Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsBurbank Glendale Pasadena Airport Authority
IN THE NEWS

Burbank Glendale Pasadena Airport Authority

CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 3, 2000 | PATRICK McGREEVY, TIMES STAFF WRITER
A group of residents affected by Burbank Airport noise objected Friday to a proposed settlement by the city of Los Angeles of an environmental lawsuit, calling the deal a "sellout" of concerned communities. After hearing the opposition, the Los Angeles City Council decided to delay a vote on the settlement for three weeks to give the public more time to examine the proposal.
Advertisement
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
May 25, 2000 | SUE FOX, TIMES STAFF WRITER
The deadline for approving a new Burbank Airport terminal expired Wednesday, triggering a process that could end with the sale of land earmarked for the $300-million project. The draft terminal deal--signed by negotiators for the city of Burbank and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority last August--had been considered dead for months because of objections from residents, airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
May 25, 2000 | SUE FOX, TIMES STAFF WRITER
The deadline for approving a new Burbank Airport terminal expired Wednesday, triggering a process that could end with the sale of land earmarked for the $300-million project. The draft terminal deal--signed by negotiators for the city of Burbank and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority last August--had been considered dead for months because of objections from residents, airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL

Vice Mayor Sees Burbl, which would be achieved by using the east-west runway. At this point, I think that it's important to get that issue on the table and get it settled once and for all. Look at the history of the usage of the easterly departures and, prior to FAA restrictions, you have less than 3% for safety reasons. And while we're doing a project to increase the safety of the airport, it probably doesn't make sense to leave a large loophole of uncertainty where people who currently live to the east of the airport are going to be asking, "Who will prevail politically, and then will political considerations overcome safety considerations, and will there be flights diverted to the east, whereas now, due to the topography, there aren't?" : Q: Many residents of the eastern San Fernando Valley say that most of the noise generated by the airport affects them. : A: Anyone who takes a look at the noise contour map will understand that's simply not true. That there's a lot of noise impact in the city of Burbank. I happen to live south of the airport, where we get considerable impact, so it's not fair to say that Burbank is trying to just push all the airport noise outside the city limits. One of our goals was not to make someone better off by making somebody else worse off. Our goal was to try to mitigate the noise impacts overall with some reduction in the nighttime noise environment and with some additional protections against the louder Stage 2 and the Stage 3 "hush kit" aircraft, which helps everybody without shifting the noise. I think shifting the noise is a zero-sum game. In this particular case, probably a larger group would be worse off just by the nature of the takeoff pattern. If you do take off to the east you have to bank hard and circle around so you end up flying over more residential areas than you would otherwise. That's why we asked that the authority, as part of the deal, to seek a ban on easterly takeoffs. It doesn't say they must obtain one in order to build a terminal, so it's really a different type of provision that we put in there. : Q: Who decides whether to ban easterly takeoffs? : A: The final decision would be in the hands of the FAA, which is what we think is appropriate. But we also don't think it's appropriate to be silent on that issue and leave it for another day. : Q: Has the FAA given an opinion on easterly takeoffs? : A: They're currently opposed to easterly takeoffs, due to the proximity of the terminal. The Airline Pilots Assn. also has opposed easterly takeoffs. The FAA is a political animal, and I think everybody deserves the right to know what's going to happen. People in Burbank are going to be moving forward with a new terminal that's going to remove restrictions on easterly takeoffs. The people have a right to know what the impact of that will be. : Q: Who has the last word on closing the terminal at night? : A: The Airport Authority currently closes the terminal. It's been a long-standing practice of theirs to close the terminal at night. So we believe it's the Airport Authority's final say on that. However, there are a lot of people who potentially are impacted and the Airport Authority works under the jurisdiction of the FAA. So we think the answer to that is probably a pretty broad group. The FAA asked us to propose a local solution and that's what we've done. : Q: How long do you think it will take to hammer out a final agreement? : A: I think it's going to take some time just because of the various approvals and requirements that are in the process, and we have to look at the impacts of a new terminal, assess them and go through a public hearing process. There's some zone changes that are involved so my best guess is we're probably looking at a total of six to nine months, but that could vary depending on the events. It's been a very long-running dispute, so the resolution of it is going to take time. We've already made some progress with the adoption of the escrow agreement on behalf of the Airport Authority and the city of Burbank. Hopefully the hard work ahead of us will be in crafting an agreement that everyone can live with. : Q: The opposition of Reps. Howard Berman (D-Mission Hills), Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) and Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) seems formidable. Do you see this as a major obstacle to the agreement? : A: I don't see it as a major impediment to the agreement, but we would certainly want to take into consideration their opinions and work with them. But I frankly believe that the benefits of this agreement far outweigh the things they see as the downside. Hopefully, they'll see the benefits to their constituents by improving the overall noise environment in general at the airport. And we would certainly want to work hard with them on that. I think we could achieve a lot more of everyone's goals if the FAA were a little more flexible and a little more willing to cooperate, so I'm sure we'll be talking to them about how we can achieve that. : Q: Do you approve putting this up for a vote? : A: Yes. I approved of putting it to a vote for Burbank residents. If you go back about seven years ago when I was first elected to the [Burbank City] Council and we were considering approving a 19-gate phase one terminal and a 27-gate phase two terminal, I argued vociferously that it should be put to a vote of the people because of the significance of the issue. I don't think the significance of the issue has changed. I think a nonbinding vote would really get a sense of the community. You don't come along 10 years later and say, "Whoops, we made a mistake and made the airport too large; we're sorry." It's there for good. So I think it would be good to hear from the people of Burbank. I think they will support the agreement that has been proposed. : Q: What about the people of Los Angeles? : A: Our first responsibility is to the citizens of Burbank, but that doesn't mean that we trample on the rights of the city of Los Angeles. We've complained bitterly that the cities of Pasadena and Glendale trampled on our rights, and I guess Los Angeles could make that same argument that [its] constituents come first. So, I think we're trying to find a balance there. The hardest part is that the complaint of the Los Angeles residents is, "We wanted you to make our environment better by imposing more impact on your constituents." I'm not sure that's a balance that makes sense. I think we would support initiatives that try to make it better for everybody, but in terms of just saying, "Let's shift more of the flights to the east," it doesn't make sense. We've tried to come up with protections that would make their lives better, just as we would protect our residents who live to the south of the airport and are faced with similar impacts. So I don't think we're turning our backs on the residents of Los Angeles. : Q: Would you be in favor of an advisory vote for the people of the San Fernando Valley? : A: We're trying to get the input from the people in Burbank. We'll certainly hear from the people who live in the San Fernando Valley, but I think we're going to limit it to our constituents. I don't think we would propose going and polling citizens of Glendale either. By putting it on the ballot, obviously every affected party will have their chance to put their arguments forth and we will see what our community decides. : Q: If an advisory vote were closer than you anticipated, or even on the negative end, would you then go back and do the agreement again? : A: Yes. And we told the airport authority from Day One that if this agreement doesn't haven't the support of our community, then we won't be supporting it. We think it's a good agreement and we'll go out there and make our opinions known. We'll go out there and do our best to educate people. But if our community comes out overwhelmingly negative against the thing, I think the chances the council will move forward in the face of that are very, very slim. : Q: In that case, why not make it a binding vote? : A: It's really just a matter of practicality. If you make it a binding vote, then you have to draft some pretty specific, detailed language that is going to tie your hands. And I could see getting caught up in a situation that would really not work. If you spell out certain provisions, and at some point in time during the process the FAA says, "We're not going to allow that particular stipulation, you have no flexibility to possibly substitute one plan for another. : Q: Based on that, I assume you're opposed to the ballot initiative that has been discussed. : A: I think the proposed initiative is a proposal to ensure that a new terminal doesn't get built. That's not what I believe the residents of Burbank desire. And everyone has said that we would support a replacement terminal if the Airport Authority would give up its grand expansion plans and work with us. I think we're trying to live up to that commitment. : * : Bob Rector is opinion editor for the San Fernando Valley and Ventura County editions of The Times. : (BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

October 3, 1999
Preparing for Takeoff Negotiators for the city of Burbank and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority reached a tentative agreement Wednesday on a new terminal to replace the current facility, which dates to 1930. The new terminal--which must still be approved by the Burbank City Council--would be built in three phases. The first phase includes construction of a 330,000-square-foot terminal with 14 gates and 5,000 parking spaces. It could be expanded to 430,000 square feet, with 19 gates and 8,000 parking spaces, contingent upon reduction of noise levels and adoption of a flight curfew and cap on the number of annual passengers.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
August 24, 1999 | ANDREW BLANKSTEIN, TIMES STAFF WRITER
The planned new Burbank Airport terminal would be submitted to a public vote under two rival measures announced Monday--both of which threaten to undermine the fragile compromise forged by city and airport negotiators. City Councilman Bob Kramer said he wants to put an advisory measure before Burbank voters on the proposed 14-gate terminal, which could be expanded to 19 gates if additional noise limits are put in place.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
August 5, 1999 | ANDREW BLANKSTEIN, TIMES STAFF WRITER
The decades-long controversy over a new terminal for Burbank airport took a major step toward resolution Wednesday, with airport and city officials reaching a draft agreement on a 14-gate, $300-million building.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
August 4, 1999 | ANDREW BLANKSTEIN, TIMES STAFF WRITER
The decades-long struggle over a controversial new terminal for Burbank Airport took a major step toward resolution Wednesday with airport and city negotiators reaching a draft agreement on a new 14-gate, $300-million facility to replace the existing building.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
July 29, 1999 | ANDREW BLANKSTEIN, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Spelling a possible end to years of hostility, recrimination and lawsuits, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority on Wednesday authorized a partial payment to Lockheed Martin for land to construct a new airport terminal. The 8-0 vote gives Acting Airport Director Dios Marrero the authority to pay Lockheed $30 million toward the purchase of its 130-acre Plant B-6 site.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
July 29, 1999 | ANDREW BLANKSTEIN, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Spelling a possible end to years of hostility, recrimination and lawsuits, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority on Wednesday authorized a partial payment to Lockheed Martin for land to construct a new airport terminal. The 8-0 vote gives acting Airport Director Dios Marrero the authority to pay Lockheed $30 million toward the purchase of its 130-acre, Plant B-6 site.
Los Angeles Times Articles
|