« PreviousContinue »
the remaining 10 percent, when weather and wind conditions do not permit, only FAR 36 aircraft will be allowed to land from or takeoff to the east between the hours of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. Under these conditions, all non-FAR airplanes will be denied the use of Los Angeles International.
Instructions will be issued to the FAA designating the north and south inboard runways as preferential for takeoffs under this nighttime system.
We propose that a penalty for repeated violation of the preferential runway useage will result in the cancellation of an airline's operating permit and the right to use Los Angeles International.
2. A program of economic incentives to accelerate the use of quiet aircraft. Labeled "dollars for decibels", the program is to be implemented on July 1, 1973. This proposes to set landing fees ranging from the lowest fees for operators of FAR 36 aircraft to the highest fees for operators of the noisiest aircraft. The incentive landing fee program will tie in with phase three.
3. A fleet noise rule to establish a 100 percent FAR 36 aircraft fleet by December 31, 1979. This is a long-range program by which the noisier aircraft are phased out of the airline fleet. It will be evaluated on the basis of actual operations at Los Angeles International and designed to be 40 percent complete by July 1, 1977, and 100 percent in compliance with FAR 36 by the end of 1979. The fleet noise rule will stand at Los Angeles International unless a more stringent rule is adopted by the federal government.
4. Creation of a noise enforcement division within the Department of Airports. As a tool to insure compliance, the noise monitoring computer will be programmed to accurately measure FAR 36 noise parameters.
5. Even though this program is designed to insure quieter aircraft, management further urges the adoption of appropriate legislation to achieve a stronger method for developing compatible land use in the various communities around our airport.
Our local situation at Los Angeles Airport is not unlike that of other large commerical airports throughout the world.
Airports are generators of economic development as commercial air transportation is the cutting edge of that economic development.
It so happens, unfortunately, that city planners did not provide for the orderly compatible development of the land around airports and if you listened to complaints as long as I have, you would wonder where in the L.A. Basin would a planning department plan residential development relative to aircraft noise of they could start all over again?
If you consider Palos Verdes and Beverly Hills/Pacific Palisades areas, the span of our complaints, it is obvious that the only true answer to the aircraft noise problem is quieting the source of the noise. It is obvious also that this goal will not be totally achieved through technology while waiting for economic development to allow for total compatible land use around existing airports.
In my six years in this job, I have yet to be advised by the surrounding municipalities that a zone change was made within their city relative to aircraft noise to create compatible land use. I have witnessed, however, residential development close adjacent to this airport in this same time span.
The airport, however, has expended 502 million dollars in negotiated residential purchases to allow people to remove themselves from a trying situation. Due to simple economics, this opportunity is limited.
This effort is not desirable by the community, the airport, or the airlines, but it is a program that the aforementioned parties can exercise as an interim
Incidentally, the Los Angeles Department of Airports is the only airport, to my knowledge, that has expended their financial resources to this degree for establishing a buffer zone.
When negotiations are concluded to purchase a house, the resident is paid in addition to a fair market value for their property.
1. Relocation Advice an Assistance by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles.
2. Actual Moving Expenses within an area not to exceed 50 miles and if beyond this area, moving expenses not to exceed $500.00.
3. Replacement Housing Supplement not to exceed $15,000.
4. Interest Equalization Benefit. This is to provide the additional costs of the loan between the old mortgage interest and the new mortgage interest of their replacement house. This is not to exceed $15,000. (3 and 4 may be taken separately or combined, but not to exceed a total of $15,000)
5. Rental Supplement Payment. In the case of a renter of a house that has been purchased by the Department of Airports, this supplement is given to the renter should he rent another residence or apartment or it may be used by the renter for a down payment on a house should he decide to purchase. This is not to exceed $4,000.
6. The owner of property does not pay title fees, escrow fees, prepayment penalties on the existing loan or brokerage fees.
As you all know, there are limitations set by nature itself on the use of land for particular human activities. Limitations imposed by topography, weather, climate and water. There are also limitations dictated by human ecology and economics which some misguided ecological Neanderthals try to control.
To me, zoning of land in a city is much more than the removal of obnoxious gases, noise and unsightly uses. Underlying the entire concept of zoning should be the assumption that zoning can be a vital tool for maintaining a civilized form of existence only if we employ the insight and the learning of all disciplines concerned with urban problems. Zoning must originate with a well considered comprehensive plan and zoning should reflect that plan. The philosophy behind the requirements of zoning is that consideration must be given to the community as a whole following a common deliberate consideration of the alternatives, and not because of the whims of either an articulate minority or even majority in the 'community. The comprehensive plan is the essence of zoning. Without it, there can be no rational allocation of land use. Comprehensive city planning is the insurance that the public welfare is being served and that zoning does not become anything more than just a Gallup poll.
Now that I have given you some of the local color that applies to this airport and probably could fit on the canvas to paint the situation at most every major airport, let me orient my remaining remarks more somewhat to the air carrier industry itself.
Technological effort during the last four decades in the field of air transportation has been concentrated on bettering what the aviation industry does for people. Each decade has produced outstanding technological improvements which have brought higher speeds, lower costs per passenger mile, lower costs per cargo ton mile, more comfort for passengers and crew, longer flight ranges-the list of accomplishments is long. As we enter our new decade, however, we must face the issue of what the aviation industry does to people if we are to achieve the traffic growth and industrial strength which our technological capabilities can provide. It is the negative aspect of what the aviation industry does to people that needs attention and one word sums up the problem-NOISE.
The 1960's witnessed the depletion of the immense store of goodwill and public support that had been the legacy of an industry that fulfilled man's dreams as well as his transportation needs. Aircraft noise has eroded community support of aviation to such a degree that it has come to be looked upon as a mixed and dubious blessing.
The aforementioned advancements in what the industry has accomplished for people have effectively benefited almost every person living on the North American Continent. Of course, only a minority of these people has actually flown and this erroneously leads to the popular conclusion that aviation is of benefit to a select few. When all services including air mail and air cargo are considered, however, it is clear that the benefits of air transportation reach a vast majority of the people. Further, it is clear that any constraints to the free flow of air commerce can be seriously detrimental to the economic welfare of an affected community.
As an example, people all around the world are avoiding New York City because of air traffic congestion-and air traffic is congested because of aircraft noise. The ten-year search for additional airport capacity to serve the Metropolitan New York area has been thwarted largely because of noise. With more or less significance with respect to economic penalties to the community itself, programs for increasing the airport capacities, by enlarging present airports or establishing additional airports for most of the major commercial centers of the world, are being handicapped and thwarted because of noise.
Anyone who is closely associated with airport operation or airport planning recognizes that the community relationship problem, which is now the controlling factor in practically all major airport expansion and new airport location projects, is growing worse and worse and worse. There is no known basis for any belief that the situation can be greatly improved upon without drastic advances in both quieting the aircraft, in conjunction with compatible land use planning around airports. Theoretically, we could help the problem were airports located sufficiently remote from populated areas with good long-term protection through effective zoning with compatible land use planning. I say theoretically, because it is clear that a majority of our airports are adjacent to heavily populated areas, and these airports must continue to represent keystones in our air transportation system. It can be proven in many instances that the airport was there before the people.
The milk has already spilled at most of our major airports. The neighbors are there now and all we in the industry can do is to alleviate the noise nuisance as much as we can by procedural constraints.
Several fundamentals must be faced in understanding the urgent need for quieter aircraft and land use planning around airports.
1. Most airports cannot be relocated to less populated areas and still serve the traveling public and industry with effective and efficient access.
2. The increased emphasis upon environmental improvements plus noise reduction, can be expected to grow.
3. Population growth will continue to thwart any attempts to isolate airports by locating them in sparsely settled areas unless vast land areas are purchased by the airports.
4. Aircraft noise problems are not limited to those areas of the immediate vicinity of airports.
In emphasizing the fourth point, the ecological movement is all inclusive which encompasses all sources of noise, motorcycles, buses, trucks, lawn mowers, household appliances, in addition to jet aircraft. Elected officials are responsive to pressure groups even though some pressure groups represent a minority view. The people movement is here and from most reports you read we can all wonder whether or not anything major can ever be accomplished. Air transportation is a target; in many instances, it is made the patsy for other shortcomings of a city and some self-appointed civic leaders, with little or no compunction, will paint the industry as one who is conducting a clandestine operation analogous to a massage parlor, unconcerned about the communities it serves.
I would, at this time, like to point out on the chart what has recently been proposed in the land development adjacent to the Los Angeles International Airport. Your committee is meeting here today, no doubt, with more than a mere suspicion that proper land use planning around airports is essential to the continuing life of air transportation. Yet, still at this late date, and in view of all history, residential development close to the Los Angeles International Airport is still taking place.
1. Westport Beach Club (red area No. 1). The Westport Beach Club has had a suit against the Department of Airports for jet aircraft noise claiming inverse condemnation. Currently, the Planning Committee of the Los Angeles City Council has agreed to allow a proposed 160 condominium development on the Club property. The Beach Club property is reported to have been purchased by Levitt-United Multihousing Corporation.
2. Presbyterian Church (red area No. 2). It has been recently reported that the Presbyterian Church, identified as No. 2 on the chart, intends to have its property rezoned for multiple residential development. Some months ago, the Department of Airports paid, I believe, $50,000 for an air easement over the property.
3. North of Nike Site (red area No. 3). The property identified as No. 3 contains 17 acres. The owner is requesting an R-4 zone change which would allow between 80 and 100 units per acre. It was scaled down by the Los Angeles City Planning Commission to R-3 zone which would allow 30 to 50 units per
4. Multiple Apartment Development (green area No. 4). The areas identified in green on the chart all contain multiple apartment developments that were built as recently as two years ago and still ongoing.
5. Airport Junior High School (red area No. 5). The red patch area east of
the airport in Westchester identifies the Airport Junior High School complex that was closed about two years ago because of aircraft noise. The school was built in 1955. I would like to submit into the records of this committee the Los Angeles Department of Airports Board of Airport Commissioners' resolution #669 passed at their meeting held on February 4, 1953, requesting that appropriate governmental agencies, including surrounding school districts and State Department of Education refrain from the construction of school facilities or places of public assembly in or near airport approach zones, in that such locations for such facilities would constitute an intolerable and unnecessary hazard both to the occupants of the buildings and to the aircraft using the airport. It is also stated in this resolution that such places of public assembly as churches and hospitals would be unwise because of aircraft noise levels. You will note that this resolution was passed six years prior to the landings of the first jet aircraft at Los Angeles International Airport.
6. El Segundo Apartment Complex (green area No. 6). Three years ago in the city of El Segundo, as close as you can get to the airport, a multi-apartment complex was built.
7. Los Angeles Apartment Complex (green area No. 7). A single apartment complex was leveled by a developer and in its place a multiple apartment building was built in 1969.
In closing, I would also like to bring to your attention a report from the Inglewood City Hall, dated May, 1972, which features an article entitled, “Can We Sue the Airport for Noise Damage?" Also included in the issue is an article expressing the concern of the Members of Inglewood City Council as to whether or not jet noise hurts property values and their efforts to raise funds in the city's budget to conduct such a comparative study. However, in that same issue, I would like to read another news item and I quote: "At the end of 1970, building permits had galloped to a record high. The upward trend continues. The first four months of 1971 saw twelve million dollars in building permits issued-almost twice as many as for the same period in 1970. The biggest action is in new apartment construction."
Thank you, and thank you again, gentlemen, for allowing me to address your committee.
[From the Westchester News Advertiser, Sept. 22, 1972]
BEACH DEVELOPER SHAVES HIGH RISE OKAY GIVEN 160 CONDOMINIUMS
Environmentalists won out Tuesday over a proposed high rise development on the Westport Beach Club property in Playa del Rey.
The Planning Committee of the Los Angeles City Council agreed to rollback zoning from R-5 which would have allowed building with unlimited height restrictions to R-3 and limit height and allow a proposed 160 condominium development on the club property.
The rollback was initiated almost a year ago by Councilwoman Pat Russell, sixth district, because of a proposed high-rise development which she said would be injurious to the Playa del Rey area.
Had the zoning on the property remained at R-5, a total of 800 units could have been built. A rollback to R-3 will limit development to 200 units.
Councilwoman Russell last year listed three reasons for her opposition to R5 zoning on the beach club property which has been purchased by LevittUnited Multihousing Corporation. She said Tuesday, however, that the problems of density, height and ingress and egress had been solved "mostly" in a proposal by Levitt to erect the condominiums on the site.
Levitt's plan calls for the units to be erected at staggered heights and of two-story character. Jim Roseberg, representative for Levitt, said that the development will meet R-3 standards except in one spot where the building is about 10 feet over the R-3 height restrictions. For that reason the firm asked that a conditional "Q" zoning designation for R-4 be placed on the property. Councilwoman Russell and members of the committee indicated they would approve such a zoning. "It is important that the right conditions be placed on the zoning," Councilwoman Russell said.
Main access to the condomiunium development will be provided through two private streets to be built on the site. Both the access roads will lead onto Vista del Mar and will be for the use of owners only. Major opposition in the past was to overloading Trolley Way and Surf Street, two roadways already experiencing congestion difficulties.
Only two homes will lose their partial ocean view because of the development. Both residences are located below Vista del Mar and both homeowners were on hand to complain about their plight.
Ruth Lansford, spokesman for a group of property owners and residents in the beach area who originally opposed the high-rise character of any development said her only conern at this point was ingress and egress planned for the construction stages. Rosenberg told her all construction equipment would operate from the interior development area to Vista del Mar and not along Trolley Way.
The matter of zoning now goes to the Planning Commission for review and then back to the city council for final decision expected in about three months.
[From the Santa Monica Evening Outlook, Oct. 3]
NOISE RELIEF SOUGHT IN ZONING PLEA
(By Reed McClure)
A zone change to permit the site of the noise-plagued Pacific Presbyterian Church in Playa del Rey to be developed with apartments goes to the Los Angeles City Planning Commission Thursday.
Rezoning to R-4 multiple residential was sought by the Synod of Southern California because acquisition of homes for the expansion of Los Angeles International Airport has caused the church's congregation to dwindle.
It had only 72 members in 1971, compared to 299 this year, according to the Rev. Allen Koehn, pastor.
"In addition," he said at a Sept. 11 hearing, "jet noise levels at this location have increased to a point where there is serious interference with church activities."
Conditional approval of the change was recommended by Hearing Examiner Roy W. Bundick as being consistent with the new Westchester-Playa del Rey Community Plan recently approved by the commission.
Bundick asked the commission to endorse the change from R-1 single residential to R-4 for the site at Pershing Drive east of Manitoba Street, but delay approval of the effectuating ordinance until Pershing is widened and improved with lights, street trees and fire hydrants.
He noted that the plan, now before the council's planning committee, suggests that single family areas near the airport be rezoned for uses less subject to noise damage.
Thus, Bundick continued, it would "seem unreasonable" to turn down the request.
Planners have recommended high-density multiple residential zoning for the area, partly in an effort to make it feasible economically to construct soundproof apartments.
[From the Westchester Observer, Mar. 30, 1972]
WESTCHESTER APARTMENTS-PLANNERS SCALE DOWN AIRPORT SITE DENSITY A zone change for a proposed apartment complex on 17 acres adjoining International Airport in Westchester was scaled down recently by the Los Angeles City Planning Commission.
The action was taken at the request of Ann T. Nielsen, a field deputy for district Councilwoman Pat Russell.
She said the R-4 zoning sought by developer Fritz B. Burns for the abandoned Nike missile site at Manitoba Street and Falmouth Avenue in Westchester allowed too many dwellings. The R-4 zone allows between 80 and 100 units per acre.
At the request of Mrs. Nielsen, the commission asked the council to set the density at what is permitted in the R-3 zone-30 to 50 units per acre.
At the same time, Mrs. Nielsen said the council will be asked to similarly