Congressmen Urge FAA to Toss Burbank Airport Plan

Three local congressmen are urging federal officials to reject a draft agreement for a new Burbank Airport terminal, saying it includes a ban on easterly takeoffs that would force more noise on their constituents to the west.

In a Sept. 10 letter to Federal Aviation Administration chief Jane Garvey, Reps. Howard L. Berman (D-Mission Hills), Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) said residents in Valley Village, North Hollywood, Studio City, Sherman Oaks and Encino have had to endure “nearly hundred percent of the noise from jets departing Burbank Airport.”

Easterly takeoffs were barred by the FAA in 1986 because of the proximity of the terminal building to the runway. Berman said that issue will be moot once the terminal is moved. An FAA spokesman said Monday that it would be premature to comment on the letter, which they had not seen. But officials with the Air Transport Assn. and the Air Line Pilots Assn. said the Verdugo Mountains to the east pose an obstacle that should be avoided.

“In the event of an engine failure, the pilot’s hands are tied,” said Jon Russell, regional safety chairman with the Air Line Pilots Assn. “You have a mountain staring you in the face, not to mention you are forced to turn into airspace that is among the busiest in the world.”

Neil Bennett, western regional director of the Air Transport Assn., added it was unlikely the east-west airstrip would get much use because it had a number of shortcomings.

“That runway just isn’t all that practical,” Bennett said. “It’s shorter than the other, it rises as you head east, prevailing winds don’t normally favor it, there’s inhospitable terrain to the east, plus the airspace is dominated by air traffic heading into LAX.”

But Berman rejected the contention that there is a safety issue. Once the terminal is moved, he said, the only problem with banning easterly takeoffs is that it will push more noise to Burbank and Glendale residents.

“When the terminal is rebuilt and moved, it will be very far away from the runway and there’s no safety basis whatsoever to have a flat prohibition on easterly departures,” Berman said. “The only reason that it is in the agreement is to protect the more affluent and politically active homeowners in Burbank and Glendale.”

“This is simply a way of shoving all the noise to the Los Angeles portion of the San Fernando Valley,” he added. “This came totally out of left field.”

The letter to Garvey is the latest in a series of issues raised since negotiators for Burbank and the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority on Aug. 3 reached a “framework for settlement” to relocate and build a new terminal.

The three-phase, $300-million plan still faces two more public hearings and final approval by the Burbank City Council.

Congressional opposition comes as the compromise plan for a new Burbank Airport terminal came under fire by a powerful airline industry group--the Air Transport Assn.--which raised “grave concerns” about plans in the agreement to close the terminal building to commercial air traffic between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Besides the Air Transport Assn, a group led by former Councilman Ted McConkey is collecting signatures for an initiative that would bar expansion of the terminal beyond 14 gates, place caps on the number of flights, and institute a mandatory curfew.

Also, City Councilman Bob Kramer said he wants to put an advisory measure before Burbank voters on the proposed terminal. The council voted 3 to 2 last week to study the feasibility of such a measure.

“This seems to be a time when a lot of different parties are weighing in on one aspect or another of the framework agreement,” said Airport Authority spokesman Victor Gill. “We would see the views that are being offered by the congressmen as appropriate to that process.”

The existing terminal dates to 1930. Under the proposed expansion, it would be replaced with a 14-gate, 330,000-square-foot terminal with 5,000 parking spaces in the first phase.

Future expansion of the terminal--to 16 gates--is subject to federal approval of a mandatory curfew. For expansion to a maximum 19 gates, the airport would have to reduce noise to residential areas so that it does not exceed an average of 65 decibels over a 24-hour period.

Peter Kirsch, special counsel for Burbank on airport issues, said that the representatives only focused on one element of a very complex proposal in their letter. He said the agreement between city and airport officials contained substantial protection for residents west of the airport.

Among those protections were limits on growth, expansion linked to a mandatory overnight curfew, a ban on older, nosier aircraft, and closure of the terminal between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.

“There’s a lot in here they should like,” Kirsch said. “We’ve repeatedly stressed in public that the framework should be evaluated as a whole rather than pulling one piece out, which could jeopardize the whole agreement.”