Fight the Sacramento Housing Bills: “Nolite te bastardes carborundorum”

If you either read Margaret Atwood’s novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, or watched the adaptation and expansion of the story on Hulu, you will know the Latin translates to, don’t let the bastards grind you down.

In the despotic nation of Gilead (formerly the USA), women have been reduced to servitude, both domestic and sexual, the latter role filled by Handmaids, as they were referred to by the religious fanatics who comprise the government. Any attempt to push back is brutally crushed.

The protagonist, June Osborne, finds the Latin inscription scratched in the closet in her room. It was left by the previous Handmaid, who committed suicide rather than bear further degradation. June internalizes the words and resolves to convert them to action.

State Senator Scott Wiener and Senator Toni Atkins, who is the President pro Tempore – another bit of Latin- have been trying to oppress and marginalize owners of single family properties. You might say they think of us as their Homemaids.

Their strategy is simple: keep introducing new bills to replace the ones halted in previous attempts. Eventually, we will get tired of fighting back.

Just grind us down until we capitulate.

First there was SB50, introduced by Wiener in 2018, followed by the Son of SB 50 the following year when the father didn’t advance. Atkins was instrumental in the bill’s revival. The only difference between the two versions was the new one allowed cities some latitude to manage the details of upzoning as long as they met 50’s overall density requirements.

When 50 ultimately failed, Wiener replaced it with SB 902, which would have brushed CEQA requirements aside to facilitate triplex and fourplex projects in low density neighborhoods. He did not stop there. He and his allies also introduced eight other bills, which collectively not only replicated SB 50, but broadened its objectives.

For residents opposed to pushdown density from Sacramento, fighting nine bills was like going to a gunfight with a six-shooter against an opponent whose automatic weapon was fitted with a high capacity magazine.

Two of the bills made it to the Governor’s desk, but it could have been worse. Three bills failed to advance because the clock had run out. All of those bills had enough votes. If they had managed to eek across the finish line in time, they would have been signed.

Newsom signed the bills that survived – AB 725 and AB 2345 – on September 28, 2020.

Not satisfied with a two-for-nine performance, Team Atkins and Wiener went on the attack again.

We now face SBs 9, 10 and 478.

SB 9 allows 4-6 units where only one previously existed. It had an unexpected ally in Senator Bob Hertzberg who voted for it despite overwhelming opposition to it in his district. Since he is termed out, you would think he would not have been afraid of Atkins and instead supported his constituents. What’s the deal? To his credit, though, he opposed SB 10.

SB 10 allows up to 14 units on almost every property in transit rich areas, that is, those within a half-mile of a transit station.

SB 478 would allow developers to raze older, affordable apartments and replace them with small, but upscale apartments.

Those who support single family and low density neighborhoods can only dodge so many bullets. They can only do so much without the cash developers have at their disposal to contribute to senators and assembly members. Fatigue may ultimately takes its toll.

Have the bastards ground you down yet?

Like June the Handmaid, let’s stay in the fight.

Billion Dollar Bungle

Governor Newsom enjoyed an expensive dinner at the French Laundry.

California got taken to the cleaners.

In by nine, out by a billion.

By now, most of us know about the massive unemployment fraud committed during the Pandemic, which may amount to a billion dollars worth of bogus claims. Many of the payments were issued to prisoners at various facilities throughout the state, or were issued under their names by others.

In July, the Governor created a strike team to deal with chronic deficiencies at EDD. This team made recommendations to our governor, but none addressed cross-referencing the names of those incarcerated with those filing claims. The team was led by Government Operations Agency Secretary Yolanda Richardson and Jennifer Pahlka, the founder of open-government group Code for America.

One has to wonder what criteria Richardson and Pahlka used to select team members.

Interesting note about Pahlka in Wikipedia: “In 2018, in partnership with George Gascón, District Attorney for San Francisco, Code for America’s Clear My Record software was applied to automate searching for cannabis-related criminal records eligible to be expunged after California voters passed Proposition 64.”

She was obviously familiar with prison databases. Shouldn’t a light have gone on in her head?

Any decently managed operation, in any industry, tests incoming data and information that affects operations for completeness, accuracy and validity. I’ve audited internal controls for the better part of the last seven years, so I have seen it first hand.

Some 35 states cross-reference the names of inmates with unemployment filers.

I would not rule out some involvement by EDD employees. The perpetrators may have sought insiders to assist them.

Newsom announced he will form a task force to deal with this latest embarrassment. Allow me to digress, but what is the difference between a task force and a strike team?

Quite frankly, residents of California should express no confidence in any team appointed by Newsom to deal with anything involving the EDD…..or dining out in the pandemic

I wouldn’t trust the competence of anyone at the state level, other than the State Auditor, Elaine Howell, who is a CPA, to lead an internal review of the EDD. She was appointed in 2000 and is independent of Newsom and the legislature.

President-Elect Joe Biden should steer clear of Newsom when it comes to consideration for a federal appointment. He should also think twice about how much financial aid to send to California, or at least have some strings – perhaps chains – attached to it.

Hertzberg and Nazarian face Valley Village Homeowners Association

Should the state override the zoning preferences of local communities? Will small landlords take too much of a hit from AB-3088? Is High-Speed Rail part of the infrastructure needed to add housing in the exburbs?

These are three of the issues addressed at the October 21 meeting of the Valley Village Homeowners Association.

Senator Hertzberg and Assembly Member Nazarian cast opposing votes on SB-1120, which would have allowed up to four units on a single family lot, with the former voting “Yes” and the latter “No.”

The clock ran out minutes after the bill narrowly attained the votes it needed in the Assembly to push it back to the Senate for approval. Its proponents will try again in 2021.

The bill would have made local zoning subordinate to the will of the state.

Hertzberg claimed it was a necessary compromise because there are many in the state who are disenchanted with the SFR concept.

However, there are also many who value the quality of life associated with single family homes. He admitted, “it is everybody against everybody.”

He suggested his role in this matter as a senator was to support the general position of the state’s population as a whole and not just that of his district, which was overwhelmingly opposed to allowing quadruple the number of units on single-family lots. He admitted the feedback his office received was almost 100% against the bill.

I appreciated his candor, but disagree with how he saw his role. The Senator needs to remember his constituents count more than the Wiener-developer cabal.

When asked by a resident what he thought of diminishing local input on housing, he did not have an answer. He offered to talk to the individual privately over the phone.

Another resident criticized the legislature for its cumbersome approach to resolving the housing crisis – some 64 individual bills over four years!

Hertzberg, also discussed rent affordability and the relief provided through AB-3088.

He said the end result of its passage – the deferral of rent – was “an unintended consequence.” I am sure small landlords have another term for it.

After all, foregoing 75% of the rent due in certain cases could destroy the margin of a 1-4 unit property and leave a landlord in dire financial straits. Sure, there is a requirement for the tenant to repay it after January 2021, but what are the chances of that if our economy does not open up?

AB-3088 stated: If you provide the declaration form to your landlord as described above (note – the declaration would serve as documentation of financial hardship) AND, on or before January 31, 2021, you pay an amount that equals at least 25 percent of each rental payment that came due or will come due during the period between September 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, that you were unable to pay as a result of decreased income or increased expenses due to COVID-19, your landlord cannot evict you. Your landlord may require you to submit a new declaration form for each rental payment that you do not pay that comes due between September 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021.
……
You will still owe the full amount of the rent to your landlord, but you cannot be evicted from your home if you comply with these requirements. You should keep careful track of what you have paid and any amount you still owe to protect your rights and avoid future disputes. Failure to respond to this notice may result in an unlawful detainer action (eviction) being filed against you.

For a more succinct description of the bill, go to the National Law Review’s summary.

To his credit, Hertzberg said he fought to limit the rent deferral to 15%, but had to compromise. The difference between the 15% and 75% deferrals sounds more like capitulation than compromise. How about 50% or somewhere else in between?

Small landlords were left hung out to dry. They should have at least been allowed to counter tenants’ requests for deferrals by documenting the impact a 75% cut in cash flow from a given unit or units would have on their personal finances.

Infrastructure needed to support more density came up when Assembly Member Adrin Nazarian addressed the group. As mentioned earlier, he voted against SB-1120. For that, Valley Village residents were grateful.

Nazarian offered no insight as to how and when the infrastructure would be added, much less funded.

He suggested that transportation improvements would encourage residential construction in the Antelope Valley. Shorter commuting time into the LA metro area would make living in Palmdale and Lancaster more attractive, thus encouraging construction of new housing.

Very true.

I asked him then why not pull funding from the CA High-speed Rail project to improve Metrolink service from Palmdale and Lancaster. He replied that HSR would fill that need.

I reminded him that HSR was a “rathole” and the money would be put to better use on rail improvements to existing systems serving the south.

Even if the costly system extended south of Bakersfield, it would be many years before it connected to the Valley and downtown. Merced to/from Bakersfield does us no good. The cost of $20.4B for that 119 mile length is just a hint of the enormous cost of pushing through the Tehachapi Mountains.

He seemed to take issue with my description of the ever-growing money pit as a “rat hole” and said “I was going off on a tangent.” Obviously, the Assembly Member does not mind spending $100B on a project which will not benefit commuters who just need to get to and from work in Southern California. He does not understand that for far less, improvements can be made along all the routes used by Metrolink and Amtrak’s Surfliner, adding reliability and speed. Far more residents need efficient transportation to travel within the region than they do to travel between Northern and Southern California.

If I were going off on a tangent, better that than Nazarian burying his head in the sand……..with your money.

The meeting was held over Zoom; I must admit, it is more efficient, although in-person is still important. There is no substitute for personal interaction, not just between speakers and the audience, but among the entire audience. I missed the opportunity to talk informally with residents both before and after a meeting.

Perhaps a combination of Zoom and live will be the way to go once we are over the pandemic. Get the best of both worlds.

City Council’s Foray into International Affairs Misguided

The armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been increasingly covered in the local news lately.

Before addressing the recent resolution passed by the Los Angeles City Council concerning the flare-up of fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh, just a few words about the pro-Armenia demonstrations over the last week.

They have been vocal, but no physical damage to property has been reported. However, the demonstrators have blocked freeways and major streets, a tactic that has become all too common since the murder of George Floyd. It is not the way to win hearts and minds in a car culture society, it poses a hazard by blocking access for emergency vehicles and further exacerbates an already tense election climate.

The resolution passed by the Los Angeles City Council condemned Azerbaijan for aggression in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region, which is recognized as part of Azerbaijan by the international community, although a predominant portion of the population is ethnic Armenian.

A resolution was most certainly in order, but one taking sides in this conflict was ill-advised. Instead, it should have called for the Minsk Group (comprised of the United States, France and Russia) to greatly step up the process of bringing the two sides together for a peaceful resolution.

Words alone will not convince either side to do so. Their differences have deep roots going back to the formation of the Soviet Union and the Red Army’s occupation of the region. As with other former Soviet Republics, dormant ethnic animosity percolated to the top after the collapse of the USSR. For the US or the Minsk Group as a whole to show favoritism to one side or the other would be as futile the governors of West Virginia and Kentucky backing either of the families in the Hatfield-McCoy feud.

The situation is about as complex as as any in the world today. Turkey and Iran, who back Azerbaijan are at not exactly friends of the United States. Both of those nations are at odds with Russia in Syria. One wrong move by anyone in the region could set off a chain reaction similar to what led up to World War 1. Therefore, the US and its allies, along with Russia, must not alienate any of those involved.

For better or worse, the only nation with leverage to rein in the opposing sides is Russia. The Federation supplies both Armenia and Azerbaijan with the bulk of their weapons. Russia also maintains a military base in Armenia, its ally, and has strong economic ties with Azerbaijan.

Putin can threaten to pull the plug on Russia’s arms shipments if the antagonists do not stop combat operations.

He won’t unless his economic interests in Azerbaijan are threatened. Would he want to lose the cash from arms sales and see an interruption in the flow of oil from the Caucasus? He is really playing both sides to Russia’s advantage.

Putin will eventually intercede for business reasons and the crisis will slowly wind down.

The sad truth is the tragedy will get worse before it gets better.

But if the United States, Russia and France embrace the spirit of the City Council’s resolution, the tragedy will go from bad to worse.

Goldfish in the Shark Tank

I occasionally watch Shark Tank.

Some of the concepts the contestants pitch are novel. The panel of experts dispense their advice with confidence, which is occasionally laced with a little arrogance.

It’s an intelligent show. One can learn a thing or two about both the rewards of entrepreneurship and its pitfalls.

But lest you think that the panel, which includes the likes of Mark Cuban, are infallible, think again.

Panelist Barbara Corcoran started as a waitress and turned a $1,000 loan into a multibillion-dollar real estate venture, that according to her website.

However, there are times when even the best experts are probably too far removed from their day-to-day business ventures – understandable given the stakes they have in play, but no excuse not to rely on other experts, in other professions, to cover their backs.

Ms. Corcoron’s bookkeeper was scammed into believing that an e-mail request to wire $400,000 in payment to an overseas’s real estate company was sent by Ms. Corcoran’s executive assistant.

The bookkeeper apparently asked a few questions, the answers to which seemingly aligned with his/her boss’ business interests abroad. The bookkeeper sent the wire request to the bank and, presto, the funds were immediately sent.

The e-mail address of the executive assistant contained an additional character; the bookkeeper only realized it was a scam after informing the actual assistant. The sender used a Chinese IP address; the funds are unlikely to be recovered.

If Ms. Corcoran had been the CEO of a publicly traded corporation, she would have been fired. The event indicates internal controls are so fundamentally flawed at her firm that one might doubt if she even understands the term.

Segregation of duties was obviously absent; it shouldn’t take a CPA to figure that out. Even simple approval levels for large transactions must not have been in place. Written documentation for the transaction’s validity should also have been required. Didn’t her external accounting firm review cash controls?

A person’s success in business does not necessarily transfer to assuring the existence of appropriate management practices.

Remember that when anyone approaches you with an investment opportunity, even if he or she is a well known TV celebrity.

The Valley’s Flying Circus

Krekorian, Koretz and Ryu: The Flying Circus caucus of the Burbank Airport Noise Task Force. Never confuse them with the Wright brothers or Chuck Yeager.

I apologize for being flippant, but after attending all but the first Noise Task Force meetings at the Burbank Airport Marriott and observing their biased behavior, it’s only fair. Let’s not forget – Ryu and Krekorian endorsed moving flight paths north even before the public hearings began. Koretz has openly expressed his support of the move over the course of the meetings.

The three council members have pandered to their constituents aligned with two major advocacy groups from Studio City and South Sherman Oaks – UpRoarLA and Studio City for Quiet Skies. These groups are demanding that departures from Burbank and Van Nuys Airports avoid their neighborhoods and, instead, fan out north of the 101. In their minds, the noise and pollution do not belong in their neighborhoods, but are OK for others.

Krekorian seems to think CD2 does not extend north of the 101. He has not made any effort to reach out to that part of his district, the area which would be adversely impacted if the flight paths are redirected that way. Those neighborhoods are denser and cover more ground than those closer to Ventura Boulevard. Many more people would be subjected to noise.

The testimony of Captain Gary McMullin, a Southwest Airlines pilot who knows the skies above the region like the back of his hand,stripped the veneer from the specious alternatives proposed by UpRoarLA and Studio City for Quiet Skies. The two groups back Operation Twist, an ill-conceived idea proffered by Dan Feger that would have planes turning sharply after take off and hugging the 101, then turning north. Feger is a retired career business administrator for the airport – neither a pilot nor air traffic controller.

McMullin’s analysis was derived using information from FOQA (Flight Operations Quality Assurance). It is a program that crunches raw flight data through a series of algorithms designed to detect potential threats to safety. It is the gold standard crash investigators use to determine cause.

Almost everyone agrees departures have generally shifted south by one-third of a mile over the last two years. The reasons often cited are atmospheric conditions, plane loads or efficiency. Some of the hillside residents are accusing the FAA of authorizing the movement.

According to the FAA, the complex and extensive nature of Southern California airspace, which covers an area from San Diego to Point Magu, the Inland Empire, Palmdale and the San Bernardino Mountains, makes it difficult to analyze changes.

Making adjustments to it is much like squeezing a balloon. Increased pressure on one side forces expansion on another. On any given day, one problem could set off a chain reaction effect through the system. No one should expect consistency.

Captain McMullins offered valuable technical insight, including what I think could shed light on why there has been a shift. Pilots must wait for tower clearance before they can turn north from their standard heading, a critical procedure because turning too soon could cause their planes to stray into arrival paths over the Sherman Way/Roscoe corridor. Radio communication has not changed much over the years. One controller can only converse with one pilot at a time.

It is possible, then, given that air traffic volume has increased by around 25% over the past two years, tower personnel cannot clear as many turns in a given amount of time. This does not represent a safety hazard, as strict procedures guide how the pilots fly, but could impact efficiency. Planes may have to fly farther south to ensure they do not cross the 101 prematurely.

Clearly, then, to perform a maneuver like Fager’s Operation Twist, would endanger those who live in the North Valley.

McMullins also addressed the fleet mix. All of the major airlines are flying the most advanced planes, all of them quieter than previous versions. The engine power is also automatically controlled to attain the maximum climbing rate. Not all private or corporate jets have the latest technology.

Taking off to the north and east from Burbank is not desirable because of the higher terrain. It should only be done under certain conditions – i.e., wind direction. Although departing planes should technically be able to clear the mountains, if an engine is lost, that may not be possible.

The FAA presented a 3-D analysis of arrivals and departures to/from Van Nuys and Burbank Airports. This clearly displayed the interrelationships of altitude, position and paths over a sample period of time, especially the dynamics of alternating departures and arrivals. It had the appearance of an aerial square dance, with clusters spinning in choreographed unison.

Some in the crowd heckled the presenters; others waved signs with the word “Lie” written on them. Aviation professionals all, I’m sure.

Any rational person couldn’t come away without appreciating the complexity of the system and the difficulties in managing it.

During the Q&A between the task force members and the presenters, Council Member Koretz told the FAA, “You fixed something that wasn’t broken.” He was referring to the .33 mile southerly shift. He is obviously assuming it was an orchestrated change without considering possible pilot/tower communication timing and other factors referred to earlier.

Is there an interim resolution?

I doubt it. If no one can definitively conclude how the shift occurred to begin with, the chances are slim an operational procedure can be developed to undo it.

One thing is for sure, the members of the Task Force and the two advocacy groups lack the background to offer or assess proposed solutions.

A panel comprised of aviation experts who understand the technology and science of flight should replace the existing one. They can report to an independent board, one free of local politics.

The objective of the FAA with respect to NextGen is to make the skies safer. But there will often be trade offs. Quality of life must be respected as much as possible on both sides of the Valley, but that’s not being encouraged by certain members of the panel.

Link to task force meeting:
http://www.spectrumstream.com/streaming/bgpaa/2019_12_04_taskforce.cfm
Scroll down the bar to items 5a and 5b. 5b is the pilot’s testimony.

Valley Glen and NoHo in the Crosshairs

Valley Glen and NoHo, along with parts of Van Nuys, could be in for a rude awakening. Valley Village, would also be in the mix.

The only thing worse is a noisy rude awakening.

And that’s what the North Valley could experience if the residents of those communities do not get involved in the Burbank Airport Noise Task Force process. Portions of these communities already absorb some of the noise.

The crux of the issue is a shift in departure flight paths to one nautical mile farther south. As a result, residents of Studio City and Sherman Oaks have been enduring more aircraft noise than ever before. That is unfortunate, but the alternative solutions offered by groups representing neighborhoods south of the 101 would push almost all of the traffic north of the freeway. They argue that they were not warned of the shift, and it is only appropriate for the north to bear the full burden of the noise because residents there knew there would be air traffic when they bought their homes.

They have reason to be upset, but we all live within Burbank Airport’s market. Many passengers come from all over the Valley. It is only fair that the noise be shared as much as possible over the broadest area: from Mullholland Drive up to the buffer zone for arrivals (arrivals come in from the west and follow Sherman Way).

Under the proposals demanded by Studio City and Sherman Oaks, flights would turn to the west soon after take off from Burbank (before crossing the 101), then parallel the freeway before fanning out over the North and Central Valley neighborhoods. That’s around around 200 flights a day.

There has been much finger pointing at the FAA, that the agency is responsible for the current flight paths. I think the FAA did a decent job of defending its process at the November 6th hearing. No one has yet produced tangible evidence that the FAA was behind the shift.

Missing at these meetings are air traffic controllers and pilots. They surely could shed some light on what’s happening. It would be better than relying on subjective claims about the FAA’s role.

There have been articles in the Los Angeles Times and Daily News covering the controversy, along with local TV news, but almost all of the content has been from the perspective of the southern neighborhoods, including the Hollywood Hills. There’s a good chance that many residents north of the 101 are unaware of what might be coming their way.

If you are asking why Council Member Paul Krekorian has not communicated this possible development to Valley Glen, Valley Village and NoHo, it is because he endorsed The Studio City/Sherman Oaks proposals even before the first public meeting was held back in August! Yes, before he heard from his constituents who would be on the receiving end of a shift to the north, he appeared in a video on the UpRoarLA web site and where he pledged his unequivocal support for their proposals.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) stated back in March: “Communities in the San Fernando Valley deserve to be heard and have their concerns completely addressed.”

That is clearly not happening because most residents have been effectively excluded from the hearings.

At the conclusion of the November 6th Task Force meeting, I challenged Mr.Krekorian to state whether he planned to share the proposals with the northern part of his district. He replied, “They have you!”

The last time I checked, the Council Member is responsible for keeping all of his constituents informed, not just his southern base. I would be happy to handle it for him if he gave me half of his compensation.

I do not blame him for being upset with me – my articles have been critical of his handling of this matter – but politicians have an obligation to actively promote participation with their constituents. That can best be achieved by sharing critical information with all of them, especially when it involves quality of life issues. Apparently, Mr. Krekorian neither wants to face backlash from those who would be adversely affected, nor offend his base.

Valley Village Homeowners Association has reached out to its members, but Valley Village is the smallest community in CD2. NCVV also conducted outreach to its stakeholders, who largely overlap with VVHA’s population.

Our position has always been:

No one part of the East Valley should bear the full brunt of the noise; it should be shared by all areas south of the arrival path, without jeopardizing safety.

We support a cap on flights and penalties for airlines that flagrantly violate curfew hours.

The FAA should insist that the airlines transition to quieter engines over a reasonable time period.

This message was shared with Krekorian and Garcetti, along with Congressmen Sherman and Cardenas.

I encourage all constituents north of the 101 to attend this next task force meeting, which is scheduled for December 4 at the Burbank Airport Marriott, starting at 6:30PM and usually lasting until 9:30. Fill out a speaker card if you want to make a public comment.

If you want to have a say, you must participate!

The New HSR Dilemma

I’ve written several articles over the years critical of California’s high-speed rail debacle. The last one was in November 2017. I suggested that gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom might come to his senses and end the project. After all, he was once against it, but flipped lest he alienate his union supporters in the primary.

The election behind him, he did just that.

Sort of.

While effectively cancelling the biggest and most costly segments, he left the 150 mile Bakersfield to Merced connection untouched. Whether there will be enough funding to complete even that remains to be seen given the history of cost overruns and unreliable estimates.

I really do not think he cares. It is just to soften the blow to the project’s misguided fans and political allies who would have benefited from the money pit it was destined to become from the start. Governor Newsom will not be in office when even this segment hits the wall.

But let’s say it is completed.

There is yet another obstacle.

Proposition 1A stipulated that there could be no government operating subsidy- federal, state or local; the train has to run in the black. One has to question whether there is enough of a market in the Central Valley to generate asequate revenue to cover the fixed costs, not to mention the marginal costs. It is not as if fares can be raised willy-nilly to close losses. There is an inverse relationship between ridership and fares.

So what will happen when the train cannot legally operate?

A federal bailout?

Regardless of who controls Congress years from now, the taxpayers in the other 49 states will not be receptive to propping up the product of California’s recklessness. They have their infrastructure priorities, too.

Before Newsom fully commits to the Central Valley line, he should engage reputable analysts free from political influence to fully understand the market there. Up until now, the focus has been on the ridership from each of the end points – The Bay Area and Metro L A.

CAHSR is now a short line with a different set of demographics driving it.

Don’t let politics get in the way.

Come Fly with Me

The unfriendly skies over the Southeast Valley got a little unfriendlier on October 18^th.

A much anticipated public hearing dealing with the noise of departing jets from Burbank Airport was held at the nearby Buena Vista Library.

About 200 people filled the auditorium, plus more by an open exit door.  Representatives from the airport were in attendance, along with LA City Council Member Paul Krekorian and Congressman Brad Sherman. It was apparent that a large majority of the audience hailed from Studio City.

No one from the FAA was there, a major disappointment, but had the agency sent someone, it would have been the equivalent of Custer riding into the Little Big Horn Valley.  A different valley, this time, but the results would have been the same.

I can understand not wanting to face an angry crowd which has already staked out a position vehemently opposing the increase in departing flights over their neighborhoods, but there are times when one has to face an angry public.  Interestingly, Mayor Garcetti, who seldom faces an unsympathetic group, tried doing that the day before in Venice regarding homeless shelters; perhaps the FAA read this article . By the way, Garcetti was criticized a few times at the Burbank meeting for his lack of involvement on this issue and for being away in general.

Just as the controversy over where to place homeless shelters, flight paths contemplated by the FAA are drawing a passionate response.

There were those who adamantly opposed all but a few flights over their neighborhoods. That point of view primarily came from the residents who live in the hills.  They cited the acoustical effects created by the canyons and hillsides.

Almost all opposed the overall shift in flights to the south of the 101 and called for dispersing the paths over a wider area.

Some stated that real estate values have been adversely impacted.  All other things being equal, that is true, but it is the “all other things” that also impact prices.  Who would have predicted that Porter Ranch would be experiencing a real estate boom only a few years after the Aliso Canyon gas leak? But that’s what was reported in Sunday’s Los Angeles Daily News. The gas field is still there and there is no guarantee against a re-occurrence. There are many factors that go into purchasing a home, certainly noise is one of them, but convenience, architectural style, view, amenities and even zip code enter into the decision.

I suspect even if the FAA agrees to disperse flights, there will still be an outcry from parts of the Valley not previously impacted, but would be if the pattern changed.

One person proposed having more (not all) flights depart directly to the north….and there are conditions that apparently require it.  The rationale being that most flights are heading to destinations in that direction.  I imagine the North Valley, Santa Clarita, Sunland and Tujunga would want to weigh in on that.

There were suggestions for planes to gain altitude at a faster rate so by the time they turned into residential neighborhoods there would be more elevation between them and the ground below.  But that could create more noise for those neighborhoods relatively close to runway 15.

Personally, I have observed some flights out of Burbank with sharper angles of ascent, so it can be done. It is worth noting, though, that planes use the most fuel (up to 25% of the total consumption), and produce the most harmful emissions, during takeoff, according to an article in an on-line publication of the Worldwatch Institute, an organization which deals with sustainability issues.   Does that mean a steeper ascent would create more emissions over a concentrated area? Something to consider.

If the flights paths were dispersed over the Southeast Valley, there is still a question as to the location of the turning points.  Remember, the planes are not flying straight, but in arcs. The timing of the turns would affect the noise level for many Valley communities  to varying degrees.

My statement on behalf of Valley Village opposed concentrations over any single neighborhood (including our own) and urged the FAA, within the framework of safety, to fine flagrant airport curfew violators; to set a timeline for the commercial carriers to replace older 737s with the new and quieter – also more fuel efficient – 737MAX series; and put an immediate freeze on additional flights until the results of an EIR can be evaluated.

Everyone has legitimate gripes, but it would require the Wisdom of Solomon to carve up the skies in a manner that would please the general public.

I have not seen King Solomon’s name listed in the FAA or Burbank Airport’s organization chart, neither is he on any ballot for elected office.

Air Wars over the Valley

There’s an air war brewing over the southeast San Fernando Valley.

In recent months, the FAA has altered departure patterns from Burbank Airport to take advantage of new technology (known as Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen), designed to provide better separation of incoming and departing aircraft, as well as improve efficiency.

Many residents along the Studio City hillsides and adjacent neighborhoods have reported increased noise as some departures have shifted to a more southerly path, which takes them south of or over Ventura Boulevard.

I recall the outcry back in 1987 concerning a proposed addition of gates. There was a hearing at a local school attended by residents of Valley Village and adjacent areas.  They were concerned about the increased noise levels which would result from the expansion. My wife and I, at the time new to the neighborhood, were there, and shared the same concerns.

Since then, there has been a definite reduction in noise due to improvements in engine technology; however, it is still very noticeable.

The Studio City Residents’ Association is opposing the changes, as is Studio City for Quiet Skies, a coalition of residents. They claim their quality of life has been adversely affected.

They are asking that the FAA return departure paths back north of the 101, an area the organizers describe as a “natural noise corridor.”

It is rather audacious of them to describe the neighborhoods around the 101 in that manner, as if Studio City deserves special consideration over the rest of the southeast Valley.  If anything, SCRA and SCQS are throwing some of their own residents under the bus – or perhaps I should say, under the plane – those living generally north of Colfax Meadows have long been subject to some of the same noise levels as Valley Village and North Hollywood.

As a frequent flyer from Burbank Airport and a resident of Valley Village, I can say with certainty that many flights still traverse the skies north of the 101 or directly parallel to it. From the air, I have a clear view of my street as my flight banks to the north soon after we clear the runway. Details of the terrain below are close enough to be evident. From the ground, I can watch SWA parallel our street.

Valley Village Homeowners Association has informed our elected officials that we favor a shift of  departures to the south. Letters were sent to Representatives Sherman and Cardenas, and to Councilman Krekorian and City Attorney Feuer. We stressed that no one area should bear a disproportionate share of the noise;  that our interests are every bit as important as Studio City’s.

It is worth noting that Councilman Paul Krekorian and City Attorney Mike Feuer co-signed a letter to the FAA in support of the SCRA and SCQS position, but did not consider the overall impact to the greater community; that there would be some relief for other residents.

When we asked their offices if they could write on behalf of Valley Village, they said FAA issues are not within their scope.  That is a true statement, but why did they involve themselves then?

Burbank Airport, despite the inherent noise associated with airport operations, is a net asset to the Valley.  When it comes to flying regionally, it is the hands down choice over LAX for all of us this side of Mullholland.

This is not to say there are no concerns regarding the airport – for example, we must pay attention to the plans for the new terminal, advocate for soundproofing of schools, where needed, throughout the East Valley.

The FAA has the legal authority to implement flight path modifications in the interests of safety and efficiency, regardless of public or political input.

Perhaps, then, this conflict is all moot, but sharing the noise is only fair.