Introduction

n 1930, when Burbank was a somewhat distant suburb of Los Angeles, a small airport went into operation in the northwest part of the City. In 1940, the aircraft manufacturer Lockheed purchased it and used it as a test flight airport for its adjacent manufacturing facilities and as a commercial airport.

In the mid-1970s, Lockheed decided to sell the Airport. The Airport in 1978 was acquired by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (the "Airport Authority"), a joint powers agency of the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena. Under the Airport Authority’s ownership, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport (the Airport) has become a regional airport providing scheduled passenger service, general aviation service and freight service. The Airport Authority is governed by nine Commissioners, three of whom are appointed by each city.

The City Council of Burbank understands that there are benefits of having a convenient airport in the City. However, it

also impacts the City in negative ways, most importantly because of the noise of aircraft operations, as well as increased automobile traffic and additional air pollution.

Therefore, the City Council has made it clear that it will only support an expansion of the Airport if it is limited in ways to minimize negative effects on Burbank residents.

Most agree that Burbank Airport needs a new terminal. The existing terminal is crowded and uncomfortable and does not project the best possible image of Burbank and the region. In addition, it would be difficult to bring the existing terminal up to modern security and safety standards.

The City of Burbank believes that a new terminal should address the environmental, safety, security and operational concerns of all interested parties. A new terminal would provide the best solution to the ongoing Airport issue.

This briefing book provides background into the complex regulatory, legal and political framework within which airport discussions and negotiations are held. A companion two-volume set provides the full text of various regulations, laws and documents relative to any discussion of the future of the Airport.

The two-volume set of background materials is available for public review at City Hall and City libraries and can be purchased. All the material also is available on the City of Burbank’s Airport Web site, www.ci.burbank.ca.us/airport.

It is the hope of City Council that the residents of Burbank will engage in the current public outreach effort and provide input into the important process of developing a proposal for the Airport Authority’s consideration. These materials have been prepared so you and other residents have access to all the information needed to form an educated position.

Overview of Community Outreach and the Plan Evaluation & Review Committee’s Role

he City Council has initiated an extensive public outreach program in order to receive as much input from City residents as possible. Achieving a consensus on the City of Burbank’s position regarding Airport expansion and development will not be an easy task. Controversy regarding the Airport has existed for years, and since at least 1995, it has been the most controversial issue in the City. It is not difficult to see why the issue sparks such controversy, as it involves such basic interests as economic development, quality of life, noise, traffic, air quality and, fundamentally, how much control Burbank itself has over its own quality of life.

The controversy is further fueled by the fact that several entities play key roles in forging any resolution. The principal entities are the City, the Authority and the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"). As described below, each entity has a specific, but limited, role to play.

For example, although the City has the right to review and approve or reject land uses on those portions of the Airport that are in Burbank, it lacks the power to impose a curfew. Although the FAA has the power to approve a curfew, it lacks the power to force the City to approve a new terminal. Although the Airport Authority has the power to decide whether or not to build a new terminal, it must comply with City laws to do so. And although the City can establish the terms by which it would approve a new terminal, it cannot force the Airport Authority to build a terminal subject to those terms, nor can it force the FAA to approve such a terminal or other terms (such as a curfew) that require FAA approval.

It also must be acknowledged that each of these entities has the potential power to stop any proposed resolution of the controversy by exercising its power in a negative way. Thus any proposal must take into account the legal and policy positions of the other entities ¾ any one-sided "solution" is almost certainly doomed to failure.

In order to develop such a solution, the City Council has initiated this public outreach program to develop an informed proposal to resolve this controversy that represents a broad consensus view of the residents of Burbank.

The task of the Plan Evaluation and Review Committee is to listen to input from as broad a range of sources as possible and from that input assemble a consensus plan that can form the basis of City policy regarding the Airport.

To assist the Committee in its task, City staff has prepared a draft of initial discussion points, which presents a possible starting point for the development of a new plan. Staff also has prepared this Briefing Book to provide some basic background regarding the issues, and a general summary of the key legal and policy factors that will define the parameters of any successful solution. Additional material and briefings will be made available at the Committee’s request throughout the process.

Staff’s Initial Discussion Points

or some time, the City Council has felt that a new terminal plan could be the impetus for a global solution to the Airport terminal debate. Council recently directed its staff to prepare a list of initial discussion points of potential elements of such a plan, based on policy statements by City leadership over the past several years. These draft discussion points are presented here as a starting point for a new public discussion of a possible terminal plan. At the conclusion of the public review period, Council may adopt a specific proposal and place it on the ballot so residents of Burbank can vote on whether they feel it is the right approach.

The City is initiating a comprehensive outreach program to elicit from the public comments on these initial discussion points and proposals for additional elements. The outreach program elements include:

There have been many attempts over the years to create a solution to the "Airport problem." City staff has taken into consideration all that has been learned over the previous attempts and has collected the key elements of those plans as an initial basis for public discussion of a potential new terminal plan.

These initial discussion points are set out on the following page, along with descriptive information on what the various elements mean.

1. Terminal

1. The replacement terminal will be built on the B-6 Property and be limited to 14 gates and 5,000 public parking spaces west of Hollywood Way. The terminal will be intended to be a true replacement (recognizing contemporary space requirements and new security apparatus may require more space than the existing terminal). The square footage limitation will include all public, service, baggage and concession space, but not include any Airport Authority office space.
2. The actual footprint and size of the terminal will be shown on an FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan. That Plan will be treated for all purposes as though it were a plan for the use of Airport property pursuant to

PUC § 21661.6(b). Any changes in land uses on any Airport land from those set out in the agreed-upon Airport Layout Plan will require Burbank City Council approval pursuant to

PUC § 21661.6(e).

3. The Airport Authority will not construct aircraft gates or parking positions anywhere else at the Airport other than at the replacement terminal.
4. The existing terminal will be closed when the new terminal opens; the Airport Authority will demolish the existing terminal within three months of occupying the new replacement terminal; the site of the existing terminal will be restricted to uses consistent with FAA design guidelines and standards.

1. Noise

1. Before construction of the replacement terminal, the Airport Authority shall secure federal authorization for:

1. A mandatory 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew on all flights (with exceptions for medical, weather-induced, mechanical emergency and public safety flights).
2. Restrictions on future noise (a "noise budget") designed to ensure that the Airport’s noise impacts from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. in both Burbank and Los Angeles are never greater than they were in 2000. The City and the Airport Authority will mutually agree upon the metric that will be used to establish the baseline noise levels in 2000 and the methodology for ensuring compliance with that baseline.

The Airport Authority will seek such authorization through two separate, distinct Part 161 studies ¾ one addressing the nighttime noise problem (the curfew proposal) and one addressing the daytime noise problem (the noise budget proposal).

1. The Airport Authority will strictly enforce all existing and future noise rules and restrictions and will substantially increase the positive and negative incentives for compliance with both mandatory and voluntary rules. It will be the Airport Authority’s obligations to implement a mechanism for recordkeeping and recording operations and noise levels to ensure compliance with the existing and future noise rules. The City will have regular access to these records.
2. The Airport Authority will implement a funding mechanism to finance insulation of at least 50 percent of all residential units within the 65 decibels CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level), as depicted on the 1998 FAA-approved noise exposure map, and will complete insulation on 30 percent of residential units prior to occupancy of the new terminal and agree upon a timetable for completion of all sound insulation.
3. The Airport Authority and the City will agree on revisions to language in the residential avigation easements, which shall ensure that the Airport Authority will be responsible for providing additional noise attenuation or other remedial work on a previously noise insulated home if the interior noise level of a home exceeds pre-established limits.
4. The Airport Authority will comply with the California Government Code Section 6546.1 ceiling on the size of the Airport’s noise impact area as interpreted by the California Court of Appeal.

1. Surface Transportation

1. The replacement terminal will be designed to accommodate a direct mass transit connection and the Airport Authority will dedicate necessary right-of-way for such a connection.
2. The Airport Authority will fund transportation infrastructure mitigation as recommended in the joint traffic study to the maximum legally permissible.
3. The Airport Authority will participate in a Transportation Management Organization (TMO).
4. Planning for the replacement terminal will assume that the City will not add traffic lanes to Hollywood Way.

1.  
2. Financial

1. The City will convene whatever hearings (such as the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibilities Act, "TEFRA") and facilitate whatever City approvals are necessary for the Airport Authority to secure tax-exempt financing for the project contemplated by the final agreement.
2. The City will not increase the tax rate applicable to transient parking during the time that bonds issued to finance development of the replacement terminal are outstanding.
3. The Airport Authority will commit maximum legally permissible mitigation funding for:

1. Impact fees for police and fire ($.12 per new square foot)
2. Sewer facility charges
3. New water and electric distribution facilities

1. The Airport Authority will make a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) based upon the property taxes that would be payable to the City and the Redevelopment Agency on the Airport property if the Airport Authority were a taxable entity.
2. The City of Burbank will agree with the cities of Glendale and Pasadena on a formula for the sharing of PILOT revenues in excess of $1.5 million annually.

1. Contingencies and Approvals

1. The City’s execution of a final agreement will be contingent upon preparation of whatever documentation is required by law pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) recognizing that the terms of the agreement are intended to mitigate many of the potential environmental impacts of a new terminal. The agreement will set forth the roles of the City and the Airport Authority in preparation of that documentation.
2. The parties recognize that FAA approval or acquiescence is required for certain elements of the agreement. The Airport Authority will take the lead, with City assistance as needed, in securing that acquiescence or approval.
3. Final agreement will be conditioned upon issuance by the City of all development approvals including those under PUC § 21661.6, general plan amendments and zoning and land use entitlements no later than the effective date of the final agreement.

1. General

1. Should the Airport Authority initiate a Part 150 Study of runway use patterns, it will use safety as the overriding criterion for evaluating any changes in use of any runways at the Airport. The Airport Authority will not propose or support any changes in runway use patterns outside the context of a Part 150 Study.
2. The Airport Authority will implement a policy of rotating the Commission Presidency among the three cities to ensure that at least one Commissioner appointed by each city shall serve as Commission President for at least three out of each 10-year period.
3. The Airport Authority will design all construction on the B-6 Property in an appropriate manner that recognizes aviation history and complies with the City’s Art in Public Places requirements.
4. The agreement will contain assurances that it will resolve all pending issues concerning compliance with California Government Code § 6546.1, California Public Utility Code § 21661.6, CEQA, and any other potentially applicable state or local law.
5. All commitments will be enforceable to the maximum extent permitted by law. The agreement will contain enforcement provisions and concrete, clearly defined consequences for breach of the agreement. The terms of the agreement will be memorialized in several different legal instruments including, for example, a development agreement, an amendment to the Title Transfer Agreements, an amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement, deed restrictions, City Council and Airport Commission resolutions and ordinances, and court-entered orders as necessary or appropriate.

The Airport and the Airport Authority

n 1976, Lockheed Corporation, which had operated the Airport since 1940, announced plans to close the Airport, prompting considerable political debate about whether it should be closed or taken into public ownership.

The legislation included provisions that were designed to limit the future impacts of the Airport on neighboring communities. For example, it places an absolute ceiling on the size of the area surrounding the Airport subject to a particular level of noise ("noise impact area"), prohibits the extension of the Airport’s runways, and prohibits the condemnation of residential property by the Airport Authority.

On June 14, 1977, the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena entered into a joint powers authority (JPA) to create the separate public entity, which today is named the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (the "Airport Authority"). One year later, the Airport Authority acquired the Airport. The

The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Commission ("Commission") governs the Airport Authority. The cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena retain equal representation on the nine-member Commission, each appointing three commissioners who serve at the pleasure of the respective City Councils.

The powers of the Airport Authority, as a joint powers agency, are limited under California law. The Airport Authority is empowered only to carry out those tasks expressly set forth in the JPA ¾ essentially the ownership and operation of the Airport. The Airport Authority possesses only certain designated powers common to the three cities, and may only exercise those powers in the same manner as the City of Burbank may exercise those powers. Finally, by reserving the power to "hire and fire" Airport Commissioners, each City retains continuing political control over the policies and decisions of the Airport Authority.

In addition to these limits on the Airport Authority’s powers, the JPA includes procedural protections that further restrict its power. One of the key restrictions is that a super-majority vote of the Commission (i.e., two votes from each of the three cities represented on the Commission) is required before the Airport Authority can incur debt. The term "debt" is, however, very narrowly defined and includes only certain designated types of indebtedness.

In addition, in carrying out its mission, the Airport Authority is subject to land use and other local regulation by the appropriate entity (i.e., Burbank, Los Angeles or other agency with jurisdiction).

Airport Layout and Operations

The Airport is served by two intersecting runways. Runway 8-26 is the primary arrival runway, with aircraft arriving from the west (over Los Angeles). It is 6,032 feet long and aligned in an east-west direction. Runway 15-33 is 6,886 feet long and aligned in a northwest-southeast direction. It is the primary departure runway, with aircraft departing to the southeast (over Burbank, then Los Angeles), although aircraft depart to the northwest during Santa Ana wind conditions.

The passenger terminal has 14 gates and contains approximately 165,000 square feet of interior and exterior space used for and by passengers.

The terminal is closer to the centerline of the runways than permissible for new terminals. To ensure that structures are kept an appropriate distance from active runways, FAA guidelines establish a "Building Restriction Line" (BRL), measured from the centerline of the runway. New structures are not permitted to be built within the BRL. At the Airport, where the BRL is 750 feet from the centerline of the runways, the north face of Terminal A is just more than 300 feet from runway centerline, and the southwest corner of Terminal B is approximately 350 feet from runway centerline, as measured from the southwest corner of Terminal B.

The existing terminal is not in violation of those guidelines, however, because it predates them. The FAA has never found that the existing terminal is unsafe or ordered the Airport Authority to relocate the terminal. Nonetheless, the Airport Authority frequently cites the fact that the terminal is within the BRL as one of the primary reasons for needing a new terminal.

The Role of the Airport Authority in
Land Use and Airport Development

he Airport Authority is just one of many entities with a role in land use and development at Burbank Airport. A full explanation of the laws governing Airport development and expansion would take more space than is available here, and is not really necessary to understand the basic legal structure governing discussions of plans for a new terminal.

The essential point is that a new terminal (as well as most other major Airport development projects) would require the agreement of at least three principal entities: the Airport Authority, the City and the FAA. In addition, other agencies, such as the newly created Transportation Security Administration, play an important role. Finally, non-governmental entities, such as community groups, airlines and other Airport users, have critical roles in the process.

As detailed in the following chapters, each of these agencies has a specific legal role to play in the Airport development process. Because of their legal roles, each agency also plays an important policy role in shaping the precise nature of Airport development.

The process of expanding or improving the Airport begins with the Airport Authority. As the Airport’s owner and operator, it must consider whether or not to expand the Airport or to construct a new facility, such as a terminal. Except in the most unusual of circumstances, the FAA does not dictate whether any new facility must be built. For example, the FAA has not directed the Airport Authority to build a new or relocated passenger terminal.

In executing this power, however, the Airport Authority is subject to regulation by other governmental entities. Although the key regulations are summarized below, the principal limitations are as follows:

Local Regulation. Airport development projects are, in general, subject to regulation by the City in which such development is to occur. For example, the City of Burbank exercises land use power over Airport development in Burbank under state zoning law and through special land use provisions of the Public Utility Code (PUC Section 21661.6). Los Angeles exercises similar authority over Airport development in Los Angeles.

In addition to those general laws regarding Airport development, the Airport Authority manages activities at an airport through rules and regulations it issues and enforces. These rules and regulations cover vehicular traffic, sanitation, security, fire protection, aircraft fueling, hazardous materials management, and other activities. The airport proprietor also can control aircraft operations for purposes of safety. As detailed in the next chapter, airport proprietors also are authorized to restrict aircraft operations in order to reduce noise in accordance with prescribed procedures and standards.

The Role of the Federal Agencies in

Land Use and Airport Development

wo federal agencies will be involved in any resolution of the Airport issue: the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), and the new Transportation Security Administration ("TSA").

The FAA exercises general regulatory authority over many aspects of Airport operations. Furthermore, the FAA maintains exclusive authority over airspace and the flight of aircraft. In other words, the City of Burbank does not have jurisdiction over the air above it, and therefore cannot control or limit its use by aircraft. Perhaps the most visible effect of this control is that air traffic controllers ¾ who are federal employees ¾ control the movement of aircraft in flight.

Several aspects of FAA regulation are of particular concern here. First, the FAA’s approval is needed for terminal or other Airport development projects. The FAA evaluates these plans to see if they are safe, consistent with Airport operations and meet a variety of other technical criteria.

Second, the FAA provides funding to airports for planning, development and noise compatibility programs. These funds are given with strings attached. The FAA is authorized to impose requirements on airports as a condition of the funding, and some of these conditions have a substantial impact on anything that might limit airport operations, such as conditions applied to any proposed new terminal plan. In general terms, these grant conditions are intended to ensure that the Airport is operated and maintained in a safe manner, and that the federal "investment" in the Airport is used for the development of appropriate aviation facilities.

Some of these relevant conditions include:

1. The airport will be available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination. The FAA has taken the position that this applies to the consideration of noise restrictions, such as limits on certain types of aircraft.
   
2. Zoning and other considerations have been used (or will be used) as appropriate to ensure that land uses next to or near the airport will be compatible with normal airport operations.
   
3. The airport owner will charge for use of airport facilities and services in order to make the airport as self-sustaining as possible.
   
4. The airport owner or operator will maintain a current airport layout plan.
   
5. The revenues generated by a public airport will be used for the capital or operating costs of the airport and associated systems or facilities that are directly and substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or property.

The FAA also has developed requirements and penalties prohibiting use of airport revenue for non-airport purposes. This prohibition was adopted by Congress to address what it perceived as a pattern of municipalities "skimming" money from airport operations and using it to pay for unrelated municipal services. Congress worried that, over time, this could lead to reduced safety because sufficient funds for maintenance and improvements might not be available, so it prohibited using airport revenue for such things as:

1. Payments in lieu of taxes ("PILOT") or other assessments that exceed the value of services provided, or are not based on a reasonable cost allocation formula that is consistent with the formula applied to comparable units or cost centers.
   
2. Payments to compensate non-sponsoring governmental bodies for lost tax revenues to the extent the payments exceed the stated tax rates applicable to the airport.
   
3. Impact fees assessed by any governmental body that exceed the value of services or facilities provided to the airport.

In addition to playing a formal legal role in reviewing and approving Airport development projects, awarding federal grants and enforcing grant assurances, the FAA plays a critical policy role in the development of any terminal project. For example, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey has made several critical policy statements that continue to shape all discussions of a new terminal, including:

These policy statements profoundly affect the shape of a potential terminal deal. In considering a terminal proposal, it is critical to understand that the FAA’s policy position toward any new terminal project will have a crucial, if not decisive, impact on the entire project. It also is critical to understand that the FAA will subject any proposal to close scrutiny and will not grant all necessary approvals just because it represents a local solution or consensus.

In addition to the FAA, a new federal agency, the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"), is likely to play an increasingly important role in any terminal project.

The TSA is charged with the challenging task of quickly imposing new security measures to protect America’s transportation system, and to reducing our transportation systems’ vulnerability to terrorist attack in future years.

The agency was formed in the aftermath of Sept. 11, and is just beginning its work. In November 2001, Congress enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act ("ATSA") establishing, in broad terms, the general goals of aviation security. Although most of ATSA deals with background checks on security personnel and in-flight security issues, it also requires increased inspection of airplane passengers, luggage and cargo. In addition, ATSA requires additional security personnel to be deployed at airports. Although these requirements are imposed on the TSA and not directly on airports, airports across the country will be required to provide the space and perhaps other infrastructure necessary to support TSA’s security functions.

At present, there is no formal role for the TSA in airport development projects. Neither is there any specific guidance as to how much space TSA will require at airports. Airports across the country are struggling to determine how to support TSA and comply with ATSA’s requirements in the absence of any formal guidance. Any airport development will have to consider security needs based on the state of TSA regulations and law at the time. A memo discussing TSA and ATSA is in Tab 10 in the background binders.

Burbank’s Control Over Land Use and Airport Development

he City of Burbank has a number of land use regulations that apply to Airport development projects, namely:

• The Land Use Element of the Burbank General Plan
• The Burbank Zoning Code
• California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6
• Measure B
• Measure A

Each is briefly described below. In addition to these City laws, the 1999 Title Transfer Agreements regarding the B-6 Property contain additional restrictions on the use of the B-6 Property, as described in Chapter 13.

In general terms, the Land Use Element provides that the existing Airport and most of the B-6 property are suitable for Airport development. However, the Land Use Element provides that Airport development be balanced against potential negative impacts from the Airport, including limits on the growth of the noise impact area, noise mitigation measures and traffic associated with the Airport. The Land Use Element also provides that the access to the Airport should be only from Hollywood Way.

In the Airport Zone, the Zoning Code permits the following uses without any discretionary approval by the City:

• Air passenger facilities
• Aircraft land fields for aircraft helicopters, runways, control towers, etc.
• Aircraft fabrication, testing and servicing
• Certain telecommunications facilities

A number of industrial and commercial uses require a conditional use permit from the City Council.

In the M-2 Zone, the Zoning Code permits a number of industrial and commercial uses without discretionary approval. ("Without discretionary approval" means the use can be approved with ministerial approval. Discretionary approvals require the review and approval of a deliberative body, like the City Council. Ministerial approvals can be granted by staff.) Additional uses require a conditional use permit from the City Council. In the M-2 Zone, however, air passenger facilities, aircraft landing fields and other Airport uses are prohibited. The Airport Authority would have to obtain express approval from the City Council through a Zone Text Amendment and/or Zone Map Amendment, in addition to complying with any other applicable City laws, in order to locate such uses in the M-2 Zone.

California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 provides, in part, that:

"Prior to the acquisition of land or any interest therein, including tide and submerged lands or other lands subject to the public trust for commerce, navigation, or fisheries, by any political subdivision for the purpose of expanding or enlarging any existing publicly owned airport, the acquiring entity shall submit a plan of such expansion or enlargement to the board of supervisors of the county, or the city council of the city, in which the property proposed to be acquired is located."

For the November 2000 election, the City Council placed the following question on the ballot:

Shall proposed Section 11-112 be added to the Burbank Municipal Code? This Section would require prior voter approval of any discretionary act of the City or agreement between the City and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority for a relocated or expanded airport terminal project in order for such act or agreement to be valid and effective.

Measure B was approved overwhelmingly. Section 11-112 of the Burbank Municipal Code was added and reads:

No approval by the City of Burbank of any agreement between the City and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority for a relocated or expanded airport terminal project, or any other discretionary act by the City relating to the approval of a relocated or expanded airport terminal project shall be valid and effective unless previously approved by the voters voting at a City election.

Measure A requires the City to give final approval of the financing or construction of an Airport terminal only upon a two-thirds affirmative vote of the electorate. In addition, Measure A prohibits the City from consenting to "the acquisition or rezoning of any new land for Airport use" nor consenting to "the financing or construction of any new, rebuilt, relocated or expanded Airport facility" before the Airport Authority satisfies 12 conditions, including:

1. A 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew
2. A cap on aircraft operations
3. A cap on passengers
4. Means to enforce the restrictions
5. A ban on non-Stage 3 aircraft
6. A sound insulation program
7. Not requiring avigation easements as a condition of providing sound insulation
8. An EIR for property it owns, leases or uses for Airport or Airport-related purposes
9. A Master Plan for all Airport property, approved by the City
10. Agreement not to lengthen or expand the runways
11. Means to pay a $5,000 fine to the City for violations
12. Agreement to reimburse the City for lost property tax revenue and other costs

There are questions about the legality of Measure A. Before the election, the City Attorney advised the City Council that several provisions of Measure A appeared to be illegal and that, as a result, Measure A might not be enforceable. Shortly after the adoption of Measure A, the Airport Authority sent a letter to the City asserting that Measure A was illegal and threatening to sue the City (and City officials) if the City attempted to enforce Measure A.

Subsequently, the Airport Authority failed to file a formal defense to the lawsuit, allowing the City to file a motion for default judgment. A hearing on the City’s motion is scheduled for June 26.

At about the same time, a Burbank resident intervened in the suit to defend the legality of Measure A. A hearing on the substantive issue of Measure A’s legality is also scheduled as part of the hearing on June 26, 2002.

The Interplay Between Local Land Use Power and FAA Control Over Airspace:
The Doctrine of Federal Preemption

n addition to understanding what powers the City, FAA and the Airport Authority possess, it is important to understand how those powers interact with each other. This is a critical issue for the City because although it has long been City policy to have a curfew and other restrictions on flight operations at the Airport, under federal law the City does not have the power to impose such restrictions. Moreover, under federal law, the Airport Authority does not have the power to impose such restrictions without FAA review and approval. Finally, the City’s ability to exercise its land use and other power may be subject to attack if it is perceived as an attempt to impose indirectly the curfew and other restrictions it cannot impose directly.

The legal doctrine of preemption governs what the City may do as opposed to what only the FAA may do. Although technical, a general understanding of this doctrine is critical to understand the legal authority of the City to regulate Airport expansion, development and operations.

The doctrine of federal preemption is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that federal law will prevail over state or local law in two instances: where Congress intended to displace state or local law, or where the state or local law conflicts with the federal law. If a local law is preempted, it is invalid.

Applying this general principle in the context of local regulation of airports and noise, courts have held that aircraft operations are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government and that local laws that directly affect aircraft operations are always preempted, including:

• Locally imposed curfews
• Bans on low-flying aircraft
• Bans on aircraft noise emissions

Indeed, in the landmark case in this area of the law, the United States Supreme Court struck down a 1971 attempt by the City of Burbank to impose a mandatory curfew on the Airport, which was then still owned by Lockheed.

Before 1990, courts allowed airport operators ¾ but not other local governments ¾ to adopt curfews and other noise rules to control aircraft noise as a means to reduce their exposure to liability from noise lawsuits. This power was not unrestricted, however, as the noise rules also had to comply with a number of other federal standards. For example Santa Monica’s attempt to ban jets was struck down even though the ban was not preempted.

In 1990, however, Congress enacted the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, described in Chapter 11, that further restricted the ability of airports to adopt new noise rules. Today, therefore, restrictions on flight operations may be adopted only pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Airport Noise and Capacity Act and the FAA’s regulations (known as Part 161) implementing that legislation. In addition, new noise restrictions must comply with all other legal requirements, including FAA grant assurances.

Indeed, most, but not all, courts have affirmed the power of local jurisdictions to exercise land use authority over new runways and heliports, even though those facilities are related directly to flight operations.

In developing any City proposal, the City must work within the limits of local power defined, even if imprecisely, by these precedents and laws:

• The City may not unilaterally impose a curfew or other noise restriction.
• The Airport Authority does not have the unilateral power to impose a curfew or other noise restriction.
• The Airport Authority must comply with the FAA’s Part 161 procedures.
• Neither the City nor the Airport Authority can, ultimately, control whether the FAA will approve or deny any Part 161 application that may be submitted.
• The more it appears that the City is attempting to control flight operations or attempting to impose indirectly those flight restrictions it cannot impose directly, the more subject to challenge the City’s actions become.

Regional Airport Issues

Because of this, the Airport Authority is not legally required to address capacity issues at other airports in the region. However, excess demand at other area airports creates pressure on the Airport Authority to meet that demand. Air carriers and other aviation users exert pressure to increase operations at the Airport and provide more facilities. Pressure also is exerted politically, as regional leaders ask the Airport Authority (and other airports) to accommodate increased traffic levels to meet regional demand for aviation services — or limit operations to reduce impacts on nearby residents. Accordingly, a general understanding of regional airport issues is an important part of the background.

In addition to SCAG, regional aviation issues are addressed by the Southern California Regional Airport Authority, a JPA like the Burbank Airport JPA, but comprised of members from the City of Los Angeles as well as the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange.

Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to the capacity of airports in the region to accommodate increased demand. Many people living near airports in the region believed that a major new airport on the site of the old U.S. Marine Corps airport at El Toro in Orange County might reduce passenger traffic at their airports, but it appears very unlikely that an El Toro airport will ever be built. Renewed passenger operations at Palmdale and increased operations at Ontario also are being discussed, and the fate of two large former Air Force bases in Riverside and San Bernardino counties is yet to be decided.

Existing Noise Mitigation, Noise Abatement and Noise Reduction Planning Measures

ne of the most contentious issues associated with current Airport operations and proposed development is noise. A glossary of noise-related terms is at the end of the Briefing Book.

In understanding airport noise and the ways to reduce the impact of airport noise, it is important to bear in mind a few basic concepts.

First, there are two basic types of noise control or reduction methods:

• Noise Abatement Measures control airplane noise by reducing noise at its source through control of aircraft operations. Examples of noise abatement measures include curfews, restrictions on aircraft type, noise budgets and caps on operations.
• Noise Mitigation Measures attempt to minimize the impact of noise without reducing the amount of noise actually created. Examples of noise mitigation measures include acoustic insulation of homes and the construction of noise barriers.

Second, because noise abatement measures affect the flight and operation of aircraft, FAA exercises considerable regulatory control over their implementation. That regulatory scheme, known as Part 161, is discussed below.

Government Code Section 6546.1 places an absolute ceiling on aircraft noise resulting from operations at the Airport. It precludes the Airport Authority from taking any action that would increase the size of the Airport’s noise impact area above its size at the time the statute was enacted (Sept. 14, 1976). The noise impact area consists of land devoted to certain noise-sensitive land uses (like housing) that are deemed incompatible with aircraft noise that is above 65 decibels, which is the Airport Noise Standard established under the California Airport Noise Regulations.

These rules have been in effect since the early 1980s, with only modest changes that do not affect their substance. Most recently, the Airport Authority increased the fines for violations of several of its noise rules. No new noise rules have been added since the early 1980s, however.

Voluntary Curfew – Although not stated as a formal noise rule, the Airport Authority has a policy that commercial air carriers should voluntarily observe a curfew from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

The success of the voluntary curfew is hard to evaluate because of the difficulty in identifying the number and type of operations that would occur in the absence of the voluntary curfew. It is true that, over the years, several operators have announced that they would start a nighttime operation only to change those plans under pressure from the City (and at times the Airport Authority). It also is true, however, that there are now, and have long been, a number of nighttime operations by air carriers.

The City actively monitors schedule changes and urges Airport users that operate at night to revise their schedules. Burbank’s policy remains that the voluntary curfew — because it is not enforceable and is ignored routinely — is inadequate to protect the community from the adverse consequences of nighttime noise.

Noise Reduction Planning Measures: The Noise Variance Process and the Airport Authority’s Noise Impact Area Reduction Plan – The California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") administers the California Aeronautics Act, which includes a process known as the noise variance process to regulate certain "noise problem airports" (like Burbank).

The Aeronautics Act establishes the California Airport Noise Standard, which prohibits noise problem airports that have a "noise impact area" (like Burbank) from operating without a noise variance. The noise impact area consists of homes, schools, hospitals, churches and similar "incompatible" uses within the area exposed to sound levels of 65 decibel CNEL or greater. (CNEL is a technical term used in the enforcement of sound ordinances. For simplicity, we will simply use "decibels" in this document.) Schools and homes that have been insulated are considered compatible and are not included in the noise impact area. The Noise Regulations require that noise problem airports eliminate the noise impact area surrounding the Airport, but do not set specific timeframes for this to occur.

In order to ensure that a noise problem airport is taking steps to reduce and eventually eliminate its noise impact, the Noise Regulations require that such airports obtain a noise variance from Caltrans every three years. In determining whether to grant a variance, which allows the airport to continue operating, Caltrans must determine that the airport has a plan in place to reduce the size of the noise impact area. Caltrans can impose conditions on a variance designed to require the airport to make progress toward eliminating the noise impact area.

At the noise variance hearing in 1998, Burbank requested that the Airport Authority develop and submit to Caltrans for approval a definite plan for the reduction and eventual elimination of the noise impact area. Caltrans granted that request, and ordered the Airport Authority to develop a Noise Impact Area Reduction Plan ("NIARP").

• Implement the proposed Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan (see below)
• File an application with the FAA for unspecified restrictions on operations at the Airport of Stage 3 jets (the newer, less noisy jets)
• Accelerate the existing home and school insulation programs
• Implement the agreement reached with the City of Burbank on a new passenger terminal (the Framework for Settlement described below)
• Continue enforcing the Airport Authority’s Noise Rules

Caltrans’ approval of the Noise Impact Area Reduction Plan, was conditional on the Airport Authority taking the following actions:

• Develop a more definitive schedule for its insulation program as soon as reasonable following FAA approval of the Noise Compatibility Plan and the Airport Authority’s applications for federal funding, and keep Burbank and Los Angeles informed of the status of those applications
• Continue to pursue a mandatory curfew and keep Caltrans, Burbank and Los Angeles informed of FAA actions regarding the associated study and its funding
• Include in its Quarterly Noise Reports information regarding the implementation of the Noise Impact Area Reduction Plan

The Noise Impact Area Reduction Plan, remains in effect and is expected to remain a condition of future noise variances.

The NEMs define the area exposed to noise levels of 65 decibels or more. There are typically three NEMs, one showing current noise exposure levels, one showing projected noise levels in five years, and one showing projected noise levels in 10 years. The NCP sets forth the ways the airport intends to address the noise problem identified in the NEMs. Both the NEMs and the NCP are reviewed and approved by the FAA. The FAA’s approval of NEMs and the NCP means only that the study satisfies the procedural requirements of Part 150; it is not approval of the specific noise mitigation or noise abatement measures proposed in the NCP. Airport operators may be required to submit subsequent applications for specific projects, prepare environmental review documents and seek grant funding. Also, since the FAA has no jurisdiction over NCP components that only can be implemented by a local government (such as zoning), the FAA’s approval signifies only that the NCP is in accordance with the standards set forth in Part 150. The local government agency is under no obligation to implement the measure simply by virtue of the FAA’s approval.

FAA approval of an NCP does pre-qualify the airport for federal grant funding to implement projects contained in it.

The FAA’s Part 161 Process and the Airport Authority’s Part 161 Study for a Curfew

ANCA contains several provisions relating to aircraft noise, including the phase out, by Dec. 31, 1999, of all aircraft certificated as Stage 2 (older, noisier planes) weighing more than 75,000 pounds. Under this rule, most airline passenger aircraft (Boeing 737s and larger) now meet Stage 3 standards and are newer, quieter planes. ANCA did not mandate the phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft weighing 75,000 pounds or less, permitting Stage 2 business jets to continue to operate.

In addition, ANCA imposed new restrictions on the ability of airports to adopt noise abatement measures. As discussed above, before ANCA, airport proprietors were permitted to adopt noise abatement measures, such as curfews and bans on certain types of aircraft even though others (such as cities near airports) were preempted from doing so. The U.S. Supreme Court endorsed this so-called "proprietor’s exception" to the preemption rule in order to allow airports to avoid liability for noise lawsuits.

ANCA restricted the proprietor’s exception in two critical ways:

• With respect to Stage 2 aircraft, an airport must complete a detailed study of the impacts of the restriction. The study is subject to FAA review for completeness, but the restriction itself is not subject to FAA review under ANCA.
• With respect to Stage 3 aircraft, an airport proprietor must complete an even more detailed study of the restriction and the FAA must approve the restriction itself.

ANCA did not eliminate noise rules in existence at the time it was enacted, however. Pre-existing noise rules are "grandfathered" under ANCA and airports are allowed to continue to enforce those rules without FAA approval and without Part 161 review. Thus, the Airport Authority’s noise rules, as well as noise rules at other airports (such as the fly-quiet procedures at John Wayne) that were in place before ANCA continue to be valid. Any new noise rules, however, and any attempt to make existing noise rules more restrictive, must be implemented under the Part 161 procedures.

In order to obtain FAA approval for a curfew or other restriction on Stage 3 aircraft, the airport operator must prove to the FAA’s satisfaction that the proposed restriction:

• Is reasonable and is not arbitrary or discriminatory
• Does not create an unreasonable burden on interstate or foreign commerce
• Is not inconsistent with maintaining the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace
• Does not conflict with a law or regulation of the United States
• Was proposed only after an adequate opportunity for public comment was provided
• Does not create an unreasonable burden on the national aviation system

The FAA has not approved any applications submitted under ANCA and Part 161 to restrict Stage 3 aircraft operations. At Burbank Airport, all air carrier traffic uses Stage 3 aircraft.

While the Airport Authority’s noise rules predate ANCA and are not subject to it, any new restriction or amendment that would make the Airport’s procedures more restrictive is subject to ANCA. This includes action to convert the existing voluntary curfew into a mandatory curfew. More generally, since all air carrier aircraft are Stage 3 aircraft, any curfew, operational cap or other noise rule that would restrict operations by air carrier aircraft at the Airport would require FAA approval under Part 161.

Although the Airport Authority initially proposed to seek approval of a curfew, a ban on all Stage 2 aircraft (including business jets) and a ban on certain noisier Stage 3 aircraft, the Airport Authority is now focusing its Part 161 Study on a curfew. It intends to revisit the need for the other restrictions after completing the Part 161 process.

The Airport Authority anticipates beginning Phase II of the Part 161 Study soon. Phase II will encompass the substantive analysis and comparison of the curfew and the alternatives. In this part of the Study the Airport Authority will complete the rigorous cost-benefit analysis of the curfew. Following the completion of Phase II, the Airport Authority will finalize its application and submit it to the FAA for approval. At present, the Airport Authority does not have a timetable for completion of the Part 161 Study.

As is evident from the rigorous substantive requirements of the Part 161 regulations, completion of the Part 161 Study by no means assures that the FAA will approve the curfew. Moreover, the historic opposition by the FAA (and the airlines) to curfews and other operational restrictions makes it likely that the FAA will subject the Airport Authority’s Part 161 Study to rigorous, critical review. Any consideration of a curfew (or other restriction on Stage 3 aircraft) must take these factors into account.

Efforts to Relocate the Airport Terminal

ver since Lockheed decided to sell the Airport in 1976, the issue of the Airport’s future has sparked controversy. Although the initial controversy was over whether and how to keep the Airport open, subsequent controversy has centered on noise and expansion issues. Over the past 10 years, the focus of controversy has been the Airport Authority’s desire to build a new terminal on the B-6 Property.

The current situation is, to a significant degree, shaped by the issues raised in context of the B-6 property proposal. It is therefore important to summarize the Airport Authority’s proposal, the resulting litigation and, in particular, the terms by which that litigation was resolved.

In the 25 years since the Airport was first brought under public ownership, the Airport Authority has proposed and adopted several different terminal relocation plans. Although other locations have been considered, the Airport Authority’s preferred plan has always been to relocate the terminal onto property known as the B-6 Property (the site of Lockheed’s former plant No. B-6).

In 1984, a plan to relocate the terminal to a relatively small parcel on the B-6 Property was abandoned after the Airport Authority learned that Lockheed did not wish to sell the property. The Airport Authority subsequently developed a new plan to build an expanded passenger terminal on land it already owned on the west side of the Airport. When Lockheed announced in 1990 that it intended to close its Burbank facilities and wished to sell the B-6 Property, the Airport Authority immediately took steps to revise its terminal expansion plan and began development of a plan involving acquisition and use of the entire 140-acre B-6 parcel west of Hollywood Way.

Environmental Review (1993-1996) – Two environmental review documents were prepared to study the Airport Authority’s plan to build a passenger terminal on the B-6 Property: a state Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the Airport Authority, and federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the FAA. Although the new terminal was promoted and justified as a safety project, the plan involved constructing a new terminal significantly larger than the existing terminal: a 27-gate, 670,000- square-foot terminal, compared to the current 14-gate, 165,000-square-foot terminal.

A basic assumption in the Airport Authority’s EIR is that passenger demand, not airport facilities, controls airport activity. This assumption was based largely upon evidence from other airports that passengers will tolerate decreasing levels of service if the airport is convenient and the air carriers provide flights on favorable schedules. Thus, the Airport Authority projected that the proposed terminal replacement project would not induce more passengers or flights beyond what would occur if no new terminal were built.

This assumption was challenged in court by the City of Los Angeles, and the court ordered the Airport Authority to supplement the EIR to consider the possibility that the present terminal would act as a constraint on airport activity if a new terminal was not constructed. The Airport Authority prepared a supplemental EIR, and the Superior Court held that the document was sufficient.

The FAA’s Environmental Impact Statement was issued in September 1995 and approved in March 1996. The cities of Burbank and Los Angeles also challenged the FAA’s approval of the EIS. The basis for the cities’ challenge was that the FAA had failed to analyze adequately the environmental impacts of the project and failed to comply with certain requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. In affirming that the FAA had fulfilled adequately its responsibilities under federal environmental laws, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals deferred to the FAA’s expertise in aviation matters. In particular, the court accepted the FAA’s position that a larger terminal would not induce additional demand for air travel, but would only accommodate growth that would occur with or without the terminal.

City’s Response to Airport Authority’s Plan (1995-1999) – The Airport Authority’s efforts to move forward with the proposed plan met significant opposition from Burbank. This opposition took two forms. First, the development and release of a number of policy statements outlining the City’s vision of how a new terminal could be built that would protect residents from the impacts of the project. Second, the City pursued litigation to stop the Airport Authority’s proposed B-6 terminal.

As the City Council focused increased attention on the Airport, it made a concerted effort to establish, refine and present its policy position. The central theme of each policy statement is:

While the City does not oppose the relocation of the passenger terminal, it will not accept a terminal that accommodates unconstrained growth in air traffic without adequate and guaranteed mitigation of future impacts.

The first of these statements came in the form of a resolution known as the Ten-Point Resolution regarding the development of the new terminal (City of Burbank Resolution No. 24,578). The City Council issued two other important policy statements: the "Vision Statement" and a 15-point guidance document.

The City was involved in multiple lawsuits between 1996 and 1999 concerning the Airport, and the Airport has been involved litigation in addition to those legal actions between it and the City. Following many other cases, two pieces of litigation converged in 1999 to make a resolution of the dispute over a new passenger terminal more feasible than at nearly any time in the dispute’s 30-year history.

The first of these cases was the City’s suit in state court to prevent the Airport Authority from moving forward with the acquisition of the B-6 property until it had received City approval, as required under Section 21661.6 of the PUC Code. The City believed the Airport Authority could not legally acquire the B-6 Property because in 1996 Burbank had denied the Airport Authority’s application under Section 21661.6 to use the property. The Airport Authority disputed that, taking the position that Section 21661.6 was preempted by federal law and that the City had transferred its Section 21661.6 powers to the Airport Authority through the JPA.

The second critical case was the Airport Authority’s suit to condemn the B-6 Property. Even as the first lawsuit in process, the Airport Authority was negotiating with Lockheed to acquire the B-6. When negotiations proved unsuccessful, the Airport Authority went to court to condemn the property in 1996. In 1997, a state court judge ruled that the Airport Authority could take possession of the B-6 Property at its own risk. The Court restricted the authorized use of the property to demolition and grading (which had been initiated by Lockheed and permitted by the City), and to then use the lot for temporary, overflow parking. Because the Section 21661.6 litigation was pending, the court made clear that the Airport Authority’s ability to acquire and use the B-6 Property may be limited.

The court’s admonition proved true when the California Court of Appeal upheld the City’s power under Section 21661.6. The Airport Authority was placed in an awkward position because it could not abandon the condemnation action without paying several million dollars in damages but could not proceed with acquiring the property without City approval. The City voluntarily entered into discussions with the Airport Authority to address this dilemma.

Members of the negotiating teams for the two sides signed the Framework, but it was never a final agreement that was binding upon the City and the Airport Authority. Rather, the Framework established the process and requirements for a final agreement. It identified a three-phase approach to developing a relocated passenger terminal, and included actions the Airport Authority would have to take prior to the construction of each phase. Components of the three phases included the following:

Phase I

• Construction of 14 gate passenger terminal no larger than 330,000 square feet
• Provide no more than 5,000 parking spaces west of Hollywood Way
• Nighttime closure of passenger terminal
• Strict enforcement of airport noise rules
• Begin a Part 161 study to evaluate a mandatory nighttime curfew
• Payments to the City in lieu of taxes
• Other mitigation payments

Phase III

• Expand terminal to 19 gates and no larger than 430,000 square feet
• Add 2,000 parking spaces
• Eliminate noise impact area
• Reach an agreement with City on annual cap on the number of enplanements

The Framework was never approved by the City Council as a whole and the City and the Airport Authority were never able to reach a final, binding agreement.

One particular difficulty in reaching a final agreement was the position taken by the FAA on the legality of the Framework. After detailed scrutiny of the Framework, the FAA reached several conclusions."

• The FAA asserted that the Airport Authority could not close the terminal at night without first obtaining FAA approval
• The FAA claimed that the City’s ability to impose restrictions on the terminal project was extremely limited

• The Airport Authority was limited in its ability to transfer money to the City to compensate for the impacts of Airport operations.

In large measure due to the positions taken by the FAA, and despite lengthy negotiations, an agreement that would satisfy these concerns was not attained. As a result, the deadline for finalizing a Development Agreement passed, meaning the Airport Authority’s ability to use the B-6 Property is governed by the Title Transfer Documents described in the next chapter.

The Title Transfer Agreements’ Restrictions on the Use of the B-6 Property

The City Council approved the Airport Authority’s acquisition of the Adjacent Property pursuant to Section 21661.6, subject to the following conditions:

• That no structures be built on the Adjacent Property within the Building Restriction Line;

• That the only permitted uses of the Adjacent Property were those temporary, historic uses (such as temporary overflow parking) as specified in a Stipulated Court Order entered in 1997; and

• No portion of the Adjacent Property could be used for any construction or development project to expand or enlarge the Airport until the City and the Airport Authority signed a Development Agreement regarding the construction of a relocated passenger terminal.

The Trust Property was transferred to a Trustee upon the condition that it could be transferred to the Airport Authority if the parties signed a Development Agreement. If the parties could not negotiate a Development Agreement by May 24, 2000, the Trustee was required to transfer the Property only to the City or a third party, but in no event could the property be used for Airport expansion. The Agreements also provided that the Airport Authority could continue to make temporary use of the Trust Property for demolition and temporary, overflow parking as agreed to by the parties in 1997.

Following the collapse of the Framework, the Airport Authority retained a real estate broker to market the Trust Property for sale. In late September 2001, the Airport Authority requested that it be allowed to suspend marketing of the property until the Airport’s finances and the real estate market both stabilized. The City agreed.

The Title Transfer Agreements continue to restrict development on the B-6 Property. In essence, the Airport Authority may not use the B-6 Property to enlarge or expand the Airport without Burbank’s express approval. The City may, of course, agree to amend the Title Transfer Agreements in order to permit some development. For example, staff has preliminarily recommended that the City Council agree to such amendments in order to allow the Airport Authority to move Airport parking lots A and B out of FAA-defined runway safety areas to the Adjacent Property. Absent such approval, however, the Airport Authority may use the Trust or Adjacent Property only as specified in the Title Transfer Agreements.

Post-Framework Efforts to Reach an Agreement

he Title Transfer Agreements and the Court of Appeal’s confirmation of the City’s Section 21661.6 powers continue to provide the legal framework for discussions over a new terminal on the B-6 Property. Within that context, there have been several attempts in the past two years to reach an agreement on a new terminal. In addition, the Airport Authority has considered locating a new terminal on property other than the B-6 Property.

Because these proposals form the immediate background for the current effort to reach a solution, they are briefly summarized here.

While the terms of the Framework proved unworkable, the City Council continued to search for creative solutions that would allow terminal relocation with adequate protection of community interests. To this end, the City Council released the Outline of Terms in June 2000.

On July 31, 2001, the Airport Authority issued its own Principles for Airport and Terminal Development Issues. The Airport Authority’s principles differed from the City’s in several important respects:

• The Airport Authority characterized itself as a "separate, independent agency"
• The Airport Authority committed to prepare a second Part 161 study to consider an alternative curfew, in the event that the FAA rejected the Airport Authority’s application for a 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew

The cities of Glendale and Pasadena also have expressed a reluctance to participate in these discussions, citing a need for Burbank and the Airport Authority to resolve remaining issues.

It is not clear from the Airport Authority’s presentation and recent statements whether the Security Enhancement Plan would obviate the need for a new terminal, or whether this is a short-term project designed to meet only immediate needs. The Airport Authority has not yet submitted a formal application for approval of any part of the Plan.

Glossary of Terms

Air Carriers – The commercial airlines. Burbank Airport is served by several air carriers, of which Southwest Airlines is the largest, serving almost two-thirds of the passengers at the airport. Other carriers are United, Alaska, American, America West and Aloha. Most all commercial service at Burbank Airport uses 737 aircraft, which by federal law, comply with the most stringent "stage 3" noise standards

Airport Design Guidelines – The design and layout of airports is not regulated by the federal government. The FAA has published, however, a set of guidelines that represent the industry’s assessment of the manner in which airports should be designed for optimize safety and operational efficiency. These design guidelines include all the essential elements of an airport: runways, taxiways, terminals, aprons, access roads, safety zones and the like. The FAA strongly encourages airports to acquire land and redesign their facilities to comply with these guidelines.

B-6 Property – The large vacant parcel along Hollywood Way adjacent to the Airport. This is the parcel on which a replacement terminal would be built. The B-6 Property was so-named because it is the site of the former Lockheed aircraft manufacturing plant by that name. The B-6 Property consists of two parcels. Airport Authority owns approximately one-third of the B-6 Property, a parcel that is adjacent to the existing runways (often called the

"Adjacent Property"). The remaining portion of the B-6 Property is held by a trustee (hence its name, the "Trust Property") who was designated by the Authority and the City to hold the property until it is sold or the Authority and the City reach an agreement on a replacement terminal.

Building Restriction Line or BRL – An area around the runways of an airport within which current FAA Airport Design Guidelines recommend that no structures be located. At the Airport, the BRL is located 750 feet from the center of the runways. The Airport terminal and other Airport facilities were built before the BRL was established, and are located within the BRL.

Burbank, City of – Most of the airport property (including the terminal) is located in the City (a portion is in the City of Los Angeles). Court decisions have established that Burbank has authority to control land uses relative to the airport, such as approving the construction of a terminal. The City is not the proprietor or the operator of the airport. As a result, under federal law, the City cannot control aircraft operations (when and how aircraft use the airport) or airport operational decisions (how to serve users of the airport).

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority – A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) created by the Cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena. The Authority is a separate legal entity that was delegated the power by the three cities to administer and operate the airport. The Authority is controlled by the three cities jointly through appointment of Commissioners — three from each city. While the three cities retain ultimate control over the Authority, it is the Authority and not the three cities that is considered to be the airport owner and that has the powers to control how the airport is operated.

California Department of Transportation – Caltrans assigns and administers the state noise regulations. The most important of these regulations is the one that prohibits airports from having a "Noise Impact Area" in which there are residential or other incompatible uses. This regulation allows Caltrans to grant noise variances for airports who cannot meet this standard. Every airport that receives a variance must demonstrate, every three years, what actions it has taken and is taking to reduce the size of the airport’s Noise Impact Area.

CNEL – Community Noise Equivalent Level. This is the metric that is used for measuring noise in the vicinity of airports for purposes of the noise variance process. The method of calculating noise is set by California law and follows the methodology required by federal law. The CNEL represents an annual average of single noise events. In compiling this average, overflights in the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) and evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) are given additional weight in order to account for the fact that those flights tend to be more disruptive than overflights in the daytime. Maps are often prepared to show CNEL contours to show areas that are adversely affected by airport noise. The Noise Impact Area under California law is defined to consist of all residential areas (and other noise-sensitive land uses) exposed to noise in excess of 65 decibels CNEL (often abbreviated 65 CNEL).

Curfew – A type of noise rule that limits on the time of airport operations. Traditionally, curfews are designed to limit (or prohibit) nighttime operations. Burbank Airport currently operates under a voluntary curfew that restricts flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Authority is presently preparing a Part 161 Study to determine whether to impose a mandatory curfew.

Federal Aviation Administration or FAA – The FAA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation tasked with managing the national aviation system. The FAA regulates all activity in the air and sets guidelines for how airports are built and managed. The FAA also provides substantial financial assistance for capital projects at airports. Airports, like Burbank, that receive federal grant assistance, are bound by a contract with the FAA to comply with a detailed list of assurances that set forth how the airport operates and subject the airport to federal regulation.

Glendale, City of – One of the three cities that appoints commissioners to the Airport Authority Commission.

Los Angeles, City of – Los Angeles has no formal role in the operation or governance of the Airport Authority. It is, however, noteworthy that a portion of the Airport lies within the City of Los Angeles, and a substantial number of Los Angeles homes are located within the Noise Impact Area. Three members of the Los Angeles City Council recently proposed that Los Angeles be given one seat on the Airport Authority Commission.

Measure A – Measure A is an initiative sponsored by the Committee to Restore Our Airport Rights ("ROAR") and approved by the voters of Burbank in October 2001. It imposes strict requirements on the City and the Authority before the City can approve Airport construction projects. Shortly after the measure was approved, the City filed suit seeking a judicial declaration of whether Measure A violates state law. A hearing on the case is scheduled for June 26, 2002.

Measure B – A measure approved by the voters in 2000 which requires voter approval of any agreement between the City and the Airport Authority for a relocated or expanded airport terminal. The measure was referred to the voters by the City Council.

Noise Budget – A type of noise rule that limits the total amount of noise produced at an airport. Budgets are used because they give considerable flexibility to change the types and times of operations as the needs of airport users change. Budgets are often extremely complex because they must provide for an equitable allocation of noise among the various types of airport users. The legality of a budget is a function of its practical effect on actual airport operations.

Noise Cap – A type of noise rule that imposes an absolute limit on the number of passengers or flights at an airport. Caps are strongly discouraged because of the lack of flexibility or adaptability to changing times. While there are a handful of airports that have valid caps in place, no new cap has been adopted for at least a dozen years and, under current federal law, it appears unlikely that a new cap would survive legal scrutiny.

Noise Impact Area – This is defined by California law be the area around an airport that is exposed to noise in excess of 65 CNEL (see the definition of "CNEL" above) and is used for what are known as "incompatible land uses." Incompatible land uses generally are residences, schools, and similar noise-sensitive uses. The Noise Impact Area does not include any homes that have received sound insulation because such homes are deemed, by California law, to be compatible with airport noise once they have been insulated. The Noise Impact Area is measured in acres. The Noise Impact Area is not the same as the area affected by airport noise.

Noise Rules – These are rules that are designed to reduce the amount of noise that is generated at an airport by regulating aircraft operations. The Airport Authority has in place a number of noise rules designed to limit operations by the noisiest aircraft and to encourage quieter flying procedures by most aircraft. Noise rules can be adopted only by an airport proprietor (the Airport Authority) and not by the FAA or the City of Burbank. However, new rules can only be adopted by following the complicated Part 161 process (including, in most instances, FAA approval).

Noise Variance – Under California law, the Airport Authority must have a noise variance to operate the airport because there are residential areas within its Noise Impact Area. The latest variance was issued more than three years ago; Caltrans, which administers the noise variance process, held a hearing in May to consider the Airport Authority’s application for a new three-year noise variance. A decision can be expected this autumn.

Part 150 Program – Part 150 of the FAA regulations sets forth a voluntary planning program for airports to engage in planning to achieve land use compatibility between the airport and its neighbors. A Part 150 Study is a study, undertaken by an airport owner, designed to identify land use and operational measures to reduce noise and make land uses near the airport compatible with airport noise levels. Completion of a Part 150 Study makes an airport eligible to receive federal grant funds for purchasing or sound-insulating homes. The Airport Authority’s Part 150 Study was approved by the FAA in 2000.

Part 161 Study – Taking its name from a Part 161 of the FAA regulations, this is a study that an airport owner must undertake in most cases before it can adopt a new mandatory noise rule. The Part 161 regulations set forth a complicated and time-consuming process for preparation of a study, public comment and review of the study and, in certain instances, FAA review and approval. The Airport Authority committed in 1999 to pursue a Part 161 Study with the objective of imposing a mandatory nighttime curfew. The Airport Authority has completed the first part of the Part 161 Study, which is a forecast of aviation activity at the airport. The next step is for the Authority to identify and analyze available alternatives.

Pasadena, City of – One of the three cities that appoints commissioners to the Airport Authority Commission.

Preemption – Preemption is a legal principle that says that the U.S. Constitution and federal law are superior to state and local law. Under this principle, if the U.S. Congress has passed a law on a subject, it supercedes any contradictory state or local law. In this context, preemption is important because there are many federal aviation laws and regulations that govern how airports are operated. In many instances, these laws limit the ability of the state of California or the City of Burbank to adopt laws that affect the Burbank Airport.

Section 21661.6 – This is a section of the California Public Utilities Code that provides that, before an airport proprietor can acquire land for expanding or enlarging the airport, it must receive the approval of the local governing authority (the City of Burbank in this case). That approval must set forth a plan for the proposed use of the property; any changes in those proposed uses requires subsequent City approval. A complete copy of Section 21661.6 is attached at Tab 9.

Section 6546.1 – This section of California’s Government Code establishes a ceiling on the noise impacts at the Burbank Airport. The law prohibits the Airport Authority from taking any action that would increase the size of the Airport’s Noise Impact Area above its size at the time the statute was enacted in 1976. The Noise Impact Area is today substantially smaller than it was in 1976.

Southern California Association of Governments – SCAG is the group primarily responsible for regional aviation planning in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The latest Regional Transportation Plan has been controversial because of it proposes an allocation of traffic among airports that assumes that El Toro will be built as an airport and proposes more passenger traffic at Burbank Airport than the City of Burbank believes is appropriate.

Southern California Regional Airport Authority – A Joint Powers Authority that is charged with addressing regional aviation issues. While the SCRAA does not own or operate any airport, its members include representatives from the City of Los Angeles, as well as the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange.

Title Transfer Agreements (or B-6 Property Agreements) – These are a series of agreements between the City and the Airport Authority in November 1999 that set forth how the B-6 Property can be used. Most importantly, these agreements define whether, when, and under what conditions, the Airport Authority can build a new replacement terminal on the B-6 Property.

Transportation Security Administration or TSA – A new federal agency formed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001. The TSA is tasked with increasing and guarding the safety of the United States’ transportation infrastructure, including airports. One of its initial directives is to establish a system for screening all commercial aircraft passenger baggage. This requirement becomes effecting at the end of 2002 and is forcing airports around the country, including Burbank, to redesign their terminals to accommodate new security equipment and personnel.

Trust Property – See discussion of "B-6 Property."