PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 10, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Dawn Hobbs
DATELINE: Camarillo, California
The Los Angeles Times reports that a political race for a city council seat in Camarillo, California has all three candidates taking a stand on airport noise. The issues at hand is a proposal to change the former Navy airfield at Point Mugu into an airport which offers commercial flights.
The article reports that one candidate, who was previously on the council for 16.5 years, and was part of the airport authority for ten years, says noise, traffic, and pollution problems will affect Camarillo and other nearby communities that don't expect it. He said he crusaded for the peace of residents when he was on the airport authority too.
The article goes on to say that the second candidate headed the Chamber of Commerce when the airport's conversion was first proposed. Even she, however, said that noise and traffic problems, and issues with potential loss of farmland should be solved before any conversion is approved. She said "All these issues would have to be mitigated before I would be willing to seriously entertain its joint use, but if there is enough change in the proposal so that we're looking at a totally different scenario, then it would be a poor decision maker who would not be willing to look at new information and judge it on that basis."
The article concludes, saying that the third candidate vehemently opposes the conversion, saying that "It will turn this lovely green land into the San Fernando Valley almost overnight. The traffic, the noise -- there will be instant pavement all over the whole valley."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 12, 1997
SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Efrain Hernandez Jr.
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Los Angeles Times reports that in a press conference, officials from Burbank California introduced a compromise proposal for the proposed new terminal at Burbank Airport. They agreed to allow a slight increase in the number of gates -- from 14 to 16 -- if the airport would agree to a cap on adding more than 10 percent more flights, and to a night curfew.
According to the article, Burbank's city council and airport authority representatives signed the proposal, which was presented as a way to overcome the differences between the airport and the city. The airport wants between 19 and 27 gates, and until now Burbank has only wanted 14; they now offer 16, support of tax-exempt funding of construction the city's proposal, and support in federal negotiations over noise restrictions in exchange for the joint (Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena) airport authority's agreement to help the city develop some of the airport's land for non-aviation purposes, and and its promise not to change the proposal without a unanimous vote. A nighttime curfew would require FAA approval and a lengthy process.
The article reports that Burbank hopes to resolve the debate that has already cost it over $2-million in legal fees to oppose the expanded terminal. Last week, the city failed to block both a $8.6-million federal grant to be used for the terminal expansion as well as the use of $24.2-million of the airport's money to be used for land acquisition. The city is trying to accommodate residents who think an expanded terminal will worsen traffic, noise, and pollution problems.
The article reports that the airport was not informed about the proposal before the news conference, and an airport authority member from Pasadena said she didn't know any details. She said she was "confused by a press conference about a plan that hasn't even been presented to us. . . . Maybe this is a good-faith effort. I don't know."
The article goes on to say that the FAA designated the terminal for relocation years ago because it's too close to the runway under modern standards. Currently, the airport has no curfew, although only about a dozen flights leave between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Yearly operations were measured in 1995 to number 184,543.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 13, 1997
SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Efrain Hernandez Jr.
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Los Angeles Times says that Burbank, California's most recent proposal for expansion of the Burbank Airport terminal has been torn apart by two airlines that serve the facility.
According to the article, the plan in question sees the city conceding an increase in gates from 14 to 16 (though nowhere near the airport's desired 19-27), support of tax-free financing of the construction project, and support of a federal inquiry process required for a noise curfew. The city wants in exchange a cap at a 10 percent increase in flights, and a required night curfew. The airport already handles 5 million passengers each year, and demand is expected to double in 13 years.
The article notes that officials with Southwest Airlines and Alaska Airlines, who together make up 70 percent of the commercial flights at the airport, said that the expansion proposed by the city is too modest and is almost like doing nothing.
The article notes that despite the negative comments from airlines, the mayor of Burbank stood firm, saying "I think this takes the terminal from an antiquated, small terminal to a new, state-of-the-art terminal..., offering... a tremendous benefit." Airport representatives are still going over the proposal and have yet to give an opinion.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 13, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Lee Romney
DATELINE: Irvine, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Larry Agran, chairperson, Project '99 (anti-airport group), and former Irvine mayor
The Los Angeles Times reports that residents near the proposed El Toro airport in Orange County, California are hoping that a federal study conducted in 1994 can help them prove that their property values will be harmed by the airport.
According to the article, the report on the effect of airport noise on property values -- which looked at neighborhoods around airports in Los Angeles, Baltimore, and New York -- is being used by both people on both sides of the debate. Airport opponents say that El Toro will produce at best, the worst case scenario outlined in the report: 19 percent drops in property values. One real estate broker said that in some areas, values have already dropped 30 percent.
The article goes on to say that airport proponents say that the range of property value changes, and the limited sample size, makes the results less clear cut. Also, proponents point to the fact that military jets -- which flew at El Toro for years -- are louder than commercial aircraft will be, and say that an existing buffer zone of 16,000 acres around the airport will provide noise protections that no other airport can in the country can claim. Some also point out that property values are usually lower near airports only if the property is directly beneath a flight path; otherwise, values tend to be higher.
The article notes that while airport supporters say flights will generally leave to the east, with occasional trips to the north, opponents believe northbound trips will be more numerous. They also say that property values could be affected up to twenty miles away, which airport supporters call ridiculous.
The article concludes, noting that eight municipalities in the south of Orange county have sued to stop the airport. On the other hand, county votes have twice been held, and each time the result was support for the plan.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: February 11, 1997
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 4; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Hugo Martin
DATELINE: Van Nuys, California
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Laura Chick, Los Angeles City Council member
The Los Angeles Times reports that Los Angeles City Councilwoman Laura Chick is renewing her past efforts in pushing officials at Van Nuys Airport to establish restrictions on noise.
The article reports that Chick wrote a letter to to Jack Driscoll, executive director of the city Department of Airports, in which she said that she is tired of waiting for the airport to develop a noise ordinance. Her ideas include moving the existing curfew time for night flights from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m., and preventing the introduction of any new Stage-2 jets to the airport.
However, the article notes that during a previous attempt in 1992 by the airport to impose such a moratorium on noisier jets, the Federal Aviation Administration said it could withhold funding if the plan was carried through without studying economic impact of the changes. The airport backed off at that time, and it will likely note that the FAA will threaten similar things this time around.
The article concludes, noting that Chick blames the airport for doing little since that past attempt. Officials at the Department of Airports say they are working on an analysis that could show the FAA that the city can institute noise restrictions on their own.
Previous week: February 2, 1997
Next week: February 16, 1997
Aircraft Noise
Amplified Noise
Effects on Wildlife/Animals
Construction Noise
Firing Ranges
Health Effects
Home Equipment and Appliances
Industrial/Manufacturing
International News
Environmental Justice
Land Use and Noise
Lawsuits
Civil Liberty Issues
Miscellaneous Noise Stories
Noise Ordinances
Noise Organizations Mentioned
Outdoor Events
Noise in Our National Parks/Natural Areas
Regulation
Residential and Community Noise
Snowmobile and ATV Noise
Research and Studies
Technological Solutions to Noise
Transportation Related Noise
Violence and Noise
Watercraft Noise
Workplace Noise
Chronological Index
Geographical Index