Burbank Airport Neighbors Demand New Takeoff Routes : Environment: Residents to the south want some planes to take off to the east, over cities that own the airport. Pilots say takeoff patterns are based on safety.

The way Jack Green sees it, if he has to live with the noise of jetliners from Burbank Airport flying over his Studio City home every day, then Burbank and Glendale residents east of the airport should suffer some of the same.

That is the message he and other San Fernando Valley homeowners who live south of the airport plan to send next month when airport officials hold hearings on a final environmental impact report for a new terminal.

They will run into opposition from Federal Aviation Administration officials, airport representatives and pilots, who say the present air traffic patterns are based on safety factors.

Green and members of homeowners groups in neighborhoods where airport noise is loudest said last week that they will press the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority to build the terminal on a site that they believe will encourage pilots to take off to the east over those cities that own the airport. Almost 90% of planes now take off to the south and circle east and then north over the eastern San Fernando Valley.

“We believe that what we are asking for is fair,” said Green, a retired aerospace engineer and member of the Studio City Residents Assn.

One of the most prominent advocates of the “share-the-noise” proposal is Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), whose district includes Sherman Oaks, part of Studio City and other areas where airport noise is especially loud.

He said that if the new terminal is built on a parcel northwest of where the two airport runways cross, pilots will find it more convenient to taxi to the west end of the airport and take off toward the east.

“It’s not fair to dump 100% of the noise on a small part of less-affluent homeowners south of the airport in Burbank, Studio City and Sherman Oaks,” he said. “I think those people are entitled to some equity.”

For years, some San Fernando Valley residents have unsuccessfully pressed the airport authority to divert more takeoffs to the east to distribute the airport noise more equitably.

A recent noise study found that 1,493 houses and 3,985 residents--most of them living directly south and west of the airport--fall within an area where a statistical noise measurement exceeds 65 decibels. The study said 118 homes and 315 residents are within an area where the noise measurement exceeds 70 decibels.

By comparison, normal conversation heard three feet away measures 65 decibels, and a typical power lawn mower measures 97 at the same distance.

Now, residents hope that by locating the new terminal in the northwest quadrant of the airport they will encourage pilots to voluntarily depart to the east.

But FAA officials, airport representatives and pilots say the terminal location will not influence takeoff choices. Pilots choose to take off toward the south, they say, because the southbound runway is longer, runs slightly downhill, usually has more advantageous winds and faces away from the Verdugo Mountains, which confront an eastbound plane immediately after takeoff.

Pilots and FAA officials said that eastward takeoffs are usually not as safe as those in other directions and that they believe neighborhood noise concerns should not dictate the departure routes.

“The problem we have . . . is that non-aviation people are telling pilots how to operate,” said Dick Russell, a Calabasas aviation safety consultant. Russell, who flew out of Burbank when he was a United Airlines pilot, is an adviser to Friends of the Airport, a pro-airport group.

The debate is expected to heat up next month when KPMG Peat Marwick, a San Francisco-based airport consulting firm, completes a final environmental report designed to help the airport authority determine the environmentally appropriate size and location for the new terminal.

The FAA has been pressuring the airport authority, which owns the airport, to build a new terminal because the present building is closer to the runways than modern safety regulations allow. The terminal, opened in 1930, comes within 313 feet of the center of the runway and federal rules now require buildings to be set back at least 750 feet.

In 1986, the FAA banned commercial jets from taking off to the east because of concern that parked planes and the passenger terminal are too close to the east-west runway.

In addition to the site favored by Berman, the airport authority is considering one on the airport’s northeast corner where Lockheed Corp. is selling off a large chunk of land as part of its move out of Burbank. The site is called the “Skunk Works,” after the Lockheed team of that name that worked on secret military projects for many years.

Airport officials say the Skunk Works site is the leading candidate.

Robert Garcin, president of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, said the Lockheed land is the most logical alternative because it has better access to the Golden State Freeway and other major thoroughfares. The airport is already in the process of moving its control tower to that site.

Air Traffic Manager Sidney Allen said he also prefers the Skunk Works land because of freeway access. “Just from my point of view, the northeast corner seems like the more practical place to put it,” he said.

Brian Bowman, vice president of the airport authority, said the site supported by Berman and noise protesters who live south of the airport is a bad choice because it would require passengers to enter the airport through residential neighborhoods near Sherman Way and Clybourn Avenue.

He said the northwest site would place the new terminal closer to the residential area, increasing the potential for more noise complaints.

“The arguments I’ve heard on this just don’t hold water,” he said.

Garcin, one of three Glendale representatives on the board, said he has often debated the issue with Berman and residents and still believes pilots should make takeoff decisions based on flying safety factors and not on political pressure from residents.

“It’s not a rich-poor issue,” he said. “It’s not a political issue.”

Burbank Mayor Michael Hastings, a member of the airport authority, agreed. “It’s the pilot’s call when all is said and done,” he said.

The ultimate choice on takeoff directions will remain with pilots, because they bear the responsibility for the plane’s safety, the FAA said.

Another issue likely to be debated in the environmental impact hearings is how large the new terminal should be.

In a preliminary report last year, Peat Marwick predicted that a massive new terminal will be needed to handle passenger volume that will double within 15 years and double again by 2015.

The airport, served by six airlines, had a record 3.4 million passengers in 1990, largely because of a fare war triggered last year by Southwest Airlines. To meet the expected demand, the consultants said, the airport will need a new $250-million terminal with 34 boarding gates, more than twice the present 15. They also said it will need more than 17,000 parking spaces, almost five times the current 3,500.

Berman, Green and other residents south of the airport oppose the construction of a larger terminal.

“Burbank Airport cannot become another international airport,” Berman said. “It is in an already built-up area.”