From The Orange County Business Journal...
Airport Foes Objecting to Planned Noise Test
The following article from the Orange County Business Journal is reproduced with the approval of the OCBJ. OCBJ articles are published electronically here as a public service.
The OCBJ supports the conversion of El Toro to a commercial airport. Statements made by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of the El Toro Airport Info Site Team.
Published Aug. 31, 1998
El Toro Airport Foes Objecting to Planned Noise Tests
By PETER BRENNAN
A major brawl between El Toro airport proponents and foes is shaping up over whether the county should hold a test of commercial jets landing and taking off at the El Toro Marine Air Corps Station.
Airport proponents want them, while airport opponents are beginning to raise objections.
County planners want to use the test to show the level of noise that nearby communities can expect. Airport proponents believe that the tests will produce so little noise that south county opposition to a commercial airport will diminish among all but the most ardent opponents and politicians.
"I'm sure they're afraid that the test will show the planes are not as loud as people have been told," said County Supervisor Chuck Smith, a supporter of a commercial airport. "A lot of people who live a good distance from the airport and who believe they will be impacted will find out that they won't hear the planes at all."
Last year, Supervisor Tom Wilson first supported a test and then blocked the county from doing one. This piqued the interest of airport proponents who are proposing a two-day test with jet planes flying in at different hours.
Opponents are saying the county's test will be a ringer. "What the county is proposing to do right now is a $2 million waste of money," said Paul Eckles, executive director of the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority (ETRPA). "We'd welcome an honest test. The only test we're in favor of us is a true simulation of an airport."
Both the city of Irvine and ETRPA have shot off letters in recent weeks to the county and the marines questioning whether the test would be a true simulation and demanding that the test meet environmental impact statements.
Eckles reminded both the county and the Marines that they need to conduct an environmental impact report before any such tests could be done.
Airport proponents believe the county could quickly conduct its environmental report, but are worried that the Marines might drag their feet until next spring because they don't want to become involved in the political dispute. They are also suspicious that top local Marines are too closely allied with anti-airport proponents.
Proponents want a test before next March because they are afraid the opponents are planning a ballot measure for that month. If the test comes before the ballot vote, it could help the airport's cause. If the Marines stall, county officials might go over their heads to insist on this test.
When airport proponents recently went to Washington D.C., the proposed test found a receptive ear in the key federal player for the base conversion, William Cassidy, deputy assistant Secretary of the Navy for Conversion and Redevelopment.
"William Cassidy thinks it's a great idea," said Smith. Col. Jim Ritchie, who is in charge of the base closure for the Marines, said last year the Marines agreed verbally to a test. This year, he's waiting for an official request from the county before he can say yes. He said that because of the Marines' bureaucracy, an environmental impact report would take two to six months to complete. Ritchie said he wants to make sure that the nearby communities of Irvine and Lake Forest "don't strongly object" to the test.
"I'm going to make sure impacted communities of Irvine and Lake Forest don't object to the test and we will make sure that this test is supported by broad community," said Ritchie.
The city of Irvine hasn't officially opposed the test, but it's raising the stakes -- it asks that the county conduct a simulation of an airport over a continuous 48-hour period at all times and in all kinds of weather. It wants 747s, MD-11s and turbo-props, contending that they are noisier than the 757s which the county is proposing to use for the tests.
The county has budgeted $2 million for the test. The Irvine request would significantly raise the costs to beyond what the county is preparing to pay.
Irvine also asked that the tests include takeoffs from Runway 25 to the west, which the county has insisted won't be used at the commercial airport. If planes do take off to the west over Irvine, it could cause even more opposition.
County planners are currently going over the logistics of the tests. They're hopeful that Boeing and possibly some airlines might provide the planes for the test. The tests would involve taking off from Runway 7, which some airport opponents have claimed is dangerous because it faces east into the Santiago mountains.
Editor's note: Click here for comments on Runway 7 takeoffs.
A study done for the ocounty by a consulting firm recommended by the Air Line Pilots Association found that takeoffs on Runway 7 can be accomplished safely.
County officials acknowledged that it won't be a scientific test because its existing noise and pollution projections are carried out to an entire year whereas this test would only show it for a couple of days. Rather, the test is an effort to give people an idea of what to expect.
"The test will allow people to sit in their yards and hear the traffic and what the planes sound like," said Courtney Wiercioch, the county's chief planner for the airport. "If you're three miles away from the plane, you can say, 'Did you hear that?' It will let people in the community get a snapshot."
Editor's note: Click for comments from Taxpayers for Responsible Planning regarding flight demos.