FAA Refuses to Revoke Airport Grant

The Federal Aviation Administration, rejecting charges by city officials that the agency was misled by the Burbank Airport’s governing board, has refused to revoke an $8.6-million grant for a controversial new passenger terminal project, officials said Tuesday.

“We’re very pleased,” said Victor J. Gill, an airport spokesman. “We said the grant would stand and that’s the way it’s turning out.”

In November, a lawyer representing Burbank--which opposes a larger terminal with more gates--submitted a nine-page letter and other documents to FAA officials in Washington, declaring that airport officials “misrepresented facts” on their grant application.

The letter by Peter J. Kirsch also asked federal officials to suspend the grant, investigate the matter and determine whether any laws were violated by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority.

But in a letter received by the authority Friday, the FAA’s director of the office of airport planning and programming explained that the federal agency disagreed with the city’s arguments.

“I have concluded that there is no basis for further investigation of the circumstances surrounding the approval” of the grant, “nor for considering whether violations of applicable criminal or civil law have occurred,” Paul L. Galis of the FAA said in the letter addressed to Kirsch. “Therefore, an immediate suspension of the grant is not justified.”

The city’s complaints included charges that despite numerous pending lawsuits, the authority’s grant application did not indicate that such suits, or other factors, might make the terminal expansion impossible.

The city also claimed the authority was wrong to indicate that no businesses would be displaced by the project, that no “state, local, regional or other planning approval” was required and that project cost estimates in the application were inaccurate.

Many Burbank residents oppose a larger passenger terminal because of concerns about noise, traffic and other problems.

Vice Mayor Bob Kramer said the decision was disappointing and the city may appeal, but opposition to the larger terminal would continue regardless.

“It was a minor skirmish in the overall battle,” Kramer said. “We didn’t believe that the FAA was told the facts. We still don’t. But we’re going to live with their decision for the time being.”