The Plan Evaluation and Review Committee (PERC) was formed by the City Council of the City of Burbank in light of the concerns related to the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport (airport), and tasked 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. PERC included 16 members, primarily Burbank citizens with a wide range of perspectives whose mandate was to examine the issues/impacts raised by City staff personnel and evaluate the use of the City's authorization of a new replacement terminal within those issues as a device to obtain restraint/mitigation of the impacts.

Complaints voiced by citizens and an organization representing the interests of certain citizens (Restore Our Airport Rights -- ROAR) along with substantial dissention as to the alleged actions of the City Council have reflected an environment of turmoil, distrust and legal disputes. Hence, PERC has become an entity independent of existing governmental and citizen's organization to study information concerning the airport, its operations, its impacts and possible methods of resolving those impacts.

PERC held some 16 meetings (lasting several hours each) over more than two months hearing from representatives of the airport, the Airport Authority that operates as a management board of the airport, citizens, representatives of ROAR, South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), members of the City Councils of Burbank, Los Angeles, and Pasadena, experts in the areas of air pollution, traffic management, noise and legal issues.

In general, PERC found that there are many assumptions and beliefs that are inaccurate and/or incomplete, as well as an entire range of facts and information that had not been considered previously in this type of comprehensive forum. In addition, individuals and entities had become so involved in the airport dispute as to lose perspective, emphasizing seeking relief only from the FAA, and failing to appreciate that there were alternative means of remedy from impacts. As a result, there have been assumptions that certain goals were either the only ones available, only ones achievable and that would resolve the concerns of Burbank's citizens.

As much as this Report is designed to identify what issues are at the heart of the dispute, offer methodologies and priorities related to the impacts of the airport. This Report also seeks to alleviate the misconceptions, misunderstandings and misinformation that exists as to the airport, remedies and obligations/relationships of those connected with or involved with the airport. Finally, this Report also seeks to focus on the fundamental factors impacting the citizens of Burbank and then addressing possible remedies and methodology to mitigate those impacts.

PERC has come to realize that the airport, whatever the terminal facility, will have increased flight operations and number of passengers, as well as expansion of cargo and general aviation operations, so as to continue to impact the citizens of Burbank and neighboring areas. Unfortunately, the best possible outcome is to maintain the status quo of impacts and limiting their increase. The airport will grow over the next decades and the question will become how to limit such growth, if possible, and manage the impacts that growth will have on the community.

While the community has focused upon remedies (curfew, caps on flights or passengers, noise budget), the fundamental elements that must first be defined are the impacts upon the community. PERC has identified three clear impacts: (1) noise (both nighttime and daytime); (2) pollution; and (3) traffic. Unfortunately, no one single remedy will alleviate all three impacts. For example, a curfew will eliminate virtually all nighttime noise, but will provide no remedy as to daytime noise, pollution or traffic. Similarly, caps on flights/passengers may limit growth, but will not specifically address the most onerous impact -- nighttime noise.

The considered opinion of PERC is that, prior to any agreement by the City to allow a new 14-gate replacement terminal building, there must be in place an enforceable mandatory curfew as to all nighttime flight operations and some form of additional restriction to hinder the scope of growth and mitigate its impact-- either within the authority of the FAA and/or remedies that is outside of the authority of the FAA. A significant majority has found that it is necessary to consider whether remedies may exist within the context of maintaining the existing terminal. A minority of PERC strongly believes that the focus of the Committee was to evaluate a method to address the issues within the context of a replacement airport terminal.

The current passenger terminal has certain inefficiencies and operational restraints (such as type of aircraft operating in conjunction with this present terminal) that will maintain the airport as a regional, commuter facility for the foreseeable future. The proposed new terminal building will not have the same inefficiencies or limitations on capacity and will be able to handle much larger passenger aircraft. Hence, one of the values of a new terminal to the airport/FAA is expansion of commercial airline passenger operations, numbers of passengers and range of cities that can be serviced directly -- beyond the increase available with the present terminal. Thus, a new airport terminal could change the very nature of this facility from a regional/commuter airport to a facility that can service the entire nation.

A significant portion of flight operations, including virtually all late night/early morning flights, are by cargo and general aviation, not commercial airline operations. In fact, cargo and general aviation operators do not use the airport passenger terminal and would not be affected the construction of a new passenger terminal. Of further concern, there are projections that cargo flight operations will substantially increase in the future -- regardless of any existing or new terminal building.

Most of the comments from the public to PERC reflected fear and anger -- fear of the future and anger at a real sense of unfairness by the airport and anyone associated with the airport, including staff and elected members of Burbank's government. While commercial airplanes have grown quieter over the years, the emotions voiced are founded upon the perspective of a jet plane's engine noise as it passes over our heads, the pollution we find layering on our cars and the traffic stoplights that we must now sit through. The present situation is seen as intolerable and is likely to become worse, no matter what mitigation measures may be adopted.

The airport exists to serve its customers (aircraft operators and users). The FAA's goal is safety and enhancing the national air system. Glendale and Pasadena, Burbank's partners in the airport's governing body, see financial benefit from the airport to their citizens and have provided no substantive support in helping with the impacts on the City and its citizens. While approaching the airport, FAA and our sister cities, Burbank must act in an aggressive manner to protect its citizens and achieve mitigation of impacts on its own without expectation of help.

Thus, PERC urges that non-FAA remedies and controls be sought and obtained. Such remedies and methods do exist. However, given that the City's approval is the only element of leverage as to the airport and the FAA, the City’s approval should not be given without significant, meaningful and enforceable remedies in place prior to such approval, i.e., more than just a curfew.

Finally, PERC also wants to recognize that the existing terminal building is outdated and poorly designed for modern travel in many ways. While many spoke to PERC affectionately of the terminal building's history and quaintness, a new terminal building would be designed as a modern facility with jet ways to/from airplanes to avoid the necessity of climbing stairways and capable of accommodating disabled passengers. Obviously, a new terminal built to meet the current FAA standards for setback from runways would be safer, as well as more efficient and better able to provide services to passengers and airlines. The new terminal would enhance the image of Burbank and provide a measure of additional pride for its citizens in such a facility. However, unless the City obtains sufficient mitigation of noise, pollution, and traffic, all of these benefits fail to justify the burden upon the citizens of Burbank.

As a result of meetings, presentations and evaluation of information, PERC had developed the following specific findings and recommendations.

• In order to get FAA approval for every restraint at the airport on aviation operations, a Part 161 study must be initiated by the Airport Authority and any form of restriction must apply to all aircraft and cannot discriminate.
• The Airport can continue to use the existing terminal while the Airport Authority seeks Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) approval of only a mandatory curfew based on an ongoing Part 161 study which may be completed towards the end of 2003
• No single FAA-dependant restraint (e.g., curfew, cap on operations, cap on passengers, noise budget) will reliably mitigate all the negative impacts of either the existing or replacement terminals
• In order to get FAA approval for any additional restraint at the airport beyond a curfew, a new Part 161 study must be initiated by the Airport Authority
• The FAA’s mandate is to support and expand aviation operations in the United States and increase safety in the national air transport system, not to protect communities from noise.
• While the FAA and the Airport Authority believe the terminal/runway configuration can be safer, neither FAA nor the Airport has declared the facility "unsafe."
• While many consider the present terminal to be uncomfortable and antiquated, the terminal does function and there were some comments from the public urging that there was certain quaintness about the aged facility.
• The PERC was in complete consensus that Burbank will experience increased Airport operations in the future, with or without a replacement terminal, unless restraints are implemented.
• The present terminal has existing capacity restraints that to some extent could limit future growth, but we cannot solely rely on these inherent restraints to keep the Airport’s impact from reaching a level that could become hypothetical "intolerable" level at some point in the future.
• Unless restraints are implemented, airline flight operations at a replacement terminal will likely increase at a greater rate then at the existing terminal.
• Nighttime noise is among the top complaints by Burbank residents.
• Cargo and general aviation flights are the biggest offenders of the current voluntary nighttime curfew in effect at the airport.
• Cargo and general aviation operations do not utilize the passenger terminal, so the operators of these aircraft would not benefit from a replacement terminal and would not consider a replacement terminal as any kind of incentive for agreeing to restrict their operations. Moreover, the inefficiencies of the present terminal will have no effect on increases on cargo and general aviation operations.
• With either the present or replacement terminal building, no matter how successful Burbank is in achieving restraints on the airport, the levels of impacts on the quality of life of Burbank citizens will not likely be reduced in the future.

• While the existing terminal is in place, "external" restraints on the airport’s negative impact on the community must be explored, including the Part 161 Study on a curfew currently in process.
• Of the potential FAA-dependent mitigations, PERC felt that the most desirable, effective and achievable restriction is a curfew on nighttime aircraft operations, with significant financial penalties for violations. A majority of PERC felt that the curfew should be in effect from 10 PM to 7 AM, while some members felt it inappropriate to be that specific in our recommendations.
• The next most desirable, effective and feasible restriction on operations would be a noise budget, based on measurable noise impacts throughout the city. The noise expert emphasized that noise impacts are subjective as to each individual. Thus, one tool in creating a budget would have to be a public poll of Burbank residents relating to the degree and nature of annoyance they experience from the current airport noise events and noise levels. A noise budget must also be based on independent and objective measurements of actual airport noise at significant locations around the airport and in the city as a whole.
• PERC judged that "caps" on number of flights and "caps" on number of passengers are the least achievable mitigations, based on the FAA’s chief mandate and its reluctance to restrict air operations.
• Whether or not the current Part 161 Study results in FAA approval of a curfew, PERC recommends that the City pursue an "impact mitigation package" including a selection of non-FAA-dependent mitigation efforts, discussed below.
• Burbank's voters must approve any replacement terminal.
• Before Burbank approves the use of the B6 property for a replacement terminal, at least an enforceable curfew must be approved by the FAA, plus other enforceable restrictions on adverse impacts to the community.
• In the development agreement with the Airport Authority, Burbank should require that the Airport Authority initiate Part 161 Studies for additional FAA-approved mitigation measures, and otherwise undertake mitigation efforts at such time as the Airport experiences specific percentage increases in total number of flight operations and/or number of passengers based upon an established base line, as well as possible triggering threshold as to noise, pollution and/or traffic.
• A new replacement terminal constructed on the B-6 property must be limited to14 gates
• The City must educate its citizens and others affected by the airport on airport issues and the City’s approach to controlling the negative impacts.

Although much of the discussion in the PERC meetings centered on tactics such as curfew or caps, the Committee determined the necessity first to identify the specific problems that the Airport causes the community. The Committee believes that the burdens on the community can be defined by three fundamental elements:

• Noise
• Traffic
• Air pollution.

PERC has developed recommendations and methodologies to address each of these issues.

A minority of the Committee urged inclusion of a fourth factor -- the economic impact of the Airport upon the community. Public comment raised points about the airport’s negative impact on residential property values and possible contribution to the city’s business climate. While the Committee agreed that negative impact on property values in Burbank is a significant consequence of noise, pollution and traffic, this report will not address economic impact as such. In the same way, we have not addressed other consequences of noise, pollution and traffic, such as sleep loss, student learning problems or higher energy bills in sound-proofed buildings. PERC did agree, however, that economic impacts should be considered in the City’s final strategy for solving the current Airport impasse.

As this Report explains, there are substantial misunderstandings, rumors, hearsay and apathy that swirl around the airport, its operations and its effect upon the community. Moreover, there is a deep distrust by many in the community of anyone directly or indirectly connected with the airport, including virtually all governmental entities, such as Burbank's own City Council. Thus, this Report seeks to provide some clarification of such issues, while providing information that helped PERC arrive at its conclusions.

Burbank Airport opened on Memorial Day, 1930. As the photographs of the occasion reflect, the initial building is the current Tower Terminal that was surrounded by bi-planes; even the largest Army Air Corp two-engine bombers present were still bi-planes. The airport was born in the age of fabric covered bi-planes, evolved through the decades as it accommodated two-engine, single wing DC-3s, the military aircraft of World War II, four-engine propeller airliners and finally multiple iterations of jet aircraft – with essentially the same facility, only slightly modified and expanded.

When Burbank Airport opened, there apparently were some 50 air fields in the Los Angeles area. From earliest times to the mid-‘30s and even into the opening days of WWII, airplanes needed only a fairly flat field for operations.

However, Burbank Airport served as a major stop for airlines to the Los Angeles area. For a time, the Airport was owned and operated by a company that evolved into an airline, United Airlines, and an aircraft manufacturer, Boeing Aircraft.

The airport served not only as an airline depot, but also as a starting point for various noted aviators, such as Amelia Earhart, as well a location for Hollywood films (watch the exterior in the windows of the airplane in "Bright Eyes" as Shirley Temple sings the "Good Ship Lollipop" to see the Burbank hills).

In the 1930s, Lockheed purchased the airport as part of its manufacturing operations in anticipation of orders flowing from the European conflict. During the Second World War, the airport was heavily camouflaged and produced aircraft as part of the Allies’ struggle. Every year, vintage B-17 and B-24 aircraft visit the airport – with no mufflers or other sound retardants these multi-engine aircraft literally shook the ground as they took off. The flights of military aircraft leaving for war service must have caused an extraordinary, thunderous sound. However, some of the public mentioned that they felt it had been their patriotic duty to accept such conditions.

Far from considering the Burbank Airport a nuisance, Lockheed employees desired to live near their places of work, because of wartime rationing and restrictions, as well as convenience. In response to this demand, many single-family homes were constructed around the Lockheed's airport-based facilities.

During the late 1970s, when Lockheed faced financial troubles and found the airport to be a financial liability, it offered the airport for sale. At that time, fearing a new owner's control of air operations could work against the interests of the community, the City government made strong efforts to persuade the citizens to purchase the facility. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), fearing the control of a single city over a part of the national air system, urged that other cities participate in the control of the airport. Pasadena and Glendale joined (and apparently the cities of Los Angeles and San Fernando considered joining but declined). An act of the State Legislature established a Joint Powers Act (JPA) to allow the three cities through the JPA to control and operate the airport. Thus, the City of Burbank does not own or control the airport; rather it is "owned" by the JPA.

Speakers at PERC meetings mentioned promises made at that time about having a measure of control over the airport as part of persuading the Burbank citizens to approve the purchase. However, the JPA spread the power by establishing a nine member Airport Commission with each city having three commissioners. No provision was made to allow the host-city Burbank to have any additional protections under the JPA. As a result, the votes of the six members of the non-host cities of Pasadena and Glendale often have overridden the needs and desires of the citizens and community of Burbank.

According to the JPA, each Commissioner sits at the pleasure of his or her city council. Burbank's City Council has been pro-active in advising its Commissioners on policy issues affecting Burbank, while Pasadena and Glendale have chosen a hands-off position. As a result, certain Commissioners from the two cities have a longevity (one from the inception of the Commission) that clearly creates an independence from the cities, allegiance to the airport and the political confidence to be indifferent to their cities' policies. For example, until recently, Commissioners from Pasadena and Glendale generally rejected consideration of a curfew. But as it became prudent for the airport to accept a curfew to obtain a replacement terminal, the Commissioners have altered their positions.

The airport must by law operate as a not-for-profit entity, charging only fees/rents sufficient to maintain and operate the airport. The airport can only use the income for airport-related purposes. Because the airport is largely situated within the boundaries of Burbank, the City does receive tax revenue from airport parking, sales tax from vendors at the Airport and unsecured property tax on aircraft based the airport. While the sum the City receives from these sources is significant, it is only a small part of the City's total revenues.

All three cities receive the benefit of the airport by way of business from, to and generated by the airport. Both the Airport Authority and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) emphasize that air travel and cargo operations create significant indirect and secondary revenues for the region, including the three cities. Proximity to the airport induces businesses to locate within a convenient distance from it and provides convenient access to cargo transport. The airport is a source of business for companies that serve the airport’s operations.

Unfortunately, while it was initially envisioned that the three cities and their Airport Commissioners would work in a cooperative manner, the reality is quite different. Pasadena and Glendale view the airport as an engine that helps drive their economy, but are little affected by airport operations, since they experience virtually no adverse impacts in their communities. Until recently, these two cities have disregarded the interests of Burbank and the impact on Burbank's citizens.

However, the JPA does include specific limitations upon the airport. The runways cannot be lengthened and the Airport Authority cannot purchase residential property to remove objections to noise problems, for expansion of the airport, or to address safety issues.

At the time ANCA passed, Burbank Airport already had a voluntary curfew. However, an opinion letter from the FAA counsel held that Burbank’s voluntary restraints were not sufficiently documented to warrant being grandfathered in under ANCA. PERC was unable to establish why the City has chosen not to litigate that issue and, at this time, the City appears to have acceded to the FAA counsel’s opinion.

In the 1980s, the FAA and airport began searching to locate a new terminal building. The present terminal’s proximity to both runways violates current FAA guidelines. In addition, the terminal initially designed for DC-3s has grown adding wings on each side of the tower building. The present configuration is uncomfortable for passengers and difficult to move passengers to and from gates. Based upon projections of growth, the airport initially created plans for a 27-gate terminal, but there was no available space for the terminal. Lockheed still operated its manufacturing and research facilities adjacent to the airport.

At various times, the airport considered other locations for a new terminal, specifically the southwest quadrant along Empire Avenue. This property is already zoned for airport use and the City would have virtually no control over the type of terminal built. However, the property is irregularly shaped and possibly too small to create a significant expanded terminal. In addition, only a terminal building could be constructed within the available property requiring passengers park away from the terminal and then be transported to the terminal building. The proposal was for a tunnel beneath the runways from the terminal to any parking location. The cost of such a transportation system could equal or exceed the estimated $400 million for building the terminal. This does not appear to be a practical or financially viable alternative.

With Lockheed’s decision to move its manufacturing and research facilities out of Burbank, substantial property became available immediately next to the existing airport for a new terminal. The airport was particularly interested in a section of property bordering to the east of its north-south runway, north of the east-west runway, and bounded by Hollywood Way and San Fernando Road. The airport began negotiations with Lockheed to purchase the property.

The City began a series of lawsuits to bar or otherwise exercise some control over the property and the nature of the terminal building to be built. One important success of the Council's $10 million investment in litigation is that California courts held that California Public Utilities Code, Section 21661.6 is legal and applicable to the airport. Under this statute, the city must approve any purchase of property for an airport. The airport's purchase with FAA money of the B-6 Trust Property (see below) could not have occurred without the permission of the City. The actual purchase did not obtain the City's approval for construction. Instead, facing a choice of purchasing the land from Lockheed or losing the property to another buyer, the airport entered into an agreement with the City to buy the property but put it into the hands of a separate legal entity, a Trustee, who would hold title until such time as the City agreed to the property's use as an airport or to compel the sale when the City finally decided not to allow a replacement terminal on the B6 property.

The FAA has for a long time been concerned about the proximity of the runways to the present terminal. While some have questioned whether the FAA wants a replacement terminal, the FAA provided $100 million for the purchase of the B-6 property, which would indicate the FAA’s interest in a replacement terminal.

While the airport was seeking to purchase the B-6 Trust Property, the airport began a Part 161 Study solely seeking a curfew. The City offered to financially contribute to the Study in the hopes of participating in the process, but the airport declined the offer. The Part 161 Study has proceeded very slowly and apparently at times at a snail’s pace. Part of the problem appears to be the airport’s lack of enthusiasm for the project. On the other hand, the airport emphasizes that no airport in the nation has fully completed a Part 161 Study for a curfew and that it with its consultants are blazing a new administrative path that urges the Study move forward in a deliberate and cautious process. It appears that the application for a curfew from the Part 161 Study may be submitted in late 2003.

However, the City, its elected officials and staff have been in discussion with the airport concerning the new terminal and what terms could be obtained. At one point a few years ago, the airport and two City Council members created a "Framework for Settlement." In exchange for the City’s agreeing to the construction of a replacement terminal on the B-6 Trust Property that could eventually reach 19 gates, the airport offered to proceed with the Study and there were terms addressing a number of concerns. However, the Framework was not implemented.

Members of the City Council stated they see the replacement terminal building as their only trump card, the only leverage they have for obtaining restrictions on the airport’s impacted on the community based upon the City’s control over the site of a replacement terminal. Informally, the FAA has told the Council members that a curfew may be possible, if the Part 161 Study justifies it, but any additional restrictions on the Airport would be unacceptable. The Council has accepted that statement at face value. In part, the City Council members are also caught in the middle. They view themselves only empowered by their control over the B-6 property, attacked from all sides for wanting a replacement terminal despite their assurances otherwise, and they see few alternatives offered by their advisors other than additional, costly litigation.

In response to criticisms of the City Council following the Framework, the City placed Measure B on the ballot that provided that any agreement between the City and airport as to construction or modification of a terminal would be subject to public approval by way of the ballot.

Given the history and the deep-seated distrust, a number of citizens have fought any consideration of a replacement terminal without receiving severe restrictions on Airport growth and operations in advance. As a result of that distrust, citizens formed a group known as Restore Our Airport Rights (ROAR). After substantial work with an extraordinary commitment of time, ROAR submitted a measure to the City Council for a vote. ROAR’s Measure A provided severe restrictions on any replacement terminal, required a curfew, mandated caps on flight operations, and provided for financial relief for collateral impacts upon the City from a new terminal, among other requirements. By a mail-in vote, more than 20,000 of the 40,000 registered voters participated, an extraordinary turnout for a non-national, non-state, special election. Measure A was approved by almost 60 percent of the votes cast.

The City Council questioned some of the language in Measure A and were concerned about the airport bringing an action in federal court that might undermine some of the City's success in state court. The day after the election, the City filed a petition for declaratory relief in the Los Angeles Superior Court seeking to overturn the Measure or clarification as to what, if any, sections were legal. ROAR and its citizen supporters feel a deep sense of betrayal at the City's refusal to simply accept what they see as the will of the people. Recently, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that Measure A was improper in its entirety. That decision is still subject to appellate review.

While the litigation over Measure A was beyond the focus of PERC, the intent of Measure A was clear, i.e., no new terminal without a curfew and other growth restrictions guaranteed in writing and by law. The members of the City Council have all voiced their determination that a curfew must be in place before any approval could be given for a new terminal.

As Measure A was being voted upon, the national air system and airlines suffered a significant loss in passengers and revenue following the September 11, 2001 tragedy. The interest of the airport in a new terminal have been set aside by the need to respond to the demands for security from the public, the FAA and the new governmental entity Transportation Security Authority (TSA). The entire nature and processing of security at the airport is in the middle of a significant transformation, including the removal of private security personnel to be replaced by federal employees.

Claiming that the TSA demanded it, the airport has been seeking authority to rebuild and expand the Terminal A wing by adding 40,000 sq. ft. Following the Superior Court’s decision on Measure A, the airport submitted a request to build significantly more than 40,000 sq. ft even though a letter from the TSA suggested that less square footage was necessary. There was concern by the public and from members of the City Council about the need for such additional footage that appeared more to do with accommodating passengers’ comforts than security needs. At this point, the airport’s request has been approved by the City’s Planning Board with an expected appeal to the City Council. If the airport’s request is fully approved, then the dynamic as to one of the elements urging the airport to seek a new terminal will be satisfied – comfort and ability to manage passengers in the larger terminal wing. This may alleviate the need and interest in a new terminal building for several years.

1. THE STATUS QUO

Airport Operations

As the airport director emphasized, the Airport is mandated to serve its clients, the resident aircraft operators.

The airport has little control over the demands for access to air travel. The factors creating such demand are population, business activity, economic climate, and population's income. None are in the control of the airport. Moreover, as a recipient of federal funds, the Airport cannot discriminate as to those who use or want to use the Airport.

Yet, the airport is the target for very one's demands and frustration. The FAA makes certain rules, the TSA is now laying down demands, and the City and its citizens blame the Airport for a range of ills, many completely beyond the airport’s control. The airport has no control over the airlines that want to use the terminal. Since the airport uses federal monies, it is bound to be part of a national air system and must accept any airline that wants to fly from Burbank. For example, all gates are leased on a non-exclusive basis. Thus, any airline could be assigned to a gate. Alternatively, when Aloha chose to fly from Burbank, it apparently made arrangements to utilize a gate leased by another airline. The airport had no control over that arrangement.

The terminal building at the airport has 14 gates with both Terminal A and Terminal B clearly violate the current FAA requirement for a 750-foot set-back from the centerline of the runway. The primary commercial passenger carrier at the airport is Southwest Airlines, with several other airlines including United, American, American West, Alaska and Aloha.

The airlines lease gates and office space from the airport. However, the gates are leased on a non-exclusive basis, i.e., Southwest may lease a specific number of gates, but none are permanently assigned to Southwest, though it appears that Southwest regularly uses certain gates in Terminal A. Similarly, United has its gates in Terminal B. Any airline may chose to operate out of the airport or expand its operations and the airport is obliged to provide gate access, or one existing airline at the airport may sublease one or more of its gates to another airline.

Airline operations experience peaks during morning hours (from 7-10 a.m.) and the late afternoon hours (4-7 p.m.), utilizing the terminal at or near its maximum capacity. However, in the non-peak hours, the airport is substantially underutilized and there is significant room for growth in the number of commercial airline flights.

The airport does control two elements that very much concern Burbank and PERC. First, the airport has complete control over the processing of the Part 161 Study. A Part 161 Study is the only path established by the FAA for airports to get FAA approval for restrictions on flight operations. The current Study focuses on a cost/benefit analysis of a mandated curfew at the Airport. This Study began several years ago and has been slowly working through its various stages. The airport reluctantly began the Study, and refused the City of Burbank’s offer to share in funding of the study. Only recently has there been a change of heart by the non-Burbank commissioners who now believe that a curfew is necessary. On the other hand, to date, no airport has received FAA authorization for a curfew as a result of a Part161 Study process.

The airport explains that it is proceeding very cautiously and involving the FAA at each step along the way. Even so, the earliest date for submission of the Study to the FAA is late 2003. Unfortunately, this is one of those issues that Burbank citizens point to as an example of the airport not being responsive to the needs of its neighbors.

The other element under the airport's control is eliminating Stage II general aviation aircraft -- the nosiest planes. It requires another Part 161 Study, but not FAA approval once the study is complete. The airport emphasizes that it can only ask for one thing at a time as a matter of political consideration. Again, this failure to act is seen by Burbank citizens as another example of Airport indifference to their concerns.

One fundamental reality is that the September 11th tragedy has altered the priorities of the airport. While the Airport Authority would like a replacement terminal building, virtually its entire present focus is on responding to the TSA and addressing security concerns. At best, it will be two to five years before the airport will be able to shift focus back to the replacement terminal building after addressing the September 11^th issues. Given the likely addition of 40,000 sq. ft. to Terminal A, the date that the airport may seriously consider a replacement terminal may be extended years into the future. In the interim, the Part 161 Study is likely to be completed. At that point, the Airport Authority will be compelled to address the curfew application process and that may reawaken the Authority’s interest in the replacement terminal. This is the opportunity for the City Burbank to implement its strategy of using approval for the replacement terminal as a negotiation tool to induce the Airport Authority and the FAA to approve at least the curfew if not additional restrictions.

There is no enforceable curfew and no enforceable limit on noise or future growth. There is a voluntary curfew that the airlines regularly encroach upon, particularly in the period of 6:30-7:00 a.m. The penalty for such violation is $1,000, not a substantial deterrent. Moreover, there is considerable concern about the method and aggressiveness of the Airport to enforce the curfew and impose sanctions. It must also be emphasized that the curfew pertains only to commercial airline passenger flights. It does not apply to general aviation or cargo carriers and it is the cargo carriers who are the primary operators flying during the curfew hours.

Soundproofing: The Airport has conducted a noise reduction plan that involves insulating houses with sound proofing material and new triple-pane windows. When the Airport Authority offers to sound insulate a home, it requires that the homeowner sign an avigation easement. The Authority will not sound insulate a home without the owner executing that easement.

An avigation easement gives the Airport Authority the right to use the airspace over the owner’s property for the purpose of aircraft flight. The terms of avigation easements vary considerably throughout the country. The avigation easements that the Authority requires be signed give the Authority much more flexibility in the number of flights, the altitude, and the amount of noise those flights generate than do avigation easements required at some other airports elsewhere in the country. (For that reason, the avigation easements have themselves been controversial in the community.)

An avigation easement is a permanent encumbrance on the property, meaning that the homeowner (and any future purchaser of the property) cannot sue for damages from overflights because he has sold the right of overflight to the airport. In other words, the homeowner no longer can object to overflights that comply with the terms of the avigation easement.

Cargo vs. Commercial Flights

At this time, commercial airlines operations generally adhere to the voluntary curfew, though the scope of the curfew appears to be just after 10:00 p.m. to approximately 6:30 a.m. More importantly for nighttime disturbances, it is not the airlines that are the real culprits. In fact, general aviation’s Part 135 commercial operators function around the clock at the Airport and none of general aviation flights use the Airport terminal buildings.

In particular, Ameriflight operates numerous types of aircraft from propeller to small jets. There are approximately 18 plus operations by Ameriflight every night, almost all during the curfew period. Federal Express and UPS both operate out of the Burbank Airport, but their flights are subject to time requirements that limit their late-night/early morning operations. PERC was very concerned to learn that the projections from most sources show that cargo operations will expand at a greater rate than passenger operations at the Airport. There are some restrictions on the ultimate scope of cargo operations because there is little room to expand the ground facilities to create the kind of cargo traffic facilities such as those at LAX.

Over the years, airlines serving BGPA have come and gone. Presently, Southwest Airlines is the majority passenger operator with operations in excess of all other airlines combined. Southwest Airlines operates only Boeing 737s. United has operated 757s from this Airport. It does appear that certain larger aircraft, such as 747s, cannot reasonably operate from the Airport.

Existing Terminal’s Restraints on Flight Increases

Generally, the Airport has served a "regional" function -- providing service to other airports in the western United States, primarily as a business shuttle facility. The Burbank Airport is not a hub for any airline (a point in air travel where passengers meet and connect with other planes to continue to more distant destinations). Of some concern as to a change in the "regional" nature of the Airport, Aloha Airlines has begun minimal service from Burbank to Hawaii. The Airport presently lacks the US Customs facilities to become an international airport. The Airport executive director told PERC that the Airport essentially cannot dictate what airlines utilize the Airport or what markets are served from the Airport. These are business decisions that carriers make, according to their assessment of market potential.

The Airport Authority believes that airlines do not consider airport to be a gateway to an extremely attractive flying market, and, together with the financial problems facing air carriers, this means that growth at the Airport, with or without a replacement terminal, will "only" increase by low single digit annual percentages. A majority of PERC believes that if a replacement terminal is built, involving significant financial investment from resident airlines, those airlines will make every effort to expand their flight offerings at BGPA, just to recoup their investment

With the advent of larger jet aircraft, there has been a concern about the arrangement of runways in proximity to the terminal. When DC-3s were landing or taking off, the amount of runway needed was not substantial. However, as travelers are well aware, jet aircraft landing at Burbank Airport must immediately engage engine thrust reversers to quickly bring the planes to a stop, generally at the very end of the east-west runway beside Terminal A.

While the initial terminal was just the Tower, over the years wings have been extended south (Terminal B) and east (Terminal A) of the Tower. The FAA has mandated a minimum separation of 750 feet between the center line of the runways and any structure. Both Terminals sit well within the minimum separation. In fact, the multi-level parking structure behind Terminal A is the actual place where a terminal should be located to meet current FAA guidelines. Moreover, because the tails of aircraft parked at Terminal A extend toward the runway, nothing larger than a 737 or MD-80 can park at Terminal A. Between the parking areas for planes and the runway is a taxiway for planes arriving on the east-west runway to get to the terminals and for planes moving from the terminals to take-off. This lack of separation has caused the FAA and the airport concern about safe operations. However, again, neither the FAA nor the airport will declare the facility and the lack of separation as "unsafe."

Another potential capacity restraint at the Airport is the absence of any place for airliners to wait while a gate is cleared. Landing at many other airports, an airplane may taxi for some time or be placed in a holding location until its assigned gate is ready. At the airport, an arriving airplane must immediately turn toward the terminals, as there are no places to hold an aircraft. Airlines appear to recognize the situation and only schedule planes for times when a gate will be immediately available. The airport operates at or near maximum during morning and late afternoon business peak times, since these are the times that business travelers within this time zone prefer for same-day round-trips, and at this point approach the facility’s maximum capacity.

During the day, there are significant periods in which the airport has no planes at any gate. It is these under-utilized "lull" periods that can accommodate expansion of flight operations. The airport director emphasized to PERC that 737s make up virtually the entire type of aircraft at the facility and, hence, with that plane's range, the Airport will continue to be a regional facility. However, 757s do operate out of Burbank and their range is transcontinental. Of note, Southwest appears to be expanding their East Coast operations/destinations, which means that with one or more stop-overs, Los Angeles-area travelers can use BGPA to access the East Coast. Currently the fares charged for such flights from BGPA are not competitive with LAX alternatives.

Additional Parties Involved

The airport, the Airport Authority, the City Council, ROAR and the three cities have already been discussed above. However, there are additional entities that need to be examined.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) -- is the federal regulatory agency charged with the safe operation of national aviation and support the national air system. Although it does have the responsibility for reducing the impact of aviation on the communities surrounding airports, it exercises that responsibility not by reducing the operations of the aviation industry, rather by reducing the number of people impacted. Thus, the FAA provides funds for soundproofing homes, schools and other buildings under flight paths – and those buildings are then "removed" from the roster of impacted entities – effectively reducing the impact.

Virtually any restrictions sought by Burbank to limit growth would be directly against the FAA's responsibility to facilitate and support the national aviation system. In fact, the FAA is reluctant to grant any restrictions on any airport. The restrictions that would be most effective in limiting Airport operations growth and the impact of the Airport on Burbank's citizens are in the ultimate control of the FAA. For example, once the Part 161 Study for a curfew is completed, the application is presented to the FAA, which has sole discretion over accepting it, modifying it or rejecting it. One of the FAA’s criteria for approving any airport impact mitigation is that the limitations must not significantly restrict operation of the national air system or should provide a benefit that justifies the restriction. For example, caps on the number of flights would clearly violate the FAA's mandate, but a noise budget that allows the Airport to become quieter even with an increase in the number of flights might be more acceptable to the FAA.

CITY staff and its consultants have expressed concern that the FAA could use its federal powers to condemn the B-6 property to allow construction of a replacement terminal (potentially larger and without restrictions on impacts) if Burbank tries to preclude the possibility of a replacement terminal (i.e., by demanding the immediate sale of the B-6 property so as to prevent any airport use of the property). For example, Congress is attempting to compel expansion of O'Hare airport in Chicago. However, a reading of the news reports shows that the FAA and Congress were concerned about the need to maintain a vital link in the national air system. Burbank Airport comes nowhere close to meeting such a critical need. If the federal government attempted to intervene in this local situation, it would create a fear for every airport community, no matter the size of the airfield.

The only direct concern that the FAA can properly state is its financial contribution for the purchase of the B-6 property and $100 million is a significant sum within the one agency. Unless the FAA is prepared to declare the Airport unsafe, there is little basis to justify federal intervention. Therefore, so long as the FAA can be restored its funds, some members of PERC feel that it could be difficult for the FAA to force the construction of a new terminal.

B-6 Trust Property --Under law, property can be a separate entity of its own. In this instance, it is appropriate to see the B-6 property as a separate player in this situation. The B-6 property was part of Lockheed's manufacturing plant. It included the mysterious Skunk Works that developed many of the nation's key military aircraft, including the P-38, U-2 and the SR-71.

First, the B-6 property is not one property at this time. It is made up of three parcels.

The Adjacent Property is the land directly adjacent to the north-south runway and generally encompasses the 750 feet restricted space next to the runway. As part of the purchase agreement for the B-6 property, this parcel can never be used for a terminal building. In essence, building a terminal on this property would create the same problems now being experienced with Terminal A's location next to the east-west runway.

A second parcel is a triangular piece at the north end, actually located in the City of Los Angeles. It has been leased and is currently in the process of being sold to a developer for light industrial uses with a provision that it cannot be used in the future for airport purposes.

The third parcel is intended for the replacement terminal building and is known as the B-6 Trust Property. The Property is bordered by the triangular property (parcel two), the north-south runway, the eastern portion of the east-west runway and Hollywood Way. During PERC meetings, we heard general agreement that the B-6 Trust Property is the best location for a replacement terminal.

The purchase agreement for the B6 property included a restriction placed on any construction on the property without the City's approval and, if the approval was not obtained by a certain date, the property would be placed on the market for sale. That deadline has long passed and the property is supposedly up for sale. However, the price that the Airport must obtain for the property to repay the FAA, approximately $80 million, is so beyond the current market value that there is very little interest.

As long as the B-6 property remains vacant and in the hands of the Trustee, the City retains its trump card and the Airport/FAA remain hopeful of locating the replacement terminal building at what is acknowledged to be the best location.

Airlines – It appears to PERC that the resident airlines of the airport may not want a replacement terminal.. It would be the airlines that would shoulder the burden of paying for the terminal in higher fees.

The number of passengers using the airport has remained steady over the last three years at 4 million plus. The airport director explained that much of that stability is based upon the airlines’ creating ticket price incentives for the public to use their new terminals at LAX, where the airlines have spent or are spending millions of dollars updating and expanding their terminals. The airlines need to recoup that investment by increasing the number of passengers using the new terminal. The Airport director conceded that, if the airlines contribute to the construction of a new terminal at the Airport, they can be expected to seek an increase in the number of passengers and flights to also recoup their investment here in Burbank.

After the September 11th tragedy, virtually all airlines (with the notable exception of Southwest) have suffered significant financial setbacks. Two of the largest are in or are facing bankruptcy. Under current circumstances, the airlines are not likely to support a new terminal building projected to cost as much as $400 million. Apparently, Southwest was prepared to support a terminal with more than 14 gates simply because it would afford it the opportunity to recoup its costs with additional flights. It would appear the larger the replacement terminal the more willing the airlines might be to supporting it. It is highly likely that the resident airlines would oppose any other restrictions on their operations at the Airport.

Cargo Operators and General Aviation This category includes all aviation operators other than commercial airlines and military. Cargo carriers at the airport include Ameriflight, Federal Express and UPS. General aviation includes private planes and corporate aircraft. While commercial airlines may account for 80 operations a day, cargo and general aviation substantially exceed that number. Moreover, virtually all of the operations at night, during the curfew period, are by general aviation aircraft. In addition, given the anticipated expansion of cargo flights, cargo operators may account for increased flight operations to a larger degree even than commercial airlines.

One of the concerns PERC heard expressed about operational restraints on general aviation is that local businesses, including the studios, base their corporate aircraft at Burbank and any restrictions on the use of such planes may be detrimental economically to the City. In PERC’s view, it is unlikely that Disney/ABC, NBC or Warner Bros. are going to remove their facilities from their present locations just because of restrictions placed on their use of corporate aircraft. Even so, it was suggested that informal discussions with the major businesses that base their planes at Burbank might be more effective than a formal restriction. Yet, such informal public relations appeals are unlikely to successful with other operators of general aviation, particularly with cargo carriers.

To be effective, any curfew must address general aviation and cargo flights. However, none of these operators utilize the terminal, so they are not likely to be encouraged to agree to restrictions in exchange for a replacement terminal. Thus, merely closing the terminal will not preclude flight operations by these operators. It is only by using the new terminal as a carrot for FAA that any restriction on non-terminal general aviation and cargo operations can be obtained.

2. FUTURE EXPECTATIONS

Originally, the Airport Authority proposed a replacement terminal with 27 gates based upon a study’s projection of air demand. The "Framework for Settlement" negotiated several years ago by the Airport and two members of the City Council provided for incremental expansion of the new terminal from 14 to 16 to 19 gates, with additional restrictions imposed at each step. At this point, the Airport Authority is seeking a 14-gate terminal. While many speakers to PERC have suggested that the replacement terminal could reach up to 27 gates, there may be ways to ensure that only a replacement 14-gate terminal would be built.

Even without a replacement terminal, there are significant time periods during each day where commercial airline passenger operations can be added. Moreover, projections by the City of Burbank, the Airport Authority and Southern California Association of Governments all predict an increase in passenger travel from the Burbank Airport. The City sees the increase in the 1-2 percent per year range, the Airport in the 2-3 percent range, and SCAG foresees in 25 years that 9 million passengers will pass through the Burbank Airport.

As the airport director told PERC, the commercial airlines are motivated by attractive markets to serve. Currently, the airport is serving travelers from the San Gabriel Valley to Santa Barbara, from the Antelope Valley to Los Angeles. This is a huge market, and PERC believes that only the lower fares offered by the airlines for flights out of LAX currently limit the demand for flights at the airport. With or without a replacement terminal, the airlines could easily decide to increase their use of the airport, especially if the airlines contribute to a replacement terminal.

5. THE PROBLEMS

While many have focused on a demand for curfews or noise budgets or other remedies, PERC's analysis found that the fundamental building blocks of the complaints could be identified as three elements: (1) noise; (2) pollution; and (3) traffic. Noise and pollution from flight operations are not limited to passenger airliners, but that cargo and general aviation substantially contribute to these two elements without any involvement of any passenger terminal building. While cargo and general aviation operators contribute somewhat to traffic, the primary if not overwhelming cause of airport traffic issues lie with passengers, those accompanying passengers and various transit entities -- all flowing to and from the passenger terminal.

Trying to find a single solution capable of addressing all three elements effectively is impossible. Moreover, certain remedies only address a portion of the problem element -- for example, a curfew limits nighttime noise but has no effect on daytime noise. While many to date have focused on remedies available only from the FAA (such as curfew or caps or noise budget), PERC believes that three impact elements must be addressed on a broad range of available corrective or mitigation measures, including many outside the FAA’s control.