Plan to Settle Burbank Airport Suit Grounded

A group of residents affected by Burbank Airport noise objected Friday to a proposed settlement by the city of Los Angeles of an environmental lawsuit, calling the deal a “sellout” of concerned communities.

After hearing the opposition, the Los Angeles City Council decided to delay a vote on the settlement for three weeks to give the public more time to examine the proposal.

Under the proposed agreement, announced Thursday, Los Angeles would drop its 7-year-old lawsuit challenging the environmental studies of the expansion of the Burbank Airport terminal.

The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority wants to build a new 14-gate, $300 million terminal to handle the growing demand at the airfield.

In return for Los Angeles dropping its legal challenge, the Airport Authority would study how alternative runway use, including easterly takeoffs over Burbank, can reduce noise and whether current noise measuring methods are accurate.

The authority would also conduct noise and traffic studies and seek federal approval of a 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew for flights.

“There are some things in here that look very good on first glance,” Councilman Joel Wachs said.

But he and Councilman Mike Feuer are questioning who would be responsible for making sure the conditions are met.

Opponents said the proposed agreement gives the Airport Authority too much control over noise and traffic studies and fails to include a cap on flights from the airport.

The authority cannot be trusted to make a good-faith effort to reduce noise, the critics said.

“Simply put, it is not in the interest of those citizens of Los Angeles,” said Lev Mailer of Studio City. “The deal will let the foxes assess the chickens’ problems.”

Lori Dinkin, president of the Valley Village Homeowners Assn., called the proposed deal a sellout of residents who have fought for decades to get stronger noise controls at the airport.

*

Tom Paterson of Valley Village urged the council not to give up the legal leverage the lawsuit provides until the Airport Authority takes stronger action to reduce noise.

“I am very angry and very disappointed,” Paterson said.

Dinkin also criticized City Atty. James Hahn for attempting to work out a settlement behind closed doors, without sufficient involvement from the interested public.

“We are very angry,” Dinkin said. “I find this very sneaky, and we won’t forget this. He [Hahn] has definitely stabbed us in the back.”

Although the proposal was on the council’s agenda for a closed session, Wachs objected. The council then agreed to discuss it in open session.

“It’s a stunningly bad process of government,” Wachs said. “We simply can’t do this kind of thing behind closed doors. There has to be an opportunity for the involved communities to know what is being presented.”

Deputy City Atty. Keith Pritsker said he had a professional obligation to submit the proposed agreement in confidence to the City Council.