FAA Says Burbank Doesn’t Need New Terminal

Burbank Airport can continue to operate safely without a new passenger terminal, and tens of millions of dollars allocated for a relocation site must be returned since the project has been abandoned, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.

“Our long-standing support for the relocation of the terminal was based on our interest in bringing the airfield up to current design standards,” FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey wrote in a letter Thursday to airport officials. “However ... we believe that operations in the present location can continue safely in the future as in the past.”

Blakey’s letter also asked that the Burbank-Glendale-Airport Authority return the money -- totaling $42 million in grants and fees -- it has received to purchase land for the new terminal. The money has already been used as part of the $86 million the airport spent on a relocation site, said airport spokesman Victor J. Gill. No timetable was set for returning the money.

Blakey noted in her letter “the difficult history” behind the authority’s more than 20-year effort to replace the airport’s aging terminal without being able to reach consensus on the issue.

Last month, airport commissioners voted 5 to 4 to abandon the relocation efforts, citing strong community opposition. Commissioners said the only way they would resurrect the project is if the FAA mandated a move for safety reasons.

Portions of the airport’s 72-year-old passenger terminal are 300 feet from runways, while current building standards mandate a buffer of at least 750 feet. Airport officials have been working toward moving the terminal since at least 1980.

But Blakey made it clear in her letter to authority President Chris Holden that the FAA would not challenge local officials over the relocation issue.

“As the airport operator, it is your decision whether to continue to pursue this project or to terminate it,” Blakey wrote.

Some officials say they believe that the FAA’s position kills any chances that the new terminal project can be revived.

“Let’s put this chapter behind us,” Holden said. “Rather than the salmon swimming upstream, it’s better we put the project to bed.”

It was Holden’s concerns that prompted Blakey’s letter. Holden wrote to the FAA administrator on Nov. 4 asking for guidance on the terminal issue, saying that “the debate over this project tears at the fabric of this community.”

“I write to you at this time because the authority has reached the point where it believes the terminal relocation no longer appears to be achievable,” Holden wrote. “The authority wishes to determine what priority the FAA assigns to terminal relocation.”

Last year, Burbank voters approved Measure A, which prohibited the City Council from approving new airport construction unless a mandatory curfew was imposed. A judge later declared the initiative unconstitutional.

But a majority of airport commissioners believed Measure A reflected community sentiment about airport operations. Moreover, Measure B, another voter initiative passed in 2000, gives Burbank residents the right to veto plans for a new terminal.

Despite the FAA’s response to Holden’s concerns, some Burbank officials said Thursday they believe the terminal relocation is still a possibility.

The letter “doesn’t say you should go forward [with a new terminal]. It doesn’t say you shouldn’t,” said Burbank City Councilman David Golonski. “We’re still at the same place we were yesterday.”

Burbank officials have been pushing to revive the terminal-relocation project because they believe a new and safer building would give them greater leverage in asking the FAA to permit nighttime flight curfews to reduce noise.

Golonski said he would still like to “put together a package” for federal approval that would include “a new terminal along with restrictions on nighttime flights and future growth.” He said he plans to be part of a delegation, along with other officials from Glendale and Pasadena, to go to Washington in January to meet with FAA officials about the matter.

Charles Lombardo, vice president of the authority, agreed with Golonski that the decision over a new terminal is “still in the hands of the airport authority and the three cities.”