DENNIS A. BARLOW, State Bar No. 63849
TERRY B. STEVENSON, State Bar No. 72821
CITY OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA
275 East Olive Avenue
Burbank, California 91510
Telephone: (818) 238-5700

PERRY M. ROSEN
PETER J. KIRSCH
W. ERIC PILSK
CUTLER & STANFIELD, L.L.P.
700 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 624-8400

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant
CITY OF BURBANK

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

WHEREAS on May 1, 1997, plaintiff City of Burbank (City”) filed a complaint in this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent defendant Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (“Authority”) from acquiring an approximately 130-acre parcel of property, partially located in the City, known as the B-6 Property, in violation of California Public Utilities Code § 21661.6 (“Section 21661.6”); and

WHEREAS on June 6, 1997, the State of California intervened in this action as a plaintiff; and

WHEREAS on July 23, 1997, the Authority filed a Cross-Complaint against the City and the State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Section 21661.6 from applying to the Authority’s acquisition of the B-6 Property; and

WHEREAS on October 31, 1997, the trial court, the Honorable Carl J. West presiding, ruled that Section 21661.6 (1) does not discriminate against out-of-state commerce; (2) does not place burdens on interstate commerce greater than the benefits conferred upon the state and local governments; and (3) does not subject interstate commerce to inconsistent regulations, but denied Burbank’s Motion for Summary Adjudication on the Authority’s claim and defense that Section 21661.6 violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution because Burbank had not met its initial burden of showing that the Authority could not establish at least one element of its Commerce Clause claim; and

WHEREAS on November 18, 1997, the trial court, the Honorable Carl J. West presiding, entered summary adjudication in favor of the City and the State dismissing the Authority’s claims that Section 21661.6 was preempted by federal law and that Section 21661.6 violated the Due Process Clause; and

WHEREAS on February 16, 1998, the Authority having withdrawn its other claims under state law, the trial court, the Honorable Carl J. West presiding, entered summary judgment in favor of the Authority on the ground the City had delegated its powers under Section 21661.6 to the Authority; and

WHEREAS on March 10, 1998, the trial court, the Honorable Carl J. West presiding, entered Final Judgment in favor of the Authority; and

WHEREAS on April 20, 1998, the City and the State timely filed Notices of Appeal; and

WHEREAS on May 5, 1999, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision on delegation and affirmed the trial court’s decisions on federal preemption and due process (City of Burbank et al. v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, 72 Cal. App. 4th 366 (1999)); and

WHEREAS on August 11, 1999, the California Supreme Court denied the Authority’s Petition for Review of the Court of Appeal’s decision; and

WHEREAS on August 19, 1999, the Court of Appeal issued the remittitur; and

WHEREAS the Authority has concurrently filed a Request for Dismissal, without prejudice, of the unresolved Commerce Clause Claim; and

WHEREAS all claims and defenses raised and asserted in this case have been finally disposed of; and

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1.As determined by the Court Of Appeal, That California Public Utilities Code § 21661.6:

a.is valid and applicable to the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority;

b.is not, on its face, preempted by federal law;

c.does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and

d.grants the authority and duty to approve or disapprove the acquisition of land in Burbank for the purpose of expanding or enlarging the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport to the Burbank City Council and such authority and duty has not been delegated to the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority.

2.That judgment shall be and hereby is entered in favor of the City of Burbank, the State of California and the California Department of Transportation and against the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority.

3.That, except for any claim or defense the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority may have under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority’s Cross-Complaint against the City of Burbank, the State of California and the California Department of Transportation and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority’s Affirmative Defenses to the claims asserted by the City of Burbank, the State of California and the California Department of Transportation are hereby dismissed on the merits with prejudice.

4.That the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority shall take nothing against the City of Burbank, the State of California or the California Department of Transportation by reason of its Cross-Complaint on file in this action.

5.That the Parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys fees.

6.That the Clerk shall enter this Judgment forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Presented By:

DENNIS A. BARLOW, City Attorney
Terry B. Stevenson, Sr. Assistant
CITY OF BURBANK
CUTLER & STANFIELD, LLP
Perry M. Rosen
Peter J. Kirsch

By: ________________
Perry M. Rosen
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant
CITY OF BURBANK

The State of California and
The California Department of Transportation

By: ________________
Susan L. Durbin

CONSENT OF THE BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA AIRPORT AUTHORITY

On August __, 1999, the City and the Authority executed an Escrow Agreement and related agreements and other documents, including a [Proposed] Final Order of Condemnation (“Final Order”) in the action entitled Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Lockheed Corporation, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 155222 (the “Condemnation Action”). The Authority’s dismissal of its Commerce Clause claim and its consent to the filing and entry of this Final Judgment areis conditioned upon and subject to the entry and recordation of the Final Order, or an alternative form of final order approved by the Authority, in the Condemnation Action.

McDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY

By: ________________
Thomas A. Ryan
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority