Burbank Can Curb Airport, Judge Rules

A judge handed the city of Burbank a sweeping victory Friday in its bid to control noise and traffic at the Burbank airport, ruling that no expansion can take place at the facility used by 5 million passengers annually without the city’s approval.

The decision, which bars further work on a proposed larger terminal, requires airport officials to honor the planning decisions of local communities.

“The question is whether you can take away from a local community the right to review an expansion in that community,” Superior Court Judge Carl J. West said in denying the airport’s motion to have the city’s case dismissed. “I don’t think [federal authority] goes that far.”

The airport indicated that it will probably appeal. But Burbank officials were still buoyant as court adjourned Friday. City Manager Bud Ovrom, who did not attend the hearing because it would be “too tense,” bounded in afterward from a tennis match joking about popping bottles of champagne.

Airport officials, meanwhile, slouched grim-faced in a corner of the courtroom.

Burbank and the airport have been locked for years in a quarrel over a planned new 19-gate terminal with the potential to eventually add eight gates. And the larger debate about the city’s authority over the airport stretches back decades, already resulting in one precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court case in 1973 regarding noise.

Friday’s decision was a check--but not a checkmate--in the elaborate legal contest that has developed. Other battles are still to be fought in related court cases in coming months. But both sides agreed that Friday’s hearing dealt with some of the most important points of contention.

What the facility’s officials lost “was one of the linchpins of the [Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena] Airport Authority’s strategy,” said Burbank Councilman David Golonski, who attended the hearing. “I think it is a decisive victory. . . . The decision upholds the right of the city to control land use.”

In his ruling, West tossed out the airport’s arguments that federal power preempts local authority over the expansion project.

The judge’s decision means that the airport must seek permission from Burbank to proceed with the construction project. The City Council has already vetoed the growth plan.

Airport attorney Richard Simon said: “If we had won, it would have been politically more palatable and it would’ve made our path smoother, but this is far from over.”

The issue “will simply drag on,” he added. “This project isn’t going away. . . . The result of this is that for a while it will give Burbank some political fodder, but this is not going to change anything.”

Before ruling, West twirled a pen in his hand while listening to lengthy arguments from both sides.

The case hinged on whether Burbank could halt the construction project by invoking a section of the state Public Utility Code, which grants California cities authority over the expansion of airports within their boundaries.

The airport authority argued that the state code was preempted by federal rules that bar “non-proprietors”--in this case, Burbank--from governing aircraft operations and safety, leaving the city no power to veto the plan.

But Burbank attorneys argued that the airport was trying to carve out far broader powers for the federal government than Congress intended--”revolutionary” powers, in the words of Susan Turbin, the assistant state attorney general who helped argue for the city.

“This case is about the sovereignty of the state of California,” said Burbank attorney Perry Rosen. The Federal Aviation Administration “is in charge of air safety. But the question of where to locate airports . . . is specifically relegated to the state.”

In his ruling, West acknowledged broad federal authority over existing airports, but asked, “Are we dealing with existing airport operations, or with future operations? I think it does make a difference.”

Burbank attorney Peter Kirsch talked to reporters afterward with two public relations consultants at his elbow--a sign of the city’s continuing attention to spin control in the airport debate.

“We have been victorious, not just legally, but in the ability to protect the noise environment around the airport,” he said.

City Councilman Ted McConkey, said the battle “is not over yet.” But even the normally gruff official could not hide his elation.

Referring to the thousands of dollars the city has spent on private attorneys to press its case, he called it “money well spent. It’s worth every nickel to maintain our control over land use.”