expansion. Seven to 10 years guaranteed expansion is perfect for
them. We have also heard loud and clear that the FAA will not permit
a mandatory curfew. A relocated terminal is the biggest threat the
community will ever have to face without passenger limitations and
flight restrictions to the East and a mandatory nighttime curfew.
All you really need to do on behalf of Burbank is put some minimum
development controls on all property at the airport and treat it as
you do all other land in the city. I don't understand why you don't
simply put in a height limit of 25 feet, setback requirements and
parking standards. A conditional-use permit for anything other than
some minimal uses and development standard requirements would
guarantee public hearings and community input on the largest
remaining site to be developed in Burbank far into the future.
Otherwise, the biggest threat to the community will develop
whatever it wants in the not too distant future. Think about how fast
seven years pass and consider what the outcome for this community
will be. Do you really want to go on record as granting the airport
the right to build whatever they want in seven to 10 years? I hope this is not going to be your individual and collective legacy to
If you are not willing to place land-use controls on the airport
property, why bother with controlling development in any part of the
city whether it's R-1 or C-3. A new terminal will put flights over
the entire city since there will no longer be any controls on
takeoffs and landings from the east-west runway. Is that what you see
for Burbank's future?
If you give up the right to place development standards on the
airport property and you allow land acquisition, you will have failed
in the most basic principles of elected office, which is to represent
the people who have elected you. The community spoke loudly during
the initiative election. Although you chose to ignore the electorate
and challenged its legality, the message was clear.
Deal between Authority, city deserves closer look