Expansion of Airport Is Cleared for Takeoff

The decades-long struggle over a controversial new terminal for Burbank Airport took a major step toward resolution Wednesday with airport and city negotiators reaching a draft agreement on a new 14-gate, $300-million facility to replace the existing building.

In a victory for the city of Burbank, which waged a vigorous political and legal battle to curb increased air traffic and noise, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority agreed that any expansion of the terminal beyond 14 gates would be linked to a mandatory flight curfew from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

“This is a historic day for the people of Burbank, for the airport and for the whole region,” said Carl Meseck, president of the airport authority, after emerging from closed-door discussions at Burbank City Hall to announce the agreement.

“What we have in place after 29 years of war is a structure for permanent peace between the airport and its neighbors,” said Peter Kirsch, special counsel for the city on airport issues.

The agreement came just two days before the airport authority’s Friday deadline to pay Lockheed Martin $30 million toward the $86-million terminal site, on the east side of the airport’s main runway.

But the draft agreement must still weather highly vocal opposition before its final consideration by the Burbank City Council.

The agreement is scheduled to be discussed at a town hall meeting on Aug. 19, a city Planning Board meeting on Oct. 4 and a City Council hearing on Oct. 19. The City Council vote on the plan could come within weeks of the Oct. 19 hearing.

“I think there’s going to be contentious debate,” said Burbank Mayor Stacey Murphy, who helped negotiate the deal. “People who want the airport shut down will not like this plan and neither will the people who want unconstrained expansion.”

But now that the city--which had spent about $6 million since 1995 on legal action to block airport expansion--has entered into an agreement with the airport authority, expansion opponents have lost their most potent ally. Nonetheless, former city councilman and outspoken airport critic Ted McConkey said opponents will fight on.

“This is a total and complete sellout of the principles we have fought for for years,” McConkey said before the news conference announcing the agreement. “I don’t know what we plan to do. Some possibilities are immediate referendum, recall or court action.”

Opponents might get some help from the city of Los Angeles, which has sued the Airport Authority to seek a master plan and more-detailed environmental impact study of the expansion. That lawsuit is still in the courts, and will be pursued unless the council directs otherwise, said Deputy City Atty. Keith Pritzker.

Los Angeles City Councilman Joel Wachs, whose district is affected by airport takeoffs, said additional concessions are needed.

“What I still want is for them to adopt a share-the-noise policy so all of the takeoffs don’t go to the west over Los Angeles, but some go to the east over Burbank,” Wachs said. “We’re going to continue to fight for that.”

Key to the compromise agreement was finding a way to eliminate most late-night and early-morning flights before construction is allowed to begin. The FAA had already ruled that the airport authority could not declare a curfew without first conducting an extensive noise study.

The draft agreement seeks to get around this, at least temporarily, by calling for the terminal building to be closed from 11 p.m. until 6 a.m. This would effectively dissuade late-night and early-morning commercial airline flights.

The airlines have yet to take a position on the terminal closure, said Neil Bennett, western regional director for the Air Transport Assn.

“Remember the Federal Aviation Administration is the final arbiter on the terminal closure,” Bennett said. “But the airlines are optimistic we can reach a reasonable agreement.”

Under the agreement, the expansion would take place in three phases.

The first, to continue for about three years, calls for demolition of the existing terminal--built in 1930--and construction of a 14-gate, 330,000-square-foot terminal with 5,000 parking spaces. The new facility would be built northeast of the airport’s main runway.

In a provision that could draw heat from general aviation and business jet owners, airport and city negotiators agreed to phase out all noisy, older-technology jets, known as Stage II aircraft, over the next five years. Such planes make up about 30% of the general aviation aircraft at Burbank Airport.

The second phase of the expansion could not begin until the FAA approves the nighttime curfew. If that happens, the authority could then add two gates, plus another 1,000 parking spaces.

The third phase is contingent on the elimination of noise levels averaging 65 decibels or more in adjoining residential neighborhoods. It’s also contingent on the authority imposing a cap on the number of annual passengers, at a figure to be determined later. Then three more gates and 2,000 parking spaces could be added.

If all three phases are completed, the new 430,000-square-foot terminal would have 19 gates and 8,000 parking spaces.

Further expansion would be prohibited.

Such provisions are a far cry from the past when the Airport Authority argued that passenger demand should determine the size of the airport terminal.

The authority also contended that it could develop the 130-acre terminal site without city approval because Burbank had ceded those powers with the creation of the tri-city airport governing board in 1977.

But Burbank city leaders fought back, landing both sides in court.

*

After a series of court battles, the state Court of Appeal ruled May 5 that Burbank has control over land use decisions within its city limits--sending Airport Authority officials back to the negotiating table.

Several weeks later, the FAA issued an opinion saying that a nighttime noise curfew sought by Burbank could not be imposed without first completing a comprehensive noise study. That forced Burbank officials to withdraw their demand for an immediate curfew.

The momentum for a compromise was also aided by shifting politics in the city of Glendale and, by extension, through its representatives on the Airport Authority.

With two new members elected this spring, the Glendale City Council agreed May 25 to support Burbank’s call for a mandatory curfew on flights.

Three days later, Burbank Airport Executive Director Thomas E. Greer, a driving force in the effort to build a new terminal, resigned.

After weeks of talks, the Airport Authority voted last week to give acting airport director Dios Marrero the authority to write Lockheed Martin a check for the terminal site pending completion of a tentative agreement with Burbank.

That tentative agreement was approved on a 5-2 vote in Wednesday’s closed session, with Pasadena representatives Chris Holden and Joyce Streator dissenting, sources said. Neither Holden nor Streator could be reached for comment.

“Compromise is a way of life,” said authority president Meseck. “There isn’t a great project in history that didn’t have compromise. It’s not a dirty word.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

New Terminal Approved

The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority and the city of Burbank have reached a draft agreement on a new 14-gate, $300-million terminal to replace the existing building. The terminal could grow to 19 gates if certain conditions are met.

Source: Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority

Times staff writers David Colker and Patrick McGreevy contributed to this story.