When a Southwest Airlines commuter jet ran off the runway at Burbank Airport and smashed into a nearby gas station earlier this month, it made more than a dramatic visual on the nightly news: It provided more ammunition for airport officials who want a new terminal. The current facility is 400 feet closer to the runways than is deemed safe by the Federal Aviation Administration, and airport officials have argued for years that the old terminal is an accident waiting to happen. Now they hope the FAA and others will take notice. “(The safety issue) has become palpable since the accident. You can certainly sense it,” said Victor Gill, an airport spokesman. “Whether it will cause any fundamental change in attitude (on the part of the FAA or other policy makers), I don’t know the answer.” The crash is the latest twist in a seemingly never-ending fight over airport expansion. When Burbank Airport and the city of Burbank hammered out a compromise last August to allow development of a new air terminal, officials on both sides said the decades-long controversy appeared headed for resolution. But with the compromise now under fire from the airlines, political leaders and the FAA, it’s clear the flap is anything but over. Burbank officials are refusing to process the airport’s development plans until the FAA gives its approval to the compromise, dubbed the “framework agreement.” But that agreement calls for the nighttime closure of the air terminal, and the FAA is precluded by federal law from doing anything to impede air commerce. As the standoff between the city and the FAA enters its seventh week, officials on both sides see no quick resolution to the dispute. A group calling itself Restore Our Airport Rights, or ROAR, submitted 7,400 signatures to the Burbank city clerk on March 14 in an effort to place a measure on the February 2001 ballot. The group wants to bar the City Council from approving an air terminal exceeding 200,000 square feet and impose a curfew on flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., along with a 10 percent cap on the growth of flights and passengers. However, City Clerk Judie Sarquiz informed ROAR members she would have to reject the signatures because the group failed to identify its officers on the petitions, as required by law. “She feels horrible about it, but she doesn’t have any choice,” said Burbank City Manager Bud Ovrom. “It goes back to these being well-intentioned amateurs.” Ovrom said if the measure ever makes the ballot, it will have a good chance of being approved by the voters. “Everything they ask for is everything people want: a smaller terminal, a curfew and cap on fights,” he said. “It’s pure mother and apple pie.” However, he doubts the measure could withstand scrutiny in the courts. Burbank Mayor Stacey Murphy last month announced that the city would suspend work on the development agreement for a new terminal and fired off an angry letter to the FAA after the agency’s director, Jane Garvey, criticized the compromise in a letter to an area newspaper. In her letter, Garvey indicated that parts of the expansion deal might violate federal law, but didn’t specify which parts of the agreement might be problematic. Garvey has yet to say specifically what’s wrong with the agreement, but city and airport officials suspect Garvey is opposed to a provision that calls for closure of the air terminal from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., a proposal that has come under attack by the airline industry. Burbank city and airport officials are scheduled to meet with Garvey on April 7 in an effort to revive the stalled terminal plan. Burbank officials say it’s too early to tell if the Southwest mishap will help prod the FAA into seeing things the city’s way. “Yes, the plane happened to veer off and go into the street, but it could just as easily have veered into the air terminal,” said Ovrom. “I hope it does light a fire under the feet of the FAA.
