SR-8-E (5)
CA RLK:sss:msh
:~ty Councll Meet..l 09-25-79
TO:
Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
San~ Monica, Californ~a
'4iI
/JOO r..,'O/U
TO
FRO~: City Attorney
SUBJECT: ~endments to Alrport Noise Ordl.nance
Supplemental Staff Report
<6~
SEP :. ;) 1979
Introduction
ThlS report transmits:
1. Two proposed amendments necessary to conform the
orOlnance to ~ts techn~cal baS1Sr wlth the recommendation that the
ordinance be re-lntroduced ln Its amended form;
2. Inforrnatlon on compliance wlth the Californla
EnVlronmental Quality Act (CEQA);
3. A draft of a "grandfather clauselt amendment,
submitted wlthout recommendation.
AnalySiS
1. Amendments to Ordinance
A. The consultant adVises at page 13 of his report (the Inltlal
Study) that the aircraft nOise monltor systen should not measure
levels below 65 dBA. Therefore, lt 1S recommended that Section
lOlD5B(2} (e) should be amended so that the last sentence reads:
"For Implementation l.n t}~ese regulations,
the threshhold no~se level shall be 65 NL.lI
B. Further analySiS of the ordinance has revealed an ~nternal
incons~stency ~n Section lOl05B. The flrst sentence of Subsection
9, which prohlblts a~rcraft whose estlrnated noise 15 above B5 SENEL
from using the airport, is lnconslstent With Subsection IDA, which
discourages such alrcraft from using the al.rport. Thus, the
operator of an a~rcraft that is estlmated to exceed the noise I1mit,
but that In fact may operate below It, cannot determlne from the
ordlnance whether use of the airport is prohibited lrrespective of
~
wi'
CA RLK:SSS:msh
~Clty Councl1 Mee~g
09-25-79
san~Monlca, Cal1fornla
.
lBII, and re-lntroduce the ordinance, as amendec,for f1rst read1ng.
Prepared by: R. L. Knlckerbocker
S. Shane Stark
e
e
~
EIA No.
CI':'Y OF S.!l...~JT;' MQ~ICA
N::::: G.l,. '!'I V"S DF CI,AR-i;":,1 o;.~
}~n appllcatlo:- for a :\EG.;TIVI: D:SCL..Z;.RA.'T'Io;~ to carry out the
follo\o."J..ng proJect: - - 1!.ji\t~-cd\lc"t:_').:1. c:f Ord1nance No. 1137
J..D the Clty of Sa~ta MCDlca, Cal2fornla, havlnq been f~led by
the Clty Attorney
on September 25
1979, anc the ap?1lcatlon havlng been reV1EWea by the Clty
Councll ln accorda~ce ~lth t~e procedures established by Resolutlon
453l(CCS), therefore the Clty Coune1l hereby flnds that:
1. The proposed actlvlty does constltute a proJect
wlthln the ~eanlnq of the Callfornla Envlronmental
Quallty Act of 1970.
2. The proposed actlvlty 1S not exeMpt frOID the prov1sions
of such act by reason of belng a ~lnlsterlal, cate-
gOTlcally exeMpt or e~ergency actlvlty.
3. ~~e proposed actlvlty does not appear to have a
substantial adverse effect upon the envJ..ronnent.
4. Inasmuch as It can be 5ee~ with reaso~able certalnty
that no substa0tlal adverse effect J..5 J..nvo1ved, no
proper purpose would be served by the preparatJ..cn of
an Env~ronmental Impact Report.
5. A Negat~ve Declarat~on doc~ent ~s the proper, correct
and approprlate procedure requlred to assure compliance
w~th the purpose and 1ntent of the California Environ-
mental Quallty Act of 1970.
The C~ty Counc~l therefore has deterMlned that the proposed
proJect does not have a slgnlflcant effect on the enVlronrnent and
that an Env~ronnental Impact ~eport 15 not regulred.
CI~ OF SA~TA BONICA, CALIFOR..lIJIA
Pieter van den Steenhoven
l<ffiYOR
DATE: September 28, 1979