To: Parties Interested in Stage 2 GA jet
restrictions at VNY
From: Gerald A. Silver
Pres. Homeowners of Encino
(HOME)
National Helicopter Noise
Coalition (NHNC)
Stop the Noise! Coalition
(STN)
Subject: VNY LACY SUIT-LA WINS!-NON-ADDITION RULE STANDS!
Printed below are several items of interest regarding the
recent suit won by
LAWA to keep the VNY non-additional rule in place.
Note in particular the Stop the Noise! letter to the LA City
Council. As
expected, the claims of "severe economic impacts"
with regard to the
Non-addition Rule, made by John Kennedy of Airport
Corporation of American
were simply self-serving, exaggerated and unfounded. The
entire Order by
United States District Judge Stephen V. Wilson is printed
below, as is the
letter sent to the City Council of December 24, 1998.
********************************************
Los Angeles Daily News - August 30, 2001
EDITORIAL
Lowering the noise
A federal court's decision to allow the city of Los Angeles
to limit the
number of noisy Stage 2 jet aircraft that can be based at Van
Nuys Airport
is a victory both for neighbors and for local control.
The future of the nation's busiest general aviation airport,
and its impact
on the local economy and quality of life, are clearly
questions best left to
the residents of L.A. -- and not federal bureaucrats or
judges.
Now a U.S. District Court has said as much.
The decision, of course, will probably be appealed by airport
users and
other commercial interests. But they would be better off
sitting down with
the community and cutting a deal that lets them do business
without harming
the quality of life of thousands of people.
********************************************
STOP THE NOISE! COALITION
PO BOX 260205
ENCINO, CA 91426
email: gsilver@sprintmail.com
[Letter lists 30 participating associations at bottom of
letterhead]
08/30/2001
The Honorable City Council
City of Los Angeles - City Hall
200 North Main Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Dear Council Members:
Re: Misinformation - Van Nuys Airport Economic Impacts
On December 24, 1998 the City Council received a letter from
the Executive
Director of Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) regarding the
economic impacts
of the Non-addition Rule at Van Nuys Airport (VNY). In his
letter, the
Executive Director alleged that the proposed regulation would
result in a
loss of approximately 565 jobs and an estimated $191 million
in lost
salaries, sales and services for a three year period.
These "findings" were based upon a study by Airport
Corporation of America
(ACA)-John Kennedy, President. LAWA commissioned the study by
ACA and their
economic "expert" John Kennedy in order to
forestall the implementation of
the Non-addition Rule at VNY.
It is not common for LAWA to commission economic studies on
the economic
benefits of VNY. But these usually turn out to be
self-serving, distorted
and unfounded economic studies claiming vast economic
benefits for VNY,
while overlooking the enormous noise problems generated by
that airport.
Mr. John Kennedy, President of ACA, was the principal
"expert" who testified
before the federal judge in Clay Lacy Aviation, et al., v.
City of Los
Angeles, et al., CV 00-9255 SVW (CTx). This case was won by
the City of Los
Angeles in a decision handed down on August 24, 2001.
This time Mr. Kennedy's "findings" were subject to
the scrutiny and
verification by an objective United States District judge. As
expected, the
claims of "severe economic impacts" with regard to
the Non-addition Rule
were simply untrue, exaggerated and unfounded. The claimed
specific
dollar-figure and percentage projected losses were found to
be
unsubstantiated by United States District Judge Stephen V.
Wilson:
"The Court finds the foundation for this testimony to be
very weak. The
declarants do not cite the source for the figures recited.
Neither do they
describe the basis for making the loss calculations and how
the losses were
calculated.
Even if these declarations technically comported with the
foundation
requirements for admissibility the Court would give limited
weight to these
projections because they were made by the plaintiffs in this
lawsuit who
were obviously interested in portraying the most grievous
possible impact of
the Non-Addition Rule on the plaintiffs." Clay Lacy
Aviation, et al., v.
City of Los Angeles, et al., CV 00-9255 SVW (CTx)
The point here is that the City Council should not be misled
by phony and
exaggerated claims made repeatedly by LAWA to prevent
reasonable,
non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary efforts to control noise
at VNY.
The next time LAWA seeks to make similar dire economic
claims, perhaps the
City Council should conduct its own independent, objective
and unbiased
investigation before anyone assumes LAWA's
"findings" are correct.
Cordially yours,
Gerald A. Silver,
President, Homeowners of Encino
Cc: Elected officials, community associations
Enclosures
*********************************************
[Filed Clerk, U.S. District Court Aug 24 2001 Central
District of California
by--Deputy]
[Entered Clerk, U.S. District Court Aug 24 2001 Central
District of
California by--Deputy]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CV 00-9255 SVW (CTx)
ORDER
CLAY LACY AVIATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
Defendants,
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
This case was tried by the Court during the week of July 16,
2001. The
Court issued a speaking order discussing the law governing
this case on July
27, 2001. The parties filed briefs regarding the
evidence in this case,
objections to the evidence, and the Court's tentative lega1
conclusions.
Having reviewed the trial evidence and post-trial
submissions, the Court
rules for the defendants and orders the defendants to submit
proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law by September 7, 2001.
Evidentiary Issues
At trial the defense objected to a number of testimonial
declarations
submitted by the plaintiffs. Most of the objections concerned
the testimony
of representatives, owners, or executives of the plaintiff
business entities
(hereinafter "Representatives"). The defense also
objected to the testimony
by plaintiffs' expert John Kennedy. The Court ruled at
the time of trial
that Mr. Kennedy's testimony was admissible and that the
defendants
objections went to the weight of the testimony rather than
its
admissibility. The Court also ruled that the
Representatives could testify
regarding business trends in the industry which would be in
the scope of
knowledge of these individuals as business persons in the
industry. The
Representatives could also testify to incidents where clients
of a
particular plaintiff had withdrawn jets from service of this
plaintiff as a
result of the Non-Addition Rule.
The issue now before the Court is the admissibility of
portions of the
testimony of the Representatives in which the Representatives
testified to
specific dollar-figure or percentage projected losses.
The Court finds the
foundation for this testimony to be very weak. The
declarants do not cite
the source for the figures recited. Neither do they describe
the basis for
making the loss calculations and how the losses were
calculated.
Even if these declarations technically comported with the
foundation
requirements for admissibility the Court would give limited
weight to these
projections because they were made by the plaintiffs in this
lawsuit who
were obviously interested in portraying the most grievous
possible impact of
the Non-Addition Rule on the plaintiffs.
Finally, if these challenged assertions were accepted by the
Court as true,
these projected losses in combination with the plaintiffs'
other evidence is
insufficient to render the Non-Addition Rule unreasonable,
arbitrary or
discriminatory in light of the noise-reduction benefits
afforded by the
regulation.
II. Legal Issues
Both plaintiffs and defendants have also submitted proposed
amendments to
the Court's legal findings articulated in its July 27, 2001
order. The
Court notes that the Plaintiff correctly argues that Alaska
Airlines, Inc.
v. City of Long Beach, 951 F.2d.977 (9th Cir. 1992) pertained
to a commerce
clause challenge to a statute and not a supremacy clause
challenge.
Nonetheless, the same determination that a challenged
regulation is
reasonable, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory must be made
under both a
supremacy clause and commerce clause claim. Therefore,
the Court maintains
its earlier findings on the application of the Alaska
Airlines decision to
both of these causes of action.
In. its July 27, 2001 order, the Court suggested that the
Ninth Circuit
might be more lenient in its review of airport noise
regulations than the
Second Circuit. Even applying only the Second Circuit
cases on this issue,
the Court finds that the plaintiffs have not met their burden
of showing
that the Non-Addition Rule is unreasonable, arbitrary or
discriminatory.(1)
The Court rules in favor of the defendants. The defendants
are to submit
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by September
7, 2001.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 8/23/2001
/s/
STEPHEN V. WILSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
____________________________
(1.) The Court has reviewed the recent decision in
Nat'l Business Aviation
Assn. V. General Aviation Manufacturers Assn., 2001
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11509
(M.D. F.L. 2001) cited by the
defendants. While the case is instructive as to what is
a reasonable,
non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory regulation, it does not
contribute much to
the caselaw cited by the Court in its July 27, 2001 order
regarding the
standard to be used in making this determination.
************************************************
Los Angeles World Airports
1 World Way P 0 Box 92216 Los Angeles California 90009 2216
Telephone 310 646 5252 Faxsimile 310 646 5252
December 24, 1998
The Honorable City Council
City of Los Angeles
City Hall
200 North Main Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Dear Members:
Re: Economic Impact Study - Van Nuys Airport Non-Addition
Rule
I am forwarding for your review the attached economic impact
study on the
proposed Stage 2 Non-Addition Rule for Van Nuys Airport
(VNY).
The study investigates the impacts of a proposed amendment to
the existing Van
Nuys Airport Noise Abatement and Curfew Regulation
established by the City
Council in 1981. The amendment would prohibit any additional
Stage 2 aircraft
with takeoff noise levels equal to or exceeding 77 dBA (per
Federal Aviation
Administration Advisory Circular 36-3) from being based at
the airport. The
proposed regulation also would limit to 30 calendar days per
year the number of
times a non-based Stage 2 aircraft could visit VNY. The
restriction would not
apply to quieter Stage 3 aircraft or aircraft satisfying
certain conditions
for major
repair or refurbishment.
BACKGROUND
Prior to the adoption of the federal Airport Noise and
Capacity Act (ANCA)
of 1990, Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) formally proposed
amendments to
Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 155,727 to: 1) extend Van Nuys
Airport's
partial nighttime curfew by one hour; 2) establish a
Non-Addition Rule
prohibiting aircraft with takeoff noise levels exceeding
77dBA from being
based at the airport and 3) adopt a rule to phase out all
aircraft with
takeoff noise levels exceeding 77 dBA.
The provisions of ANCA prohibit airports in the United States
from
unilaterally establishing new noise regulations without the
review and input
of the FAA. In addition, new noise restrictions must
comply with the
provisions of ANCA and regulations found in 14 Federal Code
of Regulations
Part 16 1. It was the opinion
of the City Attorney, however, that the proposed amendments
to Ordinance No.
155,727 were grandfathered from the provisions of ANCA and
Part 161 because
they were proposed in 1989-90 prior to Congress' enactment of
ANCA.
The proposed Noise Control Regulation was submitted to the
Commerce, Energy
and Natural Resources Committee but was never formally
adopted by the
Council largely because of the FAA's opposition to its effect
on the
operation of Stage 3 aircraft. Councilmembers also were
concerned with
the-proposed regulation's potential negative economic impact
on the aviation
community.
Between 1991 and 1997, LAWA continued its efforts to
determine how to amend
Ordinance No. 155,727.
In 1995, the consultant Airport Corporation of America was
retained to
conduct an economic impact study on the proposed Noise
Control Regulation.
The study indicated that, if imposed, the curfew extension
would have a
minimal economic impact on airport tenants. However,
the study indicated
that imposition of the proposed Non-Addition Rule would
impose significant
costs to airport tenants.
The City Attorney conducted numerous discussions and meetings
with the FAA
regarding the issue of exemption from the provisions of ANCA
for the
proposed VNY amendments. On August 28, 1997, the FAA
approved the proposal
to extend the nighttime curfew by one hour and to adopt a
Non-Addition Rule
provided both restrictions apply only to Stage 2
aircraft. The FAA
determined the proposed actions to amend Ordinance No.
155,727 predated the
enactment of ANCA and were therefore grandfathered.
In October 1997, the Board of Airport Commissioners adopted a
Resolution
approving these two amendments to the VNY Noise Abatement and
Curfew
Regulation with neither applicable to Stage 3 aircraft.
At the request of elected officials' representatives,
homeowner
organizations, the Van Nuys Airport Citizens Advisory Council
and airport
tenants, in December 1997 the Board of Airport Commissioners
recommended
that the proposed amendments be separated. The
Commerce, Energy and Natural
Resources Committee concurred in the recommendation and
forwarded to the
City Council the amendment to add one hour to the nighttime
curfew to begin
limiting aircraft departures at 10 p.m.
While the curfew extension was approved by the City Council
in December
1997, action was delayed on the Non-Addition Rule to allow
the Board of
Airport Commissioners more time to study the economic impacts
of the
regulation. Of primary concern was the regulation's
impact on companies
providing major aircraft repair and refurbishment work. While
it was LAWA's
intent to provide an exemption for major repair and
refurbishment work
because of the associated low noise impact, the rule could be
interpreted as
significantly limiting such activities.
METHODOLOGY
In late 1997 LAWA again retained the consultant Airport
Corporation of
America (ACA) to update its 1995 economic impact study to
analyze the
effects of the proposed Non-Addition Rule in the current
business
environment. ACA measured the impact with respect to existing
based
aircraft, future based aircraft, and itinerant aircraft
operations.
The economic impacts assessed in the study include the direct
loss to
airport tenants, the associated loss of business to suppliers
of airport
tenants, and the loss of jobs and salaries associated with
the loss of
business at both levels. The study also assesses the
alternative and/or
additional costs to comply with the proposed rule, including
the costs of
replacing aircraft.
FINDINGS
After comparing the airport's most recent aircraft inventory
to the 1994
aircraft inventory, the consultant discovered a marked
increase in the
turnover rate of based aircraft over a three-year
period. While ACA had
assumed a constant population with a very low turnover rate
in its 1995
study of the proposed Noise Regulation, this study revealed a
64 % turnover
rate at VNY over the three year period from January 1995
through December 1997.
The consultant concludes the proposed Non-Addition Rule would
have a
negative impact on airport tenants and could possibly force
major repair and
refurbishment companies, such as The Jet Center, to relocate.
The study indicates that had the proposed Non-Addition Rule
been
implemented, it would have resulted in, at maximum impact, a
loss of
approximately 565 jobs and an estimated $191 million in lost
salaries, sales
and services in the three year period. At minimum
impact, the study
concludes that the proposed regulation would have resulted in
a loss of
approximately 120 jobs and an estimated $26 million in lost
salaries, sales
and services. A chart summarizing the negative economic
impact of the
Non-Addition Rule is attached to this letter. These
figures do not include
impact on regional businesses such as hotels and restaurants
and the
associated loss of sales, income and property tax revenues.
An additional section of the study investigates the market at
VNY for Stage
2 Boeing 727 aircraft converted to corporate use after they
are phased out
of commercial use as mandated by ANCA. The consultant
determined there is
not a significant market for these aircraft. In
addition, we were recently
advised by the FAA that effective December 31, 1999, any
Stage 2 aircraft
which is not part of an air carrier fleet and weighs over
75,000 pounds
(which applies to the Boeing 727), would be prohibited from
operating at any
airport in the United States unless it was hush-kitted or
re-engined to
Stage 3 standards. Prospectively, the proposed
Non-Addition Rule would
allow only Stage 3 compliant aircraft to be based at VNY.
The report concludes with the recommendation that "the
proposed Stage 2 Non
Addition Rule and its Operating Limitations should not be
implemented at Van
Nuys Airport because of the very real and severe negative
economic impact
they will have on the airport, its users/tenants and the
region."
CONCLUSION
As a result of the report and its conclusions regarding the
severe economic
impacts associated with the proposed Non-Addition Rule, Los
Angeles World
Airports (LAWA) staff is considering various options in an
effort to address
or mitigate these impacts. In the near future, we will
forward
recommendations to the Board of Airport Commissioners and
City Council
regarding this matter. We are committed to implementing
meaningful noise
reduction measures while maintaining the economic vitality of
Van Nuys Airport.
Sincerely,
/s/
J. DRISCOLL
Executive Director
JJD/SG
Attachments