Burbank Airport Expansion Plans Are Back on Table Security: Mandated updates may force opposition to accept expansion. By JACQUELINE FOX Staff Reporter Post-Sept. 11 airport security mandates may work to jump-start stalled negotiations between the city of Burbank and the Burbank Airport Authority over beleaguered plans to build a new terminal. To comply with recent mandates from the newly formed U.S. Transportation Security Administration, the airport needs a permit for a 40,000-square-foot security upgrade project, the first phase of which must be completed by a December deadline. Plans for the project, expected to cost roughly $14 million, include a new entry road to the main terminal, space for security-related operations and a reconfiguration of the Terminal A baggage claim area that would allow the airport to comply with new carry-on limits. But city officials apparently don’t think enhancements are the best option for meeting the new mandates. Instead, they would like to start fresh talks on building a new terminal and, on June 18, the Burbank City Council voted to form a 15-member committee that would be responsible for drafting a ballot initiative on a replacement terminal to go to the voters this November. The city and the Airport Authority broke off negotiations last year after the city called for a new Environmental Impact Review (EIR) of the airport’s original terminal plans. The airport refused to complete a new study, put the land set aside for the terminal back on the market and, following the terrorist attacks, tabled the whole issue in order to address more pressing security and budgetary issues. But things have changed and now the two sides may just have to start talking again, whether they want to or not. “The security project, in short, highlights the need for a new terminal,” said Burbank Mayor David Laurell in a statement announcing the upcoming public information sessions. “They say they need 40,000 square feet to put a Band-Aid on an old terminal. I think we should instead have dialogue and have the airport and the city walk hand in hand to the Federal Aviation Administration and say, ‘We are in line, let’s start building.'” The city and the airport have already agreed a new terminal would have no more than 14 gates. The city will continue to press for a 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. mandatory flight curfew, overall limits on noise and an assurance there will be no further expansion at the airport once the new terminal is built. In addition to the new security mandates, growth at the airport also appears to be working in the airport’s favor. Aloha Airlines recently added two non-stop flights from Burbank to Hawaii and Southwest Airlines has begun employing new 737s that link to LAX for transcontinental flights. So the facility appears to be moving beyond its former role as a regional commuter airport. “Yes, things have changed since Sept. 11,” said Laurell, “but we need to work on two tracks: security and the long-range plans. We need to look at how we can better serve the public with a new terminal and keep within guidelines for safety and noise control.” According to Burbank City Attorney Dennis Barlow, the city council will decide whether the initial EIR would hold up for any new plans PERC crafts between now and August. He said, even if construction began tomorrow, it would be at least five years before a new terminal could be completed. The security enhancements meanwhile are expected to be completed in the next two to three years. However, if and when a new terminal is built, the old one would be torn down, including any security upgrades made in the meantime. “The airport understands that what they are planning on doing (to meet security mandates) is on a temporary basis,” Barlow said. Complicating plans, as always, for either a new terminal or security enhancements is the ROAR initiative, Measure A passed by Burbank voters last fall. The measure bars the city from approving any expansion plans at the airport without prior voter approval. The legality of the measure is being evaluated by a Superior Court judge and a decision on its merit is expected this week. The airport doesn’t believe security enhancements fall under the definition of expansion, but the city does, and how soon the project can begin will depend on when the airport completes its draft plan and whether Measure A is deemed defensible in court. “Normally, this would be an over-the-counter permit situation in our view,” said airport spokesman Victor Gill. “The city took the position that Measure A precluded the city from issuing such permits. I guess the issue is kind of open as to what happens if there should be action by a judge. “The Airport Authority has yet to make any announcement on how Measure A would impact the security project, but obviously it starts to put everybody between a rock and a hard place.” Gill also said that, in the airport’s view, the two sides have reached agreement on the major issues and, had it not been for the request for a new EIR, the construction would have likely begun by now. “We don’t know what else we can put on the table,” Gill said. “The city’s reaction to the EIR was that it was old so, no matter what comes up, we are back to square one.”
