This report is a follow-up to staff�s presentation to Council of November 5, 2002 regarding the proposed development of a comprehensive City policy regarding Burbank Airport facilities. This report outlines staff�s recommendations on how to proceed with the specific plan portion of the policy development process and provides recommendations for staffing the different project tasks. This item was continued from the City Council meeting of December 17, 2002.

On November 5, 2002, staff presented to the City Council a proposed outline for a process that would result in the development of a comprehensive City policy for future development of facilities at the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport. The outline included the development of a specific plan, the development of a comprehensive policy in addition to the land use planning document, and initiation of a public outreach effort. Staff proposed to utilize the firm of Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG), the same firm that facilitated the Plan Evaluation and Review Committee (PERC) meeting process, to oversee and facilitate the specific plan, policy development, and public outreach processes.

The City Council expressed concern over staff�s report and the proposed use of consultants throughout the specific plan and policy development process. The Council requested that additional information be provided in several areas, including a better defined and more directed scope of work for the entire plan and policy development process and additional information and options for completing the proposed process using in-house staff.

Staff believes that the Council�s goal is to provide the City, to the extent permitted by law, with a greater ability to direct and/or restrict development that may be inconsistent with existing and emerging City policies. Of particular concern is the Airport�s ability under existing City zoning to pursue various projects that individually may have limited environmental impacts, but cumulatively may have significant environmental impacts and potentially enhance airport operations and capacity.

The City Council�s adoption of the Interim Development Control Ordinance (IDCO) temporarily restricts any development that would not otherwise require discretionary approval by the City, and therefore reduces the risk of development that is incompatible with City policy. However, the IDCO will expire in 2004, and Council directed staff on November 5 to pursue the creation of permanent zoning measures that similarly would ensure compatible development. These zoning and land use controls would constitute only part of the overall City airport policy. The development of an airport policy and the related public outreach would occur in conjunction with the zoning process. Because of the technical and legal aspects of the zoning amendment process, staff is seeking guidance from the Council now on how to proceed with this element of the overall policy development process.

Staff has identified three possible courses of action to establish the zoning and land use measures desired by the Council. Each of these options is summarized below. Staff notes that these options are not mutually exclusive and that multiple options may be pursued simultaneously. In pursuing any of these options, staff would look to the PERC process; Council dialogue; discussions with Glendale, Pasadena, the FAA, the Airport Authority, and other agencies; and other ongoing airport discussions for guidance on existing and emerging City policies that would impact the zoning and/or specific plan process.

This first option would amend the Zoning Ordinance such that most or all uses in the Airport zone, including air passenger terminals, would require a conditional use permit (CUP) or other similar discretionary approval from the City. This option would include a threshold of significance to ensure that small-scale projects are not subject to this discretionary review. Such a process could utilize the existing conditional use permit findings related to a project�s compatibility with surrounding uses and impacts on surrounding properties as the criteria for approval, or could utilize a new set of findings specific to airport uses and their impacts on the community. Staff would look at various options for creating a similar type of permit and discretionary process to achieve the desired goal of ensuring consistency with City policy. A General Plan amendment might also be desired to revise the airport related policy statements to guide the City when deciding to approve or deny a discretionary application.

This option would provide the City with a role in all proposed airport development, as most or all projects would require approval by the Planning Board and/or City Council through a discretionary process. The creation of specific development standards (see Option 2) would not be required, since the CUP process would include standards sufficient to ensure compatibility with City policy and provide an orderly process for reviewing facility design. A potential downside to this approach is that it would not establish any type of comprehensive plan or long-term vision for airport development, and would continue to address projects of all sizes and intensities on an individual basis.

This option would involve a relatively straightforward amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, and possibly the General Plan, that could likely be completed in a matter of months, with final Council approval occurring as early as April 2003. Staff anticipates that the necessary documentation to satisfy the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) could be completed by that time.

City staff would manage and complete all work related to the zoning amendment process and would work closely with special counsel on airport matters, Akin Gump, to draft the proposed zoning. Due to the resources and technical expertise that are sometimes required, staff would recommend that an outside consultant be retained to prepare the necessary CEQA document. Staff estimates that the cost for such a consultant would be between $100,000 and $200,000, depending upon the scope of the document. Additional consultants to look at specific issues such as traffic and noise may cost an additional $50,000 to $100,000 each. Because the zoning amendment would be relatively straightforward and easy to explain, staff anticipates that only a minor public outreach component would be necessary aside from the required public hearings before the Planning Board and City Council. City staff with experience in public outreach efforts could facilitate community meetings or study sessions.

The second option would amend the Zoning Ordinance to create development standards for the Airport zone, to the extent permitted by law. The goal of this option would be to put in place a set of development standards that reflected, to the extent legally permissible, all City policies related to various types of airport development. Air passenger terminals and other types of airport development would continue to be allowed by right in the Airport zone, and the City would rely upon the established development standards to ensure that airport development is consistent with existing and emerging City policies.

This option would ensure that whatever is developed is consistent with the City�s vision for such development. However, it would not require City approval for each new airport facility, as in Option 1. This option is somewhat closer to establishing a long-term vision for airport development, as it would make clear the City�s desires for different types of airport development. However, it would still not rise to level of a comprehensive plan or similar policy document, as it would not likely examine different development scenarios for different areas at the airport, and would serve in a largely reactive capacity to respond to airport development applications.

This process could likely be completed in a matter of months and be presented to the Council for adoption as early as summer 2003. Staff anticipates that the necessary documentation to satisfy the environmental review requirements of CEQA could be completed by that time.

City staff would manage this process and complete most of the work while working closely with Akin Gump. The creation of airport development standards would necessitate the hiring of an airport planning and design consultant to advise staff on general airport design practices. Staff estimates that such a consultant would cost between $50,000 and $100,000, depending upon the scope of work. Staff would again recommend that an outside consultant be retained to prepare the necessary CEQA document with an estimated cost of $100,000 to $200,000 and potential additional costs of $50,000 to $100,000 each for other consultants to examine specific environmental issues. Because it would involve the creation of new development standards, staff anticipates that this option would include a public outreach component, including at least one community meeting and study sessions before the Planning Board and City Council. City staff could facilitate such meetings.

The third option would involve the preparation of a comprehensive specific plan document similar to the Media District Specific Plan and Burbank Center Plan. While not essential to achieve basic land use and zoning controls, a specific plan would provide a comprehensive planning strategy for the airport area. A specific plan would include some or all of the following components:

• Background and history of land use patterns at and around the airport and an analysis of current development trends
• Analysis of airport and non-airport development goals and objectives at and around the airport
• Comprehensive land use planning policies
• Comprehensive use and design standards for airport and non-airport development providing a greater degree of specificity than typical zoning
• Analysis and discussion of compatibility and consistency of airport and non-airport development with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan and state and federal aviation laws
• Evaluation of benefits and impacts of various development scenarios of airport and non-airport development for different areas of the airport (B-6, southwest quadrant, etc.) and the establishment of specific guidelines for such development
• Economic analysis of land use scenarios to determine market viability of various non-airport uses
• Discussion of public infrastructure and services needs and establishment of policies and programs to provide the necessary infrastructure and facilities when needed
• Discussion of anticipated traffic impacts from various airport projects and necessary infrastructure improvements

A specific plan would provide the City with the greatest degree of protection against incompatible airport development by creating a complete set of land use policies and associated development standards. The first two options discussed above, or some variation thereof, would likely be incorporated into the specific plan process. A specific plan would include some of the components of an airport master plan, and would provide the City with the ability to analyze airport development in the long-term and consider the cumulative impacts of airport development.

The creation of a specific plan document would take several months and up to a year to complete. Because of the comprehensive and long-term scope of a specific plan document, staff anticipates that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for CEQA compliance. Because much of the document would deal with policy issues, staff believes that it would be appropriate to draft the document concurrently with the development of the overall City airport policy. If so desired by the Council, the specific plan and policy could be submitted to Burbank voters at the same time. Because of the time required to develop a specific plan document and the related CEQA document, a specific plan alone may not be consistent with the Council�s desire to implement zoning and land use measures as soon as possible. As such, staff could begin working immediately on the zoning components of the specific plan such that they could be ready for adoption separately and in advance of the rest of the specific plan document if necessary.

City staff would manage the process and complete much of the work while working closely with Akin Gump. Consultants with expertise in airport planning, noise, air quality, traffic, and economic development would likely need to be retained to provide expertise and supplement staff�s work on the plan at an estimated cost of $50,000 to $100,000 each. An outside CEQA consultant would be necessary to prepare the EIR. The additional analysis and time required to prepare an EIR would result in an increased consultant cost, which staff estimates would be approximately $150,000 to $250,000. Because of the far-reaching scope of a specific plan document, a public outreach effort would be necessary, including one or more community meetings and study sessions with the Planning Board and City Council. Staff could manage and facilitate the public outreach and input process, but would consider hiring an outside firm such as MIG to facilitate one or more of the community meetings and study sessions. Staff estimates that the cost of such facilitation would be $25,000 to $50,000, depending upon the number of meetings and scope of the consultant�s involvement.

Per the Council�s direction, Community Development Department staff members would be responsible for managing the efforts described in this report and completing most of the work. As outlined above, staff would hire outside consultants only when necessary due to the need for specific expertise or for other task-specific requirements. The costs described in this report are only estimates, as staff is still in the process of talking with consultants to develop more accurate cost estimates. To the extent City staff would be managing the overall process and consultants would only be performing specific tasks, consultant costs would be minimized. The contracts for any consultants hired for this process would be processed pursuant to City laws and procedures, and would come back before the City Council for approval when required.

The City staff members that would work on the zoning/specific plan and policy development processes currently work on a variety of projects that are not airport related, including City-driven projects such as General Plan and Zoning Ordinance updates and Neighborhood Protection Plans, and project applications such as conditional use permits and planned developments. Because the work described herein would be managed and performed by City staff, some of the non-airport workload would be shifted to other Planning staff members. However, current workloads in the Planning Division are very high, and other staff members would not be able to absorb the projects that would have to be reassigned to accommodate the airport zoning/specific plan/policy process.

While staff recommends Option 3, the preparation of an airport specific plan, staff estimates that additional contract planners would be needed to absorb the displaced workload and maintain the Planning Division�s ability to serve the public and process project applications in a timely manner regardless of the approach authorized by the Council. As such, staff recommends that the Council authorize the hiring of up to the equivalent of 1.5 full-time contract planners while the airport planning and policy process is ongoing. The necessary contracts would be processed pursuant to City laws and procedures, including Council approval as required. Staff estimates that the cost of hiring a full-time contract planner at the Assistant to Associate Planner level would be approximately $115,000 per year, with an annual cost of up to $172,500 for 1.5 full-time equivalent planners. Staff notes that two full-time staff planner positions were eliminated from the Planning Division during the division�s reorganization in 2001, reducing the number of planners from 12 to 10. As such, the workload is distributed among fewer staff members, and higher workload demands are already placed upon the City�s planners as compared to several years ago.

Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to proceed with preparation of an airport specific plan. A specific plan would incorporate zoning controls and land use policies, would examine options for various airport development scenarios, and would provide the City with the ability to look at long-term airport development issues and consider the cumulative impacts of airport development. Staff would begin working immediately on potential zoning and land use controls such that they could be ready for adoption separately and in advance of the rest of the specific plan document if so desired by the Council.

Exhibit A Specific Plan and Policy Development Process Diagram

go to the top