Burbank council members seek to clarify potential impacts of Bob Hope Airport replacement terminal

Burbank City Council members weighed in last week on what issues they want studied as part of a report on the potential environmental impacts of a proposed 14-gate replacement terminal at Bob Hope Airport, calling for greater clarity about the project’s details and citing concerns about added traffic, parking and noise, among others.

City staff has prepared a letter incorporating council members’ comments, which will be discussed during a council meeting on Tuesday, with plans to submit the input by the Jan. 31 deadline for feedback on the scope of the environmental review.

The replacement terminal project could take shape as one of three 14-gate options, two of which would be 355,000-square-foot buildings, that involve demolition of the existing 232,000-square-foot terminal building. The study will also look at two “no-build” alternatives that would keep operations in the aging building, parts of which are more than 80 years old.

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority officials hosted public meetings last month to allow residents to help shape the study’s scope, and public comments are being accepted online at replaceburterminal.com.

Councilman David Gordon, who had asked for the council’s discussion of the issue, read from a lengthy list of concerns that honed in mainly on the potential traffic, parking and noise impacts of the project, as well as cumulative impacts of other anticipated or potential developments nearby.

For example, Gordon noted that the nearby “B6 parcel,” which was until recently used as vehicle storage lots, is expected to be redeveloped and could include a high-speed rail station, which could generate more traffic and parking demand.

He also asked for more detailed information about the types of potential tenants and their allotted floor space at the replacement terminal, which is to be constrained to the same number of gates as the existing terminal, but could have more room for office and retail space under the two larger options.

Echoing some similar concerns, Councilwoman Emily Gabel-Luddy added that the study should also look at future projected water use at the site and its impact on water supplies.

Officials should assess “added risks to the public” of a proposed roadway around the end of the airport’s north-south runway, she said, which could be part of the project if the terminal is to be built on the airport’s southwest quadrant — either a 355,000 square foot and 232,000 square foot option could go there.

She also wanted to know more about the “path of travel” between the preferred replacement terminal option north of the runway to the new transportation center on the southeast side, and proposed that officials look at the impacts of potentially putting a tunnel under the east-west runway to create a “more direct route.”

Councilman Will Rogers said he would submit his comments by email later in the week, and Mayor Bob Frutos was absent. Vice Mayor Jess Talamantes did not list off his concerns, but said his main focus was “how we can minimize neighborhood impacts.”

City Atty. Amy Albano said airport officials will likely have to complete the fairly extensive state-mandated environmental review probably by sometime this summer to meet their goal of putting replacement terminal plans before Burbank residents for a vote on the November ballot.

“We’ll see if they can make that deadline,” she said.

--

Chad Garland, chad.garland@latimes.com

Twitter: @chadgarland