For more than 20 years, Suzanne Gutierrez has lived right next to the Van Nuys Airport, watching the jets taxi just beyond a low fence and a line of trees. But she says the roar of planes has never been as relentless as it is now, with a surge in private and charter flights rattling windows and leaving her worried about what she can’t see in the fumes.

She lives in “The Pocket,” a cluster of around 200 single-family homes along Hayvenhurst Avenue that sits tight against the airport’s western edge—a neighborhood residents say has long felt overlooked by city leaders.

“Our whole neighborhood is highly impacted,” Gutierrez said. “We have a lot of kids here, a lot of young babies. We have two licensed daycares, and it’s awful.”

Now she and her neighbors are demanding protection: a 15-foot sound-absorbing wall along Hayvenhurst Avenue. Van Nuys Airport officials have rejected that plan, instead pushing a long-term land use swap proposal they say would eventually move aviation tenants away from the homes—a fix the residents say could take five to seven years, and might not happen at all.

“The wall and the land swap are not comparable. It’s not one or the other,” Gutierrez said. “While they’re working on the land re-categorization during the specific airport plan, the wall should already be up. We should have the wall protecting us.”

Sue Steinberg, who has lived in the neighborhood for nearly 40 years, echoed that frustration, saying the airport has changed dramatically over the decades. She and Gutierrez formed FumeFighters United VNY, a community advocacy group with more than 200 members on Facebook to push back against what they see as unchecked growth in jet and charter traffic.

“They were a good neighbor and it was kind of like having a cute little lizard in your backyard,” Steinberg said of the airport. “Well, that lizard is turned into Godzilla, and now we have this monster in the middle of the Valley.”

She said the surge in private charter flights over the past decade has transformed Van Nuys Airport into what feels like a constant jet hub.

“You’ve got these charter jets and private jets flying at all hours,” she said. “The increase in the after-hour traffic has been horrendous.”

Airport officials defend plan 

Airport officials say they’re not ignoring residents’ concerns but argue that simply building a wall won’t truly solve the problem. Instead, they’re pushing for a proposed land use swap they say will permanently separate aviation operations from homes in “The Pocket.”

Under the plan, the area next to Hayvenhurst Avenue — currently leased to Aeroplex Aerolease Group and Castle & Cooke with the lease expiring at the end of 2026would be rezoned from aviation use to airport commercial. That would allow a new non-aviation building to act as a buffer between the runway and nearby homes.

Meanwhile, aviation tenants would move to the eastern and southwestern sides of the airfield — the Airtel Plaza Hotel site and the Aviation Plaza airport office site, respectively. Airport officials say those locations are better suited to handle jets while reducing noise in residential areas.

“Instead of a temporary fix, we’ll address the root problem,” Airport Manager Jacob Haik told the Van Nuys Airport Citizens Advisory Council at its June 3 meeting. “The root problem is the use of land.”

He described plans for the proposed buffer building as more than just offices, suggesting it could include the airport administration’s office, a public observation deck, small café, community rooms, and even a satellite museum or arts institution.

The proposed project “won’t just be a commercial office building that will help separate the noise,” Haik said at the meeting. “We will potentially offer two tenants, LAWA (Los Angeles World Airport) and an arts institute.”

The airport also hired William Lowery of the consulting firm LivingWorks, who told the advisory council that while walls can help reduce noise somewhat when they’re close to jets or homes, the proposed design would offer limited overall benefit at its planned distance and height—and provide “minimal to no benefits” for jet emissions. He estimated it could take 12 to 14 months to secure city permits before construction could begin.

In a statement Friday, airport authorities said the land swap plan was “shaped through dialogue with airport neighbors and community advocates, including the Van Nuys Airport Citizens Advisory Council (CAC)” and would move jet operations to “a more suitable, non-residential area.”

Officials now say the full timeline to groundbreaking would be three to three and a half years, including 12 to 18 months for environmental review and planning, plus 18 to 24 months for design and city approvals—a more complete estimate than the roughly two years they previously described at the meeting.

“This solution reflects LAWA’s commitment to balancing airport operations with community quality of life,” Haik’s statement read. “Thanks to multiple leases expiring in the next two years, we have a golden opportunity to make this happen — and once and for all move jet operations away from our closest neighbors.”

Residents push back

But many residents see the airport’s plan as no substitute for the immediate protection they want. They argue a wall could be built in 9 to 12 months after approval, while the land use swap is an uncertain plan that requires multiple governmental-level approvals and could face potential lawsuit challenges, leaving them exposed for years.

“All the studies have to be done. All options need to be presented,” Gutierrez said. “They presented one option and negated the wall.”

Residents say the airport’s land use swap plan isn’t just slow—it’s been pushed forward without real input from the people most affected.

“This land swap does not reflect the communities’ needs,” Gutierrez said. “In fact, it will only exacerbate ground pollution and increase runway activity which is the opposite of what my community wants and needs.”

The wall plan has drawn formal support from the Citizens Advisory Council, which passed motions in January and again in June calling for its immediate approval.

Residents and city leaders also point to a City Council motion in November 2023 introduced by Councilmembers Imelda Padilla and Nithya Raman directing the Department of City Planning to develop a new Specific Plan for Van Nuys Airport, with goals including mitigating noise impacts, installing sound barriers, and adding green space—steps they argue should happen before any land swap is considered.

Padilla, who represents District 6, an area that includes the airport, has publicly backed the wall and opposes moving forward with the swap in the meantime.

Padilla said major decisions about Van Nuys Airport need to be “transparent, collaborative, and involve meaningful input from all stakeholders,” including input from her office and the residents most impacted.

She said she supports the immediate construction of the proposed wall, calling it a solution with strong community support and formal endorsement from the airport’s advisory council.

“I currently oppose the land use swap proposal because the necessary groundwork—like environmental and planning studies—has not yet occurred, making any action premature and potentially harmful,” Padilla added. “Proposals of this scale should only be considered through the forthcoming Specific Plan process, which allows for a thorough evaluation of impacts and alternatives.”

Residents also argue airport officials never brought the wall proposal before the Board of Airport Commissioners, despite support from Padilla and the airport’s own advisory council.

Timi Romolini, a legal researcher who has worked as a pro bono advocate for the residents since 2021, also challenged the airport’s analysis dismissing the effectiveness of the wall.

“LAWA didn’t analyze the actual proposed wall, which features an inward-sculpted top designed to redirect pollutants back toward the source,” Romolini said. “Instead, the wall LAWA reviewed was an inferior, simplistic vertical design.”

She argued that multiple peer-reviewed studies show such designs can reduce both noise and pollution exposure—and said the airport’s presentation to the advisory council “is void of any scientific data to support their claim.”

Some residents also worry the swap plan would encourage more charter flights to use the airport. Romolini argued that the two properties targeted for aviation use have larger, more direct runway access and extensive ramp space, making them better suited to handle more transient aircraft than the Aerolease West property.

Others criticized airport officials for rejecting a tenant’s offer to help pay for the wall in exchange for extending its lease. But Airport Manager Jacob Haik said a 5- to 7-year, noncompetitive extension would have locked in the same planes producing noise and emissions for years, making it harder to negotiate better terms for the community.

Outside experts see limits and nuances in both ideas

On the question of noise, several experts said sound walls can help reduce noise to a degree—especially lower-level operations like idling or taxiing jets—but they come with limitations.

Chris Kyriakakis, founding director of University of Southern California’s Immersive Audio Laboratory and professor of electrical engineering, noted that low-frequency aircraft noise during landing and takeoff, which is typically below 500 Hz, is particularly hard to block.

“They have very long wavelengths and are not very directional so they get around most barriers,” he said. “To be effective they need to be constructed as close as possible to the source of the noise which would make them impractical for airports. I don’t expect much aircraft noise (reduced by) a 15-foot wall.”

Reducing emissions is even less clear. Experts pointed out that jet exhaust rises quickly due to heat and buoyancy, making it harder to redirect with a wall.

Ed Avol, professor emeritus of USC’s Keck School of Medicine who specializes in public health impacts of traffic, said a properly designed wall could redirect noise upward initially but wouldn’t eliminate it, since the sound would eventually come back down farther away.

“How effective the sound wall might be to reducing emissions exposure downwind would depend on the distance between the jet exhaust source and the wall, wind direction and speed, and local topography,” Avol added.

Other experts noted some potential, though limited, benefits. Suzanne Paulson, a professor at UCLA and director of its Center for Clean Air, said solid walls can reduce concentrations downwind by forcing air and emissions to go up and over, creating turbulence that lowers ground-level exposure.

“ It doesn’t make them go away … it does not trap the pollution at the airport,” she said. “They still get dispersed into the atmosphere. But the people who are directly downwind experience somewhat lower concentrations (that are) significantly lower. It really depends on the wind speed and the conditions of the atmosphere, but it can be 30%, 50%” lower.

She added, “ The wind kind of moves the sound around in a similar way as it does the emissions.”

The South Coast AQMD, which regulates air quality in Southern California but has no land-use authority over the airport, offered cautious general guidance.

Rainbow Yeung, a spokesperson for the agency, said solid walls have shown benefits in redirecting emissions from roadways but the effect is less certain for jet exhaust, which rises quickly.

“In general, placing a building between an emissions source and nearby homes is not expected to significantly reduce exposure,” Yeung added. “Depending on wind direction and building design, air can flow around structures in complex ways, sometimes creating areas where pollutants accumulate on the downwind side.”

Several experts said a large commercial building might block more noise than a thin wall simply because of its mass and internal space, but noted its effectiveness would depend on size, design, and location relative to the jets. Kyriakakis said that “the bigger the building, the better the noise attenuation,” but location and distance from the noise source would still be a major factor.

The airport’s other mitigation plans

Airport officials also point to other efforts to reduce the airport’s environmental impact, including a zero-emission Ground Support Equipment (GSE) policy, an Electric GSE Incentive Program, promoting unleaded aviation gasoline, and developing a broader sustainability plan.

Yet despite these efforts, many residents say they still feel overlooked after years of asking for relief. Gutierrez said the community’s frustration has deepened as repeated public comments and meetings have failed to produce results.

“It’s awful. They lose hope. People have lost hope. … But I’m still fighting because I have my kids,” she said. “My son has grown up in this toxic neighborhood. My daughter’s 11. Who’s to say they don’t get cancer 10 years from now, 20 years from now, after I’m gone. Those are my fears.”

Mayor Bass’ office could not be reached for comment by deadline Friday.