Burbank Can Stop Airport Expansion

A state appellate court ruled Wednesday that the city of Burbank has the power to block Burbank Airport’s planned expansion, giving anti-noise opponents a key victory in the long and contentious battle over a new terminal.

In a serious setback for its planned 19-gate terminal, the judges ruled that the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority lacked an “exclusive and unrestricted right” to develop the terminal site without approval from the city of Burbank.

The Airport Authority contended that it could develop the 130-acre terminal site without city approval because Burbank had ceded such authority with the creation of the tri-city airport governing board in 1977.

But the judges, in a 15-page opinion, said the city “may not delegate discretionary powers in such a way that results in a total abdication of those powers.”

Burbank officials said the rulings cast serious legal doubt on a case currently being heard in Burbank Superior Court involving the authority’s bid to acquire the 130-acre terminal site from Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin through the power of eminent domain.

The appeals court decision, they said, could open the door for Lockheed Martin to seek millions of dollars in damages for the Airport Authority’s move to condemn the land.

“This means that the Burbank Airport Authority has no power to expand the airport whatsoever, without the city’s approval,” said Peter Kirsch, Burbank’s special counsel on airport issues. “No new terminal, no new parking, no new anything.”

Burbank Airport officials--who argue the new terminal is crucial to meeting the needs of the 4.7 million passengers using the facility each year--did not appear overly concerned by the court decision.

“It was not unexpected,” said Richard Simon, attorney for the Airport Authority. “At oral argument, the Court of Appeal clearly did not agree with [a lower court judge’s] earlier decision.”

Simon said that Burbank “had struck out but was allowed back in the ballgame.”

As for the case, he said: “I don’t know whether we will appeal. We may simply want to go back and take it to trial.”

The nine-member Airport Authority is sharply divided on the expansion, with the six members from Glendale and Pasadena advocating the larger terminal over the opposition of the three Burbank commissioners.

“This says the city of Burbank’s review process must be followed by the airport,” said Charles Lombardo, one of the Burbank commissioners. “Burbank residents will finally have a say in the airport and its impact on the city.”

Airline officials said Wednesday they wanted time to review the court’s decision, but added they were still interested in an improved facility at Burbank.

“We are interested in growing at Burbank,” said Southwest Airlines spokeswoman Linda Rutherford. “But it will require better airport facilities of one fashion or another.”

Wednesday’s ruling stems from appeals of two decisions by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Carl J. West. In a 1997 decision, West held that the state public utilities code gave Burbank the right to stop terminal expansion.

But in a second decision in 1998, West said the city “expressly and unequivocally” signed away its powers under state law by agreeing to run the airport with the cities of Glendale and Pasadena.

The Burbank City Council and the airport have been locked in extended 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.

Since 1995, the issue of controlling growth at the airport has dominated Burbank politics, setting that city against the airport’s governing board and its managing partners, Glendale and Pasadena.

Though Wednesday’s decision was a tough loss for the airport, no one was declaring an immediate end to the legal hostilities, which has cost both sides millions of dollars in legal fees and public relations efforts.

In 1980, the Federal Aviation Administration warned airport officials that the existing terminal was too close to the east-west runway, but did not require that the terminal be relocated. Almost from that point forward, airport officials have sought to tear down the old terminal and build a larger one nearby.

After several misstarts, the Airport Authority went forward with plans to acquire 130 acres of an adjacent property from Lockheed Martin in 1996. But Burbank officials sought to block use of the land for the terminal, which landed the combatants in court.

Initially, Burbank Airport took the matter to federal court. But a district judge dismissed the case, saying the controversy was an issue of state law.

Thus far, nine cases have been filed by either Burbank or the airport over the new terminal. Seven of those are still pending.

But Burbank said that Wednesday’s appellate court decision could mark the beginning of the end of the protracted dispute.

“Since the legal rights of the city and the authority are now clear, the only question is what terminal project the Airport Authority will ask Burbank to approve,” Kirsch said. “If it’s modest and not a monstrosity, approval will be fast and the dispute will be over.”