Robbins Seeks New Hearing on Van Nuys Airport Permit

State Sen. Alan Robbins (D-Tarzana) has asked Caltrans to reopen a hearing on a vital state permit for Van Nuys Airport to investigate charges by an anti-noise activist that Los Angeles city lawyers misled him into supporting the permit’s renewal.

The city attorney’s office denies the charge.

Robbins sent a letter to the state Department of Transportation last month, asking the agency to reopen the hearing into the city-owned airport’s variance, which allows the facility to operate without meeting state noise-control limits. Like almost all major airports in the state, Van Nuys Airport could not remain open without a variance because it is impossible to meet the law’s noise standards, airport officials said.

Caltrans spokesmen said that the department has not decided what to do about Robbins’ request but that no such hearing has ever been reopened.

Bad-Faith Accusation

Robbins acted after Don Schultz of Van Nuys, president of Ban Airport Noise, accused the city attorney’s office of acting in bad faith, misleading him during negotiations for an agreement that cleared the way for the variance’s renewal.

Schultz has refused to sign his part of the agreement, leaving the issue unsettled.

Schultz and leaders of other San Fernando Valley homeowner groups demanded a public hearing on the variance in 1987, urging Caltrans to impose stricter noise controls on the airport in exchange for the permit’s renewal. The city Department of Airports resisted.

But a state administrative law judge conducted a trial-like hearing at which the city, Caltrans and the anti-noise forces led by Schultz presented arguments. In July, the judge recommended to the head of Caltrans, which has final authority on variances, that the variance be granted with 10 noise-fighting conditions attached.

One condition was an order to rezone a residential neighborhood south of the airport, containing 26 homes and 151 apartments, to industrial and commercial use. The aim was to bring the airport closer in compliance with the law limiting airport noise in residential neighborhoods by eliminating the residences.

Fight Promised

The city attorney’s office, arguing that the state has no authority to mandate changes in city zoning laws, asked Caltrans to reconsider the order and promised to fight the issue in court if Caltrans persisted.

In August, Caltrans attorney Larry Thelen hammered out a compromise with the Department of Airports. The airports department agreed to eliminate the mandate on rezoning and also promised to “use its best efforts” to persuade city officials to rezone the land.

Schultz, representing the “intervenors” who requested the hearing, in turn agreed to the dropping of the judge’s recommendation that the airport be forbidden to take any action that could increase its “noise footprint,” the zone in which noise exceeds the limit for residential areas.

The alternative, Schultz said, was the prospect of a legal battle between the city and the state that probably would have lasted five years or more, in which time the variance would have been automatically extended without any of the judge’s noise-limiting recommendations in effect.

When the reworded agreement was sent to him for his signature, however, Schultz refused to sign.

He charged that the city attorney’s office had concealed knowledge that a proposed office development at the airport by the Retlaw Corp. would increase the “footprint.” The development will include hangar space for up to seven private jets.

Schultz maintained that the city attorney’s office was guilty of bad faith for not disclosing that information to him before he agreed to drop the provision barring increases in the noise footprint. He would not have agreed to the stipulated settlement if he had known, he said.

The city attorney’s office, in a reply to Caltrans, said Schultz had taken part in a number of debates on the Retlaw plan and was well-informed on the subject. The city also argued that the anticipated noise from planes at the Retlaw hangar will add only 3.3 acres to the 549-acre footprint, an increase of .6%, which the city calls insignificant.

Caltrans now has several choices, said Thelen, the Caltrans’ attorney:

“We could honor the city’s request for reconsideration of our July order, or we could go ahead and amend the order in accordance with the stipulation on the grounds that we don’t agree with Mr. Schultz that he was fraudulently induced, or we could decide that the facts are sufficiently in doubt that we could go along with Sen. Robbins’ request for a hearing.”