Fruition? That’s a pretty strong word they’re using now in this race of theirs to the finish.
These guys are all really, really sure of this thing, aren’t they? It’s getting to be wearying how wrong this is:
Airport terminal project moves closer to fruition
Plans to build a 14-gate replacement terminal at Hollywood Burbank Airport took another step closer to fruition on Monday after the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority decided to move forward with the project.
Authority members voted 8-0, with commissioner Steve Madison absent, to approve the project’s environmental-impact report, which analyzed the possible impacts of building a 355,000-square-foot terminal on the northeast portion of the airfield known as the B-6 parcel…
Commissioners also approved a development agreement with Burbank, which lays out the responsibilities and powers each agency will have during the construction process and after the terminal is completed.
One of the conditions authority members said they are proud of is establishing a super-majority voting requirement among the authority’s nine commissioners on major issues, such as increasing the number of gates, expansion of the terminal, acquiring land or entering into a long-term contract.
While only a simple majority is currently required on those issues, the super-majority mandates that two of the three representatives from each of the cities that make up the authority must give their approval.
A “protection” that’s incredibly easy to circumvent, because it’s really no protection at all — just get in another Bowman/Flavin Burbank City Council in the future and watch what happens.
Or a couple of “Leadership Burbank” grads who’re now being trained to become a part of the local big growth booster crowd.
The agreement, if approved by the City Council, would also establish an alternative review process for the terminal’s design. The process would have no less than six public design workshops and every Burbank resident must be notified of any community meeting relating to the design of the facility.
You mean PR sell-job? The public will be provided no further opportunity to alter or amend these plans, because they’ve already been agreed upon by the two parties. There’s no “alternative” anything — the council’s not going to be changing the DA just because some people might gripe at the “workshops.”
Frank Quintero, authority board president, said that Monday was the day that current and past commissioners have been waiting for as they have spent decades trying to develop a project that would become a reality.
“It’s not going to be a huge Taj Mahal that is not in any way going to bring us more traffic or even more flights, but it will be a safe terminal in an excellent location,” he said. “I think it’s going to be a wonderful experience for all of the travelers.”
Ha! It’ll create lots more traffic and lots more flights. That’s the whole idea — if cosmetic convenience was the point of it all then they’d just be remodeling their current site.
As to safety, that’s a canard as well. Scare tactic is probably the better term.
Now that the authority has given the project a green light, the replacement terminal project just needs two more critical approvals. At 6 p.m. on July 25 and 26, the City Council will hold a public hearing for the development agreement, and members will decide if they should approve the first reading of the ordinance.
On Aug. 1, council members are expected to decide whether to approve the second reading of the development-agreement ordinance and call for a Measure B election.
Any act to actually “approve” this development agreement (and in a formal ordinance no less) prior to the Measure B vote automatically makes the approval invalid. All the council can do is just put it on the ballot for the voters to decide.
Not only is this what Measure B requires in its specifics, but a formal council action to approve the DA which occurs before the vote can only be reversed by another citizens referendum afterwards, a process that is not contained within Measure B. What if the November vote is “No”?
That’s why the “prior voter approval” language in the Measure B ballot statement was so precise. It can’t work any other way. The council has no approval rights in the matter of any new or expanded airport terminal within the City of Burbank.
That’s the law. The Burbank voters decided in 2001 that they have sole and exclusive authority under Measure B when it comes to approving the expansion or relocation of the airport terminal.
And like we’ve said many times before, even Golonski agrees with us on this one. And he helped write Measure B!
Under Measure B, Burbank residents must approve any project on the B-6 parcel. Should the City Council call for an election, the issue will appear on the Nov. 8 ballot.
Should the ballot measure fail, airport officials have said that they will forgo constructing the terminal on the B-6 parcel and instead build the new facility on the southwest section of the airfield, which they say does not require voter approval because the airport owns the property.
Not so. Under Measure B, any discretionary approvals for facility needs that are above and beyond what the Authority is already allowed at their current site must also be approved by the voters prior to the city entering into any additional agreement with them.
Now the Authority might not need very many approvals on their current property, but whatever they do need must go to a public Burbank vote before the city grants them any. This means CUPs, AUPs, whatever.
The law is so clear and compelling here that we can only wonder one thing. What is this council crowd trying to pull? Do they realize that this official pre-vote approval ordinance they’re planning on will make the entire decision invalid?
Btw … notice how in these many news articles there’s been a total refusal on the part of the Leader to cover any kind of dissent or opposition?