October 16, 2001

City of Burbank Statement

The City of Burbank today filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court asking the Court to help the City determine its obligations to enforce the Measure A initiative. Measure A was adopted by the voters on October 9, 2001.

"Measure A includes requirements that may violate state law and the California Constitution," explained Burbank City Attorney Dennis A. Barlow. "The California Constitution limits the ability of the City simply to decide what parts of the law to enforce and what parts to ignore. Because we believe certain parts are illegal, City staff needs clarification on the legality of many sections and only the courts can provide that clarification. We regret the need to file a lawsuit but this is the only way we can get the guidance we need."

Unfortunately, California law places the City in an impossible position. The City is required to enforce all laws – including initiatives that are adopted by the voters. But the City is prohibited from enforcing laws that are unconstitutional or illegal. City officials would violate the law no matter what they did – if they enforce Measure A, they would be enforcing a law that the City’s lawyers say is illegal. If they did not enforce Measure A, they would be making a decision that only the courts should make.

"The City supports the principles of Measure A. We should have a mandatory curfew, controls on future growth, and voter support before a new terminal is built," said City Manager Robert R. "Bud" Ovrom. "But initiatives, in general, and national aviation matters, in particular, are legally very complex. Although well-intentioned, the initiative was not drafted precisely enough to accomplish what the proponents apparently wanted," noted Ovrom.

The lawsuit, against the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, seeks a declaratory judgment that Measure A is illegal and cannot be enforced. The City’s complaint contains eight claims: (1) that Measure A impermissibly delegates City Council powers to the voters; (2) that requiring 2/3 vote for amendments to Measure A is unconstitutional; (3) that Measure A exceeds the initiative powers granted by the California Constitution; (4) that Measure A conflicts with the City’s General Plan; (5) that the Measure conflicts with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); (6) that Measure A is unconstitutionally vague because of imprecise and contradictory language; (7) that the Measure imposes conditions in excess of the City’s constitutional powers; and (8) that the combination of these defects make Measure A entirely invalid.

The City filed its complaint so soon after adoption of Measure A because the City will have to take several actions almost immediately to comply with Measure A. Among those actions is a City Council decision on the Airport Authority’s application to move two parking lots adjacent to the Airport. "Without guidance from the Court, the City would have to apply Measure A which would doom or delay the parking lot relocation for years. We believe that we should consider this project but Measure A would require a 2/3 vote of the people if we wanted to approve it," Ovrom said. Proponents of Measure A asserted during the election campaign that this project is covered by Measure A.

There are other pending or potential approvals that may be subject to Measure A, including approvals for the Zelman Partners’ development of parking on the former A-1 North site, relocation of Desmond’s parking lot for studio trailers, and routine building permit approvals for Airport maintenance projects. Measure A does not, by its express language, exclude such routine matters.

In the week since Measure A was adopted, both proponents and opponents of the Measure have been quoted in the press with their own interpretations of the initiative. Since making their decision to file this lawsuit, the City Council received an Open Letter from the leadership of the ROAR organization explaining their view of the meaning of Measure A and a letter from the Airport Authority explaining their position on law. While the City Council appreciates hearing from interested City residents, none of these statements provide the kind of legal support that the City needs before it can enforce Measure A. As the California Court of Appeal stated in a 1995 case, only the ballot arguments can be used to reveal the intent of the voters. The general rule in California is that the views of drafters of an initiative are not considered to be relevant in determining the meaning of an initiative.

The City recognizes that many people have views on the legality of Measure A. "In order to ensure that interested residents have an opportunity to express their views, the City Council has instructed our lawyers not to oppose efforts by interested parties such as the ROAR organization to intervene in the lawsuit." Ovrom commented.

# # #