New Legal Showdown Looms Between Burbank, Airport Over Proposed Terminal

The city and Burbank Airport could be headed for yet another legal showdown over the airport’s proposal to build a 19-gate terminal.

City officials contended Thursday that the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority’s plans for a new terminal do not comply with local land-use ordinances.

“The city takes very seriously its zoning laws and hopes the Airport Authority will take the responsible action of complying with those ordinances, like every other land owner in the city,” said Peter Kirsch, an attorney representing Burbank in its legal battles with the airport. “If it doesn’t happen, we will respond accordingly.”

City officials insist the 130-acre property the airport is hoping to acquire from Lockheed-Martin Corp. for the new terminal is zoned for manufacturing and would require a new zoning designation from the city before any airport-related construction could take place.

“As you are undoubtedly aware, the Final Airport Expansion Plan, which was set forth in your presentation, does not comply with the city’s land use laws,” Burbank Mayor David Golonski wrote in a letter dated Thursday to airport Executive Director Thomas Greer. “If the Airport Authority intends to comply with all of the city’s land-use laws and planning directives, please provide us within one week from today a statement acknowledging the Airport Authority’s intent to modify [the plan].”

Airport officials scoffed Thursday at the assertions by Golonski and other Burbank city leaders, insisting their presentation to council members was merely conceptual, and not a final design.

“We’re not going to react to an overreaction,” Greer said. “This is another example of the city trying to take words out of our mouth and put their own spin on it for their own purposes.”

The recent back and forth is only the latest in the long-running dispute over expansion plans at Burbank Airport. City officials have argued that construction of a new terminal would bring more noise and traffic, while the airport has countered the existing terminal is too small to accommodate the current annual level of 5 million travelers.

Since 1996, both sides have waged an expensive court battle over the proposed terminal and have each notched victories and losses in the fight.

One of the key decisions came in February when Superior Court Judge Carl J. West ruled the city could not use local land-use ordinances to block terminal construction because the city had relinquished those powers by setting up a joint-powers authority with Glendale and Pasadena to run the airport.

But Kirsch said the February ruling did not apply to the latest squabble. “West said that they had to comply with our zoning ordinance,” Kirsch said. “In essence, none of the existing litigation affects this issue.”