U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Airport Environmental Study

A federal appeals court Thursday upheld a 1996 federal environmental review approving construction of a larger terminal at Burbank Airport, which the project’s supporters said moves it closer to reality while critics said the fight is far from over.

If there are no further appeals, the ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals clears away the last significant legal challenge to the Federal Aviation Administration study.

The 700-page report examined 20 potential environmental impacts of a proposed 19-gate terminal building, including aircraft noise, air quality, vehicle traffic and hazardous substances.

“Had the document been found deficient, it would have delayed the process by months and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars,” said airport spokesman Victor Gill. “This means we’re another step closer to a new terminal and that Burbank has one less card to play in obstructing the project.”

The plaintiffs, including the cities of Burbank and Los Angeles, warned there were other court cases on other issues still pending on the state level, leaving the timetable for the terminal’s completion far from certain.

“We want to read the court ruling and confer with the city attorney on our options,” said Tom Henry, an aide to Los Angeles City Councilman Joel Wachs. “If proponents feel like they’re a step closer, someone should point out they have many more steps to take.”

Los Angeles Deputy City Atty. Keith Pritsker said that despite the ruling, there were unresolved issues on environmental impacts to be decided on the state level.

Like Burbank, Los Angeles has argued that a new terminal building at Burbank Airport would bring unacceptable levels of noise and traffic to the surrounding communities. The Burbank-Glendale Pasadena Airport Authority has long maintained that airport traffic depends on passenger demand and airline decisions, not the size of the terminal.

In their appeal, Los Angeles and Burbank contend that if the FAA had taken a hard look at the environmental effects of the airport, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, it could not have “rationally concluded a larger, more convenient terminal would not attract more passengers.”