CITY SHOULD SIMPLY COOPERATE ON TERMINAL; AIRPORT EXPANSION WILL GO FORWARD; THE ONLY QUESTION IS AT WHAT PRICE.

Byline: Thomas E. Greer Local View

WE'RE now at the two-year mark since the legal melee between the city of Burbank and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority officially began with the city's challenge to the environmental impact statement for the airport's replacement terminal project.

By June 1996, the spree of lawsuits that would capture news coverage for the next two years was in full swing. But, we are now at a point where the airport has prevailed in court on every major issue, and it's time to step back and see what has emerged.

Burbank's attorneys laid down a three-pronged plan of attack aimed at giving the city the final word over the terminal. They reasoned that the city could impose conditions on airport operations by holding the project hostage.

The city's goals were threefold: to undo the 1991 amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement forming the Airport Authority, which clarified the original noise contour limit for the airport and was signed by Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena; to discredit the project's environmental impact statement; to stop the Airport Authority's effort to buy the land proposed as the terminal site. Underlying it all was the city's desire to take control of the airport.

None of these goals has been achieved.

A Superior Court turned away the challenge to the JPA, and the 1991 amendment stands.

A federal appellate court upheld the environmental impact statement, which had been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration.

A Superior Court ruled that the Airport Authority could buy the 140 acres of land, which has been under airport control since last year.

The Airport Authority still owns and operates the airport. The hostage was not taken; the project goes forward.

Deepening the city's dilemma, Southwest Airlines CEO Herb Kelleher wrote former Burbank Mayor Bob Kramer last December saying further constraints on airline operations were not acceptable.

And in March, the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration issued a statement that neither the Burbank Airport nor the FAA has the power to impose the mandatory curfew or other access restraints demanded by Burbank as its price for approving the terminal.

Burbank says it will appeal on every front, but meanwhile, terminal tasks continue to be checked off. This spring, consultants to the Airport Authority presented an initial conceptual design for the terminal following a year's planning and consultation with regional stakeholders.

The next step is the attempt to identify costs of the project and financing options for the authority in order to assess financial feasibility. In due course, the authority also will need to choose a specific architectural theme and commit to move forward in the design process to a point where construction is ready to begin.

Today, airport visitors and passers-by on Hollywood Way can readily see workers on the former Lockheed B-6 property removing the last traces of concrete slabs and foundations left over from the ``Skunk Works'' days. Although the airport has possession of the land, the actual sale must wait until Lockheed and the authority settle on terms or have them imposed by a court. In any case, that will happen well in time to make the site ready for future construction.

It is now unmistakable that there will one day be a new terminal on that land. The only open question is whether the final stretch will be a bumpy ride or a smooth one. Burbank can leave a legacy of throwing up new obstacles, as it has signaled by recently filing a new lawsuit over land use issues, or it can find a way to assist in the process of creating the best possible terminal for the 21st century.

Two years ago, Burbank's out-of-town lawyers told Burbank citizens they would not spend all of the $2.5 million the city had budgeted for airport legal issues after the first $500,000 set aside ran out in barely six months. Now city officials acknowledge they will have spent $6 million by the end of June, and the meter is still running with an additional $1.5 million slated for the coming fiscal year and millions more possible after that. To defend against this legal assault, the Airport Authority has spent $2.2 million, about a third of the city's tab.

The Burbank City Council won't say it yet, but there are already those in Burbank who say that after this string of court defeats, it's not in the public's interest to throw good money after bad. That is a judgment for Burbank residents to debate.

The Airport Authority has long held that the overriding public interest in building a new terminal adequate for the number of passengers using the airport today and located a safe distance from the runways, was the proper policy to pursue. This is a sound civic project and an eminently reasonable one. In light of the recent court rulings, it now appears more likely than ever that this one public interest will be served, sooner rather than later.