|
Today, it looks unlikely that the Authority will build a terminal soon because of the poor economic state of the industry. However, the economy is turning around, and passenger levels are on the rise. With the elimination of El Toro as an option for a new airport and continued uncertainty about the LAX expansion, it is quite possible that regional and national attention will focus on Bob Hope Airport in the coming years. The Authority could propose a new terminal at any time, and the agonizing debate over a new terminal could quickly reemerge. The agreement gives the City the certainty that no new terminal will be built for ten years. This saves the City the burden of constantly being concerned about and having to get ready for a battle over a new terminal proposal. An agreement also would send a signal to other cities and government agencies (including the FAA) that a new terminal at the Airport is not an option for at least a decade. No. An agreement would achieve many of the same benefits as rezoning and provide added benefits. In particular, rezoning would do nothing about achieving noise relief, which today is at an impasse. An agreement would commit the City and the Authority to cooperate in finding creative solutions to achieve meaningful nighttime noise relief. The Authority also would make other commitments as part of an agreement, such as the commitments about limiting the number of automobile parking spaces. Rezoning is risky. The City and Authority already have been involved in a lawsuit over whether City zoning applies to the Airport. The Authority has taken the position that the City’s zoning does not apply and might sue the City if it were to rezone the Airport. Other parties – such as the FAA or the airlines – could also file a lawsuit. Although we feel comfortable that we would win in any such lawsuits, litigation always involves risk, and would be expensive and time-consuming. It is important to understand that development agreements are common tools that cities use to control zoning for complicated or lengthy projects. Burbank frequently enters into development agreements as part of its zoning approval process. Development agreements are used when the intent and desire of the City Council and the property owner are better met through a cooperative agreement than through traditional zoning designations. So this agreement should not been seen as a substitute for zoning but as a type of zoning. The City does not lose any control that it has today under the existing zoning. The idea of an agreement only came up recently -- towards the end of the IDCO and after staff for the City and the Authority had started to discuss the details of the rezoning. We are optimistic that an agreement can be reached, thereby avoiding the need to rezone. If an agreement cannot be reached, both the City and the Authority will have to consider their options. City staff is very far along in planning for the rezoning and could quickly and easily begin the rezoning process. Even though the IDCO cannot be extended and existing zoning would be in effect at the end of the IDCO, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult for the Authority to move forward with any significant project before the City could put any new zoning in place. We understand that the Authority has two projects in mind: making refinements to the Star Park so that it can be used for valet parking, and extending Taxiway D (including the relocation of Parking Lot A that lies where Taxiway D would be built). The specific plans for these projects and their environmental impacts will be evaluated and discussed publicly in detail over the next several months. If approved, there will be construction at the Airport over the next several years. With the exception of certain types of projects (new terminal, new gates, etc.), the Authority could pursue projects that are permitted under the existing zoning. We expect that the Authority would undertake projects to repair, maintain and replace certain things at the Airport. Many such projects have been piling up, since the Authority was significantly limited by the IDCO that has been in effect for the last two years. In the next seven years, we might expect projects such as routine repaving of runways and taxiways (but not extension or expansion); construction of security improvements; electrical, plumbing and related upgrades; repairs or renovations to elevators, baggage equipment and similar facilities; replacement of signage; repairs to and renovations of hangars; and similar projects. Star Park is an existing parking lot with more than 2,000 spaces currently constructed and an authorization for 1,700 more for a total of 3,700 spaces. The Authority already owns several parking lots on the Airport and nearby property. We understand that the Authority intends to redesignate the areas dedicated to self-parking, valet parking and rental cars. The most immediate effect will be to reduce traffic on Hollywood Way (since it will enable the Authority to stop using the B6 Property for temporary overflow parking) and it may reduce traffic on the Airport access road. Based on our current understanding of the Authority’s plans, we do not believe that the Authority’s acquisition of Star Park will result in more passengers at the Airport. As soon as we know more about the Authority’s plans in detail, we will share those with the public. There are more than 2,000 spaces at Star Park today. We understand that the Authority intends to use those spaces and some additional spaces. As part of the agreement, however, the Authority would stop putting temporary overflow parking on the B6 Property and could not return to using the B6 Property for at least two years. It is possible that the Authority will find other uses for the B6 Property in the interim and may not resume parking there at all. After four years, if the Authority needs additional parking, it could build it on the southwest quadrant of the Airport – but there is no vacant property there for parking. As a result, the Authority would be able to do that only if it got rid of some of the aviation uses that are now on that property. What this means is that there could be no increase in Authority parking for at least two years and probably for four or more years. The City Council may also adopt a new ordinance to restrict the development of private parking lots (like the small new one along Empire Way) near the Airport. No. State law (Section 21661.6 of the Public Utilities Code) requires both that the Airport Authority receive City approval before purchasing any property and that the City Council approve a plan for how the property is going to be used. State law does not allow the Authority to change the use of the property plan without going back to the City Council for approval. Therefore, if the Authority wanted to put something other than parking on the Star Park property, it would need City Council approval. In addition, an agreement between the City and the Authority would not undermine Measure B, which requires voter approval for a new terminal. In the Trust Agreement, the Authority was directed to sell the Trust Property if the City and the Authority could not agree on terms for a new terminal within 6 months. At the time, we gave ourselves only 6 months to ensure that we stayed focused and because everyone believed that a deal on a new terminal would be reached within 6 months or not at all. We have since learned that reaching a deal on a new terminal is much more complicated. The current FAA administration has made it more difficult to achieve the City’s objective of nighttime noise relief and, since the City believes that noise relief is an essential element of a new terminal, no terminal appears on the horizon. Even though a new terminal is not imminent, both the City and the Authority have agreed for several years that, should a terminal be built, the B6 site is the best location for a terminal. Any other possible site for a new terminal could be particularly disadvantageous to the City. Therefore, both the City and the Authority believe that it is in everyone’s interest to keep the B6 property available for a terminal – and not to sell it or otherwise develop it for some uses that could permanently foreclose a new terminal. So long as the B6 property is not used for Airport-related uses, we believe that the Authority should retain the property in the event that the City and the Authority are ever able in the future to agree on terms for a new terminal. At the time the Trust Agreements were signed, everyone expected that the property would be held by the trustee for a maximum of 6 months. So the Trust Agreement provided that the land would remain vacant except to continue uses that were occurring at that time, including the use of a small part of the property for temporary overflow parking. Since 1999, the City Council has twice amended the Trust Agreement to allow the Authority to lease parts of the Trust Property for non-Airport uses (for Desmond’s parking lot for studio trucks and for Sunrise Ford’s vehicle parking). The City agreed to these uses because it became clear that keeping the property vacant for a long time was not in anyone’s interest. These leases have produced revenue for the Authority and tax revenue for the City. So long as the property is not used for the Airport, there seems to be no reason to demand that it be kept vacant. There are both tangible and intangible benefits of an agreement. Most importantly, the City gains the benefit of certainty: we will know what can and cannot be built at the Airport for seven years and will know that no new terminal will be built for 10 years. That means that people can get on with their lives without constantly worrying about what might happen at the Airport. The City also gets the benefit of cooperation: we believe that the likelihood of getting real nighttime noise relief will be increased if the City and the Authority are cooperating in working with the FAA, the Congressional delegation and other decision makers. The City also (1) gets some money to help improve the unsafe intersection at the entrance to the Airport; (2) has an assurance that there will not be new litigation between the City and the Authority for the next several years; (3) has a commitment that the Authority will aggressively convert airport support vehicles to electric vehicles (thereby reducing air pollution); and (4) will know that traffic will be reduced on Hollywood Way because of revisions in the way that vehicle parking is handled. As with the City, there are both tangible and intangible benefits and costs for the Authority. The Authority may not today be able to afford a new terminal but we know that the economy is improving and that there eventually will be push for a new terminal. In the agreement, the Authority would give up the opportunity to renew efforts to build a new terminal for many years. The Authority gives up a number of opportunities which the City otherwise would be likely to oppose such as new airline gates, new parking, new buildings, an expansion of the existing terminal and the ability to use parts of the Trust Property for parking. We know that the Authority disagrees with our view on whether they are subject to the City’s zoning. The Authority gives up the opportunity to challenge the City’s zoning for seven years. Any agreement results from a compromise. In this case, neither the Authority nor the City would get everything they want but we believe that the compromise is better for both the City and the Authority than the present situation or the alternatives. No. The Authority has planned for several years to complete taxiway D for safety reasons. Today, certain aircraft that are using Runway 8/26 have to taxi on the runway, which is unsafe and presents opportunities for serious collisions. The completed taxiway will not result in any increase in Airport capacity or any increase in noise – only an improvement in safety and perhaps a reduction in the complexity of taxiing for aircraft arriving or departing on Runway 8/26. The City Council has made it clear that they want the process for consideration of a proposed agreement to be transparent. The City Council has not committed to the agreement and has only told staff that the proposal that staff drafted appears promising. There will be many briefings, hearings and meetings in coming months so that all the decision makers – the Authority Commission, the City Council and the Planning Board – can hear from interested residents before making a decision. The first briefing of the City Council is planned for July 20. There will be many more after that. This would be a very complex agreement and the City staff, therefore, will be making an active outreach effort to be sure that all interested residents are fully informed before the City Council takes any final action. Absolutely not. The curfew remains one of the City Council’s longest-standing and most important objectives. The FAA has recently written a letter to the Airport Authority that is highly critical of the curfew and the Authority’s Part 161 study. We think that that letter signals that the FAA is highly reluctant to approve a curfew through that Part 161 process. As a result, we believe that the City and the Authority need to think creatively about the best way to achieve a curfew. The agreement commits the City and the Authority to work together cooperatively to achieve nighttime noise relief. The Authority has offered to fund any studies – whether to complete the Part 161 study or to conduct other studies – to achieve noise relief. We believe that a cooperative approach with the Authority makes a curfew more, not less, likely.
Dios Marrero
|