High Court Refuses to Hear Burbank Airport’s Case

Sidestepping the battle over plans for a new 19-gate terminal at Burbank Airport, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to hear the airport’s challenge to a state law that gives Burbank the right to veto the project.

The high court did not give its reasons for refusing to review a 1997 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Lourdes Baird, who held that the Airport Authority--which runs the airport--lacked the legal standing to challenge the state Public Utilities Code in federal court.

“Rather than the Airport Authority continuing to battle the city of Burbank in the courts, the city would much prefer that the Authority join with us to find ways to bring enforceable limits on growth and noise at the airport,” said Peter Kirsch, Burbank’s special counsel on airport issues.

Because the narrow issue Tuesday was whether federal courts could refuse to hear the airport’s case, the high court’s refusal to involve itself makes no change in the long-running feud between Burbank and the Airport Authority over noise and traffic at the airport that serves 5 million passengers a year.

Nevertheless, Burbank’s political leaders contend that the series of federal court rulings effectively uphold the constitutionality of a provision of the state Public Utilities Code that gives California cities the power to restrict airport expansion within their boundaries. Airport officials disagree with that contention, saying that they are backed by state courts.

In particular, they cite Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl J. West’s ruling that city officials signed away their powers over the airport under the PUC code when they agreed to set up the authority to run the facility under a 1997 agreement with the cities of Glendale and Pasadena.

Burbank is appealing that decision.

Burbank also has gone back to state court, contending that the airport violated local land-use laws by purchasing from the Lockheed Martin Corp. 130 acres zoned for manufacturing uses.