AIRPORT RESTRICTIONS FULLY LEGAL, ACTIVIST SAYS.

Byline: Staff Writer

BURBANK - A community activist who is intervening in the city's legal challenge of voter-approved Measure A filed court papers Tuesday asking for the initiative to be declared constitutional.

``Plaintiff City of Burbank is attempting to circumvent the will of its voters by having one of its own laws declared unconstitutional and invalid,'' activist Mike Noland claimed in court documents. ``It's not authorized to do so'' under the Election Code.

Passed by voters in October, Measure A requires the city to obtain a curfew and a cap on flights at Burbank Airport before agreeing to any new passenger terminal plans.

The initiative also calls for two-thirds voter approval before the city gives final consent to the construction of a new terminal.

City officials have claimed that the requirements grant voters powers that can only be exercised by the City Council under California law.

Noland, however, countered that it's hypocritical for the city to challenge the legality of Measure A when it sponsored, and ultimately enacted, Measure B, which also gives the voters veto power over a new terminal.

``The city already obligated itself to obtain prior voter approval for its discretionary acts regarding the Airport Authority's expansion,'' Noland said in his legal papers.

City Attorney Dennis Barlow, who had not yet read Noland's court filings, said Measure A and Measure B are ``entirely different issues.''

``We don't restrict what we can discuss with the airport to try to reach some kind of resolution,'' he said. ``That's what Measure A does.''

In his court papers, Noland further argued that the city is being disingenuous when it claimed that Measure A provisions are vague and cannot be interpreted.

He noted that after the passage of Measure A, the City Council voted on two airport-related projects - one to grant permits to replace an electrical panel and another to build a parking lot near the airport.

Barlow characterized those as ``isolated circumstances'' and argued that the city would not know how to apply Measure A when confronted with a broad variety of airport issues.

``What they are suggesting is the council take a chance and face a severe liability either way we go,'' he said.

Finally, Noland argued in his court filings that Measure A's two-thirds voter approval requirement is legal, contrary to what the city has stated.

``Because Burbank is a charter city, it may regulate its own elections, even with provisions contrary to the state's general laws,'' he said.

Barlow, however, noted that the courts threw out Measure F in Orange County - a ballot initiative that required two-thirds voter approval for an airport and other projects to be built at the former El Toro military base.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled and later an appellate court judge affirmed that the measure interfered with the authority of the Orange County Board of the Supervisors and essential government functions of land-use planning.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz is scheduled to hear the Measure A case April 17.