Loading...
SR-0 (19) ~ .,,~ ., fftJdJ .- tP.?J 9.- ~ 3 JUl 1 4: '~Oa CA:RMM:SSS Clty Council Meeting 7-14-81 Santa Monica, California I STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and City Council From: City Attorney Subj ect : Airport Noise Regulation INTRODUCTION Residents of neighborhoods surrounding the Municipal Airport are expresslng increased concern over noise generated by aircraft using the airport. Of particular concern is the use of the alrport by extremely noisy aircraft, which emit noise in excess of 108 dB. Immediate action is necessary to protect residents from unreasonable levels of aircraft noise. ANALYSIS 1. The Present Status. The airport is open to public use. The City has imposed several noise regulations restricting the use of the airport a certain hours and to certain types of operations. These inclu2 a night departure curfew between 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., a weekend b on pattern flight tralning (touch & go), and a ban on helicop. training. All these regulations were upheld by the United St3 Cour t of Appeals in Santa Mon i~;a . ,Airport Associ ation v. Ci t, Santa Monica (Airport I). .-- The City's 100 dB SENEL was upheld by the District Court in AIrport I. However, the City Council repealed this noise limit when it enacted the 85 SENEL nOIse limit and type ban. Since the DIstrict Court has enjoined enforcement of the 85 SENEL limit pending a full trIal in National BUSIness Aircraft Association v. City of Santa Monica (Airport II), there are no nOIse restrIctions in effect at the aIrport. This office has recently receIved several complaints about increasing noise at the airport. The complaints were most intense In regard to the operation of a low-flying Learjet 25, an early model of business jet which emIts a pIercing whine and registers in excess of 108 dB on the airport noise meter. In additIon, airport neighbors have expressed annoyance by frequent flights by high-performance, large aircraft. While the NBAA has advIsed its membership to respect the 100 SENEL limit, this adVIce does not deter occasional .cowboys" from causing intense dIstress with extremely nOISY and Irresponsibly flown airplanes. 2. The Right to Regulate. The Court of Appeals decision in AIrport I establishes the City's right to regulate the use of its airport in order to protect the municipal environment and avoid liability for airport noise damage. The aviation Interests have petitioned for a rehearing by the Court of Appeals, and may petition the United States Supreme Court for a review. Rehearing by the Court of Appeals is disfavored and is unlikely to be granted in the case. 2 - .~ WhIle there IS a possibility that the Supreme Court would hear the case, the evident factors indicate this is not probable. There is agreement on the basic pOlnt by two Circuit Court of Appeals and the FAA, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the sImilar case involving damages for noise from LAX. The FAA has Indicated It has no objectlon to an SENEL system If It is used in conJunction with a ban on aircraft by type, based on computerized noise estimates. There is no legal reason why the City may not reinstate the 100 SENEL noise limit and exclude aircraft that exceed or are estimated to exceed that level. 3. Potential New Noise Control Measures. The CouncIl's AIrport policy Resolution of June 23, 1981, contemplates establishment of a base of aVIation operations on the north s~de of the runway during the period when the City is legally obligated to operate an airport. ThlS base would be concentrated in as small an area as feasible and provide serVIces necessary to the safe use of the airport by the general publIC. At the present tIme, a study should be made of those aVlation activities which are compatible with existing and proposed non-aviation uses in the surrounding area and measures should be taken to control noise and promote aviation safety as much as posslble. 3 . "- After consulting airport neighbors and the City's noise expert, thlS office has identified several aspects of airport operatlons which are regarded as particularly offensive by airport neighbors and which should be addressed. These include: 1. Extremely noisy, high performance aircraft. 2. Heavy use of the alrport during weekends, when many neighbors, particularly children, are outside. 3. Repetitive operations, particularly by aircraft that fly erratlcally over the surrounding neighborhoods. 4. Low-flYlng aircraft, particularly those which -gun the motor" and buzz the nelghborhoods. These aircraft are regarded as offenslve for both noise and safety reasons. Th1S office believes that these problems, and others which may be revealed, should be addressed both through regulation and through conditions on leases and permits granted to fixed base operators and owners of planes based at the airport. The following should be considered: 1. Establishment of an appropriate noise level limitation, within the framework of the City's SENEL and type-ban ordinance. A list of alrcraft which would meet particular noise limits (with and wlthout using noise abatement procedures) is being prepared by the City's noise expert and should be complete within 30 days. When this list is compiled, the cumulative community noise level 4 :~.-- '" -4 (CNEL) to be expected from implementation of various SENEL limits may be calculated. 2. An extension of the departures during weekend hours children are playing outside. current curfew to when people sleep prohibit late and 3. A prohibitIon on pattern flying at the airport. 4. A prohibition on the conduct of any future training activity at the airport by fixed base operators. 5. Mandatory nOlse abatement flIght procedures by planes takIng off from and landing at the airport. NOlse abatement flight procedures, as approved by the FAA, require aircraft to take off with a prescribed power cutback and at a steeper angle of take-off, so that the plane is relatively higher, and operating at less power, when it fIles over homes. The City.s noise expert estimates an average 5 dB noise reduction when noise abatement procedures are used. The actual nOlse reduction to be achieved, and the extent to which noise abatement procedures can be used effectively, is a complex, technical matter which must be studied further and discussed with experts and the FAA. Noise abatement procedures for landing operations have not been prescrIbed by the FAA and will requlre further consultation and study. 5 j .' ,~, RECOMMENDATIONS It is respectfully recommended that the City Council direct the City Attorney to: 1. prepare an ordinance repealing the current 85 dB SENEL limit and reinstating the 100 db SENEL limit for aircraft using the airport. The ordinance would prohibit aircraft which exceed or are estimated to exceed 100 dB from using the airport. This ordinance as an interim measure, pendIng a is regarded comprehenSIve review of airport noise control measures. 2. Initiate Noise Control and Land Use an Airport CompatibIlIty Study to examine further noise control measures necessary to protect the publIC. The study should be undertaken In consultatIon with aIrport neighbors, aviation Interests, nOIse experts, and the FAA. 3. upon completion of the study, draft a new noise abatement ordinance to implement recommendations of the study. 4. Cause to be prepared an envIronmental impact report on the proposed ordinance before City Council Consideration. PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, City Attorney Stephen Shane Stark, Assistant City Attorney 6