June 12

SUBJECT: Preliminary Analysis of Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority’s Application for Approval of Plan to Permit 25 Acres of Movie Equipment Storage on Burbank Airport Adjacent Property

The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (the “Authority”), owner and operator of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport (the “Airport”), would like to lease approximately 25 acres of Authority-owned property to Desmond’s Studio Production Services (“Desmond’s”) for use as a storage lot for movie production equipment, including portable dressing rooms, trucks and trailers (the “Project”). The Project would be located on a portion of the former Lockheed B-6 property owned by the Authority, known as the “Adjacent Property.” Desmond’s currently leases from the Authority approximately 9.6 acres of another portion of the B-6 property located in the City of Los Angeles. Desmond’s intends to consolidate that operation with other sites in the area to a single site on the Adjacent Property. A map showing the proposed Project site is attached. (Record Reference (“Ref.”) 1).[1]

The Authority acquired the Adjacent Property on November 16, 1999 as part of a complex agreement between the Authority, Lockheed and the City in connection with the settlement of several lawsuits. Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code 21661.6 (Ref. 2), the City approved a plan for the Authority’s use of the Adjacent Property (“Adjacent Property Plan”) (Ref. 3). The Adjacent Property Plan preserves the Adjacent Property as a buffer between the Airport and the City, and essentially does not permit any uses of the Adjacent Property other than certain Airport-related historic uses without further City approval.

Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6(e), the Burbank City Council must approve any use of the Adjacent Property not approved as part of the Adjacent Property Plan before such use may commence. Accordingly, on June 20, 2001, the Authority submitted an application seeking City Council approval of using a portion of the Adjacent Property for the Project (the “Application”) (Ref. 4). On or about August 2, 2001, the Authority amended its Application to reflect that the Project would be implemented in four phases over a period of approximately 2 years (Ref. 5).

As detailed below, this Preliminary Analysis is part of the City’s consideration of the Application. The purpose of the Preliminary Analysis is to present to the public staff’s preliminary analysis of the Project and staff’s preliminary findings in order to facilitate informed public discussion regarding the Application and to enable interested parties to present to the City Council information that may assist the City Council in making its final decision on the Application.

As detailed below, staff’s preliminary conclusion is that the Project meets the criterion for approval. Allowing the use of a portion of the Adjacent Property for a movie trailer and equipment storage lot would benefit the public by supporting the film and entertainment industry, by reducing the use of public streets to store movie trailers and by putting to productive use vacant land. The Project would not impose any significant environmental impacts. The Project is compatible with the Airport, and would not enable increased noise and would not pose an increased safety risk.

In order to provide guidance for its consideration of applications under Section 21661.6 of the California Public Utilities Code, the City has adopted Procedures for Review by the Burbank City Council of Plan for Expansion of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport (Ref. 6). The Procedures are designed to provide the most expeditious review possible of any plan that requires Burbank City Council review and approval pursuant to Section 21661.6. Because the Application is required by Section 21661.6, the City is applying the Procedures to the Authority’s Section 21661.6(e) Application.

The Procedures establish two approval criteria that govern the City Council's decision on whether to approve or disapprove the Application. The Application will be approved pursuant to this review process if the City Council finds that:

1. The advantages to the public of the proposed expansion outweigh the disadvantages to both the public and the environment. Environmental factors to be considered include noise, air pollution and the burden on surrounding areas, including traffic.

2. Approval of the Expansion Plan is consistent with the objective of adopting land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.

The Preliminary Analysis, together with all Record Reference documents, will be available for public review at the City of Burbank Planning Division office, the City Clerk’s office, the City Manager's office, and the Burbank Central Library. In reviewing and commenting on the analysis, the public should be guided by the approval criteria set forth above.

Pursuant to the Procedures, on July 9, 2001, staff sent the Authority a letter deeming the Application complete. (Ref. 7) Under the Procedures, the Authority was entitled to submit new information to the City in support of its application for up to five days after issuance of the Notice of Filing. In addition, the City will consider any new information supplied by the Authority or any other party at least until the time of the hearing on this Preliminary Analysis. In early August, the Authority provided additional information relating the Project to the City to assist staff’s review of the Application (Refs. 5, 8, & 9). Pursuant to City land use procedures, the City did not begin its substantive review of the Application until the Authority had completed its analysis of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act. As detailed below, the Authority completed that process on August 20, 2001, by certifying a Negative Declaration and formally approving the Project (Ref. 10).

Issuance of this Preliminary Analysis is the first major step in the review process. The Preliminary Analysis is intended to achieve two main purposes. First, it will provide the public and the Authority with a clear view of any concerns raised by the Application and will facilitate further participation in the review process. Second, it will provide the City Council with a preliminary evaluation of the Application, allowing it to seek additional information prior to conducting the public hearing and making a decision on whether to approve or disapprove the Application.

The issuance of the Preliminary Analysis triggers a 15-day period for any interested parties to review the Preliminary Analysis and to provide written comments or supplemental information. The City welcomes any such comments or information during this public review period, which ends Monday, October 22, 2001. Comments on the Application should be addressed as follows:

On Monday, October 22, 2001, the City will officially set the date for the public hearing before the Burbank City Council on the Application. At this time, staff intends to recommend that the hearing be held on November 13, 2001. Formal public notice of the hearing will be provided at the end of the public comment period.

City staff will prepare a staff report prior to the public hearing. Staff expects to release its staff report several days before the public hearing. This report will include the final staff recommendations, as well as all written comments received on the Preliminary Analysis. Written comments received after the 15-day comment period but before the hearing will be forwarded to the City Council separate from the staff report. Public testimony will be heard and considered at the public hearing. The Burbank City Council may close the public hearing and direct staff to return at a later City Council meeting with a staff report responding to comments on the Preliminary Analysis from the public and the Authority. However, at this time, staff expects to recommend that the City Council deliberate and render its decision immediately following the public hearing unless significant new information or important questions are raised at that hearing.

The Authority currently leases to Desmond’s a 9.6-acre parcel of the Trust Property on the former Lockheed Building 360 site, located in the City of Los Angeles at 7575 San Fernando Road (Ref. 4 at 1). The site is used as a storage lot for movie equipment, including portable dressing rooms, trucks and trailers. Id. In addition, Desmond’s operates several other storage lots, comprising approximately 25 acres, at several other locations in the City of Los Angeles. Id. Desmond’s also uses public streets to store a certain number of trailers. Id.

The Authority has apparently sold the Building 360 site to a third party. Accordingly, the Authority is terminating Desmond’s lease of the 9.6-acre portion of the Building 360 site, requiring Desmond’s to relocate its facility. Id. In addition to relocating its Building 360 facility, Desmond’s would like to consolidate that operation with its other operations to create a single facility. Id. To accomplish these goals, Desmond’s is seeking to lease from the Authority approximately 25 acres of the Adjacent Property for this purpose. Id.

In the Application, the Authority seeks approval under Section 21661.6(e) of an amendment to the Adjacent Property Plan to permit the Project. The Project is comprised of the following components:

· Construction of a new 25-acre movie equipment storage lot on approximately 25 vacant and unpaved acres of the Adjacent Property. Movie equipment such as dressing room trailers, truck trailers, trucks and props would be stored on the lot. Id.

· Relocation of approximately 10 acres of existing movie equipment storage from the adjacent Building 360 site to the new 25 acre site. Id.

· Relocation of approximately 15 acres of existing movie equipment storage from an 8 acre site in North Hollywood, from portions of an 11 acre site north of Sun Valley and from public street parking sites in Los Angles and Burbank to the new 25 acre site. Id..

The Project would be implemented in 4 stages over an approximately 2-year period. (Ref. 5).

C. Relationship of this Review Process to Other Federal, State, Municipal and Other Legal Requirements

This section briefly describes the other federal, state, municipal and legal requirements that may affect City consideration of the Application and the Project.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), [California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.; Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.] requires agencies with discretionary approval authority over a project to consider the environmental consequences of a project before taking action on it. On June 18, 2001, the Authority issued an Initial Study (Ref. 11). On June 20, 2001, the Authority issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration (Ref. 12), concluding that the proposed relocation of Desmond’s operations would not result in any significant environmental impacts. Subject to the comments the City submitted in response to the Initial Study (Ref. 13), the City concurs in the determination that approval of this Application is not likely to result in any significant environmental impact. On August 20, 2001, the Authority certified a final Negative Declaration and approved the Project (Ref. 10).

The State of California's Airport Noise Regulations (California Administrative Code, Title 21, Division 2.5, Chapter 6, §§ 5000 – 5090), establish the California Airport Noise Standard. The Airport Noise Standard provides that the "acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of airports is community noise equivalent level [CNEL] of 65 decibels [dB]." Under California regulations, certain land uses are deemed incompatible with noise exposure levels above a CNEL of 65 dB. For example, land devoted to residences, schools, hospitals and convalescent homes, and places of worship is deemed incompatible with such noise levels. Commercial and industrial uses are deemed compatible with such noise exposure levels.

At the time the decision to create the public entity to operate the Airport was made, federal, state and local authorities, as well as the Airport Authority, each articulated enforceable limits on the noise impacts that could be generated by the Airport. These include a cap on the size of the noise impact area and a prohibition on any extension of the Airport’s runways. These limitations are set forth principally in the Joint Powers Agreement that created the Authority, in California Government Code § 6546.1, in the federal Final Environmental Impact Statement on public acquisition of the Airport, and in the FAA grant agreement approving the use of federal money to assist in the acquisition of the Airport.

Because the Project does not propose any change in Airport operations, approval of the Application would not facilitate or enable any operations at the Airport that could violate relevant noise requirements.

4. California Laws and Regulations on Construction of Obstructions to Air Navigation and FAA Guidelines on Building Restriction Lines, Clear Zones, Setbacks, Height Limits and Electromagnetic and Light Interference

California Public Utilities Code Section 21659 prohibits the construction or alteration of any structure that would obstruct navigable airspace as provided in Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, Subpart C, unless a permit is issued by the California Department of Transportation. The proposed use of the Adjacent Property would not obstruct navigable airspace or otherwise be inconsistent with the requirements of Part 77.

The FAA has issued guidelines for airport development that include limitations on constructing “structures” within 750 feet of the centerline of a runway and in certain other areas immediately adjacent to runways and navigation aid facilities. This area is defined by a Building Restriction Line (the “BRL”), within which airports are not permitted to locate structures. (Ref. 14). The regulations relating to the BRL are FAA guidelines that apply to airport proprietors; they do not apply to the City itself and do not form part of the City’s Municipal Code. The Authority bears responsibility for adhering to all such FAA guidelines.

A portion of the Project would be located within the BRL. The Authority states that the FAA “routinely permits the development of vehicle parking lots, including fencing and lighting," within the BRL and that the ban on structures outside of the BRL includes only “inhabited buildings.” (Ref. 15). Staff is not aware of any FAA guidelines or FAA determination that would prohibit a portion of the Project from being located within the BRL.

The 25 acre portion of the Adjacent Property proposed for the Project is zoned AP Airport Use (Ref. 16 [zone map]) and is designated by the General Plan’s Land Use Element as appropriate for Airport uses (Ref. 17). The Project is not an Airport use, but is a conditionally permitted use in the Airport zone. Therefore, neither an amendment to the General Plan nor Zoning Map would be necessary. The Project would be permitted in the Airport Zone only with a Conditional Use Permit (Ref. 18 [AP Zone Text and excerpts from Use Table]). Desmond’s has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the Project, which the City is processing under existing City procedures (Ref. 19).

6. Use Restrictions Imposed by 1999 Grant of Easements, Declarations of Use Restrictions and Agreements for the Adjacent Property

Uses on the Adjacent Property are subject to easement and use restrictions pursuant to the Grant of Easements, Declarations of Use Restrictions and Agreements for the Adjacent Property executed by the Authority and the City on November 16, 1999 (Ref. 20).

1. No structure shall be constructed, built, erected, or placed on the Adjacent Property within the Building Restriction Line (BRL), as shown on the Authority’s Airport Layout Plan.

2. No portion of the Adjacent Property shall be used for any structure, construction, or development project to expand or enlarge the Airport until the parties reach a Final Development Agreement.

3. No portion of the Adjacent Property shall be used for any purpose other than the uses permitted pursuant to the Stipulated Order of the court in Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, Case No. EC 022341 (July 9, 1997). The following activities are the only permitted uses of the Adjacent Property:

· Performance of demolition and grading work pursuant to demolition and grading permits to be issued by the City;

The use of the Adjacent Property for the Project is not permitted pursuant to the 1999 Easement Agreement. Accordingly, that Project cannot be implemented unless and until the City and the Authority agree to amend the 1999 Easement Agreement to permit the Project. The Authority has stated, however, that the Project is not prohibited by the 1999 Easement Agreement, because the proposed use of the land does not involve an expansion of the Airport, and that no amendment to the 1999 Easement Agreement is necessary.

Resolution of this issue will be necessary before the Project can be implemented, and staff is working with the Authority to reach such a resolution. Because there is some urgency to implementing the Project (assuming the Application and Conditional Use Permit are approved) due to the imminent expiration of Desmond’s lease on the Building 360 site, staff is exploring with the Authority, subject to approval by the City Council, an approach by which the Authority and City would enter into a letter agreement agreeing to permit the Project without a formal amendment to the 1999 Easement Agreement while reserving the rights of both parties with respect to future uses of the Adjacent Property.

An airport land use commission (“ALUC”) is created under California law, Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 21670, et seq. The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission is designated as the ALUC with jurisdiction over the Airport and, as required by law, it has issued the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan. In general, the ALUC’s plan for the Airport designates the Adjacent Property as appropriate for uses that are compatible with noise exposure levels on the Adjacent Property.

The Project would not locate any incompatible uses on the Adjacent Property and is consistent with the ALUC’s plan.

The Project is unlikely to have any significant effect on traffic patterns on Hollywood Way or elsewhere in the City. Desmond’s current facility on the Building 360 Site already uses Hollywood Way and San Fernando Boulevard, and the relocation to the Adjacent Property would use the same access points and not lead to a significant increase in traffic. Although the Authority did not submit a detailed traffic study, Desmond’s and the Authority estimate that the additional traffic expected to be generated by facilities relocated from other sites will not exceed the capacity of City streets and will not lead to a significant reduction in level of service. Based on a preliminary analysis of the projected traffic from the Project and current traffic levels on Hollywood Way and San Fernando Boulevard, staff concurs in that conclusion and does not believe that further traffic analysis is necessary.

Under the federal Clean Air Act, each state must adopt a plan known as a state implementation plan to implement, maintain, and enforce primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards for designated pollutants. The Authority must comply with these laws to the extent applicable.

Moving the movie equipment storage facilities from their current position on the Trust Property to the Adjacent Property should neither obstruct implementation of any air quality plans, nor violate any air quality standards. The proposed Project would result in a shift of movie equipment storage areas from two separate locations into one lot without a net increase in traffic. Accordingly, it is unlikely that any increase in pollutant emissions associated with vehicles will occur.

The Project would not entail the relocation or displacement of any persons or businesses, thus avoiding application of the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4601-4655, which requires federally funded airports to provide certain financial assistance and adhere to other procedures when projects require the dislocation of homes and businesses.

The Burbank Municipal Code imposes a number of requirements regarding grading, dust control, landscaping, and other activities in which the Authority might engage in connection with the Project. If the Application is approved, the Authority must comply fully with all such requirements, and obtain all required permits and approvals from Burbank and other applicable government agencies. Nothing in this analysis shall be construed as review under any law other than Section 21661.6. Further, nothing herein is intended to indicate that the City has taken a position regarding whether the Authority has complied with any law relating to grading, environmental matters, landscaping or other laws that may apply to the Project.

In order to facilitate public discussion of the Project, staff presents its preliminary understanding of the principal advantages and disadvantages of approving the Application in light of the criteria set forth in the Procedures. As detailed below, based on that preliminary analysis, staff has concluded preliminarily that the Project does meet the criteria for approval.

Under the first criterion for approval, a decision to approve the Application must be supported by a finding that:

The advantages to the public of the proposed expansion outweigh the disadvantages to both the public and the environment. Environmental factors to be considered include noise, air pollution and the burden on surrounding areas, including traffic.

Allowing Desmond’s to relocate from its current position supports the movie and entertainment industry, which is an important source of employment, tax revenue and economic opportunity in Burbank. In addition, the Project would help eliminate the parking of movie trailers and other equipment on City streets.

Paving and grading of the unpaved 25-acre portion of the Trust Property may involve minimal changes in soil erosion and/or drainage patterns.

Under the second criterion for approval, a decision to approve the Application must be supported by a finding that:

Approval of the Expansion Plan is consistent with the objective of adopting land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.

The Project would not increase Airport operations or otherwise contribute to or enable increased noise from operations at the Airport. Furthermore, the Project is compatible with the Airport, and is an appropriate use of land so close to the Airport.

Based on the foregoing preliminary analysis, staff’s preliminary conclusion is that the Authority’s proposed use of the 25 acres of Adjacent Property meets the criteria for approval under Section 21661.6 and the City’s Procedures.

First, staff preliminarily concludes that the advantages of the Authority’s proposed use of the Adjacent Property outweigh the disadvantages to the public and the environment. The Project would not impose any environmental impacts that would not be addressed through applicable law and procedures and would not increase Airport noise or operations. The public benefits of supporting the film and entertainment industry and of deterring parking of movie trailers and other equipment on City streets are not offset by the potential disadvantages identified above. Moreover, the Project would put to active use land that would otherwise remain vacant and non-productive.

Second, staff preliminarily concludes that approval of the proposed use of the Adjacent Property is consistent with the City’s objective of adopting land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. The Project would not cause any increased noise or Airport operations. Provided that the Authority continues to follow all relevant FAA-issued guidance on Airport construction activities, the Project will have no detrimental effect on the margin of safety in the area near the Airport.

The principal purpose of this Preliminary Analysis is to facilitate public discussion and comment on the Application. This Preliminary Analysis is not intended to identify all possible impacts associated with the Applications. Therefore, staff requests that members of the public address any impacts that they believe would accompany approval or disapproval of the Applications beyond those discussed in this memorandum. All identified impacts (and mitigation of those impacts, to the extent appropriate) that are identified should be considered by the City Council before it makes a final determination as to whether the Applications should be approved or disapproved. That decision will not be made until the public comment period closes and the City Council has held a noticed public hearing.

[1] Throughout this Preliminary Analysis, documents in the public record on the Application are referred to by document number. All referenced documents (along with all other material that constitute the public record) are available for public review at the Planning Division office, the City Clerk’s office, the City Manager’s office, and the Burbank Central Library.