Council Should Ground Airport Non-Addition Rule

When Congress enacted the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, it was intended to prevent local airports from adopting regulations that would send aircraft noise to other communities, thus disrupting the national air transportation system.

Now the Los Angeles City Council is considering the so-called non-addition rule for Van Nuys Airport, which would cap Stage 2 aircraft at the number based there now.

This proposal and earlier noise curfews adopted by the Los Angeles World Airports for Van Nuys Airport go against the very intent of the Noise and Capacity Act.

Every week, aircraft from Van Nuys Airport have to land at other airports such as Los Angeles International or Burbank so that they won’t violate the Van Nuys Airport’s noise curfew. These relocations cause several departures and landings instead of one, therefore causing more noise instead of less. Tony Lucente of the Studio City Residents Assn. was correct in his assessment of the non-addition rule and curfew when he said, “A phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft [at Van Nuys] will exacerbate the Burbank noise problem because the planes would more likely move to Burbank, which doesn’t have the same Stage 2 restrictions for private aircraft.”

There are other problems with the proposal besides transference of noise. The Los Angeles city attorney has admitted that the non-addition rule could seriously injure certain fixed-base operators at the airport and expose the city to monetary damages.

Additionally, the city may have to defend suits based on restraint of trade, interstate commerce and breach of contract of lease between the city and the airport operators.

I know that if this rule is passed by the City Council, my business will be worth considerably less because of the doubts it raises about future revenues.

Besides the legal problems with the non-addition rule, it is simply a political quick fix that provides no real solutions to either homeowner groups or Van Nuys Airport operators.

It is interesting that Van Nuys, the busiest general aviation airport in the country, has a noise contour of less than 1% of that at LAX where there are no noise restrictions. In fact, the noise contour at the Van Nuys Airport is decreasing rather than increasing because of the fly-friendly program and newer aircraft that are quieter.

And if the city had handled the zoning around the airport correctly in the first place, there would be no need for a noise variance to allow the airport to operate in California.

*

My aviation area at Van Nuys Airport lies only 70 feet from an apartment building. And who is to blame for this land-use blunder? The city of Los Angeles. Who pays for Los Angeles’ land-use blunder? The taxpayers of Los Angeles and the operators at the airport.

There are solutions to the noise problems at Van Nuys Airport. First is to complete and implement the Federal Aviation Administration 150 program, which was initiated more than 10 years ago. The program attempts to mitigate noise problems and provides federal funding to assist in the effort. If the Part 150 study had been completed within two years of its inception, residences within the noise contour would have been soundproofed seven years ago.

Second, the city should complete the master plan. This plan has been tied up in government red tape and bureaucracy for almost 10 years. If it had been in place, it could have helped airport operators plan their growth with an emphasis on making the airport quieter. Instead, piecemeal regulations and leasing politics at the airport have both upset neighboring residents and not solved any problems.

Lack of determination to finish the FAA Part 150 study and the master plan and lack of proper zoning around the Van Nuys Airport are the main reasons that the airport has a bad reputation with all stakeholders. Now the city wants to limit aviation operations that produce more than 10,000 jobs and bring $1.2 billion into the community.

It is a clear case of the city placing the blame for its inaction and mistakes on the airport operators and the taxpayers.