Flight Curfew Measure Gives Burbank City Leaders Pause

The Burbank City Council is raising legal questions about a city ballot initiative that would impose a mandatory flight curfew at Burbank Airport as a condition for building a new terminal, officials said Monday.

City officials said they are concerned the measure, which has qualified for the ballot, could be overturned in court on several grounds, including interference with federal law designed to keep the air transportation system operating without local interference.

“The city is evaluating a whole series of questions [concerning the measure] under state and federal law and the state and federal constitution,” said Peter Kirsch, special counsel for Burbank on airport issues. “And that may affect the implementation and validity of this initiative.”

If approved, the initiative would bar the Burbank City Council from approving “the construction, expansion or financing of an airport facility” unless a series of conditions have been met. Those conditions include a ban on all nonemergency air traffic from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and caps on the number of flights and passengers--measures that airport officials say cannot be implemented without a lengthy, federally approved noise study.

The initiative also requires the city to hold an election and obtain a two-thirds vote of the electorate before the city can approve a new terminal.

That provision conflicts with state law, which mandates a two-thirds vote only for new taxes or bond measures, said Phil Recht, a Los Angeles attorney specializing in airport-related ballot measures.

“It certainly raises an issue with regard to the validity of trying to impose a two-thirds vote requirement on a local land-use issue,” Recht said.

Burbank City Councilman David Laurell said flaws in the measure leave it open to challenge by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, which wants to build the new terminal. But he and other city officials stopped short of saying they would file suit to disqualify the initiative, saying the city is still reviewing its options.

Airport Authority spokesman Victor Gill refused comment when asked if the authority would sue to overturn the initiative, which is set for a public vote in July.

The initiative is sponsored by Restore Our Airport Rights, which collected 7,814 signatures to qualify the measure last month.

Former Burbank city councilman and the group’s co-founder, Ted McConkey, said he disagrees with those who argue that the initiative is illegal or unconstitutional and is convinced the council will sue to keep it off the ballot.

“We are putting restrictions on what the city can do in terms of allowing the airport to expand,” McConkey said. “We are in no way imposing any restrictions on the airport itself or on interstate commerce. This has to do with the council.”

But Charles Lombardo, who is one of Burbank’s three representatives to the Airport Authority, said the measure would stifle any kind of improvement at the airport.

“The airport won’t be able to put a sewer pipe in without having a vote of the people,” Lombardo said.