L.A. Again Fights Burbank Airport Plans

For the fourth time in 13 years, the city of Los Angeles will sue to halt construction of a larger terminal at Burbank Airport, citing the noise and traffic generated by more flights.

In a closed-door meeting Wednesday, the City Council voted to challenge an environmental report for the terminal that was approved last month by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Councilman Joel Wachs, who represents Los Angeles residents living around the airport, said the suit will charge that the environmental report failed to address the increased “noise and traffic impacts of a greatly expanded terminal.”

But airport officials, citing previous unsuccessful lawsuits, say the latest challenge is a waste of taxpayer dollars and amounts to little more than an attempt by city officials to get publicity.

“It’s another one of Councilman Wachs’ shots from the hip,” said Tom Greer, the airport’s executive director. “To just throw away city funds in a futile pursuit of something they have lost in the state court is campaign funding at the city’s expense.”

In 1993, the city filed a similar suit, challenging a state environmental report for the terminal. But after requiring the airport to redo the report, a Superior Court judge ruled against the city, saying the report adequately addressed noise and traffic concerns.

The city has appeal the judge’s decision to a state appeals court.

But that was only the latest legal disappointment for the city.

In 1983, the city unsuccessfully challenged an environmental report on a earlier terminal plan. When airport officials considered another terminal plan in 1987, the city threatened to sue again but backed off after the plan was killed in favor of the current proposal.

Both sides agree that the current terminal, built in 1930, must be replaced because it is too close to a runway to meet modern safety standards.

But instead of simply moving the terminal, the airport authority, made up of commissioners representing Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena, has proposed a $300-million replacement that would be three times the size of the current 163,000-square-foot terminal and could accommodate 10 million passengers annually.

The city of Los Angeles and residents in North Hollywood, Sun Valley and Valley Village have protested the expansion, saying it will lead to more flights, more noise and more traffic.

“A new terminal is fine. We are saying we don’t want a new terminal that will expand,” said Tom Henry, Wachs’ planning deputy.

Wachs also called for airport officials to work harder to reduce noise by enforcing a voluntary flight curfew, soundproofing nearby homes and schools and forming a community advisory group made up of nearby residents.

But airport officials have argued that the number of passengers using the airport will increase with or without the new terminal. The number of flights, they say, is determined by passenger demand and airline marketing decisions, not terminal size.

Greer also challenged Wachs’ charge that the airport doesn’t do enough to reduce noise, saying the airport has spent millions of dollars soundproofing schools and plans to invite nearby residents to participate in a federal noise study.

He suggested that Los Angeles is being hypocritical because it owns Ontario Airport and is building a massive new terminal project there that will be eight times the size of its current facility.

Burbank Airport officials are also meeting with officials from the city of Burbank who have threatened to sue over concerns about noise, flight curfews and the number of flights. Both sides are mediating to resolve the dispute.