SR-8-A (10)
.
ORIGINAL
.
9-A
gEe B 1981
CA:RMM:SSS 5tJO-009-03
CIty CouncIl MeetIng 12-8-81 Santa MonIca, CalIfornIa
STAFF REPORT
To:
Mayor and CIty CounCIl
From:
CIty Attorney
SubJect:
NegatIve DeclaratIon and Ordlnance EstablIshIng
InterIm AIrport NOIse LImit of 100 SENEL and
ExtendIng the Departure Curfew
I. INTRODUCTION.
On October 27, 1981, the CIty CounCIl lntroduced for fIrst
readIng an ordInance establishIng an Interim nOIse lImIt of 100
SENEL for aIrcraft departIng from or landIng at the Santa MonIca
AIrport and extendIng the departure curfew for one hour every
mornIng.
The accompanying ordInance IS now presented for
adoptIon.
Pursuant to the CalIfornIa EnVIronmental Quality Act (CEQA),
an InItIal Study was prepared. The study concluded that the
proposed ordInance would have no SIgnIfIcant effect on the
enVlronment; accordIngly, a Negative DeclaratIon was prepared.
Under CEQA, the ordInance may not be adopted unless the NegatIve
DeclaratIon IS approved.
In additIon to the publIC notIce requIred by CEQA, copIes of
the InItIal Study and NegatIve DeclaratIon were maIled to partIes
known to be Interested In aIrport Issues. Comments were received
from the Santa MonIca AIrport ASSOCIatIon (SMAA) and from the law
fIrm of Latham & WatkIns, representlng the Natlonal Business
AIrcraft
ASSOCIatIon
(NBAA)
and
the
General
AVIatIon
1
l-A
r I E ( .G ~'J;:"
L'i v "--~... .;.JJ...
.
.
Manufacturers Assoclatlon (GAMA).
addresses these comments.
The body of thIS report
II. BACKGROUND.
The partIes commentlng on the NegatIve Declaration are the
plaIntIffs In Santa Monica Airport ASSOCiation v. City of Santa
MonIca, 659 F.2d lOa (1981), aff'g 479 F.Supp. 981 (C.D. Cal.
1979) ("AIrport I"). SMAA represents the Interests of pilots,
flying clubs, and aIrport bUSinesses USIng Santa MonIca Alrport;
NBAA represents the interests of corporatIons whIch employ
aVIatIon In theIr bUSInesses, some of whom use the AIrport; and
GAMA represents manufacturers of bUSIness alrplanes, parts, and
eqUIpment.
AIrport I established the rIght of the CIty to Impose
reasonable restrIctIons on alrport operatlons for the purpose of
protectlng the surroundIng environment from alrcraft noise. Four
CIty ordlnances were valIdated, lncludlng the eXIstIng departure
curfew and the 100 SENEL nOlse lImIt.
AIrport I was deCIded after a lengthy trlal In WhIch
volumlnous testlmony was presented by both SIdes, the State, and
the United States. That eVIdence concerned all aspects of
alrport nOIse, Its effect on persons Ilvlng under landlng and
take-off patterns, ltS abatement, and the effect of Santa
Monlca's regulations on aViatIon and commerce. The Court
concluded that the CIty'S ordinances, Includlng the lOO SENEL and
the departure curfew, had an indlrect, insubstantIal effect on
commerce and did not interfere with the FAA's management of aIr
trafflc and alr safety.
2
.
.
The Court 1n ~lrport I enJo1ned the enforcement of a f1fth
ord~nance, Wh1Ch Imposed a total ban on Jet aircraft operations.
The jet ban and Its predecessor, a Jet curfew, had been enacted
In response to lntense cltlzen annoyance from n01se em1tted by
early model Learjets and Sabrellners. The Court ruled that whlle
the CIty could prohlblt operatlons by nOlSY a1rcraft, it could
not exclude modern, less no~sy Jets such as the Cessna Cltatlon,
Wh1Ch could operate under the 100 SENEL llmlt.
On October 23, 1979, two months after the trIal court's
decislon 1n Alrport I, the Clty Councll adopted Ordlnance Number
ll37 (CCS), whlch lowered the SENEL llmlt to 85 dB. An Initial
Study and Negatlve Declaratlon were prepared. NBAA, GAMA, and
Gunnell AVlatlon flIed SUlt 10 federal court to enJoIn the
enforcement of the ordlnance on grounds that It v10lated the
Commerce Clause and that preparatlon of an EIR was requlred under
CEQA. The case IS known as Alrport II; SMAA 1S not a party to
th1S actlon.
The Unlted States Dlstrlct Court 1n Alrport II 1ssued a
preliminary lnJunctlon agalnst the enforcement of the 85 SENEL
limIt on grounds that the ordlnance appeared to be an evaSIon of
the prIor 1nJunctlon agalnst the Jet ban and, therefore, VIolated
the Commerce Clause. The Court dIsmlssed the CEQA cla1m, rullng
that It should be declded by the Cal~fornla courts. PlaIntIff
flIed a separate actIon ralsIng the CEQA claIm 1n Super10r Court
("AIrport IIA"). The tr1al 1n AIrport II has been held in
abeyance pendlng resolutIon of the appeal In Airport I. In turn,
Airport IIA has been stayed untll resolutlon of AIrport II.
3
.
.
On June 23, 1981, the City CouncIl adopted Resolution Number
6270 (CCS) establIshIng CIty aIrport policy and dIrectIng
InItIatIon of a process for a specIfIc plan for the aIrport
property and an aIrport nOIse and land use compatIbIlIty study.
The resolutIon was premIsed on the propOSItIon that the aIrport
property was utIlIzed far below Its economIC potentIal and posed
safety and environmental problems. However, the resolutIon also
recognIzed the CIty'S contractual oblIgatIons to operate a
general aviatIon aIrport on the property. WIth that In ffi1nd, the
C1ty CounCIl dIrected staff to Insure that any aIrport noise was
compatIble WIth surroundIng land uses and to mln1mlze the effects
of that nOIse.
On July 31, 1981, a group of airport operators and pIlots
fIled suit against the CIty claImIng, among other thIngs, that
the CIty could not Implement ResolutIon Number 6270 (CCS) WIthout
fIrst preparIng and conSIderIng an EIR. In that case, Kettler v.
CIty of Santa MonIca, plaIntIffs are represented by RIchard
KnIckerbocker, the former CIty Attorney who drafted the
ordInances challenged In AIrport I and A1rport II. WhIle some
plaIntIffS In Kettler are members of SMAA, neIther that
organIzatIon, NBAA, or GAMA are partIes to that case.
On August 28, 1981, the AIrport Comm1ssIon held a hearIng
and recommended adoptIon of an ordInance re-establlshing the 100
SENEL and extendIng the departure curfew. Some pIlots and
operators spoke In OPPOSItIon to the curfew; some neIghbors spoke
in favor of It. SMAA, NBAA, GAMA, and the FAA did not
partiCIpate In thIS hearing. No one, includIng the pilots and
4
.
.
operators present, opposed the InterIm re-establlshment of the
100 SENEL, although neighbors ~ndIcated that 100 SENEL was not
satisfactory as a permanent nOise level.
At the hearIng on the first read~ng of th1S ordinance, a
representatIve of SMAA presented the CIty Clerk w1th a letter
from Mr. KnIckerbocker statIng the Association's legal positIon
"that no materIal change In curfew tImes can be made w1thout the
preparatIon, reVIew, and adoption of an envIronmental ~mpact
report." On December 2, 1981, NBAA/GAMA wrote in OppOSItIon to
the NegatIve DeclaratIon. On December 3, 1981, SMAA wrote In
OPPOSItIon to the NegatIve DeclaratIon and other aspects of the
C1ty's aIrport POlICY. SMAA's VIews were further expressed 1n a
meetIng WIth CIty staff on December 3.
The FAA dId not comment on the Negative Declaration or thIS
proposed ordInance. Groups representIng Interests of a~rport
neIghbors dId not present wrItten comments on the Negative
DeclaratIon. However, these groups have repeatedly spoken In
favor of noise abatement measures, particularly the need to
secure periods of qUIet durIng nIght and early mornIng hours, and
endorse the proposed ordInance as an InItIal step towards
protectIng the envIronmental health of their neIghborhoods.
III. ANALYSIS.
CEQA uses a "three-tiered" process of env1ronmental
assessment of a CIty proJect. FIrst, the C1ty determInes If the
proJect IS exempt from CEQA; If not, an In1tIal Study IS
performed. Second, the CIty determInes whether the proJect may
have a SIgnIfIcant effect on the enVIronment. If the proJect
5
.
.
w1ll have no such effect, a Negat1ve Declarat10n may be prepared.
Th1rd, If the proJect may have a slgnificant effect on the
enVIronment, an EIR must be prepared. The EIR must, among other
things, analyze all potential sign1ficant effects, dISCUSS
measures to mitIgate them, and consider alternat1ves to the
project.
The State Legislature has recently amended SectIon 2ll1Q and
21l5l of the PublIC Resources Code to defIne "slgn1f1cant effect
on the enVIronment" to mean "substantIal, or potent1ally
substantIal, adverse changes 1n physical cond1tions wh1ch eXIst
WIthIn the area [affected by the proposed proJect].n See Ch. 264
[l981] Cal. Stat. There IS no doubt that a comprehensIve land
use plan or a comprehens1ve nOIse abatement program for the
aIrport, when proposed, Will require an EIR. SMAA and NBAA/GAMA
V1ew thIS ordInance as part of the City's comprehenSIve plannIng
process, and therefore argue that the NegatIve DeclaratIon 1S
imprope r . ~Je do not agree with thIS VIew.
We regard the 100 SENEL and the curfew extens10n as
separate, indIVIdual measures of an Inter1m nature which must be
evaluated in terms of the 1 r Ind1v1dual impact. Ult1mately, the
City WIll conSIder the total range of potential nOise abatement
measures 1n context of the planned development of the aIrport
property. ThiS evaluation Will Include, among other thIngs,
analYSIS of an approprIate n01se level and hours of aIrport
operat1ons. In thIS regard, the content1on of NBAA/GAMA that
a1rport nOIse abatement IS a complex, hIghly techn1cal matter IS
accurate, but Irrelevant to the specifIC ordInance In question.
6
.
.
SMAA does not oppose the re-establishment of the lOO SENEL
no~se lim~t. Indeed, ~t supports that lim~t because ~t w~ll
prohibit extremely no~sy a~rcraft from causing intense annoyance
to res1dents. SMAA belIeves that the vast maJor~ty of no~se
compla1nts at the A~rport involve irresponSIbly flown Learjets
and other planes operated above lOO SENEL and that these few
aircraft preJud~ce airport neighbors against more respons1ble
pilots operatIng less nOISY a~rcraft.
In Airport I, NBAA and GAMA opposed the 100 SENEL on grounds
that ~t was federally preempted, Interfered with aIr traff1c
management and aVIatIon safety, and burdened interstate commerce.
These arguments were reJected by the UnIted States Distr1ct Court
and the UnIted States Court of Appeals. They have been
thoroughly consIdered, and should be rejected as grounds for
challenge of the NegatIve DeclaratIon.
In theIr obJectIons to the 1979 Negative DeclaratIon on the
85 SENEL limIt, NBAA and GAMA alleged that the ordInance would
result In a substantIal diverSIon of flIghts to other a1rports, a
corresponding effect on ground traffic, and a signIficant effect
on airport bUSInesses. They also alleged numerous defects 1n the
TechnIcal Study and called for a "delIberate and accurate
assessment of [a] proposed nOise ordInance."
These arguments have no relevance to the re-establIshment of
the 100 SENEL. A mere handful of planes operating In excess of
100 dB regularly use the airport; the lrritat10n they cause is
undenIable. TheIr dIverSion from Santa Mon1ca will have an
~nslgnIflcant effect on regIonal aVIatIon.
7
.
.
The Issue regardIng the curfew extensIon IS no more complex.
The aVIatIon interests raIse two baSlc obJections to the NegatIve
DeclaratIon. FIrst, they contend that because the curfew
extensIon IS a fIrst step In a comprehenSIve planning process,
and because that process requires an EIR, the extenSIon should
not be adopted untIl the whole process, IncludIng an EIR, IS
completed. Second, they contend that the effects of the curfew
extenSIon, consldered Indlvldually, were Inadequately examlned In
the Inltlal Study.
We do not agree wIth eIther contentlon. While It IS true
that aIrcraft nOise abatement is a hlghly complex matter,
involving a number of Interrelated matters, It does not follow
that an Interlm nOIse abatement measure IS Inextrlcably tied to
the whole process and requlres conslderatlon of all other
pOSSIble measures. If the Interlm measure will not In Itself
have a substantial adverse effect on the envlronment, a Negatlve
Declaration IS sufflClent.
Whlle we dld not survey alrport users to determIne how many
of them actually used the alrport durlng the openlng hour of
operation, the Intorrnatlon furnished by City staff IS suffiCIent
to IndIcate that the measure will not substantially impact air
traffIC or airport nOIse. The best InformatIon IS from airport
flights. Our Intormatlon Indicates that about 5-8 aircraft per
day would be requIred to delay departure. ThlS short delay Will
not have any materlal effect on transportatlon patterns or
buslnesses at the alrport. There IS no IndicatIon that alr
trafflc control would be affected.
8
.
.
It IS Important to note that no evidence has been offered
that contradlcts the flndlngs of the Inltlal Study. The SMAA,
NBAA, and GAMA have offered only unsupported concluslons to
attack the In1tlal Study and Negat1ve Declaratlon.
The rema1n1ng contentIons in the comments are not, In our
opinIon, slgnlf1cant. The curfew extens10n wlll have an
Inslgnlflcant effect on aIrport bUSlnesses, and, In any event
this Impact does not relate to the physlcal cond1tlon of the
enV1ronment and thus IS not pertinent to a CEQA analys1s. We
reIterate that the controversy surround1ng aIrport closure IS not
relevant to the proposed ordInance. The enforcement of the
ordinance, contrary to the Vlew of SMAA, IS not 11m1ted to
a1rcraft
defects
exclud1ng
they are
1n
owners but IS dIrected to pIlots as well. The alleged
Study pertaIn to an ordinance
current fleet from the Airport;
not relevant to the far less severe measures proposed
the 1979 TechnIcal
between 50-65% of the
here.
In sum, It 1S the opInion of th1s office that the 100 SENEL
and the curfew extenslon, IndIVIdually considered, are reasonable
nOIse abatement measures well wIth1n the CIty'S author1ty, and
WIll not have a slgnlflcant effect on Santa MonIca or other
a1rports.
9
.
.
IV. RECOMMENDATION.
It IS respectfully recommended that the CIty CouncIl approve
the NegatIve Declaratlon and adopt the accompanyIng ordInance.
Prepared by: Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Stephen S. Stark, ASsIstant CIty Attorney
lO
e
n
./U5[. ~
~
I"f ,1 '
I ,j ;"1 11_
'} i ~:( ~_)()..<./I' ,
v~
(/23; -,
~ . -- .__.-L----- ,/
/{J 27
/2 -f -f"/
DISTRIBUTIO~ OF RESOLUTION #
/7,/v
Councll Meeting Date 0
Agenda Item # (~- ;9
...--- I _--..,.
(ORDINA~~~Y
Introduced:
Adopted:
VOTE" AffIrmatIVe"
NegatIve:
Abstdin:
Absent:
" r!~i.-'t"'"
~C-<-"?--J..
;~/
,_,.AL/7~
&~-J y--rv
f"
V
~/
~~~
Was It amended?
ORIGINAL to be SIgned, sealed and fIleJ in Vault.
~C-> Itc-, ~I ) ~~~
" J
Department origlnatlng staff report (_ U(J~.l21J.._~.;-( t- )
/f
:/
:/
DISTRIBUTION'
~EWSPAPER PUBLICATION (Date:
1
./
!/
CIty Attorney (those With their codes)
l__-v/
Agency mentioned In document or staff report
(certified?)
:~
SubJect file (agenda packet)
Counter file
Others"
Airport
Parking Auth.
Audltorum
Personnel
Budd i ng Pept.
P}apn ing
// - -------
/ >---.....
PolIce (en-I
"--.:~ e~~~!-J1"
Purchasing
EnVIron. Servo
I J
FInance
FIre
Recr;Parks
General Servo
Transportation
LIbrary
Treasurer
Manager
SE~D FOUR COPIES OF ALL ORDI~A~CES TO:
CODED SYSTEMS, Attn Peter Maclearie
PROFESSIONAL CENTER, ROUTE 71
ERIELLE, NEW JERSEY 08730
SEND FOUR COPIES OF AU. ORDINANCES TO:
PRESIDING JUDGE
SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL COURT
1725 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
4 I
,,/
d
J -,
TOTAL / '-.5
COPIES
. .
CA:RMM:SSS
Clty COUnCl! Meetlng 12-8-8! Santa Monlca, Callfornla
ORDINANCE No. 1239
(Clty Councll Serles)
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, lt is the pollCY of the Clty of Santa Monica to
abate nOlse by alrcraft uSlng the Santa Monica Airport and to
prohlbit use of the Alrport by partlcularly noisy types of
alrcrafti and
WHEREAS, the Clty'S rlght to enforce a Slngle Event NOlse
Exposure Level (SENEL) limlt of 100 dB was upheld ln Santa Monlca
Alrport Associatlon v. Clty of Santa Monlca; and
WHEREAS, the Clty is prellmlnarlly en)olned from enforc1ng
lts SENEL limit of 85 dB pendlng trlal ln National BUSlness
Alrcraft ASSOc1ation v. Clty of Santa Mon1cai and
WHEREAS, the Clty 15 undertaklng a comprehenSlve reV1ew of
alrport noise and land use compatibllltYi and
WHEREAS, the pUblic health, safety, and welfare requlre that
there be an enforceable alrport nOlse limiti and
WHEREAS, the City Councll of the City of Santa Monlca
deS1res to repeal the SENEL llrnit of 85 dB and establlsh an
lnter1m
SENEL
Ilffilt of 100 dB pendlng further study of
appropriate long-term nOlse abatement measures; and
1
.
.
WHEREAS, extenslon of the departure curfew by one hour each
morn1ng would, in the opinion of experts and res1dents,
significantly reduce dlsturbance and annoyance caused by alrcraft
n01se,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Sect10n 10101 of the Santa Monica Mun1clpal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sect10n lOlOI. Hours. The a1rport shall
be open for publlC use at all reasonable
hours of the day and nlght, subJect to such
restrictlons as are provlded here1n or are
due to 1nclement weather, the condltlons of
the land1ng area, the presentat10n of spec1al
events, and like causes as may be determined
by the Airport D1rector. Night landings wlll
be perm1tted, but night take-offs or eng1ne
start-ups are proh1b1ted between the hours of
ll:OO p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Monday through
Fr1day and ll:OO p.m. through 8:00 a.m. on
Saturday and Sunday. The Alrport Dlrector or
1n h1S absence the Watch Commander of the
Santa Monica Police Department may approve
take-off or landlng durlng said hours,
prov1ded lt appears that an emergency
lnvolving 11fe or death eXlsts, and approval
1S obta1ned before take-off.
2
.
.
SECTION 2. Sect~on 10105B of the Santa Monica Mun~c~pa1 Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sect~on 10105B. A~rcraft No~se
Restr~ct~ons for the Santa Monica Munlclpal
Alrport.
(a) prohibition And Remedy for Repeated
Violation. An aircraft taklng off from or
landlng at the Airport shall not be operated
~n vlolation of thlS section. A person who
vlolates thlS sectlon more than once may, at
the discretlon of the Alrport Director and
after being given notice and an opportunity
to be heard, be prohlblted from uSlng the
Alrport for a period not to exceed 180 days,
except upon such condltlons as the Alrport
Dlrector may prescrlbe. The remedy provided
In this subsectlon shall be supplemental to
any other remedy provided by law. Each
violatlon subsequent to the flrst vlolatlon
shall be specifically remedlable.
(b) Deflnitlons. Each of the terms as
used ln thlS sectlon shall be deflned as
follows:
(1) Sound pressure level (SPL): The
sound pressure level, In deClbels (dB), of a
sound lS twenty tlmes the logarlthm to the
base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of thlS
3
.
.
sound to the reference sound pressure. The
reference pressure shall be 20 mlcropascals
{20 micronewtons per square meter, or 0.0002
.
mlcrobar} .
(2) NOlse level (NL): The noise level,
In deCIbels, 15 an A-weighted sound pressure
level as measured uSlng the slow dynamlc
characteristICS
for
sound
leve 1 me te rs
specIfied ln the Amer1can National Stanndard
Specification for Sound Level Meters, ANSI
Sl.4-l97l (or latest reVISIon thereof.). The
A-weigh tlng
characteristlcs
modlfies the
frequency
response
of
the
measurlng
1nstrument to account approx1mately for the
frequency characterIstICS of the human ear.
The reference pressure 1S 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
nOlse 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-welghted sound
pressure for a stated time interval or event,
4
.
.
based on
m~cropascals
second.
(5) S~ngle event nOlse exposure level
(SENEL): The s~ngle event nOlse exposure
level, In deCIbels, lS the nOlse exposure
level of a s~ngle event, such as an a~rcraft
flyby, measured over the tIme interval
between the initial and f~nal tImes for which
the nOlse levels of a slngle event exceeds
the threshold no~se level. For
~mplementatlon of thlS Sect~on, the threshold
nOIse level shall be 65 NL.
(6) Cal~fornla Airport NOlse Standards:
The Callfornia Airport Noise Standards are
defined In the CalifornIa Department of
Aeronautics IINoise Standards tI , Callfornla
Admlnlstratlve Code, Subchapter 6, TItle 4
(Reglster 70, No. 48, November 28, 1970), or
latest reV1Slons thereof.
a reference pressure of 20
and a reference durat~on of one
(7) A~rcraft Operator: Alrcraft
operator means the legal or beneflcial owner
of the aircraft with authorlty to control the
alrcraft utllization; except where the
alrcraft is leased, the lessee is the
operator. Aircraft operator also means the
pilot of an aircraft.
5
.
.
(8) Clty: Clty means the Clty of Santa
Monlca.
(9) Alrport: Alrport means the Santa
Monica Munlclpal Airport.
(lO) Alrcraft Model: AIrcraft Model
means a verSlon of an alrcraft that requires
or If now manufactured would requlre nOlse
certiflcatlon under FAA rules.
(c) Methodology. The nOlse levels
generated by aircraft takeoffs or aircraft
landlngs at the Airport are to be measured at
one or more posltlons ln the Vlclnlty of the
Airport. The measurements shall be In terms
of the SENEL. The measured SENEL values are
to be compared with nOIse level Ilmlts
establlshed by this Section. An aircraft
operator whose aircraft produces noise levels
WhICh exceed the SENEL lImits shall be deemed
to be in vlolation of this Sectlon.
(d) Measurement Locatlons.
Measurements shall be made at ground
posltlons on or near the center llne of
nominal takeoff and landlng flIght tracks for
alrcraft operating from the AIrport. The
nomInal flIght track is a lIne proJected on
the ground under the nomlnal fllght path of
the aIrcraft. Measurement posltlons shall be
6
.
.
established
feet from
west end
measurement
needed to
Section.
(e) Frequency of Measurement. At each
establlshed m~crophone locat~on, s~ngle event
nOlse exposure level measurements shall be
made on a schedule to be established by the
by the City at a posltlon 1500
the east and l500 feet from the
of the runway. Addltlonal
pos~tlons may be establ~shed as
carry out the purpose of thlS
City.
(f) No~se Monltorlng Sfstem
Spec~fications. The noise monloring system
shall measure the s~ngle event nOlse exposure
level of noise events exceed~ng the nOlse
threshold established at each measurement
posltion and shall log the time of occurrence
of each event. The performance of the nOlse
monltorlng system shall meet the regulrements
establ~shed In NOlse Standards, as amended.
In general the overall accuracy of the nOlse
measurement system shall be +1.5 dBAs
determlned ~n accordance wlth the procedures
specifled ln Section 5080.3 of the Californ~a
A~rport Noise Standards, as amended.
(g) Field Measurement Precautlons.
SpeclflC locations of the monltorlng systems
7
.
.
shall be chosen, whenever posslble, such that
the nOlse levels contributed 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 nelghborlng
rooftops, whlchever is hlgher. To the extent
practical, the following precautions should
be followed:
(I) Each monltor1ng location shall be
in an open area surrounded by relatlvely flat
terrain hav1ng no exceSlve sound absorption
characteristlcs such as may be caused by
thlck tall grass, shrubbery or wooded areas.
(2) No obstructions WhlCh would
significantly influence the sound fleld from
the aircraft shall exist withln the conleal
space above the measurement posltion, the
cone being defined by an axis along the llne
of sight normal to the aircraft and by a half
angle of 75 degrees from this axis.
(3) When the foregolng precautlons are
not practical, the mlcrophone shall be placed
at least 10 feet above ne1ghboring bUlldlngs
1n a position which has a clear Ilne-of-slght
Vlew to the path of the a1rcraft 1n fllght.
8
.
.
(h) Maximum Allowable Single Event
N01se Level (SENEL). The CIty shall set
n01se level limlts for each of the
establlshed measurement posit1ons. For the
noise monitor stat10ns spec1fied in
subsection (d) above, the max1mum perm1ssIble
SENEL shall be 100 DecIbels.
SECTION 3. Sect10n lOl05B of the Santa MonIca Munlc1pal
Code, as amended by Sectlon 2 of this Ord1nance, 1S repealed and
shall be of no effect on the l8lst day following lts effective
date. It is the intent of the City Counc1l to adopt appropr1ate
nOIse abatement measures upon complet1on of an Aircraft NOlse and
Land Use Compatibility Study.
SECTION 4. Any prOVIsIon of the Santa Monica Mun1cIpal Code
or appendices thereto 1nconsistent WIth the provisions of this
ord1nance, to the extent of such 1nconsistenc1es and no further,
are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
affect the prov1s1ons of thIS ord1nance.
SECTION 5. If any sectIon, subsectIon, sentence, clause, or
phrase of th1S ordinance 1S for any reason held to be 1nvalld or
unconstItutional by a deciSIon of any court of any competent
Jur1sdlction, such dec1sion shall not affect the valIdIty of the
remalnIng portions of the ordinance. The C1ty Counc1l hereby
declares that it would have passed th1s ord1nance and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional w1thout regard to whether
9
.
.
any portlon of the ord1nance would be subsequently declared
lnvalid or unconst1tut1onal.
SECTION 6.
The Mayor shall slgn and the C1ty Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this ordlnance. Th1S Clty Clerk shall
cause the same to be pUblIshed once in the offIcial newspaper
w1thin fIfteen (lS) days after its adoption. The ordinance shall
become effective after thirty (30) days from its adoptIon.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~M.7
Robert M. Myers
C1ty Attorney
~
10
-/It .J "r ~
.
.
ADOPTED AND APP~OVED THIS
8th
DAY
OF
December
, 1 981 ,
/\
/ i ~
1';1 ,,'1 "
,/ / ri U: I! "L/~/'1
f jj};fl"'--',r,,~vySif~J2.U;vry//'
L- F . .',
[/MA YOR I 6
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE,
NO. l239(CCS) , WAS DULY AND REGULARLY INTRODUCED AT A
flEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE 27th DAY OF October,
1981; THAT THE SAID ORDINANCE WAS THEREAFTER DULY ADOPTED
AT A ~1EETING OF THE CITY COUrlCIL Oil THE 8th DAY Of December
1981 gYTHE FOllOWING COUNCIL VOTE:
AYES: COUU~~LMEMBERS: Conn, Edwards, Jennings, Press,
Zane, Mayor Yannatta Goldway
tIDES: COUNCILr.1P1BERS: None
ABSENT: COUr'iCIU1EnSERS: ;';one
ABSTAIN: COUNCIlMEMBERS: Reed
ATTEST:
/'
//
~~........ ./
I i ,- I
/Y1 / I
" t . I -41 ("I ..
~ ~ /~ . " --:;L.. ~""-".
./ .T
/--i -.--/1
CITY CLERK
y