5. Helicopter Route and Altitude Deviation Program
6. Public Information Publications
7. Sound Insulation of Program
8. Non Addition Rule
9. Noise Complaints
JAMES K. HAHN, City Attorney
BRETON K. LOBNER, Senior Assistant City Attorney
M. LYNN MAYO, Deputy City Attorney
(State Bar No. 71854)
1 World Way P.O. Box 92216
Los Angeles, California 90009-2216
Telephone: (310) 646-3260 Facsimile: (310) 646-9617
Attorneys for Respondent/Applicant City Of Los Angeles, Department Of Airports
Before the Department Of Transportation State Of California In the Matter of the Application of: Case No: OAH -L-1998040119
For a Variance from the Department's Noise Regulations for California Airports.
Van Nuys Airport ("VNY") is the largest general aviation airport in the country. It is a reliever airport. It is one of four airports in the Los Angeles World Airports ("LAWA") system, which also includes Los Angeles International Airport, Ontario International Airport and Palmdale Regional Airport (RT: Vol. II, p. 141, ls. 14-16). LAWA is governed by a Board of Airport Commissioners ("BOAC"), consisting of five commissioners appointed by the mayor of the City of Los Angeles. The Executive Director is the highest ranking management level position at LAWA and is assisted by several Deputy Executive Directors.
VNY consists of 730 acres. It has two runways 8,000 feet and 4,000 feet (used primarily for training purposes). (RT: Vol. II, p. 141, ls. 18-21) In 1998, there were 560,662 aircraft operations at VNY (RT: Vol. II, p. 141, ls. 27-28 and Exhibit1 VNY-18). Most of those operations take off toward the south (RT: Vol. II, p. 141, 1. 28, p. 142, 1.
1). An air traffic control tower is open from 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. (RT: Vol. II, p. 141, ls. 25-27). Over a hundred businesses are located on the airport, including six major FBO's (fixed-based operators) (RT: Vol. II, p. 141, ls. 22-25). Over seven hundred aircraft are stationed at the airport (RT: Vol. II, p. 142, ls. 18-19). Of those aircraft, 107 are jets, approximately 46 are Stage II and 61 are Stage III (RT: Vol. II, p. 142, ls. 20- 22). In addition, there are approximately 59 helicopters stationed at VNY (RT: Vol. II, p. 142, ls.
1-2). There are a little over 88 airport employees at VNY. The airport police bureau is operational 24 hours a day (RT: Vol. II, p. 142, ls. 11-13). The economic impact of VNY on the surrounding region for 1998 alone exceeded $1.2 billion (RT: Vol. II, p. 101, ls. 22-24).
VNY currently operates under a variance from CALTRANS that became effective February 21, 1989. VNY timely filed an application for a new variance on January 15, 1992, which in effect continued the terms of the three-year variance dated February 21, 1989 until a new variance is issued (California Code of Regulations "CCR" Title 21,Chapter 2.5, Subchapter 6 "Noise Standards" Section 5057 and Exhibit VNY-2). These proceedings are about that new variance.
Although there were over a thousand acres inside the 65 CNEL
contour, the size of the noise impact area for the Third Quarter of 1998 as
defined in the California Noise Standards (CCR Section 5014) for VNY was only
57.6 acres (RT: Vol. V, p. 95, ls. 4-14 and Exhibit VNY-27). As of the Third
Quarter 1998, the estimated number of dwelling units included in the noise
impact area as defined in the Noise Standards was 1,053. (Exhibit VNY-27) The
estimated number of people residing within the noise impact area was 2,468,
Exhibit VNY-27) The size of the noise
impact area for VNY has increased
somewhat (approximately 5% per year) since the last variance was granted.2
This small increase in the noise impact area occurred even though jet aircraft
operations (which set the noise impact boundary) at VNY increased significantly
(approximately 18.5% per year) during this same period. (RT: Vol. V, p. 140, ls.
6-18) This is reflective of the effectiveness of the noise mitigation measures
implemented by LAWA at VNY.
According to the Quarterly Report for the First Quarter 1989 (operative VNY variance commenced First Quarter 1989), there were 485,085 aircraft operations for the preceding year of which approximately 1.7% or 8,246 were jet operations. (Exhibit VNY- 27) The number of jet operations for 1998 totaled 22,154. (Exhibit VNY-18 and RT: Vol. V, p. 140, ls. 6-14) The number of jet operations is the dominant factor in determining the noise impact boundary. (RT: Vol. V, p. 140, ls. 1-18) The dwelling units and population within the noise impact area is determined in large part by the land use development of property adjacent to VNY and the accuracy of the data that supports the population and dwelling unit numbers. Much of this information was improved due to voluntary efforts, which included a door-to-door field survey, on the part of LAWA. (Exhibit VNY-41 and RT: Vol. V, p. 98, ls. 23-28 and p. 99, ls. 1-7) The salient points regarding the noise impact area are reflected in the following chart:
Table I - Pertinent Increases Regarding Noise Impact Area
| 1989 | 1998 | TOTAL INCREASE | YEARLY INCREASE |
|
| Total Aircraft Operations | 485,085 | 560,662 | 15.6% | 1.73% |
| Total Jet Operations | 8,246 | 22,154 | 16.7% | 18.5% |
| Size of Noise Impact Area | 39.7 acres | 57.6 acres | 45% | 5% |
| Number of Dwelling Units Within Noise Impact Area | 707 | 1053 | 49% | 5.4% |
| Number of Residents in Noise Impact Area | 1594 | 2468 | 55% | 6.1% |
This variance hearing is not the proper forum for determining whether airport noise is generally bothersome to individuals living in the surrounding airport community. CALTRANS has already set the standard for the acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of an airport at a community noise equivalent level of 65 decibels." (CCR Section 5012) More importantly, the focus of this hearing is not to address the complaints of those individuals who reside outside the 65 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level). CALTRANS has already determined, at least for the purposes of the California Noise Standards, such noise levels are not unacceptable for those residents. Rather, this variance hearing is about VNY's efforts at containing and ultimately eliminating the noise impact area.
The following three intervenor groups were permitted to participate3 in the variance process:
(a) Intervenor Group "A" ("IA"): Intervenors whose residences and/or businesses are located within the noise impact area, as presently configured, groups and organizations representing such intervenors (i.e., homeowners' associations, etc.) within that area, and political/governmental representatives of such intervenors.
(b) Intervenor Group "B" ("IB"):
Intervenors whose residences and/or businesses are located outside the noise
impact area, but within the three-mile radius of the perimeter of the noise
impact area, as presently configured, groups and organizations representing such
intervenors (i.e., homeowners' associations, etc.) within that
area, and political/governmental representatives
of such
intervenors.
(c) Intervenor Group "C"
("IC"): Tenants/businesses located on the premises
of the Van Nuys Airport, and political/govemmenta1 representatives whose
districts include the Van Nuys Airport.
(See Administrative Record ("AR") Index No. 23)
The noise impact area is defined by the California Noise Standards as incompatible land within 65 CNEL of an airport (CCR Section 5001(k)). Incompatible land uses are defined in CCR Section 5014. Incompatible land can include residences, schools, churches and hospitals within the noise impact boundary. (CCR Section 5014)
The California Noise Standards are regulations designed to diminish noise problems by "controlling and reducing the noise impact area in communities in the vicinity of airports." · (CCR Section 5000 Preamble) A proprietor of a noise problem airport may request variances from the requirements of Section 5012, which states that "(n)o airport proprietor of a noise problem airport shall operate an airport with a noise impact area based on the standard of 65 dB CNEL unless the operator has applied for or received a variance...". (CCR Section 5050 and CCR Section 5012) "In granting variances, the department shall be guided by the underlying policy that the proprietor of each existing airport having a noise impact area be required to develop and implement programs to reduce the noise impact area of the airport to an acceptable degree in an orderly manner over a reasonable period of time." (CCR Section 5050) "The department may grant a variance if to do so would be in the public interest. In weighing the public interest, the department's considerations include:
(a) The economic and technological feasibility of complying with the noise standards set by these regulations;
(b) The noise impact should the variance be granted;
(c) The value to the public of the services for which the variance is sought; and
(d) Whether the airport proprietor is taking good faith measures to the best of its ability to achieve the airport noise standards. (CCR Section 5053)
The evidence presented at the variance hearing establishes that VNY has met and exceeded its obligations under the California Noise Standards.
Section 5053 of the California Code of Regulations provides criteria for determining whether a variance should be granted. An analysis of this criteria reveals that the granting of a variance to LAWA for VNY would be in the public interest. Certain noise mitigation measures such a the noise curfew and other voluntary programs instituted by LAWA have had the benefit of reducing noise in addition to being economically and technologically feasible. Other noise reduction methods, including those proposed by Intervenor Groups A and B, such as hush kits and outright bans of Stage II aircraft are legally problematic4 and present prohibitive costs thereby eliminating their feasibility for the present. Evidence presented at the variance hearing indicated that over the last ten years, the noise impact area has grown only slightly despite a significant increase in the number of jet operations. VNY provides a huge job base and enormous revenues for the community. LAWA has taken good faith measures to satisfy the conditions of the operative variance. In addition, LAWA has taken good faith measures above and beyond the operative variance in commencing a number of voluntary noise abatement programs. As Mr. Thelen indicated in his questioning of VNY's witness, Mark Adams, the noise variance process targets the achievement of a zero-impact area. LAWA has in place a program that will achieve that objective. The approved Aircraft Noise Mitigation Program describes how sound insulation will proceed at VNY. (Exhibit VNY-43 and RT: Vol. V, p. 119, ls. 20-28 and p. 120, ls. 1-11) The approximate $15 million cost (without matching federal funds) of the sound insulation program compares favorably to the legally problematic and costly measures proposed by Intervenor Groups A and B.
A. The economic and technological feasibility of complying with the noise standards
In evaluating whether a variance should be granted under CCR Section 5053, the economic and technological feasibility of complying with the Noise Standards set by those regulations must be examined. It is not currently economically and technologically feasible to eliminate the noise impact area at VNY. This principle was clearly established through testimony and other evidence at the variance hearing.
According to environmental supervisor, Mark Adams, it is not technologically feasible to reduce the noise impact area to zero because of the nature and number of jet operations at VNY. As long as jet operations exist, even if all Stage II aircraft were replaced with Stage III, there would still be a noise impact area in the residential community adjacent to VNY. (RT: Vol. IV, p. 32, ls. 20-28 and p. 33, ls. 1-4)
Invervenor "C," representative of the tenants at VNY, called John Kennedy, who qualified as an expert as to airport operational economics. Mr. Kennedy testified as to the economic and technological feasibility of various noise measures proposed by Intervenors A and B with regard to VNY. Mr. Kennedy's testimony included, the overall economic costs over a three year period of: (1) phase-out of all Stage II aircraft, (2) the imposition of an immediate Stage II non-addition rule, and (3) hushkitting all Stage II aircraft. (RT: Vol. V, p.19 and p.20, ls. 1-21 and Exhibits IC29, 31) The costs of each of these programs over a three year period was staggering. For example, according to Mr. Kennedy, the replacement cost of a phase out of Stage II aircraft would be $525,165,000 over three years. (RT: Vol. V, p. 23, ls. 23-28 and p. 24, l. 1) Further, the cost to the community if the Stage II aircraft left VNY and were not replaced, would be $45,455,500 including the loss of about 332 jobs, salaries and services at VNY. Mr. Kennedy testified that the cost of the imposition of an immediate non-addition rule as proposed by Intervenors A and B would be $361,200,000 over three years. The cost if the planes subject to the non-addition rule left and were not replaced is $29,268,900 and 210 airport related jobs (RT: Vol. V, p. 24, ls. 24-28 and p. 25, ls. 1-4). The cost of hush-kitting as proposed by Intervenors A and B was $83,040,000. Mr. Kennedy testified that the cost of planes choosing to leave the airport instead of being subject to hushkitting would be $45,455,500. (RT: Vol. V, p. 25, ls. 5-13) Not only would operational constraints such as a phase out of Stage II aircraft, non-addition rules, and hush-kitting as proposed by Intervenors A and B, hurt the actual operators of the affected aircraft, but support facilities and business in general would suffer as well. Kennedy testified that if such operational constraints were imposed, maintenance facilities like the Jet Center at VNY would "ultimately go away."
(RT: Vol, V. p. 36, ls. 12-18) On cross examination, Kennedy revealed that if the phase- out, non-addition or hushkit rules were put in place, the loss of jobs and revenue would not be replaced by other services coming to the airport (RT: Vol. V. p. 71, ls. 25-28 and p. 72, l.1).
Clearly, the hundreds of millions of dollars in costs and loss of jobs, that arise from the Intervenor proposed programs of phasing out all Stage II aircraft, the non- addition rule, and hushkitting, in addition to being legally problematic, are economically unacceptable.
Other witnesses testified as to the economic effects of the proposed operational constraints. Robert Diaz is an interior supervisor at the Jet Center. (RT: Vol. IX, p.10, ls. 13-14) The Jet Center has 218 employees (RT: Vol. IX, p. 11, ls. 11-12), that 80% of the planes worked on are over 12,500 pounds and about 70% of the aircraft that the Jet Center works on are Stage II. (RT: Vol. IX, p. 12, ls. 7-9 and ls. 19-21) Mr. Diaz testified that he would not need any of the 40 other workers in his department if Stage II jets were removed from VNY or if jets weighing over 12,500 pounds were prohibited from operating at VNY. (RT: Vol. IX, p. 13, ls. 12-18).
Daniel Fidel, a flight line manager for Air Group (RT: Vol. IX, p. 16, ls. 7-9) testified that he would have a drastic cut back in people he would need as employees if Stage II aircraft were required to leave the airport as a result of a noise abatement effort. (RT: Vol. IX, p. 1 8, ls. 24-27)
Clay Lacy, an operator of jet charters, testified that all of his jets are over 12,500 lbs. (RT: Vol. IX, p.26, ls. 17-19) His company has 110- 115 employees. (RT: Vol. IX, p. 23, ls. 4-6) Clay Lacy stated that his company is currently operating about 14 Stage II aircraft. (RT: Vol. IX, p. 27, ls. 5-8) Lacy testified that he would have to close his company if he didn't have Stage II jets. (RT: Vol. IX, p. 32-33 ls. 25-28 & 1) Lacy concluded that the costs of using exclusively Stage III aircraft in his charter business would be prohibitive. Lacy testified that he considered moving his company to Burbank if Stage II Aircraft were banned from Van Nuys Airport. (RT: Vol. IX, p.70, ls. 24-28, p. 71, ls. 1-5)
Evaluating all of the testimony and evidence presented as to the economic and technological feasibility of noise abatement methods leads to indisputable conclusions.
The proposed programs eliminating Stage II aircraft and hush kits are far too
expensive, leading to both lost revenues and jobs. In addition, the proposed
operational constraints are legally unsound. Furthermore, the programs do not
result in the elimination of the noise impact area at VNY. (RT Vol. IV, p.
32, ls. 20-28 and p. 33, ls.l- 4) On the other hand, the sound insulation
program currently in effect at VNY, as
described below, is cost effective and will eliminate the noise impact area at
VNY within
three to five years.
Testimony and evidence presented at the variance hearing indicates that the noise impact area will remain at about the level described in the Quarterly Report for Third Quarter 1998 at the time a new variance is granted. (Exhibit VNY-27) VNY Exhibits 27 and 41 clearly demonstrate that the noise impact area over the past 10 years has remained relatively stable in size despite an increase in jet operations. The noise impact boundary is not expected to shrink or grow significantly should the variance be granted. In fact, Nancy Niles of LAWA's soundproofing bureau, testified that the sound insulation program currently in effect at VNY should be completed in approximately 3-5 years. Exhibits VNY-31, 34 in part, 35, 36, and 38 all describe how sound insulation of affected homes will eliminate the noise impact area at VNY.
Mark Adams explained that "The noise abatement actions [LAWA has] taken have kept the noise impact area from growing more than it would have in the face of the increased operations since the time the variance was approved. We have many more aircraft operations, particularly jet aircraft operations, today than we did in 1989." (RT: Vol. IV, p. 85, ls. 4-9) Thus, considering that the noise impact area has only slightly increased despite an enormous increase in jet operations coupled with LAWA's own sound insulation program which promises to eliminate the noise impact area clearly indicates that the granting of a noise variance will be in the public interest.
VNY is a vital source of regional economic growth and public services. The benefits of Van Nuys Airport operations are enormous. First, VNY makes vital contributions to economic development. The operation of VNY translates into business dollars and jobs for the surrounding community. RT: Vol. II, p. 111, ls. 16-23).
A commercial general aviation airport, such as VNY draws businesses
into the area for the primary reason that such airports are able to accommodate
the specific needs of business travelers and business jets. (RT: Vol. II, p. 1
10, ls. 14-28, p. 111, ls. 1-8). Without the airport, businesses would
potentially leave the area. (RT: Vol. II, p. 129, ls. 1-6).
Air travel accommodates businesses in ways that other modes of transportation
cannot. (RT: Vol. II, p. 110, ls. 14-28, p. 111, ls. 1-8). There are not many
airports in
the Southern California region that can do this. (RT: Vol. II, p. 104, ls.
1-28).
Airport witness, Eric McClellan quantified and explained the economic value of VNY to southern California during his testimony regarding Wilbur Smith Associates' study entitled, the "Economic Impact of Van Nuys Airport Update - 1998." (Exhibits VNY: 19-22; RT: Vol. II, p. 99, ls. 4-13). According to Mr. McClellan, the economic impacts, which are directly or indirectly related to the airport operation, total about $787 million dollars, of which an estimated $187 million is paid in salaries. Of the aviation related jobs, 76% occur off airport. (Exhibit VNY-22, page 8) Combine the aviation and non-aviation related impacts for the airport and it totals over $1.2 billion dollars for 1998 alone, with about $273 million paid in salaries to 10,027 jobs. (Exhibit VNY: 2l, page 14; RT: Vol. II, p. 101, ls. 9-24). There are over 100 businesses located at the airport and six major FBOs (Fixed Based Operators). (RT: Vol. II, p. 141, ls. 22-28).
Certainly, citizens benefit from the jobs and businesses that depend on VNY regardless of whether or not those citizens actually fly. (RT: Vol. II, p. 106, ls. 4-23, p. 108, ls. 10- 28).
Furthermore, the airport benefits the community in ways that cannot be quantified. VNY is a source of invaluable public services. The Los Angeles Fire Department is located at VNY, along with its supporting helicopter and rescue services. (RT: Vol. II, p. 110, ls. 6-13). The Los Angeles Police Department and Department of Water and Power maintain their helicopters at VNY. (RT: Vol. II, p. 142, ls. 20-26).
Further, VNY is used by the Coast Guard in their trauma patient transport, and even by the police in their search and rescue missions. (RT: Vol. II, p. 110, ls. 6-13). There are several private companies that provide medical emergency services as well, including organ transplant. In addition, television and radio stations utilize the airport, providing information on traffic and other news breaking items. (RT: Vol. II, p. 111, ls. 9-15)
These are benefits which cannot be quantified. The community is benefited by VNY's sheer volume of operations. There are over 500,000 flight operations per year. VNY is one of the largest general aviation airports. (RT: Vol. II, p. 104, ls. 1-28). Other airports in the region, such as John Wayne, are at their capacity and would be hard pressed to accommodate additional aviation activity if VNY were closed. (RT: Vol. II, p. 131, ls. 15-20).
For the above-stated reasons and others, it is clear that VNY is a necessary and valuable component of the San Fernando Valley community, and to the air traveling public at large.
D. Good Faith Efforts
LAWA has implemented various programs and guidelines in a good faith effort to comply with the operative variance conditions of the 1989 Van Nuys Variance. (Exhibits VNY-1, 2). Following is a table of evidence demonstrating LAWA's compliance with the 1989 variance conditions (Table 2). In addition, Table 3 demonstrates that LAWA has taken steps voluntarily that go well beyond the scope of the specified conditions of the operative variance to prospectively alleviate the noise impact of VNY operations.
1. Table 2 Reflects LAWA's Good Faith Compliance With the
Existing Variance.
Table 2 - Compliance with 1989 Van Nuys Variance
1989 Variance Condition 1 Steps Taken by LAWA to Comply Status of Compliance
Effort
1. Conduct a one time helicopter noise monitoring study
Acoustical Associates Analysis prepared the study titled, "Helicopter Noise Measurements in the Vicinity of VNY Airport" (RT: Vol. III, p. 128, ls. 15-28 and Exhibit VNY-23). Based on data gathered from the 8 different noise monitoring sites at VNY, the study concluded that helicopter noise levels were less (44.6 - 54.5 CNEL) than the state noise criteria. (Exhibit VNY-23). This study, as well as other helicopter studies, revealed that with or without helicopter operations, the noise contour area remained the same. (RT: Vol. V, p. 139, ls. 8-13 and RT: Vol. III, p. 18, ls. 5-10).
Completed.
2. Develop reliable data and / or information with regard to a) SENEL of jet aircraft at VNY:b) availability of retrofit kits; c) advisability of requiring retrofitting for VNY based planes.
Accuracy of Noise Data: VNY has had a permanent noise monitoring system in place in excess of 10 years. (RT: Vol., III p. 155, ls. 12-24) Current systems have been in place since 1994, but are constantly upgraded (RT: Vol. III, p. 156) Set up is based on consultant recommendations (Exhibit VNY-25) Software manages the data gathered by the monitors. (RT: Vol. III, p. 156, ls. 1-8) In 1994, updated noise monitoring system software was installed which allowed for implementation of programs such as Fly Friendly, Early Turn and advanced data processing for quarterly reports. (RT: Vol. III, p. 156, Ins. 4-12). The current noise monitoring system easily meets the state mandated decibel accuracy levels as they vary no more than 1/5th of a decibel (State regulations require accuracy to within 1.5 decibels). (RT: Vol. III, p. 158, ls. 11-15 and p. 159, ls. 1- 2). Monitors are regularly calibrated once every 6 months as evidenced by the maintenance records. (RT: Vol. III, p. 89, ls. 10-22, Exhibit VNY-26).
At least one million dollars has been spent on the installation and upgrading of the noise monitoring system since 1989. (RT: Vol. III, p. 157, Ins. 25-28 and p. 158, ls. 1-7.)
Study on Feasibility of Retrofitting In March 1990, Acoustical Analysis Associates prepared a report in response to Condition No. 2. The report described noise values and other information of VNY based jet aircraft regarding the possibility of retrofitting as a requirement for jets based at VNY. (Exhibit VNY-24).
Completed .
Noise monitoring system and software are continually upgraded.
3. Use best efforts to petition City officials to revise general plan and underlying ordinances to bring about land compatibility within three years of variance effective date, OR in the alternative to-seek other methods of compatibility through a Part 150 program including the provision of noise insulation in exchange for avigation easements. 2
Part 150 Study: In 1992, BOAC approved a Part 150 plan. That plan was rejected by the FAA due to the projections contained within the noise exposure maps. Currently, the Board of Airport Commissioners has appointed two co-chairs (Sandra Winger and Commissioner Leland Wong) to steer the Part 150 process. (RT: Vol. VIII, p. 30, ls. 5- 16). For further description see Condition 5 below.
Compatible Zoning / Sound Insulation: LAWA is attempting to secure land compatibility by working with the County and by establishing its sound insulation program. The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUC") is ultimately adopted by the L.A.. County Planning Agency. LAWA has adopted an Airport Noise Mitigation Program which can be used as a guide to the county so that it can develop an ALUC Plan relatively quickly. (RT: Vol. IV, p. 27, ls. 16-27) Homes and incompatible structures will be insulated in exchange for avigation easements in order to make land uses within the noise impact area compatible. (Exhibits VNY-31, 34-36, 38, 43). Future compatibility may be obtained by insulating at the time of construction. The City Planning Department adopted an ordinance at LAX that new housing within the 65 CNEL be soundproofed which can be extended to VNY (RT: Vol. IV, p. 28, ls. 10-14)
Part 150 Study is expected to be complete within the next two years. (RT: Vol. VIII p. 31, ls. 5-7; Exhibits VNY31, 34-36, 38, 43). For further information see Status of Condition 5 below. Sound insulation office has been established; program is currently in effect.
4. Comply with all laws of nation and state in addition to enforcing its own ordinances pertinent to airport operation including restriction on air taxi operations of aircraft over 12,500 pounds.
VNY Ordinances: LAWA has enforced all existing ordinances pertinent to the operation of VNY, namely: Van Nuys Noise Abatement and Curfew Regulation (Ord. 155,727, as amended by Ord. 177889) (departure curfew between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., training flights allowed during certain hours, maintenance run-ups prohibited during certain hours of the day). (RT: Vol. IV, p. 9-13 and Exhibit VNY-16). Maximum fines have been imposed on violations.
While LAWA at one time passed a Resolution against aircraft operations over 12,500 pounds at VNY, such a policy did not exist as an ordinance and therefor was not a legally enforceable law. (Exhibit IA-3)
State/National Laws: LAWA has complied with all state and national laws.
Completed and currently in effect.
5. Undertake a noise study under Part 150 to aid solution to noise problem and to make funds available to provide insulation to or acquire impacted residences.
LAWA undertook a Part 150 study and the Board of Airport Commissioners approved it in 1992. The FAA subsequently rejected the noise exposure maps for the Part 150. LAWA voluntarily implemented 75-80% of the noise mitigation plans contained within the Part 150 on its own initiative. (RT: Vol. 3, p. 134; ls. 21-23, RT: Vol. VIII, p. 37, ls. 10-28; p. 38, ls. 8-10). The Part 150 study is a list of actions to be taken by the airport proprietor to enhance the goal of noise compatibility. (RT: Vol. IV, , p. 26, ls. 14-17).
The BOAC approved the Part 150 program and substantially implemented the noise mitigation measures contained within it despite the lack of FAA approval. (RT: Vol. III, p. 137, ls. 1-4) The FAA requested LAWA revise its projections within the noise exposure maps in 1994 Discussions are ongoing with the Part 150 Steering Committee regarding resubmission. (RT: Vol. IV, p. 139, ls. 2028). See Status of Condition 3 above.
6. Continue to submit to DOT/Caltrans and County of L.A., and make available to the public upon request, at the end of each quarter year: noise monitoring reports, the current noise impact boundary, the actual CNEL at each monitoring station and efforts taken to comply with this 1989 variance.
LAWA regularly submits reports to the County. All reports have been favorably reviewed by the County as indicated in the Bricken Review for two quarters as representative of all reviews. The reports are made available to the public upon request (Exhibits VNY-27, 28; RT: Vol. III, p. 137, ls. 12-23).
For evidence of required noise data actually being gathered, see evidence of compliance with Condition 2, above.
Complete.
7. Continue to secure tenant cooperation in noise abatement in consultation with local FAA officials by:
a) continuing to develop/refine techniques in methodology through its noise committee; b) endeavoring to make compliance with current and future airport regulations a part of all leases; and c) maintaining/expanding curfew times as far as practicable.
Methodology/Development: LAWA continues to develop and refine noise control techniques through the CAC and through a coordination of efforts between the Noise Management Bureau, the Environmental Management Bureau and other members of VNY staff, LAWA communicates regularly with tenants and the FAA (RT: Vol. III, p. 138, Is 8-16). There are ongoing meetings with tenant groups. (Exhibits VNY-5-11; RT: Vol. III, p.138, ls. 3-16).
Leases: LAWA endeavors to make compliance with the noise regulations a part of all new leases. (Exhibit VNY-I7). All existing leases require tenants to comply with all rules and regulations.
Curfew: Nighttime curfew was expanded in 1997 from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.. (Exhibits VNY-9 & 16).
Ongoing compliance.
8. In the event Caltrans finds that the Quarterly Noise Reports disclose a failure to make a good faith effort to undertake and complete a Part 150 noise study, this variance may be terminated upon 10 days written notice, subject to a right to request a new variance within 30 days.
Caltrans never made such a finding.
Not a LAWA requirement.
9. Upon application of further variances, submit a summary of compliance efforts with regard to the conditions of the 1989 Variance.
Summary report submitted with variance application. (Exhibit VNY-2).
Complete.
10. Variance shall be for 3 years from the effective date of this order, but may be extended.
Application was submitted prior to its termination as required by regulations. (CAC 5057 and Exhibit VNY-2)
Complete.
1 - Numbers correspond to the actual condition numbers in the 1989 Van Nuys Variance Order.
2 - Stated conditions reflect the amended conditions as stated in the Amendment to Order, dated February 21, 1989.
2. Table 3 Reflects LAWA's Good Faith Efforts Above and Beyond the Operative Variance Conditions.
LAWA has voluntarily taken numerous steps, beyond those required by the 1989 variance, to reduce the noise impact area and otherwise address noise concerns. Although the noise impact area has admittedly increased over a nine year period, LAWA has used its best efforts to keep the noise impact area as small as possible -- despite increased operations over which LAWA has no control. (RT: Vol. IV, p. 85, ls. 1-12 and Vol. V, p. 139, 1. 28 and p. 140, ls. 1-18) LAWA's Noise Management Bureau is primarily responsible for: 1)ensuring compliance with the State Airport Noise Standards; 2) operating the noise monitoring system; 3) preparing the quarterly noise monitoring reports referred to earlier in this brief; 4) overseeing variance procedures and compliance with the variance procedures; 5) ensuring that in-flight polices and procedures are adhered to; and 6) overseeing the sound insulation programs outside of the City of Los Angeles. (RT: Vol. III, p.79, ls. 14-28 and p. 80). The Environmental Management Bureau has also been involved in these efforts by implementing and overseeing the Fly Friendly Program, conducting environmental impact reports, and assisting in the Part 150 process. (RT: Vol. III, p. 80, ls. 14-28 and p. 81, ls. 1-24) VNY management, led by Jens Rivera, is a significant part of LAWA's noise mitigation efforts, as well. Each item below constitutes a measure voluntarily taken by LAWA to foster the abatement of the noise impact area and address noise concerns at VNY.
Table 3 - Efforts Beyond 1989 Variance Conditions
Name of Program
Program Description
Status/Effect of Program
The Van Nuys Noise Abatement and Curfew Nuys Noise Regulation is an
ordinance, which has long and vigorously been enforced by LAWA. (Exhibits and
Curfew VNY-13, 16). Airport Manager, Jens Rivera and Stacy Geere testified about
the specific procedure involved in enforcing the VNY Noise Ordinance. This
procedure includes the submission of possible violations to the City Attorney's
Office for potential prosecution. (RT: Vol. V, p. 207, ls. 6-12).
To assist with enforcement, summaries of the ordinances are distributed to
interested parties. (Exhibit VNY-9).
Status: Actively enforced
Effect: Noise Abatement Index
In 1998, LAWA extended the noise curfew from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m. for louder Stage 2 aircraft. This curfew extension is further evidence of LAWA's best efforts at mitigating the noise problem. (Exhibit VNY-16 and RT: VNY II, p. 146, ls. 15-28 and p. 147, ls. 1- 9)
Status: In effect and enforced.
Effect: Noise Abatement Index
This program was recommended by the Part 150 study, and voluntarily implemented by the Board of Airport Commissioners. It generally recommends specific departure procedures within margins of safety in order to reduce takeoff noise levels. (RT: Vol. II, p. 154; Exhibits VNY-14, 32, 33, 6, 8). Environmental Manager Maury Laham testified to the development of the program and the various complex considerations that would need to be factored into a compulsory program. (RT: Vol. VII, p. 63, ls. 1-28 and p. 64, ls. 1-21)
Status: Completed and enforced.
Effect: Environmental Manager Maury Laham, testified that the voluntary nature of the program results in a greater reduction of noise than a mandatory program because the target level can be set at a more aggressive level than one set in a mandatory program. Index
This program requires aircraft departing from VNY to fly straight until they reach Victory Boulevard, for the purpose of containing the noise impact area and preventing it from spreading out to the sides. (RT: Vol. IV, p. 6, ls. 2-10). LAWA literature reminds pilots that there are no turns before the flood basin and radar and microphones regulate compliance. (RT: Vol. III, p. 120, ls. 13-28, Exhibits VNY-6, 8, 15).
Status: Completed and in effect.
Effect: The program has reduced the spread of the noise impact area to the sides by a measurable amount. (RT: Vol. IV, p. 6, ls. 2-10, Exhibits VNY-6, 8, 15). Index
LAWA exceeded the basic requirement to conduct a one time helicopter noise monitoring study (Condition No. 1) by:
1) coordinating with the FAA and CAC to develop helicopter routes in and out of VNY (RT: Vol. III, p. 14, ls. 19-23); and
2) setting up the "Helicopter Route and Altitude Deviation Program," a monitoring program by which aircraft owners are advised in writing when they deviate from the specified altitudes/routes, and for pilot education pilots/owners are sent graphics illustrating their actual violations. (RT: Vol. III. p. 15. ls. 10-18)
Status: Ongoing
Effect: Addresses noise concerns regarding helicopters which do not affect
the noise
impact area at VNY Index
LAWA publishes a number of written and audio/visual materials on all of the
airport's programs. (RT: Vol. V, p. 194, ls. 8-11); Exhibits VNY, 5-11).
Publications include: 1) explanations of the VNY Noise Abatement and Curfew
Regulations called "Quiet Flying is Good Business" and "Van Nuys
Airport User's Guide" (Exhibits VNY 5, 9); 2) brochures available through
the department website (RT: Vol. V, p. 199, ls. 1-4); and 3) a community
newsletter with a combined circulation of about 60,000 (RT: Vol. V, p.
226, ls. 1-18).
Status: Completed and in effect.
Effect: Although these publications do not directly reduce the noise impact
area or
operations noise at VNY, the publications better inform the public about what
VNY is
doing to mitigate the noise impact area. Also, the publications inform airplane
operators
about their rights and obligations under LAWA regulations, thus reducing any
chances
of misinterpretation. Index
LAWA is committed to insulating in the neighborhood of 1,100 homes within a period 3- 5 years. (RT: Vol. V, p. 120, ls. 21-28 and p. 121, ls. 1-3). This figure was arrived at in part by going from house to house in order to determine the proper residences within the noise impact area. (RT: Vol. V, p.98, ls. 23-28 and p.99, ls. 1-7).
Status: Under more traditional circumstances, LAWA would be reimbursed for its sound insulation by the federal government. However, the program that LAWA has voluntarily undertaken at VNY is being commenced without assurances from the federal government that it will reimburse LAWA for its sound insulation efforts. This financial burden on LAWA, is yet another example of noise mitigation efforts that exceed the expectations of the 1989 variance. (Exhibits VNY 31, 34, 43, 35, 36, 38).
Effect: Land use compatibility. Elimination of the noise impact area within 3-5 years. Index
The rule limits aircraft operators based at VNY from replacing existing aircraft with Stage II aircraft, thus eventually phasing out Stage II aircraft at VNY completely. Aircraft that would be exempt from the rule would be aircraft that have been parked or tied down at VNY for at least 90 days in 1999. Those exempt aircraft would be allowed to continue operations with Stage II aircraft. (RT: Vol. IV, p.7, 1s. 4-26). However aircraft that are subject to the rule will only be allowed to operate at VNY 30 days per years, or be subject to a violation of the rule. (RT: Vol. IV, p.7, ls. 4-26). This rule was an entirely voluntary effort on the part of LAWA which came about only as the result of much debate and difficulty at constructing a workable non-addition rule.
Status: The rule is currently being considered by the Los Angeles City Council. The rule has already been approved by the Board of Airport Commissioners. (RT: Vol. IV, p. 7, ls. 4-26).
Effect: The immediate benefit is subtle, but measurable as non-exempt aircraft would need to reduce their Stage II aircraft operations. However, over time, the result will be future decreases in the noise contour area. (RT: Vol. IV, p.8, ls. 1-5)). Moreover, the rule will potentially hasten the complete removal of the louder Stage II aircraft by the year 2005 and beyond. (Exhibit VNY-30). Index
LAWA handles noise complaints and community concerns in part through its toll free 800 number, available in the White Pages. (RT: Vol. V, p. 201, ls. 2-18). The hotline records messages left by community members, then Noise Management Bureau staff transcribe messages, respond to concerns, or launch investigations into complaints to determine if the noise was related to aircraft and if so, which aircraft. (RT: Vol. IV, p. 20, ls. 14-28 and p. 21, ls. 1-25). VNY is also set up to receive similar complaints via fax. (RT: Vol. IV, p. 21, ls.7-8). A map that illustrates the location of complaining residents, most of whom are outside the noise impact area is contained in Exhibit VNY-42.
Status: Complete and in effect.
Effect: The noise complaint system has no direct impact on actual reduction of the noise impact area or compliance with the noise regulations. However, the noise complaint process assists in allaying community concerns and serves as a community watchdog outlet. Index
10. Public Outreach Programs
The are a numbers of ways in which LAWA does community outreach. First, Stacy Geere serves as a liaison to the Van Nuys Airport Citizens Advisory Council, which was formed to advise the Board of Airport Commissioners regarding the impact of certain activities and polices at VNY. (RT: Vol. V, p. 197, ls. 17-28 and p.198, ls. 1-2). Second, VNY also operates a guided tour program which informs some 10,000 visitors about VNY including noise related issues. (RT: Vol. V, p. 198, ls. 22-28). Third, a variety of publications and audiovisual materials are produced on all of the airport's programs, including noise. (Exhibit VNY-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and RT: Vol. V, p. 194, ls. 8-11) Fourth, LAWA makes information available on its website. (RT: Vol. V, p. 199, ls. 1-3) Fifth, LAWA circulates a community newsletter to approximately 60,000 people. (RT: Vol. V, p. 226, ls. 5-10)
Status: Complete and in effect.
Effect: These programs have no direct impact on actual noise abatement. However, by increasing awareness of VNY and its programs, VNY becomes more accessible to the community. The consequence of a cooperative relationship are helpful additions to LAWA's efforts at noise abatement. For example, LAWA uses the "Quiet Flying is Good Business" and "Van Nuys Airport User's Guide" in responding to community requests for information about the noise abatement program and procedures (RT: Vol. V, p. 195, ls. 5-12 and Exhibits VNY-5, 9).
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the City of Los Angeles respectfully request that the variance application for Van Nuys Airport be granted.
DATED: January 19, 2000
JAMES K. HAHN, City Attorney
BRETON K. LOBNER, Senior Assistant
City Attorney
M. LYNN MAYO, Deputy City Attorney
Attorneys for Respondent/Applicant CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
1 A comprehensive list of Exhibits for VNY, the State of California, Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), Intervenor Groups A, B, and C and the status of each Exhibit contained in Appendix A attached to this initial Closing Brief.
2 Incompatible acreage for 1st Quarter 1989 was 39.7 compared to incompatible acreage for 3rd Quarter 1998 of 57.6. (Exhibit VNY-27)
3 LAWA objected to intervention by any person or entity that did not reside in, own property in, or have jurisdiction over the noise impact area. (See AR Index No. 16)
4 See City of Burbank v Lockheed Air Terminal Inc. 411 U.S. 624 (1973); County of Cook v. Priester (1974) 22 IIl. App.3d 964; San Diego Unified Port District v, Gianturco 611 F 2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1981); Air Transp. Ass'n, v Crotti (1975) 389 F.Supp. 58, 62-65; Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v City of Los Angeles 979 f.2d 1338, 1339 (9th Cir. 1992); Airport Noise Capacity Act (“ANCA”) 49 U.S.C. § 47521 et seq.