Staff Report - April 2, 2002 - Agenda Item

This report recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed resolutions and ordinances to approve the following:

These actions are linked under the umbrella of the Agreement that has been negotiated between staff from the City and the Authority at the direction of the City Council.

Airport and Vicinity Place Names: Before beginning the discussion of the project actions, it may be useful for the Council to have background information about the areas being discussed. Several sites at and around the Bob Hope Airport are typically referred to by common names. For ease of reference, those names are used throughout this report. This introductory section briefly describes each of the areas to familiarize the Council and the public with their names and locations. All of the locations are shown on the map attached as Exhibit 1-1.[1]

A-1 North: The A-1 North property is located at the southeast corner of the Airport at the intersection of Hollywood Way and Empire Avenue. The 31-acre site was formerly occupied by Lockheed and used for aircraft manufacturing and corporate offices. In 2001, Zelman Development acquired the site. In 2002, Zelman developed about 21 acres of the site with a surface parking lot that operates today as �Star Park.� The remaining ten acres of the site are currently vacant. The Authority has applied to the City pursuant to PUC Section 21661.6 to purchase 26.7 acres of the property. This area includes about 20.46 acres of existing parking lot, six acres of vacant land along Empire Avenue, and 0.24 acres of vacant land at the intersection of Hollywood Way and Thornton Avenue south of the Airport access road. Zelman Development will retain the remaining four acres. The City is currently processing parcel map, conditional use permit, and development review applications for a proposed private development project on that four-acre portion of the property. That project is expected to be considered by the Planning Board in early 2005 and is unrelated to the Airport�s proposed actions discussed in this report.

B-6 Property: The B-6 Property is approximately 107 acres and is located east of the Airport along the west side of Hollywood Way north of Winona Avenue. This property historically was owned by Lockheed and used for aircraft manufacturing. In 1999, the Authority condemned the B-6 Property from Lockheed. The City granted approval under PUC Section 21661.6 for the Authority to acquire a portion of the property, known as the �Adjacent Property,� subject to very strict limits on use of the property. The City did not grant approval for the Authority to acquire the remainder of the B-6 Property, known as the �Trust Property,� and the parties instead placed the property in trust, also subject to very strict controls. Portions of the B-6 Property are used for vehicle storage; however, large portions of the B-6 Property are vacant. Environmental remediation has been conducted, and the vacant sites have been graded and could be developed for compatible uses.

Adjacent Property: The Adjacent Property is 49.2 acres in size and composes the western half of the B-6 Property immediately adjacent to the airfield. About 25 acres of the property are currently utilized by Desmond�s Studio Production Services for the storage of movie production vehicles and equipment. A conditional use permit and PUC Section 21661.6 application for this use were approved by the Planning Board and City Council, respectively, in 2002. The Authority has applied to the City pursuant to PUC Section 21661.6 to amend the previously approved plan for the property to allow 16.7 acres of the site to be used for surface parking for employees and Airport passengers. This would allow the Authority to eliminate parking in the portions of Airport Parking Lot A that are located within runway safety zones.

Trust Property: The 1999 agreement creating the trust required the Authority to sell the Trust Property if the City and Authority could not reach an agreement by Spring 2000 on a relocated passenger terminal. The agreement also imposed strict limits on short- and long-term use of the Trust Property. In 2002, the Authority sold an approximately 20-acre parcel of the Trust Property that is located within the City of Los Angeles. The remaining portion of the Trust Property is approximately 58 acres in size and comprises the eastern half of the B-6 Property along Hollywood Way. Portions of the property are currently used by the Authority for temporary overflow valet parking, by rental car companies for rental car storage, and by a local Ford dealership for the storage of new cars awaiting sale. A portion of the property is also being utilized as a construction staging area for equipment and materials related to the construction of the new Burbank Water and Power Magnolia Power Plant. Each of these uses is specifically authorized by the original trust agreement or by subsequent amendments thereto as approved by the City Council.

Parking Lot A: Parking Lot A is a long-term passenger parking lot located north of the east-west Airport runway and west of Hollywood Way near the intersection with Winona Avenue. As noted above, the Authority has applied to relocate most of this parking lot north from its current location onto a portion of the Adjacent Property.

Southwest Quadrant: The Southwest Quadrant refers to the area of the Airport located south of the east-west runway and west of the north-south runway along Empire Avenue. The area contains general aviation facilities, air cargo facilities, rental car storage and maintenance facilities, and other miscellaneous airport related uses. Under the proposed Agreement, the Authority would be authorized to use the Southwest Quadrant for passenger vehicle parking beginning four years after the Authority begins using the A-1 North site.

Building Restriction Line: The Building Restriction Line (�BRL�) is an imaginary line inside which no structures may be built pursuant to FAA airport development guidelines. The BRL is located parallel to the airport runways 750 feet from the runway centerlines. Because of the proximity to the runways and aircraft operations, generally no development is permitted within the BRL, although certain limited uses such as surface parking lots may be permitted. Although the BRL at the Bob Hope Airport extends onto private property (for example, the A-1 North property), the development restrictions are applicable only to the airport proprietor. The FAA does not have jurisdiction to enforce its development guidelines on private property owners. One of the terms of the proposed Agreement would prohibit the Authority from constructing any new buildings within the BRL except where existing buildings are already located closer to the runway.

Terminal: The �terminal� as used in this report and the proposed Agreement refers to the commercial air passenger building located in the southeast quadrant of the airport west of Hollywood Way. The terminal is composed of two halves, Terminal A (to the east) and Terminal B (to the west and south), both of which serve passengers of various commercial airlines that fly from the Airport. The terminal includes ticketing, security screening, passenger waiting, and baggage handling areas, and also includes incidental retail, restaurant, and other commercial uses inside the building, and ancillary office and related uses. As used in this report and the Agreement, terminal does not include parking areas or other facilities outside of the terminal building, nor does it include private passenger buildings used by general aviation and charter passengers and private corporate passengers, such as those operated by Mercury Air and Million Air in the northwest quadrant of the Airport.

Airport Zoning and Development Agreement History: In August 2002, the City Council adopted an interim development control ordinance (�IDCO�) that restricted development in the Airport zone and allowed only certain minor projects to go forward. The Council extended the IDCO as authorized by state law for a total of two years. The IDCO expired in August 2004, and the Airport zone as defined in the Burbank Municipal Code (�BMC�) again controls development in the Airport zone. The IDCO was adopted partly in response to a proposed 40,000 square foot addition to the Airport passenger terminal that the Authority argued was necessary to provide federally mandated security facilities in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001. The proposed project served as a reminder that there were no development standards in the Airport zone and few additional standards and requirements to guide and control development in the Airport zone. In adopting the IDCO, the Council directed staff to prepare a zone text amendment to establish development standards and other development controls for the Airport zone.

Staff commenced work on the zone text amendment and anticipated bringing the proposed amendment to the Planning Board and Council in mid-2004. In April 2004, at the direction of the City Council, staff met with Authority staff to discuss and receive input on the proposed zoning amendments. At that meeting, Authority staff suggested that, as an alternative to the proposed zoning, the City and the Authority enter into a development agreement to address development at the Airport for a certain period of time. Staff continued discussions with the Authority to determine whether an agreement might be possible. Based upon direction from the City Council, staff temporarily suspended work on the rezoning to pursue the Agreement. The general terms of the proposed Agreement were announced at the City Council meeting of June 22, 2004.

The terms of the Agreement as identified at the June 22 meeting and reflected in the original term sheet (Exhibit 3-3) are follows:

Although the Agreement is, in many respects, the comprehensive agreement containing most of the obligations of the City and the Authority, several aspects of the Agreement require City approval through discretionary processes in addition to the Agreement. Specifically, the Authority has filed with the City two planned developments applications (one of which includes a development review application) and two applications pursuant to PUC Section 21661.6. The Authority has approved and submitted for City Council consideration, amendments to the Title Transfer Agreements and related documents that control the use of the Adjacent and Trust Properties. Further, per the terms of the Agreement noted above, the City would agree to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text and an amendment to the Building Code.

Summary of Public Process: The Agreement and related actions have resulted in a public process that includes public meetings in front of several different bodies and different opportunities for the public to participate in the process and provide input. Below is a summary of the public meetings and other opportunities that the public has had thus far to provide input on the proposed Agreement and related actions.

City Council Meetings: The terms of the proposed Agreement were first presented to the City Council and the public at the Council meeting of June 22, 2004. Staff returned to the Council on July 20, 2004 with a presentation to provide additional information about the terms of the Agreement and to update the Council on the status of the negotiations and the next steps in the process. On August 24, 2004, staff provided the Council with an update on the environmental document being prepared by the Authority and the various opportunities that the public would have to provide input on the environmental analysis.

Environmental Document Comments and Meetings: The Airport Authority released its Mitigated Negative Declaration (�MND�) environmental analysis document for public review on September 23, 2004, with a public comment period from September 25 through October 18. The Planning Board held a special meeting on October 4, 2004 to provide comments on the MND and to solicit input from the public. The City Council reviewed the MND at its October 12, 2004 meeting, and again invited comments from the public. Based upon input received from the Planning Board and the public, the Council directed staff to prepare a comment letter to the Authority on its proposed MND. Any member of the public was welcomed to submit comments to the Authority on the proposed MND during the public comment period, and several individuals submitted letters.

Authority Meeting (October): On October 27, 2004, the Authority held a meeting to consider the proposed Agreement, environmental document, and related applications. The Authority voted to approve the documents and submit the necessary applications to the City.

Preliminary Analyses: On November 19, 2004, the City released the Preliminary Analyses of the Authority�s PUC Section 21661.6 applications as required by the City�s PUC application processing guidelines (see Exhibits 5-4 and 6-4). This initiated a 15-day comment period that was scheduled to end on Friday, December 3, 2004 but later extended through Monday, December 6, 2004. The public was invited to submit written comments to the City about the PUC applications and the Preliminary Analyses and several comment letters were received (see Exhibits 15-1 through 15-10).

Planning Board Hearing: On December 6, 2004, a special Planning Board meeting was held for the Board to consider the Agreement, planned development and development review applications, and the zone text amendment. Several letters were submitted by the public to the Planning Board (see Exhibits 15-1 through 15-10) and several members of the public attended the hearing and provided verbal comments to the Board. The action and recommendations of the Board are discussed later in this report.

Airport Land Use Commission Hearing: On December 8, 2004, the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) held a public hearing to consider several of the proposed actions and determine if they would be consistent with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan. No members of the public spoke at the hearing. The action and recommendations of the ALUC are discussed later in this report.

Authority Meeting (January): On January 3, 2005, the Authority held a meeting to consider adoption of the amendments to the Title Transfer Agreements. The Authority voted to approve the proposed amendments.

Community Meeting: On December 14, 2004, the Council directed staff to schedule a town hall meeting to provide a forum for the community to ask questions and express their opinions about the proposed Agreement and related actions outside of the formal public hearing process. The meeting is scheduled to take place on January 12, 2004. In an effort to provide all information about the proposed Agreement to the community prior to the January 12 meeting, this report is being published in advance of that meeting. Staff will present a summary of the meeting and the questions and comments received at the meeting during the staff presentation to Council at the January 18 hearing.

Written Comments: As of the publication of this staff report, staff has received several emails and letters regarding the proposed Agreement and related actions. Most of these were submitted in conjunction with the Preliminary Analyses or Planning Board hearing. All of the correspondence received as of the publication of this report are attached hereto as Exhibits 15-1 through 15-10. Rather than address each question or comment individually, the submitted questions and comments are addressed by topic throughout this report where appropriate. Questions and comments that staff believed were necessary to address but which were not directly related to the topics discussed in this report are addressed together near the end of the report.

Report Organization: This staff report is divided into several sections covering the Agreement and each of the separate discretionary actions related thereto. To assist with the Council�s consideration of these items, each section of the report is formatted as a stand-alone staff report including background information and staff analysis. The final section of the report includes discussion on issues applicable to all of the proposed actions, including environmental review, conclusions, and recommendations.

Property Location: The proposed Agreement would apply to all land currently owned by the Authority within the City of Burbank,[2] including the surface parking lots and vacant properties located east of Hollywood Way (i.e., long-term Parking Lots B and C and properties in the runway safety zones acquired by the Authority for safety purposes). The Agreement would also apply to the Trust Property and to the portion of the A-1 North property that the Authority proposes to acquire (Exhibit 1-2).

Zoning: All property currently owned by the Authority on the west side of Hollywood Way is zoned AP Airport, except a small portion of the Adjacent Property and a few industrial properties north of the Trust Property (the Aviall properties) that are zoned M-2 General Industrial (Exhibit 2-1).[3] The A-1 North property and Parking Lots B and C east of Hollywood Way are zoned M-2. The north and south ends of the Trust Property are zoned M-2; the middle portion is zoned Airport.

General Plan Designation: Those areas listed above with Airport zoning are designated Airport by the General Plan Land Use Element. Those areas listed with M-2 zoning are designated General Manufacturing. The zoning and General Plan land use boundaries are identical. These land use designations are consistent with the zoning.

Property Area: Approximately 515 acres of land would be covered by the Agreement (Exhibit 1-2). The majority of this land is located north of Empire Avenue and west of Hollywood Way in the northwest corner of the City. A few parcels (long-term Parking Lots B and C and safety zone properties) are located east of Hollywood Way.

Street Classification: Hollywood Way is classified as a major arterial street in the General Plan Circulation Element. Empire Avenue is classified as a secondary arterial street.

Current Development of the Site: The land area that would be subject to the Agreement is developed almost entirely with airport-related land uses, including the air passenger terminal, parking facilities, aircraft hangars and storage areas, and cargo handling facilities. The A-1 North property is partially developed with a surface parking lot and is partially vacant. The B-6 Property is partially vacant and partially used for vehicle storage as noted earlier in this report. The Aviall properties are developed with industrial uses. The safety zone properties east of Hollywood Way are landscaped and are required to remain vacant pursuant to the PUC 21661.6 approval for the Authority�s purchase of the properties.

Project Description with Staff Analysis: The proposed Agreement would regulate development at the Airport for a period of seven years and would prohibit pursuit and construction of a new passenger terminal for a period of ten years. As stated in the Agreement itself, �the purpose of the agreement is to provide greater certainty and predictability in relations between the City and the Authority for many years and to provide for a mutually acceptable balance between the type and extent of projects that will meet the Authority�s expected needs during the term of this agreement and the desire of the parties to avoid Authority actions and development that may, or could be perceived to, adversely affect the City, its residents, and property owners in the vicinity of the Bob Hope Airport.�

The subject Agreement would serve a dual purpose as both a freestanding development agreement to regulate development and as a tool to effectuate the two planned development zones. BMC Section 31-19128 requires that a development agreement be approved to accompany each planned development zone. The Agreement provides the planned development applicant with vested rights to the use and development standards specified in the planned development. Each of the two planned development zones would have its own conditions of approval. These conditions would be attached as exhibits to the Agreement, but would apply only within the boundaries of the respective planned development zone. There would be no conditions of approval for the Agreement itself; all development controls established by the Agreement outside of the two planned development zones are stated within the text of the Agreement.

There are many different aspects to the Agreement and many issues covered. In an effort to help the Council focus on the substantive issues of the Agreement, this report discusses those aspects of the Agreement that are related to land use, zoning, and policy issues. Certain terms of the Agreement are concerned with highly technical legal matters and procedures, and are not discussed in detail herein. These legal issues are common to most development agreements, and staff analysis of those specific terms is not warranted. Staff notes however that all aspects of the Agreement are subject to Council approval and the full text of the Agreement is attached as Exhibit 3-1. Earlier in this report, the main points of the Agreement were listed to orient the Council to the whole of the Agreement. Staff believes that it is most critical for the Council to focus on the specific issues addressed in detail below.

Staff�s analysis of each aspect of the Agreement is included below with each item.

The Agreement would become effective at the time the ordinance approving the Agreement becomes effective, which by City Charter is the 31^st day after the City Attorney�s synopsis of the ordinance is published in the newspaper. The Agreement would be effective for a period of seven years, beginning at the time the Authority provides notice to the City that it has acquired the A-1 North property. Hence, if the Authority acquires the property and provides notice to the City six months after the Council has adopted the Agreement, the actual total term of the Agreement would be seven years, six months. Alternatively, the Agreement may terminate prior to the seven-year period at such time that the Authority notifies the City of its failure to close escrow or take title to the A-1 North property. All of the terms of the Agreement discussed below would be in place for the seven-year term of the Agreement, except the requirement on the Authority not to plan for or construct a new air passenger terminal, which would be in place for ten years from the time the Authority provides notice to the City of acquisition of the A-1 North property.

Staff Analysis: The effective date of the Agreement is the same as with any other agreement. However, the seven-year term of the Agreement does not begin until the Authority acquires the A-1 North property. Staff understands that the purchase and sale agreement between the Authority and Zelman Development requires the parties to close by summer 2005, meaning that the total length of the Agreement should be no more than seven years and a few months. Staff believes that the seven-year term is an appropriate length of time in which to bind the Authority and the City with respect to development at the Airport. It is difficult to foresee the City�s or the Authority�s needs beyond this time period. Moreover, seven years of settled expectations should provide sufficient time for the City and Authority to build a cooperative relationship that hopefully will lead to permanent, meaningful noise relief for the community and also to a plan for development beyond the seven-year period. The ten-year term of the limitations on a new passenger terminal provide the City with assurances that a new terminal will not be publicly discussed for three additional years beyond the term of the Agreement. In light of the extensive planning requirements associated with a new terminal, staff believes that subjecting this requirement to the same seven-year term as the other obligations would not have provided adequate protection to the City or the community.

Under the Agreement, the Authority would receive vested rights to the current use and development standards of the Airport and M-2 zones, and certain other City laws for the seven-year term of the Agreement (Exhibit 3-1 at page 13). This means that the zoning regulations in place at the time the Agreement is adopted will be locked in place for seven years as they apply to property that is subject to the Agreement. Subsequent changes to the use or development standards of the M-2 zone would not be applicable to those M-2 zoned properties covered by the Agreement, including portions of the Trust Property and the Airport parking lots located east of Hollywood Way.

Although the City may change standards for the M-2 zone as they apply on a citywide basis, any such changes would exclude those properties covered by the Agreement. The specific types of changes that would not be applied to the land covered by the Agreement are listed in Section 3.4 of the Agreement (Exhibit 3-1 at page 16). Specific exemptions to this aspect of the Agreement (i.e., changes that would apply to the Airport) are listed in Section 3.5 of the Agreement. Notable among these exemptions is the provision recognizing the City�s authority to require a conditional use permit for parking uses or structures in the M-2 zone, including parking lots owned or operated by the Authority, and the provision recognizing the City�s authority to apply a future Citywide valet parking ordinance to the Authority so long as such ordinance �does not reasonably interfere with the Authority�s ability to utilize any parking area� permitted by the Agreement.

Staff Analysis: The concept of vesting development standards is common in development agreements. In the past, the City of Burbank has typically executed development agreements in conjunction with a planned development zone, whereby a developer receives vested rights to the use and development standards created by the planned development. This Agreement serves the same function with respect to the proposed planned development rezoning for the A-1 North property and for the relocation of Parking Lot A. However, the proposed Agreement serves the added function of conferring vested rights to a particular interpretation of the pre-existing zoning regulations. This issue is discussed in greater detail in the next subsection.

Staff finds that the types of uses currently permitted in the Airport and M-2 zones as interpreted under the Agreement are the types of uses that are appropriate for the Airport and surrounding properties as currently zoned. Any such changes in the use or development standards of the M-2 zone over the next seven years are not likely to be substantial, and giving the Airport vested rights to the existing standards would not likely have a significant effect on development in the area. Staff notes that under the Agreement the Authority and its properties would still be subject to a zone amendment to require discretionary approvals for parking lots or structures in the M-2 zone. This would allow the City to exert additional control over any possible increase in capacity of Parking Lots B and C, in addition to other private lots in the area.

For the purposes of administration of the Agreement, the Agreement memorializes an interpretation of the currently permitted uses in the Airport zone as provided in BMC Sections 31-902 and 31-502 (Exhibit 3-1 at page 13). To clarify the general use categories listed in the land use table of the Zoning Ordinance, the Agreement identifies the various uses that are interpreted to fall within each general category. This approach generally clarifies that uses such as aircraft hangars, air cargo facilities, emergency response facilities, airport related parking, and car rental facilities are considered airport-related uses and permitted by right within the Airport zone. Under the Agreement, such uses would be permitted to go forward under the ministerial development review process but would not be subject to further City review or discretionary action.

Staff Analysis: The lack of specificity in the land use table of the Zoning Ordinance has caused confusion about whether certain proposed projects are permitted. The Airport is the site of many different land uses, and the general intent of the BMC is to permit as of right those uses that are related to the movement by air of passengers and cargo. The permitted uses identified in the Agreement are not intended to expand in any way the uses permitted under the Zoning Ordinance but rather to recognize the numerous land uses that are incidental and accessory to the operation of the Airport. Further, the interpretation of Airport zone uses provided in the Agreement closely matches the Zoning Ordinance�s classification of airport related uses prior to the code�s migration from lists of land uses to the use list table used today.

Generally, all new or expanded building projects in the City are required to go through the development review process. BMC Section 31-1914 specifies certain projects that are exempt from development review, and further provides that any minor project that is determined by the Community Development Director to be highly consistent with adopted plans and in compliance with the code can be exempted from development review. For the purposes of the Agreement, nine types of projects are considered exempt from development review (Exhibit 3-1 at page 15). This means that during the seven-year term of the Agreement, any project that the Authority wishes to pursue that falls into one of the nine categories would not be required to go through the development review process. The Agreement also provides that the Community Development Director may deem any other type of project not specifically listed exempt from development review as provided in BMC Section 31-1914.

Staff Analysis: Most of the projects covered by the nine categories would be exempted from development review pursuant to BMC Section 31-1914. The purpose of this provision of the proposed Agreement is to establish definitively whether certain Airport-specific projects satisfy the applicable criteria. This is consistent with the overall purpose of the Agreement, which is to provide greater certainty about those development projects that the Authority will be able to pursue during the next seven years. The projects exempt from development review are largely minor in nature and encompass routine projects that the Airport may carry out as part of normal operations of the Airport. Exemption (9) provides a development review exemption for demolition of an aircraft storage structure (i.e. hangar) and replacement with a structure of the same size and height. While such an action is arguably not a routine project, it would not expand existing airport facilities and would allow only for an existing building to be replaced with a building of like size and use without going through development review. Consistent with BMC requirements, any other structure over 300 square feet would require development review. For example, a new aircraft hangar over 300 square feet that is not replacing an existing hangar, while permitted by right under the Agreement, would still be required to go through the development review process.

Over the term of the Agreement, the Authority may pursue certain projects as permitted under the Airport and M-2 zoning. Each time an application for such a project is submitted (application for building permit, development review, or other process as appropriate), the Agreement provides that the Community Development Director would review the application and determine its consistency with the terms of the Agreement. If determined to be consistent with the Agreement, the Director would process the application subject to normal procedures. If determined to be inconsistent with the Agreement, the Authority would be required to apply for an amendment to the Agreement if it wished to pursue the project.

The Agreement establishes a separate process for subsequent applications for the two areas that would be subject to planned development zones. This process would require the Community Development Director to determine whether a proposed application is consistent with the respective planned development zone. If the application is deemed inconsistent, the Director would forward the application to the Planning Board for its consideration. A decision by the Director or Planning Board that the application is inconsistent with the planned development zone could be appealed ultimately to the City Council.

Staff Analysis: Staff believes that the proposed process for consideration of subsequent applications is fair and adequate. The process would allow for several layers of review when deemed necessary while not unnecessarily burdening the Authority with additional review of projects permitted by the Agreement. This process is generally similar to �substantial conformance� processes that have been used with previous planned development projects.

The Authority would be prohibited under the Agreement from taking certain actions related to expanding the existing terminal and other Airport facilities, or building a new terminal (see Exhibit 3-1 at page 20). For the seven-year term of the Agreement, the Authority could not:

For a period of ten years from the effective date of the Agreement, the Authority could not take any of the following actions related to a new or relocated passenger terminal building (see Exhibit 3-1 at page 19):

In summary, the Authority could not publicly plan for or seek authorization to proceed with building a new passenger terminal for ten years from the effective date of the Agreement.

Staff Analysis: The Agreement would place substantial limitations on the Airport�s ability to enhance its facilities for the next seven to ten years. The BMC contains few limits on the Authority�s ability to expand the existing terminal, and the Agreement would provide the City with a new layer of protection against an expanded airport terminal. While the City has controls over building a new passenger terminal on the B-6 Property, the Authority could potentially build a new terminal on other Airport property without City consent under the current zoning. Although staff understands that the Authority has no immediate plans to pursue a new passenger terminal, numerous factors relating to the Airport and air transportation in the Los Angeles metropolitan area could prompt reconsideration of a new terminal at any time. The Agreement eliminates this possibility for ten years and also creates mechanisms by which the City and the Authority can work cooperatively to determine whether and under what conditions a new terminal might be appropriate after ten years. Staff finds that the proposed Agreement is superior to amending the BMC because it provides the same or greater protections than would be available through rezoning that are achieved cooperatively rather than imposed by ordinance.

The parking modifications that would occur with the proposed Agreement would result in a net decrease of 316 parking spaces at and around the Airport. Exhibit 3-2 is a table showing the changes in parking at various locations. In summary, the following changes would occur in the number of passenger, employee, and rental car spaces:

The number of parking spaces on the Adjacent Property (relocated Lot A) and the A-1 North property would be capped by the Agreement and related approvals. The elimination of all parking from the Trust Property would be permanent. The Agreement would not restrict the specific number of parking spaces in the other areas. However, as noted above, the Authority would not be permitted to expand its parking facilities (other than employee parking) to any other locations except the Southwest Quadrant beginning four years after the Authority begins using the A-1 North site. Increases in parking on Lots B and C east of Hollywood Way could potentially be limited through adoption of a zone text amendment to require conditional use permits for parking in the M-2 zone, which as noted above would apply to the Authority notwithstanding their gaining of vested rights for M-2 uses.

Staff Analysis: The proposed Agreement would result in a net reduction of parking spaces at and around the Airport. This net decrease primarily would be the result of the elimination of about 1,500 overflow valet and rental car spaces from the B-6 Trust Property. This decrease would more than offset increases elsewhere, including the increases on the A-1 North property and the relocated Parking Lot A. Staff believes that it is very significant that the Agreement would not increase parking at the Airport and that the Agreement and related approvals would provide important limits on the Authority�s ability to increase parking in the future. It is argued by some that additional parking at the Airport enhances the Airport�s attractiveness to potential passengers, which in turn increases the numbers of passengers and flights.[5] Under the proposed Agreement, the total amount of available parking would decrease, so no such enhancement could occur. Further, the Authority�s purchase of the parking lot owned by its most direct competitor (Star Park) would likely result in an increase in parking prices, which would further detract from the attractiveness of parking at the Airport.

The Agreement does not address the sale of the Trust Property and contains limited references to the restrictions on use of the Adjacent and Trust Properties. The Agreement instead refers to the Title Transfer Agreements that address the sale of, and contractually restrict the use of, the property. Under those agreements, use of the Adjacent Property would be limited to the existing Desmond�s vehicle storage facility and the relocated Parking Lot A. Use of the Trust Property would be limited to uses allowed by the underlying M-2 and Airport zoning, except that the Authority could not pursue airport-related uses, even if permitted by right, and all uses would be limited to a ten-year period. Use of the B-6 Property also would be subject to the normal development review process or discretionary approval process if required. Through the Agreement the Authority would receive vested rights to the zoning on the Trust Property, meaning that the possible uses on the site would be controlled by the zoning in place today, regardless of how it may change during the term of the Agreement.

Staff Analysis: Staff�s analysis of the Title Transfer Agreements and the additional restrictions contained therein is in a later section of this report.

Under the Agreement, the City and the Authority would agree to cooperate in realigning the intersection of Hollywood Way, Thornton Avenue, and the Airport access road. Thornton Avenue and the access road are currently offset from one another. This arrangement requires the intersection to operate with a split-phase signal to avoid conflicts and potential safety hazards between cars traveling east from the Airport access road and cars traveling west from Thornton Avenue. Per the Agreement, the Authority would purchase from Zelman the 0.24 acres of land needed to complete this project, and the City and Authority would split the cost of the improvements, including signals, curbing, and paving. Although the Authority would own the land, the City would retain an easement for roadway purposes over the land to prevent it from being used for other Airport purposes. The land area would also be subject to the planned development zone, as discussed later in this report.

Staff Analysis: The proposed realignment would improve safety by aligning the Airport access road with Thornton Avenue and would improve efficiency of vehicles moving through the intersection by eliminating the need for a split-phase signal and allowing traffic from Thornton Avenue and the Airport access road to travel through the intersection at the same signal phase. City staff have identified this intersection as being in need of improvement, and this is an ideal time to complete the needed improvements. Because the Airport Authority would benefit from this project by gaining improved access to their entrance road, it is appropriate for the Authority to purchase the land and share in the cost of the improvements.

Just as the Authority would agree not to publicly plan for a new passenger terminal building, the City would agree under the Agreement not to engage in planning activities related to a new passenger terminal or to the Airport property in general. During the seven-year term of the Agreement, the City could not do any of the following (Exhibit 3-1 at page 25):

Between the seventh and tenth year of the Agreement, the City would not be restricted from taking any of the above actions. However, if the City elected to take any of the actions, the Airport would be relieved from the ten-year restriction on planning for a new terminal, and could begin public processes, including conducting environmental review or submitting applications, for a new terminal building.

The City would not be restricted from taking the following actions while the Agreement is still in effect; however, while City staff could begin working internally on such actions at any time during the agreement, the City would not be permitted to publicly announce or proceed with any of the below actions until the first day of the seventh year of the Agreement:

Prior to the first day of the seventh year, the City and Authority would be required to meet and discuss possible courses of action, as discussed below.

Staff Analysis: The proposed Agreement would provide the City with numerous protections and controls over airport development for seven years, and protection against a new passenger terminal for ten years. The zoning actions listed above would be unnecessary for the City during the term of the Agreement because the Agreement itself provides an acceptable substitute for zoning and allows the City to regulate development at the Airport. Toward the end of the Agreement, the City would have the ability to begin taking or preparing to take certain zoning actions if deemed necessary. It is important to note that the City would be permitted to take certain zoning actions during years seven through ten, while the Authority would still be restricted from publicly planning for a new passenger terminal.

The City Manager and the Executive Director of the Airport Authority recently established an informal �Airport Land Use Working Group� composed of City and Authority staff (Exhibit 3-1 at page 24). No later than five years after the effective date of the Agreement, the group would meet to discuss possible courses of action following the termination of the Agreement, including but not limited to extending or modifying the Agreement, returning to the pre-Agreement status quo, or adopting new zoning regulations. The group would be required to meet and discuss possible courses of action for at least one year before any action could be taken, unless the group reached an agreement on a common course of action before the end of the one-year period. Whether or not agreement is reached, no action could be announced or pursued publicly until the first day of the seventh year of the Agreement.

Staff Analysis: One of the central goals of the proposed Agreement is to encourage City and Authority cooperation on land use and noise issues. The Airport Land Use Working Group process would ensure that the staffs of the two agencies seek a mutually beneficial course of action as the term of the Agreement comes to a close. The City would retain its ultimate authority to take whatever zoning actions are deemed necessary and could work cooperatively with the Authority to determine whether either an extension to the Agreement or execution of a new agreement would be appropriate. The proposed process set up in the Agreement forces the City and Authority to try to work together to resolve long-term airport planning issues beyond the term of this Agreement.

The City Manager and the Executive Director of the Airport Authority recently established an informal �Noise Working Group� composed of City and Authority staff (Exhibit 3-1 at page 23). The Authority has been working on a noise study (the �Part 161 Study�) for several years that examines alternatives for a mandatory curfew. The FAA commented negatively on a draft portion of the study concerning the costs and benefits of a mandatory curfew. The Authority has not indicated whether and how it intends to proceed with the Part 161 Study. The purpose of the group is to �develop objectives, process, timing, and measures to address how to achieve nighttime noise relief and how or whether to continue the Part 161 Study.� The Authority also is obligated to report periodically to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) on the status of its efforts to reduce the size of the noise impact area. One of the additional duties of the Noise Working Group would be to review and seek consensus regarding the �substance, tone, and intent� of noise monitoring reports that the Airport must submit to Caltrans.

Staff Analysis: As mentioned above, one of the key objectives of the proposed Agreement is to encourage City and Authority cooperation on noise related issues. The overarching goal of the City Council and the community has been to obtain some meaningful and enforceable relief from nighttime aircraft noise and from potential future increases in aircraft noise. While the Agreement itself cannot restrict aircraft operations or provide other such direct controls on noise, the Agreement sets up a framework for the City and Authority to work together to seek a solution to the noise problem. It has been recognized that the best opportunity to achieve meaningful nighttime noise relief will be with the City and Authority working together toward the common goal, rather than working separately toward similar goals. The proposed Agreement facilitates this approach.

The City collects transient parking taxes from the Authority�s parking operations as it does from other operators of transient parking in the City. There is currently a voter-approved cap of 12 percent on the transient parking tax. Under the proposed Agreement, the City Council would be prohibited during the term of the Agreement from seeking or supporting voter approval for an increase in the parking tax rate above the current 12 percent cap.

Staff Analysis: This restriction would not limit the amount of money that the City could collect from the Authority�s parking operations. The City�s tax revenue would continue to increase (or decrease) proportionally with the Authority�s parking revenue. This restriction would only prevent the Council from seeking to increase the tax rate above the current 12 percent or supporting any voter action to do so for a seven-year period. The transient parking tax law would not be changed through this Agreement, and the City would continue to collect taxes from the Authority and other parking operators as it does currently.

The Authority has expressed its commitment to continue its program to enable air carriers to electrify their ground service equipment. The Agreement would require the Authority to report annually to the City on its progress. As a demonstration of its commitment and as an incentive to speed the conversion to battery operated ground support equipment, the Authority would be required under the Agreement to install battery charging units at the aircraft parking positions, which would be available to all air carriers operating at the Airport. Installation of the battery charging units would occur over time, but would commence with installation of approximately 30 such units for use by Southwest Airlines within six months of the effective date of the Agreement.

Staff Analysis: Electrification of ground service equipment is an ongoing project being conducted by the Airport Authority. This effort is consistent with City policy to promote the use of alternative fuels to the greatest extent possible and is consistent with programs in place at other airports.

The Agreement contains specific provisions for the City�s and Authority�s responsibilities in the event that the Authority�s compliance with the Agreement or any provision of the Agreement becomes impossible, illegal, or would result in the Authority being ineligible to receive federal or state grant funding or to impose, collect, or use passenger facility charges (Exhibit 3-1 at page 28). A new statute or regulation, a determination or ruling by a court or state or federal agency, or a formal notification from the FAA could create such a situation. In the event the Authority receives written notice that this has occurred, the Agreement mandates the following sequence of events:

Staff Analysis: The above sequence of events provides the City with important protections in the event of an adverse law or decision that might threaten either party�s ability to comply with the Agreement. These procedures are intended to be complicated and cumbersome to ensure that the City and the Authority act consciously and deliberatively before terminating any provision of the Agreement. While the Authority would be given the ability to strike any sections from the Agreement with which it believes it is not able to comply, the City may in turn select any additional sections that it would choose to strike in response, up to and including the balance of the Agreement. This provides the City with the ability to determine the ultimate fate of the Agreement in the event the Authority seeks to terminate some or all provisions of the Agreement.

The Authority�s subsequent obligations, outlined in items 7 through 9 above, would survive any termination of the Agreement (Exhibit 3-1 at page 30). Thus, if some or all portions of the Agreement were terminated as a result of some unforeseen government or court action, the City would be provided with ample time to prepare an alternative zoning measure. Per the requirements listed above, the City�s own sections identified for termination would not actually terminate unless and until the Authority elected to pursue some project or use that would not have been permitted by the original Agreement. In that event, however, the Authority would be required, after providing notice to the City of its intent to pursue such a project, to wait for a minimum of 90 days before issuing a Notice of Preparation for an EIR for the proposed project, regardless of whether the project would otherwise require preparation of an EIR. The Authority would then be required to provide a comment period on that EIR of at least 180 days. These two periods provide the City with no less than 270 days, or about nine months, to pursue some zoning action as an alternative to terminating the Agreement. Staff believes that the proposed process provides an advantage to the City by allowing ample time for the planning process to take place.

Added Terms to Development Agreement Since Planning Board Hearing: The proposed Agreement has been the subject of negotiations for several months. At the time the Agreement was considered by the Planning Board, it was still a living document, and a few sections of the Agreement were the subject of additional negotiation and changes prior to the Council�s consideration of the Agreement. The Board was notified of those sections of the Agreement that were subject to further negotiation. Staff for the City and Authority have reached agreement on the following terms and were continuing to work on the appropriate documentation of the terms as of the publication of this report. The resolution of these issues and resulting documentation will be addressed in an addendum to this staff report and at the public hearing on January 18.

Municipal Code Conformance: BMC Section 31-1997 authorizes the City to enter into a development agreement pursuant to Section 65865 of the State of California Government Code, which provides that �any city�may enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of the property.� As required by BMC Section 31-19128, the City enters into a development agreement with a developer any time a planned development zone is approved. Although it is common practice in many other cities, the City of Burbank has not recently entered into a development agreement without also adopting a planned development zone. The BMC prohibits the use of a development agreement to allow exceptions to the Code or grant entitlements under the Code. A development agreement can only be used as a vehicle for implementing such entitlements. In absence of a planned development, a development agreement would typically be used to grant a developer vested rights to the existing zoning regulations so as to provide certainty about the laws that would be applied to a project in the future.

This is the manner in which this Agreement is being used. Although the Agreement would also be used to implement the two planned development zones as required by the BMC, the Agreement applies to other areas of the Airport where a planned development zone would not apply. In those areas, the Agreement provides vested rights to the underlying zoning without changing that zoning or granting any entitlements pursuant to the zoning. The Authority would not be prohibited from seeking future entitlements or project approvals as permitted by the zoning, but no projects are explicitly authorized by the Agreement other than those that would be located within the planned development zones. The two planned development zones would have their own conditions of approval that would provide the development and use standards for those zones, as with other planned development zones. Because the Agreement implements both planned development zones, the two sets of conditions would be attached to the Agreement itself, but would control development only within the planned development zone boundaries.

General Plan Consistency: BMC Section 31-19110(b) provides that the City Council may not approve a development agreement unless it finds that the Agreement would be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plans. As discussed above, the proposed Agreement would give the Authority vested rights to the underlying Airport and M-2 zoning on the properties under the Agreement. The uses and development permitted under the Agreement would be the same as that permitted under the existing zoning, except as specifically prohibited by the Agreement. The existing zoning is consistent with the General Plan; therefore, the vested rights to the zoning as provided in the Agreement are also consistent with the General Plan. Two properties subject to the Agreement would be rezoned as planned developments, and the Agreement would provide vested rights to those zones. As discussed later in this report, the proposed uses and development within the planned development zones would be consistent with the General Plan. No aspect of the Agreement would be inconsistent with any goal or policy of the General Plan. There are no adopted specific plans on any properties that would be subject to the Agreement.

Response to Public Comment: Some letters submitted by members of the public addressed the construction of a new passenger terminal and noise issues including curfews, easterly takeoffs, and the Part 161 study. In some cases, the commenters suggested that the proposed Agreement would directly impact these issues, including allowing for construction of a new terminal and allowing commercial aircraft takeoffs to the east. It is important to note that the proposed Agreement would not do any of these things.

The proposed Agreement would prohibit expansion of the existing terminal for seven years, and planning or construction of a new terminal for ten years. The Agreement would not authorize the expansion of the existing terminal or construction of a new terminal at the end of the Agreement. The City of Burbank and its residents would have the same protections that are in place today restricting the construction of a terminal on the B-6 property, including the Title Transfer Agreements, PUC 21661.6 approval, and voter approval under Measure B (discussed later in this report). A new terminal could not be constructed on the B-6 property without explicit City and voter approval, and the proposed Agreement does not change that restriction.

With regard to noise, the proposed Agreement facilitates cooperation between the City and the Authority on noise issues, including looking at possible alternatives to the ongoing Part 161 noise study process. While the proposed Agreement and related actions would facilitate the completion of Taxiway D by allowing for the relocation of Parking Lot A, this action would not increase the number of easterly takeoffs or result in any additional noise impacts on the City of Burbank. The environmental analysis conducted by the Authority determined that the completion of Taxiway D would result in an insignificant increase in noise impacts to the west in the City of Los Angeles, and decreases in noise impacts north and south of the Airport in the cities of Burbank and Los Angeles. There would be no increase in easterly air traffic or the Airport�s noise impacts on properties to the east.

In her letter, Ms. Rose Prouser asks that the public benefits to the City and its residents of the Authority�s use of the Adjacent Property and A-1 North Property for parking, as mentioned in Recital P of the Agreement (see Exhibit 3-1 at page 6) be enumerated. The findings for City approval of a PUC Section 21661.6 application require that the advantages and benefits of a proposed project outweigh any disadvantages of the project. These findings, and the benefits of the Lot A and A-1 North projects, are discussed in the two Preliminary Analysis documents (Exhibits 5-4 and 6-4) and in the appropriate sections of this staff report. Ms. Prouser raises numerous other questions in her letter. Some of the questions relate to incomplete exhibits that have since been completed and are attached hereto. Where appropriate, other questions have been addressed throughout this report and in the documents attached hereto.

II. Planned Development and Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 Application: Adjacent Property/Parking Lot A

Property Location: The subject property is located at 2729 N. Hollywood Way at the terminus of Winona Avenue (Exhibit 1-1). The relocated Parking Lot A would be located partially on existing Airport property (approximately south of the center line of Winona Avenue) and partially on the Adjacent Property (approximately north of the center line of Winona Avenue).

Zoning: The Adjacent Property is shaped like a flag, with the �flagpole� portion of the property extending west from Hollywood Way to the balance of the property (Exhibit 1-1). This flagpole area is zoned M-2 General Industrial (Exhibit 2-1). The balance of the property that is proposed to be used to relocate Parking Lot A is zoned Airport. Only the M-2 zoned portion of the property would be subject to the proposed planned development. The remainder of the property would retain the current Airport zoning designation. Surrounding properties are zoned M-2 and Airport.

General Plan Designation: The M-2 zoned area is designated in the General Plan Land Use Element as General Manufacturing (Exhibit 2-3). The balance of the area proposed to be used for the relocated Parking Lot A is designated Airport. The zoning and General Plan land use boundaries are identical. These land use designations are consistent with the zoning. The General Manufacturing designation would also be consistent with the proposed planned development.

Property Area: The entire Adjacent Property is about 49.2 acres. The relocated Parking Lot A would occupy about 16.7 acres of the Property. The flagpole portion of the property is about 4.47 acres of the 49.2 total, and is about 130 feet wide (measured parallel to Hollywood Way). Again, this 4.47-acre area is the subject of the planned development application (Exhibit 2-2).

Street Classification: Hollywood Way is classified as a major arterial street in the General Plan Circulation Element. Winona Avenue is classified as a collector street.

Paved Width of Street: Hollywood Way has a 100-foot right-of-way with a paved street width of about 86 feet. Winona Avenue has an 80-foot right-of-way with a paved street width of about 62 feet.

Sidewalk/Parkway Width: Hollywood Way has sidewalks about seven feet wide along the project site. Winona Avenue has sidewalks about nine feet wide. There are no landscaped parkways on either street.

Current Development of the Site: The area subject to the planned development is currently vacant. The Authority is authorized to use nearby portions of the Adjacent Property for temporary overflow passenger and employee parking and those areas are developed with surface parking lots. However, no use of the proposed planned development area is authorized.

Project Description: The Authority is proposing to relocate long-term Parking Lot A from its current location just north of the east-west runway (Exhibits 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3). The majority of the parking lot is currently located on Airport property, with temporary overflow parking areas located on the Adjacent Property. The existing Parking Lot A, including authorized temporary overflow parking areas, contains 1,592 passenger parking spaces and 196 employee parking spaces. The relocated parking Lot A would retain the same number of passenger spaces at 1,592 and would create an additional 385 employee parking spaces for a total of 581 employee spaces. The total number of passenger and employee spaces would be 2,173. The area subject to the planned development application would contain 363 passenger spaces and no employee spaces.

The PUC application filed by the Authority that is subject to review and approval by the City Council requests a change in the land use plan for the Adjacent Property to allow the Authority to use 16.7 acres of the Adjacent Property on a permanent basis for passengers and employees (Exhibit 5-3).

The proposed project would shift the lot north such that the majority of the parking spaces would be located on the Adjacent Property with only a small portion left to the south on existing Airport property. Of the 2,173 spaces, 238 spaces (136 public and 102 employee) would remain on existing Airport land south of the Adjacent Property. The balance of the spaces would be located on the Adjacent Property.

The proposed parking facility would be a surface parking lot with no above-grade parking structures. No structures are proposed as part of the project except for parking fee collection booths at the exit driveway and shelters for passengers waiting to board the circulating shuttle bus to the terminal building, which would be located throughout the parking lot. The only entrance to the parking lot would be at the intersection of Hollywood Way and Winona, where the current Lot A entrance is located. The entrance would be widened from the existing configuration to accommodate one left turn lane, one through lane, and one combination through/right turn lane for exiting traffic. Airport passengers, shuttle buses, and employees would all enter the same driveway off of Hollywood Way and then take divergent travel paths once inside the lot entrance. An access road would run along the south side of the parking lot to provide access to the employee lot at the far west end of the site (the shaded area on the submitted plans).

Municipal Code Conformance: Authority owned and operated parking is an airport use and is prohibited in the M-2 zone. The Authority has submitted the subject planned development application to change the zoning of the M-2 zoned portion of the Adjacent Property to a planned development zone. Because planned development zones can establish their own use and development controls, the proposed airport parking lot could be permitted in a planned development zone. Staff notes that the subject planned development zone would permit only an airport parking lot, and would explicitly prohibit any other type of airport use or any other use.

Those portions of the property that are currently zoned Airport would retain their existing zoning and are not part of this planned development application. Therefore, the use and development of those portions of the parking lot would not be subject to this planned development. However, the use and development of those areas would be subject to the amended land use plan (under PUC Section 21661.6) also under consideration by the Council. It is important to remember that the conditions of approval of this planned development would apply only to 4.47 acres of the 16.7-acre parking lot. However, the rest of the parking lot would be made consistent with the planned development approval through the accompanying PUC application and approval process.

As proposed by the Authority and required by the proposed conditions of approval, the proposed parking lot would meet BMC requirements for parking lot design and landscaping. The proposed parking spaces would all be full size spaces at nine feet wide and 18 feet long, and would provide the proper aisle width and backup distance as required by Table No. 1 of BMC Section 31-1401. The landscaped setback along Hollywood Way would exceed the minimum four-foot average setback required by BMC Section 31-1417.1. The Code requires a three-foot high wall to be installed inside the landscaping to prevent �unchanneled� vehicle ingress and egress. The parking lot would have a chain link security fence located at the inside of the landscaping. Although chain link fencing is not aesthetically pleasing, staff is not proposing to require that the Authority provide more decorative fencing because the fence would integrate with other chain link fencing already in the area. As discussed later in the report, staff is however proposing to require an upgrade to the fence on the A-1 North property.

BMC Section 31-1418 provides that parking lots with more than 21 spaces must have at least ten percent of the parking lot area landscaped and provide trees such that 40 percent of the parking area would be shaded within 15 years of planting. The parking lot as a whole would satisfy this requirement, with 12 percent landscaped area and 41 percent shaded area. However, the area specifically within the planned development zone would meet the ten percent landscaped area but would not meet the shading requirement, with 37 percent shaded area. This is due to FAA-imposed limitations on tree height and density near the airport runway and security fence. The proposed conditions of approval as approved by the Planning Board would allow the area within the planned development zone to vary from the landscaping standards to account for FAA height standards so long as the overall parking lot satisfied the code requirement.

The Authority included a comprehensive sign plan with their application package for the Council�s information. However, BMC Section 31-1002(2) provides that �directional, warning, or informational signs authorized by federal, state, or municipal authority or public utility� are exempt from the requirements of the sign ordinance. This exemption has been interpreted in the past to mean that signs posted by the Airport Authority to provide directions, warnings, or general information to Airport passengers are exempt from the sign ordinance.

PUC Application: In November 1999, the City Council approved the Authority�s acquisition and use of the Adjacent Property through Resolution No. 25,633. On October 27, 2004, the Authority submitted an application pursuant to PUC Section 21661.6(e) seeking City Council approval of an amendment to the land use plan for 16.7 acres of the Adjacent Property to relocate Parking Lot A (Exhibit 5-3). On November 16, 2004, City staff issued the Notice of Filing notifying the Authority that the application had been deemed complete and requesting clarification on multiple issues (Exhibit 8-1).

The proposed project is described in detail in the preceding section concerning the Authority�s application for planned development zoning of the portion of the site that is zoned M-2. (Project No. 2004-170). Separate approval by the City pursuant to PUC Section 21661.6(e) is required to authorize the Authority to change the use of the site as previously authorized by the City pursuant to PUC Section 21661.6(a). Section 21661.6(e) provides, �The use of property so acquired [pursuant to Section 21661.6(a)] shall thereafter conform to the approved plan, and any variance from that plan, or changes proposed therein, shall first be approved by the appropriate board of supervisors or city council after a public hearing on the subject of the variance or plan change.�

On November 19, 2004, City staff issued the Preliminary Analysis as required by the City�s PUC Section 21661.6 procedures (Exhibit 5-4). The public comment period on the Preliminary Analysis expired on December 6, 2004. As of the publication of this report, staff had received ten written comments relating to the Preliminary Analysis, the Preliminary Analysis for the acquisition and use of the A-1 North Property, or the Agreement.

General Plan Consistency: As noted above, the land area that would be subject to the planned development is designated as General Manufacturing by the General Plan. However, Appendix C of the General Plan provides that Airport zoning, and hence Airport uses, are considered to be consistent with the General Manufacturing land use designation when the land is �adjacent to land zoned for Airport use.� Since this criterion applies to the subject property, the change to the planned development zone would be consistent with the General Plan and a General Plan amendment is not required.

Surrounding Properties: The Adjacent Property is located in an industrialized area and is surrounded by Airport and industrial uses and vacant land. The use of the property for an Airport parking lot would be compatible with existing surrounding land uses and other uses permitted in the surrounding zones. No impacts on neighboring properties would result from the proposed project.

Traffic: The environmental document prepared by the Authority for the proposed actions (discussed later in this report) concluded that the proposed actions, specifically including the relocation of Parking Lot A, would not have a significant impact on traffic volumes or operations in the area. Although the number of employee parking spaces would increase, which would in turn increase the number of people accessing the parking lot on a daily basis, the traffic analysis conducted by the Authority determined that the additional trips to the lot would not have a significant traffic impact on streets or intersections in the area. The employee parking spaces would be relocated from other nearby locations including the Star Park facility on the A-1 North property, which would reduce employee related traffic to other parking areas.

Noise: Given its proximity to the Airport, any potential noise that would be generated from the operation of the parking lot would be relatively minimal and would not adversely impact surrounding properties. The parking lot would be located within an Airport noise impact area, where noise generated by the Airport may have an adverse impact on certain land uses. However, a parking lot is not considered a sensitive land use. Passengers and employees using the Airport would not be in the parking lot for prolonged periods of time and therefore would be minimally affected by aircraft noise.

Light: The proposed parking lot would include light standards that would generate light. However, the lighting would be comparable to that already provided in the existing Parking Lot A and no new sources of significant light would be created. The Authority would be required by the FAA to comply with all federal standards regarding the placement and brightness of light standards in relation to the Airport runway to ensure that no adverse impacts would occur on aircraft operations.

Air Quality: As noted above, the proposed project would result in additional employee parking spaces being located in Lot A, which would cause additional daily vehicle trips in and out of the lot. However, these employee trips would only be relocated from other locations around the Airport, including in particular the Star Park located on the A-1 North property, and no increase in air pollution would occur in the area as a result of the proposed project.

Safety/Hazards: The existing Parking Lot A is located within the Primary Surface Area and Object Free Area of the east-west runway (Exhibit 5-7). Pursuant to FAA guidelines, a parking lot is not considered an appropriate use within these areas due to the proximity to the runways and aircraft operations. Relocating Lot A to the north as proposed would remove the parking from these identified safety areas. This would increase the level of safety for both persons on the ground and persons on aircraft utilizing the east-west runway. A portion of the relocated Lot A would be located within the BRL (Building Restriction Line, defined earlier in this report). However, no structures are proposed to be placed within the BRL, consistent with FAA guidelines and the Agreement.

Related Action � Taxiway D Extension: The relocation of parking Lot A would enable the Authority to reuse the current site of Parking Lot A to complete Taxiway D. The taxiway currently serves the north side of the east-west runway west of the intersection with the north-south runway. Because of the location of the existing parking Lot A, it is not possible for the Authority to extend the taxiway to serve the full length of the runway. Relocating Lot A as proposed would remove this limitation. The Authority has indicated that its primary purpose in extending Taxiway D would be to allow aircraft landing from the west to taxi back on that taxiway rather than having to turn around and taxi back on the runway itself.

Department Comments: The planned development application was routed to City departments and divisions for review and comment. The departments submitted single sets of comments for both the Lot A and A-1 North applications and therefore the comments are referenced here and later in the report in the discussion of the A-1 North application.

The Park, Recreation, and Community Services Department stated that existing street trees on Hollywood Way must be protected in place. Some new street trees may need to be provided in front of the project site, and an irrigation system is recommended to be provided. The proposed conditions of approval would require the installation of an irrigation system and additional trees if deemed necessary by the Park, Recreation, and Community Services Director (Exhibit 10-1).

The proposed conditions of approval would require that these issues be addressed to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police, to the extent that the lighting and fencing requirements do not conflict with federally mandated requirements.

The Public Works Department stated various code requirements and further recommended that:

The proposed conditions of approval would require that these issues be addressed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. However, the recommendation to modify the signal at Hollywood Way and Winona Avenue is not supported at this time by a traffic study. The traffic analysis conducted by the Authority and included in the environmental document prepared for the project concluded that there would be no impact on any intersection in the area. However, if in the future the Traffic Engineer determines that signal upgrades at that intersection are required, the proposed conditions would require a traffic study to be conducted to determine the Authority�s fair share of the cost of the improvements based upon the percentage of vehicles driving through the intersection to access Parking Lot A.

Burbank Water and Power Electrical and Water Divisions outlined various recommendations and concerns regarding electrical and water service through the project site and recommended that the Authority bear the cost of all relocations or upgrades required as a result of the project (Exhibits 10-4 and 10-5). The proposed conditions of approval address these issues.

No other departments or divisions had any comments on the subject application or wished to impose any conditions of approval other than code requirements.

Planned Development Design Review Criteria: Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-19124 requires that all planned development projects observe certain design criteria. The subject planned development is not common in that it authorizes only a surface parking lot and does not authorize any structures (other than parking attendant booths) or other notable project components. Nonetheless, staff believes that the proposed project would satisfy the criteria as follows.

(a) The design of the overall planned development shall be comprehensive and shall embrace land, buildings, landscaping, and their interrelationships and shall be substantially consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Element of the General Plan.

The passenger and employee parking areas of the relocated Lot A have been well integrated with existing development on the project site. The parking lot has been designed to accommodate circulation by Airport shuttle buses and provide efficient ingress and egress from Hollywood Way. The General Plan designates the land area that would be subject to the planned development as General Manufacturing. The General Plan provides that Airport uses are consistent with the General Manufacturing land use designation when the land is �adjacent to land zoned for Airport use.� The planned development zone would therefore be consistent with the General Plan.

(b) The planned development shall provide for adequate permanent open areas, circulation, off-street parking, and pertinent pedestrian amenities. Building structures and facilities and accessory uses within the planned development shall be well integrated with each other and to the surrounding topographic and natural features of the area.

The parking lot provides landscaped open space areas, especially around the perimeter and along the Hollywood Way frontage. Shuttle bus stops for waiting passengers have been well integrated into the parking lot at appropriate locations.

(c) The planned development shall be compatible with existing and planned land use on adjoining properties.

The Airport parking lot is compatible with surrounding airport uses and any industrial or commercial uses that would potentially locate on the adjacent B-6 Trust Property. The parking lot is an appropriate use within the noise impact area of the Airport.

(d) Any private street system or circulation system shall be designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and the handicapped, without creating a disruptive influence on the activity and functions of any area or facility.

The parking lot�s circulation system is appropriately laid out and allows for efficient circulation of passenger and employee vehicles and shuttle buses. With the changes to the site plan recommended by the Public Works Department, the circulation system would work well to serve the needs of airport passengers and employees.

(e) The public street system within or adjacent to a planned development shall be designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles (including transit vehicles), pedestrians, bicycles, and the handicapped. Public streets shall be designed using standard City lane widths, capacities, and travel speeds. The design shall also include adequate space and improvements for transit vehicles and facilities for bicycle and pedestrian circulation. City standard entrance control requirements shall be maintained. Design of major streets shall also provide sidewalks, adequate street lighting, and concrete median islands on arterial streets.

The planned development does not contain any public streets. The circulation aisles allow for efficient circulation of vehicles and shuttle buses.

(f) Common area and recreational facilities shall be located so as to be readily accessible to the occupants of residential uses.

The parking lot does not contain common areas or recreational facilities. The common use shuttle bus waiting shelters are dispersed throughout the lot and located at appropriate locations so as to be easily accessible by pedestrians from all areas of the parking lot.

(g) Compatibility of architectural design and appearance, including signing throughout the planned development, shall be sought. In addition, architectural harmony with surrounding neighborhoods shall be achieved so far as practicable.

The planned development contains no structures other than parking attendant booths that are located a substantial distance from the public right of way.

(h) Where applicable, an adequate variety of uses and facilities shall be provided in order to meet the needs of the planned development and adjacent neighborhoods.

This planned development provides a specific facility to serve a specific need and purpose to provide parking for Airport passengers and employees.

(i) The planned development and each building intended for occupancy shall be designed, placed, and oriented in a manner conducive to the conservation of energy.

The planned development contains no structures other than parking attendant booths.

PUC 21661.6 Application Findings for Approval: Staff has not received significant new information from the Authority or the public that changes staff�s preliminary conclusions contained in the Preliminary Analysis. Rather than restate the information and analysis contained in the Preliminary Analysis, the reader�s attention is directed to that document for information about the proposed project and its effects.[6] The following is a summary of the comments received and staff�s final conclusions regarding the criteria for review established by the City�s procedures.

Response to Public Comment: In his letter regarding the two PUC applications, Mr. Ron Vanderford notes a difference in the parking numbers used for the existing and relocated Parking Lot A at different places in the Preliminary Analysis (Exhibit 15-5). To clarify, the existing Lot A has 1,592 public spaces and 196 employee spaces for a total of 1,788 spaces. The relocated Lot A would have 1,592 public spaces and 581 employee spaces, for a total of 2,173 spaces. There would be no increase in the number of public parking spaces in Lot A, and an increase of 385 employee spaces. Mr. Vanderford claims that �there is no way to determine the increase in the total number of parking spaces in Lot A.� However, the PUC approval would restrict the number of parking spaces in Lot A to the 2,173 proposed spaces. No more than 2,173 spaces could be constructed or used without approval by the City Council of a change to the PUC plan.

Mr. Vanderford notes the increase in the number of parking spaces that would occur under the proposed project. City staff prepared a table describing the number of parking spaces that would be planned or permitted in each of Authority�s parking lots (Exhibit 3-2). This table reveals that the total number of parking spaces on property currently owned by the Authority and the A-1 North property combined would decrease, particularly as a result of the limits contained in the Agreement. Mr. Vanderford claims that �it is not clear where these purported decreases will take place.� However, the Agreement provides explicitly for the elimination of temporary overflow parking on the B-6 Property once the Authority begins to make use of the A-1 North Property for public parking. Although Mr. Vanderford is correct that the Agreement authorizes the Authority to use portions of the Southwest Quadrant for parking after four years, City staff has not been provided with plans of any kind for parking and thus has no practical means to estimate how many parking spaces the Authority might construct on that parcel after four years. In light of the reduction in parking, staff disagrees with Mr. Vanderford�s position that the City should require the Authority to prepare a Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (�CEQA�) is discussed later in this report.

Four commenters responded to the Authority�s proposal to complete Taxiway D (see letters from Ron Vanderford (Exhibit 15-5), David Gordon (Exhibit 15-4), Rose Prouser (Exhibit 15-8), and Michael Bergfeld (Exhibit 15-9)). As explained in the Preliminary Analysis, the Taxiway D extension would not be located on the Adjacent Property but rather entirely on other Authority-owned property. City approval pursuant to PUC Section 21661.6(e) is not required for the Taxiway D project. The only relationship to the proposed relocation of Parking Lot A is that the Authority intends to reuse the existing Parking Lot A for this airfield use if the City approves the Authority�s PUC Application. The effects of the Taxiway D project accordingly are only indirectly related to the proposed relocation of Parking Lot A and thus not an appropriate basis, standing alone, upon which the City can make a decision. As further noted in the Preliminary Analysis, the Authority concluded in its Mitigated Negative Declaration that completing Taxiway D would not result in any significant environmental impacts and, in particular, would not result in increased operations at the Airport. Staff has received written comments arguing otherwise but has not been provided with any information demonstrating that the Authority�s conclusion was inaccurate.

Three commenters noted concerns that the B-6 Property remains contaminated with hazardous substances released while the Lockheed Corporation owned and operated the property. (see letters from David Gordon (Exhibit 15-4), Stan Hyman (Exhibit 15-6), and Carolyn Berlin (Exhibit 15-7)). These comments were not directed explicitly to the proposed project but rather to the B-6 Property more generally. The commenters did not provide any indication that the 16.7 acres that would be used for the relocation of Parking Lot A are contaminated with hazardous substances or that the proposed project would cause the further release of or exposure to hazardous substances that might exist on the site. Moreover, the commenters did not identify any new source of information regarding hazardous substances on the B-6 Property or any evidence that the hazardous substances alleged to exist were not addressed and, if necessary, remediated by the Authority and/or the Lockheed Corporation.

Mr. Michael Bergfeld argues in his letter that allowing the Authority to relocate Parking Lot A onto the Adjacent Property would eliminate the City�s ability to control the use of the Adjacent Property, including the regulation granted by PUC Section 21661.6 (Exhibit 4-1). Mr. Bergfeld further argues that the proposed Agreement would be a delegation of the City Council�s authority under PUC Section 21661.6. Both of these statements are incorrect.

PUC Section 21661.6(a) provides that the Authority must submit a plan to the City Council of how it intends to use land that it proposes to buy. Before the Authority can acquire the land, the Council must approve the purchase. If the City Council approves the purchase of the land, it also approves the plan of how the land will be used. Pursuant to PUC Section 21661.6(e), any subsequent use of that land by the Authority must comply with the approved plan. Any other use of the land would require a change to the original plan, which would require further approval by the City Council. In the case of the Adjacent Property, the plan approved in 1999 prohibited the property from being used for any purpose aside from temporary overflow parking. In 2002, an amendment to the plan was approved by the City Council to allow Desmond�s Studio Production Services to use a portion of the property for the storage of movie production equipment and vehicles. The Authority has now submitted another proposal for a revised plan that would allow a portion of the Adjacent Property to be used for the relocated Parking Lot A if approved by the Council.

If the City Council approves the Authority�s pending application, it would be acting under the authority granted by PUC Section 21661.6. The Authority would continue to be bound by the plan approved pursuant to PUC Section 21661.6 and would be permitted to use the land only for surface parking. If the Authority wished in the future to use the land for any other purpose, whether or not airport related, it would be required to obtain City Council approval. By allowing the Authority to use the Adjacent Property for new use that is not currently permitted, the Council would not be giving up any authority granted by PUC Section 21661.6 and would not lose any control over the use of the property. Further, the Council would not be delegating any authority under Section 21661.6. The Authority may not use the Adjacent Property for the proposed parking lot use unless and until it is approved by the City Council. The Authority would not be permitted to use the land for any other use in the future unless and until such use is approved by the Council. No person or body other than the Burbank City Council would be authorized to approve changes to the Authority�s plan for use of the property. The Council retains its jurisdiction over the matter.

Final Conclusions: For the reasons explained in the Preliminary Analysis and herein, staff has reached the following final conclusions regarding the consistency of the proposed project with the criteria prescribed in the City�s procedures:

Staff concludes that the City Council has sufficient information to make the two findings required in the City�s PUC procedures: (1) the advantages to the public of the proposed expansion outweigh the disadvantages to both the public and environment; and (2) approval of the proposed project is consistent with the objective of adopting land use measures that minimize the public�s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the Airport to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Authority to use the 16.7 acre portion of the Adjacent Property exclusively for the purposes of relocating Parking Lot A, as set forth in land use plan identified in the resolution.

III. Planned Development, Development Review, and Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6 Application: A-1 North Property

Property Location: This planned development zone would apply to a portion of the A-1 North property located at 2555 N. Hollywood Way at the intersection with Empire Avenue (Exhibit 1-1). Most of the property�s frontage along Hollywood Way is not part of the subject application.

Zoning: The A-1 North property is zoned M-2 General Industrial. Surrounding properties are zoned Airport, Railroad, M-2, C-3 Commercial General Business, and Planned Development No. 89-1 (Hilton Hotel and Convention Center).

General Plan Designation: The property is designated General Manufacturing by the General Plan Land Use Element. The existing M-2 zoning is consistent with this designation. As discussed with the previous planned development, an airport parking facility would be considered consistent with this land use designation pursuant to Appendix C of the General Plan.

Property Area: The A-1 North property is an irregularly shaped rectangular parcel that has street frontages of approximately 1,110 feet along Empire Avenue and 1,150 feet along Hollywood Way. The site is approximately 31.59 acres in size. The Authority has applied to the City to purchase 26.7 acres of the property, which area would be subject to the planned development. About 26.46 acres are located on the western and southern portions of the property. All of the Empire Avenue frontage and the southerly 435 feet (approximate) of the Hollywood Way frontage would be acquired by the Authority.[7] The remaining 0.24 acres is located at the northeast corner of the property at the intersection of Hollywood Way and Thornton Avenue. This area is a triangular piece of land that is about 40 feet wide along the Hollywood Way frontage and tapers back for a distance of about 470 feet. This parcel would be utilized to realign the intersection of Hollywood Way and Thornton.

Street Classification: Hollywood Way is classified as a major arterial street in the General Plan Circulation Element. Empire Avenue is classified as a secondary arterial street.

Paved Width of Street: The Hollywood Way right-of-way varies from 100 feet to 140 feet between Empire and Thornton, with a paved street width of approximately 75 feet north of the Hollywood Way underpass area. The Empire Avenue right-of-way is 50 feet, although the street and sidewalk were built in anticipation of the dedication that would widen the right-of-way to 66 feet. The paved street width is 58 feet.

Sidewalk/Parkway Width: Hollywood Way has a sidewalk approximately 12 feet wide along the subject property. Empire Avenue has an eight-foot sidewalk and parkway along the subject property.

Current Development of the Site: The A-1 North property is partially developed with a surface parking facility that is approximately 20.46 acres in size. The facility contains 2,176 parking spaces, of which approximately 530, on the north side of the property, are covered by metal canopy structures. The parking facility is privately owned and operated under the name Star Park, and is intended primarily to serve Airport passengers. The only building on the property aside from the shade structures and parking attendant fee collection booths is a car wash building of about 2,300 square feet located near the southwest corner of the property. The balance of the property is vacant. This vacant area includes about six acres of land along the south side of property that would be acquired by the Authority and 4.44 acres along the Hollywood Way frontage that would be retained by the current property owner, Zelman Development. Zelman has filed applications with the City for a private development project on the 4.44 acres. That project is not a part of the Airport�s proposed project and is not analyzed herein. Zelman�s application package includes conditional use permit applications that will come before the Planning Board in early 2005.

Project Description: The Authority has applied pursuant to PUC Section 21661.6 to purchase 26.7 acres of the A-1 North property in two parcels, a 26.46-acre parcel and a 0.24-acre parcel. Per the planned development and PUC applications submitted by the Authority, the larger parcel would be utilized for vehicle parking and storage and a relocated Airport access road and the smaller parcel would be utilized for a realigned Airport access road (Exhibits 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3). These two components are discussed in detail below.

26.46 Acre Parcel: The Airport access road currently runs in an �L� shape along the west and north edges of the A-1 North property. The road provides access from the Airport terminal and surrounding parking to both Empire Avenue and Hollywood Way. The Authority is proposing to relocate the north-south portion of the access road approximately 450 feet to the east such that it would run through the middle of the A-1 North property. The existing access points on Empire Avenue and Hollywood Way would remain unchanged (except for the proposed intersection improvements described below). Vehicles entering from Empire Avenue would be routed to the east past the south side of the existing car wash building, before turning north and intersecting with the existing access road at the north side of the A-1 North property (Exhibit 6-2).

The access road would be surrounded by surface parking on both sides. Toward the center of the A-1 North property, an underpass would be constructed to allow vehicle access between the parking areas on the east and west sides of the road. The perimeter of the parking areas along Empire Avenue, Hollywood Way, and the Airport access road would have a landscaped setback/border area about eight feet wide. A six-foot high security fence would be erected at the inside edge of the landscaped border around the property perimeter.[8] The application indicates that the proposed fence would be chain link. However, a proposed condition of approval would require the fence to be wrought iron so as to be more aesthetically pleasing.

The Authority has requested in its application the flexibility to utilize the various areas of the A-1 North property for valet parking, passenger self-parking, or new and rental car storage. The Authority has divided the property into four �zones� for planning purposes (Exhibit 6-2 at sheet 2), and is requesting entitlements that would allow variation in how each zone is used. Zone 1 would be located on the west side of the access road and Zones 2, 3, and 4 would be located on the east side. The aforementioned underpass beneath the access road would connect Zones 1 and 2. The site layout would allow for Zone 2 to be isolated from Zones 3 and 4 such that access to the area could be taken only through the underpass. This could occur if Zone 2 was used for valet and/or storage rather than self-park and Zones 3 and 4 were used for self-park.

The Authority is requesting authorization to construct 2,940 surface parking spaces in total among all four zones. This 2,940 would include any combination of valet, self-park, rental car storage, and new car storage. The 2,940 spaces is the sum of the 2,176 spaces currently existing in the Star Park facility on the property and 764 additional spaces that could be constructed on the six additional acres to be acquired by the Authority that are currently vacant. Given current market demand for valet parking, the Authority anticipates that 1,826 of the spaces would be used for valet, and the remaining 1,114 spaces would be utilized for long-term self-parking. One or both numbers may be reduced to accommodate new and rental car storage. The Authority anticipates perhaps needing to devote all 2,940 spaces to valet in the future, which would result in no self-park or storage spaces on the property, and has requested in the application to have this ability should the market demand it. Consequently, the number of self-park spaces on the site could range from zero to 1,114.

Staff notes that the proposed conditions of approval would only restrict the Authority to a total of 2,940 spaces and vehicles and would not explicitly limit the number of valet or self-park spaces. The Authority has applied for, and the conditions would allow, different design and landscape standards for the self-park spaces as discussed below in the Municipal Code Conformance section, and the number of self-park spaces the Authority could provide would therefore be practically limited more so than the valet spaces.

The Authority anticipates using Zone 1 on the western side of the property for valet parking only. Several improvements related to the valet operation are proposed for the A-1 North property. The existing car wash building at the south end of Zone 1 would be retained to provide car washing and detailing services for valet customers. The Authority proposes to construct a valet customer/operations building with an awning and porte cochere at the northwest corner of the property. As described in the application, the proposed structure sizes would be as follows:

All three structures are anticipated to be 25 feet tall, and would not exceed 25 feet. These structures would function as the customer payment and waiting area for the valet operation. Customers would exit the terminal building and walk across the access road via a crosswalk to the customer building, where they would pay and wait for their vehicle to be delivered.[10] The porte cochere would provide a covered area for delivered vehicles to be queued as people picked up their cars. Once in their cars, drivers would be routed to the east where they would merge with access road traffic and exit onto Hollywood Way.

When entering the Airport, passengers would drop off their vehicles for valet service at a proposed 5,400 square foot porte-cochere located in front of the terminal building at about the same location as the existing valet facility. This structure is not located on the A-1 North property and is therefore not subject to the planned development application. Construction of the proposed valet facility would be permitted under the Agreement and would be exempted from the development review process pursuant to Section 3.3(a)(4) of the Agreement (Exhibit 3-1 at page 15).

0.24-Acre Parcel (�Street Realignment Parcel�): The intersection of Hollywood Way, Thornton Avenue, and the Airport access road is not aligned, with Thornton Avenue and the Airport access road offset from one another. As part of the proposed planned development, the Authority would purchase 0.24 acres of land at the northeast corner of the A-1 North Property just west of the Hollywood Way right-of-way and south of the existing Airport access road. The access road would be widened approximately 25 feet to the south to accommodate two left-turn lanes onto northbound Hollywood Way, one through lane straight onto Thornton Avenue, and one right-turn lane onto southbound Hollywood Way. This action would align the Airport access road with Thornton Avenue such that a split phase signal configuration would no longer be required, and the intersection accordingly would operate more safely and efficiently. There would not be adequate space in this land area to provide a sidewalk on the south side of the access road. Staff notes that pedestrian access to the terminal is currently, and would continue to be, available via the sidewalk located on the north side of the Airport access road.

The planned development zone would allow this land area to be used for access road purposes only. The Authority would purchase the land from Zelman and retain the fee title to the land. The City would participate in the construction of the intersection improvements and obtain an easement for roadway purposes over the land.

Municipal Code Conformance: As with the parking Lot A planned development discussed above, this planned development would be unlike most in that the use and development controls would be primarily for a surface parking lot. Only three relatively small structures would be built, and all would be located in the interior of the property and not readily visible from public streets. Although the proposed parking facility would be considered an airport use, the property is currently zoned M-2, and City practice is typically to compare a proposed planned development zone with the existing zoning on the site.

Buildings and Fences: The proposed buildings would comply with the height, setback, and other development standards of the M-2 zone. The proposed fences would be located about eight feet from the front and side property lines, outside of the required five foot setback, and could be up to eight feet tall. Their proposed six-foot height would comply with code.

Parking: The self-park areas are proposed to have standard parking spaces nine feet wide and 18 feet deep at a 65-degree angle. The proposed aisle width of 16 feet for one-way traffic meets the code requirement for parking space configuration. Two configurations are proposed as options for the valet parking areas. One would have perpendicular spaces eight feet, six inches wide and 17 feet, six inches deep (the submitted site plan uses this configuration). The other would have spaces at a 65-degree angle eight feet, six inches wide and 18 feet deep. Neither of these proposed configurations would comply with Code, as shown in the following table (shaded table cells indicate non-compliance).

Code Compliance of Proposed Parking Configurations

*Note: The Code allows 8�6� wide spaces for industrial, office, and residential uses and requires 9� wide spaces for retail, commercial, and medical office uses. The Code allows the Public Works Director to determine space widths for uses not specified, although City policy has generally been to require 9� spaces for such uses.

The proposed conditions of approval as approved by the Planning Board would allow the valet areas to be built in the proposed configuration, not compliant with code. The nature of a valet parking operation is that the valet operator parks cars in a manner that best suits their operations. The code does not require, and it has not been City policy to require, that valet parking operators park cars in marked spaces in situations where the parking area is not shared with self-parking drivers. Code standards for parking space width and backup are intended to facilitate parking to minimize conflicts between individual drivers and provide adequate maneuvering space. Staff believes that in valet-only lots, conflicts between drivers are not a concern, and the valet operator provides just the amount of space between vehicles that they need to maximize the efficiency of their business.

Landscaping: The M-2 zone requires a five-foot front and street-facing side yard setback and requires at least 50 percent of that setback to be landscaped. For parking lots, Code requires an average landscaped setback of four feet with a minimum of three feet at any point. The proposed project would have a fully landscaped setback approximately eight feet deep along all street frontages, except at the corner of Hollywood Way and Empire Avenue. A proposed condition of approval would require landscaping to be provided at this location, consistent with the rest of the street frontage. The Code further requires a three-foot wall �or other such protective barrier� at the inside of the landscaping. The proposed six-foot fence would satisfy this requirement.

BMC Section 31-1418 requires that parking lots with more than 21 spaces have at least ten percent of the parking lot area landscaped and provide trees such that 40 percent of the parking area would be shaded within 15 years of planting. The Authority is proposing to provide landscaping around the perimeters and the ends of the aisles for all parking areas. The self-park areas would have landscaped planters with trees at the heads of the spaces in addition to the aisle ends. The landscaping and shading coverage would be as shown in the following table for each �zone� on the site.

Note: Some of the numbers stated in this table and discussed below differ from those on the submitted applications and plans. The originally submitted landscape area and shading numbers were calculated incorrectly, and the above numbers represent the corrected figures.

Again, the Authority is requesting the ability to provide flexibility to allow valet, self-parking, or vehicle storage within each of the designated zones. The proposed conditions of approval would require that 38 percent minimum shading be provided in all self-park areas and 22 percent shading be provided in the valet areas. Given the layout of the valet parking area, it would be very difficult and impractical to meet the 40 percent requirement. However, staff believes, and the Planning Board agreed, that it would be possible to provide the Code-required ten percent landscaped area in the self-park areas rather than the 6.6 and 6.7 percent reflected in the submitted plans, and the proposed conditions of approval would require such.

PUC Application: On October 27, 2004, the Authority submitted an application pursuant to PUC Section 21661.6(a) entitled, �Application for Public Utilities Code Section 21661.6(a) Approval of Plan to: (1) Acquire and Use an Airport-Adjacent 26.46 Acre Parcel (�A-1 North Property�) For Airport Vehicle Parking, Airport Access Road, Rental Car Storage and New Car Storage; and (2) Acquire and Use an Airport-Adjacent .24 Acre Parcel (�Street Realignment Parcel�) for Airport Access Road Improvements� (Exhibit 6-3). On November 16, 2004, City staff issued the Notice of Filing notifying the Authority that the Application had been deemed complete and requesting clarification on multiple issues (Exhibit 8-1).

The proposed project is described in detail in the preceding section concerning the Authority�s application for planned development zoning of this property. Separate approval by the City pursuant to PUC Section 21661.6 is required to authorize the Authority to acquire the property and to use the property consistent with an approved land use plan. The land use plan would be identical to the plan authorized as the planned development zoning for the property. Accordingly, future changes to the plan would require City approval pursuant to both PUC Section 21661.6 and the planned development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

On November 19, 2004, City staff issued the Preliminary Analysis as required by the City�s PUC Section 21661.6 procedures (Exhibit 6-4). The public comment period on the Preliminary Analysis ended on December 6, 2004. Staff received ten written comments relating to the Preliminary Analysis, the Preliminary Analysis for the relocation of Parking Lot A, or the Agreement.

General Plan Consistency: The land area that would be subject to the planned development is designated as General Manufacturing by the General Plan. However, Appendix C of the General Plan provides that Airport zoning, and hence Airport uses, are considered to be consistent with the General Manufacturing land use designation when the land is �adjacent to land zoned for Airport use.� Since this criterion applies to the subject property, the change to the planned development zone would be consistent with the General Plan and a General Plan amendment is not required.

Surrounding Properties: The A-1 North property is located in an industrialized area and is surrounded by Airport, industrial, and commercial uses. The use of the property for an Airport parking lot would be compatible with existing surrounding land uses and other uses permitted in the surrounding zones. No impacts on neighboring properties would result from the proposed project. Much of the property is currently utilized as a parking lot, and the changes in the use of the property to accommodate the valet operations and alter vehicle access to the site would not result in additional impacts on neighboring properties. The use of the smaller parcel to realign the Airport access road would similarly not impact neighboring properties.

Traffic: The environmental document prepared by the Authority for the proposed actions concluded that the actions, including acquisition and use of the A-1 North property, would not have a significant impact on traffic volumes or operations in the area. The number of parking spaces on the site would increase from the current 2,176 to 2,940, which would in turn increase the number of people accessing the parking lot on a daily basis. However, the additional parking spaces would replace spaces being removed from elsewhere at the airport. As noted earlier in this report, the actions related to the Agreement would result in an initial reduction of 316 parking spaces at the Airport and A-1 North property combined. The traffic analysis conducted by the Authority determined that the additional trips and related changes in access patterns to the site would not have a significant traffic impact on streets or intersections in the area. The realignment of the Airport access road at the Hollywood Way/Thornton intersection would increase the level of safety and efficiency at the intersection.

Noise: Given its proximity to the Airport, any potential noise that would be generated from the operation of the parking lot would be relatively minimal and would not adversely impact surrounding properties. The parking lot would be located within an Airport noise impact area, where noise generated by the Airport may have an adverse impact on certain land uses. However, a parking lot is not considered a sensitive land use. Passengers and employees using the Airport would not be in the Airport for prolonged periods of time and therefore would be minimally affected by aircraft noise.

Light: The proposed parking lot would include light standards that would generate light. However, the lighting would be comparable to that already provided in the existing parking lot, and any new sources of light would be insignificant. The Authority would be required by the FAA to comply with all federal standards regarding the placement and brightness of light standards in relation to the Airport runway to ensure that no adverse impacts would occur on aircraft operations.

Air Quality: As noted above, the proposed project would result in additional parking spaces being located on the A-1 North property, which could cause additional daily vehicle trips in and out of the lot. However, the additional parking spaces would replace spaces being removed from elsewhere at the Airport. As noted earlier in this report, the actions related to the Agreement would result in an initial reduction of 316 parking spaces. Because the trips of the additional vehicles coming to the A-1 site would only be relocated from other locations around the Airport, no increase in air pollution would occur in the area as a result of the proposed project.

Safety/Hazards: The realignment of the Airport access road would increase the level of safety and efficiency at the Hollywood Way/Thornton intersection by aligning the Airport access road with Thornton Avenue and eliminating the need for a split-phase signal configuration. The parking lot would not create any safety concerns or hazards. The northern and western edges of the A-1 North property are located within the BRL. Although the proposed Agreement would allow new structures to locate within the BRL on the A-1 North property because the existing terminal building is between the property and the runways, no structures are proposed to be placed within the BRL.

Department Comments: The planned development application was routed to City departments and divisions for review and comment.

The Park, Recreation, and Community Services Department stated that existing street trees on Hollywood Way must be protected in place. Some new street trees may need to be provided in front of the project site, and an irrigation system is recommended to be provided (Exhibit 10-1). A proposed condition of approval would require the installation of an irrigation system and additional trees if deemed necessary by the Park, Recreation, and Community Services Director.

The Public Works Department stated various code requirements and further recommended that:

The proposed conditions of approval require that these issues be addressed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, except that, as noted above, staff does not believe that it is necessary for valet parking areas to conform to code standards for stall size and backup distances. The proposed conditions of approval would not require the valet or vehicle storage areas to comply with code parking standards.

No other departments or divisions had any comments on the subject application or wished to impose any conditions of approval.

Planned Development Design Review Criteria: Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-19124 requires that all planned development projects observe certain design criteria.

The planned development integrates valet, self-park, and vehicle storage areas to effectively utilize the entire property and integrate with adjacent parking facilities. The General Plan designates the land area subject to the planned development as General Manufacturing. The General Plan provides that Airport uses are consistent with the General Manufacturing land use designation when the land is �adjacent to land zoned for Airport use.� The planned development zone would be consistent with the General Plan.

The parking lot provides landscaped open areas along the street and access road frontages and around the valet service building. Shuttle bus stops for waiting passengers have been integrated into the parking lot at appropriate locations.

(c) The planned development shall be compatible with existing and planned land use on adjoining properties.

The airport parking lot is compatible with surrounding airport, industrial, and commercial uses. The parking lot is well integrated with valet parking facilities on the abutting property in front of the terminal building. The parking lot is an appropriate use within the noise impact area of the Airport.

The parking lot�s circulation system and the Airport access road are appropriately laid out and allow for efficient circulation of vehicles and shuttle buses. The underpass beneath the access road separates parking lot traffic from access road traffic for an efficient circulation system.

The planned development does not contain any public streets. The access road and circulation aisles allow for efficient circulation of vehicles and shuttle buses through the parking areas and the airport passenger facilities.

(f) Common area and recreational facilities shall be located so as to be readily accessible to the occupants of residential uses.

The parking lot does not contain common areas or recreational facilities. The common use shuttle bus waiting shelters are dispersed throughout the lot and located at appropriate locations.

The structures in the planned development have a consistent architectural design and appearance. The structures are not readily visible from public rights of way.

(h) Where applicable, an adequate variety of uses and facilities shall be provided in order to meet the needs of the planned development and adjacent neighborhoods.

This planned development provides a specific facility to serve a specific need and purpose to provide valet and self-parking for Airport passengers.

(i) The planned development and each building intended for occupancy shall be designed, placed, and oriented in a manner conducive to the conservation of energy.

The structures will be required to comply with applicable code requirements to ensure energy conservation.

PUC 21661.6 Application Findings for Approval: Staff has not received significant new information from the Authority or the public that changes staff�s preliminary conclusions contained in the Preliminary Analysis. Rather than restate the information and analysis contained in the Preliminary Analysis, the reader�s attention is directed to that document for information about the proposed project and its effects. The following is a summary of the comments received and staff�s final conclusions regarding the criteria for review established by the City�s procedures.

Response to Public Comments: Two commenters stated that the Authority�s proposed acquisition of the A-1 North Property would constitute an expansion of the Airport (see letters from Carolyn Berlin (Exhibit 15-7) and Rose Prouser (Exhibit 15-8)). Staff agrees that the amount of property owned by the Authority would increase. Indeed, PUC Section 21661.6 is triggered precisely because the proposed acquisition would expand or enlarge the Airport. However, staff does not believe that the proposed acquisition and use of the A-1 North property would expand operations at the Airport. While there exists some risk that the proposed improvements would make the Airport somewhat more efficient, and thus more attractive to passengers, staff believes that this risk is reduced by the facts that (1) staff has recommended that the City Council limit the total number of parking spaces on the A-1 North property to 2,940 as part of its approval; (2) there are significant limits on parking and other development at the Airport as described elsewhere in this staff report.

Two commenters noted that the Authority�s acquisition of the A-1 North Property would reduce tax revenue to the City, presumably because the Authority is a tax-exempt government entity (see letters from Michael Bergfeld (Exhibit 15-9) and Rose Prouser (Exhibit 15-8)). Staff agrees that the acquisition of private property by the Authority would reduce fiscal revenue. Staff does not believe, however, that this consideration is material for purposes of the City�s decision pursuant to PUC Section 21661.6. The criteria prescribed in the City�s procedures relate to the direct effects of proposed acquisition and use on members of the public, not the City. Accordingly, staff noted in the Preliminary Analysis that a potential disadvantage of the proposed acquisition of the A-1 North Property is an increase in the Authority�s parking rates that likely would occur once Star Park closes due to decreased parking competition (staff notes however that other competing private parking facilities would remain in the immediate vicinity of the Airport).

In her comment letter, Ms. Rose Prouser asked how many cars could be parked on the 26 acres of the A-1 North property that the Authority proposed to acquire, and suggests that a multi-story parking structure could be built on the property. The planned development and PUC Section 21661.6 plan approval for the A-1 North property would allow no more than 2,940 total vehicles to be parked on the property in a surface parking lot. The Authority would not be permitted to park more than 2,940 vehicles on the site under any circumstances. Further, the Authority would not be permitted to build any parking structures on the property. All parking would be required to occur in the proposed surface parking lot.

Ms. Prouser expresses a further concern in her letter that �the city planning office can make changes [to planned developments] without going back to City Council or to the citizens.� This statement is incorrect. A planned development represents the zoning for a piece of land and is adopted by ordinance by the City Council. City staff does not have the authority to change a planned development zone or allow any structures or uses within a planned development that are not expressly permitted by the ordinance adopted by the City Council. Any changes to a planned development require approval by the City Council following a public hearing of which the public would receive notice.

In his letter, Mr. Ron Vanderford noted the increase in the number of parking spaces that would occur under the proposed project (Exhibit 15-5). City staff prepared a table describing the number of parking spaces that would be planned or permitted in each of Authority�s parking lots (Exhibit 3-2). This table reveals that the total number of parking spaces on property currently owned by the Authority and on the A-1 North property combined would decrease, particularly as a result of the limits contained in the Agreement. In particular, the Agreement provides explicitly for the elimination of temporary overflow parking on the B-6 Property once the Authority begins to make use of the A-1 North Property for public parking. Although Mr. Vanderford is correct that the Agreement authorizes the Authority to use portions of the Southwest Quadrant for parking after four years, City staff has not been provided with plans of any kind for parking and thus has no practical means to estimate how many parking spaces the Authority might construct on that parcel after four years.[11] In light of the reduction in parking, staff disagrees with Mr. Vanderford�s position that the City should require the Authority to prepare a Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.

Staff concludes that the City Council has sufficient information to make the two findings required in the City�s procedures: (1) the advantages to the public of the proposed expansion outweigh the disadvantages to both the public and environment; and (2) approval of the proposed project is consistent with the objective of adopting land use measures that minimize the public�s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the Airport to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Authority to acquire the A-1 North property and Street Realignment Parcel exclusively for the purposes set forth in land use plan identified in the resolution.

IV. Amendments to Title Transfer Agreements

Background: In November 1999, the City and Authority executed a series of documents controlling the use and disposition of the B-6 Property. These documents collectively are referred to as the Title Transfer Agreements and include the following: the Escrow Agreement; Land Title Trust Agreement; Grant of Easements, Declaration of Use Restrictions and Agreement for Trust Property; Grant of Easements, Declaration of Use Restrictions and Agreement for Adjacent Property; and Easement Deed and Agreement (Aviation Rights) (Exhibits 7-1 through 7-5).

Although each document serves a distinct function, the documents contain overlapping requirements and obligations. Together, the Title Transfer Agreements impose the following controls on use and disposition of the B-6 Property:

To better understand the nature of the Title Transfer Agreements and the proposed amendments, a few historical facts are noteworthy. First, the Title Transfer Agreements were executed based on the Authority�s condemnation of the B-6 Property from the Lockheed Corporation. Because the City is authorized by PUC Section 21661.6 to approve or disapprove the acquisition of property to enlarge or expand an airport, the court�s condemnation order did not simply vest title in the Authority but rather conveyed title in the manner consistent with the City�s actions under PUC Section 21661.6 and negotiated through the Title Transfer Agreements.

Second, the Title Transfer Agreements provided a means by which the Authority could acquire title to the Trust Property, namely by executing a development agreement with the City by May 2000, providing for a new air passenger terminal. The City and Authority did not execute this development agreement. (It is important to note that the Agreement proposed in this staff report does not qualify as a development agreement under the Title Transfer Agreements and would not entitle the Authority to obtain title to the Trust Property.) The Title Transfer Agreements also provided the City with an option by which it could acquire the Trust Property if the City and Authority were unable to execute a development agreement; however, the City waived this option in June 2000 and no longer has any right under the Title Transfer Agreements to obtain title.

In 2002, the Trustee sold a 20-acre portion of the Trust Property (the entire portion located within the City of Los Angeles) to a private party. The remaining 58 acres of the Trust Property remains in trust. In 2004, the Authority reimbursed the FAA for the portion of the acquisition price provided by the FAA through the Airport Improvement Program.

As a result of staff negotiations between the City and Authority, two proposed items of the original term sheet negotiated in June 2004 were (1) the obligation to sell the Trust Property would be extended for 10 years, and (2) the Authority could use the B-6 Property for commercial (non-airport) purposes to generate revenue. Both terms require amending the Title Transfer Agreements. Further, during the course of staff negotiations concerning the Agreement, staff identified additional amendments to the Title Transfer Agreements that would be necessary and appropriate to further the terms and purposes of the Agreement.

The proposed amendments to each of the Title Transfer Agreements are explained below:

Escrow Agreement and Trust Agreement: Staff recommends that these documents, which contain duplicate or overlapping requirements, be combined into a single document: the Amended, Restated, Superseding and Combined Escrow and Trust Agreement (Exhibit 7-6). The Escrow and Trust Agreement would provide as follows:

Adjacent and Trust Property Easements: Staff recommends that the City agree to amend both of these documents to permit the uses of the Adjacent and Trust Properties proposed to be included in the Escrow and Trust Agreement and outlined above. The proposed amendments to these documents would continue to limit the Authority�s use of the Adjacent and Trust Properties through easements and use restrictions; the fundamental nature of these agreements would not change. The Amended and Restated Grant of Easements, Declaration of Use Restrictions and Agreement for Adjacent Property is provided at Exhibit 7-7, and the Amended and Restated Grant of Easements, Declaration of Use Restrictions and Agreement for Trust Property is provided at Exhibit 7-8.

Avigation Easement: The B-6 Property is subject to an avigation easement permitting aircraft overflights that will run with the land and apply to future owners. Staff is not recommending any changes to this avigation easement.

Staff received comment letters from Ms. Carolyn Berlin (Exhibit 15-7) and Ms. Rose Prouser (Exhibit 15-8) recommending that the City require the Authority to market the Trust Property for sale as required by the current versions of the Title Transfer Agreements.

On January 3, 2005, the Authority approved the amendments to the Title Transfer Agreements.

Staff Analysis: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the amendments to the Title Transfer Agreements. The proposed amendments serve several valuable purposes.

First, the proposed amendments are consistent with the nature and purpose of the overall Agreement between the City and Authority. In particular, tolling the obligation to sell the Trust Property for 10 years is consistent with the concept of a �standstill.� The 10-year tolling period corresponds to the provision of the Agreement prohibiting the Authority from constructing a new passenger terminal for 10 years. At the end of this period, the City can decide whether to (1) demand sale of the Trust Property in the manner provided in the Escrow and Trust Agreement, or (2) extend or otherwise amend the Title Transfer Agreements.

Staff does not agree with those public comments made that this tolling period will lead to a new terminal on the B-6 Property. Using the B-6 Property for a new terminal, or any airport use, would be a direct violation of the proposed amendments to the Title Transfer Agreements, as well as several other legal commitments described elsewhere in this staff report. The City is under no obligation to make future amendments to the Title Transfer Agreements or otherwise grant the approvals needed for a new terminal. Further, staff notes that any future amendments to the Title Transfer Agreements to allow for a new terminal would be subject to voter approval under Measure B and that acquisition of the Trust Property by the Authority would be subject to City Council approval under PUC Section 21661.6.

Second, the proposed limitations on the Authority�s interim use of the Adjacent and Trust Properties provide an appropriate balance between the Authority�s interest in deriving revenue from the B-6 Property with the City�s long-standing objective of precluding airport-related uses of the property unless and until a comprehensive resolution on the issue of Airport expansion is achieved. With the limited exception of permitting the Authority to use a portion of the Adjacent Property for relocated Parking Lot A, the amendments would not change the fundamental requirement of the Title Transfer Agreements that airport uses are not permitted on the B-6 Property.

Third, prohibiting the Authority from using 26 acres of the Trust Property for anything but passive open space provides a reasonable off-set for the Authority�s acquisition of the A-1 North Property. Staff recommends against conditioning City approval of the Authority�s acquisition of the A-1 North Property on sale of 26 acres elsewhere on the Airport. The proposed approach is a reasonable accommodation and consistent with the City�s long-standing objective of guarding against unchecked expansion of the Airport. Staff notes, however, that the Authority�s obligation to sell the Trust Property has only been tolled for a period of 10 years. If the Title Transfer Agreements are not amended at the end of 10 years to extend the obligation to sell, the Authority would be required to sell the entire Trust Property, including the 26 acres set aside for passive open space.

Finally, several amendments clarify requirements and obligations that have proven contentious since the Title Transfer Agreements were executed in 1999. For example, the proposed amendments require the permanent removal of all temporary overflow parking from the Trust Property and include detailed requirements and a timetable for the orderly marketing and sale of the Trust Property and detailed dispute resolution requirements. Combining the Escrow Agreement and Trust Agreement serves the related purpose of streamlining the documents to avoid potential confusion and dispute.

V. Zone Text Amendment: Height Ordinance

Background: BMC Section 31-1305 et seq. (Division 2 of Article 13, Chapter 31) (�Height Ordinance�) establishes an �Airport Approach Map� that specifies height limitations for structures and objects of natural growth at the ends of the Airport runways east and south of the Airport (Exhibits 11-1 and 11-2). The City adopted the map many years ago and has not amended it. The map is inconsistent with FAA guidelines regarding building and vegetation heights in proximity to airports as established by Federal Aviation Regulation (�FAR�) Part 77 (14 C.F.R. Part 77).

As part of the negotiations between the City and the Authority concerning the Airport and future development, City and Authority staff discussed revisions to the Height Ordinance. This is an issue that has been discussed intermittently for several years, and City and Authority staff believed that it would be appropriate to address this issue as part of the comprehensive negotiations.

FAR Part 77 establishes two sets of standards: (1) standards for notifying the FAA before construction and (2) standards for determining whether a structure or natural object constitutes an obstruction to air navigation. With respect to the notice standards, FAR Part 77 establishes an imaginary surface that rises upward and outward from the airport runways for a distance of 20,000 feet with a slope of 100 feet horizontally for each one foot vertically, or 100:1. Applicants for proposed structures that would rise above this imaginary surface are required to file with the FAA a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1). The notice form requests various pieces of information about the proposed structure including geographic coordinates and the elevation above sea level. Based upon the submitted information, the FAA makes one of three determinations based on obstruction standards contained in Part 77 and on the findings of an aeronautical study if required:

Because the FAA does not have jurisdiction over property owners (with the exception of airport owners), the FAA cannot prevent a structure from being built or require changes to a structure. Therefore, a determination by the FAA that a proposed structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation does not preclude the builder from going forward with the project.

Cities across the country have taken a wide range of approaches to incorporating the requirements of FAR Part 77 into their local regulations. Some cities do nothing. Some cities prohibit entirely any construction that would constitute an obstruction based on the standards contained in FAR Part 77. In between these two extremes are a number of approaches, including, for example, imposing the notice requirement of FAR Part 77 as a local requirement linked to the issuance of building and other local permits.

Summary of Proposed Ordinance: The proposed ordinance would use such a hybrid approach to the two extremes noted above. Applicants for all projects requiring FAA notice would be required to submit the proper forms to the FAA and obtain an FAA determination before the City would issue building and other permits for the proposed structure. The City could issue permits for structures that are determined to be an obstruction to air navigation subject to conditions recommended by the FAA, including but not limited to lights or paint markings on the structure.

The proposed ordinance would require that the applicant obtain an administrative use permit (�AUP�) for any structure that is determined to be a hazard to air navigation. The ordinance would require the Community Development Director to consider the FAA�s hazard determination in making the findings required for an AUP, namely whether the proposed project would be compatible with surrounding uses and would not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties, which are the same as the findings for a conditional use permit (�CUP�). Because most structures of significant height already require a CUP, the proposed ordinance would require the Community Development Director in those cases to consider the FAA�s hazard determination in making the findings required for a CUP in lieu of requiring an AUP.

A project applicant would be required to provide notice to the FAA based upon the height and location of the proposed structure in relation to the Airport runways. The proposed ordinance (Exhibit 11-3) would replace the existing Airport Approach Map with an FAA Filing Requirement Map (Exhibit 11-4). The proposed map identifies five height zones across the City. Each zone has different criteria that identify when a project applicant would be required to notify the FAA. The criteria for the five zones are as follows:

Zone 1: All new structures and all additions to existing structures would require FAA notice.

Zone 2: All new structures and any additions to existing structures that increase the height of an existing structure or any portion thereof would require FAA notice.

Zone 3: New structures or additions to existing structures or any portion thereof with a height of 35 feet or more would require FAA notice.

Zone 4: New structures or additions to existing structures or any portion thereof with a height of 70 feet or more would require FAA notice.

Zone 5: New structures or additions to existing structures or any portion thereof with a height of 200 feet or more would require FAA notice.

The proposed FAA Filing Requirement Map is based on a map prepared by the City several years ago (which map was attached to the draft version of the proposed ordinance presented to the Planning Board). To ensure that the map was consistent with the current notice requirements of FAR Part 77, City staff had the map reviewed by an airport consulting firm specializing in this precise field. The consultant recommended a few minor changes to the map, including the addition of Zone 5 (the draft map contained only four zones). The consultant also reviewed the text of the proposed ordinance for consistency with FAR Part 77.

Staff Analysis: Properties most affected by the proposed ordinance would be in Zones 1 and 2, either within or in close proximity to the Airport. In these areas, any new structures and many additions to existing structures would be subject to the FAA noticing requirement. However, these properties represent a very small proportion of the City and do not include any residential uses. Some single-family residential neighborhoods south and east of the Airport would fall within Zone 3, which would require FAA notice for any structure exceeding 35 feet in height. [12] This requirement is not likely to be triggered, as 35 feet is the maximum height permitted in the R-1 zone (and under the current interim standard, 30 feet is the maximum height). Other areas of the City are within Zones 4 and 5, which would require FAA notice only for structures exceeding 70 feet and 200 feet, respectively.

A conditional use permit is required for any structure over 50 feet (35 to the ceiling with 15 additional feet permitted for roof and architectural features) in all commercial and industrial zones in the City (with the exception of the Burbank Center Plan area). Historically, very few property owners have sought a CUP to exceed the height standards. Staff therefore concludes that the proposed ordinance would have minimal impacts on development in the City, and projects requiring FAA notice in most areas of the City would already be subject to a discretionary City process because of their height.

The Height Ordinance as it currently exists is not consistent with FAR Part 77 because it utilizes height restrictions that are outdated and different from Part 77. Further, the existing Height Ordinance applies only to the Airport approach areas immediately east and south of the Airport and does not address potential obstructions outside of these areas. The proposed ordinance would ensure that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, prospective builders have followed the procedures required by federal law to evaluate whether a structure would constitute an obstruction or hazard to air navigation.

An earlier draft version of this ordinance was presented to the Planning Board. That draft did not directly link the FAA�s hazard determination to the City�s decision on whether to issue a permit for a proposed structure, except to require proof that the applicant had notified the FAA before the City would issue a permit. Staff understood that the existing CUP standards would provide an opportunity to incorporate the FAA�s hazard determination into a discretionary approval and also was relying on the fact that the FAA�s hazard determination, while not legally binding on the property owner�s ability to proceed with a project, often has a significant influence on, for example, the owner�s ability to obtain property insurance.

The Authority recommended to the Planning Board that the City take the most aggressive approach practicable to ensure the safety of aircraft using the Airport and persons on the ground. The Planning Board recommended that all applicants for structures determined to be a hazard be required to go through some discretionary process prior to obtaining building permits for the structure. The Board recommended against prohibiting projects as the result of an FAA hazard determination without there being some opportunity for a discretionary review process. Based on these recommendations, staff revised the proposed ordinance to add, in particular, the AUP requirement. Staff recommends City Council approval of the proposed ordinance as described herein.

VI. Building Code Amendment / Noise Attenuation Ordinance

Background: Chapter 7, Article 18 of the BMC requires that the applicant for a project involving any multiple family dwelling, hotel or motel located within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour (as identified in the General Plan Noise Element) submit an acoustical study as a condition for obtaining a building permit (Exhibit 12-1). The study must show that the structure would be constructed so as to mitigate the impact of traffic, aircraft, and other noise on residents of the project and ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB. The 60 dB CNEL noise contour encompasses areas adjacent to major arterial streets, freeways, and rail lines; and areas east and south of the Airport. Single-family dwellings are exempt from the noise reduction requirements under the current Code.

The Authority oversees a Residential Acoustical Treatment Program by which it will provide sound insulation for single- and multi-family dwellings in exchange for an avigation easement releasing the Authority from liability for aircraft overflights. Only properties located in areas exposed to aircraft noise above 65 dB CNEL are eligible for the Program. In addition, new residences are not eligible.

As part of the negotiations between the City and the Authority concerning the Airport and future development, City and Authority staff discussed revising the City�s sound insulation requirements to address single-family dwellings. City and Authority staff believed that it would be appropriate to address this issue as part of the comprehensive negotiations.

Summary of Proposed Ordinance: The proposed ordinance would amend the Code to require compliance with noise reductions standards for (1) all new single-family residential projects, and (2) single-family additions or remodels where more than 50 percent of the existing structure is being demolished (Exhibit 12-2). New construction includes all projects on vacant lots or parcels and those projects where the existing structure is completely demolished. An example of a remodeling project subject to the proposed ordinance would be the addition of a second story coupled with renovating the interior of the first story. This 50 percent rule is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, which requires compliance with the Code where a majority of the structure is demolished.

In order to minimize the cost and burden on single-family homeowners, typical remodels and additions to single-family homes where the existing house is not demolished to an extent more than 50 percent would continue to be exempt from the noise reduction requirements. In addition, single-family homes located outside of the 60 dB CNEL contour would also be exempt from any noise mitigation requirements, just as other residential structures are exempt under the existing Code. The proposed ordinance would not change the noise mitigation requirements applicable to multi-family dwellings, hotels, and motels.

The General Plan Noise Element identifies five noise contours at and above 60 dB CNEL: 60-65 dB; 65-70 dB; 70-75 dB; 75-80 dB; and 80-85 dB. The proposed ordinance would reorganize those contours into three areas for the purposes of requiring noise attenuation for single-family dwellings: 1) 60-65 dB; 2) 65-75 dB; and 3) 75-85 dB.

The proposed ordinance would establish prescriptive requirements for single-family dwellings within the first two areas (60-65 dB and 65-75 dB). These prescriptive requirements are intended to correspond generally to the acoustical treatment provided for dwellings insulated under the Authority�s Residential Acoustical Treatment Program. The requirement for projects closest to the Airport or other noise source (75-85 dB) would be most restrictive; single-family dwellings within this area would be required to submit an acoustical report rather than meet prescriptive requirements and establish that the proposed insulation would reduce noise to 45 dB CNEL.

A homeowner within the first two areas would also have the option of submitting an acoustical study to identify what measures would be used as an alternative to satisfying the prescriptive requirements. However, the prescriptive requirements are intended to ease the burden on homeowners by not requiring the preparation of a study by a professional acoustic engineer at additional cost to the homeowner.

Staff Analysis: Staff estimates that the proposed ordinance will not affect most homeowners. The noise attenuation requirements apply only to new construction and to major remodels where more than half of the existing house is demolished. Because all of the single-family neighborhoods in the City are fully built-out, new construction occurs only when a homeowner chooses to fully demolish an existing house. The majority of single-family additions and remodels in the City, even where a second story is added, do not substantially demolish the existing house.

Further, given the construction costs associated with building a new house or performing a major remodel or addition, the additional costs to satisfy the above criteria would add only a small amount relative to the overall project cost. Homes in the 75-85 dB area would be required to submit an acoustical study, which would have some additional cost. However, the number of single-family properties within this group is minimal and limited to areas proximate to Interstate 5 and State Route 134. There currently are no homes impacted by aviation noise in the 75-85 dB noise contours. The majority of affected houses fall within the 60-65 dB area. Single-family homes within the 65-75 dB area are primarily located to the south of the Airport and along Scott Road, Kenneth Road, East Olive Avenue, East Magnolia Boulevard, and East Verdugo Avenue.

The proposed ordinance would not affect eligibility for the Authority�s Residential Acoustical Treatment Program and, in particular, would not impose a financial burden on a homeowner that otherwise might be borne by the Authority. Properties outside the 65 dB CNEL contour are not eligible for the Authority�s Program. New construction also is ineligible. Homeowners undertaking major remodels cannot look to the Authority to provide insulation in conjunction with the remodel.

The proposed ordinance would complement the Authority�s Program by requiring noise mitigation for structures and projects not eligible for the Authority�s Program but would limit the financial burden by requiring sound insulation only in the case of major improvements. Staff believes that this is a reasonable approach to the continuing problem of excessive noise in the community.

The proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (�ALUC�) on December 8, 2004, which determined that it is consistent with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan. The ALUC�s review and recommendations are discussed later in this report.

The proposed ordinance further was reviewed by the Building and Fire Code Appeals Board on January 5, 2005. The Board expressed concern over the additional costs to homeowners to comply with the additional requirements discussed above. However, some Board members pointed out that some of the prescriptive requirements are very similar to those already required by the Building Code for energy conservation, and further that the requirements would only apply in cases of new construction or extensive remodeling. The Board voted to recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance as proposed by staff.

VII. TEFRA Bond Issuance Hearing

The Authority proposes to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds to fund the acquisition and improvement of the A-1 North property as described in this report, and to refund the outstanding bonds of the Authority�s 1992 tax-exempt bond issue. The A-1 North property improvements to be financed with the bond proceeds include landscaping and other improvements to the existing parking lot, construction of facilities to accommodate valet parking, realignment of the Airport access road, and construction of the underpass beneath the realigned Airport access road.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 imposes strict limitations on the preferential use by private parties of land and facilities financed with tax-exempt bonds. To qualify for and maintain the tax-exempt status of the bonds, at least 90 percent of the land and improvements financed with the bond proceeds must be available to the general public. Therefore, as to the vast majority of the parking spaces financed with the bond proceeds, there can be no exclusive parking rights granted and such spaces would remain available for unreserved, general public parking.

Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, added by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (�TEFRA�), requires that, in order for the interest on bonds issued by the Authority to be excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, an �applicable elected representative� of the host governmental unit, as well as the Authority, must approve the issuance of the bonds. Such approval must follow a public hearing that has been preceded by reasonable public notice. On October 6, 1992, the Council held a public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 23,739, giving the approval required by Section 147(f) in connection with the issuance of the Authority�s 1992 bond issue.

The public hearing required by Section 147(f) in connection with the bonds will be held by the City Council in conjunction with public hearings on other matters discussed in this report. Notice of the public hearing was published on January 1, 2005 in the Burbank Leader newspaper. At the public hearing interested persons may express their views on the issuance of the bonds. Upon completion of the hearing, the City Council will consider a resolution approving the Bonds for purposes of Section 147(f). Holding the public hearing and adopting the resolution approving the issuance of the bonds are requirements of Section 147(f), but the City Council is not required to approve any of the documentation relating to the issuance of the bonds. Aside from assisting the Authority with meeting the requirements of Section 147(f), the City Council will have no role in the issuance of the bonds. Under the Internal Revenue Code, the approval required by Section 147(f) must precede the authorization of the bonds by the Authority. The Authority expects to authorize the issuance of the bonds in March 2005. If the Authority does not issue the bonds, the Council�s approval would become meaningless.

The Authority has informed the City that the Indenture authorizing the bond will provide that neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of California or any public agency thereof, including the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena, will be pledged to the payment of the bonds. Further, payment of the bonds will not constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of the State or any public agency thereof, including the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena, other than the special obligation of the Authority as provided in the Indenture.

VIII. Environmental Review, Planning Board, Airport Land Use Commission, Public Comment, and Conclusion

On September 23, 2004, the Authority released an Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (�MND�) for the Agreement and all related actions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (�CEQA�) (Exhibit 9-1). Authority staff sought input and worked cooperatively with City staff in connection with the MND. A public comment period on the proposed MND followed from September 25, 2004 to October 18, 2004. The Planning Board and the City Council held public meetings during this period to discuss the MND. Based on input received during those meetings and staff�s analysis of the MND, the City prepared and submitted a comment letter to the Authority with regard to the MND. Including the City�s letter, the Authority received a total of twelve comment letters on the proposed MND. The Airport Authority�s environmental consultant responded to each of these comment letters (a copy of the comment letters and responses thereto is included in Exhibit 9-2). Based in part on comments received, the Authority revised the project to eliminate a consolidated rental car facility that was initially proposed to be constructed on the A-1 North property. The Final MND adopted by the Authority explains this change to the project description and the effect that the change had on the environmental analysis.

On October 27, 2004, the Airport Authority adopted the Final MND and approved the Project (Exhibit 9-2). As a CEQA responsible agency with jurisdiction over components of the Project, the City is now required to consider the MND in deciding whether to approve the pending applications. The following is an overview of the City�s role as a responsible agency.

Lead vs. Responsible Agency: As the public agency primarily responsible for carrying out the project described in the MND, the Authority acted as the lead agency in preparing and approving the environmental document. Section 15051(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides:

If the project will be carried out by a public agency, that agency shall be the lead agency even if the project would be located within the jurisdiction of another public agency.

The Airport is located within the jurisdiction of other public agencies, the cities of Burbank and Los Angeles. However, because the Authority is the public entity that will ultimately carry out the project, CEQA dictates that it serve as the lead agency and conduct the environmental review. Any public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval authority over a proposed project is considered a �responsible agency� under CEQA. The City is responsible for approving the Agreement and related actions. As such, the City is a CEQA responsible agency.

Role of Responsible Agency: Section 15096 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the role of a responsible agency in the CEQA process.[13] Generally, the responsible agency�s responsibilities are as follows:

Aside from a legal challenge, limited options are available to the responsible agency when it feels the lead agency�s environmental review is inadequate, and those circumstances are not present in this case. For example, a responsible agency may require the preparation of a subsequent environmental document, but only if major revisions to the MND are required because (i) substantial changes are proposed for the project, (ii) substantial changes in circumstances occur, or (iii) new information of substantial importance is revealed, as outlined in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. Another option would be for the responsible agency to assume the role of lead agency, but this option also applies in very specific circumstances that do not apply here, as outlined in Section 15052(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Because there are no grounds to require additional environmental review, and the City did not raise a timely legal challenge to the approved MND, the City is bound by the MND in making its decision on the Agreement and related actions.

Planning Board Role: The Planning Board served as a recommending body in the CEQA process by providing the Council with a recommendation regarding approval of the Agreement and related actions. In making its recommendation on these items, the Planning Board was required to consider the approved MND. The Planning Board was not charged with determining whether the MND complies with CEQA or is an adequate document. As noted above, the City�s opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the MND has passed, and the City is now required to assume that the document is valid and rely upon its analysis in making its decision. Accordingly, the Planning Board relied upon the MND as a valid document in its consideration of the project.

City Council Role: Considering the Planning Board�s recommendation and the environmental effects described in the MND, the City Council will make a determination to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the Agreement and related actions.

The conclusions reached in the MND regarding the environmental impacts of the Agreement and related actions may not be changed by the Council and must be relied upon as they appear in the MND. As with the Planning Board, the Council may not reach independent conclusions about the environmental impacts of the project or the validity of the analysis contained in the MND. In cases where a proposed project is identified as having potentially significant impacts on the environment, a responsible agency may require changes in a project or deny a project based upon its environmental impacts similar to a lead agency. In this case, however, the MND determined that no potentially significant environmental impacts would result from approval of the Agreement and related actions. Therefore, the Council may not require changes to the project or deny the project based upon its environmental impacts, since no such impacts have been identified. Staff notes, however, that the Council may use its authority under the City�s police powers to place conditions of approval upon a project or deny a project based upon the merits of the project itself or other non-CEQA related issues.

If the City Council decides to approve the proposed Agreement and related actions, the City will file a Notice of Determination pursuant to Section 15096(i) of the CEQA Guidelines certifying that the Council has reviewed and considered the MND prepared by the Authority. The Council need not find, and the Notice of Determination need not state, that the MND complies with CEQA. As part of the project approvals, the City Council may approve a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project, but it cannot impose mitigation measures beyond those contained in the MND.

Response to Public Comment: Dr. David Gordon submitted a letter prior to the Planning Board hearing regarding the MND (Exhibit 15-4). In his letter, Dr. Gordon points out that much of his letter�s content was previously submitted to the Airport Authority as lead agency under CEQA. Most of Dr. Gordon�s comments are related to the content and validity of the MND itself. As noted above, the City has no jurisdiction as a responsible agency to question the content or validity of the MND at this point in the process. The City�s, and Dr. Gordon�s, ability to challenge the content or validity of the MND has passed. Dr. Gordon provided his comments on the MND directly to the Authority during the public comment period, and the Authority responded to those comments in its Final MND approved on October 27, 2004. If Dr. Gordon was not satisfied with the Authority�s responses to his concerns, it was his responsibility to take the necessary legal action against the Authority if he wished to challenge the validity of the MND.

In his letter, Dr. Gordon states that the City�s actions to approve the proposed Agreement and related actions are �contingent upon the validity� of the MND. As noted above, however, the City is required by CEQA to assume that the adopted MND is a legally valid document, and the City is not in a position to challenge the validity of the MND. As such, Dr. Gordon�s repetition of his concerns about the MND to the City as a responsible agency is not appropriate. As with the City, Dr. Gordon would have been required to pursue legal action immediately following adoption of the MND if he wished to challenge the validity of the MND. Neither the City nor any other party may take action at this point to question the MND�s validity.

Several of the letters received from the public included information about possible soil contamination on the B-6 property that has �come to the public�s attention� since the Authority adopted the Final MND. However, the information cited in the letters, including an autobiography of a former Lockheed employee, was publicly available at the time the MND was prepared and is not considered to be �new information.� Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires additional environmental review to be conducted only when potentially significant environmental impacts are identified through �new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence� at the time the MND was adopted.

All of the sources and information cited in the letters were publicly available during the time the Authority was conducting its environmental analysis. None of the letters presents new sources of information or data that have been released since the MND was adopted. Soil contamination is one of the many issues that the Authority reviewed in its Initial Study. It is assumed that the Authority relied upon all available resources and data in conducting its analysis, and reached its conclusions accordingly.

Pursuant to PUC Section 21670, et seq., each county in California must have an airport land use commission (�ALUC�) to provide oversight of land use planning at and around all airports within the county. In Los Angeles County, the County Regional Planning Commission is designated as the ALUC. As required by law, the ALUC prepared the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan that establishes goals and policies for encouraging development around airports that is compatible with airport operations and not substantially affected by the typical impacts of airports. Prior to adopting or amending any General Plan, zoning ordinance, or building regulation within a certain proximity to the Airport, the City is required to submit the proposed action to ALUC for a determination of whether the proposed action would be consistent with the County Airport Land Use Plan. ALUC�s jurisdiction is limited to review of proposed General Plan, zoning, and building regulation changes within the �Airport Influence Area,� which is generally defined as lying within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour and the runway safety areas at the ends of the runways.

Staff submitted information about the Agreement, two planned developments, zone text amendment, and Building Code (BMC Chapter 7) amendment to the ALUC on October 29, 2004 (Exhibit 14-1). On December 8, 2004, the ALUC held a public hearing to consider the proposed actions (Exhibit 14-2). The ALUC voted 5-0 to determine that the proposed Agreement and related actions would be consistent with the goals and policies of the County Airport Land Use Plan. With this finding from the ALUC, the City may proceed with adopting the proposed actions, and no further action by the City in relation to ALUC is required. The ALUC�s findings of consistency are attached as Exhibit 14-3.

In light of the proposed Building Code amendment to require new residential development within noise impacted areas to provide noise attenuation, the ALUC recommended that the City Council consider requiring all new development within noise impacted areas to dedicate an avigation easement to the benefit of the Airport. Staff does not recommend that the Council pursue this option, and the proposed ordinance would not establish such a requirement. The proposed ordinance would require residential projects within noise impacted areas to be insulated so as to protect building occupants, in recognition of a property�s proximity to the Airport. However, staff recommends against requiring property owners to dedicate their air space property rights to the Airport.

As noted above, the Authority requires property owners to dedicate an avigation easement releasing the Authority from liability for aircraft overflights when sound insulation is provided through its Residential Acoustical Treatment Program. This avigation easement is given by the homeowner in exchange for sound insulation measures that are installed at the cost of the Authority. The homeowner is therefore receiving some benefit in exchange for giving up their air space property rights. Staff believes that requiring a homeowner to bear the cost of the sound insulation and in addition dedicate an avigation easement to the authority, as recommended by the ALUC, is not an equitable approach and does not provide any benefit to the homeowner.

PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION:

The Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the Agreement and certain related actions at a special meeting on December 6, 2004. The BMC requires Planning Board review and recommendation on the Agreement and on the planned development applications and zone text amendment. Minutes of the meeting are attached as Exhibit 13-1.

Each of the four Board members present (Board Member Thomas was absent) expressed their support for the proposed Agreement and related actions. Some Board members spoke about the highly critical eye with which they reviewed the documents, looking to find some aspect of the Agreement that would be detrimental to the City or otherwise lead them to not support the proposal. Those Board members stated that despite their critical review, they found no aspect of the Agreement or related actions that made them waver in their support for the Agreement. The Board members generally believed that the proposed Agreement would be positive for the City, and some Board members refuted specific claims made by some members of the community by pointing out that the Agreement would not result in expansion of the terminal or easterly takeoffs and would in no way compromise the City�s planning or zoning powers.

The Board voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval to the City Council of the proposed Agreement, planned development and development review applications, and zone text amendment (resolution attached as Exhibit 13-2). The Board did not recommend any changes to the site plans for the planned development zones or any changes to the planned development conditions of approval as proposed by staff. The Board recommended the following modifications to the Agreement and zone text amendment:

Under the draft ordinance as presented to the Planning Board, the City would have issued a building permit for a proposed project whether or not the FAA determined that the proposed structure would pose a hazard to air navigation. As noted earlier in this report, the draft ordinance has been modified since the Planning Board hearing, and staff incorporated the Planning Board�s recommendations into the revised ordinance.

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

This provision was added to the Code as a result of an initiative � Measure B � sponsored by the City Council and approved by the electorate in November 2000.

As the City and Authority have negotiated the Agreement and other documents addressed in this staff report, City staff has considered whether each potential action is subject to Section 11-112.

Staff received a comment letter from Mr. Michael Bergfeld (Exhibit 15-9) stating Mr. Bergfeld�s opinion that the proposed Agreement is subject to Section 11-112. Mr. Howard Rothenbach, represented by Mr. Bergfeld, filed suit in November 2004 making the same allegation; however, Mr. Rothenbach dismissed the suit in December.

At various City Council meetings at which the Agreement has been discussed, members of the public commented that the Agreement should be submitted to the voters regardless of whether Section 11-112 applies.

Staff Analysis: Staff concludes that none of the documents or actions recommended herein is subject to BMC Section 11-112. The Agreement, while an agreement between the City and the Authority, is not �for a relocated or expanded airport terminal project.� Several other actions recommended herein, while discretionary acts on the part of the City, do not �relat[e] to the approval of a relocated or expanded airport terminal project.�

Staff�s conclusion is based principally on the fact that no element of any agreement, ordinance, or other document recommended herein authorizes the Authority to expand or relocate the Airport terminal. On the contrary, the Agreement (1) prohibits the Authority from constructing a new terminal for ten years, and (2) prohibits the Authority from expanding the existing terminal for seven years. Section 11-112 requires voter approval for City actions authorizing the Authority to expand or relocate the terminal; it is not triggered where the City takes action to preclude such activities.

If, at the end of the seven- or ten-year periods, the City considered taking action that would authorize the Authority to expand or relocate the terminal, Section 11-112 would apply. Thus, the determination that Section 11-112 does not apply to the agreements and approvals recommended herein in no way deprives Burbank residents of a role in Airport expansion. Staff believes that this conclusion is consistent with the purpose and intent of Section 11-112.

Response to Public Comment: Staff does not agree with the argument presented by Mr. Bergfeld that Section 11-112 applies to the Agreement because the word �terminal� as used in Section 11-112 applies to the entire Airport. First, Section 11-112 contains the phrase �airport terminal project.� If the words �airport� and �terminal� are synonymous, there would be no reason to use both words to describe the projects covered by Section 11-112. Second, the common sense definition of �terminal� refers and relates to the passenger terminal buildings, not to the airfield and parking lots. This common sense definition is reinforced by the Authority's own regulations, which define �terminal� to mean �any building on the Airport that is used primarily for the purpose of passenger accommodations and related activities.� (Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority Rules and Regulations, Section 101.5) Finally, the history and intent of Section 11-112, as reflected in the Impartial Analysis provided to all voters, reveals that the initiative was directed at the long-standing dispute over proposals by the Authority to relocate the passenger terminal building.

Ms. Rose Prouser attached to her comment letter a copy of a 2002 letter from then-Authority President Chris Holden to FAA Administrator Marion Blakey. Ms. Prouser highlights a portion of the letter in which Mr. Holden states that Measure B requires voter approval of �any airport land acquisition and any agreement for a new terminal.� Mr. Holden�s statement is incorrect. Again, Measure B applies only to an agreement or discretionary action related to a new or relocated terminal. Measure B does not require voter approval for land acquisition of any kind.

Public notices of the Planning Board and City Council hearings were mailed to all property owners and tenants in the City of Burbank, and all property owners in the City of Los Angeles, within a 1,000-foot radius of the Airport. Notice was also published in the Burbank Leader newspaper. A separate notice of the TEFRA hearing was published in the Leader as required by the TEFRA law. Notice of the availability of the two preliminary analyses was published in the Leader at the time the documents were released in November to start the public review period. Postcards advertising the January 12 town hall meeting were mailed to every property owner, resident, business, and postal patron in the City of Burbank.

As noted earlier in this report, staff has received several letters and emails regarding the proposed Agreement and related actions. The questions and comments raised in these letters have been addressed throughout this report as appropriate. Questions and comments that did not directly address one of the topics covered in this report, but which staff believed needed to be addressed, are discussed below. Any correspondence received after the publication of this report will be forwarded to the Council and addressed at the public hearing as necessary.

City Council Resolution No. 17,390: Several letters received from the public include copies of, and discussions about, City Council Resolution No. 17,390, adopted on December 16, 1975. This resolution was adopted by the City Council to �establish policy guidelines in connection with the possible future acceptance of the master plan report on the [Airport] and the implementation of an environmental impact assessment report in connection therewith.� The City Council was, at that time, considering the adoption of a master plan report and preparation of an environmental analysis of that report �for use in support of possible acquisition and development� of the Airport by the City of Burbank.

The commenters opine that the resolution established City policies pertaining to the Airport that remain in effect today. Specifically, the authors point to a policy in the resolution against purchasing additional land for Airport use. They argue that the proposed Agreement and related actions are contrary to the City policies established by this resolution, specifically because of the proposed acquisition by the Authority of the A-1 North property.

However, the policies established by the resolution were intended to apply only to the Council�s and City staff�s then-pending review and consideration of the master plan report and environmental analysis related thereto. The policies were established to address a particular situation at a particular point in time and were not intended to be cited 30 years later as the City�s policy on Airport matters. At the time the resolution was adopted, the Airport (then known as the Hollywood-Burbank Airport) was privately owned and the City was considering the purchase of the Airport if the opportunity arose. Since that time, the Authority was established through the Joint Powers Act and the Airport was transferred to public ownership under the Authority. The situation today is substantially different from that at the time Resolution No. 17,390 was adopted, and the policies that it established are no longer applicable.

Since 1975, the City has adopted numerous statements of policy concerning the Airport that have superseded Resolution 17,390. In recent years, the City Council has adopted, for example, the following Airport-related policies: Resolution No. 24,578 (1995); Vision Statement for the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport (1995); Burbank Airport 21st Century Plan (1997); Framework for Settlement (1999); and 10 Point Principles (2001). City policy must be responsive to current conditions and therefore has evolved over time. These statements of policy are intended to guide discussions between the City and the Authority, not to bind the City to conditions that may have changed substantially.

Passenger Terminal Locations: Ms. Rose Prouser attached to her comment letter a copy of a City document, which mentions that possible terminal sites other than the B-6 property would be �disadvantageous� to the City (Exhibit 15-8). Ms. Prouser asks why this is so. As noted elsewhere in this report, the City currently has considerable control over how the B-6 property can be used. This control is through the PUC Section 21661.6 approval process, the Title Transfer Agreements, and easements. The Authority could not construct a new passenger terminal on the B-6 property without express City approval through each of these processes. Further, a substantial portion of the B-6 property is zoned M-2 for industrial use, and a zone change would be required to allow a terminal or other airport use. Because any of these approvals would be discretionary actions by the City Council, voter approval under Measure B would be required for any terminal project on the B-6 property.

The City does not have these same protections on other properties already owned by the Authority, including the current terminal location, the Southwest Quadrant, and the Northwest Quadrant where various general aviation tenants are located. These areas are zoned Airport, and passenger terminals are a permitted use in the Airport zone. Therefore, the Airport could in theory construct a new passenger terminal at a number of locations within the existing Airport zone, with no approval required from the City other than ministerial development review and building permits. In this situation, the City�s ability to control the size or design of the terminal, including the number of aircraft gates, would be extremely limited. The City could change the Airport zone or take other actions to try to stop or gain some regulatory control over such a terminal project, but it would be much more difficult to do so without the built-in protections afforded by the B-6 property.

Availability of Documents and Noticing: The letter submitted by Mr. Michael Bergfeld (Exhibit 15-9) addresses process issues dealing with notices at various steps in the development agreement and PUC application processes. However, Mr. Bergfeld confuses the PUC process with the planned development and development agreement processes. The processing of the Authority�s PUC Section 21661.6 applications is dictated by the guidelines for application processing adopted by the City Council. The process includes the release of Preliminary Analysis documents followed by a public comment period and finally a public hearing before the City Council. The planned development applications and Agreement are processed pursuant to the requirements of the Burbank Municipal Code, including noticed public hearings before the Planning Board and City Council.

In this case these two separate processes are occurring simultaneously and are closely related, but are not legally connected. The public comment period for the two Preliminary Analysis documents coincidentally ended on the same day as the Planning Board public hearing on the Agreement, planned developments, and zone text amendment. However, separate notice of the Planning Board hearing was provided as required by the BMC. The Planning Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the PUC applications, and the notices and public comment period for the Preliminary Analyses were not connected to the Planning Board hearing.

Some of the public comment letters submitted during the comment period on the Preliminary Analyses contained comments on both the Preliminary Analyses and PUC applications, and on the other matters being considered by the Planning Board. As such, staff responded to those questions and comments related to the Planning Board�s actions at the Planning Board hearing on December 6 as well as testimony submitted at the hearing itself. Responses to comments submitted on the Preliminary Analyses are provided in this report where appropriate. Mr. Bergfeld�s arguments regarding faults in the public noticing process and comment periods are not applicable.

Mr. Bergfeld further argues that the Agreement for which the Planning Board provided a recommendation to the Council was not available to the Board prior to their decision. This statement is not correct. The Planning Board was provided with a copy of the proposed Agreement in advance of the public hearing, and a copy of the Agreement was included as an exhibit to the staff report that was released to the public. The document considered by the Planning Board was the same document approved by the Airport Authority on October 27, 2004. No changes were made to the document between the Authority and Planning Board meetings. While a few minor aspects of the Agreement were still subject to further negotiation after the Planning Board hearing, the Planning Board staff report summarized those items and the Board was explicitly made aware of those sections of the Agreement subject to minor changes. The Planning Board acknowledged these issues and discussed them during their deliberations. The Planning Board was provided in advance of the public hearing with complete versions of all documents necessary to make an educated decision and recommendation on the proposed actions.

The proposed Agreement and the related actions analyzed herein would provide substantial benefits to the City of Burbank. The Agreement would provide certainty over airport development for the next seven to ten years, would foster cooperation on noise and land use issues between the City and the Authority, and would provide the City with important protections against unwanted and undesirable Airport projects and their impacts. Each of these points is discussed further below.

Certainty over development: The proposed Agreement and related actions would provide certainty over development at the Airport for seven to ten years. The community would be assured that the existing terminal would not be expanded for at least seven years and a new terminal could not be planned for or built for at least ten years. The Authority would gain certainty about the zoning regulations that would apply to its property for the next seven years and would receive the approvals it needs from the City to proceed with relocating Parking Lot A and acquiring the A-1 North property to reorganize its parking operations. The Authority also would be able to proceed with other routine projects. Without the proposed Agreement, there would be no guarantee that the Authority would not try to expand the existing terminal building or construct a new terminal, especially on land that is already owned by the Authority.

Cooperation between City and Authority: The proposed Agreement would encourage cooperation between the City and Authority to accomplish the City�s long-time goal of achieving meaningful noise relief at the Airport. This is particularly important today since the Part 161 Study is at a critical crossroad. The Agreement includes provisions for meetings of a noise working group composed of City and Authority staff to determine a course of action for pursuing noise relief, and the Authority has agreed to fund the cost of any technical noise studies and consultant work. The Agreement also contains provisions for a land use working group that would seek options for extending the Agreement at the end of the seven-year term or take other action to work cooperatively on zoning and land use issues rather than in conflict with one another as has been the case in the past. Working together in this manner is an important step in improving relations between the City and Authority and allowing the two agencies to cooperate on critical issues such as noise relief.

Land Use Protections: Perhaps most important for the City, the proposed Agreement would provide the City with substantially greater protections concerning development of land at the Airport than it has today. The Agreement, planned developments, PUC approvals, and Title Transfer Agreements impose binding and overlapping obligations that the City can enforce through various mechanisms. These obligations include commitments from the Authority that it will not proceed, during the term of the agreements, with projects that are considered most objectionable by the City. These protections differ among the various Airport properties; the following table shows each of the land areas subject to the Agreement and the documents and approvals that will control use and development of the property.

Land Use Protections Gained Through Development Agreement and Related Actions

While the City has existing protections for some areas, notably the B-6 Property, the Agreement would enhance those protections and provide new layers of protection for other areas. Staff notes that although the term of the Agreement is seven years, the planned development zones themselves would outlive the Agreement and would remain as the zoning on the property unless changed by the City Council. As such, the land use controls established in the planned development conditions of approval would apply to the A-1 North and Parking Lot A sites indefinitely. The same is true of the Title Transfer Agreements and PUC Section 21661.6 approvals.

Staff believes that City Council approval of the proposed Agreement and related approvals discussed throughout this report would be an important step forward in City-Authority relations, while providing both parties with a great deal of certainty over development at the Airport and providing the City with multiple layers of protection concerning Airport development, many of which would outlast the seven-year term of the Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed resolutions and ordinances to approve the Development Agreement, planned development and development review applications, PUC Section 21661.6 applications, amendments to the Title Transfer Agreements, zone text amendment, Building Code amendment, and issuan

[1] Throughout this report, reference documents are referred to by exhibit number. Accompanying this report is a volume of the referenced exhibits with their corresponding numbers.

[2] The north end of the Airport property north of Cohasset Street is located in the City of Los Angeles. The City of Burbank does not have land use authority over land outside of the City�s municipal boundary. As a consequence, the portion of the Airport located within the City of Los Angeles would not be subject to the proposed Agreement.

[3] The Aviall properties (so named because they were once occupied by the Aviall aerospace company) were acquired by the Authority in the 1990s but were not included as part of the Trust or Adjacent Properties. They are leased by the Authority to private firms for industrial use and are not utilized for Airport-related purposes.

[4] Staff notes that the original grading permit issued to Zelman Development for construction of the Star Park parking lot authorized grading for these 764 and other additional parking spaces. However, only the 2,176 existing spaces were developed by Zelman.

[5] Staff does not generally believe this concept to be true. Staff notes that the construction of the additional parking spaces at Star Park and subsequent decline in parking rates (see Exhibit 6-5) did not increase the number of passengers using the Airport.

[6] The Preliminary Analysis contains a minor error concerning the number of parking spaces in existing Parking Lot A. Parking Lot A contains 1,592 public parking spaces, and an immediately adjacent lot contains 196 spaces dedicated to employee parking. Accordingly, the current number of parking spaces is 1,788.

[7] A 16-foot strip of land totaling about 0.45 acres along Empire Avenue at the southern boundary of the property was previously identified as a street dedication to the City of Burbank for the purpose of widening the Empire Avenue right-of-way from 50 feet to 66 feet. This dedication to the City will occur whether or not the Authority acquires the property, and the site area numbers used by the Authority in its applications assume this dedication will occur and do not include the dedication area.

[8] Staff notes that the submitted plans indicate a five-foot fence while the application forms indicate a six-foot fence. The Authority�s response letter (Exhibit 8-2) to staff�s Notice of Completion letter (Exhibit 8-1) clarified that six feet is the correct height of the proposed fence.

[9] The application submitted by the Authority requests the ability to use Zones 3 and 4 only for valet or self-parking. However, staff recommends that these zones also allow for rental car or new car storage consistent with Zone 2. Because Zones 3 and 4 are located further from the passenger terminal, it may be more efficient to provide car storage at these locations. Staff discussed this issue informally with Authority staff, who agreed that the additional flexibility may be beneficial.

[10] Although pedestrian access to the valet facility would be available from Terminal B across the access road to the west, Authority staff have stated that the majority of the pedestrian traffic is expected to access the valet facility from the north in front of Terminal A. This pedestrian crossing of the access road is regulated by a traffic signal.

[11] It is important to clarify that the additional parking opportunities in the Southwest Quadrant after four years are for automobiles only, not aircraft. It is not clear from Mr. Vanderford�s letter whether he believes that commercial aircraft parking positions could be provided in the Southwest Quadrant. The Authority could not under any circumstances use the Southwest Quadrant to provide additional parking locations for commercial aircraft. Additional commercial aircraft parking positions could not be provided anywhere at the Airport for at least seven years. This limitation is separate and distinct from the restrictions on automobile parking.

[12] While there is an argument that some of the neighborhoods along the hillside should be placed in Zone 2 (strictly applying the 100:1 slope), staff does not believe that doing so would be appropriate. In most cases, it is the terrain beneath the structures that penetrates the 100:1 imaginary surface, meaning that it is the hillside itself that presents the risk to air navigation rather than the structure. Staff understands that, in considering whether a structure poses a hazard to air navigation, the FAA will consider natural typography of this kind. Staff accordingly recommends that these areas be placed in Zone 3 such that only proposed structures exceeding 35 feet in height be subject to the notice requirement of the City ordinance.

[13] This section of the CEQA Guidelines discusses the role of a responsible agency when either a negative declaration or EIR is prepared. Discussion about roles and responsibilities specific to an EIR are not applicable in this case.

Council Agenda - City of Burbank

Tuesday, January 25, 2005