Airport Expansion Case Can Proceed

BURBANK — In a decision that further muddies the waters in the Burbank Airport dispute, a state appeals court has ruled the city of Burbank can proceed with one of its half dozen court cases against the Airport Authority on the issue of terminal expansion.

Last year, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge dismissed Burbank’s claim that the airport’s proposed new terminal would aggravate aircraft noise in nearby residential areas.

But Friday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court, allowing Burbank to argue that the terminal project would negatively affect the so-called noise-impact area.

Under state rules, no more than 370 acres around Burbank Airport can fall within what is described as its “noise footprint.” The footprint’s area is derived through a complicated mathematical formula that uses aircraft noise level measurements in different neighborhoods to arrive at an abstract depiction of an area most heavily impacted. But a listener standing just inside or outside the footprint boundary would hear little or no difference in jet roar.

Burbank’s special counsel on airport issues, Peter Kirsch, hailed the appeals court decision as one of the most important victories for Burbank in the long-running dispute over the airport.

“It’s not just a lawyer’s victory, but a victory for those people most affected by noise at the airport,” Kirsch said. “It goes to the airport authority’s key defense for why they refused to address the noise problem and their legal obligation to deal with it.”

But airport lawyer Richard Simon minimized the appeals court ruling, noting Burbank had set out to block the terminal project by trying to shrink the noise-impact area.

“It is a defeat for them because the court rejected their claim that the noise footprint must continually shrink,” said Simon. “It is a defeat for us because we have to go back and try this case.”

Simon added that a federal appeals court has already upheld a 1996 federal environmental review approving construction of a larger terminal at Burbank Airport, which in the end may take precedence over whatever is decided in state courts.

“The factual question in this case is whether the authority has violated or will violate the ceiling on noise,” Kirsch said of the most recent case. “Now, we have to go back to trial on that very question.”

The state appeals court decision is the latest development in the fight over the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority’s plans to expand the existing 14-gate terminal to 19 gates. The larger dispute stretches back to a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that barred the city of Burbank from interfering in airport safety and operations.

Thus far, about a half dozen cases are pending in state and federal courts over the airport. Burbank city officials have argued that construction of a new terminal would bring more noise and traffic to annoy their residents.

*

The airport authority has countered that the existing terminal is too small to accommodate the current annual level of 5 million travelers, and that passenger demand determines the amount of traffic at the airport, not the size of the building or number of gates.

Since 1996, both sides have waged an expensive court battle over the proposed terminal and have each managed victories.

In one of the biggest cases, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl J. West ruled last February that Burbank had relinquished certain powers over the airport expansion by signing the joint powers agreement with the cities of Glendale and Pasadena that established the airport authority.

In May, Burbank filed another case in state court, maintaining that land purchased by the airport is zoned for manufacturing and would require a new zoning designation from the city before any airport-related construction could take place.