$300-Million 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 city of Burbank 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 potentially 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.

The airlines oppose attempts 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 Berman (D-Mission Hills) and Los Angeles City Atty. James Hahn, object to a proposed ban on easterly takeoffs, saying it would mean more noise to communities to the west and south within Los Angeles.

On top of that, 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 now oppose the draft agreement.

Airport Authority President Carl Meseck expressed confidence that the city and airport officials would reach agreement eventually--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 May 24 deadline was contained in a framework for settlement approved by negotiators for the city and the Airport Authority on Aug. 3. Any extension would have to be approved by both parties.

Under terms of the tentative agreement, a 330,000-square-foot terminal could be built with 14 gates. It could eventually be expanded to 16 and then 19 gates. Expansion would be contingent on federal acceptance of a ban on flights from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Other major conditions include limiting the number of passengers who could use the terminal each year and banning easterly takeoffs.

Any agreement must be approved by the city of Burbank, the FAA and the Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena Airport Authority, which runs the facility. And there are some people who think it should also be approved by nearby residents, airlines and politicians from Los Angeles.

Airport spokesman Victor Gill said he believes a deadline extension is likely, but added that other possibilities include selling the site 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 been specific enough in detailing objections and whether there is any possible compromise.

Until that and other issues with the FAA are resolved, Burbank officials say, they will not approve the terminal agreement. Murphy has given the FAA until the end of February 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 December--or risk forfeiting $84.48 million, said FAA spokesman Paul Turk.

To meet the FAA deadline, the airport must complete building plans and specifications, obtain building and grading permits from Burbank, bid on contractors and, most important, 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 that was correct.

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.”

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

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.

“The framework agreement as currently written contains clear violations of federal law,” said the association’s government affairs director, Kris Leathers. “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.”

Leathers added that the airlines were concerned about the precedent-setting nature of the framework agreement, and said airline representatives have yet to be asked to participate in the framework negotiations.

Locally, Burbank politicians are facing additional heat.

A group called Restore Our Airport Rights has been gathering signatures for a municipal ballot initiative that would bar the City Council from voting on a plan for a terminal of more than 200,000 square feet and would require the inclusion of caps and curfews.

“We have enough signatures to assure that our measure will be on the ballot,” said former City Councilman Ted McConkey, 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 the group collects 7,200 signatures (or 15% of the electorate), the city will have 90 days to call a special election.