Loading...
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-