Port Hangars Association, Inc., and Winn Williams v. County of Los Angeles, California – No. 16-17-14

FAA Docket No:

FAA Docket No. 16-17-14

Author:

Kevin C. Willis, Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis

Complainant(s):

Respondent(s):

Airport(s):

Brackett Field (POC)

Holding:

Abstract:

Complainant Port Hangars alleged that the County violated Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, by refusing to negotiate a new lease because of alleged excess capacity of hangars. Port Hangars alleged that “excess capacity” was not a valid grounds under the grant assurances. Port Hangars further alleged that the County violated Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights, by refusing to lease it space while the county was allowing another tenant, Brackett Hangar, LLC, to remain. Port Hangars also alleged that the County refused to negotiate in good faith. (p. 6.)

The County denied Port Hangars’ claims, arguing that it decided against renewing the lease for four reasons, including: “(1) Port Hangars' individual hangars did not meet the county’s minimum standards at POC; (2) there was no need for private hangar space because of excess public-use hangar space available on the airport; (3) many of Port Hangars’ hangars were being used for non-aeronautical purposes and the county did not want to use airport ramp space for non-aeronautical uses; and (4) the county can make the ramp space currently occupied by Port Hangars available to aeronautical tenants, such as Mt. San Antonio College, whose growing flying program had need of additional space.” (p. 7.)

The Director first considered whether the County violated Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, by declining to grant Port Hangars a lease of airport property. The Director noted that the County had “adopted minimum standards for POC in 2012 that included minimum area requirements for commercial and non-commercial aircraft storage providers alike … Port Hangars did not challenge the minimum standards or provide any evidence that the 1250 square feet hangar size requirement set forth in the 2012 Minimum Standards was unreasonable” (p. 8.) As such, “[s]ubjective observations that a particular hangar is small or very small, even if true, do not equate to a violation of the minimum size standards. Consequently, there is no triable issue as to whether the County failed to make the Airport available to Port Hangars on similar terms and conditions as other existing or potential tenants who did not meet the 2012 Minimum Standards.” (p. 9.) Moreover, “the Director finds the County acted reasonably when it allowed Port Hangars’ leases to expire and the newly unencumbered ramp space to be used for aeronautical activities.” (p. 9.)

Finally, the Director rejected Port Hangars’ argument that the County violated Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights, by allowing other operators, like Brackett Hangar, LLC, to continue operating aircraft storage units, while denying Port Hangars a lease of airport property. “Port Hangars does not provide evidence to support its claim that the County has granted another entity … an exclusive right over hangar space at POC. Absent such evidence, the Director cannot find a violation of Grant Assurance 23. Furthermore, the County provided evidence that Port Hangars did not meet the 2012 Minimum Standards necessary for a new lease at the airport. Port Hangars does not rebut this evidence, so its claim fails for this additional reason.” (p. 11.)

Index Terms: