Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

Kramer alone on transfer vote

Paul Clinton

CIVIC CENTER -- Critics of the city’s tentative terminal deal are

finding an ally in Councilman Bob Kramer.

At Tuesday’s meeting, in a 4-1 vote, the council voted to transfer 49


acres of land to Burbank Airport. Kramer opposed it.

Kramer, who has successfully pushed for a public advisory vote on the

Aug. 4 Framework for Settlement, said he didn’t believe the airport’s

promise to leave the 49-acre property vacant. After reading aloud


excerpts from a city staff report supporting the airport’s claims, he

deemed the report “less than honest.”

“I just seems to me that they shouldn’t take title from the land until

we’ve heard from the voters,” Kramer said.

Other council members strongly disagreed with Kramer. Councilman Dave

Golonski acknowledged that the title-transfer papers are convoluted but

he said they bolster the city’s legal right to control what is built on

the 49-acre property, which represents more than a third of the 130-acre


parcel the airport has purchased from Lockheed Martin Corp.

“You can’t take the individual sentences out of context,” Golonski

said about Kramer’s remarks. “It’s spelled out pretty clear here that the

application before us doesn’t allow construction.”

Kramer’s statements came on the heels of a hailstorm of public

criticism of the proposed framework deal Tuesday. Many of those who spoke

before the council didn’t specifically comment on the land transfer,

which was the matter at hand, but instead voiced their displeasure with


the expansion plans in general.

Burbank resident Kevin Muldoon said council members other than Kramer

brushed off the criticism because they have already made up their minds

to support the framework.

“This (hearing) wasn’t for framework input,” Muldoon said Thursday.

“Their strings are being pulled by someone and they’re going ahead. I

really don’t think my public input will change their minds.”

Councilman David Laurell, however, said he has not reached a final

decision about the framework and still has concerns. Laurell said he

valued the public remarks.

“Is the framework the perfect thing? That is not what the framework

is,” Laurell said. “What we’re trying to do is get (the terminal

expansion dispute) resolved without conceding our core principles.”

Kramer comments Tuesday were his most critical yet on any aspect of

the proposed expansion deal. He said he remains unconvinced the 49-acre

parcel will not be used for airport expansion.

“Who are we kidding when we say they are not buying the land to build

a terminal,” he said.