Plans to Lower Jet Noise Sure to Provoke Protests

Two new schemes to solve the longstanding problem of jet noise from Lindbergh Field are expected to pit neighborhood against neighborhood and homeowner against businessman in a hearing to be held today by the San Diego Unified Port District.

The subject of the hearing is a proposal to reroute departing jets away from the long-beleaguered communities of Point Loma and Loma Portal. Traffic would be shifted northeast--over Mission Bay, Pacific Beach and La Jolla.

Also up for discussion is a suggestion that airlines be required to phase in quieter jets, an idea that many residents and politicians support. But representatives of airlines, the tourist industry and the business community predict serious economic repercussions from that move.

Lindbergh Field traffic, expected to boom in the next 10 years, is technically in violation of California airport noise standards. One condition of the state variance it operates under is that it must study ways of toning down the din.

Last month, the consultants conducting the study submitted the first half of its investigation to the Port District. The commissioners scheduled today’s 9 a.m. hearing at the Stardust Hotel in Mission Valley to take public comment on the proposals.

The public is expected to turn out in force.

Residents of Pacific Beach and La Jolla say they have collected 6,000 signatures on a petition protesting the rerouting as unfair. They claim the new flight pattern would shatter their peace, lower their property values and damage tourism on Mission Bay.

Homeowners in Point Loma and Loma Portal, who are suing the Port District over the existing route’s noise, favor the change. However, they are also expected to join the beach communities in arguing for speedy phasing in of quieter jets.

That idea seems certain to be opposed by the Air Transportation Assn., which represents airlines serving San Diego. The association is expected to argue that efforts to force the phase-in would lead to fewer flights to Lindbergh Field.

That, in turn, has the San Diego Chamber of Commerce and the San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau worried. Both intend to send representatives to the hearing to warn against restrictions that would cut into tourism and the regional economy.

Among others expected to turn out to testify are Councilman Mike Gotch, who will once again sound the call for a second airport to relieve the pressure on Lindbergh Field, and representatives of other affected groups, including travel agents.

The flight path proposal concerns Runway 27, which accommodates 90% of all takeoffs from Lindbergh Field. Instead of flying straight out over Point Loma or veering north as they do now, jets would fly slightly to the north and east.

The new flight path, called a heading of 310 degrees, would take jets over Mission Bay, Pacific Beach and La Jolla. The consulting firm, CH2M-Hill of Newport Beach, claims that the route would remove about 1,000 acres of Point Loma from the area affected by airplane noise.

The Airport Coalition, a long-active group of Point Loma residents, reportedly supports the change. But Pacific Beach and La Jolla residents calling their organization STOP have organized an opposition movement during the last six weeks.

Dr. Fred Berger, who organized the group with his wife, Donna, said the group will deliver its 6,000-signature petition at the hearing. The petition opposes the rerouting and complains that planes have already begun informally shifting their paths eastward.

“I think this will severely hurt Mission Bay,” said Berger, who lives on the south-facing slope of Mount Soledad. “Imagine what it’s going to be like to be spending some time at the bay with your family and have hundreds of jets during the day go overhead.”

Berger also contended that the shift would be unfair in that it would shift the burden of airport noise from one community to another. He pointed out that Point Loma home buyers are forewarned of the noise, whereas Pacific Beach property owners have had no advance notice.

Berger said his group, whose name stands for Stop Takeoffs Over Pacific Beach, Mission Beach and Bird Rock, had persuaded the Pacific Beach Town Council to oppose the plan. He said it was also encouraging opposition from hotels on Mission Bay.

Also critical of the rerouting recommendation is Robert Vaughn, the Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic manager for San Diego. Vaughn said consolidation of the two current takeoff routes into the one route would back up traffic during peak periods.

Furthermore, Vaughn said, “the 310 heading will take the departures right into the face of the arrivals.”

That would not pose a safety problem, Vaughn said, but it would require that departing jets fly at a lower altitude and would create more work for traffic controllers.

“I see a lot of problems in it,” Vaughn said. His agency would have to approve the change.

The consultant has also suggested giving the airlines until 1991 to phase in new and quieter jets--so-called Phase III aircraft, as opposed to noisier Phase II craft. Airlines could buy new planes or rearrange their fleets so that they use quieter planes on San Diego flights.

That idea has the backing of residents in Pacific Beach as well as Point Loma, many of whom would like to see an accelerated phase-in schedule. Councilmen Gotch and Bill Cleator, who represent the two areas, have also argued for quiet jets during nighttime hours.

But the Air Transportation Assn., which represents carriers, has prepared a study that several sources said predicts that flights to and from San Diego would decrease. A spokesman for the association declined Monday to comment, saying the report is to be released today.

Also concerned about the effect of aircraft restrictions on traffic are the Chamber of Commerce and ConVis. Both groups will encourage the port commissioners not to form any conclusions until the consultant completes its study in December.

“Our approach is going to be that, because good air service is so important to the tourist industry . . . we’re concerned about anything that could negatively impact it,” said Al Reese, a spokesman for ConVis.

Dorothy Migdal, a Chamber of Commerce vice president, said: “We feel that the study should run its course before they start taking piecemeal action. They haven’t done the environmental impact statement, they haven’t done the analysis of economic impacts.”

At least one person intends to counter that fear.

“This is a very lucrative market,” said Mikel Hass, an aide to Gotch. “Any void left by an airline that pulled out would be filled. I don’t think anyone is going to abandon San Diego.

“But without the push or the shove, the carriers aren’t going to make the changes.”