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
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
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.
Mr. Patrick Prescott
March 5, 2026
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 Mr. Patrick Prescott
March 5, 2026
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.
Mr. Patrick Prescott
March 5, 2026
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