Burbank Can’t Block Airport Plan, Judge Says

A judge ruled Wednesday that the city of Burbank lacks the power to veto the expansion of Burbank Airport, leading proponents of growth to claim victory in a long political struggle.

The ruling means that plans for a new, 19-gate terminal--which operators of the facility say is critical to meeting the needs of the 5 million passengers who use the airport each year--can go forward uninterrupted, airport officials said.

In a 14-page opinion, Superior Court Judge Carl J. West ruled that the city “expressly and unequivocally” gave the power to buy land for expansion to the authority that runs the airport.

“It is an absolutely devastating decision for Burbank,” said Richard Simon, lawyer for the commission that runs the airport, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority. “The judge issued a very thoughtful and very, very strong opinion.

“It conveyed the idea that this is a regional airport and that a single city can’t simply interfere with it,” Simon said.

But Burbank officials, who have struggled to control the noise and congestion that they fear expansion will bring, refused to concede defeat. City Council members said they expect to ask to appeal the decision at their next meeting Tuesday.

“A victory for us would have made the Airport Authority more likely to negotiate a resolution,” said Peter Kirsch, an attorney for the city. “We hope they are still interested in reaching a negotiated solution.”

A 1977 agreement among the three cities to jointly run the airport “expressly and unequivocally grants to the Authority the right to acquire land . . . to exercise the power of eminent domain, and to do all acts necessary or desirable to accomplish the purposes of the Authority,” West wrote.

For years, the Burbank City Council and the airport have been locked in combat over expansion plans for the existing 14-gate terminal. The larger dispute goes back to a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that barred Burbank from interfering in airport safety and operations.

In recent years, the issue of controlling airport growth has become a dominant one in Burbank politics, setting that city against its airport management partners, Glendale and Pasadena. At one point, a Burbank group even launched a boycott campaign against businesses in Glendale and Pasadena.

Although Wednesday’s decision was a tough loss for Burbank, city officials promised that the complex legal battle, which has cost both sides millions of dollars in legal fees, will continue.

“We knew there would be wins and there would be losses,” Kirsch said. “But this does not dampen the city’s resolve to fight this battle or its resolve to find a mutually acceptable solution to the current crisis.”

“We’ve always known that this would be a long process with ups and downs,” said Burbank Councilman David Golonski. “It’s always been our position that we will do everything in our power to protect the rights and concerns of our constituents. This doesn’t change that.”

Airport Authority officials predicted West’s decision will mean a new terminal within several years.

“I think three years is realistic, given the cleanup of the land and the time to do the design work,” said Glendale airport commissioner Carl Raggio. “By 2001 or 2002.”

Other airport officials agreed.

“It could be a couple years before we’re in a position to start building,” said authority Executive Director Thomas E. Greer. “If a lot of other things go well, that’s a realistic expectation.”

Greer said the ideal solution would be to sit down with Burbank and agree on a new facility.

“I wish we could convince Burbank that the most positive thing they could do is to join hands with us in the designing, construction and ribbon cutting for the gateway to Burbank,” said Greer. “This is their front door, and why they are fighting us is beyond me.”

City officials have pressed for a smaller terminal than the 19-gate building proposed by the airport. They have also advocated caps on the number of flights and late-night and early-morning flight curfews.

“It’s a matter of principle,” said Burbank City Councilman Ted McConkey. “We took an oath to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of Burbank. We think it’s grossly unfair to have our citizens subjected to the kinds of noise, pollution and strains on the infrastructure that a terminal expansion project will inevitably bring.”

McConkey predicted that the city would ultimately prevail in court.

Burbank City Manager Bud Ovrom said he thinks the court battles could last another five years and may again reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Both sides have agreed that the judge has worked hard to encourage a resolution of the case through face-to-face negotiations.

But those efforts apparently were not enough given the complexity--and emotion--of the decades-long legal dispute.

In 1980, the Federal Aviation Administration warned airport officials that the existing terminal violated government design standards because it was too close to the runway, but did not require that the terminal be relocated.

Citing the FAA standards, in 1993 the authority proposed tearing down the old terminal and building a larger one nearby.

The Airport Authority went forward with plans to acquire 130 acres of adjacent property from Lockheed in 1996. Burbank officials then voted the deal down, which led to the confrontation in court.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Airport Conflict Chronology

Here’s a look at the key events in the battle between the city of Burbank, where the Burbank Airport is located, and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, which owns the 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 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: FAA 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 not to allow airport to acquire property for 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 federal law does not prevent Burbank from blocking purchase of land for terminal expansion.

Feb. 18, 1998: Superior Court judge rules that approval of the city of Burbank is not legally required before expansion.