Why the Expansion Issue Is Important

Despite all that has been written about expansion of Burbank Airport, most people outside Burbank remain confused about the dispute and why they should care. I’d like to try to shed some light on the issue, a hot one since the airport was transferred from Lockheed Corp. and made a public agency nearly 20 years ago.

In the simplest terms, the matter comes down to how much say Burbank should have in connection with expansion and limiting noise, pollution and traffic at an airport located within our city but not governed by the city. An independent agency, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Commission, with three representatives from each of the cities, is the governing body.

A Superior Court judge on Friday will hear arguments on the constitutionality of a state law that gives cities in California the right to approve the purchase of land for expansion of a publicly owned airport. The airport authority, which operates the airport, and the airport commission justify the expansion on the basis of safety.

They won’t say the airport is unsafe, mind you, because it is not. But they say they and the Federal Aviation Administration want to make it “safer.” So does Burbank. But making it safer does not require the scope of expansion the authority seeks: double the number of passengers going through the airport with all the attendant increases in noise, pollution and traffic heaped on Burbank residents.

What Superior Court Judge Carl West will decide is really an issue of local land-use policy. That is why the matter is important to everyone. That is also why the state attorney general has joined the lawsuit on behalf of Burbank. The outcome of this case, when reviewed by an appellate court, will affect cities across the state and potentially the nation.

The attorney general’s office has told the court the airport commission “does not have the authority unilaterally to make the decision to expand the Burbank Airport. California law in effect for over a quarter of a century gives that authority clearly and unambiguously to the city of Burbank.”

The state adds that if the authority’s argument is accepted, “both the state and all local governments will forfeit nearly all land use controls over any airport that they do not directly own.” Are you listening Palmdale, Ontario and other Southern California cities?

The authority’s argument that the state law is unconstitutional because expansion of the airport based on safety reasons is preempted by federal law is just plain wrong, the state attorney general says.

Burbank has sought compromise after compromise to resolve differences outside the courtroom. All those efforts have failed because the authority is unwilling to have an enforceable nighttime curfew on flights after 10 p.m. and before 7 a.m. and because it won’t accept any constraints on operations that would prevent commercial jet noise from getting worse.

The authority’s answer is always the same; Burbank is asking for the impossible because:

* Airport growth should be driven by market demand alone.

* The authority doesn’t have the power to give Burbank what it wants.

* The FAA, which does have the power to give Burbank what it wants, won’t.

I believe the authority is wrong on all three counts.

As a public agency, the authority has a responsibility to consider the consequences of an expansion plan on Burbank residents, along with the desires of airlines to increase operations. Other airports operate that way; why won’t the Burbank Airport Authority?

Under existing law, there is no question the authority could have an enforceable nighttime curfew and place limits on growth. Because they had rules addressing these issues before 1990, when a new federal law was enacted, FAA approval probably would be “grandfathered.”

That is what Los Angeles did recently at Van Nuys Airport, where the FAA approved moving a curfew from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m. A new proposed master plan would not only limit the number of jets and helicopters, but would over time reduce total aircraft by nearly 25%.

Burbank is only seeking to make the current voluntary nighttime curfew enforceable and to prevent noise from increasing, not to cut back operations.

The Burbank City Council remains convinced that if the authority would join with us and go to the FAA and support the reasonable constraints we seek, we could get the federal agency’s support. We’d much rather solve our dispute that way then spend years more in court battling one another.