Burbank Digs Heels In on Larger Airport

The City Council on Tuesday night formally rejected Burbank Airport’s plans to purchase about 130 acres to build a larger passenger terminal, reinforcing the city’s court challenge to the expansion.

The Burbank council voted unanimously to accept the recommendation of the city’s planning department to disapprove of the airport’s plans to buy the necessary land from Lockheed Martin Corp. and build a terminal three times the size of the existing one.

“The disadvantages outweigh the advantages of the proposed plan,” said Councilman Dave Golonski.

The council’s action is the latest step in a sometimes heated debate over the airport, which serves about 5 million travelers annually.

Residents and neighbors who oppose the planned expansion worry about increased noise, traffic, pollution and other problems they contend a larger airport will bring. Those who support the expansion say growth in passenger traffic is inevitable and that the new terminal will be safer.

City officials contend that statutory provisions of the state Public Utilities Code give local governments the right to veto airport construction within their borders.

But airport officials have said repeatedly that because the airport authority is an independent government agency, it is not subject to city regulations. The airport is run by the nine-member Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, established by the three cities, each of which appoints three commissioners.

In June, airport officials filed a lawsuit in federal court charging that the state law cited by the city is unconstitutional. The case is pending.

City officials emphasized that disapproval does not mean Burbank is unwilling to work with the authority. The city could grant approval under conditions that include limiting the terminal to 14 gates, mitigating traffic and noise, and offsetting property taxes the city would lose if the Lockheed land becomes airport property, officials said.

Airport officials said that expansion plans are expected to continue unless a court rules that the city does indeed have authority over the project. The council vote Tuesday means little, the airport officials said.

“The authority does not think the city’s procedure is a valid one,” said Victor Gill, an airport spokesman. “I think they’re just simply going through a pro forma drill to validate the position they’ve taken in their litigation.”