SR-7-A (5)
...
CA RLK:SSS :dd e
Councll Heetlng 10-23-79
-
Santa Monlca, Cal1fornla
STAFF REPORT
71},
OCT
2 3 1979'
TO:
l~yor and Clty Counell
FROM: Clty Attorney
SUBJECT: PubllC hearlng on Negatlve Declaratlon.
Proposed Alrport NOlse Ordlnance.
INTRO DUCT ION
ThlS report transmlts lnformation regardlng the publlC
hearlng to be held on the Negatlve Declaratlon concerning the
envlronrnental lmpact of the proposed amendments to the Clty'S
Alrport Code (Item 8a).
BACKGROUND
On September 10, 1979, at a speclal meetlng, the Councll
lntroduced an ordlnance amendlng the Clty'S Alrport Code.
The ordlnance was amended and reintroduced at the Councll meeting
of September 25, 1979. At the September 25th meetlng, the
Councll reviewed the Inltlal Study and Technlcal BaS1S for
the ordlnance, prepared by the Clty'S nOlse consultant. It
tentatlvely approved a Negatlve Declaratlon; lt directed that
notlce of a Negatlve Declaratlon be publlshed, and that the
Inltlal Study be avallable for publlC reVlew.
The publ1c hearlng to be held at thlS Councll meet1ng lS
intended to comply wlth the splrit of the Callfornla
EnVlronmental QuaIl ty Act (CEQA), WhlCh encourages full
publlC reVlew and comment on slgniflcant governmental act10ns.
The Cauncll should consider any written or oral
comments from ~embers of the publlC, and proceed to determlne
the adequacy of the Negatlve Declaratlon. If the Counell
determ1nes that the Negatlve Declaration lS adequate, 1t should
711
OCT 2 3 1979
e
e
oc~ t?s7; Acid
L~-\.TH~~YI & '\;~;\TKINS
ATTORN EYS AT LAW
c-,.:;, \';1" -AT~AM "lase 1:3:74
555 SOlJTH FLOW':::R ST"IE:::T
,-OS A.'-IGELES. CAL,FORNiA 90071
TELEP'-iONE '213.' 4-85-'234
OH:,4I\:G;:: ::Ot..NTT ;:::'F;;--::==
:'>,o,JL ~ ....".""-"INS ".899 e73
€60 r"'~'\'POR- C:E:~TE."i" CR-;;E~ 5..J1-~ 14~'::
::::::ABLE A~DR'!::5S L.o\TI-'/,,-.A-
'\I~."""oOR- S:::ACH. Cl!.~.F:;)'::;-t...:.p. 32660
r~vx 3-10 32" -37~3
TELC:::P"'C"'lE: {7.:1.\ 752 9108
TELE::C~ E:~ 2 -3" 680-2099
October 17, 1979
'~"f~S-iNGTO.o.,: Or~'C~
:3~~ ".E.... -t:.IvI=S-I'=1!E AVe::. .... W.S~!IT~ 12.::::-
',.-A,SHI f',.,GTCN , :1- C 20:).36
.:::L.:::P....O.... E :":202, a 208- L4GG
Clty (ouncll
City of Santa Monlca
Dear Councllmembers:
The unders1gned represents the Nat10nal BUSlness
Aircraft Association and the General Aviatlon Manufacturers
Association. We are wrltlng on thelr behalf to comment on
the current Project being undertaken by the Clty wlth respect
to the Santa Mon1ca Munic1pal Airport. That ProJect, as we
understand lt, conslsts of determinlng what action should be
taken concernlng the Alrport 1n 11ght of the recent decls10n
in Santa Monlca Alrport Assoc1atlon v. City of Santa Monica
and other cons1derat1ons. At this stage of the ProJect, the
Clty Councll has approved the flrst reading of a proposed
ordinance whlch, lf adopted, would, among other thlngs~ lower
the SENEL to 85 db and lS considerlng the adoptlon of a Nega-
tive Declaration.
A summary of our comments generally 15 as follows:
1. A Negat~ve Declaration 1S improper
for th1S Project, and an Envlronmental Impact
Report ("EIR1') must be prepared. Under the
correct legal standard, there lS no questlon
that the Project may have a slgnlficant effect
on the envlronment, thus necessltating an EIR.
2. The In1tlal Study (dated September 20,
1979) does not meet the legal requlrements for
an in1tial study~ and the Inltial Study does
not support the adoptlon of a Negat1ve Declara-
tion.
3. The Inlt1al Study falls to address
the full scope of the Project and contains major
technical def1clencles and errors which lnvall-
date lt5 analysis.
7A
OCT 2 3 1979
e
e
'LATHAM & WATKI'\S
Clty Councll, Clty of Santa Monlca
October 17, 1979
Page 2
The Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration
do not comply wlth the mandate set forth in the Callfornla
Envlronmental Quallty Act, PubllC Resources Code Sections
21000 et seq. ("CEQN') and lts statewlde admlnlstratlve
gUldelines, 14 Callfornia Admlnistratlve Code Sectlons 15000
et seq. ("State EIR GUldellnes'I). CEQA requlres that an ErR
shall be prepared for a project whlch may have a signlficant
effect on the enVlronment. No 011, Inc. v. Clty of Los Angeles,
13 Ca1.3d 68 (1973). The "proJecttt means the whole of the
actlons under conslderation WhlCh will result ln dlrect or
lndirect physlcal lmpact on the environment. The "enVlron-
ment" refers to physlcal condltlons wlthin the area affected
by the proposed project even though that area extends beyond
the boundarles of the sponsorlng agency's jurisdlctlon. 58
Opinlons Attorney General 614 (9/26/75). As noted below, the
area WhlCh mayor wlll be lmpacted by the Project extends
beyond the boundarles of the Airport viclnlty and, lndeed,
beyond the boundaries of the Clty. Effects to be consldered
lnclude primary or direct consequences as well as secondary
or lndirect consequences.
CEQA requlres an EIR here to enable the Clty to
reach an informed declsion concerning the complex lssues
ralsed by the Project. The lnformatlon provlded by an ErR lS
partlcularly approprlate for projects such as thlS whlch
wlll ln and of themselves directly regulate envlronmentally
slgniflcant actlvltles. OtherWlse, when government agencles
such as the Clty undertake lmportant projects which involve
major envlronmental lnfluences, the agencles would act wlthout
an artlculated understandlng of the environmental consequences
of thelr action.
The mere bellef of the government agency that lts
proposed project wlll have a net beneflclal effect on the
environment does not justlfy the failure to prepare an EIR
identlfying and evaluating the pertlnent envlronmental factors.
State EIR GUldellnes, Sectlons 15080(a), 15081(a). Thus,
Cal Trans was not perm~tted to institute the Diamond Lane
for the Santa Monlca freeway without an adequate environmental
assessment, Paclfic Legal Foundatlon, et al., v. Donald Burns
as Secretary of the Callfornia Business and Transportatlon
Agency, et al., Dnlted States Dlstrict Court for the Central
Dlstrlct of Callfornla (CIV No. 76-1153). nor was the Los
Angeles DWP allowed to change lts daytlme electrlc rate struc-
ture wlthout complying wlth EIR procedures under CEQA,
e
e
'LATH.-\~1 B: WATliIXS
City Councl1~ Clty of Santa Monica
October 17~ 1979
Page 3
Callfornia Associatlon of Manufacturers et al. v. Clty of
Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superlor Court (CIV No. C 223-362),
even though lU both cases the government agency belleved
that the project would have a net beneficial effect on the
enVlronment. The Project here In question conslsts at the
present stage of a proposed ordlnance regulating nOlse~ whlch
is Justlfled by lts proponents essentla11y on environmental
grounds. The effect of the proposed ordinance would be to
allow certain aIrcraft noise levels (up to 85 db) and to
dlsallow others, thus precludlng certaln alrcraft from con-
tinulng to use the AIrport. The Project not only lnvolves
complex envlronmental concerns relating to the operation of
aircraft at the AIrport~ but It IS premIsed upon assumptions
and concluslons regardIng those envlronmental concerns.
Thus~ an EIR IS mandatory to descrlbe and dlSCUSS the perti-
nent envIronmental factors.
How can there by any genulne questlon that the
Project may have a sIgniflcant effect on the environment?
We respectfully submit that there cannot be any genUIne ques-
tion on thlS score, and, accordIngly, the preparation of an
ErR 15 mandated by law. The Project necessarily involves
measurIng and balanCIng envlronmental effects of changing
alrcraft operatIons at a major aIrport in a populated reglon.
Issues raised at the public meetlng on September lO~ 1979
and In the Initial Study range from effects of noise on human
sleep habits to the consequences of dIvertlng aircraft to
other aIrports. ImplementatIon of the proposed ordlnance,
for lnstance, wlll dlvert elsewhere thousands of flights per
year to and from Santa Monica Alrport and could thereby change
patterns of fuel consumptIon, nOlse emlssion, vehicular ground
trafflc, and other environmentally related actIvltles. The
CIty wll1 be trying to decide what are the positIve and nega-
tIve lmpacts of varlOUS noise levels and of the prohlbltlon
of aircraft whIch may exceed certaln nOlse levels. These
klnds of complex issues slmply cannot be brushed aside as
insIgnlficant. They must be evaluated withlll the procedural
and analytlcal framework of an ErR.
The Initial Study itself IS an admission that an
ErR IS requIred to assess the slgnIficant envIronmental
effects of the Project here in questlon. Chapter 4 of the
InitIal Study IS entltled, tlThe Impact of VarIOUS SENEL and
CNEL Limits on ResldentIal Areas, Alrcraft Operations and
r-
L\THA).f & WATKI)lS
Clty Councll, Clty of Santa Monica
October 17, 1979
Page 5
do a partlal ErR under the guise of an inltlal study, in
lieu of taklng the tlme and effort to comply properly wlth
the mandates of CEQA.
Lest there be any doubt on the subject, the Inltlal
Study lS not a legally sufflclent EIR and cannot take the
place of a legally sufficient ErR. See, e.g., State EIR
GUldelines Sections 15085 and 15146.
Applying the standards set forth above, at least
the following consequences of the Project must be considered
ln determining whether there are any possible slgnlflcant
effects on the environment.
(1) Most important, a change in the per-
missible level of alrcraft nOlse at the Airport
wlll necessarlly dlvert a substantlal number of
aircraft operations to other airports such as
LAX, Van Nuys, and others. This diverslon may
well impact fuel consumptlon of the diverted
aircraft and may also affect nOlse and other
conditions in the vicinity of these Substltute
facilities. Furthermore, since these effects
of the Project wlll be felt at facilities out-
side Santa Monica, CEQA requires that the City
consult wlth other relevant government agencles,
such as the FAA and the Department of Alrports
of the Clty of Los Angeles, as part of the EIR
preparation process.
(2) Indirectly, the diversion is llkely
to increase vehlcular traffic as people are
dlverted to alrports further from their ultlmate
origln or destlnation point--an increase which
will have an lmpact on energy consumptlon, as
wlll the posslblllty that people will be encour-
aged to shift to less energy-efflclent aircraft
or to other modes of transportatlon.
(3) There are also ObV10US effects ln
Santa Monica if buslnesses conducted at the
Alrport are forced to close or relocate as a
result of the ordlnance, posslbly creatlng the
bllght of abandoned bUlldlngs or leadlng to the
, .
e
e
LATHAM & WATKI~S
City Council, Clty of Santa Monica
October 17, 1979
Page 7
(3) Even for the aircraft It does use ln
its data base, the Inltlal Study merely notes
ln passing that the FAA may have more accurate
data. There lS no justificatlon but unseemlng
haste for not even attemptlng to obtaln avall-
able, concededly more accurate, lnformatlon.
(4) Although the concept of CNEL 15 crucial
to the analysis, the model for measuring cumula-
tlve nOlse is defectlve. It 19nores the analyt-
ical models developed by such experienced agen-
Cles as EPA, HUD, FAA} and the Natlonal Research
Councll of Callfornla. It also makes the crucial
error of carrYlng over from SENEL measurement
to CNEL measurement, whlch by definition is
cumulative, the POllCY of ignoring the effects
of nOlses below 65 dBA.
(5) The Inltlal Study, by its unjustified
assumptlon that data from studles elsewhere are
applicable to the Alrport environs, fails to
conslder either the varlance ln nOlse level ln
dlfferent speclflc areas, or the individual and
cumulative effects of nOlse from non-aircraft
sources. In some areas ln the vlcinity of the
Alrport, for example, aircraft noise may have
llttle or no cumulatlve effect when trafflc and
other nOlse lS taken lnto account. Thus, the
Inltial Study falls to adequately assess the
actual lmpact of aircraft n01se throughout the
areas adjacent to the Airport.
(6) Although the extent of aircraft diver-
Slon will, as noted above, have probable slgnlfl-
cant envlronmental effects, the Study concedes
that the analyses of effects on fleetslze of 85
and 80 SENEL levels "are made with conslderable
uncertalnty."
(7) Even in the author's area of expertise,
psycho-acoustlcs, the Study exhlblts slgnificant
flaws. For example; the conclusions based on
analysls of prior studies is flawed by major
statistical deflclencles ln the means by WhlCh
dlfferent studles, wlth dlfferent nOlse measure-
ment techniques and different scales for measure-
ment of annoyance, are combined.
~ " '"
e
e
LATHA:\i & WATKI:>lS
Clty Councll, Clty of Santa Monica
October 17, 1979
Page 8
There are numerous other defects in the study which
lt would be futlle to detail, Slnce it lS clear that an EIR
must be prepared. The Initlal Study cannot serve as even a
skeleton model for the necessary EIR because lts deflcient
theoretical models have not been tested agalnst the actual
envlronmental setting at the Santa Monica Alrport, as well
as other reglonal airports to which aircraft now utilizing
Santa Monlca Airport wlll be dlrected.
In concluslon, the Initial Study cannot Justify a
Negative Declaration for the proposed ordlnance and cannot
ltself serve as an EIR. Even if the Clty dld not correctly
percelve at the outset that the Project lS certaln to have
posslbly signlflcant environmental effects and that an EIR
lS requlred, the extent of the Inltlal Study alone should
compel that concluslon. CEQA thus requlres that an EIR be
prepared and certlfied to assure reasoned consideratlon of
environmental factors In the City's declslon-maklng process.
The Clty'S haste to enact a replacement ordinance
for the Jet ban lnvalldated by the federal court in August
should not obscure the need for dellberate and accurate as-
sessment of the environmental consequences of the proposed
nOlse ordlnance. Short shrift cannot be glven to matters
such as divertlng aircraft by changlng allowable nOlse levels
at the Alrport.
On behalf of our cllents, we urge the City of Santa
Monica to comply with the mandates of CEQA now instead of
waiting for the Court to order such compllance.
Very truly yours,
~ 'J~ "'-
IIr,. _ or ~ , ~;
~:o- "Clrlt JJ J- " r -4.1-'-Uc:..-c.~r1./,-
<I
Thomas L. Harnsberger
of LATHAM & WATKINS