Judge Backs City of Burbank, Halts Airport Expansion

A judge handed the city of Burbank a sweeping victory Friday in its bid to control noise and traffic at Burbank Airport, ruling no expansion can take place at the 5-million passenger facility without the city’s approval.

The decision, which bars further work on a planned new and 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,” said Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carl J. West in denying the airport’s motion to have the city’s case dismissed. “I don’t think [federal authority] goes that far.”

Airport officials indicated they will probably appeal. But Burbank officials were buoyant as court adjourned Friday. City Manager Bud Ovrom, who missed 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 19-gate terminal with the potential to add eight more gates. And the larger debate about the city’s authority over the airport stretches decades, already resulting in one precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court case in 1973 over noise.

Friday’s decision was check--but not 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 airport lost “was one of the linchpins of [the] airport authority’s strategy,” said Burbank City 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 the airport must seek permission from Burbank to proceed with the expansion. The Burbank City Council has already voted to veto the plan.

Said the airport’s attorney, Richard Simon: “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.”

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

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

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

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

But Burbank attorneys argued 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 the Burbank case.

“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.”

The FAA’s recommendation the terminal be moved to be made safer isn’t a strong enough reason to cut Burbank out of the process, he argued. Besides, he added, safety was not the sole motive in the airport’s case, but also “the desire of the airport to double in size.”

When it was airport attorney Simon’s turn, he portrayed Burbank’s actions as a roundabout way of trying to affect noise and safety issues under the cover of land-use review powers. Noise--because it has to do with aircraft flight--is the purview of the federal government, he contended. And “Burbank doesn’t dispute that their whole goal is to control noise at this airport,” he said.

West listened in silence to Burbank’s attorneys. But he interrupted Simon repeatedly, questioning his arguments.

Simon confessed surprise at the judge’s questions.

“If the goal is to limit noise, present or future, that is not legitimate,” he said. And whatever else Burbank might have in mind, the city’s preoccupation with noise was clearly frustrating efforts to improve safety at the airport, he argued.

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

Burbank attorney Peter Kirsch met with reporters afterward with two public relations consultants at his elbow--a sign of Burbank’s continuing attentiveness 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, lingering on the courthouse steps after the decision, addressed the ruling with his trademark gruffness. “It’s not over yet,” he said.

But even McConkey could not hide his elation. Referring to the thousands of dollars the city has spent on private attorneys to press its case, McConkey called it “money well spent.”

“It’s worth every nickel to maintain our control over land use,” he said.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Judge Halts Airport Expansion

The city of Burbank won a court judgment Friday upholding its power to control the planned expansion of Burbank Airport. The authority that runs the 5-million passenger facility is expected to appeal. The complex dispute involves issues of noise, traffic, passenger congestion and airport safety.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

A History of Fight Over Airport Expansion

Here’s a look at the key events in the battle between the city and Burbank-Glendale-

Pasadena Airport Authority, which owns Burbank Airport.

May 1973: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Burbank’s attempt to limit noise at the airport, ruling federal law supersedes local control over the issue.

June 1976: Burbank-

Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority acquires airport from Lockheed, establishing an agency jointly governed by the three cities.

1980: Airport officials--under pressure from the Federal Aviation Administration to replace current terminal that is considered too close to runways--consider building a new terminal.

March 1993: Airport authority votes to build a new 670,000-square-foot terminal with 12,300 parking spaces northeast of runways. Phase I planned to be completed by 1998, Phase II in 2010.

March 1996: Federal Aviation Administration approves environmental impact report for new terminal.

August 1996: Airport authority votes to condemn 130-acre parcel as the site of new, expanded terminal.

October 1996: Burbank City Council votes to not allow airport to acquire property for airport expansion.

April 1997: Federal judge dismisses case involving airport governing board’s lawsuit against the city of Burbank, challenging the city’s assertion of veto power over the airport.

May 1997: City of Burbank files lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court aimed at blocking transfer of 130-acre former Lockheed site to airport authority.

Oct. 31, 1997: Superior Court judge rules that expansion of terminal cannot occur without the approval of the city of Burbank.