to analyze the impact of traffic circulation should these protected right turn lanes be removed. The DEIR fails to analyze a potential transportation impact caused by hazardous geometric design feature by proposing to integrate the bus stations into the sidewalk area and using a curb extension to facilitate access and pedestrian circulation.

The curb-running bus lanes configuration along Olive Avenue and the BRT stations along the sidewalks are not expected to create a hazardous geometric condition. Likewise, the side-running bus lanes configuration along Olive Avenue with the BRT stations provided along curb extensions are not expected to create a hazardous geometric condition. Right turns are allowed to be made from dedicated bus lanes across many BRT systems, including along Wilshire Boulevard locally. Metro will work with the City of Burbank during the Project’s engineering phase to confirm that the Proposed Project does not create hazardous geometric conditions. 22 The DEIR fails to adequately analyze if including 11 foot bus only curb lanes adjacent to the existing 10 foot travel lanes on Olive Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard will create a potentially significant adverse safety impact. The DEIR should analyze how the geometric configuration of BRT elements, such as dedicated lanes, curb extensions, and bus stations may create hazardous geometric design features, particularly where the alignment is required to make left or right turns, enter, exit, and cross freeway ramps, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian crossings at intersections.

The Proposed Project’s BRT will abide by traffic regulations when operating in the street right-of-way. Lane widths and traffic control measures will meet the applicable design standards. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not expected to create hazardous geometric design features.

ATTACHMENT 2-37
48 23 The DEIR appears to use the “related projects list” method of analyzing potential cumulative impacts. The list of cumulative projects (Table 5-1, Page 5.2) included in the Cumulative Impact section of the DEIR omits several projects in the City of Burbank, including approved entitlements for the City’s three major studio campuses. The City of Burbank’s cumulative project list can be provided to Metro to add the additional cumulative projects located within ½ mile of the project alignment The comment states that the cumulative project list is missing several projects within the City of Burbank that should be included in the Cumulative Impact Analysis. Please see Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR for the updated cumulative projects list based on information provided by the City of Burbank on May 3, 2021. The updated cumulative projects list clarifies and amplifies the information provided in the Draft EIR. No new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts have been identified based on the updated list. The additions to the cumulative list do not directly or indirectly affect the environmental resource analyses included in Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts, of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no revisions to the cumulative impact analysis are necessary. 24 The DEIR related projects list includes the City of Los Angeles Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan, but does not include the two City of Burbank Specific Plans that the alignment passes through (Media District and Burbank Center Specific Plans). Further, the Burbank Center Plan is not considered in the Population and Housing Section of the DEIR.

Both the Burbank Media District and the Burbank Center Specific Plans were included in the analysis of population and housing and land use impacts, as discussed in Appendices Q and L, respectively. Conflicts and compliance with these planning documents were assessed individually in these technical analyses rather than cumulatively. The Proposed Project would be compatible with the land use plans, goals, and policies adopted by the regional and local jurisdictions within the Project Area. While it is anticipated that land uses in the Project Area will change over time to address growing population and regional demands for infrastructure and services, individual City jurisdictions and metropolitan planning organizations such as SCAG are responsible for planning such development. Land uses surrounding the Proposed Project stations may intensify due to transit oriented development (TOD) pressures and zoning initiatives that have been planned and encouraged by the Project Area cities including the Cities of Los Angeles, Glendale, Burbank, and Pasadena. This growth pattern would be consistent with regional planning efforts to focus future growth in areas served by transit to address environmental concerns related to climate change and availability of services and infrastructure to meet future demand. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would be consistent with regional and local plans aimed at improving regional mobility and focusing growth in areas well served by transit. As described in Chapter 4, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR, no significant impacts related to land use or population and housing were identified.
25 The DEIR related project list includes the unfunded Metro Los Angeles – Glendale – Burbank Feasibility Study, but does not include the funded Antelope Valley Line Improvement Project, which will fund capital improvements to expand Metrolink service to 30 minute, all-day, bi-directional service. The DEIR’s failure to include these service improvements as a cumulative project makes the DEIR inadequate in analyzing the need for the BRT project to seamlessly connect to this important regional connection, and inclusion of this cumulative project would likely provide support for the Olive Avenue / Metrolink transit stop improvements described elsewhere in this comment letter.

The comment states that the EIR omitted analysis of Metro’s Antelope Valley Line (AVL) Capacity and Service Improvements Project in the cumulative projects list and therefore omits necessary analysis of the need for the Project to have additional improvements to the Burbank Metrolink station connection. The AVL Capacity and Service Improvements Project has been added to the analysis in the EIR. Please see Chapter 3, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR. Adding AVL to the cumulative list does not directly or indirectly affect the environmental resource analyses included in Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts, of the Draft EIR. The AVL Capacity and Service Improvements Project does not propose any improvements to the Burbank Metrolink station or tracks in the vicinity of the Proposed Project and simply proposes increased frequency of service to the station. The Proposed Project no longer proposes any improvements to the Olive Avenue bridge where the Burbank Metrolink Station is located. Thus, there is no potential conflict between the Proposed Project, the existing Burbank Metrolink Station, or existing and future Metrolink service. 26 The DEIR identifies the Metro / City of Burbank Olive/Verdugo/Sparks intersection improvement project as a related project, but does not identify the conflict the proposed project would have with the City’s planned improvement of this intersection, which would construct pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle channelization improvements that would preclude the installation of bus lanes through the intersection.

The Draft EIR acknowledged proposed spot widening to add a curb-running bus lane through the Olive Avenue/Sparks Street/Verdugo Avenue intersection and potential overlap of the two projects’ construction activities. The Project now includes a side-running bus lane instead of a curb-running bus lane and Metro no longer proposes widening at this location. Metro is committed to working with the City of Burbank during engineering to confirm that improvements are not in conflict with the City’s planned improvements at the Olive/Verdugo/Sparks intersection. It should be noted that at the time of this Final EIR, the City of Burbank has not prepared publicly- available design plans for the improvements nor programmed funds for the improvements. 27 The DEIR identifies the City of Burbank Olive Avenue Bridge Improvement project as a related project, but does not disclose that the proposed narrowing of Olive Avenue to one lane in each direction is in conflict with one of the purposes of the bridge improvement, which is to improve operational efficiency while also adding bicycle and pedestrian improvements to the bridge.

Constructing a transit stop at the top of the bridge in the middle of the travelled roadway would conflict with this project. These numerous omissions and inconsistencies render the Cumulative Impacts analysis legally inadequate because the findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence.

Metro has revised the design of the Proposed Project to eliminate the proposed station on the Olive Avenue bridge as well as dedicated bus lanes across the bridge.

ATTACHMENT 2-38
49 28 The DEIR identifies that a significant aesthetic impact would occur if the project would “substantially damage scenic resources, including…trees…” and identifies several impacts to existing mature tree landscape elements along the corridor outside the City of Burbank (Page 3.2-14). However, the project does not apply this threshold to the City of Burbank and therefore does not identify impacts to mature street trees in the City of Burbank. In particular, the project would require the removal of several rows of large mature street trees on Olive Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard in Downtown Burbank. These trees would be removed because the project is required to widen Olive avenue by one to two feet for the proposed project. By applying the project’s aesthetic impact significance thresholds to the City’s street trees, the DEIR should identify a significant impact to aesthetic resources in Burbank by removing these trees, and should identify feasible mitigation measures to lessen these impacts. In addition, the DEIR must analyze the removal of these trees as a significant Biological Resources impact give the contribution these mature street trees give to the City’s urban forest resources. Without this additional analysis, the Aesthetics and Biological Resources impact analyses are legally inadequate because they are not supported by substantial evidence.

At this stage of the Conceptual Design, it is anticipated that a majority of the street trees along Olive Avenue would remain unaffected by the Project and further design refinement would be needed to identify the precise number and location of affected trees. Side-running bus lane configurations of the Proposed Project are anticipated to have fewer impacts on trees than the no longer considered curb-running configuration. The removal of street trees was not considered a significant impact alone unless those street trees have been identified by stakeholders as important aesthetic resources through scoping comments or in a planning document. In absence of a clear identification of a given resource’s importance, impacts to aesthetic resources were assessed based on the context to the aesthetic environment and input from stakeholders, local jurisdictions, and the public. The Draft EIR acknowledges that tree removals could occur at various locations but notes that further design refinement during the Preliminary Engineering phase would avoid most conflicts with existing street trees located within sidewalks. Further, Mitigation Measure VIS-1 would reduce any impacts to streetscape vegetation to a less-than-significant level by requiring replacement landscaping in accordance with local streetscape requirements and design criteria. 29 The DEIR indicates that the proposed project will cause no impact to police public services because it will not lead to an increase in police service calls or the local jurisdictional service ratio. However, there is no evidence to support this conclusion (Page 4- 22). The DEIR states that the project will be subject to Metro’s transit police strategy including Transit Services Bureau officers and contracted polices services. But it does not state directly if the proposed project will be patrolled and staffed by Metro transit police or local jurisdictional police, and if local police will be contracted to provide police service. Also, the DEIR is silent on whether local or Metro law enforcement will be required to enforce bus-only lanes and other transit-only facilities, and fails to define the requirements and costs to enforce bus-only facilities. The DEIR fails to adequately identify if the project will pose a significant adverse impact to police service. Therefore, the Public Service impact analysis is legally inadequate because it is not supported by substantial evidence.

Contrary to the comment’s assertion, the Draft EIR does not state that the Project would have no effect on police service calls or service ratios, but rather states that no police facilities would be affected and no changes in population would result requiring new or expanded police service or facilities. As stated in the Draft EIR, police response may improve as the dedicated bus lanes would be available to emergency vehicles in the event of an emergency, avoiding typical roadway congestion. Metro acknowledges that its transit policing strategy generally only applies to Metro facilities such as stations and that some local police service would be required to respond to service calls along the Project corridor; however, there are existing Metro bus services and facilities within the City of Burbank and it is anticipated that no significant change in the frequency, nature, or magnitude of police service requirements would be posed by the Project. As described in the Draft EIR, new BRT stations would be designed using Metro’s Design Criteria which maximize lighting, visibility, and overall user safety which may improve safety along the Project route. Regarding enforcement of bus lane restrictions, Metro would coordinate with the City and local police service agencies to develop appropriate enforcement strategies. Per newly enacted legislation under Assembly Bill (AB) 917, operations of the Proposed Project may incorporate camera enforcement on the buses. 30 The DEIR indicates that the project will have no impact to electric utility systems, but does not document why this statement is true. Metro is proposing to utilize electric transit vehicles for the project, which could require substantial electrical utility system improvements if vehicle charging is expected to occur within the City of Burbank. The DEIR indicates that “the location of charging stations for electric buses would be analyzed and located where sufficient capacity is located” (Appendix S, Page 29) but does not include this analysis in the DEIR. The DEIR is insufficient in determining whether the proposed project will create a significant impact to the City’s electrical utility system.

As discussed in Chapter 4, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR there is no plan to locate electric bus charging infrastructure in the City of Burbank and the infrastructure required to charge vehicles for the Proposed Project and the Metro fleet generally would be located where adequate capacity is available. The Draft EIR does identify the North Hollywood Metro B/G (Red/Orange) Line Station as a likely location for charging infrastructure and another location at Pasadena City College is under consideration. Currently and for the purposes of the EIR, it has been assumed that overnight electric charging infrastructure for the Proposed Project would be located at one of Metro’s existing bus depots. No aspect of the planning or design for the Proposed Project has considered electric vehicle charging infrastructure within the City of Burbank.
31 The DEIR fails to identify a significant impact to the City’s recycled water interconnect with the City of Glendale located in the Glenoaks Boulevard median south of Alameda Avenue. The proposed project will likely impact this critical recycled water interconnect including hydrants, valves, vacuum/air release valves, meter boxes, and a fiber optic communication pull box. The DEIR should identify this significant impact and identify mitigation measures to mitigate it.

The comment identifies a recycled water interconnect with the City of Glendale located within the Glenoaks Boulevard median south of Alameda Avenue and states that the Proposed Project would result in impacts to the interconnect. Potential impacts to the referenced interconnect have not been identified during the Project’s early phase of conceptual design. If impacts to the interconnect are identified in the Proposed Project’s engineering and design phase, the design and engineering process will confirm the functionality of the interconnect.

ATTACHMENT 2-39
50 32 The DEIR fails to identify the impacts caused by several miles of street widening with respect to existing overhead and underground utilities, drainage, sidewalk width, street trees, street lights, sidewalk furniture, landscape, etc. The DEIR should disclose any potential significant impacts to public infrastructure. As such, the Utility Systems impact analysis is legally inadequate because it is not supported by substantial evidence.

The comment states that the Draft EIR does not adequately address potential utility impacts related to proposed street widening. As discussed in Chapter 4, Other Environmental Considerations, of the Draft EIR, construction of the Proposed Project is not anticipated to require or result in the construction or relocation of utilities which could cause a significant environmental impact because utility relocations would be coordinated with utility providers. At this stage in the conceptual design, utility facilities have not been identified as designs are not advanced enough to determine potential conflicts. As discussed in Appendix S Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR a utility composite base map would be developed to outline the utilities within the Project boundary. The base map would be used to identify conflict locations with Proposed Project work and existing utility facilities. Each utility company would need to be contacted on a periodic basis to determine if there are any new plans for their facilities. The utility composite base map would be updated as new information becomes available. Utility coordination meetings would be set up with each utility company with potentially affected facilities to help determine if relocation would be required or the facility could be protected-in-place. The utility coordination meetings would help to confirm the utility companies are engaged early during project development. Preliminary relocation concepts would be developed and presented to each utility owner with affected facilities. In addition, the resource analyses factored in utility relocations, as necessary. For example, the air quality analysis is premised on a regional analysis that accounts for a conservative projection of the maximum daily equipment and vehicle activity that could be occurring along the entire Project corridor in a given day. Analyzing such a worst-case scenario ensures that all other construction activities would not produce air quality impacts that exceed those analyzed in this document. 33 The DEIR fails to document the increased annual pavement maintenance costs to the City’s streets caused by frequent heavy bus service operating in the curb lane of Olive Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard. Identifying impacts to increased pavement wear could require mitigation measures such as strengthening the roadway cross section in the bus lanes to accommodate heavy bus travel. The DEIR also fails to identify maintenance costs for other roadway elements including signs, striping, traffic signals, and other roadway infrastructure. Additional comments related to civil public infrastructure are attached to this comment letter.

The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to address long-term effects of frequent bus travel on City pavement requiring increased maintenance cost and activities. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Proposed Project’s BRT service would operate with 10- minute frequency throughout most of the day on weekdays tapering to 15 to 20 minutes frequency during the evenings, and with 15- minute frequency during most of the day on weekends tapering to 30 minutes in the evenings. Substantial deterioration of the pavement is not anticipated because the Proposed Project’s BRT service would provide only six buses per hour per direction (or approximately 200 buses per day) and would operate in travel lanes on Olive Avenue that already accommodate between approximately 22,000 and 28,000 vehicles per day, including automobiles, trucks, and buses. In addition, concrete bus pads would be installed at the Proposed Project’s BRT stations.

A joint maintenance agreement for Project elements will be developed during final design and prior to the opening of Project operations. 34 The City recognizes that impacts to public parking are not considered CEQA impacts. Nonetheless, the project proposes to eliminate 500 curb parking spaces along Olive Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard without identifying a parking program or plan to address this lack of curb parking. These parking spaces currently serve a significant amount of mid-century, single story strip commercial development that does not include on-site parking. Removing parking for these land uses without providing a parking program to address this parking loss would create an economic impact on these strip commercial businesses who rely on this curb parking. Removing all parking inventory for these businesses would impact the business viability and prevent use and re-use of these older buildings. Further, wholesale removal of curb parking would push parking demand into adjacent residential neighborhoods, likely requiring the City of Burbank to implement additional permit parking zones in these residentially-adjacent neighborhoods. The DEIR should disclose this potential economic affect and provide a program or plan to offset the loss of parking caused by the proposed project. The DEIR should also propose project alternatives to the implementation of full-time bus lanes in areas where loss of curb parking will impact adjoining land uses.

Metro acknowledges that parking is a concern for the affected community and associated businesses; however, as the commenter states, parking loss and economic or social effects are not considered environmental effects for the purposes of CEQA. The side-running bus lanes configuration retains most of the existing on-street parking. 35 The DEIR fails to disclose if new transit stations will induce additional parking demand around them, especially if parking demand will impact sensitive residential or strip commercial land uses. Bus Rapid Transit is meant to operate similarly to light rail transit, but BRT stations, unlike light rail stations are built without parking. The DEIR should disclose the number of new transit riders at each station who are expected to arrive by automobile and identify potential parking demands caused by the proposed project.

The Proposed Project’s BRT system is not anticipated to induce parking demand, as the BRT stations are spaced more frequently (i.e., closer together) than light rail transit stations. In general, BRT stations are spaced at one-mile intervals, resulting in no greater than a 10-minute walk to access a station.
36 Thank you again for providing an opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the Noho to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project located in the City of Burbank. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter, please feel free to contact David Kriske, Assistant Community Development Director with the Community Development Department, at 818.238.5269 or via email at [email protected].

The comment concludes the letter with contact information for City staff. Metro acknowledges the preceding comments and looks forward to continued coordination with the City of Burbank. No further response is required. 37-62 [Additional Specific Comments provided by Memorandum] [Metro included specific detailed responses to City's Specific Comments - See FEIR Section 4.0 for details] ATTACHMENT 2-40
51 STAFF REPORT

DATE: March 26, 2024

TO: Justin Hess, City Manager

FROM: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director
BY: David Kriske, Assistant Community Development Director, Transportation

SUBJECT: Approval of a Cooperative Agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for the Design and Construction of the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve a Cooperative Agreement (Agreement) (Attachment 1) with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) for the Design and Construction of the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridor Project , subject to incorporation of the City’s redline changes as described in this report that have not yet been agreed to by Metro.

2. Direct staff on whether to require a more detailed project description in the Agreement which specifies the inclusion of mixed- flow lanes on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista Street and Lake Street.

BACKGROUND
Metro is currently designing its North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor 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 the location of stations.

The proposed project alignment (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, Alameda Avenue, Buena Vista Street, and back onto Olive Avenue to Downtown Burbank, then south on Glenoaks Boulevard where it would le ave the City and travel eastward to Downtown Glendale, the Los Angeles community of Eagle Rock, and Pasadena. The project would construct five stations in Burbank: 1) Hollywood Way

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
ATTACHMENT 3-1
52 at Olive Avenue / Riverside Drive, 2) Buena Vista Street at Alameda Avenue, 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 as a mix of dedicated bus lanes and mixed- flow traffic. Bus lanes are proposed along portions of Alameda Avenue, Olive Avenue, and Buena Vi sta Street in the Media District, Olive Avenue in Downtown Burbank , and Glenoaks Boulevard south of Providencia Avenue. Depending on the street configuration and width, the bus lane would be constructed by eliminating a vehicle travel lane or parking lane and converting it into a bus lane. However, BRT has inherent flexibility.

Depending on the neighborhood context of a particular BRT segment and the availability of right-of-way to construct dedicated BRT lanes, dedicated lanes are not required in all areas to provide a viable transportation alternative. The City Council has specifically requested that the portion of the project located on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista Street and Interstate 5 be constructed to operate as mixed-flow.

In 2020, Metro prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project, which included a public comment period. In December 2020, the City Council approved a comment letter to be sent to Metro as part of the public comment period (Attachment 3).

The main issues discussed in the City Council’s comment letter concerned the range of project alternatives analyzed, transportation policy and public service impacts, analysis of utility systems and roadway infrastructure, and concerns over bus lane impacts along Olive Avenue.

In response, Metro conducted additional analysis, modified parts of the project, and held additional public outreach, which led to the preparation of a Final EIR in 2022. In response to the Final EIR, on April 12, 2022, the City Council approved a second comment letter (Attachment 3 ) that was provided to Metro. This comment letter acknowledged the issues that Metro addressed in response to the City’s Draft EIR comments, but raised two significant project concerns that remained:

1. Metro should implement the project as mixed- flow on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista Street and Lake Street until project ridership reached a level that can justify converting a travel lane to bus lane.

2. Metro should develop a program to construct an Olive Bridge BRT station that would connect directly to the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station.

On April 28, 2022, the Metro Board of Directors approved the project and the Final EIR but did not address these two important issues. However, the City maintains control over City-owned right-of-way and may continue to negotiate with Metro.

ATTACHMENT 3-2
53 DISCUSSION
With the Metro Board’s approval of the project in 2022, Metro has continued to refine its conceptual design plans and has coordinated with the City as it prepares to secure third party consultant and contractor services for final design, project management, and construction. As part of this coordination, Metro would like to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the City to define how the two agencies will work together to design and construct the project.

The main purpose of this agreement (Attachment 1) is to define roles and responsibilities during design and construction, clarify the parameters of the design of the project, identify procedures for reviewing and approving design plans, establishing the various City design standards and guidelines that the project will be subject to, setting up a dispute resolution process, and identifying how private and City utility conflicts will be resolved. The agreement also allows for the City to seek reimbursement for costs related to the design and construction of the project, or to contribute funds to make betterment improvements to City facilities as part of the project. The agreement identifies portions of the project that will be maintained by Metro once the project is complete, to ensure that operations and maintenance of the project does not fall to the City.

The proposed Cooperative Agreement has been negotiated between City and Metro staff.

Some of the new City obligations identified in the Cooperative Agreement require the City to meet certain standards for responding to queries, reviewing plans and other materials, enforcing its rights over private utilities, and coordinating with adjacent development.

These costs will require staff time and/or consultant staffing to achieve, but many of these costs can be reimbursed by Metro through this Agreement. Staff will prepare an implementation plan that will identify the resources needed to implement the City’s portion of the agreement and return to City Council to approve funding and identify the costs to be reimbursed.

There are several items in the proposed Cooperative Agreement that remain unresolved between Metro and the City. The proposed changes to the Cooperative Agreement are believed to sufficiently protect the City’s interests, while still allowing for proper coordination to expeditiously deliver the project. T hese changes have not yet been accepted by Metro; therefore, Staff recommends the City Council approve the agreement, subject to the City resolving the following items identified below.

Credit to Metro for Costs to Replace City Infrastructure with Expired Service Life Metro has requested that the City consent to partially reimbursing Metro for costs to reconstruct or reconfigure City infrastructure that needs to be modified to accommodate the project, if that infrastructure is old and therefore a portion of its lifespan has alrea dy been exhausted. Metro would receive a credit paid by the City based on the proportion of that affected infrastructure’s amount of remaining expected lifespan, versus the amount of lifespan that has already been exhausted. Staff recommends that expired service life credits not be granted, based on the past history of other regional transportation projects that did not include this provision, and because the relative remaining life of a piece of City infrastructure should not have a bearing on whether Metro is required to pay for City infrastructure improvements necessary for Metro to build the project. Introducing expired service life credits would mean that the City is undertaking part of Metro’s project costs.

ATTACHMENT 3-3
54 Staff has currently negotiated changes to the agreement that would require both City and Metro to agree to apply an expired service life calculation to any part of the project.

Deferring Operations and Maintenance Principles to a Separate Agreement The Cooperative Agreement includes provisions for the City and Metro to meet in good faith to identify operations and maintenance costs for the project that will be borne by each agency as part of a separate negotiation. Metro has requested that discussion of operations and maintenance be deferred because certain aspects of the project ’s operations and maintenance won’ t be known until after the project’s final design has commenced. However, Staff believes some operations and maintenance elements of the project should clearly be the responsibility of Metro, regardless of how the project is designed, and therefore should be identified as part of the Cooperative Agreement.

These primarily include the operations and maintenance of elements related to the transit stations. Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to ensure that operation and maintenance of major project elements like the transit stations is included in the Cooperative Agreement rather than deferring to a subsequent agreement.

City-owned Utility Adjustments Procedures
The Cooperative Agreement sections related to u tility adjustments and relocations does not apply to situations where the City owns its utility infrastructure. Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to include adjustments to the Cooperative Agreement that account for the City owning its water, electrical, recycled water, and fiber optic communications utilities, and ensure that Metro will be paying for all utility adjustments necessary for the project.

Project Description and Project Alignment
Metro and the City currently disagree over how the project alignment is portrayed in the Cooperative Agreement. City staff requests that certain broad details of the project (alignment, station location, roadway configuration) be included in the Cooperative Agreement so that both parties understand the scope of the project that is approved to be constructed. Metro believes that this project description should not be included because Metro’s Board of Directors approved a project that includes a bus -only lane on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista Street and Lake Street, which is contrary to the City Council’s direction of ensuring that the project description includes mixed-flow bus operation on this stretch. Based on City Council’s prior direction, Staff believes that including the mixed- flow project description is important to convey to Metro the City Council’s wishes, but including this description carries the risk that Metro will not approve the Cooperative Agreement. If the City Council directs staff not to include the project description in the Cooperative Agreement, staff would still continue to direct Metro to implement the project in accordance with the City Council’s direction and would review, approve, and permit plans that included mixed- flow on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista and Lake, unless the City Council directs otherwise.

Olive Avenue Bridge Connection to Metrolink
Finally, the Cooperative Agreement does not address the status of the project’s station connection to the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station. As part of the Final EIR, the City Council conveyed to Metro that it believed a direct connection between the project and the Metrolink Station be provided via a new station on the Olive Avenue Bridge. This element is not included in the project . Metro does not intend to modify the Olive Avenue ATTACHMENT 3-4
55 Bridge as part of the project and will provide a connection to Metrolink via a station at Lake Street. In lieu of making inclusion of this direct connection contingent on approving the Cooperative Agreement, Staff is proposing to prepare a Capital Improvement Project as part of the City’s Fiscal Year 2024- 2025 budget which would allow the City to begin high-level planning and conceptual design of a possible modification to the Olive Avenue Bridge to include BRT station, and to explore outside funding opportunities to fund this improvement.

Staff recommends approval of the Cooperative Agreement, subject to changes that protect the City’s interests as the project development moves forward and based on the City Council’s current policy direction. However, the City Council has latitude to direct staff in how to move forward with the Cooperative Agreement, including directing staff to make further changes, remove changes, or to deny the agreement outright. The City Council may direct Staff in accordance with Staff’s recommendation or pursue other action as desired.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Metro conducted community outreach and engagement throughout the development of the North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Project, during both conceptual project development as well as through the EIR process. This outreach process also helped the City Council develop its formal input to the project and resulted in the City’s formal position to support the project with the two important caveats of maintaining mixed- flow lanes on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista Street and Lake Street, and for Metro to support the City in developing a BRT station on the Olive Avenue Bridge.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Metro as the lead agency for the Project conducted environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Environmental Impact Report was prepared pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15080 et seq., which was certified by the Metro Board of Directors on April 28, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no Fiscal Impact to the City in approving this Cooperative Agreement. While the Agreement imposes new obligations on the City to assist Metro in delivering the project, the additional staff and consultant costs borne by the City to meet its obligations under the Agreement are also reimbursable by Metro under the Agreement. Approval of the Cooperative Agreement allows the City to recover costs incurred to assist Metro in designing and constructing the project.

CONCLUSION
Metro requests the City approve a Cooperative Agreement to guide how the two agencies will work together to design and construct the North Hollywood to Pasadena Corridor BRT Project. The Agreement describes the roles and responsibilities of each agency, lists the various city design standards and guidelines that will apply to the project, and sets out a process for the City to seek reimbursement from Metro for costs incurred to support the project. However, there are still areas within the Agreement that Metro and City staff have not yet agreed upon. Staff recommends the City Council approve the Cooperative Agreement with the City’s redline changes incorporated and provide direction to staff on whether to include a more detailed project description that reflects the City Council’s ATTACHMENT 3-5
56 policy direction, so that Staff can ensure that the City directs the design and construction of project elements within its right of way and can be reimbursed for costs incurred to support the Project.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Draft Cooperative Agreement with City’s requested redline changes Attachment 2 – Project Alignment
Attachment 3 – City Council Final Environmental Impact Report Comment Letter and Staff Report

ATTACHMENT 3-6
57 ATTACHMENT 3-7
58 ATTACHMENT 3-8
59 ATTACHMENT 3-9
60 ATTACHMENT 3-10
61 ATTACHMENT 3-11
62 ATTACHMENT 3-12
63 ATTACHMENT 3-13
64 ATTACHMENT 3-14
65 ATTACHMENT 3-15
66 ATTACHMENT 3-16
67 ATTACHMENT 3-17
68 ATTACHMENT 3-18
69 ATTACHMENT 3-19
70 ATTACHMENT 3-20
71 ATTACHMENT 3-21
72 ATTACHMENT 3-22
73 ATTACHMENT 3-23
74 ATTACHMENT 3-24
75 ATTACHMENT 3-25
76 ATTACHMENT 3-26
77 ATTACHMENT 3-27
78 ATTACHMENT 3-28
79 ATTACHMENT 3-29
80 ATTACHMENT 3-30
81 ATTACHMENT 3-31
82 ATTACHMENT 3-32
83 ATTACHMENT 3-33
84 ATTACHMENT 3-34
85 ATTACHMENT 3-35
86 ATTACHMENT 3-36
87 ATTACHMENT 3-37
88 ATTACHMENT 3-38
89 ATTACHMENT 3-39
90 ATTACHMENT 3-40
91 ATTACHMENT 3-41
92 ATTACHMENT 3-42
93 ATTACHMENT 3-43
94 ATTACHMENT 3-44
95 ATTACHMENT 3-45
96 ATTACHMENT 3-46
97 ATTACHMENT 3-47
98 ATTACHMENT 3-48
99 ATTACHMENT 3-49
100
ATTACHMENT 3-50
101
ATTACHMENT 3-51
102
ATTACHMENT 3-52
103
ATTACHMENT 3-53
104
ATTACHMENT 3-54
105
ATTACHMENT 3-55
106
ATTACHMENT 3-56
107
ATTACHMENT 3-57
108
ATTACHMENT 3-58
109
ATTACHMENT 3-59
110
ATTACHMENT 3-60
111
ATTACHMENT 3-61
112
ATTACHMENT 3-62
113
ATTACHMENT 3-63
114
ATTACHMENT 3-64
115
ATTACHMENT 3-65
116
ATTACHMENT 3-66
117
ATTACHMENT 3-67
118
ATTACHMENT 3-68
119
ATTACHMENT 3-69
120
ATTACHMENT 3-70
121
ATTACHMENT 3-71
122
ATTACHMENT 3-72
123
ATTACHMENT 3-73
124
Attachment 2 – Project Alignment
ATTACHMENT 3-74
125
ATTACHMENT 3-75
126

STAFF REPORT
DATE: J
anuary 27, 2026
TO: Jus
tin Hess, City Manager
FROM: P
atrick Prescott, Community Development Director
VIA: Fred Ramirez, Assistant Community Development Director, Planning David Kriske, Assistant Community Development Director, Transportation
Scott Plambaeck, Planning Manager
BY: Amanda Landry, Principal Planner
Greg Mirza-Avakyan, Senior Planner
Marcos Fuentes, Senior Transportation Planner
SUBJECT:

Discussion of Senate Bill 79 (SB 79) and its Potential Impacts on the City of Burbank
RECOMM

ENDATION

1. Direct staff to pursue clean-up language for SB 79 via the legislative process and coordination with applicable State representatives.

2. Direct staff to continue to pursue discussions with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regarding the official SB 79 eligibility maps and with Metro regarding potential impacts to the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project (BRT).

3. Direct the Community Development Department (CDD) staff to revise/update the housing development process to ensure timely and efficient processing of housing development applications, consistent with SB 79.

EXECUTI

VE SUMMARY
Senate Bill 79 (SB 79) is a recently enacted state law (Attachment 1) that was signed by the Governor on October 10, 2025 and takes effect on July 1, 2026. SB 79 is intended to facilitate transit -oriented housing development by establishing new development standards near qualifying transit facilities and is expected to have broad implications for local land use planning. S taff anticipates that SB 79 may present significant challenges

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT
ATTACHMENT 4-1
127
related to development intensity, utilities, infrastructure, capacity and environmental review, and may introduce additional complexity to ongoing planning efforts. These newly imposed impacts will result in significant environmental concerns that need to be analyzed and considered under the California Envir onmental Quality Act (CEQA) wherever it applies. SB 79, as with any newly introduced state- imposed mandates to local planning efforts, introduces a potential new layer of complexity to the Specific Plan s currently in development.

This report provides an overview of SB 79, its current and potential future applicability in Burbank, possible implications on City planning efforts, and staff’s recommended next steps. As the law has generated significant discussion and has a likely potential for future amendment, the analysis in this report is speculative and based on assumptions which may later be proven false or change. Staff will return to the Council with additional analysis as the law’s meaning is clarified but recommends at this time that the City Council direct staff to continue to pursue legislative clarification and engage with SCAG and Metro about SB 79’s application.

BACKGROUND
Broadly, SB 79 facilitates transit- oriented development by allowing a housing development within a specified radius of an existing or proposed major transit -oriented development (TOD) stop, on a qualifying site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development. In addition, SB 79 also creates two “Tiers” of transit stops, depending on the level of and type of transit service, and prescribes minimum densities and heights to each.

Transit Oriented Development Stop Definition
SB 79 defines two tiers of TOD stops:
• Tier 1 : Within an urban transit county ( meaning a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations ) served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail.
• Tier 2: (excluding Tier 1) Within an urban transit county served by light rail transit, high-frequency commuter rail, or by Bus Rapid Transit (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21060.2).

Possible TOD Exclusions
SB 79 includes limited disqualifying criteria that are only applicable in certain circumstances including within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones ( VHFHSZ). The map in Attachment 2 identifies relevant excluded areas in Burbank.

ATTACHMENT 4-2
128
Other Relevant Qualifying Criteria
To qualify for SB 79, a project must:
• B e in a county with at least 16 passenger rail stations; • Be sited on a property where residential, mixed, or commercial uses are allowed; • B e within one-half mile of a TOD Stop;
• I nclude at least five residential units to meet the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) definition of a "housing development project" (Gov. Code Section 65589.5) including other relevant qualifying square footage or affordability requirements; • M eet a minimum density of 30 d welling units per acre (du /ac) or comply with the minimum density set by applicable local zoning, whichever is greater; • L imit the average total floor space for units to 1,750 net habitable square feet; • Comply with state law regarding the demolition of protected housing units; and • Comply with local demolition/anti -displacement ordinances and inclusionary zoning, provided such requirements do not preclude SB 79’s standards.

SB 79 Limitations
SB 79 also establishes several limitations:
• May not include any hotel or similar uses.
• SB 79 projects cannot require the demolition of rent -controlled or price-controlled housing if there are (or were) more than two units on the project site and the units (i) have been occupied within the past seven years or (ii) were demolished within seven years before a development application is submitted. • Projects must comply with anti -displacement requirements under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov. Code § 66300.6), and any and all local implementation program, and anti-displacement standards.
• Projects near airports must meet additional requirements regarding height, noise, and safety standards.
• Projects exceeding 85 feet in height must meet prevailing wage requirements, and additional "skilled and trained workforce" requirements may apply. • Ministerial vs. Discretionary – SB 79 allows applicant s to submit housing development applications through the City’s local (typically discretionary) entitlement process, or through the SB 35/SB 423 State-streamlined ministerial approval process (requires all workforce requirements of SB 35/SB 423 regardless of height).

Other Relevant Provisions of SB 79
SB 79 mandates that eligible housing developments be permitted up to the maximum height, density and floor area ratios prescribed by the bill. Housing projects are eligible for increased density, height and floor area if they are within one-half mile of a qualifying transit stop, with additional benefits for projects within one- quarter mile. Additional ATTACHMENT 4-3
129
benefits arise with the quality and frequency of service. Base height and density allowances are summarized in the table below:

“Adjacent” means within 200 feet of any pedestrian access point to a TOD stop.

• P rojects that qualify for SB 79’s increased density may use the “ base density” to receive a density bonus, waiver or concession under State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). SB 79 projects that qualify for one or more additional incentives and concessions under SDBL, depending on the income level of affordable housing provided. However, u nlike regular SDBL projects, local governments are not required to grant SDBL waivers or concessions to exceed SB 79's height limits.

• A project meeting the requirements of SB 79, as well as applicable local standards that do not alone or in concert prevent achieving SB 79's standards, is deemed consistent with local standards, policies, plans and ordinances applicable to the project for purposes of the HAA, notwithstanding any contrary local standards.

Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, a local government that denies a SB 79 project located in defined "high-resource"1 areas would be presumed in violation of the HAA and liable for penalties pursuant to the HAA.

• A lthough SB 79 does not itself create a specific CEQA-exempt ministerial approval process, such projects may qualify for streamlining under SB 35 with lower affordability obligations. Where SB 79 projects do not qualify for SB 35's CEQA - exempt process, other CEQA exemptions may apply.

1 A “High-resource area” means an area designated as highest resource or high resource on the most recently adopted version of the opportunity area maps published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development.

ATTACHMENT 4-4
130
SB 79 Application Processing
Developers electing to utilize SB 79 for a housing development project at a qualifying location have the option to use a local entitlement process or choose the streamlined ministerial review process established in SB 35/SB 423. In Burbank, the local entitlement process would include, at a minimum, Development Review (DR), and depending on the overall scope of the project, may also require an Administrative Use Permit (AUP). DR is administrative level discretionary review, by CDD Director (Director) and includes public notification and a community meeting. Through DR, a project is reviewed for consistency with all applicable objective development standards, and conditions of approval may be imposed to ensure compliance with said standards.

An AUP is a discretionary review, with the Director serving as the review authority. The process includes public notification, and if appealed, a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Through the AUP process, a project is reviewed for consistency with all applicable objective development standards and for its ability to satisfy established “findings”, necessary for approval. Conditions of approval may be imposed to ensure compliance with applicable objective development standards or all that required findings can be made.

The SB 35/SB 423 process provides a state-mandated streamlined ministerial review of housing projects , which meet specified eligibility criteria, including, but not limited to , environmental screening, affordability requirements, and workforce programs that include, among other things, the requirement to pay prevailing wage to construction workers. The SB 35/SB 423 process includes an initial step of submitting a Notice of Intent to submit an application, and consultations with California Native American Tribes. Like the DR process , the Director serves as the approving authority. There is less public oversight, and projects must be approved if consistent with applicable objective development standards. A developer chooses which application to submit based upon many factors.

SB 79 vs Other State Mandated Streamlined Ministerial Reviews While SB 79 shares some common features, with other exi sting State land use laws intended to facilitate the development of housing, such as SB 35/ SB 423 and AB 2011, there are some significant differences. A comparison is included in Attachment 3.

Penalties for Non-Compliance
Beginning January 1, 2027, a local government that denies a qualifying SB 79 housing development project located in a “high-resource area” shall be presumed to be in violation of the HAA and immediately liable for penalties pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, unless the local government demonstrates, pursuant to the standards in subdivisions (j) and (o) of Section 65589.5, that it has a health, life, or safety reason for denying the project.

ATTACHMENT 4-5
131
A City that fails to approve housing development projects, or process applications timely, in accordance with the state housing laws, are also subject to the following penalties:
• De-certification of the 2021-2029 Housing Element
• Builders remedy
• City-wide development restrictions
• Legal challenges

Related Ongoing Legislative Actions – SB 677
In January 2025, Senator Wiener introduced SB 677 as a “clean- up” bill for SB 79.

Proposed amendments do not appear to significantly modify the impacts of SB 79 on the City. However, staff is collaborating with Emanuels Jones and Associates to craft specific feedback to the state legislators regarding additional amendments, such as clarification on site eligibility, differentiation between residential and non-residential FAR, and additional definitions specifically related to the BRT

DISCUSSION
In discussions with the neighboring jurisdictions of Glendale and Pasadena on the impacts of SB 79, staff believe the current version of the law could result in significant impacts to the City’s land use planning, infrastructure, and the Metro BRT project as detailed below.

Location of TOD Stops in Burbank
Staff has evaluated transit facilities within the City using the law’s definitions, service thresholds, and operational criteria for qualifying Tier 1 and Tier 2 TOD stops and determined that there are no Tier 1 stops in Burbank and that there are currently present or have the potential to be present within the City three transit stops that do or would qualify as SB 79 Tier 2 TOD stops (Attachment 4):

1. The Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station
2, which meets the statutory threshold
for high-frequency commuter rail service (a rail link operating at least 48 trains per day in both directions; and

2. The future BRT stops 3 at Glenoaks Boulevard and Alameda Avenue, which are planned to operate with dedicated transit lanes and peak -period service frequencies consistent with Tier 2 requirements.

Two additional future BRT stops – at the Hollywood Way / Olive Avenue intersection and the San Fernando Blvd / Olive Avenue intersection – may qualify as SB 79 Tier 2 TOD 2 Increased train frequency serving the Station could upgrade this Tier 2 stop to a Tier 1 TOD stop, subject to timing, funding, and implementation.
3 Note that all BRT stops were planned and evaluated in the absence of SB 79, which presents new information and a substantial change to the BRT project along with potential significant and unavoidable impact on infrastructure anticipated with its invitation to housing development growth.

ATTACHMENT 4-6
132
stops but remain contingent on future action (designation of full time bus lanes) as well as interpretation of current SB 79 language, for BRT service, and likely require additional environmental review to consider SB 79’s impacts.

All other existing City Metrolink stations, bus stops and proposed BRT stops likely do not meet the required service thresholds or operate in conditions that satisfy the statute’s TOD stop definitions. However, SB 79 provides that transit facilities may qualify as TOD stops if they are in existence by July 1, 2026, or are identified in an applicable Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). In this context, Metrolink’s SCORE Program plans to increase service on the Antelope Valley and Ventura County lines to 30- minute headways by 2028. If these increased service goals are met, two additional Tier 2 TOD stops could be established around the Burbank Airport South and North Metrolink Stations.

SB 79 requires SCAG, as the region’s designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), to prepare and publish the official regional map identifying all qualifying TOD stops and their respective tier classifications. The City’s analysis and identification of qualifying TOD stops presented above reflects staff’s current interpretation of SB 79 based on available statutory definitions, service data, and planned transit improvements, and is subject to refinement upon publication of SCAG’s official mapping. C ity staff will need to coordinate with SCAG staff to ensure a consistent understanding of SB 79’s TOD definitions, service criteria, and applicability within the City, particularly in relation to the BRT project, which requires a detailed understanding of the project’s design to determine whether a BRT stop qualifies. A draft map depicting land use and zoning conditions within half- and quarter-mile around the TOD stops are included as Attachment 5.

Potential Impacts and Implications of SB 79 in TOD Areas Qualifying TOD stops establish a half -mile radius within which eligible residential, commercial, and mixed- use sites could allow development projects subject to the statute’s zoning standards and development incentives. Within a half mile of Burbank’s qualifying Tier 2 TOD stops, specifically the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station and the Glenoaks Boulevard/Alameda Avenue BRT stops, there are just under 3,000 parcels. Of these, 1,304 parcels are within a quarter mile of a Tier 2 TOD stop, and 124 parcels are directly adjacent to pedestrian access points serving a Tier 2 TOD stop. Of the residentially zoned parcels within these TOD areas, fewer than 300 parcels are zoned exclusively for single-family residential use, with an average parcel size of approximately 7,000 square feet. Many of the remaining parcels are zoned Industrial. Most Industrially zoned sites do not allow housing by-right; therefore, any housing project in these zones would require a state- mandated approval process under SB 35/SB 423, which requires prevailing wage and other workforce standards that significantly increase cost. In addition, the existing General Plan allowable density in some industrially zoned areas near TOD stops is already higher (87 units/acre) than the half mile required density under SB 79 (80 ATTACHMENT 4-7
133
units/acre). Under SB 79, only a few parcels east of the 5 would see a marginal increase in density under SB 79.

If the two additional BRT stops at Hollywood Way / Olive Avenue and San Fernando Boulevard / Olive Avenue were to qualify as TOD stops, the number of affected parcels would increase primarily in the Media District, within a half mile of the westbound stop at Hollywood Way / Olive Avenue, and in the Hillside area, within a half-mile of the BRT stop at San Fernando Boulevard/Olive Avenue.

BRT Project and SB 79
As discussed, several potential SB 79 Tier 2 sites rely on the design and construction of the BRT project, Metro’s planned east–west transit corridor extending approximately 18 miles between the North Hollywood B Line / G Line Metro Station and the A 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 route. Unlike many regional transit projects operating in dedicated right of way, the project uses local street right of way for operations and stations.

Metro’s proposed project alignment generally runs along Olive Avenue between the Burbank Media District and Downtown Burbank before continuing east to Glendale and Pasadena via Glenoaks Blvd. The BRT plan includes six stations in Burbank. To achieve higher speeds and capacities, BRT can operate in dedicated bus lanes as well as mixed- flow with regular traffic; in Burbank, Metro’s proposed route is to operate in both configurations. BRT is currently in the design phase, with construction activities estimated to begin sometime in 2026, with the entire BRT set to be operational in late 2027.

In the context of SB 79, BRT is a bus service within an urban transit county, that operates in full- time dedicated bus lanes or within a separate right -of-way dedicated to public transportation and provides peak-period service at intervals of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon commute periods. As such, staff’s understanding is that some of the BRT stops planned for Burbank could qualify as SB 79 TOD Tier 2 stops, and depending on whether the stops are served by dedicated bus lanes or mixed flow operations. One stop at Glenoaks Boulevard / Alameda Avenue intersection would qualify as a TOD stop because it is served by dedicated bus lanes. However, two other stops – at the intersections of Hollywood Way / Olive Avenue and San Fernando Boulevard / Olive Avenue – may qualify as TOD stops because bus lanes terminate at or near the stations but don’t provide full bus lane service. Three additional stops in Burbank would not qualify as TOD stops because the bus would operate in mixed-flow lanes. The final determination of whether a transit stop in Los Angeles County is considered a TOD stop is made by SCAG.

ATTACHMENT 4-8
134
Given that the planned BRT project may introduce previously unconsidered qualifying TOD stops within the City of Burbank based primarily on whether bus lanes are constructed or not, and because, unlike a rail transit stop, bus lanes are easily designated and removed based on the ongoing operation of a street, the City should actively engage with SCAG, Metro, and its state legislative delegation to seek further clarity on how BRT will be applied in Burbank based on the fact that bus lanes are planned to be implemented sporadically in Burbank and not across the entire BRT project. The City may even wish to consider lobbying for legislation to clarify and potentially remove BRT’s that operate on city streets in painted bus lanes from consideration as qualifying SB 79 transit corridor s altogether, since the purpose of the legislation is to increase housing density along dedicated transit corridors that are presumed to remain fixed in place, rather than on corridors whose operational characteristics and transit advantages could be compromised through simple striping changes to city roadways in the future.

Further, SB 79– driven development potential associated with the BRT alignment is a substantial change to the circumstances under which the BRT is being undertaken, and new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final Environmental Impact Report was certified as complete. As such, this new development potential was not evaluated by Metro as part of its Environmental Impact Report for the project, cumulative impacts related to increased residential development, particularly with respect to transportation operations, utilities, public services, and other City infrastructure, were not previously analyzed and may create significant adverse impacts on City systems. As a Responsible Agency under CEQA, the City is required to predicate further project approvals in City rights of way on additional environmental review to incorporate the land use changes presented by SB 79 should it apply.

Metro is aware of the potential impacts that the application of SB 79 will would create on the BRT project, including the need for a subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA, discussed below. Staff will continue to engage Metro on this issue.

Impact on Current Land Use Planning Projects
In addition to potential BRT impacts, SB 79 may affect current and future City land use planning efforts, including the ongoing Specific Plans.

Media District Specific Plan (MDSP) Update
The MDSP is nearing completion and includes a set of objective development standards that promote contextual design, streamline the development of housing and encourage transit-oriented development. The MDSP land use strategy focuses most residential and non-residential development away from lower scaled neighborhood and in areas where there is, or may be, transit opportunities . This general strategy is consistent with the purpose and intent of SB 79, albeit with lower maximum density and intensity. In addition to establishing objective development standards and facilitating the development of ATTACHMENT 4-9
135
housing and a robust economy, the MDSP will allow the City to respond to new transit opportunities, like the BRT, however it is not reliant or contingent on it, and is intended to facilitate opportunities for development that are consistent with the community’s vision for the area. SB 79 does not change the community’s vision, nor undermine the work done to date. An important feature of the MDSP is the inclusion of policies and implementation actions that would incentivize the use of the local regulations and process, over the use of a state option, such as a streamlined ministerial review or SB 79, which may have conditions associated with them that make projects financially or practically infeasible from a developer’s perspective.

Downtown TOD Specific Plan (DTODSP) Project
The DTODSP Project is currently in process and will provide a framework for introducing new housing at all levels of affordability, outline strategies for improving the bicycle and pedestrian networks, and develop objective standards for future development in Downtown Burbank. The DTODSP land use strategy focuses new residential and non- residential development in the downtown core, to the east of the Burbank Downtown Metrolink Station, either maintaining the existing 87 du/acre residential development potential or proposing a 110 du/acre residential development potential on key sites, such as within the Burbank Town Center or along the First Street corridor. This general strategy is consistent with the purpose and intent of SB 79. In addition to establishing objective development standards and facilitating the development of housing and a robust economy, the DTODSP will allow the City to respond to new transit opportunities, like the BRT, however it is not reliant or contingent on it, and is intended to facilitate opportunities for development that are consistent with the community’s vision for the area. With respect to the potential for developers to utilize SB 79, an important feature of the DTODSP Update is the inclusion of policies and implementation actions that would incentivize the use of the local regulations and process, over the use of a state option, such as a streamlined ministerial review or SB 79, which may have conditions associated with them that make projects financially or practically infeasible from a developers perspective.

Golden State Specific Plan (GSSP)
The Golden State Specific Plan (GSSP) is currently in progress and is intended to provide a comprehensive policy and regulatory framework for future development and mobility improvements in one of the City’s employment and transit-oriented areas. Consistent with the Burbank2035 General Plan, the GSSP focuses growth in proximity to major transit assets, including two Metrolink stations, the Hollywood -Burbank Airport, and a potential High-Speed Rail station, while limiting changes to established residential neighborhoods and accounting for airport -related land use constraints. The GSSP includes a proposed land use strategy and objective development standards that facilitate housing at a range of affordability levels, support a balanced mix of residential, comm ercial, and industrial uses, and promote connectivity for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. This overall approach is consistent with the purpose and intent of SB 79, though calibrated to reflect ATTACHMENT 4-10
136
local conditions, infrastructure capacity, and community vision. Like other City specific plans, the GSSP is anticipated to include policies and implementation actions that incentivize development under the City’s local regulatory framework, rather than reliance on state-level options such as SB 79, which may impose conditions that could limit project feasibility or constrain the City’s ability to ensure development aligns with community objectives and long-term planning goals.

CEQA Considerations
The environmental review undertaken for the BRT project did not consider any changes to local zoning or land uses such as may be applied to certain stops under SB 79. If aspects of the BRT lane configuration and station placements trigger dramatic increases in residential densities and building heights, worsening potentially significant adverse impacts to utility systems, infrastructure, and services, subsequent environmental review will be necessary. SB 79’s relevance to the BRT would be a substantial change to the circumstances under which it is undertaken.

Environmental reports for the BRT were circulated in 2020 and approved in 2022 but were limited to analyzing the operation of a bus rapid transit service and stations within existing City roadways. No environmental impacts were assessed related to SB 79 eligible development containing supercharged residential densities within one-half mile of a TOD stop that could be developed starting July 2026. As such, the enactment and potential application of SB 79 to the BRT is a substantial change to the circumstances under which the BRT is being undertaken, and new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete.

Aside from the BRT, CDD and CAO staff are also evaluating but have not determined whether the application of SB 79 in specific plan areas needs further CEQA analysis.

Possible Land Use Planning Alternatives
Based upon the current understanding of the law and its local application, staff believes the following options are available in response to SB 79:

Maintain Status Quo and Continue to Pursue Legislative Clarification This option does not require an ordinance to rezone affected areas, though properties zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial use falling within half - and quarter-mile of a Tier 1 or Tier 2 TOD stop will automatically be eligible to use SB 79’s state- mandated height and density. The City will not be able to exempt any properties beyond the limitations set by SB 79 criteria (see “SB 79 Limitations” above). Staff can anticipate which properties may be SB 79 eligible, and SB 79 could result in the addition of a significant number of potential units within the affected areas.

ATTACHMENT 4-11
137
This option maintains ongoing land use planning efforts and enables the City to effectively respond to housing development projects submitted under SB 79 by utilizing existing City regulations and objective development standards. This will allow the City to immediately respond to housing development project applications submitted on day one (July 1, 2026) using current staffing and tools. SB 79 adds to the myriad state housing law review timelines, and this option will help the City avoid the significant associated consequences of failing to meet those deadlines. This option would be enhanced by more direct coordination between staff reviewing housing development projects. Under this option, staff will continue to pursue legislative responses to local concerns. Staff has a list of comprehensive amendments or clarifications necessary to address local concerns and is currently working with California Public Policy Group to communicate these concerns to the appropriate representatives. This option is the least disruptive to the City’s current ongoing efforts to complete Specific Plans in a timely fashion.

Adopt an “Alternative Plan”
SB 79 specifies that local governments may implement an alternative plan adopted through the Housing Element (HE), a program to implement the HE, a Specific Plan, Zoning Overlay or Ordinance to address its provisions. Requirements for such alternative plans are listed in Attachment 6.

The Alternative Plan option allows for an extended exemption (until the following housing element cycle which would begin in 2029) of certain properties from SB 79 eligibility; however, the criteria for exemption are quite narrow. Single-Family zoning would still need to be upzoned to at least 50% of the SB 79 density, unless located in the VHFSZ . An advantage of this option is that it can temporarily minimize the added SB 79 density in low-density and single-family neighborhoods; however, that density must redistributed to other parts of the SB 79 coverage area, which may require difficult Council decisions.

Furthermore, this option requires permanent rezoning of the properties in question, which may present challenges if the state law on this matter changes again. Lastly, this option requires the City to restart the analysis of the proposed densities in the Specific Plan areas, an effort that will delay the expected adoption of the Specific Plans by at least six- months, if not longer, at an unknown cost.

Adopt a “Simple” Local Ordinance
A simple local ordinance with fewer exemptions than the Alternative Plan is an option if a community does not have existing objective standards for residential and mixed- use development in nonresidential zones, and extensive pedestrian infrastructure, including near transit stops. As such, this option is not beneficial to Burbank at this time, as the City has these features.

ATTACHMENT 4-12
138
Adopt a “Delayed Effectuation” Local Ordinance
Local governments may choose to adopt a delayed effectuation ordinance, which must be adopted prior to the effective day (July 1, 2026) separate from, but can be parallel to, a “simple” local ordinance. This option allows delaying effectuation of SB 79 for certain areas (areas with existing high density, low resource communities, and specific sites within sensitive areas – VHFHSZ) until 2030 (one year after 7th revision to HE). This option requires up-front analysis to see if currently Burbank’s allowable density in areas can qualify for delayed effectuation (R -1 zones in high- resource areas will be difficult to exempt). This option limit s how much density can be shifted around and requires modeling to analyze local development potential versus SB 79 with very narrow criteria to make sites ineligible for SB 79. An Alternative Plan would then need to be adopted to make these exemptions permanent . To utilize this option, a city must submit a draft ordinance to HCD 14 days prior to adoption and again within 60 days of enactment, for a 90-day review, and subsequently amend the ordinance pursuant to HCD’s findings.

This option has limited benefit to Burbank. Under staff’s current interpretation of SB 79, those parcels within the City within a VHFHSZ or in a Flood Risk Area are currently already ineligible for SB 79 as they fall outside TOD stop radius . Other parts of the C ity typically considered sensitive to development, such as R -1 zones, cannot be exempted and may only be downzoned to 50% of the allowable capacity under SB 79. Finally, the administrative effort to conduct the density analysis before the effective date of July 1, 2026, would be considerable and staff resources would be diverted from other critical ongoing planning efforts.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Throughout 2025, the Council heard from several members of the public about SB 79 who consistently emphasized concerns about the City being forced to facilitate incompatible density and developments in close proximity to lower scaled residential neighborhoods. The City monitored SB 79 throughout the legislative process and issued numerous opposition letters (Attachment 7).

If the Council directs staff to proceed with any of the options listed above that involve the development of an ordinance, such efforts will include community outreach consistent with the City’s past practices . The extent of the outreach would depend on Council ’s requested timelines for directed actions.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This staff report provides information about the local implications of SB 79 and has no potential for resulting in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment and falls outside the definition of a “project” under the CEQA and is therefore not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15378 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

ATTACHMENT 4-13
139

FISCAL IMPACT
The total fiscal impact of future implementation of SB 79 to the City ’s General Fund is currently unknown. SB 79 projects can be reviewed through the DR and/or AUP process or via a streamlined ministerial review under the provisions of SB 35, which will not impact the General Fund as the City has already established application fees for DR, AUPs and streamlined ministerial applications.

However, there will be some impact to the General Fund if Council directs staff to pursue the development of an Alternative Plan, a local ordinance, or pursue other further actions.

The approximate costs associated with these options are unknown but likely to exceed $750,000 based on recent costs associated with similar recent expedited land use planning or legal costs.

Indirect costs associated with pursuing the above options include re-prioritization staff, delays to ongoing planning efforts, and impacts to core planning services due to the shifting of staff to SB 79 related services. Delays in completion of the Specific Plans could result in the loss of associated grant funding.

CONCLUSION
SB 79 becomes effective on July 1, 2026. Although the law contains many uncertainties, the City must be prepared to implement in a way that benefits the community. S taff recommends that Council direct staff to pursue policy clarifications to SB 79, lobby the legislature for a clean-up bill to clarify SB 79’s applicability to BRT, and if necessary, solicit further environmental review as outlined above, and have CDD staff facilitate the review of housing development projects to ensure the City is able to respond to future housing development applications submitted pursuant to SB 79 or other streamlined ministerial reviews within State-mandated deadlines.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Complete Text of SB 79
Attachment 2 – SB 79 Exclusion Areas (Fire Severity Zone Map) Attachment 3 – Comparison between SB 79 and Streamlined Ministerial Reviews Attachment 4 – TOD Stop Land Use Analysis
Attachment 5 – TOD Stop Zoning Analysis
Attachment 6 – Requirements for an “Alternative Plan”
Attachment 7 – City of Burbank Opposition Letters
ATTACHMENT 4-14
140
Senate Bill No. 79
CHAPTER 512
An act to add Chapter 4.1.5 (commencing with Section 65912.155) to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, relating to land use. [Approved by Governor October 10, 2025. Filed with Secretary of State October 10, 2025.]
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 79, Wiener. Housing development: transit-oriented development. (1) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the ph ysical
development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element.

Existing law requires that the housing element consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, as specified. Existing law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints that are relevant to the meeting of these needs, including an inventory of land suitable for residential development, as provided. Existing law, for the 4th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified, and requires the appropriate council of local governments, or the department for cities and counties without a council of governments, to adopt a final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each locality in the region. Existing law requires the inventory of land to be used to identify sites throughout the community that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need. Existing law requires each local government to revise its housing element in accordance with a specified schedule.

Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, requires a local agency that proposes to disapprove a housing development project, as defined, or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density to base its decision on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that specified conditions exist if that project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete. The act authorizes the applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AUTHENTICATED

ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
ATTACHMENT 4-15
141
shelter, or a housing organization to bring an action to enforce the act’s provisions, as provided, and provides for penalties if the court finds that the local agency is in violation of specified provisions of the act.

This bill would require that a housing development project, as defined, within a specified distance of a transit-oriented development (TOD) stop, as defined, be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing development on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development, if the development complies with applicable requirements, as specified. Among these requirements, the bill would require a project to include at least 5 dwelling units and establish requirements concerning height limits, density, and residential floor area ratio in accordance with a development’s proximity to specified tiers of TOD stops, as provided. The bill would require that, for the purposes of the Housing Accountability Act, a proposed development consistent with the applicable standards of these provisions as well as applicable local objective general plan and zoning standards be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with prescribed requirements, as specified. The bill would provide that a local government that denies a project meeting the requirements of these provisions located in a high-resource area, as defined, would be presumed in violation of the Housing Accountability Act, as specified, and immediately liable for penalties, beginning on January 1, 2027, as provided. These provisions would not apply to a local agency until July 1, 2026, except as specified, or within unincorporated areas of counties until the 7th regional housing needs allocation cycle. The bill would specify that a development proposed pursuant to these provisions is eligible for streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to specified law, except that the bill would exempt a project under these provisions from specified requirements, and would specify that the project is required to comply with certain affordability requirements, under that law.

This bill would require a proposed development to comply with specified demolition and antidisplacement standards; to not be located on sites where the development would require demolition of housing, or that was previously used for housing, that is subject to rent or price controls; to include housing for lower income households, as specified; be consistent with specified height, noise, safety, and fire standards; and meet specified labor standards, as provided. The bill would also authorize a transit agency’s board of directors to adopt agency TOD zoning standards for district-owned real property located in a TOD zone, which establish minimum zoning requirements for an agency TOD project, as specified.

Prior to one year following the adoption of the 7th revision of the housing element, this bill would not apply the provisions relating to a housing development project to specified sites for which a local government has adopted an ordinance indicating the site’s exclusion, as specified, including a site that is covered by a local TOD alternative plan, as defined, adopted by a local government. For the 7th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, the bill would authorize a local government to include a local TOD alternative plan in its housing element or adopt an alternative plan by 2 ATTACHMENT 4-16
142
ordinance, as specified. The bill would exempt a jurisdiction that has adopted a compliant local TOD alternative plan from the provisions relating to a housing development, as specified.

This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to oversee compliance with the bill’s provisions and would require the department to promulgate standards on how to allow for capacity pursuant to these provisions to be counted in the inventory of land included within a county’s or city’s housing element, as specified. The bill would authorize each metropolitan planning organization to create a map of designated TOD stops and zones within its region by tier in accordance with these standards, which would have a rebuttable presumption of validity.

The bill would authorize a local government to enact an ordinance to make its zoning code consistent with these provisions, as provided. The bill would require the local government to submit a draft of this ordinance to the department for review, at least 14 days prior to adoption of the ordinance.

The bill would require the local government to submit a copy of this ordinance to the department within 60 days of enactment and would require the department to review the ordinance for compliance, as specified. If at any time the department finds an ordinance is out of compliance, and the local government does not take specified steps to address compliance, the bill would require the department to notify the local government in writing and authorize the department to notify the Attorney General, as provided.

This bill would define various terms for its purposes and make related findings and declarations.

This bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

By increasing the duties of local officials, and by expanding the crime of perjury by requiring the certification of certain information related to labor standards, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (3)
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimb
ursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 4.1.5 (commencing with Section 65912.155) is added to Division 1 of
Title 7 of the Government Code, to read:

Chapter 4.1.5. Transit-Oriented Development
65912.155. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
3 ATTACHMENT 4-17
143
(a)  California faces a housing shortage both acute and chronic, particularly in areas with access to robust public transit infrastructure. (b)  Creating ownership opportunities can be an effective long-term strategy for b
uilding wealth and can create a path to financial security. (c)  Building more homes near transit access reduces housing and transportation costs for California families, and promotes en vironmental
sustainability, economic growth, and reduced traffic congestion. (d)  Public transit systems require sustainable funding to provide reliable service, especially in areas experiencing increased density and ridership.

The state does not in
vest in public transit service to the same degree as it does in roads, and the state funds a smaller proportion of the state’s major transit agencies’ operations costs than other states with comparable systems.

Transit systems in other countries derive significant revenue from transit-oriented development at and near their stations. 65912.156. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a)  “Adjacent” means within 200 feet of any pedestrian access point to a transit-oriented dev
elopment stop.
(b)  “Commuter rail” means a public rail transit service not meeting the standards for heavy rail or light rail, e
xcluding California High-Speed Rail
and Amtrak Long Distance Service.
(c)  “Department” means the Department of Housing and Community Dev
elopment.
(d)  “Heavy rail transit” means a public electric railway line with the capacity for a heavy v
olume of traffic using high-speed and rapid
acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multicar trains on fixed rails, separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded, and high platform loading. “Heavy rail transit” does not include California High-Speed Rail.
(e)  “High-frequency commuter rail” means a commuter rail service operating a total of at least 48 trains per day across both directions, not including temporary service changes of less than one month or unplanned disruptions, and not meeting the standard for very high frequenc y commuter
rail, at any point in the past three years.
(f)  “High-resource area” means an area designated as highest resource or high resource on the most recently adopted version of the opportunity area maps published by the California
Tax Credit Allocation Committee
and the department.
(g)  “Housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in Section 65589.5, but does not include a project of which an y portion is
designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging. For the purposes of this subdivision, the term “other transient lodging” does not include either of the following:
(1)  A residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2)
After the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a resident’s use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined in Section 17568.8 of the Business and Professions Code, in a manner consistent with local la w.
4 ATTACHMENT 4-18
144
(h)  “Light rail transit” includes streetcar, trolley, and tramway service. “Light rail transit” does not include airport people mov ers.
(i)  “Net habitable square footage” means the finished and heated floor area fully enclosed by the inside surface of w
alls, windows, doors, and
partitions, and having a headroom of at least six and one-half feet, including working, living, eating, cooking, sleeping, stair, hall, service, and storage areas, but excluding garages, carports, parking spaces, cellars, half-stories, and unfinished attics and basements.
(j)  “Low-resource area” means an area designated as low resource on the most recently adopted version of the opportunity area maps published by the California
Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the department.
(k)  “Rail transit” has the same meaning as defined in Section 99602 of the Public Utilities Code.
(l
)  “Residential floor area ratio” means the ratio of net habitable square footage dedicated to residential use to the area of the lot. (m)
“Transit-oriented development zone” means the area within one-half mile of a transit-oriented development stop.
(n)  “Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented dev
elopment stop within an urban transit county served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail.
(o)  “Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented dev
elopment stop within an urban transit county, excluding a Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop, served by light rail transit, by high-frequency commuter rail, or by bus service meeting the standards of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21060.2 of the Public Resources Code.
(p)  “Transit-oriented development stop” means a major transit stop, as defined by Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, and also including stops on a route for which a preferred alternativ
e has been selected or which
are identified in a regional transportation improvement program, that is served by heavy rail transit, very high frequency commuter rail, high frequency commuter rail, light rail transit, or bus service within an urban transit county meeting the standards of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21060.2 of the Public Resources Code. When a new transit route or extension is planned that was not identified in the applicable regional transportation plan on or before January 1, 2026, those stops shall not be eligible as transit-oriented development stops unless they would be eligible as Tier 1 transit-oriented development stops. If a county becomes an urban transit county subsequent to July 1, 2026, then bus service in that county shall remain ineligible for designation of a transit-oriented development stop.
(q)  “Urban transit county” means a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations.
(r)
“Very high frequency commuter rail” means a commuter rail service with a total of at least 72 trains per day across both directions, not including temporary service changes of less than one month or unplanned disruptions, at any point in the past three years.
5 ATTACHMENT 4-19
145
65912.157. (a)  A housing development project shall be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing dev
elopment on any site zoned for residential,
mixed, or commercial development within one-half or one-quarter mile of a transit-oriented development stop, if the development complies with the applicable of all of the following requirements:
(1)  A transit-oriented housing development project allowed under this chapter shall include at least five dwelling units and meet the greater of the follo
wing:
(A)  A minimum density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre. (B)
The minimum density required under local zoning, if applicable. (2)
The average total area of floor space for the proposed units in the transit-oriented housing dev
elopment project shall not exceed 1,750 net
habitable square feet.
(3)  For a transit-oriented housing development project within one-quarter mile of a Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
(A)  A local government shall not impose any height limit less than 75 feet.
(B)
A local government shall not impose any maximum density of less than 120 dwelling units per acre.
(C)
A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would ph
ysically preclude
achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 3.5.
(D)  A development that achieves a minimum density of 90 dwelling units per acre and that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, af
fordability requirements, shall be
eligible for additional concessions pursuant to Section 65915, as specified in subdivision (d).
(4)  For a transit-oriented housing development project further than one-quarter mile but within one-half mile of a
Tier 1 transit-oriented
development stop, and within a city with a population of at least 35,000, all of the following apply:
(A)  A local government shall not impose any height limit less than 65 feet.
(B)
A local government shall not impose any maximum density standard of less than 100 dwelling units per acre.
(C)
A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would ph
ysically preclude
achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 3.
(D)  A development that achieves a minimum density of 75 dwelling units per acre and that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, af
fordability requirements, shall be
eligible for additional concessions pursuant to Section 65915, as specified in subdivision (d).
(5)  For a transit-oriented housing development project within one-quarter mile of a Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
(A)  A local government shall not impose any height limit less than 65 feet.
6 ATTACHMENT 4-20
146
(B)  A local government shall not impose any maximum density standard of less than 100 dwelling units per acre.
(C)
A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would ph
ysically preclude
achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 3.
(D)  A development that achieves a minimum density of 75 dwelling units per acre and that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, af
fordability requirements, shall be
eligible for additional concessions pursuant to Section 65915, as specified in subdivision (d).
(6)  For a transit-oriented housing development project further than one-quarter mile but within one-half mile of a
Tier 2 transit-oriented
development stop, and within a city with a population of at least 35,000, all of the following apply:
(A)  A local government shall not impose any height limit less than 55 feet.
(B)
A local government shall not impose any maximum density standard of less than 80 dwelling units per acre.
(C)
A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would ph
ysically preclude
achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 2.5.
(D)  A development that achieves a minimum density of 60 dwelling units per acre and that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, af
fordability requirements, shall be
eligible for additional concession pursuant to Section 65915, as specified in subdivision (d).
(b)  For purposes of this chapter, the distance of a transit-oriented housing development project from a transit-oriented development stop shall be measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the parcel containing the proposed project to a pedestrian access point for the transit-oriented development stop.
(c)  A local government may still enact and enforce standards, including an inclusionary zoning requirement that do not, alone or in concert, prev ent
achieving the applicable development standards of subdivision (a). A local government shall not adopt any requirement, including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary zoning requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is seeking approval as a transit-oriented housing development, except as necessary for the requirements of this chapter.
(d)  A transit-oriented housing development project under this section shall be eligible for a density bonus, incentiv
es or concessions, waivers or
reductions of development standards, and parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 or a local density bonus program, using the density allowed under this section as the base density. If a development proposes a height under this section in excess of the local height limit, then a local government shall not be required to grant a waiver, incentive, or concession pursuant to Section 65915 for additional height beyond that specified in this section, except as 7 ATTACHMENT 4-21
147
provided in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65915. A development shall be eligible for the following additional concessions, if it meets the applicable density threshold specified for its location:
(1)  For a development providing housing for extremely low income households, three additional concessions.
(2)
For a development providing housing for very low income households, two additional concessions.
(3)  For a development providing housing for low-income households, one additional concession.
(e)
Notwithstanding any other law, a transit-oriented housing development project that meets any of the eligibility criteria under subdivision (a) and is immediately adjacent to a transit-oriented development stop shall be eligible for an adjacency intensifier to increase the height limit by an additional 20 feet, the maximum density standard by an additional 40 dwelling units per acre, and the residential floor area ratio by 1 prior to the application of Section 65915.
(f)  A development proposed pursuant to this section shall comply with Section 66300.6, including any local requirements or processes implementing the pro
visions of Section 66300.6. This subdivision shall apply to any city or county.
(g)  A development proposed pursuant to this section shall comply with any applicable local demolition and antidisplacement standards established through a local ordinance.
(h)
A development proposed pursuant to this section shall not be located on either of the following:
(1)
A site containing more than two units where the development would require the demolition of housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’
s valid exercise of its police power that has
been occupied by tenants within the past seven years.
(2)  A site that was previously used for more than two units of housing that were demolished within sev
en years before the development proponent
submits an application under this section and any of the units were subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
(i)  A development proposed pursuant to this section shall include housing for lower income households by complying with one of the following requirements:
(1)  (A)  Any of the following:
(i)
At least 7 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (9) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to e
xtremely low income households, as defined in Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii)  At least 10 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (9) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to v ery
low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code.
8 ATTACHMENT 4-22
148
(iii)  At least 13 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (9) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to lo wer
income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B)  This paragraph shall not apply to any development of 10 units or less.
(C)
All units dedicated to extremely low income, very low income, and low-income households pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall meet both of the follo
wing:
(i)  The units shall have an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii)
The development proponent shall agree to, and the local agency shall ensure, the continued affordability of all af
fordable rental units included
pursuant to this section for 55 years and all affordable ownership units included pursuant to this section for a period of 45 years. (2)  If a local inclusionary housing requirement mandates a higher percentage of affordable units or a deeper le
vel of affordability than that
described in paragraph (1), then the local inclusionary housing requirement mandate shall apply in place of the requirements in paragraph (1). (j)  A development proposed pursuant to this chapter shall be consistent with the height, noise, and safety standards of an adopted airport land use compatibility plan or Department of Defense Air Installation Compatible Use Zones de
veloped pursuant to Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, and of otherwise applicable objective fire safety standards established pursuant to the California Building Code, the California Fire Code, the California, Wildland-Urban Interface Code, the Health and Safety Code, the Public Resources Code, or Chapter 6.8 (commencing with Section 51175) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of this code.
(k)  Any transit-oriented housing development pursuant to this section shall meet the labor standards of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (F), and (G) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 for an y building
over 85 feet in height, which shall be applicable to the building. (l)  For purposes of subdivision (j) of Section 65589.5, a proposed housing development project that is consistent with the applicable standards from this chapter, as well as applicable local objective general plan and zoning standards that do not alone or in concert prevent achieving those standards, and as modified by any incentive, concession, or waiver under Section 65915, shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. This subdivision shall not require a ministerial approval process or modify the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(m)  Beginning on January 1, 2027, a local government that denies a housing dev
elopment project meeting the requirements of this section that is located in a high-resource area shall be presumed to be in violation of the Housing Accountability Act (Section 65589.5) and immediately liable for 9 ATTACHMENT 4-23
149
penalties pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) of Section 65589.5, unless the local government demonstrates, pursuant to the standards in subdivisions (j) and (o) of Section 65589.5, that it has a health, life, or safety reason for denying the project. (n)  This section shall not apply to a local agency until July 1, 2026, unless the local agency adopts an ordinance or local transit-oriented development alternative plan deemed compliant by the department before July 1, 2026.

It shall not apply within an unincorporated area of a county until the 7th regional housing needs allocation cycle.
65912.158. (a)  For the purposes of this section, “agency transit-oriented development project” means a housing development project or mixed use residential project that meets all of the following requirements:
(1)  A minimum of 50 percent of the total square footage of the project is dedicated to residential purposes.
(2)
A minimum of 20 percent of the total number of units shall be restricted for the affordable lo
wer income households and shall be subject
to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years in the case of rental units and 45 years in the case of owner occupied units, unless a local ordinance or the terms of federal, state, or local tax credit, or other project financing requires a longer period of affordability.
(3)  The average total floor area of floor space for the proposed units in the housing dev
elopment project shall not exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet.
(4)  The parcel or parcels on which the project is located is an infill site, as defined in Section 21061.3 of the Public Resources Code. (5)
The transit-oriented development parcels on which the transit-oriented development project would be located was not acquired through eminent domain on or after July 1, 2025.
(6)  The parcels on which the transit-oriented development project would be located are owned by the agenc
y and either:
(A)  The parcels are adjacent to a transit-oriented development stop for which the agency operates service, or form a contiguous area adjacent to such a transit-oriented de
velopment stop.
(B)  At least 75 percent of the project area is located within one-half mile of a transit-oriented dev
elopment stop for which the agency operates service
or plans to provide service and was owned by the agency on or before January 1, 2026.
(b)  (1)  A transit agency’s board of directors may adopt by resolution agency transit-oriented de
velopment zoning standards for district-owned
real property located in a transit-oriented development zone. These standards shall establish minimum local zoning requirements for height, density, residential floor area ratio, and allowed uses, that shall apply to an agency transit-oriented development project, that shall be consistent with Section 65912.157.
(2)  Adopted agency transit-oriented development zoning standards shall establish, for each transit station, the lowest permissible maximum standard 10 ATTACHMENT 4-24
150
for height, density, and residential floor area ratio, and a list of approved residential, retail, and commercial uses.
(3)  The agency transit-oriented development zoning standards adopted by the board of directors shall not adopt a lowest permissible maximum standard for density or residential floor area ratio belo w the level permitted
under Section 65912.157, and shall not prohibit residential use. (4)  The agency transit-oriented development zoning standards shall not establish density standards that exceed 200 percent of the maximum density established in Section 65912.157.
(c)
The adoption of, and amendments to, the agency transit-oriented dev
elopment zoning standards shall comply with all of the following:
(1)  The transit agency shall hold a public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed agency transit-oriented de
velopment zoning
standards or proposed changes to the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards. The transit agency shall conduct direct outreach to relevant local governments and to communities of concern around each station.

Before or during the scoping meeting, the transit agency shall consult with each local government in which the station is located, as well as any relevant infrastructure agencies. The consultation required pursuant to this section shall include all of the following:
(A)  A review of the housing needs of the jurisdiction. (B)
A review of the transit-oriented development approved and built in the past year in the jurisdiction.
(C)
A review of any transit-oriented development projects proposed by the transit agency in the jurisdiction for the past year .
(D)  A discussion of any obstacles to development of any project proposed by the transit agency.
(2)  Not less than 30 days before a public hearing of the board to consider the agency transit-oriented de
velopment zoning standards, the transit agency
shall provide public notice and make the draft standards available to the public.
(3)  The board shall adopt or reject any proposed agency transit-oriented dev
elopment zoning standards at a publicly noticed meeting of the board not less than 30 days following the original public hearing. (d)  Objective standards adopted pursuant to paragraph (b) shall not preempt or otherwise displace local discretionary standards that apply to hotel, motel, bed and breakfast, or other transient lodging use, including short-term lodging, as defined in Section 17568.8 of the Business and Professions Code. F
or the purposes of this subdivision, the term “other
transient lodging” does not include a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
(e)  Where local zoning is inconsistent with the agency transit-oriented dev
elopment zoning standards for a station, the local jurisdiction may adopt a local zoning ordinance that conforms to the transit-oriented development zoning standards.
11 ATTACHMENT 4-25
151
(f)  (1)  A local government shall not be required to approve any height limit in excess of the standard for de
velopment adjacent to the
transit-oriented development stop under Section 65912.157. (2)  The transit agency shall make a finding as to whether the local zoning ordinance conforms to the agency transit-oriented de
velopment zoning
standards. Local zoning shall remain in place unless the transit agency determines that it does not conform to the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards. If, according to the transit agency’s finding, the local zoning ordinance does not conform to the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards after two years of the date that the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards are adopted by the board for that station, the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards shall become the local zoning for any district-owned parcels that are eligible under this section, except for any height limit in excess of the standard for development adjacent to the transit-oriented development stop under Section 65912.157. For each station, a local jurisdiction may update zoning for transit agency-owned land to comply with agency transit-oriented development zoning standards until the time that the transit agency enters into an exclusive negotiating agreement with a developer for an agency transit-oriented development project.
(g)  (1)  The transit agency’s approval of agency transit-oriented dev
elopment zoning standards shall be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). The district shall serve as the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act review for transit-oriented development zoning standards.
(2)  Any subsequent California Environmental Quality Act review of rezoning to conform with agency transit-oriented de
velopment zoning
standards, and of eligible transit-oriented development projects proposed and on district-owned land, shall incorporate the environmental review document certified for the transit-oriented development zoning standards consistent with Section 21094 of the Public Resources Code. A public agency shall not prepare an environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration for rezoning pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) to implement agency transit-oriented development zoning standards or for a transit-oriented development project subsequent to the transit agency’s certification of an environmental review document for approval of agency transit-oriented development zoning standards unless the public agency finds, based on substantial evidence, that the rezoning or transit-oriented development project creates a significant effect on the environment that was not analyzed in the prior environmental review document, and mitigated or avoided.
(h)  A local agency may adopt objective, written development standards, conditions, and policies that apply to dev
elopment on district-owned
property, provided that they demonstrate their consistency with the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards. In the event that the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards, objective planning standards, 12 ATTACHMENT 4-26
152
general plan, or design review standards are mutually inconsistent, the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards shall be the controlling standards. To the extent that the zoning standards do not resolve inconsistencies, the general plan shall be the controlling standard. (i)  Zoning in effect as a result of this section shall be considered the same as locally approv
ed zoning for all purposes, including the Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act.
(j)  Any agency transit-oriented development project shall comply with the antidisplacement requirements of Section 66300.6.
(k)
A local government shall not be required to approve any height limit under this section greater than the height limit specified in this chapter for dev
elopment adjacent to the relevant tier of a transit-oriented development stop. A transit agency shall not set a maximum height, density, or residential floor area ratio below that which would be allowed for the site under this chapter.
(l)  If nonresidential development is included in an agency transit-oriented development project, at least 25 percent of the total planned units affordable to lower income households shall be made available for lease or sale and permitted for use and occupancy before or at the same time with every 25 percent of nonresidential development made available for lease or sale and permitted for use and occupancy.
(m)  The development applicant for an agency transit-oriented dev
elopment project proposed pursuant to this section shall certify that the labor standards in paragraphs (8) and (9) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 will be met in project construction, and those standards shall apply if the project is approved by the public agency. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, this subdivision shall not apply if all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement with the transit agency that was entered into before July 1, 2026, that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction workers employed in the execution of the development and provides for the enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure. For the purposes of this subdivision, “project labor agreement,” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public Contract Code.
65912.159.
(a)  A housing development project proposed pursuant to Section 65912.157 shall be eligible for streamlined ministerial approv al
pursuant to Section 65913.4 in accordance with all of the following:
(1)  The proposed project shall be exempt from subparagraph (A) of paragraph (4) of, and paragraph (5) of, subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (2)
The proposed project shall comply with the affordability requirements in subclauses (I) to (III), inclusiv
e, of clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.
(3)  The proposed project shall comply with all other requirements of Section 65913.4, including, but not limited to, the prohibition ag ainst a site
that is within a very high fire hazard severity zone, pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. 13 ATTACHMENT 4-27
153
(b)  Any housing development proposed pursuant to Section 65912.157 not seeking streamlined approv
al under Section 65913.4 shall be reviewed
according to the jurisdiction’s development review process and Section 65589.5, except that any local zoning standard conflicting with the requirements of this chapter shall not apply.
65912.160.
(a)  The department shall oversee compliance with this
chapter.
(b)
The department shall promulgate standards on how to allow for capacity pursuant to this chapter to be counted in a city or county’s in ventory
of land suitable for residential development pursuant to Section 65583.2, no later than July 1, 2026.
(c)  (1)  A local government may enact an ordinance to make its zoning code consistent with the provisions of this chapter
, subject to review by the
department pursuant to subdivision (d). This ordinance may include objective development standards, conditions, and policies, applying to transit-oriented housing developments, that are demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence to not physically preclude, alone or in concert, the applicable housing development standards of Section 65912.157.
(2)  The ordinance described in paragraph (1) shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(d)
If a local government adopts an ordinance to come into compliance with this section, the following pro
visions shall apply:
(1)  (A)  At least 14 days prior to adoption of an ordinance pursuant to this section, the local gov
ernment shall submit a draft ordinance to the
department.
(B)  The department may review the draft and report its written findings to the planning agency
.
(2)  A local government shall submit a copy of any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section to the department within 60 days of enactment. (3)
(A)  The department shall, within 90 days, review the enacted ordinance, make a finding as to whether the enacted ordinance is in substantial compliance with this section, and report that finding to the local go
vernment.
(B)  If needed, the department may request an additional 30 days to make a finding as to whether the enacted ordinance is in substantial compliance with this section, and report that finding to the local gov ernment.
(C)  If the department does not provide written findings to the local gov
ernment within the review period provided for in this paragraph, the ordinance shall be deemed compliant for the purposes of assessing penalties, including those pursuant to subdivision (m) of Section 65912.157. (4)  If at any time the department determines that the ordinance does not comply with this section, the department shall notify the local gov ernment
in writing. The department shall provide the local government a reasonable time, not to exceed 60 days, to respond before taking further action as authorized by this section.
14 ATTACHMENT 4-28
154
(5)  The local government shall consider any findings made by the department pursuant to paragraph (4) and shall do one of the following:
(A)
Amend the ordinance to comply with this section.
(B)
Enact the ordinance without changes. The local government shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local go
vernment believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite the findings of the department.
(6)  If the local government does not amend its ordinance in response to the department’s findings or does not adopt a resolution with findings e
xplaining the reason the ordinance complies with this section and addressing the department’s findings, the department shall notify the local government and may notify the Attorney General that the local government is in violation of this section.
(e)  The ordinance may designate areas within one-half mile of a transit-oriented dev
elopment stop as exempt from the provisions of this
chapter if:
(1)  The local government makes findings supported by substantial evidence that there e
xists no walking path of less than one mile from that
location to the transit-oriented development stop.
(2)  A local government with at least 15 transit-oriented development stops designates the area as an industrial employment hub . An industrial
employment hub shall be a contiguous area of at least 250 acres designated in the jurisdiction’s general plan on or before January 1, 2025, as an employment lands area; the parcels within it shall be primarily dedicated to industrial use as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (f) of Section 65912.121; and housing shall not be a permitted use on any of the sites so excluded.
(f)  Each metropolitan planning organization shall create a map of transit-oriented dev
elopment stops and zones within its region by tier, as
designated under this chapter, in accordance with the department’s guidance pursuant to subdivision (b). This map shall have a rebuttable presumption of validity for use by project applicants and local governments. 65912.161.
(a)  For purposes of this section, “transit-oriented
development alternative plan” shall mean a plan adopted by the local agency via the adoption of the housing element, a program to implement the housing element, the adoption of a specific plan, a zoning overlay, or enactment of an ordinance; that brings the local agency into compliance with this chapter and that incorporates all of the following:
(1)  A local transit-oriented development alternative plan shall maintain at least the same total net zoned capacity, in terms of both total units and residential floor area, as pro
vided for in this chapter across all transit-oriented
development zones within the jurisdiction.
(A)  Net zoned capacity in units shall be measured by subtracting the current number of units on the site from the number allowed by the applicable de
velopment standards.
15 ATTACHMENT 4-29
155
(B)  Net zoned capacity in floor area shall be measured by subtracting the current dev
eloped floor area of the site from the amount allowed by the applicable development standards.
(2)  The plan shall not reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site on which the plan allo
ws residential use by more than 50
percent below that permitted under this chapter, except for sites meeting any of the following criteria:
(A)  Sites within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within the state responsibility area, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code.
(B)
Sites that are vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise, as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Ocean
Protection Council, the United States Geological Survey, the University of California, or a local government’s coastal hazards vulnerability assessment. (C)  Sites with a historic resource designated on a local register, so long as sites excluded from the density requirements of this paragraph on that basis do not cumulati
vely exceed 10 percent of the eligible area of any
transit-oriented development zone.
(D)  Sites within one-half mile of a Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop shall not hav
e a density below 30 units per acre with a residential floor area ratio of 1.0, except for sites specified in subparagraphs (A) to (C), and should be considered for attached entry level owner occupied housing development opportunities.
(3)  The plan shall not reduce the capacity in any transit-oriented dev
elopment zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50 percent.
(4)  A site’s maximum capacity counted toward the plan shall not exceed 200 percent of the maximum density established under this chapter.

Any
site excluded from the minimum density requirements of subparagraphs (A) to (C) of paragraph (2) shall not be counted toward the plan’s capacity.

For purposes of this section, calculations regarding capacity, density, and floor area shall include capacity, density, or floor area available under voluntary local housing incentive programs.
(5)   A local transit-oriented development alternative plan may consist of an existing local transit-oriented zoning ordinance, o
verlay zone, specific
plan, or zoning incentive ordinance, provided that it meets the requirements of this subdivision.
(b)  (1)  Prior to one year following the adoption of the seventh revision of the housing element, Section 65912.157 shall not apply to any of the follo
wing for which the local government has adopted an ordinance in accordance with Section 65912.160 indicating the site’s exclusion:
(A)  A site that has been identified by the local jurisdiction which permits density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under subdivision (a) of Section 65912.157. (B)
(i)  A site in a transit-oriented development zone in which at least 33 percent of sites in the relev
ant transit-oriented development zone have
16 ATTACHMENT 4-30
156
permitted density and residential floor area ratio no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under subdivision (a) of Section 65912.157 and which includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75 percent of the aggregate density for the transit-oriented development zone specified under subdivision (a) of Section 65912.157.
(ii)  A site in a transit-oriented development zone around a transit-oriented development stop that is primarily comprised of a low-resource area which includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 40 percent of the aggregate density for the transit-oriented development zone specified under subdivision (a) of Section 65912.157.
(iii)  A site in an area designated as low resource on the most recently adopted version of the opportunity area maps published by the California T
ax Credit Allocation Committee and the department, and within a jurisdiction that cumulatively allows for at least 50 percent of the total capacity for units and floor area as specified under Section 65912.157 across all transit-oriented development zones.
(C)  A site that is covered by a local transit-oriented development alternativ
e plan adopted by a local government.
(D)  Sites within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within the state responsibility area, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code.
(E)
Sites that are vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise, as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Ocean
Protection Council, the United States Geological Survey, the University of California, or a local government’s coastal hazards vulnerability assessment. (F)  Sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register
.
(2)  A local government that has adopted an ordinance pursuant to this subdivision shall indicate on its public zoning map which sites or transit-oriented de
velopment zones are and are not covered by Section
65912.157.
(c)  (1)  For the seventh and subsequent revisions of the housing element, a local gov
ernment may include a local transit-oriented development alternative plan in any of the following ways:
(A)  (i)  Include a local transit-oriented alternative plan in its housing element. When a local go
vernment includes a transit-oriented development
alternative plan in its housing element the plan shall include an analysis of how the plan maintains at least an equal feasible developable housing capacity as the baseline established by this chapter.
(ii)  If a local government adopts a housing element that the department has determined to be compliant with this section, then any action to enforce or implement a compliant housing element shall be subject to applicable pro
visions of housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3).
(iii)  The initial submission of a transit-oriented development alternative plan shall be included in the local gov
ernment’s first draft submittal
17 ATTACHMENT 4-31
157
referenced in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 65585.
(iv)  Sites identified in a local transit-oriented development alternative plan may be included in the inv
entory of land suitable for residential
development, pursuant to the additional requirements of Section 65583. (B)  If a local government does not include the local transit-oriented alternativ
e plan in its housing element, the local government may adopt an alternative plan that has been deemed compliant by the department pursuant to Section 65912.160.
(d)  Section 65912.157 shall not apply within a jurisdiction that has a local transit-oriented alternativ
e plan that has been approved by the
department as satisfying the requirements of this section in effect. The department’s approval pursuant to this section shall be valid through the jurisdiction’s next amendment to the housing element of its general plan. (e)  A local transit-oriented development alternative plan may consist of an existing local transit-oriented zoning ordinance, o
verlay zone, specific
plan, zoning incentive ordinance or existing program, provided that it meets the requirements of this section.
65912.162.

The Legislature finds and declares that the state faces a housing crisis of availability and affordability, in large part due to a severe shortage of housing, and solving the housing crisis therefore requires a multifaceted, statewide approach, including, but not limited to, encouraging an increase in the overall supply of housing, encouraging the development of housing that is affordable to households at all income levels, removing barriers to housing production, expanding homeownership opportunities, and expanding the availability of rental housing, and is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this chapter applies to all cities, including charter cities.

SEC. 2. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SEC. 3.

No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act or because costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

O
18 ATTACHMENT 4-32
158

ATTACHMENT 4-33
159
SB35 / SB 423 (GC
65913.4)
AB 2011 / AB 2243
(GC 65912.100 -
65912.106)
SB 79
(GC 65912.55 -
65912.162)
Eligible Properties All sites within
Burbank that have a
General Plan
prescribed
residential density.

Additional eligibility
criteria based on
environmental
factors,
affordability, and
labor standards are
project speciﬁc.

Must be in urban
inﬁll parcel, cannot
be in protected
resource areas such
as wetlands,
coastal zones, or
wildlife habitat.

Projects must
consist of at least 2
units.

Allowed in zones
where retail, office,
or parking are
principally
permitted.

Cannot be on a site
that is or was most
recently used for
industrial use.

Subject to the same
environmental
eligibility criteria as
SB35.

Mixed -Income and
100% affordable
projects have
different eligible
locations:

Mixed Income:
along commercial
corridors. 100%
affordable: citywide.

Projects must
consist of at least 5
units.

Sites zoned for
residential, mixed,
or commercial
development within
1/2 or 1/4 mile of a
transit-oriented
development stop.

Project must
include at least 5
units. Projects
may not include any
hotel or similar use.

Effective Now until at least
January 1, 2036,
unless extended.

Now until January 1,
2033, unless
extended.

Will go into effect
July 1, 2026 .

Maximum Density Density is based on
General Plan land
use element,
ranging between 14
to 87 du / ac.

Density can be
further increased
using state Density
Bonus law.

Density for Mixed -
Income projects is
prescribed based on
the width of the
commercial corridor
facing the project
site: 70'-100' feet:
40 du/ac
100' - 150': 60 du/ac
w/in 1/2 mile of a
Radius from Tier 2
Transit Oriented
Stops:

Within 1/4 mile:
100du/ac
Within 1/2 mile: 80
du/ac
Any project within
200 feet of any ped
access to a transit-
ATTACHMENT 4-34
160
SB35 / SB 423 (GC
65913.4)
AB 2011 / AB 2243
(GC 65912.100 -
65912.106)
SB 79
(GC 65912.55 -
65912.162)
major transit stop -
80 du/ac
Site of less than one
acre: 30 du/ac
Density for 100%
affordable units is
the higher between
what is allowed in
the underlying
property per the
Land Use map or 30
du/acre.

No residential
density limit shall be
imposed for the
conversion of
existing buildings to
residential use,
except where the
project would
include net new
square footage
exceeding 20% of
the overall square
footage of the
project.

Density can be
further increased
using state Density
Bonus law.
oriented
development stop
gets an additional
40 du / ac on top of
the above. Density
can be further
increased using
state Density Bonus
law.

Minimum Density No minimum
density; however,
projects must
consist of at least 2
units to qualify.

No minimum
density; however,
projects must
consist of at least 5
units.

The greater of the
following:

At least 30 du/ ac
OR.......................................

Minimum density
allowed under local
zoning, if
applicable.

ATTACHMENT 4-35
161
SB35 / SB 423 (GC
65913.4)
AB 2011 / AB 2243
(GC 65912.100 -
65912.106)
SB 79
(GC 65912.55 -
65912.162)
Maximum Height Based on underlying
maximum heights in
the zoning code.

Maximum heights
can be modiﬁed
through
concessions and/or
waivers using state
Density Bonus Law,
if applicable.

Height is prescribed
based on the width
of the commercial
corridor facing the
project site: 70'-100'
feet: 35 ft
100' - 150': 45 ft
w/in 1/2 mile of a
major transit stop -
65 ft Maximum
heights can be
modiﬁed through
concessions and/or
waivers using state
Density Bonus Law,
if applicable.

Radius From Tier 2
Transit Oriented
Stops:

Within 1/4 mile: 65ft
Within 1/2 mile: 55ft
Any project within
200 feet of any ped
access to a transit
oriented
development stop
gets an additional
20 feet on top of the
above (adjacency
multiplier)
Maximum heights
cannot be modiﬁed
through
concessions and/or
waivers using state
Density Bonus Law.

Parking
Requirements
Parking is not
required for
projects within 1/2
mile of public
transit . For projects
outside this radius,
parking is based on
underlying zoning
requirements unless
the projects is
eligible for Density
Bonus Law.
100% affordable
projects that are not
within one-half mile
an accessible major
transit stop are
subject to parking
requirements
pursuant to the
BMC, unless
preempted by state
law (i.e. AB2097,
Density Bonus Law).

Subject to
underlying parking.

However, most, if
not all, will fall
within AB2097
radius. If using
Density Bonus Law,
no parking required
if 100% affordable
or located in a very
low vehicle travel
area.

Unique
Development
Standards
Project must
include at least two-
thirds of its total
square footage for
residential use.

Projects within 500
feet of freeway must
have speciﬁc air
ﬁltration and
ventilation
standards. Local
Average unit size
shall not exceed
1,750 square feet.

ATTACHMENT 4-36
162
SB35 / SB 423 (GC
65913.4)
AB 2011 / AB 2243
(GC 65912.100 -
65912.106)
SB 79
(GC 65912.55 -
65912.162)
agency must require
a phase I ESA as a
condition of
approval for the
project.

In addition, the law
prescribed speciﬁc
heights and
densities listed
above and speciﬁc
setback standards
in sections
65912.123(d)(1) to
(3). An SB 79
project must be
consistent with
height, noise, and
safety standards of
an adopted airport
plan, and must be
consistent with
applicable objective
ﬁre standards.

Affordability
Requirements
At least 10% of the
units must be
affordable to
households at or
below 80% of area
AMI (lower income
HH)
At least 15% of the
units must be
affordable to lower-
income households.

Some alternatives
exist, such as 8% for
very low-income
and 5% for
extremely low-
income households,
or 30% for
moderate-income
households in for-
sale projects.

Projects must
comply with the
For projects of 10 or
more units:

Agree to provide for
55 years 7%
Extremely Low
Income HH;
10% Very Low
Income HH; or 13%
Low Income HH.

Local inclusionary
standards apply.

Apply the stricter of
the two.

ATTACHMENT 4-37
163
SB35 / SB 423 (GC
65913.4)
AB 2011 / AB 2243
(GC 65912.100 -
65912.106)
SB 79
(GC 65912.55 -
65912.162)
higher between the
requirements above
and the local
inclusionary
housing
requirement.

Anti -displacement
and tenant
protection
Cannot demolish
occupied residential
units, or units that
were occupied by
tenants within the
last 10 years,
housing units that
were previously
subject to rent
control or other
affordability
covenants, or
structures
designated as
historic landmarks.

A project is not
eligible for the AB
2011 process if it
would require
demolishing
housing units that
were occupied by
tenants within the
last 10 years.

Cannot propose
fewer units than
previously existing
(GC 66300.6); Must
replace protected
(affordable) units
and offer other
tenant protections
including: relocation
beneﬁts; right of
ﬁrst refusal in the
new housing
development; etc.

Density Bonus
Standards
Any incentives,
concessions or
waivers granted
through the Density
Bonus provisions of
California law shall
not render the
project inconsistent
with objective
standards.

Any incentives,
concessions or
waivers granted
through the Density
Bonus provisions of
California law shall
not render the
project inconsistent
with objective
standards.
a) Density Bonus
requests shall use
the SB79
prescribed
densities as the
base density.
b) Project using
density bonus law
with 75 du/ac within
1/4 mile or 60 du/ac
within 1/2 mile
receive 1, 2, or 3
additional
concessions
depending on level
of affordability
provided. c)
ATTACHMENT 4-38
164
SB35 / SB 423 (GC
65913.4)
AB 2011 / AB 2243
(GC 65912.100 -
65912.106)
SB 79
(GC 65912.55 -
65912.162)
Density bonus
requests cannot
include
concessions or
waivers from height
maximums beyond
SB79 or code
maximums unless
the project is 100%
affordable and
located within 1/2
mile of a major
transit stop or a very
low vehicle travel
area.

Labor
Requirements
When using SB35
process, trigger for
Prevailing wage is 10
units; S&T
Workforce is 85 feet
unless 100%
affordable, and
projects of more
than 50 units require
apprenticeship
program and
provision of
healthcare.

Prevailing wage for
all projects.

Projects of over 50
units require
apprenticeship and
provision of
healthcare.

If not using SB35
process, projects
over 85 feet in
height still quire
labor requirements
including
Prevailing Wage
and S&T
Workforce.

Projects Using SB35
process require all
labor standards
included in Section
65913.4(a)(8) of the
Government Code.

When using SB35
process, trigger for
Prevailing wage is 10
units; S&T
Workforce is 85 feet
unless 100%
affordable, and
projects of more
than 50 units require
ATTACHMENT 4-39
165
SB35 / SB 423 (GC
65913.4)
AB 2011 / AB 2243
(GC 65912.100 -
65912.106)
SB 79
(GC 65912.55 -
65912.162)
apprenticeship
program and
provision of
healthcare.

Tribal
Requirements
Requires early
consultation with
traditionally and
culturally affiliated
Native American
tribes during the
NOI (Notice of
Intent to submit an
application) before
a formal SB35 can
be submitted. The
local government
must notify tribes
within 30 days of a
project's preliminary
application. If there
is a potential impact
to tribal cultural
resources, an
"enforceable
agreement"
outlining treatment
methods must be
executed between
the tribe, local
government, and
applicant; failure to
reach an agreement
renders the project
ineligible for further
processing.

AB 52 requirements
not required for
ministerial review
(i.e. projects exempt
from CEQA). AB52
only required when
the project is on a
vacant site that has
a potentially non-
mitigatable impact
on tribal cultural
resources.

Only if using SB35
process or AB130
CEQA exemption
with its unique tribal
consultation
process. Projects
not exempt from
CEQA may require
tribal
notiﬁcation/consult
ation per AB 52.

Process Ministerial. First
step is a Notice of
Intent (NOI) to
Ministerial. Same as
SB35, but the NOI
step is not required.

Eligible for
streamlined
ministerial review
ATTACHMENT 4-40
166
SB35 / SB 423 (GC
65913.4)
AB 2011 / AB 2243
(GC 65912.100 -
65912.106)
SB 79
(GC 65912.55 -
65912.162)
Submit an SB35
application. A
formal SB35
submittal entitles
applicant for
administrative
approval, bypassing
subjective design
review and public
hearings.

Requires that
approval or denial
be based solely on
whether the project
complies with the
local jurisdiction's
objective standards.

Administrative
review of objective
standards by
Director, not
appealable.

Administrative
review of objective
standards by
Director, not
appealable.
(SB35 / SB 423) , but
can also use the
City’s local
discretionary
Development
Review (DR)
process, and any
other required
entitlements, such
as CUP . If
submitting
SB35/423, all
SB35/423 provisions
apply except for
affordability
requirements,
which are unique to
SB79.

Processing
Timelines
Subject to both HAA
and timelines built
into SB35. If a local
government fails to
identify objective
inconsistencies in a
timely manner
(within 60 or 90
days), the project is
automatically
"deemed
consistent"
Same as SB35 after
NOI process is
completed.

Subject to Permit
Streamlining Act
(PSA), HAA, and
SB35 timelines (if
applicable).

Environmental
Review
SB35 projects are
exempt from CEQA
due to the fact that
the project approval
AB 2011 projects
are exempt from
CEQA due to the
fact that the project
Can be exempt from
CEQA if using SB35
(statutory
Ministerial
ATTACHMENT 4-41
167
SB35 / SB 423 (GC
65913.4)
AB 2011 / AB 2243
(GC 65912.100 -
65912.106)
SB 79
(GC 65912.55 -
65912.162)
is ministerial. CEQA
exempts ministerial
projects by statute.
approval is
ministerial. CEQA
exempts ministerial
projects by statute.
exemption);
if using local
process can exempt
from CEQA using a
number of eligible
exemptions,
including but not
limited to: Inﬁll
Exemption in AB 130
(PRC 21080.66);
Class 32
Categorical
Exemption (CEQA
Guidelines § 15332),
Transit Priority
Projects (PRC
§21155.1), Transit
Oriented Housing
Exemption (PRC
§21155.4), etc.

Health and Safety
Considerations
Per the HAA, denials
are permissible if
the project poses a
threat ("speciﬁc,
adverse impact") to
public health and
safety. However, the
project may still be
approved if hazards
can be mitigated to
meet the local
objective standards.

Per the HAA, denials
are permissible if
the project poses a
threat ("speciﬁc,
adverse impact") to
public health and
safety. However, the
project may still be
approved if hazards
can be mitigated to
meet the local
objective standards.

Vacant sites in
VHFSZ are not
eligible for AB2011.

Subject to HAA
provisions. HAA
limits the local
govt's ability to deny
projects which
comply w/ objective
standards unless
they can provide
speciﬁc adverse
impact on public
health and safety
that cannot be
mitigated.

Penalties for
Wrongful Denial
A civil penalty of
$10,000 to $50,000
per month can be
A civil penalty of
$10,000 to $50,000
per month can be
Beginning Jan 1,
2027, any local
government that
ATTACHMENT 4-42
168
SB35 / SB 423 (GC
65913.4)
AB 2011 / AB 2243
(GC 65912.100 -
65912.106)
SB 79
(GC 65912.55 -
65912.162)
imposed for each
violation, accruing
from the date the
violation began. A
local government
that loses a lawsuit
over a wrongful
denial is
responsible for the
project applicant's
reasonable
attorney's fees and
litigation costs.

These costs can be
substantial, often
exceeding
$100,000. In cases
of repeated or
serious violations, a
court can suspend
the local
government's
authority to approve
residential building
permits and other
land use decisions.

The court may even
take over the
approval process for
housing projects
itself.
imposed for each
violation, accruing
from the date the
violation began. A
local government
that loses a lawsuit
over a wrongful
denial is
responsible for the
project applicant's
reasonable
attorney's fees and
litigation costs.

The court may even
take over the
approval process for
housing projects
itself.
denies a project
meeting the
requirements of this
section in a high-
resource area shall
be presumed to be
in violation of the
HAA and liable for
penalties unless the
local agency
demonstrate that it
has a health, life, or
safety reason for
denying the project.

ATTACHMENT 4-43
169

ATTACHMENT 4-44
170

ATTACHMENT 4-45
171

The following summarizes the requirements to adopt an “Alternative Plan” in lieu- of implementing the base requirements of SB 79:

1. Must be complete by 2030 and requires review and approval by HCD.

2. Any Alternative Plan will require analysis of density and require new analysis of utility capacity to support SB79 density.

3. Maintain same net number of units allowed under SB 79, only allowed to redistribute within the TOD stop area.

4. Cannot reduce density on any parcel to less than 50% allowed by SB79, unless the site is within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (HFHSZ),

5. Cannot increase density more than 200% of max density mandated by SB79.

6. Requires update of City’s Zoning Map, with no net loss across SB79 eligible areas.

7. Analysis is complex and includes existing allowable density, existing buildout of said density, and SB79 density.

8. Needs extensive community outreach and direction from the Council on which areas to be upzoned.

9. Requires adoption as part of the HE, a program of the HE, as specific plan overlay, or by Ordinance.

ATTACHMENT 4-46
172
ATTACHMENT 4-47
173
ATTACHMENT 4-48
174
ATTACHMENT 4-49
175
ATTACHMENT 4-50
176
ATTACHMENT 4-51
177
ATTACHMENT 4-52
178
ATTACHMENT 4-53
179
ATTACHMENT 4-54
180
ATTACHMENT 4-55
181
ATTACHMENT 4-56
182
ATTACHMENT 4-57
183
ATTACHMENT 4-58
184

California Department of Housing and Community Development SB 79 Advisory
Clarifications on
Definitions for
Metropolitan Planning
Organizations
On the Implementation of Senate Bill 79 (Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025)
Housing Policy Development Division
March 20, 2026

ATTACHMENT 5-1
185
Introduction
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) requested early consultation with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the implementation of SB 79, including clarification of certain definitions to facilitate the metropolitan planning organizations’ (MPO) ability to complete their statutory mapping role in a consistent manner across the state. In response, HCD facilitated several meetings with MPOs, in consultation with Caltrans, with the goal of arriving on definitions of key terms in the statute.

MPOs also requested that HCD issue a memo in advance of the statute’s July 1, 2026 operative date to assist MPOs with consistent implementation of SB 79 mapping across the regions. This memo is advisory and consolidates definitions discussed with MPOs, in consultation with Caltrans, which HCD has compiled at the MPOs’ request to support carrying out their duties under Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (f).

Executive Summary of SB 79
SB 79 makes qualified transit-oriented housing developments an allowed use on sites zoned for residential, mixed-use, or commercial development that are located near specified transit stops in urban transit counties with more than 15 passenger rail stations. Governor Newsom signed SB 79 into law on October 10, 2025, and the law is codified in Government Code Chapter 4.1.5 (Transit-Oriented Development), which includes sections 65912.155 through 65912.162.

HCD is tasked with overseeing compliance with SB 79,1 including reviewing enacted SB 79 ordinances2 and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Alternative Plans3 and determining their compliance with state law. HCD is also required to promulgate standards for inclusion of SB 79 sites in the housing element sites inventory.4 In addition, SB 79 requires that each MPO must create a map of TOD stops and zones within its region by tier, and the maps carry a rebuttable presumption of validity for use by project applicants and local governments.5
1 Gov. Code, § 65912.160, subd. (a).
2 Gov. Code, § 65912.160, subd. (d).
3 Gov. Code, § 65912.161, subd. (d).
4 Gov. Code, § 65912.160, subd. (b).
5 Gov. Code, § 65912.160, subd. (f).

ATTACHMENT 5-2
186
Clarifications on Definitions
Based on discussions with ABAG/MTC, SACOG, SANDAG, and SCAG, and in consultation with Caltrans, the following key definitions are intended to facilitate consistent implementation of SB 79. The left-hand column is the definition or reference in the statute, while the right-hand column provides advisory clarifications informed by input from MPOs and Caltrans.

Adjacent
“Adjacent” means within 200 feet of any
pedestrian access point to a transit-
oriented development stop.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (a)
The edge of the parcel(s) associated
with the proposed housing development
project is within 200 feet of any
pedestrian access point to a TOD stop.

Bus Service
…[B]us service meeting the standards of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 21060.2 of the Public Resources
Code.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (o)

Full-time dedicated bus lanes or
operation in a separate right-of-way
dedicated for public transportation with a
frequency of service interval of 15
minutes or less during the morning and
afternoon peak commute periods.

Public Resources Code, § 21060.2, subd.
(a)(1)
A public mass transit service that
includes full-time dedicated bus lanes or
operation in a separate right-of-way
dedicated for public transportation with
a frequency of service interval of 15
minutes or less during the morning and
afternoon peak commute periods.

A qualifying bus service TOD stop is a
location where the bus stop is adjacent
to a full-time dedicated transit lane and
the average bus service intervals across
the combined morning and afternoon
peak periods is 15 minutes or less.

Commuter Rail
“Commuter rail” means a public rail transit
service not meeting the standards for
heavy rail or light rail, excluding California
High-Speed Rail and Amtrak Long
Distance Service.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (b)
A public rail transit service that is not
any of the following: heavy or light rail,
California High-Speed Rail, Amtrak
Long Distance Service, or privately
operated passenger rail service. A
commuter rail can include planned high
or very high frequency commuter rail
public rail transit service, including
those managed by state-supported Joint
Powers Authorities (e.g., Gold Runner,
Capitol Corridor, Pacific Surfliner).

ATTACHMENT 5-3
187
Commuter Rail, High-Frequency
“High-frequency commuter rail” means a
commuter rail service operating a total of
at least 48 trains per day across both
directions, not including temporary
service changes of less than one month
or unplanned disruptions, and not
meeting the standard for very high
frequency commuter rail, at any point in
the past three years.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (e)
A commuter rail service operating an
average of at least 48 trains per
weekday across all directions at any
point in the past three years, not
including temporary service changes of
less than one month or unplanned
disruptions, and not meeting the
standard for very high frequency
commuter rail. The average is the sum
of the number of scheduled stops at a
station for a commuter rail service for all
weekdays, divided by five weekdays.

In assessing whether a station meets
this threshold, frequency is based on
the total number of trains serving the
station, including trains operated by
multiple commuter rail services where
applicable. This approach reflects the
overall level of transit access and
frequency experienced by riders at a
given stop.

Commuter Rail, Very High Frequency
“Very high frequency commuter rail”
means a commuter rail service with a
total of at least 72 trains per day across
both directions, not including temporary
service changes of less than one month
or unplanned disruptions, at any point in
the past three years.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (r)
A commuter rail service operating an
average of at least 72 trains per
weekday across all directions at any
point in the past three years, not
including temporary service changes of
less than one month or unplanned
disruptions. The average is the sum of
the number of scheduled stops at a
station for a commuter rail service for all
weekdays, divided by five weekdays.

ATTACHMENT 5-4
188
Heavy Rail Transit
“Heavy rail transit” means a public electric
railway line with the capacity for a heavy
volume of traffic using high-speed and
rapid acceleration passenger rail cars
operating singly or in multicar trains on
fixed rails, separate rights-of-way from
which all other vehicular and foot traffic
are excluded, and high platform loading.
“Heavy rail transit” does not include
California High-Speed Rail.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (d)
A public electric railway line that
includes all the following:
 Has capacity for a heavy volume of
traffic,
 Uses high-speed and rapid
acceleration passenger rail cars,
 Operates singly or in multicar trains
on fixed rails,
 Operates in a separate right-of-way
from which all other vehicular and
foot traffic are excluded, and
 Stops at stations with high platform
loading (i.e., where the platforms are
built at the same height as the train
floor).

Heavy rail transit lines typically use a
third rail power source. Heavy rail transit
does not include California High-Speed
Rail.

Light Rail Transit
“Light rail transit” includes streetcar,
trolley, and tramway service. “Light rail
transit” does not include airport people
movers.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (h)
An electric railway line that is not a
“heavy rail transit” line which typically
draws power from overhead wires.

Includes, but is not limited to, streetcar,
trolley, and tramway service. Does not
include airport people movers or cable
cars.

Passenger Rail Station
[Undefined]
“Urban transit county” means a county
with more than 15 passenger rail stations.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (q)
A passenger rail station includes all
forms of public heavy rail, light rail, or
commuter rail stations that are in active
operation and provide regular service. A
passenger rail station does not include
planned rail stations that are not yet in
service. A passenger rail station
occupying one physical location counts
as a single station, even if multiple rail
services utilize the station.

ATTACHMENT 5-5
189
Pedestrian Access Point
[Undefined]
“Adjacent” means within 200 feet of any
pedestrian access point to a transit-
oriented development stop.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (a)

For purposes of this chapter, the distance
of a transit-oriented housing development
project from a transit-oriented
development stop shall be measured in a
straight line from the nearest edge of the
parcel containing the proposed project to
a pedestrian access point for the
transit-oriented development stop.

Gov. Code, § 65912.157, subd. (b)
A pedestrian access point is any
applicable station entrance, boarding
platform access point, or location of a
transit stop as defined and depicted on
the applicable MPO SB 79 map. MPOs
may rely on General Transit Feed
Specification (GTFS) data, if provided
by individual transit providers within
each region, and may add additional
pedestrian access points for TOD stops
with multiple entrances.

Project Site
[Undefined]
A housing development project shall be
an allowed use as a transit-oriented
housing development on any site zoned
for residential, mixed, or commercial
development within one-half or one-
quarter mile of a transit-oriented
development stop, if the development
complies with the applicable of all of the
following requirements:

Gov. Code, § 65912.157, subd. (a)

Gov. Code, § 65912.157, subd. (b)
Parcel(s) containing the proposed
housing development project.

ATTACHMENT 5-6
190
Rail Transit
“Rail transit” has the same meaning as
defined in Section 99602 of the Public
Utilities Code.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (k)

[No clarification]
Same meaning as defined in Section
99602 of the Public Utilities Code, which
is a rail mass transportation operation
usually within an urban area, generally
characterized by more frequent service
over shorter distances than normally
provided by commuter rail service or
intercity rail service, and operating on a
rail line without any or with very limited
rail freight service.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Stop
“Transit-oriented development stop”
means a major transit stop, as defined by
Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources
Code, and also including stops on a route
for which a preferred alternative has been
selected or which are identified in a
regional transportation improvement
program, that is served by heavy rail
transit, very high frequency commuter
rail, high frequency commuter rail, light
rail transit, or bus service within an urban
transit county meeting the standards of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 21060.2 of the Public Resources
Code. When a new transit route or
extension is planned that was not
identified in the applicable regional
transportation plan on or before January
1, 2026, those stops shall not be eligible
as transit-oriented development stops
unless they would be eligible as Tier 1
transit-oriented development stops. If a
county becomes an urban transit county
subsequent to July 1, 2026, then bus
service in that county shall remain
ineligible for designation of a transit-
oriented development stop.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (p)
A TOD stop is any of the following:
 An existing or planned transit station
or stop identified in a region’s
federally or state-mandated
transportation improvement program
(TIP) that is served by any of the
following: light rail or heavy rail, high-
frequency or very high-frequency
commuter rail, or eligible bus service
(see also “Bus Service”). Planned
TOD stops in a region’s TIP may be
limited to include only those with any
amount of committed construction
funding.
 Selected preferred alternative route
stops from an adopted CEQA/NEPA
document, an adopted locally
preferred alternative (LPA), or other
local implementing document as
determined by the MPO, regardless
of their status in a federally or state
mandated TIP.

ATTACHMENT 5-7
191
TOD Stop, Tier 1
“Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop”
means a transit-oriented development
stop within an urban transit county served
by heavy rail transit or very high
frequency commuter rail.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (n)
An existing or planned TOD stop within
an urban transit county that is served by
heavy rail transit or very high-frequency
commuter rail.

TOD Stop, Tier 2
“Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop”
means a transit-oriented development
stop within an urban transit county,
excluding a Tier 1 transit-oriented
development stop, served by light rail
transit, by high-frequency commuter rail,
or by bus service meeting the standards
of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
Section 21060.2 of the Public Resources
Code.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (o);
Public Resources Code, § 21060.2, subd.
(a)(1)
An existing or planned TOD stop within
an urban transit county (excluding a Tier
1 TOD Stop) that is served by light rail
transit, high-frequency commuter rail, or
qualifying bus service. See also “Bus
Service.”
TOD Zone
“Transit-oriented development zone”
means the area within one-half mile of a
transit-oriented development stop.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (m)
[No clarification]
The area within one-half mile of a TOD
stop.

Unincorporated Area of a County
[Undefined]
This section shall not apply to a local
agency until July 1, 2026, unless the local
agency adopts an ordinance or local
transit-oriented development alternative
plan deemed compliant by the
department before July 1, 2026. It shall
not apply within an unincorporated area
of a county until the 7th regional housing
needs allocation cycle.

Gov. Code, § 65912.157, subd. (n)
An area that does not have its own local
government and is governed as part of
a larger administrative division, such as
a county.

SB 79 does not apply to an
unincorporated area of a county until
the date that its 7th cycle housing
element is due (i.e., at the beginning of
the eight-year planning period),
although the portion within the TOD
Zone of a qualifying jurisdiction is
eligible for provisions under SB 79,
ATTACHMENT 5-8
192
even where the TOD Stop is located in
an unincorporated jurisdiction.

Urban Transit County
“Urban transit county” means a county
with more than 15 passenger rail stations.

Gov. Code, § 65912.156, subd. (q)
[No clarification]
A county with more than 15 passenger
rail stations.

Existing Rail Typologies
Based on the advisory clarifications of statutory definitions, and in response to MPO requests, the following classifications for existing rail typologies for the purpose of SB 79 implementation are provided in the table below. This table does not reflect rail typologies for rail services that have yet to be constructed or enter into operation. Note:

Not all commuter rail stops and stations are necessarily TOD stops; to be a TOD stop, it must meet the definitions in the statute as clarified above.

Heavy Rail Light Rail Commuter Rail
 Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART): All except
eBART Pittsburg
Center, Antioch
stations
 Los Angeles (LA) Metro
Rail: B, D Lines
 LA Metro Rail (A, C, E,
K Lines)
 Sacramento Regional
Transit (SacRT)
 San Diego Metropolitan
Transit System (MTS)
Trolley
 San Francisco
Municipal Railway
(Muni) Metro and
Streetcar
 Santa Clara Valley
Transportation
Authority (VTA) Light
Rail
 Altamont Corridor
Express (ACE)
 Arrow
 BART (eBART
Pittsburg Center,
Antioch stations only)
 Caltrain
 Capitol Corridor
 Coaster
 Metrolink
 Pacific Surfliner
 San Joaquins (Gold
Runner)
 Sonoma-Marin Area
Rail Transit (SMART)
 Sprinter

Pursuant to these classifications, SB 79’s upzoning provisions (Gov. Code, § 65912.157) will take effect on July 1, 2026, in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Diego Counties. Under the statute, applicability is tied to the presence of qualifying transit infrastructure within a county.

Accordingly, the geographic scope of SB 79 is dynamic and will modify over time, including when additional qualifying rail or transit projects are completed and placed into service.

ATTACHMENT 5-9
193
1 2
5 3
64 ATTACHMENT 6-1
194

CITY OF BURBANK

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
150 North Third Street, P.O. Box 6459, Burbank, California 91510-6459 www.bu rba n kca.gov
January 30, 2026
Mr. Ray Sosa, Chief Planning Officer
Mr. Timothy Lindholm, Chief Program Management Officer
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Attn: North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: Senate Bill 79 Subsequent Environmental Review for the Metro North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project
Dear Mr. Sosa and Mr. Lindholm:

The City of Burbank (Burbank) is reviewing 100% plans for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project (BRT) and believes that Senate Bill 79's (SB 79) mandatory upzoning constitutes new information that changes the circumstances under which the BRT was proposed and renders its Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) legally inadequate.

Burbank respectfully requests Metro conduct subsequent environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to analyze, publicly disclose and mitigate potential significant environmental impacts of any BRT stations that qualify for SB 79 density increases.

Metro's Draft and Final El R's for BRT were considered by Burbank on December 8, 2020, and April 12, 2022, respectively. On March 26, 2024, Burbank's City Council approved a Cooperative Agreement with Metro for Design and Construction of the BRT. The BRT EIR determined the Project would have a less than-significant Land Use and Planning Impact because it was limited to operating entirely within existing transportation corridors and would not impact land uses.1 In other words, the EIR assumed the BRT would not implicate or require increases in building height, density, and floor area ratios for future development that could conflict with a land use plan, policy or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the Project. SB 79 changed that fundamental assumption.

SB 79 was signed on October 10, 2025, and is generally effective July 1, 2026. The law requires housing development projects proposed within one-half mile of qualifying transit-oriented development stops 1 Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Draft Environmental Impact Report: North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project (SCH# 2019060110), October 2020, Ch. 4, p. 4-14 AoMINlillATION BUILDING BUSINESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SECTION 8 & CDBG ❖ ❖
818.238.5176 818.238.5220 818.238 5180 818.238.5250 818.238.5160

TRANSPORTATION
818.238.5290
ATTACHMENT 7-1
195
be allowed at substantially higher densities than permitted under Burbank's General Plan (including the 2021-2029 Housing Element), zoning code and proposed specific plans, including in single-family residential zones. Burbank's permitted multifamily residential housing densities range from Oto 43 units per acre in residential zones and between 20 and 87 units per acre in commercial and other non residential zones. SB 79 would permit approximately 140 units per acre adjacent to qualifying transit stations and 80 to 100 units per acre in zones within one-half mile from those stations, which include single-family residential.

As Burbank evaluated Metro's BRT Draft and Final EIRs, it approved its 6th Cycle Housing Element, which demonstrated zoning capacity for more than 10,000 additional housing units, and commenced several specific plans to, among other things, identify appropriate zoning and development incentives to accommodate up to 26,836 additional housing units in the next 10 years. The CEQA analysis for the Housing Element and several specific plans conclude significant and unavoidable impacts to Burbank's sewage conveyance and treatment system and find electricity demand from future housing growth will similarly require a substantial increase in Burbank's power system interconnection capacity. Adding substantially more residential density around SB 79-qualifying transit-oriented development stops, not previously studied under CEQA, will exacerbate these impacts.

The BRT project description in the Draft and Final El Rs circulated and approved by the Metro Board of Directors on April 28, 2022, was limited to operating a bus rapid transit service and stations in existing transportation corridors and did not include any residential transit-oriented development. SB 79 and its imposition of higher residential densities around BRT stations presents substantial new information that could not have been known, which is of substantial importance to the project, and will have significant and unavoidable impacts to Burbank's infrastructure that have not been analyzed or considered.

Therefore, Burbank formally requests Metro, the lead agency for BRT, commence subsequent environmental review to determine potentially significant environmental impacts around any SB 79 "transit-oriented development stops" located within the City.

Sincerely,
C?��
Patrick Prescott
Community Development Director
Cc: Justin Hess, City Manager
Joseph McDougall, City Attorney
Burbank City Council
ATTACHMENT 7-2
196
February 17, 2026

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mr. Anthony DeFrenza, Project Manager
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: City of Burbank Review of the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project (BRT) 100 Percent Plans
Dear Mr. DeFrenza:

The City of Burbank has completed reviewing 100 percent plans for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor (BRT) Project and has delivered comments to Metro on Tuesday, February 17, 2026 as agreed under the terms set by the Cooperative Agreement. The City’s comments are being made for project plans that include bus lanes on a portion of the alignment within the City.

As discussed in the City’s letter to Metro on January 30, 2026, the City believes that Senate Bill 79's (SB 79) mandatory upzoning constitutes new information that changes the circumstances under which the BRT project was proposed and renders its Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) legally inadequate. SB 79 and its imposition of higher residential densities around BRT stations presents substantial new information that could not have been known, which is of substantial importance to the project, and will have significant and unavoidable impacts to Burbank’s infrastructure that have not been analyzed.

As a Responsible Agency for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Burbank cannot issue a construction permit for the BRT Project until Metro conducts subsequent environmental review to analyze, publicly disclose and mitigate potential significant environmental impacts of any BRT stations that qualify for SB 79 density increases as a “transit-oriented development stop.”
Public Resources Code Section 65912.156(p) defines a transit-oriented development stop as a “major transit stop, as defined by Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, and also including stops on a route for which a preferred alternative has been selected or which are identified in a regional transportation improvement program, that is served by…bus service within an urban transit county meeting the standards of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21060.2 of the Public Resources Code.” Under this definition, the City believes the BRT Project constructed with no bus lanes will not trigger SB 79 and thus, would not require subsequent environmental review. If the state definitions change or new information becomes available, suggesting SB 79 will apply to bus stops served by mixed-flow bus lanes, the City’s position will likewise be that subsequent CEQA review is required for the BRT Project with mixed-flow lanes.

ATTACHMENT 8 - 1
197
I
n addition, in 2022 as part of its review of the EIR, the City Council adopted a position that the BRT Project shall be implemented with mixed-flow operations on Olive Avenue between Buena Vista Street and Lake Street. Metro’s 100 percent plans show dedicated bus lanes on this segment. Aside from City’s inability to issue a permit due to SB 79, the City also cannot issue a construction permit for the project because bus lanes are still shown on this segment. The City’s request for mixed-flow on this segment of Olive Avenue has been previously communicated to Metro at the 60 and 85 percent plan level, as well as through various coordination meetings between the two agencies.

In conclusion, the City has delivered comments on Metro’s 100 percent plans as required by the Cooperative Agreement but cannot issue a construction permit for the BRT Project based on the approval of SB 79. In order for the City to consider issuing a permit, Metro must either conduct subsequent environmental review or remove all bus lanes from the BRT Project plans.

Sincerely,
David Kriske
Assistant Community Development Director, Transportation Cc: Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director
Damian Skinner, Public Works Director
Lifan Xu, Chief Assistant Public Works Director- City Engineer Fred Ramirez, Assistant Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT 8 - 2
198
March 5, 2026

VIA EMAIL

Mr. Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director
City of Burbank, Community Development Department
150 North Third Street, P.O. Box 6459
Burbank, California 91510-6459

RE: Senate Bill 79 Subsequent Environmental Review for the Metro North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project; Denial of Request

Dear Mr. Prescott:

The North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor was identified by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) in the 2013 Countywide Bus Rapid Transit and Street Design Improvement Study as one of the region’s most heavily traveled tr ansit corridors without a premium bus service. In November 2016, LA County voters agreed to tax themselves and fund $267 million for BRT along this very corridor through the passage of Measure M; Metro and local jurisdictions have a commitment to deliver o n this voter -approved project. By March 2017, Mero developed initial BRT concepts for the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project (Project). Following additional study and extensive stakeholder outreach, a refined Project was carried into environmental review, and in April 2022, the Metro Board approved the Project and certified the Final EIR.

When completed, the 19-mile-long BRT will provide a premium transit service connecting the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys and several major destinations along the corridor. Featuring dedicated bus lanes, transit signal priority, all-door boarding, and 22 enhanced stations, the project will greatly improve transit travel times and reliability, offering a sustainable, rail -like experience for thousands of daily riders. With the implementation of bus lanes on Olive Ave and Glenoaks Blvd, the BRT is anticipated to be 20-25% faster than if it operated in mixed flow traffic and up to 40% faster than existing local bus service, carrying approximately 35,000 daily riders, equivalent to two-times the capacity of the Hollywood Bowl.

Your January 30, 2026, letter asserts that Metro must recirculate the EIR for the Project in light of Senate Bill 79’s passage. Metro, respectfully, disagrees with your analysis and declines to conduct further environmental review for the Project as requested.

Your letter suggests that SB 79 requires Metro to reopen the environmental review process for the Project, presumably referring to CEQA’s provisions in Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Those provisions do not apply her e where no further discretionary approvals are required for the Project. As outlined below, the adoption of statewide legislation that could potentially result in development or redevelopment of parcels near Project stops does not require Metro to re-open an environmental review concluded nearly four years ago.

ATTACHMENT 9-1
199

1. Metro’s previous approval is not the triggering event for SB 79 “upzoning.”

Neither Metro’s approval of the Project nearly four years ago nor Metro’s further development of the Project is the event that triggers SB 79’s upzoning requirements. Rather, the Project stations already qualified as “transit -oriented development stops” un der SB 79’s statutory definition when the bill was signed into law in October 2025. Metro’s approval of the Project was not the triggering event that created transit-oriented development stops under SB 79.

Government Code section 65912.156(p) defines “transit-oriented development stop” to include approved major transit stops served by bus service. Critically, the definition extends beyond existing, operational transit stops to include forward-looking planned transit: “stops on a route for which a preferred alternative has been selected or which are identified in a regional transportation improvement program.” (Gov. Code § 65912.156(p).) The Project already satisfied both of these criteria when SB 79 was enacted in October of 2025, as Metro approved the locally preferred alternative prior to approving the Project in April of 2022 and the Project was identified in the 2016 and 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies.

Thus, when Governor Newsom signed SB 79 into law on October 10, 2025, the statute’s definition of “transit-oriented development stop” immediately applied to the Project’s stations based on these pre-existing facts. Metro’s prior certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Project for construction and implementation did not create the “transit -oriented development stop” designation and did not trigger SB 79’s upzoning requirements.

In short, the upzoning is a consequence of the Legislature’s housing policy decision, not a consequence of Metro’s transportation infrastructure decision, and therefore, the Project is not the triggering event.

2. Development pursuant to SB 79 is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project.

Moreover, future development that may occur pursuant to SB 79 is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project. Under CEQA, an agency must analyze future actions only if they are both (1) a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project and (2) likely to change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396.) Development under SB 79 fails this test.

First, any development that might occur as a result of SB 79 is not reasonably foreseeable. SB 79 does not propose any specific projects, set construction deadlines, or require development to occur. Whether housing is ultimately built near any particular station will depend on future market conditions, decisions by property owners, financing, local objective standards, infrastructure capacity, and, where applicable, subsequent project level approvals or ministerial processing by the City. These conditions a re particularly unpredictable at any particular site in the SB 79 context where such large swaths of similarly situated land are simultaneously upzoned across several jurisdictions. CEQA does not require an EIR to hypothesize about how, when, or whether these independent factors may converge. The nature, extent, location, timing, and environmental impacts of such development are too ATTACHMENT 9-2
200
speculative for evaluation. (See, e.g., The Committee for Tiburon LLC v. Town of Tiburon (Feb. 2, 2026, A171983) ___ Cal.5th ___ CEQA review is ‘not triggered where there is not yet an identifiable impact as until that point, the review process [cannot] be meaningful’.” (Id. at pp. 19-20.)

Second, development under SB 79 is not a consequence of the Project. The statute applies equally to existing transit stops (including three Metrolink stations in Burbank), planned stops on other transit lines, and stops identified in regional transportatio n plans throughout the state. Any housing enabled by SB 79 is caused by a legislative act of general applicability, not from Metro’s decision to approve the Project.

Finally, the potential that parcels near the Project’s stops might be developed at higher densities in the future does not change the scope of the Project. The Project, as noted, was approved nearly four years ago, and the City is currently reviewing 100% plans. Simply put, future higher density development is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project.

3. Requiring analysis of exempt ministerial projects would invert CEQA.

Finally, CEQA does not require preemptive analysis of ministerial housing projects. SB 79 housing projects that qualify for ministerial streamlining are, by definition, not subject to discretionary CEQA review. Requiring the EIR to analyze hypothetical fut ure ministerial projects would invert CEQA’s structure by forcing speculation about projects that, if proposed, would not undergo environmental review themselves.

The Legislature exempts ministerial projects from CEQA review based on a policy determination that projects meeting objective development standards do not require individualized environmental analysis. The ministerial exemption reflects a legislative judgment that when development complies with predetermined, objective criteria, the environmental consequences are adequately addressed through the standards themselves rather than through project-by-project review. If the Legislature determined that compliant SB 79 projects need not undergo environmental review when actually proposed and approved, it defies logic to require Metro to speculate about their environmental impacts years in advance when the projects are purely hypothetical.

This would mean more environmental review occurs for projects that never materialize than for projects that are actually built. Metro would expend resources analyzing speculative development scenarios, while the agencies with jurisdiction over actual devel opment and actual knowledge of project details would conduct no environmental review at all. This outcome contradicts CEQA’s purpose of providing useful information to decision -makers about projects they are approving.

The ministerial nature of many SB 79 projects also reinforces that such developments have independent utility from the Project. Projects qualify for ministerial approval when they meet objective standards and serve important state housing policy objectives. Their approval is not contingent on Metro’s transit project, does not require Metro’s participation, and proceed based on developers’ independent business decisions and state housing policy, not based on Metro’s transit infrastructure decisions.

ATTACHMENT 9-3
201
For these reasons, Metro respectfully declines to recirculate the EIR for the Project in response to the passage of SB 79. In alignment with the Master Cooperative Agreement (MCA) signed between Metro and the City of Burbank, we remain committed to working with the city to deliver this voter- approved, high-quality, bus rapid transit service between North Hollywood and Pasadena.

Sincerely,

Ray Sosa
Chief Planning Officer

cc: Stephanie Wiggins, Metro, CEO
Tim Lindholm, Chief Program Management Officer
Mr. Justin Hess, City Manager
Mr. Joseph McDougall, City Attorney
Burbank City Council

ATTACHMENT 9-4
202

March 18, 2026
David Kriske
Assistant Community Development Director, Transportation City of Burbank

Dear Mr. Kriske,
Metro is in receipt of your February 17, 2026 letter regarding the City of Burbank’s review of the 100 percent plans for the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridor (Project). We appreciate the City’s continued engagement and the completion of this phase of review. At the same time, aspects of the City’s letter raise concerns regarding alignment with the Cooperative Agreement for the Design and Construction of the BRT Project (MCA). As you know, the MCA reflects a shared commitment between Metro and the City to advance a high-priority regional project, including the City’s agreement to provide expedited review and approvals in support of timely delivery.

Specifically, the City executed the MCA in October 2024, promising to cooperate with Metro’s NoHo to Pasadena BRT Project and at 1.1(a) “The City acknowledges the NoHo to Pasadena Project is a high priority public works project and will provide LACMTA with expedited review and approval procedures in connection with design, design reviews, permitting, and other authority to be exercised by the City relating to the NoHo to Pasadena Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.” The City further understood the Project Definition in Exhibit 1 that the Project was to be a new BRT system, which would operate “with various configurations of mixed-flow and dedicated bus lanes” with the diagram on Exhibit 3 depicting the Project Site including side running, curb running, and median-running lanes in Burbank, including on Olive Ave., Glenoaks Blvd., and Alameda Ave. The Project Definition specifically indicated that “the Project will greatly enhance service reliability by separating buses from the fluctuating traffic congestions.”
Instead of providing Metro with expedited review and approval, your letter indicates that Burbank will entirely refuse to issue any permits so long as the Project contains the elements that would qualify the Project as a BRT project. This is entirely inconsistent with the MCA. Predicating issuing permits or project approvals on removal of dedicated bus lanes puts the City in breach of the MCA.

Additionally, Metro notes that the current set of comments includes new concerns regarding dedicated bus lanes that were not raised in earlier phases of design. While the City previously commented on bus lanes on Olive Ave. (between Buena Vista and Lake Ave), at no time did any objections to dedicated bus lanes appear in any prior comments as to the remainder of the streets on the BRT Project alignment.

Inclusion of this new issue violates the MCA at Exhibit 7 section 3.3 which provides: “The City agrees that during the Final Design stage, it shall not raise any new issues, or make any comments, which are inconsistent with its comments on earlier submittals, or with any changes already agreed to by the City.” These new objections at the 100% design phase directly violate the terms of the MCA. The newly raised ATTACHMENT 10-1
203
objections to eliminate dedicated bus lanes within the City of Burbank are inconsistent with fundamental characteristics of the BRT project as approved by the Metro Board and negatively impacts the ability to deliver on the speed, reliability and premium transit objectives defined in the Board approved project.

These characteristics were fully described in the MCA and agreed upon by the City.

The MCA contemplates consistency across review stages. Metro has advanced design and procurement activities in the amount of $43.7 million in reliance on the MCA and the shared objective of delivering meaningful transit improvements on an established schedule, including in advance of the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The City’s new stance in breach of the contract will likely delay the completion of the BRT Project. Any significant changes to the agreed-upon BRT project elements or delays in approvals will result in delay damages incurred by Metro’s contractors, support consultants, and will exponentially increase Metro’s costs incurred.

Metro’s agreement to obtain permits from the City through the MCA was only given because of the City’s agreement to collaborate, expedite and prioritize such permit approvals, since Metro is generally not required to obtain permits to construct and operate public transportation projects. According to your letter, the City’s decision to breach the MCA is an attempt to stop the growth of affordable housing under SB79. As detailed in our letter dated March 5, 2026 to the City’s Transportation Department, no additional environmental reviews are required, nor planned by Metro. The prior approvals of the BRT Project, long before the MCA was executed, have placed the planned and approved BRT alignment into the maps maintained by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Regardless of whether the City breaches the MCA and attempts to block the Project, by-right approvals of housing developments must be allowed by the City pursuant to the terms of SB 79 per Government Code section 65912.160(f) based on the designation by SCAG.

Given the importance of this corridor, Metro remains committed to working collaboratively with the City to resolve these issues and maintain progress. We respectfully request confirmation in writing, within seven days, that the City will continue to implement the MCA in a manner that supports timely review, permitting, and delivery of the Project as approved.

Metro is available to meet at your earliest convenience to discuss a path forward. While we are confident that a collaborative resolution is achievable, Metro reserves all rights under the MCA and applicable law.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Timothy P . Lindholm
Chief Program Management Officer

ATTACHMENT 10-2
204

cc: Anthony DeFrenza, Metro
Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director City of Burbank Damien Skinner, Public Works Director
Lifan Xu, Chief Assistant Public Works Director – City Engineer Fred Ramirez, Assistant Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT 10-3
205
ATTACHMENT 11-1
206
ATTACHMENT 12-1
207
ATTACHMENT 12-2
208
ATTACHMENT 13-1
209
ATTACHMENT 13-2
210
ATTACHMENT 13-3
211

Burbank City CouncilMay 20, 2026

Burbank City Council
May 20, 2026