So what are those “standards” going to be?

in the beginning


That (apparently by now) special privilege airport ordinance is up for a second reading tomorrow night.

Any ideas from the council yet on the specifics? Or, will they turn out to be whatever is most expedient — such as, whatever will get this thing raced to the ballot in November?

Is the council going to talk about any of these important details on Tuesday night?

Unlike most other zoning classifications in the BMC, the Airport Zone does not have specific development standards against which any proposed development must be evaluated. Normally this could be remedied through the creation of a P[lanned] D[evelopment] Zone for the property. However, no new PD Zone is proposed.

The proposed Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) would allow for an alternative D[evelopment] R[eview] method in a D[evelopment] A[greement] within the Airport Zone including creation of development standards. In the case of the replacement terminal project, any DA will be considered by the City Council and the voters for approval. The ZTA provides for creation of a DR process unique to the Airport Zone and mutually acceptable to the City Council and Authority, which would be memorialized in the DA between the City and the Authority

How about the DR process? Any idea what this methodology will be? And why does it have to be “acceptable” to the Authority?

Perhaps it does, at least according to the secretly negotiated “Term Sheet” that they already “endorsed” in November, and then two months later politically backtracked on (or at least Rogers did). But if so, why is there now this sudden seeking of public “outreach” on the terminal specifics?

Like what difference will it make by now?

Councilman Will Rogers, however, said his list of concerns was longer than the city’s memo. He complained that the trip had been scheduled too hastily to allow a proper public meeting for council members to discuss their agenda, goals and representation on the trip, in order to make the most of the opportunity.

He felt that without its own agenda, the council may have been seen as having its agenda set for it by the airport and may have been used as a “prop.”

“This was used for public relations … to create the appearance of something that wasn’t there, and that’s the five of us having agreed on terms for a new airport terminal and now we’re going to go tell the Feds about it,” Rogers said. “And that’s not the case.”

No final agreement has been inked. Rogers said he and others were assured that nothing was set in stone in the conceptual terms that were discussed with the FAA.

So what was all that brouhaha on November 16 but an agreeing upon of terms? They were excited as hell about their Term Sheet.

Rogers publicly endorsed it! He even agreed to have an FAA meeting.

Only Gordon didn’t:


FireShot Capture 102 - - http___burbank.granicus.com_DocumentViewer.php_file=burbank_6377167ac32


So what the hell is Rogers talking about? He voted for it. And what are the rest of them talking about when it comes to — after this week — the new Airport DA and DR process?







Filed under Uncategorized

24 responses to “So what are those “standards” going to be?

  1. Anonymous

    Can you please email me,
    I want to opt out of Common Core. I read your comment on the Burbank Leader.

    Thank you

  2. chad

    In the beginning, was the word.

  3. John

    Mr Frutos sure was drooling all over himself about the agreement. Remember he came down in the audience and danced about it all. The plan is more traffic and noise for us and God knows what for Mr Feutos. Frutos is not the man of the people hes a snake oil salesman

  4. Gary

    Well, it appears to me that its a bit disengenuous for Rogers to say he has concerns now when he has aleady voted to give the airport exactlly what they demand.

    • Anonymous 3

      You’re deeply confused.

      • Anonymous

        Obviously anonymous 3 your the deeply confused one. Stop drinking kool aid and open your eyes to the fact we are all being sold out by a corrupt city council.

      • semichorus

        Rogers voted to endorse the term sheet and go to the FAA. It was a 4-1 vote. Only Gordon declined to support it.

        Then — two months later– Rogers gets upset about the council going to the FAA and discussing the very “terms” that he endorsed.

        So who’s “confused”? Maybe that’s the nice word for it.

        I actually think Rogers is trying to backtrack here. He knows I’m right about the whole mis-process being displayed by them (which others have said as well), and that these terms aren’t that great, given that they gave away all of their discretionary power post-B6 for no discernibly good reason.

        He also knows that he can’t have it both ways: endorse the term sheet and get staff to finalize it, and then ALSO seek out public “input” on what it wants.

        Too late for that after the endorsement. The basic deal was already agreed upon in November.

        • Carl

          To understand that Mr Rogers is one confused little individual all one needs to do is watch a couple of council meetings. The guy voted for the deal points or whatever they call them and let’s get honest voting for them means you support them and if you support them it tells us this is all a done deal as far as the council majority is concerned. I don’t think the public is lost here I think Rogers is lost.

          • semichorus

            Rogers clearly voted for that “term sheet” on November 16. Gordon voted against it. Rogers also voted to authorize staff to ready a trip to Washington D.C. to visit the FAA and discuss its contents. It was part of the same motion.

            Then, two months later, he vociferously objects to them going there without any real notice or agreement on the issues. He then adds that if anyone thinks that this joint visit to the FAA means that he agrees with what is going on in that same agreement, he can assure people that it surely does not.

            So what did he vote for in November?

            The answer to this contradiction of his is that he’s clearly trying to backtrack now. He knows that Golonski’s right about how Measure B is supposed to work, and that I’m right about the fact that — after the B6 negotiations fell apart — there was no reason for the council to stick to the concessions that they had granted to the Authority in return for power over B6. Power that they immediately LOST when the deal fell apart and they sold the property.

            So — in the end — the Burbank City Council conceded all of their discretionary power over this new terminal for NOTHING in return. The theoretical possibility that the Authority could seek an even bigger terminal etc without these Burbank concessions is contradicted by the fact that such a move would NEVER pass Measure B scrutiny from the Burbank voters.

            The Burbank voters have all the power. As such, they would never allow in a new airport in without these very SAME protections. Measure B makes the whole thing an ultimate win-win for Burbank that the council members failed to recognize.

            Until it was too late. And except for Gordon. Thus, Rogers is now trying to backtrack.

  5. voter supporting LGBTQ rights

    Just be aware that Hillary Clinton has a very bad record on LGBTQ rights and this is why Sanders is a superior choice for President because he has a better civil rights record and has never fought against equality like Clinton did. Hilary is a long time bigot

  6. Anonymous

    Somehow I doubt the GOP supports Sanders I think they support Rubio.

    • semichorus

      That comment above about Sanders is clearly phony. No Democrat would ever say that Hillary is a bigot. It’s also stupidly mangled in its language.

  7. Mark

    Semichorus are you supporting Sanders ?

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s