PERC was invited by the City Council of Burbank to review and evaluate the past history of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, its relationship to the City, the perspectives of various stakeholders and Burbank's citizens to determine a strategy to address the effect of a new Airport terminal and the impact upon the community.

To that end, PERC has conducted some 13 meetings, to date, hearing from the citizens, including the supporters of ROAR and Measure A, the Airport, experts on certain aviation concerns related to the Airport, as well as agencies directly or indirectly involved with the Airport.

As a result, PERC had developed the following principles it recommends:

• The Airport can continue to use the existing terminal while the Commission seeks restrictions. 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." Moreover, the present terminal has existing capacity restraints that will impede future growth. While many consider the present terminal to be uncomfortable and antiquated, the terminal does function and there were many comments from the public urging that there was a certain quaintness about the aged facility.
• 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. Whether or not the Part 161 Study results in FAA approval of a curfew, PERC recommends consideration of a menu of mitigation efforts, discussed below.
• If a new replacement terminal is to be considered on the B-6 property, it must be a 14-gate facility subject to established, enforceable controls. A new terminal will likely remove most if not all of the existing capacity restraints. Moreover, given the costs to be borne by the airlines to construct the facility, the Airport Director conceded that the airlines would likely expand operations to recoup the costs.
• In addition to limiting the replacement terminal to 14 gates, PERC recommends that the City encourage or participate with the Airport Authority in seeking Part 161 studies on restraints other than a curfew. From the information provided to PERC, it seems that the most likely restraint would be a noise/impact budget that would serve to decrease night-time flights as well as decrease the noise impact of flights overall. In addition, PERC’s suggestions for non-FAA tactics for reducing the Airport’s impact on the community should also be pursued.
• Burbank's voters must approve any replacement terminal.

A substantial majority of the Committee believes that PERC’s responsibility is to develop recommendations that not only address a future terminal but also consider how to mitigate the effects of the present terminal.

However, a minority of the Committee believes that the City Council's mandate emphasized developing a strategy only as to the effect of a new terminal and dissented from including the first part of the principles. (See Minority Position, below)

Although much of the discussion in the PERC meetings centered on tactics such as curfew or caps, the Committee determined the necessity first to understand the actual problems that the Airport causes the community. The Committee believes that the burdens on the community are: (1) noise (2) traffic; and (3) air pollution, and we have developed recommendations that address these factors.

A minority of the Committee urged inclusion of a fourth factor -- the economic impact of the Airport upon the community. Under this heading, the Airport’s impact can be seen as negative on residential property values and possibly positive on the 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 would 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. It was one of the PERC’s key findings, 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 and ignorance the swirl around the Airport, its operations and its effect upon the community. Moreover, there is a deep distrust by 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 can 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 aircraft -- of which were bi-planes, even the largest Army Air Corp two-engine bombers. The Airport was born in the age of bi-planes, evolved through the decades as it accommodated two-engine, single wing DC-3s, the military aircraft of World War II, four-engine 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. A few years ago, a vintage B-17 and B-24 visited 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, Airport/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 be 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 the local city over a part of the national air system, urged that other cities join in the purchase. Pasadena and Glendale joined (and apparently San Fernando considered joining). An act of the State Legislature established a Joint Powers Act (JPA) to allow the three cities to purchase and operate the Airport.

As part of persuading of the Burbank citizens to approve the purchase, speakers at PERC meetings mentioned promises made at that time about limiting operations and having a measure of control over the Airport. However, the JPA spread the power among nine members of the 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.

However, the JPA does include specific limitations upon the Airport. The runways cannot be lengthened and the Airport cannot purchase property to remove objections to noise problems.

At the time that 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.

1. THE STATUS QUO

Airport Operations

At this point in time, the terminal at the Airport has 14 gates with Terminal A clearly violating the 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. Accordingly, 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.

The airline operations during morning hours (from 7-10 a.m.) and the late afternoon hours (4-7 p.m.) appear to be fully utilizing the terminal to its maximum capacity. However, in the non-peak hours, the Airport is substantially underutilized and there is substantial room for growth in commercial airline flights.

Restrictions Imposed by the Existing Terminal

There are existing restrictions imposed on the Airport terminal operations by the layout of the facility. First, any commercial passenger airplane comes to a stop upon landing literally at the terminal. Unlike other airports, this Airport has no "parking" or holding space so that an airplane can wait until a gate occupied by another aircraft is cleared. Thus, it is virtually impossible for an airline to schedule planes arriving at the Airport at any greater than approximately one per hour. Southwest has a goal of turning a plane around (landing, unloading passengers, loading passengers, and departing) within 25 minutes. However, at the present terminal, there can be no assurance that any gate will be available to allow such a turn around and scheduling based upon a 25 minute turn around would invite planes stacking up in the air burning fuel because there is simply no space on the ground. Fuel is a precious commodity with airlines and wasting flying waiting for a gate to open would be financial irresponsibility. With a new terminal, there would be space to allow for planes to land and then hold for an open gate.

In addition, the proximity of Terminal A to the runway limits the type of aircraft (757’s tails would stick out into the taxi way), the number of turn-arounds (lack of holding space) and it appears requires at least caution in utilizing the east-west runway, if not limitations on landing on that runway.

Finally, the present passenger waiting area configurations provide a distinctly uncomfortable and cramped space. When only a few planes are unloading passengers at the same time, the corridor can virtually become gridlocked with bodies.

Current Airport Mitigations

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 double-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.)

Once a homeowner signs an avigation easement, he (and any future purchaser of the property) cannot sue for damages from overflights because he has sold the right of overflight. In other words, the homeowner no longer can object to overflights that comply with the terms of the avigation easement.

Pollution Issues

There are many complaints about pollution flowing from airplanes taking off and landing. Some believe that airplanes are "dumping" fuel during landings to decrease landing weight. However, the Airport insists that airplanes do not dump fuel and, given the cost of fuel, it appears unlikely. However, particularly during take-off, planes do push fuel through the engines to generate the power to lift off and climb. Similarly, there also appears to be a certain amount of fuel air pollution from the operation of airplane engines coming in to land, particularly at lower altitudes.

Cars, busses and vans going to and from the Airport contribute to noxious pollution in Burbank, as do the various vehicles and other internal combustion-driven equipment used in Airport operations, such as fuel trucks, catering vehicles, etc.

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 operates 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 50 plus operations by Ameriflight a week, almost all violating 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 all 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, some are Stage-II retro-fitted for noise reduction. 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 distant distinctions). Of some concern as to a change in the "regional" nature of the Airport, Aloha Airlines has begun minimal service from Burbank to Hawaii. However, the Airport presently lacks the Custom facilities to become an international airport. However, 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 the BGPA is not considered the 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 percentages. PERC has taken issue with this projection, as noted elsewhere in this report. We believe 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

Since the advent of larger airliners and particularly jet airliners, 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 liners 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 a runway and any structure. Terminal A sits 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 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." While the Airport director denies the belief, it appears that airplanes backing away from gates at Terminal A could potentially interrupt landing operations on the east-west runway, the main runway for landings.

Another "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 BGPA, 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. Hence, the Airport is operating at maximum during morning and late afternoon business peak times simply because of the operation/capacity restraints inherent in the facility. However, 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 1,500 mile 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.

Parties Involved

Airport -- this is separate from the Airport Commission. As the Airport director emphasized, the Airport is caught between many divergent demands and it has little control over its destiny.

The Airport has no 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.

Similarly, as will be noted later, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has no control over pollution from airplanes. The standard for each type of airplane engine is set at the manufacturer.

However, the Airport does have within its control two elements directly at issue herein. 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 BGPA 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 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, the failure to act is seen by Burbank citizens as another example of Airport indifference to their pain. While the Airport can claim that it is caught in the middle, the history shows that the Airport has not acted even in the areas where its action did not require FAA approval, such as in reducing pollution from its ground vehicles.

One 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. 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. At that point, the City Burbank would be able to implement its strategy of using approval for the replacement terminal as a negotiation tool to induce the Authority and the FAA to approve at least the curfew if not additional restrictions.

Airport Commissioners -- As noted above, the nine Commissioner positions are divided equally between the three cities. According to the JPA, each Commissioner sits at the pleasure of his city council. Burbank's City Council has been pro-active in advising its Commissioners on policy issues affecting Burbank. However, Pasadena and Glendale have chosen a hand-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 a political strength to be indifferent to their cities' policies. For example, until recently, there was general rejection of any curfew by Commissioners from Pasadena and Glendale, but as it become prudent for the Airport to accept a curfew to obtain a replacement terminal, the Commissioners have altered their positions.

Burbank's City Council -- Despite the outcry by some in the public, it appears that the members of the City Council are not adamant about obtaining a replacement terminal building simply for the sake of power or prestige. Rather, the Council members see the replacement terminal building as their only trump card, the only leverage they have for obtaining restrictions on the Airport’s impact on the community. 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 few alternatives being provided by their advisors lead anywhere but into additional, costly litigation.

However, one important success of the Council's $10 million investment in litigation is that California courts have ruled that California Public Utilities Code, Section 21661.6 is legal and applicable to the Burbank Airport. Under this statute, the city must approve any purchase of property for an airport. Thus, 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. However, 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.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) -- is the governmental entity assigned responsibility for a national air transportation system. It has two fundamental mandates -- safety and expanding 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.

The FAA has for a long time been concerned about the current runway arrangement in conjunction with the location of 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 would indicate the FAA’s interest in a replacement terminal. The new terminal is also consistent with the FAA's mandate to expand air service.

However, virtually any restrictions sought by Burbank to limit growth would be directly against the FAA's mandate to facilitate expansion and prosperity of the aviation industry. Moreover, the restrictions that would be most effective in limiting Airport 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. Accordingly, while a curfew does appear to be the minimal demand by the Burbank citizens, any other restrictions must be tailored in a manner that can either be shown to have marginal affect on the national air system or provide a collateral benefit. For example, caps on the number of air flights would clearly violate the FAA's mandate, but a noise budget that provides the Airport the ability to become quieter even if flights are expanded might be more acceptable to the FAA.

PERC learned that the primary concern about the FAA offered by the City's outside legal counsel is that the agency could use its federal powers to condemn the B-6 property ordering the construction of a replacement terminal if Burbank tries preclude 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. The City's outside attorneys point to the action by the Congress to compel expansion of O'Hare airport in Chicago. However, a reading of the news reports shows that the FAA and congressmen 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. Thus, PERC is not convinced of the value of this advice to the Council.

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, PERC feels that it would be difficult for the FAA to force the construction of a new terminal.

Burbank Citizens/ROAR -- Throughout the PERC meetings there has been a running theme -- that the Airport and the City have made misrepresentations from the time of consideration to purchase the Airport. One of the fundamental reasons for the City's participation in purchasing the Airport was to obtain some control over a facility that had plagued the community with impacts on citizens' lives. Moreover, it must be remembered that the City had only a few years earlier lost the central case before the Supreme Court as to noise control. Yet, the Airport's operations have not been controlled. The JPA provided virtually no control to the City over the Airport. Apparently, many of the promises or assurances made to induce the purchase of the Airport were never written in a form that guaranteed the protections. There is a perception that any discussion by anyone of a replacement terminal is merely another path to a goal seeming filled with further misrepresentations.

Over the last few years, members of the City Council have tried to negotiate with the Airport to obtain some type of restraints upon the Airport, generally a curfew. However, 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. 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.

However, the City Council and some lawyers questioned some of the language in Measure A and were concerned about 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.

While the litigation over Measure A is beyond the focus of PERC, the message of Measure A is 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. Thus, it appears that a curfew is not at issue, but what "other growth restrictions" need to be additionally obtained.

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 and the SR-71.

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

One parcel 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 sitting in the City of Los Angeles. It is being sold to a developer as a facility for vehicles associated with the film/TV industry.

It is the third parcel that 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. Everyone agrees that this third B-6 Trust Property parcel is the best location for a replacement terminal. In purchasing the property, there was 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. So 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 the best location. If the B-6 Trust Property was human, one could feel sympathy because it is at the center of a tug-of-war with no say in the process.

There are two alternative locations mentioned for a new terminal building. First, at the southwest corner of Hollywood Way and Empire Ave., another ex-Lockheed facility is presently vacant and apparently about to be turned into a parking lot. This property is also entirely located in Burbank and would be subject to Burbank's control under California Public Utilities Code, Section 21661.6. Thus, this would not be a politically viable alternative.

The second alternative is the Southwest Quadrant of the Airport property where there are hangers along Empire Avenue, west of Hollywood Way. 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 that passengers park away from the terminal and then be transported to the terminal building. The current proposal is 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.

Airlines – It appears to PERC that one of the few entities that do not want a replacement terminal may well be the airlines. 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 3 million plus. However, the Airport director explained that much of that stability is based upon the airlines coercing the public to use their new terminals at LAX. The airlines have spent or are spending millions of dollars updating and expanding their terminals at LAX. 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, the airlines can be expected to increase 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 terrible financial setbacks. Two of the largest are in or facing bankruptcy. Thus, under current circumstances, the airlines will not likely support a new terminal building projected to cost approximately $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. Hence, it would appear the larger the replacement terminal the more willing the airlines might be to supporting it. However, it appears that the airlines have little say over whether to build a new terminal beyond political influence, which is significant. In addition, it can be anticipated that airlines might oppose any other restrictions at the airport.

And while one may be sympathetic to their current plight, the airlines do violate the voluntary curfew, fly the nosier retrofitted Stage II aircraft and contribute significantly to pollution falling onto our neighborhoods.

Pasadena/Glendale/Burbank -- The Airport is not allowed to operate on a for-profit basis and can only charge fees sufficient to maintain and operate the airport. Because the Airport is located 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 aircraft using the Airport. While the sum the City receives from these sources are significant, the funds do not equate to a vital element of the City's income.

However, all three cities do receive the benefit of the Airport by way of business from, to and generated by the Airport. Both the Airport Authority and SCAG emphasize that air travel and cargo create significant indirect and secondary revenues for the region, including the three cities. Access 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. While the Airport expresses frustration over the lack of control as to demand for airport services, the Airport by its presence generates a demand for airport service.

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, specifically flights over their communities. As a result, until recently, these two cities have acted completely contrary to the interests of Burbank and the impact on Burbank's citizens. While that attitude, particularly in Glendale appears to be changing, the political will to act appears lacking particularly given the long-term tenure of its commissioners.

Cargo Operators and General Aviation – This category includes all other aviation operators other than commercial airlines. Cargo carriers 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 exceed that number several times over. Moreover, virtually all of the operations at night, during the curfew period are by general aviation aircraft. Cargo and general aviation also tend to utilize the noisiest, Stage II aircraft.

In addition, given the anticipated expansion of cargo flights, cargo operators may well account for increased flight operations to a much larger degree than commercial airlines will.

One of the concerns expressed as to 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. However, it is unlikely that Disney/ABC, NBC or Warner Bros. are going to remove their facilities from their present locations. 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.

Obviously, 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. 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. PERC learned that cargo operations are predicted to increase at a greater rate than passenger operations, increasing the number of flights at night.

As the Airport director told PERC, the commercial airlines are motivated by attractive markets to serve. Currently, BGPA 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 BGPA. With or without a replacement terminal, the airlines could easily decide to increase their use of the BGPA.

PERC firmly believes that "If you build it, the planes will come." But it also seems likely that without any new building at all, operations at the Airport will continue to grow, and mitigations to the impact of this growth are necessary for the existing terminal as well as for a replacement.