Burbank Airport Having Trouble Getting Expansion Off the Ground

Every morning, the sound of airplanes departing Burbank Airport jolts homeowner Lori Dinkin out of bed as well as any alarm clock.

It begins at 7 a.m. and continues intermittently throughout the day, ending as late as 2 a.m. and intruding on her life like a boisterous next-door neighbor.

“There’s no way to sleep and God help you if you’re sick in bed,” said the 75-year-old president of Burbank’s Valley Village Homeowners Assn. “It’s bad enough when you’re well. . . . Your peace has been totally disrupted.”

Worried about the potential for more noise as the airport gains popularity, Dinkin’s association has joined three other San Fernando Valley homeowners groups and the city of Los Angeles in a lawsuit seeking to halt construction of an airport terminal.

The facility’s operating board, the Airport Authority, wants to quadruple the size of the 163,000-square-foot terminal to accommodate the 10 million passengers expected to fly in and out of Burbank by 2010.

The Federal Aviation Administration has also pressured airport officials to replace the 64-year-old building because it is too close to the east-west runway.

But the new terminal will lead to noise pollution problems that were not acknowledged in an environmental impact report completed by airport officials last year, neighbors and Los Angeles officials have alleged in the lawsuit.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert H. O’Brien ordered the Airport Authority in January to redo the report, which is required under state law for building projects with the potential to significantly affect the environment. He will hear oral arguments from both sides Monday. If he finds the new report sufficient, the authority could begin design work immediately on the new terminal.

No matter who wins, the losing side can appeal, a move that could delay progress on the multimillion-dollar project for up to two more years.

“This legal stuff is getting ridiculous,” said Brian Bowman, president of the Airport Authority, which is made up of nine commissioners representing Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena. “What the city of L.A. is doing is primarily trying to harass us.”

It is the third lawsuit filed by Los Angeles city officials, acting on behalf of residents in the southeast Valley, against the Airport Authority since 1977. In each instance, Los Angeles has disputed the adequacy of the airport’s environmental reports.

In the first lawsuit, the Los Angeles City Council sought to block the authority’s purchase of the airport site. The case was settled in 1977. The deal allowed the authority to buy the land from Lockheed Air Terminal, while airport officials agreed to take “all feasible and necessary” steps to comply with state noise standards, among other things.

Ten years ago, Los Angeles again took Burbank to court, seeking to head off plans for doubling the size of the airport. That expansion was canceled when the authority could not arrange for purchase of the needed land.

At the heart of the latest dispute is the proposed 670,000-square-foot terminal, with nearly twice as many aircraft gates as now.

Keith Pritsker, a deputy city attorney for Los Angeles, contends that a larger terminal would invite more travelers to use Burbank Airport than might otherwise come.

But airport officials say the number of passengers will continue to grow, partly because of Burbank’s convenient location and because of crowded conditions at Los Angeles International Airport.

“Is it responsible public policy to knowingly build a terminal building that is vastly under-designed for the number of passengers we know will come through the door?” asked airport spokesman Victor Gill.

Burbank Airport’s operating revenues for the 1994-95 fiscal year are projected to be $56.4 million.

About 56,000 flights by commercial aircraft were made at Burbank Airport last year. The vast majority take off to the south and circle west over neighborhoods such as North Hollywood, Valley Village, Studio City and Sherman Oaks.

Homeowners groups in those areas joined the city’s lawsuit last year. For years, they have asked airport officials to divert more planes to the east, over Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena.

But the FAA has banned aircraft weighing over 12,500 pounds from taking off to the east because the airport’s present terminal lies just 312 feet from the runway and must be 750 feet away to comply with federal safety regulations.

The Air Line Pilots Assn. has taken a similar position of avoiding commercial flights in that direction for a number of safety reasons.

“It’s a matter of physics,” said the group’s former spokesman, Richard Russell. “If the pilot is using good sense, he will take off over the longer (north-south) runway.”

Another point of contention is the complicated method by which airport noise is measured under California law, known as the community noise equivalent level.

Surrounding Burbank Airport are 15 noise-monitoring stations with microphones that record aircraft noise over a 24-hour period and feed the data into a centralized computer system.

Imaginary lines are then drawn around the airport, indicating areas where the readings reach an average level in a given year. A 65 noise equivalent contour, for example, encompasses the area in which all average readings are 65 decibels or above.

Under state law, airports are required to reduce the number of homes, schools and hospitals affected by aircraft noise with soundproofing programs, easements and acquisitions, among other things--as long as they are within the 65 noise equivalent contour.

But because the goal is difficult to achieve, Burbank Airport and most other airports in California operate under special variances, according to the state Department of Transportation.

Airport officials have spent thousands of dollars to insulate nearby Luther Burbank Middle School against sound, a program that Principal Donna Coffey says has worked well. Three other schools--Glenwood Elementary, St. Patrick’s and Mingay Adult School--will be next.

Similar work has not yet begun on the 1,764 homes within the 65 noise contour, but is expected to soon.

After a new terminal is built, airport officials contend, the 65 noise contour is not likely to grow very much.

“I just don’t have sympathy for people near the airport,” said the Airport Authority’s attorney, Richard Simon.

“They bought their homes cheaply,” he added. “They realized--they knew in their hearts--they got a bit of a bargain and they took advantage of the opportunity that the proximity to the airport afforded them, and they’ve forgotten that.”