Department Of Transportation State Of California
In the Matter of the Application of: Case No: OAH -L-1998040119
Lance Paris Class "A" Intervenor Representative
Post Office Box 7262 Van Nuys, California 91409
Telephone: 818-787-7790
Class "A" Intervenor Representative
City of Los Angeles, Department of Airports (Van Nuys).
Respondent.
Van Nuys Airport currently operates under a variance with an effective date of February 21, 1989. Over the past ten years, the contiguous residential community has experienced increased airport noise to such a degree that they united to attempt to effectuate changes in VNY's operations. For ten years residents' complaints have been ignored, local elected officials have turned a deaf ear to the community's voice, and only under the leadership of Senator Tom Hayden was this matter brought before the Office of Administrative Hearings for the State of California.
Van Nuys Airport opened in 1928 as a general aviation airport, well before the advent of jet aircraft. In February, 1949, when the airport was deeded to the city, jet operations at VNY were non-existent. The original proprietors and their successors could not have imagined the growth of the number of operations at this facility nor the magnitude of problems the airport would ultimately create for the surrounding residential community.
Residents have been accused of wanting the airport closed, as the SOLE solution to aircraft noise. Nothing could be further from the truth. Residents are not naive or blind to the impact the airport has on the city, but must vociferously assert that the impacts are both positive and negative in nature. While the airport benefits aviation interests, it does so on the backs of the residential community. Affected residents feel they have not received fair consideration from LAWA, and have had to resort to the legal system for relief. Residents have always been willing to talk, to negotiate, and to listen, but their position has been so pre-emptively attacked that presenting a coherent position became an overwhelming endeavor. The assistance of our elected officials was finally sought to force the democratic process. The "Golden Rule" of ''those with the gold make the rule" is unjust, and has hopefully been neutralized in this variance process.
Residents seek BALANCE and JUSTICE. Residents do not anticipate zero noise emanating from the airport, but rather restrictions in the HOURS of noise foisted upon their daily lives. That is not unreasonable, contrary to what has been asserted by the pro‑aviation community.
In the ten years since the last variance, the noise impact area has increased by 45% (5% per year) (Exhibit VNY-27). Class "A" asserts that LAWA cannot claim victory for its existing procedures and practices - the 5% per year increase in noise speaks for itself. Intervenors believe that should LAWA be allowed to continue self‑governing, the 5% noise increase per year will continue.
California Noise Regulations require operators of airport facilities which exceed the 65 CNEL threshold to take good faith efforts to reduce the size of the noise impact area. The law governing the variance process provides a mechanism for airports to continue to operate if they can demonstrate good faith efforts have been made to reduce the size of the noise contour.
Evidence submitted to the Court and testimony received clearly demonstrate the ineffectiveness of LAWA's efforts to control and reduce noise levels as required by law. As stated above, noise has increased by 5%/year in the past ten years. It is obvious that the programs implemented by LAWA are not effective; it is time for the Court to impose meaningful operational restrictions on the City to control its noisy airport operations.
The Court received testimony of the Kennedy Report regarding the economic impact of the airport on the community, which, through mathematical modeling and questionable self-serving assumptions, was estimated at $1.2 billion.
While Class "A" Intervenors do not agree with or accept this $1.2 billion figure as gospel, there is no disputing the fact that the San Fernando Valley economy benefits from Van Nuys Airport. But, at what cost?
None of the testimony or evidence presented to the Court offered any semblance of balance in the evaluation process, Airport operators cry "Chicken Little, Chicken Little" - if the airport closes down, our employees, family members, and everyone we know will be living on the streets". Again, Class "A" Intervenors do not dispute that closure of the airport would have devastating effects on the airport community, but that is not being sought. How do limiting hours of operation and the numbers of aircraft equal closing down the airport facility? Can there be no balance imposed to protect both the airport as well as residential interests? The law dictating that motorists cannot exceed a posted speed limit does not equal an inability to be employed - it simply means that commute time will be increased to arrive at work. Restricting hours of operation for jet operators does NOT mean cessation of operations, it simply means jets must arrive and depart during specified hours.
Based on the testimony and evidence received by the Court, it is reasonable to assume that the technology to quiet the noisiest Stage 11 aircraft operating at VNY will become available within the life of the variance. Class "A" Intervenors believe that the Court should consider, but not be limited to, imposing conditions requiring the installation of "Hush Kits" by the operators unless draconian economic hardship can be shown. Intervenors do not believe that threshold of economic hardship could be demonstrated. Again, it is an issue of balance. If one desires to drive a car in California, the automobile must be insured. Income level doesn't enter into the equation - if one desires to drive, the vehicle must be insured.
If airport proprietors, most notably Stage 11 operators, can afford multi-million dollar aircraft and generate revenue from that aircraft, they cannot cry that they're unable to modify their equipment in consideration for flying over a residential neighborhood. Other airports make such demands, why does the management of VNY not hold its facility to the same standard? Why is Van Nuys Airport treated differently than other facilities within LAWA's jurisdiction?
Webster's defines "community" as "a society of people having common rights, etc." Community does NOT mean a small select group of less than a dozen business owners. It implies diverse groups of people with equal rights. Public policy is or should be written for the general benefit, not that of a select few. Public policy, as well as guidelines, affect many diverse groups of people, and should aim to BALANCE all competing interests, not simply the interests of a select few.
Residential members of the 'community' testified before this court on the negative impact the airport has on their daily lives, Business people, retired persons, and working persons all testified that their lives were disrupted by unacceptable noise levels at ALL hours of the day and night. Considering that over 1,500,000 people reside in the San Fernando Valley, the 'importance of the airport to the 'community' pales in comparison to the adverse affects it is creating for non-aviation persons, who despite airport interests, ARE equal members of the 'community'.
Taken within the context of these 1,500,000 residents, the loss of the airport would have little if no lasting effect upon their lives. But these 1,500.000 people, again, do NOT advocate closure of the airport, they, instead, seek a showing of 'good faith' by the airport in its operations.
The crux of Class 'A's argument lies with the issue of good faith efforts on the part of LAWA to decrease the noise impact area, and to implement measures and procedures which will reduce the noise emanating from the airport. Class " A" asks that the Court impose stringent conditions on the instant variance, as LAWA has not and cannot demonstrate that they have competently managed, controlled, or reduced airport noise on their own.
Class "A" will focus on several specific issues for the Court's consideration:
(A) Resolution 13369
(B) Real estate issues relating to tenants at VNY
(C) Voluntary programs, i.e. "Fly Friendly"
(D) VNY Noise Complaint Procedures
(E) Helicopters
(F) VNY Citizens Advisory Committee
(A). Resolution 13369
The BOAC is the duly authorized agency charged with the oversight, and direction of LAWA as established in the City Charter. The BOAC has been granted certain powers to establish policy and conduct a management oversight role for the operations of the airports. LAWA is simply a governmental agency created to carry out the policies and management procedures established by the BOAC. It has always been that way, and it is that way now.
The BOAC lawfully passed and enacted Resolution 13369 (Exhibit A-3) limiting the types of aircraft that are permitted to utilize VNY. Contrary to testimony received by the Court, the Resolution is very specific in delimiting the types of aircraft permitted to use VNY. The Resolution contains several paragraphs which carefully and thoroughly spell out and define the terms and nomenclature used in the resolution contained in final paragraphs of the document. The references to air-taxi charter and other uses of the airport, specifically I the restriction against aircraft over 12,500 pounds, are clear. The language of the resolution and the terms used in the document are meaningless without the definitions established in the body of the document. This resolution was legally adopted by the BOAC in October, 1982 and remains in full force and effect today. The DOA and later LAWA have irresponsibly failed to fulfill their lawful duties in fully implementing and enforcing this resolution. In their rush to greed and to placate the interests of the aviation community LAWA, and even the office of the City Attorney who should know better, have concocted spurious, unfounded, and legally unsound arguments to mislead the court. Even during the last variance, the court saw fit to specifically call LAWA to task to enforce the Resolution by specifically citing this resolution in the conditions of the Variance. Of all the resolutions, ordinances, regulations, and other local, state, or federal rules governing the operation of VNY, the Court cited one specific resolution and directed LAWA to enforce it. It was not and has not been done. If for no other reason than the LAWA's failure to act in good faith and follow the conditions of the variance, this Court should consider and order significant restrictions on LAWA to operate VNY as a condition of this instant variance.
The Court received testimony from Phillip Depolan, Deputy Director, that it is the policy of LAWA to implement and enforce resolutions of the BOAC and that during his tenure he has no knowledge of ever not implementing a duly passed resolution (RT 40:6-18) Much of the business of the airports and indeed all of the business of the BOAC is accomplished through resolutions.
The Court received testimony from Richard Adler, LAWA Real Estate officer regarding the application and tenant evaluation process for becoming a tenant at VNY. His testimony specifically stated that there has not been a process of evaluating the potential noise impact of an applicant as part of the real estate department's evaluation of an application (RT 78-23-28). This would seem to be the simplest and most legally sound method for controlling the amount of noise generated by airport operations, but it has never been done or even considered. We believe that a reasonable person acting with the intention of "good faith" would have, at the least, examined the potential consequences of a new tenant's operations on the overall noise impact of the VNY. The fact that LAWA admits that this has never been given any consideration again underscores their actions to serve only the needs of the aviation community, abdicating their responsibility to serve the interests of the community as a whole and demonstrates the complete lack of any real good faith efforts to control noise.
LAWA asserts that the success of this voluntary program can be demonstrated by the fact that the noise impact area would be much larger without the Programs - this is a meaningless argument! The California Noise LAW does not require airport operators to take "good faith" efforts to keep the noise impact area from growing more slowly absent the efforts. The LAW requires the operator to take measures to REDUCE the noise impact area. LAWA is de facto in violation of the law and in gross violation of the terms of the existing variance.
Jens Rivera testified that he was not aware of repeat violators of "Fly Friendly" (RT 6217-19). Does this mean that records are not maintained? Does this mean that such repeat violators escape consequences for repeated violations? We think so! A mild slap on the wrist (a letter) is not a motivator to modify behavior. Absent accountability, the Fly Friendly program is meaningless.
If LAWA genuinely wanted to receive input from the community regarding noise experiences, residents would not be subjected to a 'brick wall'!
Historically, residents called the 800 number, waded through the endless outgoing message, before lodging a complaint. Even when residents requested a response to a complaint, by way of a return phone call or in writing, this did not occur. Suddenly the variance process was underway, and some residents started receiving feedback on noise complaints.
Again, with the variance process underway, VNY suddenly began responding to resident complaints, surely due to Mr. Rivera's good intentions. However, sometime in 1999, the procedure changed, without notice. No longer was a 'log' of complaints accepted by the airport, each noise complaint had to be faxed separately. In other words, instead of accepting a one page log (with multiple incidents of noise), each 'log' was counted as ONE complaint. To add insult to injury, when periodic reports were generated, providing information about the COMPLAINING PARTY, residents who had complained learned their complaints had been 'lost' or 'not received'.
Since 1991 VNY has had five airport managers (and we understand Mr. Rivera is leaving and a sixth manager is on his/her way). Mr. Rivera testified that the day before his testimony he looked at the existing variance for VNY (RT 35-59). This is included, not as I a criticism of Mr. Rivera, but to articulate that the management changes at VNY have created instability in policy and operational practices. When will there be stability at VNY? When will there be a manager who is at VNY for more than 1 1/2 years? How can policy be created and implemented fairly when personnel changes occur so regularly? How can a manager of VNY testify to matters he never had the time to learn?
Mr. Rivera testified that the airport POLICE document curfew violators. They physically see the aircraft and write down all pertinent information. In all due respect, how is the public to have confidence in the safety at VNY if the 'protectors of the peace' are also gazing upward in hopes of spotting a violator? Why, if this is the police department's primary (?) function, are these persons employed as police officers? Class "A" does not have any faith in the validity of curfew violator records, and believes that accurate records can in no way be validated with this archaic method of record keeping!
Finally, if LAWA genuinely wanted to hear from the public, meetings regarding VNY would take place in the valley, after sundown. Scheduling meetings at LAX or during the day prohibits working residents from participating in the process.
LAWA presented testimony that helicopters do not contribute to nor are they governed by the California Noise Regulation, and that any consideration of restrictions on helicopters is beyond the scope of this court. We disagree.
When the curfew language was crafted in 1978, there was no use of the term Stag 11 or Stage 111. On the basis of words, and words alone, helicopters were not included. Since the threshold for the curfew was 74 db, helicopters were given carte blanche to come to VNY, fly without restriction, and enjoy the friendly skies! When the FAA classified helicopters as Stage 11 aircraft, again due to the 1978 curfew language, helicopters were given the green light to fly as they please.
The court can demand a Part 161 study be undertaken to change the curfew language to more accurately reflect those aircraft which cause tremendous disturbance to residents' peace of mind ‑ one major culprit being the helicopter!
Airport management cannot assert that it has in place an advisory committee that invites community input, in making its recommendations about airport policy. Anyone ever having the misfortune of attending one of these meetings was left speechless by the tenor of this committee. Stacked with pro-aviation interests, this committee is more of a booster club than cross section of the affected community. There are no meaningful discussions, there 'is no respect shown for diverging opinions, and the notion that this committee is a fair/neutral forum, is simply not the case! Residents truly have nowhere to go to address concerns, except to this court.
Class "A" Intervenors, those residing within the 65 CNEL, ask the Court to help US control LAWA. We ask that the Court acknowledge that our rights have been trampled on for many years, and ask the Court to stand up for us. This court is truly our last bastion for protection. The impact the airport has had upon the neighboring residential communities is not a figment of our imagination - it is clear that noise has increased, and continues to increase. The reason for this increase is a refusal, on the part of LAWA, to implement meaningful restrictions on airport operations. Instead of communicating honestly and openly with residents, LAWA has painted residents as 'wanting to close down the airport'. This is not true. Residents seek limitations on hours of operations, limitations on the numbers of aircraft that can use the airport, and a balancing of needs of BOTH the residential and airport communities.
Specifically, Class "A" asks that the Court consider imposing stringent conditions on LAWA regarding the operation of VNY, including but not limited to:
Implementation and enforcement of all legally enacted resolutions as passed by the BOAC,
LAWA be required to conduct and evaluation of the noise impacts of all prospective tenants and for all lease renewals with the purpose of controlling the noise impact of VNY by controlling the tenant base,
The "Fly Friendly" program be reviewed, with enforceable sanctions included for repeat violators,
Make mandatory flight rules for operations at VNY,
A Part 161 study be undertaken,
The existing curfew for Stage 2 aircraft be extended to all Stage 2 aircraft not just fixed wing.
A Noise Impact Area Reduction Plan be required.
Class "A" Intervenors seeks the wisdom and mercy of the Court in evaluating the current operations of Van Nuys Airport, and ask for meaningful relief from the unbridled, uncontrolled operational realities residents face. LAWA has not acted in good faith in attempting to resolve many issues now before this Court. The DOA and BOAC have both turned their backs on the residential community, in favor of the airport interests. There has been no "fair play" demonstrated by either the City Attorney, City Council, DOA or BOAC; residents have been forced to solicit assistance from Senator Hayden's office, who stepped forward and became the driving force in bringing this matter before the Court. We desperately seek relief, we desperately need relief; we desperately need the Court to adjudicate this matter and ORDER city entities/government officials to address the needs of the residential community being deafened by increased noise.
Dated: February 21, 2000
Respectfully Submitted,
Class "A" Intervenors Lance Paris, Class "A" Representive