Airport Panel May Seek FAA Advice

Still wrestling over a decision to scrap plans for a new passenger terminal at Burbank Airport, members of the airport authority on Wednesday proposed sending a delegation to Washington to seek advice on how to resolve their differences.

Representatives from Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena were joined by dozens of area residents at a public meeting at the Glendale Hilton to discuss last month’s controversial decision by the Burbank Airport Authority. The panel voted 5 to 4 to drop a two-decade effort to replace the airport’s aging terminal, citing a lack of community support.

Since then, however, Burbank city officials have been pushing to resurrect the proposal, which they see as key to reducing airport noise. They believe the Federal Aviation Administration would be more likely to permit nighttime flight curfews if a new and safer terminal were built.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Burbank City Councilman Jef Vander Borght said the cities should join together in approaching federal officials about the terminal relocation plan, flight curfews and other issues regarding the airport. By doing so, he said, they would more likely get a desirable result.

“Let’s face reality. [Burbank Airport] is a small, regional airport,” Vander Borght said. “We can get lost in the shuffle. We need to present a united front.”

Several members of the Glendale City Council appeared Wednesday to side with Burbank officials regarding the need for a new terminal. “The terminal there is antiquated and it’s time for a new terminal,” Councilman Bob Yousefian said.

He said the authority should drop any plans to sell an adjacent parcel that the authority purchased from Lockheed as the site for a new terminal.

“We went through a lot to purchase that property,” Yousefian said. “You’re not going to find a property like that to come across the table in many, many years. I want to keep the land.’

Because only three of Pasadena’s seven City Council members were present at the meeting, they said they would take the suggestion for a Washington delegation back for consideration by the full council. If they agree, a delegation could be sent to Washington next year.

In voting to drop plans for the new terminal, the airport authority cited strong community opposition in Burbank. It said the only way the plan would be resurrected was if the FAA mandated that the terminal be moved for safety reasons.

Burbank’s three appointees on the authority all voted to keep pushing for a new passenger facility. Each of the cities has three representatives on the panel.

Burbank officials say they were informally advised by the FAA that a new terminal would help win approval for airline curfews. The FAA has not reached a decision on the matter.

The airport is studying the costs and benefits of imposing curfews on nighttime flights. Such a study is required by law before the FAA could consider whether to permit such restrictions on airlines.

Airport officials launched plans more than 20 years ago to replace the aging passenger terminal because portions of the facility are within 300 feet of one runway. Current airport building standards require a distance of at least 750 feet.

In 1999, the airport authority spent $86 million to purchase a 130-acre parcel previously used by Lockheed for building military aircraft. That same year, the authority reached a tentative agreement with Burbank to build a replacement terminal in exchange for closing the facility between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. to reduce noise.

But that plan was opposed by the FAA, which viewed the move as a de facto curfew, restricted under federal law.

Last year, Burbank voters complicated negotiations by approving Measure A, which prohibited the City Council from approving new construction or renovation of the airport unless a curfew was imposed. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge recently declared the measure unconstitutional.

But Measure B, which Burbank voters passed in November 2000, still requires their approval of any plans for a new terminal.