Glendale Backs Mandatory Airport Curfew

Seeking to build momentum for a new Burbank Airport terminal, the Glendale City Council agreed Tuesday to support a mandatory curfew on flights.

The action came one day after the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority submitted plans for a scaled-down, 16-gate terminal in hopes of overcoming objections from the city of Burbank, which co-owns the airport with Glendale and Pasadena.

“We stand ready to support and assist both agencies [Burbank and the Airport Authority] in achieving an agreement that responds to the needs of Burbank residents and allows the Airport Authority to commence construction of a new, safer passenger terminal,” said the statement agreed upon by the Glendale council.

The action was announced after a closed session, with officials saying it was supported by a majority of the five-member council.

Burbank officials welcomed the olive branch, after four years of tense relations between the neighboring cities over the terminal project.

“I was extremely pleased with everything I saw and heard,” said Burbank City Manager Bud Ovrom. “This great leadership from the Glendale City Council is going to go a long ways toward helping to resolve this impasse.”

Also on Tuesday, Burbank city officials launched a nine-step process to review plans for the 16-gate terminal, which were resubmitted by the Airport Authority this week.

City planning officials say it would take at least 90 days to complete public hearings and a detailed analysis of the plan.

The Airport Authority, which originally sought to build a 19-gate terminal, submitted the revised plans after a state appeals court ruled that the city of Burbank controls the land use process at the airport. The authority contended the city had ceded that control when it agreed to joint control of the airport with Glendale and Pasadena.

The revised plans call for a 330,000-square-foot terminal to be built on a 130-acre parcel owned by Lockheed Martin.

Under the new proposal, the airport could expand the facility to 19 gates after 2010. Any additional gates would have to be approved by the city of Burbank. The terminal could also add 75,000 to 100,000 square feet for a baggage facility.

Burbank City Council members have pushed for a smaller terminal, as well as an overnight curfew and a limit on the number of flights.

But reactions from city officials Tuesday were largely hopeful.

“We see a tone and a theme here that gives us reason to be significantly optimistic,” said Peter Kirsch, special counsel for Burbank on airport issues. “We have a long row to hoe. But things are looking considerably better than a month ago in terms of finding a resolution.”

*

For the city, the central issue in the debate over Burbank Airport has been how aircraft noise affects residents who live around the airport. And council members have fought hard for a mandatory 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew and a cap on the number of scheduled airline flights.

But the Airport Authority contends it cannot impose caps or curfews without completing a costly and lengthy noise study, and the Federal Aviation Administration issued an opinion two weeks ago backing that position.

But after the appellate court ruling that found Burbank controls the land-use decisions at the airport, the authority moved to compromise.

“We’ve submitted an application as required by state law. We will do whatever they want us to do,” said Richard P. Simon, an attorney for the Airport Authority. “I assume they will have legal questions, technical questions and practical questions and we are prepared to meet with them to discuss all of it and anything else.”

Reaction to the proposal was mixed at Los Angeles City Hall, which has unsuccessfully sued the airport over the terminal project.

“Anything that reduces airline noise over residential Valley neighborhoods has to be seen as a positive sign by me,” said Councilwoman Laura Chick.

However, City Councilman Joel Wachs, whose district is affected by the airport noise, said the proposal does not go far enough.

“It’s a start, but I think they have to scale it back more,” Wachs said. “But equally importantly, they have to take steps to ensure there is nighttime curfew, and set up, as we have at our airport, a citizens committee that has an active involvement in the airport.”

Wachs said he would have to be convinced more is being done before directing the city attorney’s office to drop its appeal of a lawsuit challenging the airport expansion.

“We will continue to monitor and be involved,” Wachs said. “We don’t have any legal jurisdiction over the airport but we are going to keep doing what we can.”

*

Times staff writer Patrick McGreevy and Glendale News Press reporter Buck Wargo contributed to this story.