It’s Burbank’s Turn

Momentum continues to build toward finding a resolution to the stubborn standoff over expanding the Burbank Airport terminal. Friday’s surprise resignation of Burbank Airport Executive Director Thomas E. Greer was just the latest development.

The week began with the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority submitting plans for a scaled-down, 16-gate terminal to replace the existing 14-gate terminal. Under the new proposal, the authority could expand the terminal to 19 gates after 2010 but any additional gates after that would have to be approved by the city of Burbank.

This replaces a proposal that called for 19 gates with a future expansion to 27 gates, so it’s a considerable concession.

Of course, you could say the Airport Authority had no choice. A state appeals court earlier this month ruled that the authority lacks an “exclusive and unrestricted right” to develop a new terminal site without the city of Burbank’s approval, and one of Burbank’s objections has been the size of the terminal. But writing on the wall hasn’t stopped lawsuits and appeals in the past. If common sense proves contagious, there will be more concessions to come--from both sides.

The biggest sticking point remains Burbank’s call for a mandatory curfew on nighttime flights to replace the voluntary one it says doesn’t work. In another development last week, Glendale joined Burbank in support of a curfew. Greer’s resignation is widely seen as a signal that the authority itself, which has opposed Burbank’s efforts to impose a curfew, will take a less hard-line stance.

Now it’s Burbank’s turn. City officials said they will take 90 days to review the new terminal proposal. They need to be sure the review is undertaken in good faith and is not another stalling tactic. They also need to rethink their position on the mandatory curfew, or at least to think about the problem creatively.

At almost the same time the Airport Authority came up against the appellate court ruling, the city of Burbank suffered its own setback. It had hoped to be exempted from a 1990 federal law that says only the Federal Aviation Administration can impose airport caps and curfews, but the FAA’s chief counsel issued an opinion saying otherwise. A slow and costly FAA study is now underway.

Burbank needs to keep in mind that the study could show that a mandatory curfew is not warranted. If that is the case, Burbank’s bargaining position would be considerably weakened. It would be reduced to saying no, flat out, to a terminal that even Burbank agrees is needed. The existing terminal is cramped, uncomfortable and, most alarmingly, too close to a runway.

Burbank now is in a strong position to negotiate. What palatable options can it offer for making a voluntary curfew--which would not have to involve the FAA--stick? The Airport Authority’s proposal left open the door for Burbank to be creative. The Glendale City Council vote added to the momentum. A resolution is within reach--if both sides make the effort.