Dios Marrero fights frustrations as he pilots the latest effort to resolve the 20-year battle over expansion of Burbank Airport

After a stalemate of nearly 20 years between the city of Burbank and the nine-member Airport Authority, efforts to replace what is by virtually all accounts a woefully inadequate terminal at Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport have once again hit a brick wall.

However, Airport Authority Executive Director Dios Marrero says the solution to the seemingly unsolvable puzzle may be no further away than the airport’s own back yard.

For the first time, airport officials are seriously talking about abandoning the former Lockheed site targeted for the new terminal and returning to the drawing board to design a new facility on existing airport property.

Although Marrero and the authority believe the so-called B-6 site is the best location for a new terminal, they are pessimistic about finding a solution that is agreeable to Burbank, the Federal Aviation Administration and the other parties involved. In the meantime, they insist that quick action is needed to relieve overcrowded conditions and to move the terminal a safe distance from the runways.

Since Marrero, a longtime airport controller, took over the top job on a permanent basis in the spring of 2000 he has earned kudos for his earnest and pragmatic approach to the terminal issue. Still, much to his consternation, and at the expense of his health, Marrero has had no more luck than his predecessor moving the process forward. Marrero recently returned to work after undergoing emergency heart bypass surgery in the fall.

One of the main obstacles to a new terminal has been the city of Burbank’s insistence that before a single spade of dirt is moved, the airport must obtain a mandatory curfew on nighttime flights, a demand that will have to be answered by the FAA. Because no deal was made by May 24, 2000, an earlier agreement compels the airport to begin selling the 130-acre B-6 land.

There’s no deal in sight, but it may not matter. The airport has submitted a new development application to Burbank for a significantly scaled-down terminal on the B-6 land. However, considering all the obstacles, Marrero said the authority plans to look at other alternatives in 2001.

Question: Are plans for a new terminal on the B-6 land dead?

Answer: There is not yet one positive, tangible piece of evidence that concrete progress can be made building a B-6 project. If you ask our commission now what its prognosis is for 2001, it’s one of pessimism about the likelihood of achieving a B-6 project, skepticism about whether or not the FAA would ever really grant us a curfew although we’re going to give it our best shot and resignation that the one site everybody agrees is the best location for the project is not going to be successfully utilized for its intended purpose.

Q: A lot of time, energy and money are invested in the B-6 property. Is it disappointing to walk away from that?

A: The airport has been trying to relocate its terminal for 18 years. It’s discouraging because there are different communities and different constituencies that have different interests. You’ve got a situation where trying to come up with one package of terms and conditions that pleases everybody is almost impossible.

Q: The number of passengers at Burbank Airport has remained steady at about 4.5 million for the past five years. Where does the pressure to build a new terminal come from?

A: The underlying economy in this region is growing. It’s vibrant, it’s creating more employment, it’s creating more white-collar employment. And it’s generating a huge amount of office development. All of that economic development and all the political decisions that go into promoting that economic development generate and will generate additional aviation demand. There’s an obvious lag between the entitlement approval and the actual impact of the development.

Q: Is there a conflict between the will for economic growth and the dearth of political support for a new terminal?

A: Burbank has approved over 10 million square feet of office space development, millions within the immediate vicinity of the airport. L.A. has done the same thing. In the meantime, you’ve got L.A. trying to develop LAX, and part of that development inherently assumes airports like Burbank would pick up a certain share of the regional economic growth and the regional aviation demand. (At the same time) the city of L.A. is suing us to impose restrictions on our ability to meet the demand they generate. It’s the same problem we have with Burbank. They want to limit the size of the facility while they are approving projects that will double the employment base of their community.

Q: The airport’s latest application for a development agreement is its third in 18 months. Some authority members have said the rules have changed as the process goes on. Is that so?

A: The rules of the game have changed. We started out with a framework agreement in 1999 that had certain terms and conditions. Some of those were not well received by the FAA, some were not well received by members of the Burbank community. As a result, the next round of terms and conditions were changed and made more rigorous. It just seems that our ability to find a series of terms and conditions that meet everybody’s needs is difficult to achieve. Every time we inch up closer to it, something changes. (Because of that) I think 2001 is very likely a year when portions or perhaps all of the B-6 property will be sold for commercial industrial development.

Q: Would a new terminal on airport property be the same size as the one currently proposed for the B-6 land?

A: Yes, it’s exactly the same size. It’s 14 gates and 250,000 square feet. So there is no change in the scope of the project. It would simply be a new location.

Q: When is the earliest a new terminal could be built?

A: If we had B-6 approval, we could literally start construction in about a year and a half. Construction would take about two and a half years. If we go to an alternative site, chances are construction would not begin for three or four years.

Q: Your predecessor, Tom Greer, was unpopular in Burbank because he was perceived as trying to foist a larger terminal on the city without regard for quality of life issues. How is your approach different?

A: I’m trying to look at the airport issue not just from our point of view but from the point of view of the people who are being affected. It gives you a better appreciation that there are thoughtful concerns that require careful consideration.

Q: The debate here is clearly about the future. The city of Burbank wants the ability to make a final decision about future airport growth today. Why do you object to that?

A: No public facility should be artificially constrained for all time by any public body at any given point in time, whether it’s the freeways, whether it’s the hospitals, whether it’s police and fire services. That’s one of the big stumbling blocks we have right now with Burbank that a number of council members want to lock in the facility for all time. We understand their concerns, but it’s not good public policy.

Q: A lot of citizens believe that even a scaled-down terminal would lead to substantially more flights. Is that true?

A: No, not at all. The only thing that will generate aviation activity here is a bigger employment base and bigger population. The airport and the Airport Authority do not cause aviation demand. We react to aviation demand that’s generated by economic decisions.

Q: You mentioned the main impetus for building a new terminal is safety. How unsafe is the airport?

A: This terminal is too close to the runway, and it doesn’t comply with FAA safety standards. It’s hard to say (how unsafe it is) but anytime you’ve got a public facility with 15,000 people in it during any given 24-hour period, and that facility does not comply with federal setback standards, it’s a problem that should be responsibly addressed by everyone in this community.

Q: Why are you not optimistic about the FAA agreeing to a mandatory nighttime flight curfew?

A: First, I think a curfew on operations in a heavily developed urban area is a very reasonable request in order to protect people’s ability to sleep, in order to maintain a certain quality of life in the evening. The problem we have is not that it’s an undesirable goal but that there are conflicting goals at the national level. There is hue and cry about lack of capacity throughout the system. There is a national policy decision that has to be made on the federal level by the FAA about how they want to deal with the right that people have to sleep at night with the right the federal government has historically granted aviation interests to operate in the evening.