Burbank Holds the Cards

An end to the impasse over a new terminal at the Burbank Airport has seemed tantalizingly close these past few months. Then one side or the other would fall back on stubborn demands or entrenched resistance, and the deal would be off.

But this time the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority and the city of Burbank are really close. Or they would be if they would only set aside their mutual distrust and resolve to get this terminal built.

According to a recent appellate court ruling, the Airport Authority, which runs the airport on behalf of the three cities, needs Burbank’s approval before it can develop the new terminal on property adjacent to the airport. The ruling put the authority in a bind. It has already paid Lockheed Martin $37 million for the property and has been ordered by another court to pay about $60 million more. The deadline for the first payment is tomorrow.

The Airport Authority has made a string of concessions to meet Burbank’s demands. It started out proposing 19 gates with a future expansion to 27. It recently dropped the number to 16 gates, expanding to 19, and then, when Burbank still resisted, to 14 gates--the same number as the old terminal--with a future expansion to 16.

But Burbank continued to insist not only on size restrictions but on a curfew, which the authority countered can only be mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration after a lengthy study.

While The Times has been sympathetic to Burbank’s complaints about congestion and noise, we’ve also implored city officials to give the authority some assurance that it could build a new terminal on the Lockheed property, lest its intransigence quash a new terminal altogether. Our chief concern has been safety: Not only is the old terminal, built in 1930 to serve biplanes, cramped and outdated, it’s located only 330 feet from the runway center line although the FAA recommends at least 750 feet.

On Wednesday, Burbank city officials spelled out conditions that settle the safety question. Burbank would allow the authority to build an updated terminal with 14 gates on the Lockheed site. In return, it asks the Airport Authority to comply with certain conditions--such as closing the terminal between 10:45 p.m. and 6:15 a.m.--that would discourage nighttime flights but not require FAA approval. The airport would be allowed to expand to 16 gates only after other conditions were met, including a curfew.

Giving up two additional gates is better than giving up a new terminal altogether. After all, Burbank holds the cards here.

But airport officials claim the offer is not assurance enough. What do they want, a flaming bush? Yes, the proposal is subject to public hearings. But who could argue against replacing a 14-gate terminal with a safer 14-gate terminal--except those who want nothing less than to close the airport altogether. They’ll be angry at Burbank leaders, just as those who want to see the Burbank Airport grow at any cost will be angry at the Airport Authority. But the vast majority who use the airport will see this as a compromise that allows the Airport Authority to buy the property and build a new, safer--and long overdue--terminal.