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:
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?