SR-7-A (4)
RLK:SSS:msh
C~ty Counc11 Heetl~10-23-79
Santa4lrnlca, Callfornla
71r-,4DD~
TO:
Mayor and C1ty Councll
OCT 2 3 1979
FROH: Clty Attorney
SUBJECT: Negatlve Declaratlon on the Airport Ordinance
Supple~ental Staff Report
Introductlon
ThlS report transmlts additlonal lnformatlon about the
hear1ng on the proposed Negatlve Declaratlon regarding the alrport
ordlnance (IteTI 8A), 1n 11ght of comnents from aVlatlon lnterests.
These conwents are conta1ned In a letter fron Latham & Watklns,
attorneys for NBAA and G&Vill. They contend that the Initlal Study
lS deflclent, that a Negatlve Declaratlon 1S improper and that
a full Envlronnental Impact Re~ort (EIR) must be prepared. It
lS clear from the letter that a lawsult wlll be flIed lf the Counc11
adopts the Negative Declaration and the Ord1nance. The principal
pOlnts raised ln the cor.~ents are:
1. The Initlal Study does not adequately address the
probleTI of the effect of dlversion of alrplanes from Santa Monlca
Alrport to other alrports in the Southern Cal1fornla area.
2. The Init1al Study does not address the problem of
how the ordinance wlll l~pact energy consuwpt1on.
3. The In1tlal Study does not address the problems that
~lght occur 1f the ordlnance leads to the abandonnent or replacement
of current a1rport bus1nesses.
4. The Inltlal Study 1S so technically deflclent that
lts analysis 15 inval1d.
These pOlnts should be subJected to a good faith, reasoned
7A-
OCT 2 3 1979
e
e
analysls by the Councl1. The adequacy of the In1tlal Study should
be determlned. The Councll nust then decide whether a Negative
Declaration lS sufflc1ent or an EIR 1S requlred, and should ~ake
findlngs that can be supported by substant1al eVldence upon review
by a court searching the whole record. People v. Kern County (1976),
62 Cal.App.3d 761, 133 Cal.Rptr. 389.
AnalYS1S
I. THE ADEQUACY OF THE IlJITIAL STUDY
The purpose of an Inltlal Study lS to ldent1fy enVlron-
mental lmpacts so that the Councll can determlne 1f a Negatlve
Declaratlon or an EIR 15 requ1red. (14 Ca1. Adm1n. Code Section
15080). The Inltlal Study ltself lS only an informatlonal document
that must address all potentlal envlron~ental effects of the proposed
ord1nance. These potentlal effects Dust be reasonably forseeable
and capable of belng deterBlned wlth a falr degree of certalnty.
Although the Initial Study acknowledges that some planes
that cannot meet the lowered nOlse llmlt may be dlverted to other
alrports, lt does not deal wlth thlS effect in any great deta1l.
Accord1ng to the Clty'S consultant, the posslble effects of dlverslon
were not exhaustlvely treated because they are so hypothetlcal
and speculatlve as to render an analysls arbltrary, 1nconclusive,
and 0= doubtful valldlty.
It is theoretlcally posslble to construct the effect
of var10US hypothetical dlstrlbutlons 0= dlverted a1rcraft to some
designated alrports (l.e., LAX, Van Nuys, etc.) based upon the
-2-
e
e
CNEL nOlse contours around those airports. However, lt lS to be
expected that the nunber of airplanes and alrplane operations to
be dlverted to anyone alrport would be relat1vely s~all and the
impact on the cumulative nOlse measure, CNEL, would be negllglble.
For the sa~e reasons, any effect upon gasollne consu~ptlon
and ground traffic is extremely speculatlve and undeterm1nable.
The posslbll1ty of abandonnent of current alrport businesses
was not consldered In the Inltlal Study as th1S effect 1S h1ghly
remote and cannot be predlcted wlth a reasonable degree of certa1nty.
Indeed, the future use of the alrport wlll depend upon Many other
factors bes1des envlronmental and nOlse regulatlons.
Dr. Kryter, the consultant who prepared the Inlti21 Study
for the Clty, has provlded these co~nents on the alleged technlcal
deIlclenc1es In the Study (references are to pages In the letter
rece1ved fror1 Latham & lI.vatkins) :
Response to Page 4, Paragraph 1, last 2 sentences -
By ldentlfYlng slgnlflcant enVlronnental concerns and
presentlng varlOUS analyses of noise effects and of
alrcraft operatlons, the Inltial Study shows that
the several noise levels proposed as bases for an
Ordlnance would result 1n a reduced environmental
n01se lmpact and that an EIR is, therefore, not
requlred.
Response to Page 5, Paragraph 7 - The so-called
"maJor statlstlcal deflclencleslt ln the author's
-3-
e
e
analyses of dlfferent studles must be ldentifled
before a rebuttal can be made. Such deflciencles
are not belleved to be present; 1ndeed, the analyses
are bellevec to represent an l~prove~ent 1n the
valldlty of prevlous COQb1nat1ons of such studies.
~es?onse to Page 6, Paragraph ~ - F1gures 13, 14
and IS of the Initlal Study provlde the lnformation
show1ng the altltudes to be expected at the SENEL
measurement pOlnt for the FP~ conditlons of FAR-36
(maximum gross we1ght for one ltem) for composite
small Jet and propeller a1rcraft. The use o~ com-
poslte Jet and propeller alrcraft data lS prec1sely
the procedure utl11zed on behalf of aVlatlon 1nterests
by the acoustical firm of Bolt, Beranek and NeWMan,
Inc. 1n the calculatlon of CNEL contours (and the
underlYlng SENEL values) both present and potentlal
at Santa Monlca Alrport.
It 15 true that the nOlse of a speclflc alrcraft
model may dlffer fro~ the composlte for ltS type,
poss1bly up to an equlvalent of 6 dB. However,
th1S 15 the preclse reason that the In1tial Study
notes that lnd1Vldual models of alrcraft Day requlre
~urther 1nfornatlon (to convert to a SENEL at the
Santa ~onlca measurement point for that part1cular
model) than that furnlshed by the FB~ ln lts
-4-
e e
C1rculars AC-36-l, 2 and 3. Thus, the proposed
ord~nance prov~des that any alrcraft owner or
operator may obtaln and furnish detailed lnfor-
matlon relevant to the SENEL for any part1cular
alrcraft Aodel. The general Cr;EL n01se impact
analyses given ~n the Inltlal Study and the
analyses provided by the plalntlffs In the recent
laWsult rema1n valld notwithstanding the varlations
noted above.
Response to Page 6, Paragraph 2 - The assumption
that the tiedo\Yn and ltlnerant fleets of alrcraft
at Santa Monlca which are not noise-rated ln
elther FAl~ AC-36-l, 2 and 3 or the other docu~ents
referred to ln the Inltial Study ,1111 follow the
same nOlse level d1strlbutlon as the noise-rated
aircraft lS warranted for the calculatlons of CNELs.
The sample of all snaIl alrcra=t that are n01se-
rated In the Ilterature (nearly 50%) represents a
broad and extenslve sampllng of presently operatlng
s~all alrcraft ln the Un1ted States. It is unreasonable
to assume that the nearly 50% sample of small alr-
craft that are nOlse-rated by the FAA and EPA lS
not representatlve of the total populatlon of tledown
or ltinerant fleets. Further, the assunptlon made
ln the Inltlal Study 15 conslstent w1th the baS1C
assunptlons made by Bolt, Beranek and Nevman, Inc.
in thelr calculations of C~EL inpact at Santa Monlca
Alrport.
-5-
e
e
Response to Page 7, Pargraph 3 _- Slnce July, 1979,
the City Attorney's Off1ce has made several telephone
and wrltten requests to FA<"I. officials ln Hashlngton,
D.C. and Ca11forn1a for 1nformatlon pertalnlng to
aircraft nOlse ratlngs and operat~on 2nformat2on.
The FAA has decllned to furnlsh such addlt10nal
1nformatlon, lf, lndeed, any 15 aval1able.
Response to Page 7, Paragrph 4 - The bas1s and
ratlonale for assesslng "background" nOlse iApact
ln conJunctlon wlth alrcrart nOlse is amply pre-
sented and dlscussed ln the Initial Study. Further,
the use of the 65 dBA threshhold for the !lea5Urenent
of aircraft noise lS consistent wlth, and adequate
for, the purposes of monltor1ng aircraft noise 1n
environments when the alrcraft n01se is to be
11ffilted to SENELs of 85.
Response to Page 7, Paragraph 6 - The uncertalnty
of predlctlng the effects of 85 and 80 SENEL levels
on fleet Slze does not lnvalldate the flnd1ng that
the reduction of SENEL llmlts from the present
SENEL Ilffilt of 100 wlll result ln reduced nOlse lmpact
at Santa ~onica. As stated earller, the extent of
aircraft dlverS10n to any sp~c1f1C alrport 15 hypo-
thetlcal and speculatlve.
-6-
In summary, the Clty Attorney and the acoustical consultant
bel1eve that the environmental effects of the proposed ordlnance
have been adequately addressed 1n the Initlal Study and the several
staff reports, and that the Council has adequate 1nfor~ation to
deter~ine if the Negative Declaration is suff1cient.
II. THE DECISION TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR ORDER
Tff...AT AN EIR BE PREPARED.
If the Council decides that the Initlal Study is inadequate
because it falls to address all potentlal environmental effects of
the ordinance, in sufficient detail, then it should d~rect the
Staff to amend the Initial Study and postpone the adoptlon of the
Negat~ve Declaratlon and Ord1nance.
If the Initial Study lS determined to be an adequate
informational document, the Councll must declde whether an EIR or
a Negatlve Declaratlon is required. CEQA requlres that an EIR be
prepared for all projects Wh1Ch "may have a sigu1ficant effect on
the envlronment", (14 Cal. Admin. Code Sectlon 15084 (b)) or when
"there 1S serious publlc controversy concernlng the envlronmental
effect of a proJect" (14 Cal. Adnln. Code Section 15084 (c)).
"Slgnlf1cant effect" is deflned as a "substantlal, or potentially
substantlal, adverse change in . . . [the environment] II. (14 Cal.
Admln. Code Sectlon 15030).
There is no rigld definltion of the term. The courts
deterIll1.ne what 15 a "slgn1f1cant effect" on a case-by-case baslS.
A factual finding of a publlC agency wll1 be upheld if lt 1S sup-
ported by substant1al eV1dence and lS not arb1trary. City of Carmel-
-7-
~ transcrlpt of a po~on of a City Council meet~ held October
1979. .,
Agenda Item Ko. fA. A publ1C hearing regarding an
qegatlve declarat10n to carry out the adopt1on of
1137 to fix the Slngle Event ~olse Exposure Level
Santa i-fon1ca ~Iunlclpal A1 rport. (The hearing was
September 25, 1979 and contlnued for 30 days.
7~
-.),
application for a
Ordinance :\0.
(SENEL) at
opened on
Agenda Item ~o. SA. An ord1nance for adoptinn flxlng the Single
Event ~oise Exposure Level (SENEL) for alrcraft movements at
Santa Monica Munlclpal A1Tport.
CITY CLERK S~IDER:
The next item before the Counc1lls a Public
e
e
.-iliat aIrport lS XNtl~y deal ing wi th. Pro fe s sor Kryter IS here In the
audIence for the CIty Council to inquIre of, as I understand, and
Mr. Bodoff IS from the Law fIrm of Latham & WatkIns. There IS
an opportunIty for full public feedback. The CouncIl IS In no way
bound by any recommendatIon from our office. It1s merely a matter
of the Clty CouncIl to make their own decision with regard to th1S
matter based upon the eVIdence presented.
ACTI~G CITY ~~NAGER JALILI; Thank you, very much, Mr. Knickerbocker.
Do you have a question of hIm, Mr. Jennings?
COUNCIL~E~BER JE~NINGS' Yes. In the beglnnlng of the report dated
October 23, which we just got In, the recommendatIon is made thet
we should make findings. Do you have a set of flndlngs ready for us
to make tonight?
COU~CIL~IEMBER KNICKERBOCKER: No. What I would request and this has
been permltted that we be delegated the opportunIty to prepare the
findIngs in conformIty with your opinion. Also that the ~Iayor be
authorIzed to execute those findings. Perhaps, a better procedure
Kould be for the City Council after the findings are prepared to vote
on the fIndIngs as prepared by the City Attcrney so as to determIne
that those confIrm wIth your wIshes.
M1\YOR \~;\.\ DE\" STEEI\HOVE\" Also \vhen it comes to the necessity
of preparing an E.l.R., Environmental Impact Report, as you quoted
here from the CalIfornIa Environmental Quallty Act. It s~ys,
"For all proJects \.;h1ch may have a significant effect on the enVl ronmen t . "
Does that mean signifIcant negative effect only or SIgnIfIcant effect
whether It's posltlve or negative?
COUNCILMEMBER KNICKERBOCKER' It means negative effect.
~L~YOR VAX DEK STEEKHOVE~: Okay. If there are no further
questions from the Counc1lmembers, we will now open the publIC hearing.
Anybody who wishes to be heard please present a chit.
We have a chIt at this tIMe from a Mrs. William Todd. If anyone
wishes to be heard he or she snould avail themselves at this time.
Mrs. WIlliam Todd.
MRS. WILLIAM TODD: I am Mrs. WIllIam Todd, IS Promenade Street,
Santa Monica.
Mayor, Members of the CounCIl, I thInk trat as far as the airport
')
...
e
e
IS concerned, the lesser aircraft we have going out of there would
make less impact upon our environment, and I think the negatIve
declaration would be much better for adoptIon because I dbn't see
how it could effect the other aIrports any more than It's effecting
the Clty of Santa ~onlca. So I urge you to vote for the negatIve
declaratlon. Thank you.
1-t"-YOR VA'\ DE:\" STEE:.JHOVEN: Okay. Thank you, very much, Hrs.
Todd. Anyone else wish to be heard on thlS ite~?
COUKCILME~BER SCOTT Mr. Mayor, before you close the
public hearing, if there 15 no other member of the public wishes
to be heard, I would lIke to hear from Dr. Kryter In response to
questIons.
MAYOR VA~ DE:.J STEENHOVEN You have questIons for Dr. Kryter?
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT: I have questIons for him.
Dr. Kryter, do you have a copy of the October 23 report of the
City Council to the City Councll?
DR. KRYTER: Yes, I do.
COUXCILMEMBER SCOTT: Flne.I Refer you to page 3, Response to page +
is the title of the paragraph. rrAttorney asserts that the initial
study shows the several nOIse levels proposed a5 bases for an ordinance
would result in a reduced environNental nOIse Impact. Is that in
fact your professional opinion?
DR. KRYTER: Yes, lt lS.
COUNCILNEMBER SCOTT: All rlght. Response to page 5, paragraph 7, IS
the title of the paragraph, the City Attorney's Report. In reference
to so-called statistical deficlencies, in your professIon2l opinion,
have any statIstICS been identified with respect to that report?
DR. KRYTER. Xo. No such deficiencies were identIfIed, and I did not
know of any.
COUNCILMENBER SCOTT. Now, I refer you to Page 4, 2 or 3 paragraph
dlScussion of the altitude to be expected at the SENEL measurenent
pOInt for the F.~4 conditions of fair. In your opInion is the
method used In the computing the noise levels included In your reports
approprIate and proper for consideration by this public agency and
fIXIng a nOIse level at the airport.
DR. KRYTER: Yes, it is. It is appropriate, proper for the assessment
of the impact wlth respect to C ~,E,L" and it was so used wIth
-3-
e
e
respect to anyone indIvidual aircraft. This condition and of knOWIng
the precise altitude is not always available and could not be done
for certaln specific aircraft but for the purpose of C N E L the
procedures involved are the standard procedures and apprcpriate.
COU~CILMEMBER SCOTT- Very good. I refer you to Page 5, halfway
down the page, the title of the paragraph, In Response to page 6,
paragraph 2. It's a diSCUSSIon concerning the adequacy of the
sa8pllng method used at the airport whether or not the SO percent
sample used In computation is reascnable and adequate.In your opInIon,
IS It or was it adequate?
DR. KRYTER- Yes, I belleve it was adequate. The 50 percent sample
of the aircraft types were all that were allowed from the publIcations
put out, Environmental ProtectIon Agency and the FAA, those samples
noise rated of aircraft publicatlons by those agencies lS to the
best of my knowledge and to the bEst information available from
those agencles, represent the channel type of aircraft operated in
the UnIted States.
COUNCIL~EMBER SCOTT: All right, SIr. With reference to the first
paragraph on Page 6, concerns the availibility of additional aircraft
noise ratings in addItional to the City Attorney that the FAA had
decllned to furnlsh addItional informatIon. The question that occurs
to me,lS there ln your opinion any other source that is readily
or reasonably avaIlable to the City for determinIng such noise ratIngs
for unrated aircraft apart from indlvIdual measure~ent?
DR. KRYTER: To the best of my knowledge, that would be the most
authoritatIve and only agency from which we could expect to get such
data.
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT: All right, sir. DIrectIng your attention to the
second paragraph on Page 6, Response to Page 7, paragraph 4, the baSIS
and ratlonal for asseSSIon background nOlse impact in conjunction
with aircraft noise IS amply presented and dIscussed in inltial
study. Partly the paragraph that lS objectlng or at lease raising
a question about the appropriateness of the use of 6S DBA special
as at the pOInt of which the measurement begins. In your opinlon,
is that reasonable and approprlate method of measuring the noise
impact on the airport?
DR. KRYTER: It Is.The primary purpose of the study was to evaluate
the impact or the reduction in nOlse impact and the use of 65 DBA
-4-
e
e
threshold in VIew of the fact that the aircraft limit would be
65 is quite sufficlent and quite adequate for that purpose.
GOIng to a lower level would not change in cny way the C N E L 's
would be determined for the aIrport.
COUNCILNEtillER SCOTT: FIne. Refer you to the last paragraph, title
of whlch is: Response to Page 7, parafraph 6, It has to do wIth
the asserted uncertainty of predictJng the effects of 85 and 80
SE~EL levels on fleet size does not evaluate the fIndIngs
that the reduction SEXEL limits from the present SEKIL limit
of 100 will result in reduced noise impact in Santa Monica. Partly
what the aircraft operators are saying as well as if you dIvert
Santa Monica to some other aIrport you would adversely effect the
nOIse level in that area. That IS the general reaction I get from
the paragraph. The questions occurs to me is there any reasonsble
method of estimating the nOIse Impact on an alrport like LAX or
Van Nuys by the potentIal dlverslon of a few aIrcrafts from
Santa Monica?
DR. KRYTER: Yes, SIr, this could be done. It would require obtaining
information from the aIrports at these aircrafts were transfers to.
Ne thought about wrItIng a scenarial for several such possibilities.
Ho~ many might to to Van Kuys; how many to LAX and how many to San
Diego, etc. lvith that scenarIO with those assumptions five "auld go
here and ten would go there, and they would be these alrcraft
speCIfIcally. One could then calculate what the lmpact would be on
these, airports acceptin~ these aIrcraft. However, one would also
have to determine and obtaIn the SENEL TS and C.E.N.L. 's for the
aIrports that are going now to receive these. It is my opinion that
lt would be rather futile and very dIfflcult thing to run through
some of these hypothetical SItuations that one would lay down as
being a remote possibility. It IS also my professional opinion that
the Impact on specifIcally lAX would not be measurable. That is
there C.E.~.L.'s would not be effected in anyway and I suspect thIS
would be true for a number of aIrports where such transfers might
take place.
COU~CILME~BER SCOTT: Nell, the question occurs to me in the absence
of specific knowledge as to which ajrcraft and what numbers would be
transferred to any given airport, would not such an appraisal be
extremely hypothetIcal, or dimJy valued?
-5-
e
e
DR. KRYTER; That is my oplnlon, yes, sir.
COUNCIDIE\"1BER SCOTT: Thank yOlt.
~~YOR VA~ DE~ STE~~H0VE~: Mr. Jennings?
COUXCIUIEMBER JEN~II\GS; Yes. Could you tell me iH th a level of
a SENEL of 85, approxImately how many airplanes are we going
to be excludIng from Santa MonIca AJrport, in terRS of numbers?
DR. KRYTER: If we use the FAA s~mple of airplanes that they give
nOIse ratIng for, the number comes out to be approxImately
23 percent of the general fleet would be unable to meet the SENEL
OF 85, as you know.
COU~CILMEMBER JENXIXGS; Percent of how many?
DR. KRYTER: Well, this would be of the general fleet that could
fly into. Now if we look at the fleet that was already here, then
we fInd that number was like 32 percent, and I think we are talkIng
lf my memory serves me correctly, the order In excess of 400 airplanes
In the total fleet. ThIS IS a tIedown fleet. It must be noted, how-
ever, that each airplane doesnrt operate everyday, and the number of
operations would be--reduction number of operations would not
equal that of the aircraft of the order of about half. That is, If
there is a 30 percent reduction in aircraft, there Kould be approximately
a 15 percent reduction in the number of operations.
COUKCILMEMBER JE~~INGS: Do you have any Idea how many aIrplanes of
the same type 15 tied down here at Santa itlonica AIrport, are tied
down at the Torrance AIrport?
DR. KRYTER; Ko, I do not.
COUKCILME~BER JE~~IxGS: Kould it be larger than Santa Monica?
DR. KRYTER: I really donlt know, sir.
COUNCIL~EMBER JEN~INGS: Do you know about Van Nuys?
DR. KRYTER" No, I do not.
MAYOR VAN DEN STEE~HOVEK I am qUIte sure there IS more In
Van Nuys.
COUXCILME;\IBER JEN~IXGS: Do you know where the pilots for Santa Monica
Alrport come from?
DR. KRYTER. No, I Jo not.
COUNCILNEMBER JENNINGS; Do you know if any of them come from the
Valley?
-6-
e
e
DR. KRYTER: I was at a public hearIng. I believe it was a month
or so ago, and being from San Francisco, I am afraId the addresses
do not mean too much to me. I really can't answer that question.
of my own knowledge.
~~YOR VAN DEN STEENHOVEK: Any further questions of Dr. Kryter?
COUNCIUff}ffiER YA~~~TTA GOLrn~Y I have a question. I do not know
if it is specIfIcally related to E.I.R. The ordinanee we adopted
last meetlng In which we have a second reading on provides for an
alternate method of measuring the 85 DB, does it, the dIrector of
the alrport can do that? Didn't you give them some provislon to
adjust theIr IndIvidual planes to meet the 85 DB~
DR. KRYTER: We we really have is we have a similar nOIse level
limitatlon, then we have a prohibition based upon a major set of data
by the FA~ called the FAA 036 methcd so it's a prohIbition based
upon FAA 36 levels.
COUNCIL\~rnER YA~TTA GOLD~AY But didn't we do additional to that
FAR 36, there was some other way that they could qualify--my question
is what percentage of the fleet might qualify under an alternate
method.
KXICKERBOCKER: Well, they also have the opportunIty of submIttIng
data to the airport management to establish that something has
been done to the aircraft to make It capable of meetIng the FAR 36
standard at our aIrport.
COUNCIL~lEMBER YA~~ATTA GOLDWAY Do you have any idea what percent-
age of the fleet would be able to adJust their aircraft to meet that?
DR. KRYTER: No, thIS is from the F~~ data. Right now It would be
23 percent could not. The future technology as was pointed out In
the report IS that we could expect trat number to be reduced as time
goes by. The FAA nor the IndustrIal has indicated any precise nunber.
And to the best of my knowledge, the noise monitor, the SENEL is
a direct and only procedure that is allowed or to be allo~ed. The
questIon is, an aircraft that is now nOIse rated by F&4 is probably
being excess of 85 if It did fly in. I thInk the intent was if they
made any modification that are certIfled by FA~ or certified by the
manufacturers being reasonalbE then thIS would be evidence that the
plane probably could meet the monItor at Santa MonIca. But I think
thIS was the purpose--
COUNCILMEMBER YANNATTA GOLDWAY: My point In making this it seems
~
-/-
e
e
to me I am glad you mentioned the part about continu1ng technology.
That ln fact we are talk1ng about n01se, we are not talking about
numbers of planes, but the possibility is very great that the
number of planes will be maintained, might even increase. So
that I think the f1nd1ngs in our negative declaration suffice.
DR. KRYTER Indeed; I might add that we report
from the E.P.A. documents for every rate of aircraft, there are
ava1lable types, models, that can meet the-- or practically ever
rate are in aircraft r1ght now. The question as to what is owned
1S another questlon.
COUNCIDIEMBER YA:JNATTA GOLDl\'AY .
~~YOR VAN DEN STEE~HOVEX;
Thank you.
We did have one, or do you have
another question?
~~YOR VA~ DEN STEEKHOVEK
We have one more chit that was
subm1tted. Allan Weston.
ALLAN WESTO~; My name 1S Allan Weston. 1538 Serrento Drive in
Pal1sades. I am a buslness owner, pilot using Santa Monica Airport.
I Just want to comment on one thlng that Dr. Kryter said. I think
the figures you gave is highly misleading in terms of the amount
of the fleet that te effected by this ordinance. If you take the
total number of aircraft in the general aviation fleet, it is dis-
proport1onately rated toward s~aller school-type a1rcraft. There is
more Cessnas 150, more Cessnas 172 ~ in the general aviation fleet
In terms of numbers. These are a1rcraft that would make it in under
the ord1nance. But the fleet, 1f you take the number of total planes
in the general aVlation fleet 1S heavily rated toward the small
non-buslness type of aircraft. Now, 1f you take a look at the fleet
as 1t exsists 1n Santa Mon1ca today based on the flgures that are re-
present by the City Attorney at thE publlC hearlng several weeks ago,
I don't th1nk it comes out about 65 percent of the number of planes
that are based at Santa Mon1ca would not qualify e1ther by default
because there 1S no rating glven or because they are rated at higher
than 85DB rating. So your report states that only 33 percent of the
plane movements would be effected Wh1Ch 1S probably true, but 65
percent of the aviation fleet at Santa Monica would be effected by this
-8-
e
e
ordlnance. And I suspect If you take aircraft as types rather
than numbers, Cessnas ISO, Cessnas 182; Beeches, whatever they are,
approximately over 60 percent of the entire general aVIatIon fle~t
by type of a1Tcraft will be excluded from Santa Monlca and virtually
every business operated aircraft with minor exceptlons would be
excluded. Th1S ObVlously doesn1t get to the noise Issue, but 1t
does get to the lssue. I think there are some misleading stateDents
and facts that have been presented to this City CouncIl, and I also
think you're asking the person who made thlS study Khether the
study is accurate. And I thInk It is ObVIOUS he lS gOIng to defend
hIS study. I would like to suggest to the Council before such a
drastic action is being taken, is Khat is beIng proposed here that
some authorItIes on aVIation be brought in eIther federal aviatIon
people to discuss the effect on the general aviation fleet, and
also some experts from manufacturers to gIve the CounCIl some
adequate eVIdence as to what can loglcally be done to reduce noise
levels on the eXIst1ng fleet. I obviously would do whatever I could
possibly do to quiet my aircraft down, but there 15 nothIng avaIlable
as I understand it. And untll there is, I am really in kInd of a
bind, and so 15 the whole general aviation fleet. So I would lIke
to try to see some accurate facts brought to bare. And I thInk there
has been some misleading evidence issued here. Thank you.
~~YOR VAX DE~ STEENHOVEN: Thank you. Anyone else wlsh to
be heard on this Item?
CITY ATTORNEY KNICKERBOCKER May I Just make Just one brief
statement to varify the record. Mr. .Penn is here. He had conferred
specifically with representatives of FAA, particularly Mr. Dallas
here local, and I understand Mr. Densmore in the east, and requested
additional lnformation. I would just llke to have him testify for
the record as to what response he received from the FAA when they
were requested to supply additional informatIon, and we might also
just questIon where the eVIdence is In exists to rebut any of the
positions that have been taken by Mr. Kryter. Over a quarter of
a million dollars was spent In the lawsuit, and we haven't received
any informatIon in the last thirty days other than the letters frOB
Latham & Watkins.
~~YOR VA~ DE~ STEENHOVE~: You wish to hear from Mr. Penn?
COU~CIL~ENBER SCOTT
I would 11ke to hear from Nr. Penn.
-9-
e
e
GENE PE~~: Gene Penn, 2010 Navy, SIerra Club Councll, City of Santa
Monica Airport Case. I think the specIfIc question that Richard
indicated I mIght glve some asslstance on has to do with our contact
wIth FAA followIng the Judge's decisIon. I tried to get FAA
to assist us. I talked to Mr. Dallas from the reglonal offlce.
I talked to Nr. Densmore in Wa~hlngton. I wrote and asked them
to provIde us wIth data. See, we were told back early in the case
that there was a new ltem com1ng out that was going to measure
all aircraft. In fact, the Item they were referring to'was advisory
circular 3 to FAR 36. That is contained in your materlals that
you've been previously supplied. The date on that item IS May the
29, '79, WhlCh COIncidentally was the fIrst day that that case was
called for trial. Nobody ever told us throughout the course of the
trlal that that document existed. They told us lt was comlng.
We never got It. I heard about it after the trial. And then, the
only way we got it was actuaJly through E.P.A. and that is in your
materlals, but that was the length we had to go to to get it. I
wrote FAA, and I asked them to tell us because they told us they
could glve us Just about any kind of measurement that we requested.
I said, "All right. We would like to have in SELE?>J' terIlJ.S how you
rank all the ~ircraft you rank, 6,500 feet from the start of rol~
1,500 feet from proposed touchdovrn on approach, and also additIonal
5,000 feet from start of roll so we would know the nOlse belng nade
at the end of the runway." I askec for that from both Washington
and local. Silence reigned. I finally called ;..Ir. Dallas agaln. I
think my total number of calls to Mr. Dallas was five. His last
comment to me was, "I think you people up there in Santa ~onlca are
rule mak1ng," which 15 true. And he said, "We are not sure hew much
we Kant to do, have anything to do with people In rule making."
So Ke passed on and hIred the gentleman who Just addressed you to
assess the data, and we have all the data that was available
throughout the course of that lengthy trIal. Now, I would like to
pOlnt out to you, I picked up Judge HIll's decision before I carne
down here, and I xeroxed each 18 of that decision which was announced
on July 20th. That is when he talked about that Domino effect,an effect
on other airports, and his phase I brought you each a copy, if you
-10-
e
e
.
would lIke to have It. He reJected that. He says I reject thIS
argument, and I quote, flTo take the domino approach," and by
that he means talking about the effect of another airport of havIng an
airport to tQ.Ke an action. Back to quote, "To take the dornno
approach would be to make ever airport operator the prIsoner of
every other airport operator. Even If he is the flrst to iniate
a given type of regulation." So I thought that should be brought
to your attention. That was Judge HIll's reactIon to the effect
on other alrports of an action taken at any partIcular airport.
~L~YOR VAN DE~ STEE~HOVE~: Thank you. Any further questions of
Mr. Penn? Thank you, Mr. Penn.
COUNCIL~EMBER SCOTT I move the public hearing be
closed.
~~YOR VA~ DE~ STEEXHOVE~: Is there a second?
COU?\CILME:-fBER YANNATTA GOLm'~.AY I second the motion.
~~YOR VAN DEN STEENHOVE~ Mr. Scott moves, MISS Yannatta Goldway
seconds. All in favor say Aye.
COU:.;CIL: Aye.
COU;..jCIL\IE\1BER SCOTT: r-would lIke an opinion from the Cl ty Attorney.
Councilwoman Reed IS not present tonight. If she prior to the next
meeting lIstens to the tape recording of this hearIng, can she then
validly and properly vote on the measures that are pending before
the Council?
~qYOR VA~ DEN STEENHOVEX. Yes, she may on the basls of Cooper v.
Board HedIcal Examiners.
COUNCILME~BER SCOTT: Mr. Mayor, I move the matter be sent over to
the next regular meeting of the City Council.
MAYOR VA~ DEX STEENHOVEX There is a motlon to put the matter
over. I WIll second the matter. Mrs. Reed dId tell me this after-
noon over the phone she was In faver of the envlTonmental Impact report
for the reasons specIfIcally that she and I got involved in community
affaIrs in Santa Monlca, namely the attempt by Mr. Scott to build
an lsland out In the bay in which there was not gOIng to be any
environmental lmpact report, and eVEn though we are on the inside
lookIng out now rather than the outside looking lll, she feels as
though an environmental impact report would be appropriate for thIS
item as do I. And I therefore am relieved that we have the motion on
the floor to put lt over.
-11-
e
e
COU.\:CIUIHIBER SCOTT: Mr. Mayor.
~~YOR VAN DE~ STEE~HOVEN: Mr. Scott.
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT: I will wIthdraw the motIon.
COU~CILMEMBER YAX~ATrA GOLDWAY: I will agree wIth that.
~MYOR VA~ DEN STEEXHOVEN: I would move that we put the item over.
Okay that dIes for a lack of ~otion. Is there any motion on the
floor?
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT Yes, Mr. Mayor.
I would move that the City Council adopt a negative declaratIon
that the CIty Attorney be prepared or be directed to prepare the
findings that are consistent with Dr. Kryter's responses to the
Council during the public hearing for consideration by the CIty
Council at the next regular meeting.
-12-
~
e
e
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT Yes; Mr. Mayor. I would move
that the City Council adout a negative declaration that the
Clty Attorney be prepared or directed to prepare the findings
that are consistent with Dr. Kryter's responses to the Council
during the public hear1ng for consideration by the City Council
at the next regular meeting.
~t~YOR VAN DEX STEENHOVEN Okay, the motion IS by Mr. Scott.
Is there a second for the negatlve declaration?
COU~CILME~BER GOLDWAY I'll second it.
MAYOR VAX DEN STEENHOVEN Okay. I would argue agalnst the
motion for the reasons I Just gave you a second ago ~ith regard
to Mrs. Reed. I feel the same way that she does, and I thlnk we
will find as the City of Los Angeles is flnding with respect to
a tiny hole ln the Riviera Country Club that people will make hay
out of th1S 1f we do not follow through and prepare the environmental
impact report regardless of how cursory or weighty the issue might
be. There are ways of thwartlng the progress of the Council,and
I thlnk it would behoove us to stay in the drlver's seat. And If
th15 ends up back in court because somebody wants us to prepare an
environmental lmpact report, and we have declared a negatlve
declaration saying we do not need one, then we are no longer ln
the driver's seat. And I would prefer to have the City Council
in the driver's seat. And I feel we have a great deal to lose
and little to be galned by following through with this negative
declaration at this point.
If there is no further discussion, we should probably have
a roll call.
CITY CLERK SNIDER Mr. Bambrlck~
COUl\CILNE}'IBER B.AJ.IBRICK Yes.
CITY CLERK SNIDER
COUXCILMEMBER GOLDWAY
CITY CLERK SNIDER
COUNCILMEMBER JENKINGS
CITY CLERK SXIDER
COU~CILMD1BER SCOTT
Mrs. Yannatta Goldway?
Yes.
Nr. Jennings~
Yes.
Mr. Scott?
Aye.
-13-
----..., -
.
.. .
e
e
CITY CLERK SKIDER Mayor van den Steenhoven?
n~YOR VAN DEX STEE~~OVE~ No.
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT Mr. Mayor?
?>LA.YOR VAN DEN STEE1\HOVEN ~lr. Scott?
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT I would move the adoption of the
ordinance fixing the SEXEL. _ level of 85 DB by tItle only and further
reading be waIved.
~l~YOR VAN DEN STEEXHOVEN
COUXCILMEMBER SCOrT
~~YOR VA~ DEX STEENHOVEN
This item SA?
Yes.
Okay. The next item on the
agenda.
COU~CILMEMBER GOLDWAY I'll second the motion.
~~YOR VAN DEN STEENHOVEN Moved by Mr. Scott and seconded
by Mrs. Gold -- Yannatta Goldway.
Any further dIScussion on this iteffl9 I would just say that
I hope we can work out an equitable agreement in the interIm while
the grandfather clause is in effect to all parties concerned.
I'm wIllIng to vote for the ordinance at this time.
CITY CLERK SXIDER Mr. Bambrick9
COUNCILMEMBER BAMBRICK Yes.
CITY CLERK SXIDER Mrs. Yannatta Goldway?
COUXCIUIEMBER GOLDWAY Yes.
CITY CLERK SNIDER
COU~CILMEMBER JE~NIKGS
CITY CLERK S~IDER
COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT
CITY CLERK SNIDER
Mr. Jc.nnings9
Yes.
}fr. ScottT
Aye.
Mayor van den Steenhoven?
~~YOR VAN DEX STEENHOVEX
Aye.
Item BE has been wlthdrawn; is that correct~
CITY CLERK SNIDER Yes, sir. Next ltem before the
Council lS IlA recommendations for Nodification of the disposable
coordlnance and consIderation of additIonal parklng lImitation.
-14-