Burbank airport compromise takes flight

Managers of the Burbank Airport were told by the Federal Aviation Administration in 1980 that a replacement terminal should be built farther back from the airport's runways.

Almost immediately, residents living near the airfield began to oppose the plan. The Burbank City Council joined the opposition party after a new majority took office following the 1995 municipal election.

Burbank sued to stop the project but lost after a state court ruled early this year that the city does not have the power under the public utilities code to stop the project.

Through eminent domain proceedings, the airport commission has acquired 140-acres at the airport once occupied by the old Lockheed Skunk Works, which it will use for the replacement terminal.

In an attempt to move the terminal project ahead, the FAA sent Jane Garvey, one of its administrators, to Burbank on Tuesday to meet with groups who support a new, larger terminal, and to meet separately with Burbank city representatives and residents opposed to more air traffic above their homes.

"The FAA will not be the solution" to the controversy at Burbank Airport, Garvey said at a news conference after the meetings. "The real answers will be from here in Burbank and at the regional level."

Garvey said that during the meetings with both groups, there didn't seem to be any debate on the issue that a new terminal is needed for safety.

She said she is optimistic that a replacement terminal will be built.

"I am encouraged by the attitudes and comments," she said. "They were thoughtful.

"Having said that," she continued, "I don't want to suggest it will be easy. Like on many issues, we may take two steps forward and one step back."

Garvey said she will be back in Burbank for more private meetings on the terminal in the future. Public meetings will also be scheduled.

"We want to make this work," Garvey said. "Today was the first step."

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Woodland Hills, said some specifics emerged from Tuesday's meetings.

One is that 96% of flights at Burbank are between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Only a handful of flights occur before and after those hours, he said.

"We should not be waking up hundreds of thousands of people just to accommodate a few people," Sherman said of the early and late fliers, standing up for his constituents.

Sherman joined the chorus of voices calling for a new Burbank terminal and said it should proceed as soon as possible.

Proposals call for a 19-gate facility to replace the currently overcrowded, 14-gate terminal. But some residents fear more gates will mean more planes, and more planes will mean more noise.

For those residents, he said this: "Don't let the new terminal be held hostage over the number of flights and the number of gates."

Howard Berman, a Democrat representing the 26th Congressional District, hinted at why it's not important to squabble over gates and flights at this early date.

"Curfews and caps are part of the discussion," he said.

Curfews will limit the hours of operation at the airport, and caps will limit the number of flights allowed to arrive and depart each day.

He characterized Garvey's visit as a "turning point" in the Burbank Airport controversy and added that if local decision makers don't come up with an agreement, "Washington will force a decision."

The Burbank Airport, officially known as the Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena Airport, is not owned by the cities named in its title.

It is run as a separate business under a joint-powers agreement with the three cities involved.

Because it is not a public entity, the airport will have to raise money to build the new terminal on its own. The cost is estimated between $300 million and $350 million, said Gerald W. "Jerry" Briggs, a member of the airport commission.

He said the airport already has about 20% of the money and that it would have to borrow at least $200 million to build the project.

For the first five years after its 1978 opening, the airport was a little shaky financially, Briggs said. But since then, it has been a proven moneymaker.

"Our track record shows we know how to run an airport profitably," he said. "It will be easier to get money this time around. Last time, we had to beg."

Briggs said the expansion plans are conservative. The airport already sees 5 million passengers a year and the new design only accommodates 5.7 million passengers per year, he said.

In his mind, the crowding must be addressed sooner rather than later.

"If you walk through our terminal at 7 a.m. or 4 p.m., it's shoulder to shoulder," he said. "People will put up with it for the convenience of the location, but for how long? A replacement terminal is required."

Eventually, even an expanded Burbank terminal will be too small, with residents opposed to more air traffic, caps on flights are likely, he said.

Antelope Valley officials are eager to channel the excess demand to Palmdale Regional Airport, which does not have commercial passenger service at this time. But Briggs said he doesn't see Palmdale taking any Burbank travelers, even in the distant future.

"We are a commuter airport," Briggs said of Burbank. "Ninety percent of our passengers are taking short hops, 500 miles or less.

"It's a big drive to and from Palmdale," he added. "San Fernando Valley residents won't drive it."

Transcontinental or international flights are what Briggs sees in Palmdale's distant future.

"What Palmdale has going for it is land," he said. "You can do things you can't with a landlocked airport."

As time marches on, Palmdale may yet see its day in the sun, Briggs said.

There were 635 million boardings in the United States last year, he said, and that number is expected to grow by 10% every year.

"Airports are not ready to accommodate that," Briggs said.