10d
26-89630
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Status of and proposed options for SB 79 (the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act), and proposed amendment to the existing De Novo Planning Group Professional Service Agreement (Contract No. 8000769) to address potential development associated with SB 79.
1. Motion to accept the status report and direct staff to proceed with one or more implementation options identified in the report;
2. Motion to amend De Novo Planning Group’s professional service agreement to assist with the detailed parcel-by-parcel analysis and update the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Draft Land Use, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Elements of the General Plan to address the potential development associated with SB 79 and extend the timeline an additional nine months.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 3, 2026 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SB 79 is a recently enacted state law that is intended to facilitate transit-oriented development (TOD) housing projects by establishing new standards near transit facilities. The bill is expected to have extensive implications on local land use planning and may introduce additional complexity in ongoing planning efforts.
This report summarizes SB 79 legislation and its application to Glendale and presents options for the City Council to consider for addressing the impacts of the legislation. It includes an overview of how SB 79 will interact with ongoing planning efforts. Finally, the report includes a request to amend De Novo Planning Group’s contract to direct additional resources to address the added complexities that SB 79 introduces in ongoing planning projects.
10d2
26-89630
6 6
6 1
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council direct staff to:
Continue seeking clarity with the legislature, to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and other agencies, and to monitor SB 79 amendments and technical guidance documents;
Undertake one of the SB 79 implementation options, considering, in particular, staff’s recommendation to prepare a “delayed effectuation” ordinance for adoption to exempt certain properties from SB 79 with the objective of adopting these exemptions before SB 79’s effective date; and
Amend the professional services agreement with De Novo to increase funding in order to complete land use analysis related to SB 79.
ANALYSIS
Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, into law on October 10, 2025. The new legislation goes into effect on July 1, 2026.
SB 79 aims to address the housing crisis by promoting increased residential development near public transportation in major urban areas. The legislation establishes new development standards for properties located within ½ mile of a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) stop, and on land zoned residential, mixed-use, or commercial. The standards allow increased height and density for housing projects of at least five units located near a TOD stop.
The bill also aims to streamline project approvals by allowing projects to be submitted in conjunction with other State laws that require streamlined ministerial approval processes. Cities are also subject to penalties under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) if projects are denied.
Cities cannot opt out of SB 79; however, the bill includes different options for implementation.
SB 79 will require close coordination among state, regional, and local agencies. City of Glendale will need to continue working with LA Metro and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to identify eligible transit-oriented development sites and produce standardized SB 79 maps that will be used region-wide, as well as coordination with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD is responsible for issuing technical guidance for SB 79 implementation as well as capacity-analysis standards by July 1, 2026. It is important to note that it is anticipated that the technical guidance will not be available until SB 79 is already in effect. HCD will also be responsible for reviewing any local ordinances adopted to implement the law.
It should be noted that subsequent legislation, pending technical guidance documents, and local government actions may refine, clarify or alter its provisions before SB 79 takes effect on July 1st.
10d3
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Overview of SB 79
With only certain exceptions, SB 79 (See full text of the bill attached as Exhibit “1”) applies to any parcel that is:
Within an “urban transit county,” defined as a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations (which includes Los Angeles County); Zoned for residential, commercial, or mixed-use development, including sites with more restrictive single-family and low-density multi-family zoning; and That is within ½ mile of a TOD stop.
For a proposed housing project to qualify for SB 79 processing, it must:
Include at least 5 residential units;
Meet a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre or comply with the minimum density set by the applicable local zoning, whichever is greater; Limit the average total floor area per unit to 1,750 square feet; Comply with state law regarding demolition of protected affordable housing units; and
Comply with local demolition/anti-displacement ordinances and inclusionary zoning.
Determining how much development is permitted in an SB 79 project is a two-step process. The first step is to establish which “Tier” the TOD stop is categorized under.
SB 79’s two tiers are summarized in the chart below:
Tier Transit Type
Tier 1 Heavy Rail Transit
Very High Frequency Commuter Rail (at least 72 trips per day) Tier 2 Light Rail Transit
High Frequency Commuter Rail (at least 48 trips per day) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations with full-time dedicated lanes or operation in a separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation with service every 15 minutes or less during morning and afternoon peak commuter periods
Once the TOD Tier is established, proximity to the TOD stop dictates the height, density, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards that apply. Three radiuses around the TOD stop are applied:
1) Within 200 feet adjacent to the TOD stop;
2) Between 200 feet and ¼-mile, and
3) Between ¼ mile and ½-mile.
The SB 79 development standards permitted for each Tier within the three radiuses are summarized in the table below.
10d4
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Tier 1 TOD Stop Tier 2 TOD Stop
Distance from
TOD stop
Within
200 ft.
¼ Mile ½ Mile Within
200 ft.
¼ Mile ½ Mile
Height (ft)* 95’ (9
stories)
75’ (7
stories)
65’ (6
stories)
85’ (8
stories)
65’ (6
stories)
55’ (5
stories)
Density
(DU/AC)
160 120 100 140 100 80
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
4.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.5
* The height in stories provided is approximate based on overall height allowed.
In addition to the standards above, SB 79 projects can be coupled with Density Bonus regulations, allowing greater density to be achieved. Housing projects utilizing the Density Bonus are permitted to use the density allowed under SB 79 as the “base density” for their projects. SB 79 also grants additional concessions for housing projects, depending on the level of affordable housing provided:
Three additional concessions for projects providing extremely low income housing;
Two additional concessions for projects providing very low income housing; and One additional concession for projects providing low income housing.
Cities are not required to grant a waiver or concession for projects that propose heights above what is permitted under SB 79, unless the project proposes 100% affordable housing.
SB 79 Limitations
SB 79 imposes the following restrictions on the type of development that is permitted. Cannot be applied to projects in which any portion is used as a hotel, motel, or similar uses;
Cannot be applied to projects that require the demolition of rent-or-price controlled housing on sites with more than two units that have been occupied within the past seven years;
Requires projects to comply with anti-displacement standards under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 and any and all local implementation programs; Requires projects greater than 10 units to comply with affordable housing standards and allows cities to enforce inclusionary housing standards; and Imposes prevailing wage and other labor requirements on buildings over 85 feet in height.
10d5
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Environmental Review for SB 79 Projects
SB 79 itself does not provide a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)-exempt or by-right pathway for qualifying projects. However, SB 79 projects may be coupled with other laws, such as AB 130 and exemptions to CEQA under Class 32 (infill development), which may streamline CEQA review.
TOD Stops in Glendale
City of Glendale has one confirmed TOD stop at the Larry Zarian Glendale Transportation Center (GTC). At this time, it has not been determined if the proposed stops along the proposed North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route will qualify as TOD stops as defined in SB 79. Staff has been seeking information to confirm the status of the BRT and, if available, staff will provide updated information at the Council meeting.
GTC – Qualifies as a Tier 2 TOD Stop
The GTC TOD stop meets the definition of a high frequency commuter rail with its Metrolink service operation of at least 48 trips per day and is therefore designated as a “Tier 2” TOD stop under SB 79. In 2023, Glendale adopted TOD zoning that allows densities up to 100 DU/AC near the GTC in Tropico, which may reduce the impact of SB 79 in this area. However, it is important to note that there are more parcels included within the SB 79 ½ mile radius than are currently zoned “TOD,” including a low-density residential neighborhood south of San Fernando Road, portions of the Brand Boulevard of Cars, and commercial zones on South Glendale Avenue, amongst others. A detailed map of the area affected by SB 79 around the Glendale Transit Center can be viewed in Exhibit “2”.
The maps below show the Tropico TOD zones (map on the left) compared to the SB 79 TOD stop ¼ mile and ½ mile radiuses (map on the right). Blue circles represent a ¼ mile radius, and the red circles represent a ½ mile radius. Note that the map radius shown is a preliminary estimate, as further legislative clarification is needed. SB 79 states that radiuses shall be measured from the “pedestrian access point” of a qualifying transit stop in a straight line. However, the term “pedestrian access point” is not currently defined in the legislation, so for illustrative purposes the radius shown on the map is measured from the perimeter of the GTC.
10d6
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Noho to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Project (BRT)
It is currently unknown as to whether SB 79 will apply to stops along the proposed Noho to Pasadena BRT route. In Glendale, the BRT is proposed to have eight stops:
Four stops on West Glenoaks Boulevard between the City of Burbank border and Central Avenue.
One stop on Central Avenue at Lexington Drive; and
Three stops on East Broadway, between Brand Boulevard and the city limits.
Although it is not yet in service, the proposed stops along the proposed BRT route may qualify as Tier 2 TOD stops. To qualify, the BRT must meet the definition of “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.” The City recently reached out to Los Angeles Metro asking if the BRT is anticipated to meet this definition. Metro responded with a letter stating that it is not yet clear and that they, too, are seeking additional clarity regarding SB 79. LA Metro’s letter is attached as Exhibit “3”.
Resolving this ambiguity is of critical significance. Designation of the proposed BRT stops as Tier 2 TOD stops would have the greatest impact on Glendale. Preliminary estimates (not including certain sites that may be exempted) indicate that approximately 141,000 additional units of development capacity could be created around the proposed BRT stops if they are determined to be subject to the provisions of SB 79. For context, there are currently approximately 77,000 dwelling units in the entire City, and the current Land Use Element of the General Plan (adopted in 1986) regulations envision a
10d7
26-89630
6 6
6 1
reasonable maximum capacity of approximately 125,000 units citywide. The additional capacity SB 79 may authorize along the BRT corridor would more than double the existing citywide maximum capacity based on preliminary estimates.
The following map illustrates the proposed BRT route through Glendale with preliminary radiuses around each stop.
Glendale’s Efforts for Legislative Clarification
City of Glendale officials and staff have made significant efforts to clarify, mitigate, and oppose the possible effects of SB 79 for over a year. Prior to the bill’s passage, the City:
Held meetings with State Representative Sasha Renee Perez’s office in an effort to refine the bill’s language and include sensible exemptions prior to its passage that would apply to Glendale
Submitted an official letter of opposition on April 23, 2025, from the City of Glendale to the bill’s sponsor, State Senator Scott Weiner Submitted an official letter of opposition on July 2, 2025, from the City of Glendale to the bill’s sponsor, State Senator Scott Weiner Submitted an official veto request on September 17, 2025 from the City of Glendale to Governor Gavin Newsom (All letters included in Exhibit “4”) In all these letters the City pointed out the following:
That City of Glendale worked diligently and in good faith with HCD to gain certification of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, demonstrating that the City has the
10d8
26-89630
6 6
6 1
capacity to meet stringent housing regulations and meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers.
That the city has been supportive of developing denser housing near transit (as demonstrated by the TOD zoning in Tropico) and of expanding transit opportunities for residents
That recent State mandates have undermined Housing Element law and local regulations.
That requiring jurisdictions to allow additional residential density along a proposed BRT route that is not yet in service, and which may not trigger SB 79 is both illogical and may have serious and irreversible unintended consequences.
Despite these efforts, the bill was passed and signed into law, resulting in legislation that requires the City to allow more development around transit stops, including in lower density single family neighborhoods.
The City’s efforts to clarify the bill and advocate for amendments have continued after the bill’s passage. As stated above, the City reached out to LA Metro on November 6, 2025 seeking clarity as to whether the proposed BRT stops would be considered Tier 2 TOD stops as defined in the bill, a matter that remains unresolved. On January 8, 2026, the City submitted a letter to State Senator Maria Elena Durazo, Chair of the Senate Local Government Committee, opposing SB 677 ( Exhibit “5”), a bill that proposed to revise SB 79 and expand its applicability.
In addition to these requests for clarification, in October 2025, City of Glendale staff initiated a tri-cities working group with the Cities of Burbank and Pasadena to communicate understanding of SB 79 and share resources and coordinate efforts where possible. The tri-cities working group has met several times since the end of last year and continues to meet regularly.
Beyond local efforts, there are regional initiatives to respond to SB 79 that would directly impact Glendale. In late January, the LA Metro Board of Directors voted to formally oppose local implementation of SB 79 and suggested that LA County be exempt from the legislation or subject to it only after an extended pilot period in the Bay Area. Metro has concerns that transit projects will face increased opposition from local communities if and when SB 79 takes effect in Los Angeles County.
Additionally, on January 30, 2026, the City of Burbank sent a letter requesting LA Metro, as the CEQA lead agency for the BRT, prepare a subsequent environmental review to Metro’s 2022 Final EIR on the BRT, to determine the impact around any SB 79 BRT TOD stops in Burbank. (See letter attached as Exhibit “6”).
Burbank contends that the densities permitted under SB 79 will have significant impacts on the local jurisdiction’s infrastructure and services, and that SB 79’s impacts stemming from the BRT is significant new information requiring additional CEQA review.
The cost burden to make improvements will fall on local governments, though the BRT is a regional Metro project. If these impacts could have been quantified within the EIR, 10d9
26-89630
6 6
6 1
the BRT may not have been approved in its current form. Metro is expected to respond to Burbank’s request within the next two weeks.
In addition to the uncertainty surrounding the BRT project, SB 79 leaves many questions unanswered, and the bill itself continues to evolve. For example, while the first attempt at an SB 79 clean-up bill, SB 677, is being held in the legislature with its fate uncertain, another bill (SB 908) has been drafted to clarify and expand SB 79. It is possible that neither of these clean-up bills will be passed prior to July 1, 2026, effective date, which has prompted some speculation that SB 79’s implementation may be delayed. Staff believes that obtaining guidance and clarity on these unanswered questions is critical before making zoning decisions and permitting development under SB 79 regulations. Staff recommend and will continue efforts to clarify SB 79 from state, regional, and local agencies.
Options for Implementation
Local jurisdictions have several options for implementing SB 79, as summarized below.
Option 1: No Local Action – State SB 79 Implementation
Cities can take no action and allow SB 79 to take effect automatically in its entirety on July 1st. Under this approach, development standards established by SB 79 would supersede local zoning regulations for eligible projects, including those near any transit stops ultimately designated as Tier 1 or Tier 2 TOD stops, without the City adopting exemptions or a local implementing ordinance. As of now, this would impact the area surrounding the GTC.
This option would avoid the need for immediate policy decisions, coordination with HCD, or potential upzoning actions by the City. However, it would also limit local control over the scale, form, and location of new development and could result in substantial increases in development capacity, particularly if the proposed BRT stops are ultimately designated as Tier 2 TOD stops. However, this option allows the City to “wait and see” how SB 79 is implemented statewide and how Metro and SCAG ultimately designate Tier 1 and Tier 2 TOD stops, including the proposed BRT stations. Most importantly, it avoids potentially premature decisions to upzone potentially affected areas.
Option 2: Local Implementing Ordinance
SB 79 authorizes, but does not require, a local government to adopt a local implementing ordinance that brings its development standards into consistency with the statute. This local ordinance may include TOD objective design standards if none are currently in place. Adoption of a local implementing ordinance requires consultation with HCD, and the ordinance must receive final approval from HCD to take effect.
10d10
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Because this option requires zoning and land use changes that require significant analysis and review there is neither sufficient time nor resources to complete a local implementing ordinance and complete CEQA review before SB 79 takes effect. It is certain that the ordinance would result in increased densities and heights, including upzoning in many areas. Staff does not support a local implementing ordinance at this time because: (i) there is insufficient time to draft and review it before SB 79 takes effect (ii) it would be premature to adopt any new zoning with the current ambiguity surrounding SB 79 and the proposed BRT route, and (iii) staff is already drafting citywide objective design standards (ODS).
Accordingly, a local implementing ordinance with separate development standards for TOD projects may not be needed.
Option 3: Delayed Implementation/Effectuation for Eligible Sites SB 79 allows cities to adopt a local ordinance excluding several types of sites from eligibility that delays full effectuation of SB 79 until one year following adoption of the 7th cycle Housing Element (until approximately 2030 for Glendale). This “delayed effectuation” is intended to allow jurisdictions appropriate time to analyze the legislation and technical guidance (which is yet to be released) and conduct the necessary detailed site-level analysis for a potential TOD alternative plan (Option 4 described below). Unless such a TOD alternative plan is adopted, the “delayed effectuation” would expire one year after the next Housing Element is certified and the base SB 79 requirements would then take effect.
As part of the “Delayed Implementation/Effectuation for Eligible Sites” Option, a TOD zone may be excluded from the SB 79 standards if:
At least 1/3 of sites in the TOD zone currently allow at least 50% of the density and FAR granted by the bill, and
All sites within the TOD zone cumulatively allow for at least 75% of the aggregate density allowed by the bill.
All the Tropico TOD-zoned parcels have a maximum by-right density of 100 du/ac, which is equal to or greater than the SB 79 density permitted in the Tier 2 TOD stop within the ¼ mile and ½ mile radiuses surrounding the GTC. However, the ½ mile radius extends beyond the TOD zoning and includes some commercial and lower density residential areas. Additional analysis is needed to determine if the GTC TOD stop qualifies for this exemption.
In addition to the TOD zone exclusion described above, individual sites may also be exempted if certain criteria are met. A site may be excluded if:
Its allowable density and residential FAR are at least 50% of that required under SB 79;
It is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ); It is in an area vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise; 10d11
26-89630
6 6
6 1
It contains historic resources designated on a local register prior to January 1, 2025;
It lacks a pedestrian access path of less than one mile to the TOD stop; or It is designated as an industrial employment hub (defined as at least 250 contiguous acres dedicated to industrial use as of January 1, 2025).
Areas designated as “low resource” in the most recent opportunity maps published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) may also be exempted. This provision is not applicable to Glendale as the City has no areas that have been designated as “low resource”.
In Glendale, there may be TOD zones and several individual sites that meet one or more of the above criteria; however, additional analysis is needed to develop a comprehensive list of sites for exemption. A map of the parcels that may be excluded from SB 79 surrounding the GTC can be viewed in Exhibit “7”.
This option would allow the City to immediately exempt certain sites from SB 79, while also providing additional time to evaluate the feasibility of a TOD alternative plan and to see if there are any future clarifications and/or changes to legislation.
Staff is currently assessing which sites may potentially be excluded, although the timeline for a “delayed effectuation” ordinance adoption is compressed, given the HCD review and approval requirements prior to SB 79 effectuation.
SB 79 does not require cities to adopt an ordinance exempting such sites prior to SB 79’s implementation date of July 1, 2026, however, staff is recommending such adoption, if the timing is feasible, keeping in mind that such ordinance must be submitted to the HCD for review at least 14 days prior to local adoption. HCD may review the draft and report written findings to the planning agency. Any enacted ordinance must be submitted to HCD within 60 days of adoption. HCD has 90 days to review the enacted ordinance and make a finding whether it is in substantial compliance with SB 79. If HCD deems the ordinance non-compliant, the local agency has 60 days to respond before taking further action. If the local agency is found to be in non-compliance, by either refusing to amend the ordinance or make findings explaining how the ordinance complies, then HCD is required to notify the Attorney General that the local government is in violation.
Option 4: Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Alternative Plan SB 79 also allows jurisdictions to adopt a “TOD alternative plan” as an alternative means of compliance. A TOD alternative plan allows cities to exercise some amount of local control over how SB 79 is implemented, but must satisfy all of the following:
The plan must maintain at least the same total “net zoned capacity,” in terms of both total units and residential floor area allowed by SB 79, across all TOD zones within the jurisdiction.
10d12
26-89630
6 6
6 1
The plan may not reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site by more than 50 percent below what SB 79 permits, except for sites meeting any of the following criteria:
oSites within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ) oSites that are vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise oSites with a historic resource designated on a local register, so long as such sites do not exceed 10 percent of the eligible area of any TOD zone.
The plan may not reduce the capacity in any TOD zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50 percent.
In short, a TOD alternative plan allows cities to shift residential densities within TOD areas, as long as the total capacity remains unchanged. However, no individual site could be zoned for less than 50% of the density permitted under SB 79.
Before a TOD alternative plan could be contemplated, an intensive site-by-site analysis of the affected areas would need to be completed. The TOD Alternative Plan would need to be adopted by Council and approved by HCD. Should City Council choose to move forward with a TOD alternative plan, the plan would need to be adopted within the year following certification of the next Housing Element of the General Plan (approximately 2030 for Glendale). Per SB 79, the TOD alternative plan could be adopted as a stand-alone planning effort (ordinance or zoning overlay) or incorporated as part of the 7th Cycle Housing Element. Such changes would also require rezoning and Land Use Element amendments for any TOD areas/properties within the TOD alternative plan.
This option would allow for an extended exemption of certain properties from SB 79 if they are located within the VHFHSZ or contain a historic resource. If a TOD alternative plan is pursued, it is likely that lower density residential neighborhoods would still need to be permanently upzoned to allow a minimum of 40 du/ac. This option allows cities some local control; however, it will require careful consideration and may present challenges if the state law on this matter changes again.
As stated above, there may be severe penalties for jurisdictions that do not implement SB 79 through one of the options listed above. The bill states that beginning on January 1, 2027, denial of an SB 79 project within a high resource area (such as Glendale) would be considered a violation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Such a violation could lead to legal challenges, fines, and penalties up to an including decertification of the Housing Element and invocation of the Builder’s Remedy. 10d13
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Coordination with Other Planning Efforts
Objective Design Standards
Staff is currently in the process of finalizing ODS for multi-family and mixed-use residential development projects in multi-family, commercial, and mixed-use zone designations. The ODS are meant to streamline project review times and ensure basic development and design criteria are met for new development projects, in compliance with state legislation, such as AB 130. The draft ODS can be amended to include SB 79 projects to ensure fundamental standards for any project submitted under SB 79. Staff’s objective is to adopt the ODS prior to July 1, 2026, when SB 79 takes effect.
Draft Land Use, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Elements The City is currently completing the comprehensive update of the Land Use and Mobility Elements as well as a new Environmental Justice Element. The three Draft Elements are being analyzed under one Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with the assistance of the City’s consultant, De Novo Planning Group. At the time that SB 79 was passed, the first draft of the EIR was nearly completed and was on the verge of being released for public comment. Due to the additional development potential that SB 79 authorizes, the Draft EIR and technical studies related to air quality, noise and vibration, and traffic must be amended, which increases the project’s costs and extends the project’s timeline. Staff is requesting an amendment to De Novo’s professional service agreement to complete this required analysis.
The additional analysis that De Novo would complete under the contract amendment would include parcel-level analysis that will assist the City in addressing SB 79. In the short term, this data will support a delayed effectuation ordinance if the Council directs staff to proceed with this option. In the longer term, the data will help to clarify if a TOD alternative plan is feasible for Glendale.
To complete the SB 79 analysis and Draft EIR update for the three General Plan Elements, staff recommends amending De Novo’s contract to add $132,481.00 and extending their contract by an additional nine months.
NEXT STEPS
Given the possibility of state-level amendments to SB 79, including clarifications and corrections prior to its enactment, as well as the various uncertainties regarding BRT and SB 79 implementation options, staff recommends:
Continue seeking clarity with the legislature, to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and other agencies, and to monitor SB 79 amendments and technical guidance documents;
10d14
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Prepare a “delayed effectuation” ordinance for adoption to exempt certain properties from SB 79 before SB 79 takes effect on July 1, 2026; Determine whether adoption of a TOD Alternative Plan is feasible as more information becomes available;
Prepare the objective design standards ordinance for adoption before SB 79 takes effect on July 1, 2026; and
Amend the professional services agreement with De Novo to increase funding in order to complete land use analysis related to SB 79.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
This report serves as an opportunity to provide information on the status of SB 79 and options available to the City. An email blast was sent to all of the Long Range Planning outreach list members (over 850+ members, including HOA and community group representatives) regarding this SB 79 presentation. If a TOD alternative plan is pursued, additional stakeholder outreach will be conducted as part of that project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund associated with future implementation of and development under SB 79 is currently unknown.
At this time, the primary identified fiscal impact is a proposed contract amendment for SB 79-related work by De Novo, to be funded with a combination of Planning General Funds and Measure M funds. Because De Novo is already under contract with the City to prepare the updated Land Use and Mobility Elements, the new Environmental Justice Element, and the associated environmental review, $100,000 from the planning General Fund is appropriated for the contract amendment. The remaining $32,481.00 is funded through Measure M funds, as the Traffic Demand Model and Traffic Operations Analysis as well as the Draft Mobility Element and Draft EIR must be revised to address SB 79.
De Novo’s scope of work and associated fee are outlined in Exhibit “8.” Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$100,000 GL: 43110-1010-CDD-2500 Planning General Fund
Department Cost Center Program
Community
Development
Planning
$32,481 GL: 43110-2220-PWD-0020
PL: 52103
Measure M Local Return
Fund
Department Cost Center Program
Public Works Projects
Additional costs may be incurred if a TOD Alternative Plan is pursued, due to the substantial analysis required, including environmental review and subsequent rezoning. 10d15
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Indirect costs associated with pursuing a TOD Alternative Plan, adopting a local ordinance, or taking other related actions may include staff reprioritization, delays to ongoing planning efforts, and impacts to core planning services.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
No environmental review is required in conjunction with this staff report, which provides information regarding local implications of SB 79. It 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. The additional development potential related to SB 79 cab be analyzed as part of the Draft EIR updates for the Draft Land Use, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Elements.
As noted in this report, the City of Burbank sent LA Metro a letter requesting LA Metro, as the CEQA lead agency for the BRT, prepare a subsequent environmental review to Metro’s 2022 Final EIR on the BRT, to determine the impact around any SB 79 BRT TOD stops in Burbank. Glendale may consider sending Metro a similar request.
Subsequent environmental review of a project for which an EIR has been certified is required when (i) substantial changes are proposed in the project, (ii) substantial changes occur in the circumstances in which the project is being undertaken, or (iii) new information of substantial importance to the project that was not known at the time of the EIR certification becomes known, and these substantial changes or new information will create new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts previously identified in the EIR.
Environmental review in compliance with State and Local CEQA Guidelines will be conducted as part of any approvals of a delayed effectuation ordinance, TOD alternative plan, Objective Design Standards ordinance, or any other discretionary approval associated with this process.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance, the following are names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with 10% interest or more in the company proposed for the professional services agreement amendment in this Agenda Item Report. See Exhibit 9.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. The City Council may:
a. Select not to address SB 79 with any local action and allow the legislation to take full effect on July 1, 2026.
b. Direct staff to prepare a local ordinance, proposing new zoning and objective design standards in affected areas for adoption as soon as possible. c. Direct staff to prepare a TOD alternative plan including intensive site-by-site analysis of the affected areas for adoption prior to one year after the 7th cycle Housing Element is certified.
10d16
26-89630
6 6
6 1
2. The City Council may propose any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Teresa Santilena, Principal Planner
Vilia Zemaitaitis, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning Gillian van Muyden, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1. Full text of SB 79
2. Detailed map of SB 79 affected parcels around the Larry Zarian Glendale Transit Center.
3. Letter from LA Metro in response to City of Glendale’s inquiry into the status of the proposed BRT
4. April 23, 2025 and July 2, 2025 letters in opposition to SB 79 and official veto request from the City to Governor Gavin Newsom
5. January 8, 2026 letter in opposition to SB 677 from the City to the Chair of the Senate Local Government Committee
6. Letter from the City of Burbank to LA Metro requesting LA Metro prepare a subsequent environmental review to Metro’s 2022 Final EIR on the BRT, to determine the impact around any SB 79 BRT TOD stops in Burbank.
7. Map of parcels that may be excluded from SB 79 surrounding the GTC.
8. De Novo’s Contract Amendment Proposal for SB 79 Analysis Assistance and Associated Updates to the Draft EIR.
9. Campaign Finance Disclosure.