BURBANK'S FLAP OVER AIRPORT GROWTH : ATTITUDE EXASPERATES REGIONAL OFFICIALS.

Byline: Lee Condon Daily News Staff Writer

From a business standpoint, Burbank is booming.

Its office vacancy rate is less than 3 percent, it has added about 1.5 million square feet of retail space in recent years, and its Media District is thriving with Disney, Warner Bros. and NBC planning expansions.

But the pro-growth attitude among city leaders hasn't extended to the local airport.

City officials are currently spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal battles to kill airport expansion plans, a strategy their detractors say will cost them their good fortune in attracting business.

``They're shooting themselves in the foot,'' said Carl Raggio, a Glendale appointee to the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, the commission that oversees operations of the airport.

``I think they're being very provincial. They really don't want this to be a regional airport. They want to make it a municipal airport and say to hell with the rest of the county,'' Raggio said.

Burbank City Manager Robert ``Bud'' Ovrom says the 14-gate airport is large enough for Burbank. However, the number of people using the airport has more than doubled - from 2.2 million to 4.9 million - over the past two decades, which is why airport officials say it should be expanded to a 19- to 27-gate terminal.

He said the city is now resisting taking on airport demand associated with growth from beyond the San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys, because of the noise, traffic and other problems associated with it.

``The growth that is putting a burden on the airport is coming from the outlying areas - the Antelope Valley, Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Clarita, Valencia, Saugus, Newhall, the Simi Valley,'' Ovrom said.

``The beef we have is accepting other people's growth,'' he said. ``How can we expect poor little landlocked Burbank to accept all our growth plus all the growth outside the region?''

To many, the underlying issue is whether the airport will remain local or become a true regional facility.

``For Burbank the airport is probably fine,'' said Larry Kosmont, a private consultant. ``For the region it's really problematic. The Burbank Airport needs more capacity.''

Kosmont, who served as director of the city of Burbank's Community Development Department from 1983 to 1986, said Burbank owes its businesses successes in large part to the airport.

Kosmont said he doubts the increases in Burbank passengers can be attributed to growth in the Antelope Valley and the Santa Clarita Valley.

``I'd be surprised if a huge level of demand is coming from these areas,'' he said. ``We're seeing Burbank and Ontario (Airport) increase because LAX is jammed.''

The cost of the expansion will largely be paid by the airlines through landing fees. As such, they will have to assure lenders that they support the project, and indications are they want a larger terminal.

``Usually any type of expansion is on the airlines' nickel,'' said Cliff Argue, vice president of properties and facilities for Alaska Airlines.

``I'm not sure we'd go out and spend millions of dollars on something that would be the same size it is now. We shouldn't build ourselves into a box.''

Burbank Airport is run by a nine-member commission that was created by the Legislature in the late 1970s to run the airport. The city councils from Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena each appoint three commissioners to sit on a panel known as the Airport Authority.

While the Glendale and Pasadena appointees, who make up a majority on the panel, favor an expanded airport, the appointees from Burbank oppose making the airport bigger because of constant complaints from residents about air pollution, jet noise and traffic.

Airport officials charge that Burbank City Council members are opposing the airport - which is unpopular among residents - for their own political gains. It was, for instance, the most controversial issue in the 1995 City Council election.

Councilman Bob Kramer, one of two candidates elected in part on a wave of anti-airport sentiment, denied that politics has anything do with Burbank's hard-line stance on airport growth.

``The problem is that the citizens of Burbank are kept awake 24 hours a day by jets taking off,'' Kramer said. ``It's a quality-of-life issue. The airport representatives from Glendale and Pasadena could care less about the quality of life in Burbank. We're looking out for the people of Burbank and the Airport Authority is thumbing their noses at us.''

Despite the objections of the host city, the Glendale and Pasadena commissioners are trying to press forward with plans to move the terminal and expand it to between 19 and 27 gates. While the Federal Aviation Administration has approved the plan, the city of Burbank is trying to block the expansion.

Just how big the 66-year-old airport gets will likely end up being decided in court, in legal proceedings that will may end up costing both the airport and the city hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The city of Burbank is planning to refile a suit asking that the airport be blocked from buying a 140 acres from Lockheed Martin on which to build its expanded terminal. The Airport Authority has asked a federal judge to strike down a section of the California Public Utilities code which Burbank claims gives the city an oversight role in airport expansion.

Both sides agree that the terminal needs to be moved because under federal guidelines the current terminal is too close by more than 300 feet to the center lines of both runways.

``Both runways are way, way too close,'' said Victor Gill, a spokesman for the airport.

Raggio agreed.

``Burbank is courting disaster by saying that since they haven't had an accident that it's safe,'' he said. ``It's like Burbank not putting up stop signs at a corner until somebody is killed.''

But Ovrom claims airport officials are hiding behind the safety issue in order to get approval to build a ``Taj Mahal.''

If safety was the top priority, airport officials could move the terminal today, Ovrom said. The sticking point is not whether the terminal should be moved, but if more gates should be added and whether night flights should be restricted by a curfew, he said.

Burbank Mayor Bill Wiggins said that there is a big difference between accommodating the studios and retailers and capitulating to the expansion demands of airport commissioners from neighboring cities.

``The Airport Authority is saying we're going to do what we want to do and you're going to live with the consequences,'' Wiggins said. ``We have a whole heck of a lot more to say about mitigation measures in terms of businesses than at the airport.''

The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority took over operations of the airport from Lockheed Air Terminal in 1978. By 2010, 10 million people a year are expected to be using the airport, according to forecasts provided by the Airport Authority.

But Ovrom claims that even with 10 million passengers, Burbank can handle the demand with the current 14 gates, as long as the terminal is moved to a safer location. He said John Wayne Airport in Orange County already handles 10 million passengers a year with 14 gates.

Ovrom said he would rather see a commercial airport built at Palmdale or Point Mugu to take some pressure off Burbank.

But Gill, the airport spokesman, said the market for an airport has not yet matured in those areas, and that it would do little to reduce demand in Burbank.

``There is not a large enough population base,'' Gill said.

CAPTION(S):

Chart

Chart: PROPOSED NEW TERMINAL