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AIrport I. However, the City Council repealed this noise limit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