FAA Challenges Expansion Plan for Airport

The Federal Aviation Administration expressed serious concerns Thursday with a plan to build a new 14-gate terminal at Burbank Airport, further clouding a deal that already faces intense criticism from local residents, politicians and aviation groups.

Without providing specifics, FAA Chief Counsel Nicholas G. Garaufis warned Burbank Airport Authority President Carl Meseck in a Sept. 23 letter that federal officials were concerned that the agreement and the transfer of 130 acres by Lockheed Martin to the airport for the new terminal would not comply with federal law.

Burbank Superior Court Judge Carl J. West cast more doubt when he ordered the airport to pay Lockheed $8.5 million in legal fees and delayed the land transfer, which was supposed to occur Thursday, until Nov. 2. He said he wanted a more complete briefing from the city of Burbank and the airport on how the agreement would comply with state law.

The letter was the FAA’s most pointed response since negotiators for the city and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority reached a tentative deal last month to build the new terminal. It comes amid increasing criticism of the three-phase, $300-million construction plan.

One of the most vociferous critics of the proposal is the Air Transport Assn., a powerful airline trade group that opposes a provision that would close the terminal from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. to limit noise. The group calls the provision an end-run around federal rules that require a long and expensive approval process before an airport can limit overnight flights.

Former Burbank City Councilman Ted McConkey, who is leading the local opposition, is working to qualify a municipal ballot initiative that would impose caps on the number of daily flights and a nighttime curfew. Separately, Councilman Bob Kramer has proposed a special election for an advisory vote on the terminal agreement, a measure now being studied by city officials.

Adding to the chorus of naysayers, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Mission Hills), Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) last week assailed the agreement for what they said would lead to more aircraft noise in congressional districts south and west of the airport.

Under the current plan, the airport would build a 14-gate terminal that would be closed to commercial airliners from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. Subsequent expansion to 16 gates would be linked to a mandatory nighttime curfew.

To expand to 19 gates the airport would have to reduce noise in residential areas to no more than an average of 65 decibels over a 24-hour period.

The framework agreement still faces a Burbank planning board meeting Oct. 4 and a City Council hearing Oct. 19. A final vote is to be held at a subsequent council meeting.

Airport officials refused to comment on the FAA letter. Peter Kirsch, Burbank’s special counsel on airport issues, downplayed its significance, saying federal officials were merely stating their intention to enforce federal law.

“This would be a significant issue if the authority and the city intended to violate law,” Kirsch said. “We have absolutely no intention of violating the law. We welcome the chance to work with the FAA to secure the necessary federal approval.”