New Terminal Is Expected to Overload Roads Near Airport

The 5.4 million passengers expected to use the Burbank Airport annually by the year 1998 will impose a significant traffic strain on the neighborhood, requiring construction of wider intersections and elevated streets, according to an environmental study released Friday.

The study--a 700-page document analyzing the effects of building a new terminal--also concluded that all five terminal plans under consideration would require a cleanup of contaminated soil and the relocation of between 11 and 38 businesses currently at or near the airport.

The new terminal has been in the planning phase since 1980, when the Federal Aviation Administration began to pressure airport officials to construct it because the present building, opened in 1930, is closer to the runways than modern safety regulations allow.

The study, which has been in the making for nearly two years, does not recommend any of the alternatives, but describes the benefits and drawbacks of each plan.

“On all of them you will have a variety of problems to resolve, and what you have to do is decide what side of the ledger you want to go on,” commented Airport Commissioner Carl W. Raggio Jr., who is also mayor of Glendale.

Raggio said he had not read the study but had expected it to outline such negative effects as increased traffic congestion.

The study examines five alternative sites and design concepts, ranging from a 670,000-square-foot facility with 27 aircraft loading gates to a 465,000-square-foot terminal with 19 gates. Two of the alternatives would split the terminal by putting the ticket sales and parking structure on one side of the runway and the boarding gates on the other. The two sections would be connected by an underground tunnel.

One of the “split-terminal” alternatives, which would locate the ticket sales and parking structure near a residential neighborhood next to the intersection of Sherman Way and Clybourn Avenue, would be prohibited by Los Angeles city zoning codes, the study said. A portion of the airport falls outside the Burbank city boundary and within the city of Los Angeles.

Several airport commissioners have said that the favored candidate is a two-level, 670,000-square-foot facility on about 140 acres of land on the northeast boundary of the airport. The land, owned by the Lockheed Corp., had been used in the past for secret government projects by the Lockheed advanced military design group nicknamed “the skunk works.”

Depending on which alternative is chosen, between seven and 10 nearby street intersections would reach traffic capacity by 1999 due to the increased passenger volume, according to the study. By the year 2010, when the airport is expected to attract about 10 million passengers a year, between 11 and 15 intersections will be significantly affected, it said.

To alleviate the congestion, the study suggests re-striping existing intersections, purchasing additional rights of way to construct new traffic lanes and even building elevated streets. The study does not say how much the traffic measures would cost.

Robert W. Garcin, president of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, said he expected the study to detail the traffic problems generated by increased passenger volume. But he said airport officials plan to connect the airport to several transportation projects, including a light-rail line and a commuter rail line, to alleviate the traffic congestion.

The split terminal alternative that involves building a ticket sales and parking structure on the northwest section of the airport would displace 38 businesses and eight single-family homes at or near the airport, the study said. The alternative favored by some airport authority members would displace 11 businesses.

The study recommends purchasing all of the displaced homes and businesses and providing property owners with relocation benefits. The loss of those businesses and homes would reduce property taxes to the cities of Burbank and Los Angeles, the report says, but would be replaced by taxes on profits earned by tenants using the new terminal.

The study also concludes that all the plans under consideration would require a cleanup of soil contamination caused by solvents, airline fuels and other chemicals that have leaked into the ground. But the study did not analyze the cost of the cleanup.

Garcin said the Lockheed Corp., which previously owned the entire airport, will most likely be responsible for most of the soil contamination cleanup. Garcin added that the extent of the cleanup probably will not play a role in deciding which site to choose.

“Until they have identified the cost and that has been settled, we just have to stand in the wings,” he said.

NEXT STEP

The environmental study was released Friday to begin a 60-day public review period. During that time, the study will be available in the Burbank city clerk’s office and public libraries in Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, North Hollywood, Sherman Oaks, Sun Valley and Van Nuys. A formal hearing on the study will be scheduled for later this summer. After the public review period, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority will schedule a meeting to pick a terminal alternative. The earliest the new terminal could be in operation is 1998.