A meeting that helped kick off the start of work to study the potential environmental impacts of a proposed replacement terminal at Bob Hope Airport in Burbank may have given airport officials a glimpse of the challenges they face in convincing the public about the need for the new terminal.

During the meeting on Thursday, which was attended by more than 40 residents, officials discussed the benefits of the preferred terminal project, which would put the building farther from the runways, increasing the safety of the facility and bringing it into conformity with modern Federal Aviation Administration policies.

“The [Federal Aviation Administration] says, ‘You’re safe, but we highly recommend you move this terminal,’” said Lucy Burghdorf, an airport spokeswoman.

Officials also discussed the increased size of the building’s footprint, which will allow for larger waiting rooms and amenities such as restaurants and stores. That could result in higher sales tax revenues, of which the city gets a share, without bringing additional vehicular trips into Burbank like a new shopping center would, said City Councilman Will Rogers.

They also discussed the airport’s commitment to continuing enforcement of existing noise rules and a voluntary curfew, as well as a promise not to expand beyond 14 gates — the same number as the existing terminal.

Such commitments would be secured by changing the rules of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority to effectively give Burbank veto power over changes such as the number of gates and the noise rules.

“It’s not just about building a building,” said Dan Feger, the airfield’s executive director. It’s about developing a “right-sized terminal and right-sized governance.”

It would be “fixing a long-term weakness” that allows a simple majority of any five commissioners to make such changes, Feger said.

Of course, the airport is not offering that proposed amendment without getting something in return. Namely, eventual permission to construct on land it owns, but which the city has an easement over. It also wants the city to contract out building inspections on the $400-million project to Glendale or Pasadena.

The project is still a long way in the making. The airport authority and the city must clear a number of hurdles, of which the environmental study is one. The study will look at not only the potential impacts of up to five different options for the airport project, but the work necessary to mitigate them.

There will be several public hearings on the matter in the coming year or more, with many opportunities for public input. Ultimately, for the airport officials’ preferred terminal project and at least one alternative being studied, Burbank residents will get the final say on whether they see a benefit to the project or not in a Measure B vote.

As yet, however, some residents remained skeptical.

Burbank resident Sue Cleereman said she still has a lot of questions about the airport’s proposal and has felt shut out of the process up until now. But she said the meeting was “a good start.”

Others suggested that the replacement terminal would entice more air traffic and, therefore, more noise and air pollution, degrading the quality of life and property values in their neighborhoods under the flight path.

Jon Orr, who lives on North Evergreen Street, said he fears the proposed new terminal is just an attempt by the airport to make it more attractive to travelers and, therefore, draw more flight operations. He said he’d prefer that the airport be shut down, and the city allow the land to be developed for residential use or film studiofacilities, so he’d have fewer planes “buzzing” over his head at home.

The airport hasn’t been shy about the fact that it’s looking to draw more flights and more travelers to its existing facility, which sees about 33% fewer travelers now than it did less than a decade ago. An ongoing effort at rebranding the airfield to give it a stronger geographic identity is just one way officials hope to attract more passengers and air service.

Rachel Diana, Orr’s neighbor on North Evergereen, said she would like a study that would inform residents about the economic impacts of the proposed terminal project, such as its likely effect on home values.

“What is really the benefit to the residents of Burbank?” she asked.

--

Chad Garland, chad.garland@latimes.com

Twitter: @chadgarland