Proposed Burbank Airport Terminal Debated : Transit: Officials cite economic benefits at public session. Residents complain about noise problems.

A public meeting on the future of Burbank Airport became a debate Tuesday night over the relative merits of dollars and din, the airport’s financial contribution to the city weighed against the annoyance it causes some neighbors.

A televised joint session of the Burbank City Council and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority on plans to build a larger airport terminal drew a standing-room only crowd, which heard airport administrators detail its economic importance.

Using charts to underscore their points, they said the 435-acre facility generates $725,000 annually in property taxes, $300,000 each year in sales taxes and about 3,000 jobs directly linked to airport operations.

“We’re here. We provide to the economic tax base. We are not an economic deadbeat,” said airport Controller Dios Marrero. “We, as an airport, expect to be the next boost in the arm for Burbank.”

Yet for many people living in the 2,000 homes directly impacted by airplane noise--by airport administrators’ count--the airport has become more of a pain in the neck than a shot in the arm, especially with plans to quadruple the size of the terminal to 670,000 square feet.

The plans to construct a larger terminal have been the subject of heated debate for years, with critics accusing airport administrators of minimizing potential environmental problems.

A recently updated environmental impact study indicates that the larger new terminal would generate a number of adverse environmental effects, but would not significantly increase aircraft noise.

One woman who telephoned her comments to Tuesday night’s meeting complained that airplane noise forces her to watch television “with a remote control in one hand to turn up the volume” and “my TV with captions on,” referring to the optional subtitles for those with hearing problems.

Another caller said: “I don’t think we should shoot for being a secondary LAX just because there is the potential for business.”

The airport administration must replace its current terminal to comply with FAA regulations; the building, constructed over 60 years ago, is too close to runways to meet modern safety standards.

Airport officials have said that the larger $185-million terminal is needed to accommodate an expected increase in passengers over the next 16 years.

Airport officials have said that they expect that after the new terminal is built, it will handle about 150 flight departures per day, about double the current number.

But airport officials say noise impacts will be lessened by quieter commercial planes in the future.

Airport officials say the present 163,000-square-foot facility will serve at least 4.7 million passengers this year, compared to 4.3 million last year.

Councilwoman Susan Spanos asked whether the increased passenger demand has been influenced by the marketing efforts of airport officials.

Marrero responded: “Well, maybe a little bit.” But, he added, low-fare carriers such as Southwest Airlines are the principal driving force behind increased passenger counts.

Although a few people in attendance supported the airport’s expansion plan, a larger number spoke against it.

“We have opposed the airport expansion, and nothing we heard tonight has changed our mind one bit,” said Ted McConkey, president of the Burbank Rancho Homeowners Assn.

The Burbank City Council has “absolutely no control over that airport,” he told the council members. “Airport commissioners don’t report to you. So give us a break.”

Plans for the new terminal have been slowed in part by a court order that requires airport officials to re-examine the potential for noise, traffic and air pollution that a new terminal might bring.

In addition, the city of Los Angeles has sued the airport’s governing board, charging that the board failed to adequately address those issues.

Expansion of the Burbank Airport terminal has been a hot topic since 1975, when neighbors of the facility accused Burbank city officials of acquiring the facility solely for the sake of expanding its operations.

The joint powers agreement among Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena that created the airport’s governing board in the late 1970s prohibited runway expansion and required that the airport make every effort to mitigate noise.

In recent years, the Burbank Airport has grown increasingly popular as a more convenient alternative to Los Angeles International Airport.

Operating revenues for the 1994-95 fiscal year are projected to be $56.4 million, more than double those of the past two years.

NEXT STEP

The next step in the debate over the possible construction of a larger terminal at Burbank Airport takes place Sept. 23, when a court hearing will be held in Los Angeles. Airport officials will be required to show a Superior Court judge an updated environmental study of the project before any further steps can be taken. The court date may be pushed back, however, airport and Los Angeles city officials say. In addition, airport officials are waiting for the Lockheed Corp. to finish cleanup work on 120 acres where they plan to locate the new terminal. It is not clear how much longer the work will take, hindering the expansion plans.