Burbank Airport Deal Still Up in the Air

Time may be running out on the deal for a new 14-gate, $300-million terminal at Burbank Airport.

Under the tentative agreement negotiated last year, the Burbank City Council must approve the project by May 24 or the agreement could be voided--and most of the land set aside for the new terminal could be sold.

Burbank officials say they aren’t close to a deal, especially now that the Federal Aviation Administration has raised objections to the terminal agreement. And the FAA is only the latest in a string of opponents.

Airlines oppose plans to close the terminal from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., saying it is a backdoor attempt to limit flights. Key politicians, including Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Mission Hills) and Los Angeles City Atty. James K. Hahn, object to a proposed ban on easterly takeoffs, saying it would mean more noise for communities to the west and south within Los Angeles city limits.

Also, many Burbank residents say the agreement does not offer adequate protections against noise--and last week City Councilman Bob Kramer reversed course and said he will oppose the draft agreement.

Airport Authority President Carl Meseck expressed confidence that the city and airport officials will reach an agreement--and said that, if necessary, the May 24 deadline can be extended.

“I don’t think anything is make or break in this situation,” Meseck said. “Deadlines can always be adjusted if you’re making progress.”

But others say officials need to move more quickly to resolve the issues.

“The timing right now is clearly becoming tighter,” said Peter Kirsch, special counsel for Burbank on airport issues. “Neither the city nor the authority has the luxury of being casual.”

The deadline was contained in the tentative agreement approved by negotiators for the city and the Airport Authority on Aug. 3. Any extension would have to be approved by both parties.

Dispute With FAA Delays Talks

Airport spokesman Victor Gill said he believes a deadline extension is likely, but added that other possibilities include selling the land and attempting to build a new terminal elsewhere on airport property.

Burbank had been in negotiations with the airport for a terminal development deal but suspended those talks two weeks ago, citing a dispute with FAA Administrator Jane Garvey.

Garvey has objected to the plans for the easterly takeoffs and has complained that “all interested parties”--including residents, airlines and the FAA--were not involved in crafting the framework for settlement.

Burbank officials, in turn, complain that Garvey has not offered specific objections or said if a compromise is possible.

Until that and other issues with the FAA are resolved, Burbank officials say they will not approve the terminal agreement. Mayor Stacey Murphy has given the FAA until the end of this month to respond to those concerns.

But even if the dispute with the FAA is resolved, the terminal deal faces another deadline in December that could be hard to make.

The FAA authorized the airport to begin collecting a $3-per-passenger ticket tax in December 1998, and under federal law the airport must begin construction on the project by this December--or risk forfeiting $84.5 million, said FAA spokesman Paul Turk.

To meet that deadline, the airport must complete building plans and specifications, obtain building and grading permits from Burbank, call for bids from contractors and most importantly, come up with an overall financing package, airport officials said.

Turk said he believed that deadline could be extended, but a different FAA spokeswoman, Marcia Adams, said she didn’t think so.

Burbank officials have frequently complained that they cannot get a straight answer from the FAA.

Berman said he could help grease the wheels for FAA approval, but only if the ban on easterly takeoffs is dropped. That ban would primarily benefit Burbank residents living east of the airport.

“I’m still waiting to hear from the airport and Burbank that they’ve gotten rid of a totally inappropriate and politically motivated ban on easterly takeoffs,” Berman said. “Once I hear that, I can become Burbank’s ally in getting provisions of the framework agreement accepted by the FAA.

“If Burbank and the Airport Authority don’t meet their deadlines, they have only themselves to blame,” he said.

The Air Transport Assn., an industry group representing the airlines, has consistently opposed provisions in the agreement that would shutter the terminal between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., link terminal expansion with a mandatory nighttime curfew and use airport funds to pay Burbank $1.5 million in lieu of lost sales taxes.

Kris Leathers, the group’s government affairs director, said airlines are concerned about the precedent-setting nature of such provisions and said airline representatives have yet to be asked to participate in the negotiations.

“The framework agreement as currently written contains clear violations of federal law,” Leathers said. “We don’t feel any urgency here because we aren’t willing to accept the current framework agreement in exchange for a terminal that’s basically the same size. These are national issues we cannot negotiate away at Burbank.”

Residents Seek Ballot Measure

Locally, Burbank politicians are facing additional heat.

A group called Restore Our Airport Rights has been gathering signatures for a municipal ballot initiative preventing the City Council from voting on a plan with a terminal of more than 200,000 square feet and requiring the council to include curfews and caps on the number of flights.

“We have enough signatures to assure that our measure will be on the ballot,” said Ted McConkey, a former councilman and a leader of the ballot drive. “We are going to continue to collect signatures to force a special election.”

Under Burbank election rules, the group has until March 21 to gather 5,200 signatures (10% of the city’s registered voters) to place the measure on the next ballot, February 2001. If it gathers 7,200 signatures--15% of the electorate--the city would have 90 days to call a special election.