Burbank Voters to Have Say on Air Terminal

BURBANK — On a unanimous vote, the City Council has agreed to have voters approve any new Burbank Airport terminal.

“It was the prudent thing to do because it guarantees the people will have a voice in the ultimate outcome of the dispute over the airport,” said Councilman Dave Golonski, who proposed the measure. “It also does it in a simple and legally defensible way.”

Tuesday’s decision followed the council’s refusal to place a more restrictive ballot measure before voters. In addition to requiring voter approval for any new terminal exceeding 200,000 square feet, that proposal would have imposed a mandatory 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew and a 10% cap on future flights and passengers.

The more restrictive measure was originally proposed as an initiative by the group Restore Our Airport Rights, or ROAR. The city clerk disqualified the ROAR initiative two weeks ago because signature petitions failed to include the names of the measure’s chief proponents, former City Councilman Ted McConkey and Howard Rothenbach.

After the disqualification, Burbank Mayor Stacey Murphy and Councilman Bob Kramer sought to put the ROAR measure on the ballot by council vote. Last week, the council deadlocked 2 to 2 on the issue, with Councilman Bill Wiggins absent.

On Tuesday, Wiggins joined Councilmen David Laurell and Golonski in voting against putting the issue on the ballot.

The council majority argued the city had to be consistent in applying election rules and that approving the initiative would have effectively set the city up as the initiative’s sponsor, opening the door for litigation.

“The city attorney cautioned me that the initiative was constitutionally flawed,” said Laurell. “Ethically, I wasn’t going to be party to it.”

“I’m sure that there have been groups that have had initiatives that have been rejected in the past on legal technicalities,” Wiggins added. “I’ve also seen potential council candidates unable to have their name placed on the ballot because their petitions did not legally qualify. We shouldn’t depart from what the law requires.”

Kramer, who would not directly address his colleagues’ arguments, expressed disappointment with the decision.

“I hate to see it not go on the ballot because of a technicality,” he said. “But that’s what happened.”

After the council defeated the ROAR proposal, Golonski introduced his motion requiring that any new terminal plan go to voters for a binding vote. The council had previously agreed to an advisory vote.

Under Golonski’s proposal, voters will get a chance to weigh in on a any new terminal plan approved by the City Council. Negotiators for the city and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority tentatively agreed on a 14-gate, 330,000-square-foot terminal last year. The plan has come under attack from residents, airlines, the Federal Aviation Administration and others, and has not been accepted or rejected by the City Council.

ROAR leaders, who claimed to have gathered 7,400 signatures, said they have not given up on their initiative and may launch another signature-gathering campaign.

“We plan to explore every avenue to keep this measure alive,” Rothenbach said. “I’ve already spoken with several people who are interested in writing and circulating a new initiative in time to qualify for the February 2001 municipal election.”

McConkey, ROAR’s treasurer, said he received calls from local business people offering to contribute several thousand dollars to legally challenge the city clerk’s disqualification of the measure.

For the past 20 years, the airport has been trying to build a new terminal to better meet passenger demand and relocate the existing 1930s-era facility, which federal officials say is too close to the runway. After a bitter legal and political struggle, city and airport negotiators signed a tentative deal in August.

Negotiators tried to appease local residents by limiting the operating hours of the terminal, using $1.5 million in passenger fees to offset lost property taxes and permanently banning easterly takeoffs.

Airport officials had no direct comment on the City Council’s vote or the possibility of additional petition drives.