SR-8-A (5)
tf~/)/tP09-cr3
g-f}
OCT 2 7 1981
.
CA:RMM:SSS:se
CouncIl MeetIng 10-27-81
Santa MonIca, CalIfornia
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and City CouncIl
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Ordinance Establishing InterIm Airport NOIse
Limit of 100 SENEL and Extending the Departure
Curfew
INTRODUCTION
At its meeting on July 14, 1981, the CIty Council dIrected
the CIty Attorney to prepare an ordinance establishing an interim
noise lImIt of 100 SENEL for aIrcraft departIng from or landing
at the Santa Monica Airport and to extend the existing curfew on
departures for one hour every morning. In response to this
dIrectIon, the accompanYIng ordinance has been prepared.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
1. The 100 SENEL LImIt.
On February 27, 1971, the CIty Council adopted Ordinance
Number 909 (CC5), whIch established a "Single Event Noise
Exposure Level" limit of 100 decibels for noise produced by
aIrcraft taking off from or landIng at the Santa MonIca Airport.
The ordinance was codIfIed as MunIcipal Code Section 10105B, and
was known as the "100 SENEL" limIt.
On August 24, 1979, ChIef Judge IrvIng Hill of the united
States District Court for the Central DistrIct of CalifornIa
upheld the 100 SENEL limit.
The deCISIon, Santa Monica Airport
Association v. CIty of Santa Monica ("Airport I"), also upheld
1
.. ~ f- fJ
~~
~ ~ OCT 2 '7 1931
the City's ordinances establishing a night departure curfew,
prohIbiting helicopter training, and prohibIting pattern flying
on weekends. However, the Court declared invalId the C1ty'S
total ban on jet a1rcraft and enjo1ned 1ts enforcement.
On October 23, 1979, the C1ty Council adopted OrdInance
Number 1137 (CCS) which amended Section 10105B, to provIde for an
85 SENEL limit and to prohibIt aIrcraft estimated to be unable to
meet that limit from uS1ng the AIrport. The 100 SENEL 11m1t was
effectively repealed.
On November 20, 1979, Judge Hill 1ssued a pre11mlnary
inJunction agaInst the enforcement of SectIon 101058 pending
trIal of Its legality. National Business Aircraft AssociatIon v.
City of Santa Monica ("Airport II"). This trial has been stayed
pending decis10n of the united States Court of Appeals in
A1rport I.
On Apr1l 23, 1981, the Court of Appeals affirmed Judge
HIllis decis10n 1n Airport I. On September 23, 1981, the Court
of Appeals den1ed rehear1ng of the case, and issued a new,
amended opinion specifically upholdIng the 100 SENEL ordinance.
The Court held that the City had the r1ght to enact reasonable
regulations to protect 1tS environment and prevent liab11Ity from
airport noise and that the 100 SENEL ordinance was a valid means
of achieving these object1ve.
The proposed ordinance would re-establIsh the 100 SENEL
lImit pending the development of the permanent noise ordinance.
The 100 SENEL 1S intended as an InterIm measure only: it w1l1
2
expire SlX months from its adoption or when superseded by a
permanent noise ordlnance, whlchever is first.
The proposed ordlnance would amend Section 10105B to be
vlrtua11y identical to the 100 SENEL limit which was previously
in effect. Some technlcal modificatlons have been made in
accordance with the recommendatlons
proposed ordinance also contalns a
Alrport Director to exclude repeat
Airport for up to 180 days.
of our consultant. The
provision permlttlng the
violators from using the
B. The Departure Curfew Extens1on.
On December 13, 1977, the Clty Council adopted Ordinance
Number 1075 (CCS), amending Municipal Code Section 10101, to
impose a curfew on take-offs or englne start-ups between the
hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays and 11:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. on weekends. The nlght curfew was upheld in A1rport I.
The staff report supportlng Ordinance 1075, testimony at
trial, and a 1979 Technical Study all stress the importance of
minimizing alrcraft nOlse durlng hours when people tend to be
asleep. Indeed, the State and the FAA consider night nOlse to be
ten times more annoying that daytime noise and weigh their
24-hour cumulative Community NOlse Exposure Level measurements
accordingly. Our consultant has recommended an extenslon of the
departure curfew on weekends as one of the most slgnificant
measures the City could take to reduce the level of communlty
annoyance from aircraft nOlse.
The proposed ordinance would amend Section 10101 to extend
the departure curfew one hour each mornlng -- until 7:00 a.m. on
3
weekdays and 8:00 a.m. on weekends. It is not believed to be
legally dIstinguIshable from the eXIstIng departure curfew~ any
effects It may have on commerce are indIrect and InsubstantIal.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Introduce the ordInance for first readIng as drafted or
as amended In the Council's dIscretion.
2. DeclIne to take any action.
RECOMMENDATION
It IS respectfully recommended that the ordinance be
Introduced for fIrst reading. The ordinance has been reviewed by
the Airport CommIssIon which likewIse recommends adoption of the
ordinance.
Prepared by: Robert M. Myers, CIty Attorney
Stephen S. Stark, AssIstant City Attorney
4
CA:RMM:SSS
City Council MeetIng 10-27-81
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE No.
{CIty Council Series}
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
TO ESTABLISH AN INTERIM AIRPORT
NOISE LIMIT OF 100 SENEL AND
TO EXTEND THE DEPARTURE CURFEW
WHEREAS, it is the POlICY of the City of Santa Monica to
abate nOIse by aircraft using the Santa Monica AIrport and to
prohlblt use of the Airport by particularly noisy types of
alrcraft: and
WHEREAS, the City's r Igh t to enforce a SIngle Event Noise
Exposure Level (SENEL) lImit of lOa dB was upheld In Santa Monica
Airport ASSOCIation v. City of Santa Monica~ and
WHEREAS, the Clty is preliminarily enJoined from enforcing
its SENEL lImit of 85 dB pendlng trlal in NatIonal Business
AIrcraft AssociatIon v. CIty of Santa MonIca; and
WHEREAS, the CIty 1S undertakIng a comprehensive review of
airport noise and land use compatlbillty; and
WHEREAS, the publIC health, safety, and welfare require that
there be an enforceable airport noise limit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the CIty of Santa MonIca
desires to repeal the SENEL limit of 85 dB and establish an
interim
SENEL
limit of 100 dB pendIng further study of
appropriate long-term noise abatement measures; and
1
WHEREAS, extension of the departure curfew by one hour each
morning would, in the opinion of experts and resIdents,
significantly reduce disturbance and annoyance caused by aircraft
nOIse,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 10101 of the Santa Monica MuniCIpal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 10101. Hours. The airport shall
be open for public use at all reasonable
hours of the day and night, subJect to such
restrictIons as are provided hereIn or are
due to inclement weather, the conditions of
the landIng area, the presentation of specIal
events, and like causes as may be determIned
by the AIrport Director. Night landings will
be permItted, but nIght take-offs or engIne
start-ups are prohibIted between the hours of
11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Monday through
Friday and 11:00 p.m. through 8:00 a.m. on
Saturday and Sunday. The AIrport DIrector or
in his absence the Watch Commander of the
Santa Monica Police Department may approve
take-off or landing during said hours,
provided It appears that an emergency
InvolVIng lIfe or death exists, and approval
is obtaIned before take-off.
2
SECTION 2. Section 101058 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
IS hereby amended to read as follows:
SectIon 101058.
RestrictIons
for the
Aircraft Noise
Santa Monica MunicIpal
AIrport.
(a) ProhibItIon And Remedy for Repeated
Violation. An aircraft takIng off from or
landIng at the Airport shall not be operated
in VIolation of this section. A person who
VIolates this sectIon more than once may, at
the dIscretion of the Airport DIrector and
after being given notice and an opportunIty
to be heard, be prohibited from using the
AIrport for a period not to exceed 180 days,
except upon such condItions as the Airport
Director may prescribe. The remedy provided
in thIS subsectIon shall be supplemental to
any other remedy provided by law. Each
violation subsequent to the fIrst VIolation
shall be specifically remediable.
(b) DefInItions. Each of the terms as
used In this section shall be defined as
follows:
(1) Sound pressure level (SPL): The
sound pressure level, In decibels (dB), of a
sound is twenty times the logarithm to the
base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of this
3
sound to the reference sound pressure. The
reference pressure shall be 20 micropascals
(20 micronewtons per square meter, or 0.0002
microbar) .
(2) Noise level (NL): The noise level,
In deCIbels, is an A-weighted sound pressure
level as measured using the slow dynamic
characterIstics for sound level meters
specified In the American National Stanndard
SpeCIfIcatIon for Sound Level Meters, ANSI
Sl.4-l97l (or latest reVIsion thereof.). The
A-weightIng characterIstics modIfIes the
frequency response of the measurIng
instrument to account approximately for the
frequency characteristIcs of the human ear.
The reference pressure is 20 micropascals.
(3) NOIse Level Maximum (NLM): The
maximum NL reached during an aircraft noise
occurrence. ThIS is synonymous with the unIt
"dBAM" as found in FAR-36, Part 36, Appendix
F.
(4) NOIse exposure level (NEL): The
nOIse exposure level in decibels IS the nOIse
accumulated durIng a given event. More
speCIfically, the noise exposure level is the
level of the tIme-Integrated A-weighted sound
pressure for a stated tIme Interval or event,
4
based on
ffiIcropascals
second.
a reference pressure of 20
and a reference duration of one
(5)
(SENEL) :
SIngle event noise exposure level
The single event nOIse exposure
level, In decibels, is the nOIse exposure
level of a sIngle event, such as an aircraft
flyby, measured over the time interval
between the initial and final times for which
the noise levels of a single event exceeds
the threshold noise level. For
implementatIon of thIS Section, the threshold
noise level shall be 65 NL.
(6) CalIfornIa AIrport NOIse Standards:
The CalIfornIa AIrport NOIse Standards are
defIned In the CalIfornIa Department of
AeronautICS "Noise Standards", CalIfornIa
AdminIstratIve Code, Subchapter 6, Title 4
(Register 70, No. 48, November 28, 1970), or
latest revisions thereof.
(7) Aircraft Operator: AIrcraft
operator means the legal or beneficial owner
of the aircraft with authority to control the
aircraft utIlization; except where the
aIrcraft is leased, the lessee IS the
operator. Aircraft operator also means the
pilot of an aircraft.
5
(S) City: City means the City of Santa
Monlca.
(9) Alrport: Airport means the Santa
Monica MunlcIpal AIrport.
(10) Aircraft Model: Aircraft Model
means a version of an aIrcraft that requires
or if now manufactured would require nOlse
certlfication under FAA rules.
(c) Methodology. The noise levels
generated by aircraft takeoffs or aircraft
landings at the Airport are to be measured at
one or more positions In the VICInity of the
Airport. The measurements shall be in terms
of the SENEL. The measured SENEL values are
to be compared with nOIse level limlts
established by this Section. An aircraft
operator whose aircraft produces noise levels
WhICh exceed the SENEL limits shall be deemed
to be in violation of thIS Section.
(d) Measurement LocatIons.
Measurements shall be made at ground
positlons on or near the center line of
nomlnal takeoff and landlng flight tracks for
aircraft operating from the Alrport. The
nom:nal flIght track IS a line projected on
the ground under the nominal flight path of
the aircraft. Measurement positIons shall be
6
established
feet from
west end
measurement
needed to
Section.
(e) Frequency of Measurement. At each
establIshed microphone locatIon, slngle event
nOIse exposure level measurements shall be
made on a schedule to be establIshed by the
by the City at a position 1500
the east and 1500 feet from the
of the runway. Additional
positions may be establIshed as
carry out the purpose of this
CIty.
(f) NOlse MonItoring System
Specifications. The noise monioring system
shall measure the single event noise exposure
level of nOlse events exceeding the noise
threshold establIshed at each measurement
positIon and shall log the time of occurrence
of each event. The performance of the noise
monItoring system shall meet the requIrements
established in Noise Standards, as amended.
In general the overall accuracy of the noise
measurement system shall be +1.5 dBAs
determined in accordance with the procedures
specified in Section 5080.3 of the CalIfornia
Airport Noise Standards, as amended.
(g) FIeld Measurement Precautions.
SpecIfic locations of the monitoring systems
7
shall be chosen, whenever possible, such that
the nOIse levels contrlbuted from sources
other than aircraft shall be equal to or less
than 60dB. The measurement microphone shall
be placed 20 feet above the ground level or
at least 10 feet from the nelghboring
rooftops, whlchever is hlgher. To the extent
practIcal, the following precautions should
be followed:
(1) Each monltoring location shall be
in an open area surrounded by relatlvely flat
terraln having no excesive sound absorption
characteristlcs such as may be caused by
thIck tall grass, shrubbery or wooded areas.
(2) No obstructions WhICh would
signlficantly influence the sound fleld from
the aircraft shall exist wlthin the conlcal
space above the measurement posltion, the
cone being defined by an aXlS along the line
of slght normal to the aIrcraft and by a half
angle of 75 degrees from thlS aX1S.
(3) When the foregoing precautIons are
not practical, the microphone shall be placed
at least 10 feet above neighborIng buildIngs
In a posItIon which has a clear llne-of-sight
view to the path of the aircraft In flight.
8
(h) MaXImum Allowable Single Event
Noise Level (SENEL). The CIty shall set
noise level lImits for each of the
establIshed measurement posItions. For the
noise monItor statIons specified in
subsectIon (d) above, the maXImum permIssible
SENEL shall be 100 Decibels.
SECTION 3. Section lOl05B of the Santa Monica MuniCIpal
Code, as amended by SectIon 2 of this Ordinance, IS repealed and
shall be of no effect on the l8lst day fOllowIng its effectIve
date. It IS the intent of the City Council to adopt appropriate
noise abatement measures upon completIon of an AIrcraft Noise and
Land Use CompatIbility Study.
SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
or appendIces thereto Inconsistent with the proviSIons of this
ordInance, to the extent of such InconSIstenCIes and no further,
are hereby repealed or modifIed to that extent necessary to
affect the proviSIons of thIS ordInance.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsectIon, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstItutional by a deciSIon of any court of any competent
JuriSdiction, such decision shall not affect the valIdity of the
remaInIng portions of the ordinance. The CIty Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and
every sectIon, subsectIon, sentence, clause or phrase not
declared invalId or unconstitutIonal without regard to whether
9
any portlon of the ordlnance would be subsequently declared
Invalid or unconstltutlonal.
SECTION 6.
The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this ordInance. This City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. The ordinance shall
become effective after thIrty (30) days from Its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~~~ ,
Robert M. MyerS'" - -
City Attorney
10
.'
LAWYE~S
?-/~
/tJ-:l.7--tf/
;fe~
.~~.-'
v--~7
~~
RICHARD L KNICKERBOCKER, INC
320Q AIRPORT AV~""'......S
SANTA MONICA CALIFOq""A 984-05
i213~ 39;:)-9561
24-HCUR ~EL:E-:::]""O"""'E i2i3J 451-8' 9
October 27, 1981
Members of the C~ty Counc~l
C1ty of Santa Mon~ca
1685 Main Street
Santa Mon1ca, Callforn~a 90401
Reference: Proposed Curfew Change, Santa Monica Airport
Dear Members of the C~ty Councll:
Th15 letter lS sent on behalf of the Santa Mon~ca A1rport
Assoc~at1on and the operators located at the Santa Monica
A1rport.
It 15 a formal Ob]ect1on to the Clty.S proposed modlflcat~on
of the ex~stlng curfew at the Clty.S a1rport. It is our legal
p051t~on that no mater~al change in curfew tlmes can be made
without the preparatlon, reVlew and adoptlon of an environmental
1mpact report.
It is clear that the adopt1on of th1S
change curfew times w~ll cause a mater1al
environment and on the environment
communlt1es.
proposed ord1nance to
effect on our C1ty.S
of our ne1ghbor~ng
You should also note that there ~s currently litigation
pendlng aga1nst the C~ty challeng1ng the adoption of var10US City
regulat10ns based on the grounds that they have a substant1al
adverse effect on the enVlronment of ne1ghbor1ng communtles
adjoin1ng the City of Santa Monlca.
There 1S no legal support for the C1ty' S pos1t~on that an
env1ronmental ~mpact report 1S not requlred for a curfew change.
Indeed, the 1n1 t~ation of such a study would be a benef1 t not
only to the persons who ut~l~ze the a1rport, and the ad]O~nlng
communities, but also to the C1ty of Santa Mon~ca as well.
The ASSoclat1on and the C~ty are presently engaged 1n
productive settlement negotlat1ons w~th regard to the future of
the alrport. A precipitious act~on by the Councll at thlS time
would place the Cl ty in an adversary rather than cooperat1ve
posture. It lS to everyone.s benef~t 1f th1S could be avo~ded.
:'
C1ty of Santa Mon1ca
October 27, 1981
page two
It should also be ment10ned at this time that the
Associat10n 1S prepar1ng an applicat10n for cons1deration by the
F.A.A. to request 1t to exam1ne the issue of whether the Clty is
1n default of ltS grant agreements, sponsor assurances, and
various covenants and conditions of the federal government
agreements.
The primary baS1S tor the Associatlon's request is the
fa1lure of the Clty to enter lnto long-term leases, even with the
F.A.A.i the failure of the Clty to adopt adequate safety
measures, such a mlcrowave landing systems ~ the fallure of the
City to permlt the lnstallation of safer runway llghts~ and the
failure of the Clty to adopt the usual and beneficlal n01.5e
lmprovements customarily used by other alrports of comparable
size and usage.
We further obJect to the adoptlon of the curfew on the basls
that lt wl11 create a substantlal burden on lnterstate commerce
and vlo1ates agreements wlth the federal government.
In concluslon, on behalf of the ASSoclatlon, we respectfully
request that the pending ordlnance not be consldered wlthout an
accompanying envlronmental report.
Yours very truly,
KNICKERBOCKER & PERRY
}
.' j / 7;
. J' ~ t 1'\ I!., i / .
; /1 . l {I i:
By :;/)..j{';;YI.A..'>---'; ~. i-- _______
!~lchard L~ Knickerbocker
RLK: J k
cc: Santa Monlca Airport Assoclatlon