Land Sale Vote Revives Rift Over Airport Plans

Fracturing a fragile truce, the Burbank Airport Authority has revived its controversial bid to buy land for the construction of a new, expanded airport passenger terminal.

The action brought expressions of outrage Friday from Burbank, home of the 5-million-passenger airport, and a city concerned about the impact of expansion on quality-of-life issues such as noise and traffic.

Authority members from Glendale and Pasadena, supporters of expansion, unanimously favored the move at a closed meeting late Thursday, while Burbank representatives voted in a block against it.

The three cities control the airport through the authority, which earlier had agreed to a six-month truce barring land-purchase talks as both sides tried to agree on how best to improve the facility.

The authority issued a statement Friday, which called negotiations necessary to avoid possible litigation by Lockheed Martin Corp. Commissioner Carl Raggio Jr. denied the vote violated the truce, claiming that only board members, not airport staff, were barred from negotiations.

The action appeared to revive the bitter political trench warfare of last year, which hindered airport planning and sharply split three cities that traditionally have worked in concert on regional problems. Leaders of the anti-expansion movement said the new action is a serious breach of trust by the airport.

“This certainly damages the mediation process, and now it looks like we’ll be going to court more quickly with the airport authority than I had imagined,” said Burbank City Councilman Bob Kramer, a staunch critic of the airport’s expansion plans.

“We’re certainly prepared for a lawsuit, so in my opinion we should just initiate the litigation and let the courts settle it, because it’s clear the authority has no intention of recognizing the needs of Burbank.”

*

But Raggio said the airport commissioners were caught “between a rock and a hard place”--forced to choose between being sued by Lockheed Martin or by the city of Burbank, he said. The 120-acre Lockheed tract adjoins the existing airport.

Facing Burbank would be less costly than defending the airport against an inverse condemnation suit, which could involve punitive damages in millions of dollars, Raggio said.

“I think what we did was the right and proper thing,” said Raggio. “Not only was Lockheed going to sue us but the three cities would have been defendants as well. Our action kept the cities out of a punitive lawsuit, including the city of Burbank, and I think they should take that very seriously.”

The authority’s vote Thursday called for Tom Greer, the airport’s executive director, to resume talks with Lockheed Martin aimed at finalizing a sale agreement, but stipulated that no contract would be drawn up or signed until after the truce period ends June 19.

Burbank representatives are concerned that the new terminal will triple the size of the existing one, while expansion backers say the existing terminal is overcrowded and needs to be replaced.

Last month, two mediators, Gerald Cormick of Seattle and John Jostes of Santa Barbara, were picked to help settle the dispute.

But Phil Berlin, one of Burbank’s three appointees to the authority, said the mediation process, scheduled to begin next week, has been “sabotaged” by the resumption of land talks.

“As far as I am concerned, the mediation process will go on, but the airport authority has really diminished its chances of success by doing this,” said Berlin.

Berlin also questioned Raggio’s assertion that the move was done to shield the authority and the three cities from a suit by Lockheed Martin.

“This is just a way for them to lock up that land and expand the airport,” said Berlin. “It has nothing to do with threatened litigation.”

Vincent Marafino, Lockheed Martin’s land negotiator, stated in a Jan. 29 letter to Raggio that the land earmarked for the terminal is being held “hostage,” paralyzing the firm’s ability to dispose of the property quickly.

*

Lawyers for the airport authority advised commissioners to take the letter seriously, suggesting that Lockheed Martin may have grounds for an inverse condemnation lawsuit. Opponents of the airport’s expansion plan say they still believe the company was bluffing.

“The whole thing smacked of a setup,” said Tom Patterson, a North Hollywood resident opposed to the expansion. “The letter was just an excuse for them to go forward and buy the land.”

Glendale Mayor Rick Reyes said Friday he believes the authority’s decision to resume land negotiations was correct, and that the mediation process can still serve as a means of “getting the authority back from dysfunctional to functional.”