SR-11-B (4)
e
Santa ~on~ca, Cal~fornla, December
e
1977
TO: ~ayor and Clty Council
/ / B
FROM" Clty Staff
SUBJECT Report on Touch-and-Go Operatlons and ~Olse Llmlts
at Santa Monlca Alrport
nEe 1 3 1971
Introductlon
This report reVlews the restrlctlon of touch-and-go pattern flying and
remlctlon of current SE~EL nOlse limlt restrictlons at Santa Monlca
Airport. It reco~ends that touch-and-go actlvlty be prohiblted on
Saturday, Sundays and holldays. ThlS report also recommends that
effectlve January 1, 1979, a 90 db SENEL llmit be lmposed, and that
prlor to the effectlve date, a program be conducted to determlne and
lmprove compllance level of alrcraft Klth the lmpendlng 90 db level.
Background
Pursuant to a JOlnt meetlng wlth the Airport Commission in December 1976,
the Clty Counell requested staff to report on the following issues con-
CeTTIlng
1) implementatlon of a dlsplaced threshold, 2) conslderat1on
of fl1ght pattern over Penmar Golf Course, 3) ellminatlon of hel1copter
tralnlng at Santa Monlca Alrport, 4) restrictlons on nlght operations;
5) restrlctlon of touch-and-go pattern flYlng operat1ons; and 6) reduction
of SE~EL llmlts.
These lssues an analyzed by staff were submltted to Councll In three
separate staff reports. Table I lllustrates Clty Counell declsions on
these matters durlng the last twelve months
1113
DEe 1 3 \977
TO
~ayor and CIty CounCIl
e
December
e
1977
..
-2-
STAFF REPORTS-ISSUES
C ITY com~c I L
DECISIOXSjACTIONS
Report ~ 1 (Feb.,1977)
I - Implementat10n of D1splaced
Threshold
Approved recommendat1on to 1m-
plement 750 ft. dIsplaced thresh-
old. ImplementatIon pendIng
approval of CalIfornIa AviatIon
program Funds from State of
Callforn1a.
II - Cons1deration of Flight Pattern
over Penmar Golf Course
~pproved recommendation that
fl1ght departure InstructIons
be adJusted to reqUIre pIlots
to take a 100 turTI dIrectly
over golf course after reachIng
end of runway. Implementation
pendIng Env1ronmental Impact
Report forthcOld ng from City
~ttorney's Office.
In add1tIon, approved recom-
mendatIon that the F~~ be requested
to Increase separatIon dIstance
between departIng planes from
3,000 to 3,500 ft. Further actIon
pending F~~ approval.
Report #2 (June,1977)
I ReductIon of SEKEL lImIt from
100 db to 90 db.
No actIon taken pendIng more com-
plete staff analYSIS.
II
RestrIctIon of nIght operatIons
Approved nIght flIght ordInance
restr1ct1ng nIght departure opera-
tIons between 11 p.m. & 6 a.m.
weekdays, 11 p.m. & 7 a.m., week-
ends, InclUSIon of medical emergency
prOVISIon. Enactment of ordinance
pendtng CounCIl approval on second
readlng.
Report #3 (July,1977)
I ElImInatIon of HelIcopter
TraInIng
~pproved recommendat1on to elIminate
all helIcopter pattern flIght and
trainIng actIVIty. OrdInance
currently In effect.
Approved recommendatIon that helI-
copter arrIval and departure pattern
altItude be Increased from 500 to ~Oft.
Ordinance beIng prepared by City
Attorney's OffIce.
< :TO:
~~yor and CIty C~ll
~ December 7, 1977
~
-~-
ThIS report provIdes recommendatIons concernIng the final two Airport
Issues 1) restrIctIon of touch-and-go pattern flYIng; and 2) reduction
of the current 100 db SE\EL (Single Event \olse Exposure Level) lImit to
90 db SENEL for all flights.
Pattern Flying and Touch-and-Go OperatIons
Pattern flying in general involves any approach not terminatlng In a full-
stop, or In the case of an aIrport flIght pattern, any operation resultIng
In repeated consecutive pattern flights. The type of pattern fllght
operatIons at Santa ~onlca ~lrport consIsts primarIly of touch-and-go
operatIons, and to a much lesser extent both low approach and repetitIve
full-stop landIngs. Touch-and-go IS a specIfIc pattern flying procedure
durIng WhICh an aircraft touches down on the runway surface, rolls for a
relatIvely short dIstance (approxImately 50-100 ft ), and then takes off
uSIng the normal departure pattern. Low approach IS a pattern flIght
maneuver that Involves flIght pattern use wIthout ground contact. RepetItIve
full-stop landing is a pattern flIght maneuver that Incorporates a full-stop
with each pattern cycle Normally if touch-and-go IS avaIlable, as is the case
In Santa MonIca, both low approach and repetItIve full-stop landIng will be
used mInImally.
Problems Generated by Touch-and-Go Flying
The prl~ary complaInt receIved from airport resIdents concerning touch-
and-go actIVIty, 1$ the frequency of flIghts resulting from touch-and-go
operatIons. In partIcular, residents fInd touch-and-go pattern flYIng
most obJectionable durIng the weekend daylIght hours when more tIme IS
spent at home
TO:
~ayor and CIty tlrncI1
4Ifecernber 7
1977
.
-4-
Touch-and-go operations currently account for 51.7% of all Airport
operatIons. DurIng the twelve month perIod between September 1976
and September 1977, 146,940 touch-and-gois were conducted at Santa
MonIca Airport, an average of 402 per day. Currently, touch-and-go
pattern flIght operatIons are permItted at Santa MonIca AIrport.
seven days a week, between the hours of 8 00 a.m and g.OO p.m. On
the baSIS of 402 touch-and-go's per day WIth a maXImum of 13 avaIlable
operatIonal hours, the frequency experIenced by an ~lrport resIdent
wIll average approxImately 30.9 per hour
Touch-and-Go Pattern FIY1ng at Santa Mon1ca AIrport
The prImary reason for the substantial level of touch-and-go operatIons
(as compared to Itinerant act1vIty) 1S the traIning actIv1ty generated
by the fl1ght trainIng and instruction schools at Santa Mon1ca ~Irport.
At present, there are nIne companIes associated WIth ground traInIng
and/or flIght Instnlctlon at Santa ~onica. Only seven of these fIrms
actually prOVIde lesslons: AVIatIon TraIn1ng EnterprIse; ClaIre Walters
FlIght Academy; World West 4vIat1on, WIngs West, Inc.; Cloverleaf
~vIatIon, Gunnell AVIatIon; and Kreuger AVIatIon.
These seven flIght schools utilIze a combIned total of approximately
+ .
TO:
Mayor and Clty &nCl1
~ecember '. 1977
-5-
flfty to sixty alrplanes for tralning Durlng meetlngs wlth the staff,
SlX fllght schools lndlcated that they conSldered touch-and-go a
necessary part of flight tralning, and that they performed touch-and-go
operatlons wlth students of varying levels on a dally basls. In staff's
estlmatlon, these schools generate lTI excess of 80% of the alrport's
touch-and-go activlty.
Touch-and-Go FIYlng - Analysls of Data Re1atlng to Weekend ACtlVlty
Slnce weekend touch-and-go f1Ylng lS more ob]ectlonable to resldents,
a three month activlty analysls was performed to determine the
dlfference In dally actlvlty between mean (average) weekend days and
mean weekdays. It was found that the dlstrlbutlon of touch-and-go
fllghts per day, over a seven day week, resulted in a re1atlvely equal
dlstrlbutlon of 10 to 16% of actlvlty for each lndlvldual day.
(See Table II).
e e
:=:: 'J: > t...,
n' 0 C C
-
- '";:l w.; I-'
-'
OQ rl C '<:
0 CD if,
.~ (""1'
I-'
<t> I-' Ie
-J t.:; --.J
--.J --.J
--.J
\C
-..,J
-..,J
N .c-> ~ :;::
\C N tn .j::::.. O' <t>
.j::::.. ~ ~ tN C"} C 0 ~
I .j::::.. "-' ::;. ::> n i-t; ::I
tJ1 - - ~
.-
0"- 'f,
a ~
'- I ~
' J
C ....., c\<> ro.."
. I-' 0-> ...... c' rT-
N = .j::::.. tN ..... 0 C
I . . - i-f) ....
I-' N Q\ Q\ ...... c....
I .p. '""
10. '<:
,
:J.l tN 'J1 tN C'l -:l ~ :s:::
I-' I-' --.J U1 0 CD
0 0 0 N G C 0 ~
I 0 n i-f) ::I
<,,:r - .- ,-..,
-..J :r. >
-; ; 1<
,
- ~
....., -,-,
.... ~.? 5
0 I-' i-' I-' o.
. c .j::::.. I-' (""1' 0 -
-..,J . ~ '"t) ~
I --.J 00 N I-' ~
......
.;::,.
00
.j::::.. .;:>. U1 .l:;. - -:l ~ ::s::
--
t.n t.n .p. -..,J 0 <t>
c- O' I-' N C'::; C 0 ~
I 0 n t-t) ;::
U1 ::r S
..::.
...... ~;;
~
(lI
0
I-' I-' I-' ...... -3 c\'" ;:<:'
.p. U1 .p.. U'l C 0..
(""1' 0 ~
I-' 00 I-' 0 ~ t"'"l '<
I ...... ,-, ,-..,
I-' "!j 3::
VI >-: c
. ......:;1
00
I
'-' '-'
N
oc
GC
0--
-'l-'l
o 0
C ....
n ~
;:r......
I
::.: "*
::I
0..0
I t-';
c::
o
-..,J
0..
~
-3'<:
o
(""1';>>-
_ n
ri"
f-'
<:
i-'
(""1'
'<
tN
00
:"..,
00
:"..,
I-'
.j::::..
.j::::..
"\
,....;;
d
3::
~
'<:
0
to!
~
::I
p...
n
to'
rl
'<
n
0
~
>-
-
(l
....
I-'
;:po r.
n 0
rt ;:l
to'.'l:J
<: ~
to' to!
rt ......
'< (/l
0
~ :;I
!Jl
0
t:"l -+.
><
"0 ::E:
-J <t>
<t> (1)
(f; :>:"
0 '.Jl (1) .....;
i-f)(1) ::: :>
0.. c.. :;::l
......
~ f-' -'l ~
< :;I 0 I
(1) C 0-
::: ~'" n I
rl ::r' H
:r 0 I H
""t;~
:::J
-30...
0 I
ri- a
PJ 0
I-'
>
~ ()
r.> rt
(i) I-'
;:<:'<:
i-'
~ rt
::l'<
0..
rt
'Tl 0
'1
0 ::;;;
,..Cl 0
c ..,
(i) r
::l c.. c
n "- ro
...
'< '< n
<t>
:3
-
....
(1)
-J
h.l
~
'-0
-..,J
-..,J
J
TO
Mayor and Cltv Councl1
'e
December /, 1977
~
e
7
-,-
Thls data veri fled that the average weekend day had less Impact than
lnitlally estlmated, and that restrIctions of weekend touch-and-go
hours would not necessarlly be prohlbltlve In terms of economlC Impact.
Restrlction of Weekend Touch-and-Go Pattern Flying - Staff Analysls
The dIffIculty In recommendIng restrIctIons pertaInlng to touch-and-go
fllght activity is the InabIlity to gauge the effect the recom-
mendatIon ~III have untIl experIence IS gaIned under the condItIons
of the Imposed restrictions. Prlor to makIng a recommendation of a re-
stTlctlon, staff requested Bolt, Beranek and New~an to comment on prohIbItIng
touch-and-go operatIons in general. It IS theIr opinion that prohIbitIng
touch-andgo operatIons WIll, for the most part, reqUIre the aircraft to
come back to a full-stop, taxI clear of the runway and proceed back to
another take-off. The operational effect of thIs would cause In varYlng
degrees the
1. reductIon of the rate at which an aircraft would be able to
perform repeated take off and landings.
2. shIftIng of touch-and-go actlvlty to other aIrports.
3. dIsplacement of touch-and go actIVIty to other days In
the week.
Bolt, Beranek and ~e\fffian states that as a rough estimate, allowlng four
mInutes to taxl back for take-off, and SIX mInutes In the traffIC pattern,
thIS would reduce the number of take-offs of one aIrcraft fyorn about ten
pey hour to SIX per hour for a reductlon In nOlse level of thls class of
aIrcraft of about 2db. The effect on the total noise level would be less,
since the aIrcraft depart1ng and arrIving would not be affected.
TO: Mayor and City endl
e=ember 7, 1977
-8-
On the basls of these prelimlnary calculations, a reduction of ten
operatlons per hour to SlX would achieve the obJectlve of reducing
the frequency level of flight operations at Santa Monica Airport.
However, projections aside, the only realistic way to determlne the
effectlveness of any touch-and-go restriction will be to evaluate lt
after a reasonable period of tlme.
In consideration of the need to reduce the frequency level of touch-
and-go operations, and pursuant to staff data analysis of weekend pattern
flying activlty (see Table II), the staff recommends that a weekend
and holiday touch-and-go restrlctlon be implemented. Further, staff
suggests that at the end of the initial SlX months, the touch-and-go
restrictions be evaluated for effect~veness wlth recommendations toward
lncreasing or decreasing restrlcted hours to be forthcomlng, If necessary.
Effect of RestrIction on Operators
In dlscussing the weekend restrictions wlth the flight trainlng schools
and fixed based operators at the Airport, all but one sald that the effects
of even a partial weekend restriction would be substantially detrimental to
business. Staff projects that in accordance wlth Saturday and Sunday
activlty levels depleted in Table II approxlmately 20.9 - 29.4 of total
touch-and-go actlvlty will be subjected to displacement to the other
unrestrlcted days or other airports. To what extent a1rcraft tralnlng
TO: Mayor and CIty ~ncll
4It December; 1977
-9-
students wlll comply wIth any schedule contralnts and attached costs 15 dlfflcult
to determine. It 3hould be noted that the only flight school that felt
they would not be detrImentally affected by this touch-and-go restriction
was ClaIre Walters Fllght Academy, SInce touch-and-go pattern flYIng as an
instructional tool IS not used by thIS partIcular school.
FInancial Effect of Touch-and-Go RestrIctIons on MunICIpal ~lrport Operation
It IS antICIpated that the effects of thIS restrictIon on CIty operatIons,
would be lImIted to reductIons In weekend gasollne sales. There are no
flIght traIning schools currently rentIng offIce space from the CIty, con-
sequently no loss from rentals are antICIpated. Of the seven flight schools
at the AIrport, the only ones that purchase gas dIrectly from the City
are ClaIre Walters FlIght Academy and WIngs West, Inc. Claire Walters
has already stated that they would not be affected. Wings West purchases
approximately $30,000 In fuel each year.
I. Summary of ~lternatlves
1. Approve recommendatIon to restrict weekend touch-and-go pattern
flYIng operations at Santa ~onlca AIrport.
ThIS restriction would restrIct all weekend and hOlIday touch-and-
go operatIons. The ObjectIve of thIS recommendation IS
to reduce the frequency level of touch-and-go operatIons
substantIally WIth the IntentIon of dIsplaCIng touch-and-go
actIVIty to weekdays and/or other aIrports. If upon evaluatIon
at the end of 51X months, the need for further restrlctlons
15 eVIdent, staff would recommend adjustments as required
TO: Mayor and C1ty ~nc1I
~December '. 1977
-10-
2. Restrict all touch-and-go pattern flY1ng at Santa Mon1ca Airport.
Staff belleves that thlS alternat1ve would provide the
greatest rel~ef from couch-and-go frequency, but would
result 1n the most economlC detr1ment. Total restriction
of touch-and-go act1vity would e11m1nate 51.7% of total
~lrport fl1ght operations.
3. Impose no touch-and-go f11ght restr1ct1on whatsoever
ThlS alternat1ve 15 un5at1sfactory 1n that it does not make
an attempt to solve the problem of n01se frequency generated
by touch-and-go operat1ons
TO. Mayor and CIty ann 1
~ecember i, 1977
-11-
ReductIon of SENEL LImIts July 1977 Report
In July 1977, the staff submitted to the City CouncIl a report entItled
tlReductlon of :\OI5e Llml ts at Santa \lonica AIrport 1'. Wi thIn the sectIon pertaInIng
to reductIon of SE~EL lImIts from 100 db to 90 db, it was determined that
on the basis of 4 months of data generated from flIghts over the 8S db
range, actIvIty of flIghts In the 90-100 db range amounted to 2.72% of
total aIrport operations. In revIewing the data Bolt, Beranek and Nehman
concluded that a 1 to 3 db reduction In CommunIty NOIse Exposure Level
CC~ELJ would be achIeved by lowerIng SENEL level to 90 dh. SInce reductIon
to aircraft nOIse IS a combInation of frequency as well as level,staff
concurred WIth Bolt, Beranek and New~an that elIminatIon of 2.72% of
operatIons would provIde margInal relIef to airport reSIdents.
The report also stated that SInce the perceptIble annoyance level of
indIVIduals is related to both frequency of events and perceIved
loudness of IndIvIdual events, a more POSItIve CommunIty NOIse Exposure
Level (CKEL) effect might be achieved by combInIng SENEL reductIon with
other limitatIons such as restrIctIons on touch-and-go pattern flYIng.
The fInal recommendatIon requested that further analysis be completed
on the assumptIon that data IncludIng all flIghts over 70 db would
accurately determlne SENEL levels as related to perceptIble CKEL effect.
The effect of other operatIonal restrIctIons such as touch-and-go was
also to be evaluated in terms of Its effect on SENEL
TO: Mayor and Clty4llncll
e December
1977
-12-
Reductlon of SE~EL Llmlts -- Follow-up Study
In fo1lowlng the lntent of the recommendation of the July report, the
~olse ~onltQr1ng System was reprogrammed to prlnt out all SENEL events
over 70 db. Thls data was collected for a perlod of two months
Under
lnstructions from Bolt, Beranek and Ke~~an, data was extracted for two
one week per10ds from the months of August and September, and segregated,
a total of 6,927 events, luto categor1es of landlngs and take-offs, hour
of day, and 5 db 1nterva1s ranglng from 70-100 (no event exceeded 100).
The analysls of thlS data completed by Bolt, Beranek and Kewman 1S
summarlzed in Tables III and IV below:
TABLE III
CKEL CALCULATIOKS BASED UPON SENEL DATA
Statlon 1 (Westend) Statlon 2 (Eastend)
SENEL 14-day CNEL Total 14-day CNEL Total
Interval total Interval Cl'~E L total Interval CNEL
dB Events dB dB Events dB dB
70-75 42 27.5 27.5 361 36.9 36.9
75-80 361 41.9 42.1 1094 46.7 47.1
80-85 2178 54.7 54.9 902 50.9 52.4
40.2% 85-90 1301 57.4 59.3 9.52% 182 48.9 54.0
{ 90-95 399 57.3 61.5 CO 48.3 55.0
10 18% 2.53%
9.3-100 41 52.4 62.0 16 48.3 55.9
- -
4322 2605
. T-O.
Mayor and Clty Co~
e
December
1977
..
-13-
TABLE IV
EFFECT OF LOWERING THE VIOL~TION LIMIT
Change ln CNEL, dB
LImi t Station 1 Statlon 2
dB
~
100 0 0
95 -0.5 -0.9
90 -2.7 -1 9
85 -7 1 -3.5
80 -19.9 -8.8
75 -34.5 -19 0
Interpretatlon of Results
Table III dlsplays all recorded events for Station 1 (take-offs) and Station 2
(landlngs) ln separate dlstrlbutions.
Statlon 2, as expected reflects a relatlvely low maximum CNEL db effect of
55.9 \l,'lth only 2.53% of actlyity in the 90-100 SDIEL db range. (See total C'\EL
columns - Table III)
Station 1 reflects a higher maXlmum CKEL level of 62.0.
The dlstrlbutlon of flights lndlcates that the greatest actlvlty ln ranges
between 80-85 (2,178 flights) and 85-90 (1,301 fllghts). with the level of
fllght take-off activlty ln the 90-100 db range representing 10.18% of total
events.
Table IV lllustrates the effect of lo~erlng the vlo1atlon llmit on C~L. A
reduction of the SENEL llmlt from 100 to 90 would result in a 2.7 db CNEL
effect, a reduction of 85 SE~EL would produce a 7.1 CNEL effect. It should
TO. Mayor and Clty ~ncil
~ December i, 1977
-14-
be noted that an 85 SE~EL limlt, would eliminate 40.2% of take-off
actlvlty.
The current study presents a substantlally dlfferent activlty level
for those flights In the 90-100 db range. In the July report, only
2.72% of all flights fell lnto thlS range as compared to 10.18% in
the new study. Th1S lS primar1ly attr1butable to the fact that the
current data dist1ngulshes between landings and take-off operations,
the 10.18% represents take-off activlty in the 90-100 db range. In
add1t1on, the current sample is more accurate in that 1ts total events
conslst only of actual events lncluded wlthin the study itself. The
July report used FA~ monthly act1vlty data as a base. FA\ totals lnclude
local (touch-and-go) operat1ons WhlCh ln many cases would fall below the
85 db cutoff used ln the July data sample
Effects of Reduclng SENEL from the Current 100 db Level
Tables III and IV 11lustrate that.
1. reduclng the SE~EL llmit to 85 db would cause a 7.1 db reductlon
in C\EL. Th1S would result In el1minating 40.2% of the take-
off (statlon 1) operatlons and 9.52% of landlng (stat1on 2)
operatlons.
2. reducing the SENEL llmlt to 90 db would Cduse a 2.7 db reductlon
1n CNEL. Th1S would result ln ellminatlng 10.18% of all take-
off operatlons and 2.53% of all land1ng operations.
. TO:
Mayor and CIty COU~
e December 7, 1977
..
-15-
ReductIon In CNEL - PerceptIble Impact
ReduCIng the SENEL lImIt to 85 db would be the optImal alternatIve In
restrictIng the nOIsiest aIrport operatIons. A 7.1 db C~EL reductIon
would effect a clearly perceptIble Improvement in nOIse levels for
resIdentIal areas adjacent to the aIrport. However, the negatIve
economIC Impact of an 85 SENEL limit would be substantial, In that over
40% of aIrport operatIons would be elimInated.
As stated prevIously, by redUCIng the SENEL lImit to 90 db, a 2.7 db
C~EL reductIon would be generated.
In the opInIon of Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 2.7 db reductIon In CKEL
probably would not be notIceable from day to day, but may be perceptIble
over a long perIod of tIme SInce some of the nOISIest flIghts are being
elImInated the actual Impact WIll be somewhat greater than the change In
CNEL Itself may reflect. StIll, Bolt Beranek and ~ewTIan note that the
arbItrary reductIon of the db level to 90, may not In some cases elIminate
all flIghts that generate complaints. However, staff belIeves that many
complaInts Involve frequency of flIghts and that the cumulative effect of
touch-and-go restrIctIons and SE~EL reductIons must be conSIdered In
assessIng the overall Impact on nOIse complaints.
TO. Mayor and C~ty4lkncll
~December i 1977
~16-
Flnanc~al Effect of E1lm~natIng F1~ght OperatIons
Over 90 db
Of the 440 aIrplanes currently t~ed down at Santa ~onlca A~rport a 90 db
restrIctIon would exclude approximately 50 twin eng~ne and 25 sIngle eng~ne
aircraft (comb~ned estimated value -- $6,000,000). In additIon, the Grumman
I turbo-prop a~rcraft (combined estImated value $4,000,000), owned by Lear
Siegler and Hilton, Inc., would also be ellm~nated.
The resultant revenue reduction to the CIty ~s estImated as folloKs:
AIrcraft Petroleum Sales
$60,000 per year
Aircraft TIedown Rentals
15,000 per year
Hangar T-201 Rental to Lear Siegler, Inc.
18,000 per year
AIrcraft Tax (property)
50,000 per year
TOTAL
$143,000
It should be noted that some losses attrIbuted to tIedown revenues could be
recovered as vacanCIes are filled by new customers.
The above fIgures represent direct estImated airport revenue losses to the
CIty. They do not include losses that may be suffered by airport fIxed base
operators. The prOJected losses were not requested of the fIxed base
operators, however, the economIC data rece~ved from the operators concernIng
night restrictions projected total losses in excess of 4.9 mIllion. It
should be noted that night flIght restrIctIons involved less than 1 percent
of total aIrport actIVIty, WhICh IS substantially less than the 10.18%
resultIng from a 90 db restrIction.
.
t TO'
Mayor and CIty COu~
.
December 7, 1977
~.
-17-
ReductIon of SENEL to 90 db
Staff Recommendations
The balance between the level of perceptIble nOIse reductIon accomplIshed
and resultant economIC loss, must be evaluated In terms of the ultImate
goal of elImInatIng the noiSIer planes operatIng at Santa Monica Airport.
Consequently, staff recommends the follOWIng
1. that a 90 db SE~EL lImIt be Implemented now to become effectIve
January 1, 1979
2. that staff provIde aSSIstance to both airport operators and in-
dIVIdual aIrcraft pilots In complYIng WIth the 90 db lImIt by
developIng a SENEL NOIse MonItoring Test Program to:
a) determIne whIch aIrcraft cannot meet the 90 db level
b) traIn and adVIse pIlots and aIrcraft owners In how
to safely comply.
ThIS program would be establIshed prior to the 90 db ImplementatIon
date and would contInue In operation as needed.
Staff belIeves that by ImplementIng a 90 db SE~EL limit, the necessary In-
centIve to further reduce nOIse levels at the airport IS prOVIded. It must
be emphaSIzed that economIC loss to aIrport operatIons is antIcipated as a
result of a 90 db SENEL restrictIon, however, the SENEL Test program recom-
mended should aSSIst In pInpOIntIng and to some extent mItIgating the losses
attrIbutable to thIS restrIctIon.
The SENEL KOIse MonitorIng Test, IS a program that utIlIzes a portable
monitorIng system to identify the SENEL level of indIVIdual planes, and
. ~'.TO
..:>
Mayor and Clty cou~
e December 7, 1977
-18-
assIst pllots in complYIng wIth the lmpendlng 90 db SE~EL lImIt. The 12 month
perlod prIor to lmplementatLor would be used for SENEL tests, nOlse compliance
and safety Instruction, and pursuant to results, further analysis of economlC
lmpact.
Summary of AlternatIves
1. Implement a 90 db SE~EL lImIt effectIve January 1, 1979
This alternative will provide some rellef from nOlSY airplanes and in
11ght of the economIC losses antICIpated, 1ncludes a program for staff
to assist the operators and pllots in complying with the 90 db SENfL
level
2 Ma1ntaID current 100 db SEKEL level
ThIS alternat1ve offers the least nOIse relief, but has no economIC
1mpact.
Recornmendat1ons
I. Touch-and-Go RestrIctlons
1. It is recommended that touch-and-go pattern flY1TIg operat1ons be
prohIbIted on ~eekends and holidays
II. Reduction of SE~EL LimIts at Santa ~onlca AIrport
1. It IS recommended that the current 100 db SE~EL 11mlt be
reduced to 90 db SE~EL effect1ve January 1. 1979.
The CIty Attorney should be lnstructed to draft an ordInance inplementlng the
recommendatlons for Counc1l act10n
Prepared by: LARRY J. KOSMOKT
AdminIstratIve ASSIstant
LJK; dvl
Attachment (1)
, ".
'CM--12/5/77--LJK pp
- ~
.
,
.
TOTAL AIRPORT OPERATIONS
(September 1976--September 1977)
Date
9/76 Itinerant 9,580
Local 11,248
Total 20,828
10/76 Itinerant 11,919
Local 12,185
Total 24, 104
11/76 Itlnerant 11,123
Local 10,697
Total 21,820
12/76 ItInerant 11,906
Local 10,722
Total 22,628
1/77 Itinerant 11,464
Local 10, 130
Total 21,594
3/77 Itlnerant 11,914
Local 12,693
Total 24,607
4/77 Itlnerant 11,368
Local 13,060
Total 24,428
5/77 Itinerant 10,814
Local 14,831
Total 25,645
6/77 Itlnerant 9,336
Local
.
APPENDIX I
~
.'
e
e
~ ~ !'/
5 Ut<vG'(S
IJ1/1 (Y':KVJ f/,rtJ -I, T-I C.lIfA
r y t I j\. C J n is -I- .c-,.. .
2)
% 11
Meise
(The present limit on aircraft noise is 100 SEN~L.
to the decibel scale.)
SENEL is a measure of noise similar
!f/.G ) 3; a)
The li~it sho~ld be 85 SENEL. (T~is would affect about 50% of current operations :,
eliminating almost all twin ard some s1ngle engine aircraft.)
'-, I 11 b)
The limit should be 90 SE~[L. (Th15 would affect about 5~ of current operations by
eliminating ~any of the larqe twins and the loud sin9le engi~e aircraft.)
13.0 37 c)
The lir.it should be 95 SF~~L. (This ~ould affect about 1% of current ooerations by
eliminating only t~€ loudest aircraf~.)
Il~ 33 d) The limit $hould be 100 SENEL. (Ttns is the current: limit.)
,~~ G e) There should be no 1 imH.
---------
~ Yb S Ut<. VEYSl g7~) WOU,Lf) J....IKS ~ $(31: SO~e
(( 60 v.. c... 7 , ~ :.1 F r< ... Vr" ,.. I ....., ~ -
",., U1 IS r to<;. 5S ii;r i
)/OJS€ I..iwut:
-=
.'
e
e
7JJ Appleby Street
Venice, California 90291
December 10, 1977
1(/3
Santa Monica City Council
City Halla Main street
Santa Monica, California
UEC l :5 1917.
Ladies and Gentlemenz
Attached you will find
City Council meetingz
reference information useful
City of Torrance.
Resolution Number 77-215
Ordinance Number 2784
at Tuesday's
This ordinance prohibits ALL pattern flying on weekemds and holidays.
The restrictions specifically name three types of pattern flyings
Touch and ge
Stop and go
Low approaches
All three are equally obnoxiousl all three ~ust be specifically
named in your new ordinance. Banning touch and go only would still
allow the use of stop and go, and low approaches. Torrance solved
the problem correctly. However, the hours should be from 7A~ to 11PM.
This new ordinance also sets noise levels for the Torrance Airport.
Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL) of 88dBA
or----
Maximum sound level of 82 dBA measured at ground level.
By contrast, I have measured ,~ (ninety-six) dBA in my patio.
Torrance has also resolved to prohibit air carrier and commuter
operations at their airport---such as Gunnell's Mexico Air Service.
This resolution and ordinance clearly demonstrates the determination
of the Torrance City Council to make their airport "a good neighbor".
The people who live around the Santa Monica Airport deserve no less.
~
ncp .1) \~71
'- <
e e
,
J' _
RESOLUTION NO. 77-215
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE
REAFFIRMING A PREVIOUSLY ADOf"TED POLICY TO INSTITUTE A PRO-
GRAM OF AIRCRAFT NOISE ABATEMENT AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER AND OTHER CITY OFFICIALS TO TAKE CERTAIN STEPS TO
IMPLEMENT SUCH PROGRAM
WHEREAS, this City Government for several yea~ has been engaged in an airport
. -mater plan study which has culminated recently In a wries of hearings on 1I1e various
elements of such stUdy, with special emphasis having been given to the airport noise element;
and
WHEREAS. in order to thoroughly gather.all available information. record citizens'
complaints and analyze Ind recommend solutions to the noise problem. this City Council
formed the Council Ad Hoc Airport Noise Committee, which held a series of hearings on all
.apects of the airport noise problem; and
WHEREAS. 'this City Council has received recommendations for wlutions 10 this
problem from said.Ad Hoc Committee, the Planning Commission. Airport Commission,
Environmental Quality Commission, various citizens' groups, individual citizens, and from the
City Manager and his staff; and
WHEREAS, this City Council -on April 19, 1977, after due deliberation. adopted the
modified recommendations of said Ad Hoc Committee for a program of aiiw-aft noise
abatement and directed the City Manager -and City Attorney to take certain actions relating to
aircraft noise abatement; and
WHEREAS, -on Sepit:mber 6, 1977, this City Council passed Resolution No. n-181
adopting certain policy statements {goals) for the Airport Master Plan including. among others,
the followin9 fIOafs: That aircraft noise standards comoatible with residential standards of
Jiving will be adopted and enforced, and that the volume of fli<Jh;S emanatina from Torrance
Municipal Airport will be controlled at a level compatible with wrnmunitv tranouilitv: and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 1977, this City Council .adopted Ordinance Ho.2784
lNhich implements $Orne of aid policies by establishing noise limits ~ ftl9Ulatio~ ~~ _, _.,_
landings and takeoffs of aircraft at said airport; and
..
WHEREAS, it is desirable 10 -place in this Gne document the .policies previously
.adopted for the abatement of aircraft noise (many of which cannot be included in said
ordinance) and to give directions to the City -Manager ..and 4ther City officials for the
~- --.Implementation the,.,f.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE DOES
,
-flESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: ~
... +.. ~ - - -
-
~SECTION 1
- ---
.-
~
~ r.-" _ ..
- - _H~ It''hArRhv ~rnu 1'h. nftt- Alt.t."..... ",^"~M fnr flua"Tftl'P':U"". 'MuniMn~l Airrvut
e
e
y,.
"
2. That there ih," ~e no air carrier or commuter operationsr whether cas:sencer Qr
mitt, at the Airport. - -
3.. That there shall be no hotel convention center on the Airport.
-4. a) That the landing and takeoff of turbo iet and fan jet aircraft be restricted to
-.nergency situatJons.
b) That the Federal Aviation Administration be requested to continuously
include such information on jets in the Notice to Airmen in the Airman's Information Manual, as
well as other information concerning the 9ouncil's noise abatement policies.
5. a) Th8t . permanent system of aircraft noise monitoring be purchased, installed
and operated at the Airport.
b) That until such permanent noise monitoring system is purchased and
installed, a temporary noise monitoring system be purchased and operated in order to gather data
on the airport noise problem and for use in enforcement of the airport noise policies and ordinance.
6. That the 1974 Bolt. Beranek and Newman study of noise from aire-raii operations at
the Airport be updated as necessary.
7. That new noise message signs, including curfew signs and fly quietly -signs, be
-Installed on the Airport.
S. That 8 noise abatement enforcement program be instituted by the City Manager,
consisting of:
-a) spot monitoring;
b) establishment of a noise abatement center;
c) establishment of a working relationship with flight schools;
d) providing incentives to encourage flying at less sensitive times;
.) mum of the UNICOM radio to City use.
9. That the Airport Manager initiate a pilot information and education program for
noise abatement purposes to consist. among others, of the follOWing actions:
,'~. -.)
,"ederal Register.
a)
Conduct a pilot education program in order to acquaint pilots based at the
Airport with laws, rules .,d regulations of the Airpon relating to noise
lIbatement.
b)
Schedule and hold aircraft noise abatement classes. including quarterly
hangar sessions, for owners, operatots and pilots of aircraft using the
-Airport.
c)
Encourage the FAA publication of "Tower Talk" and its dissemination to
pilots.
.d)
Prepare an information packet for transient piJots which embodies Airport
I8ws, rules and regulations, especially those relating to noise abatement.
'-1hat the Airport flight (takeoff and landing) patterns be printed in the
e.
-
13. That helicopter approach and departure tracks be established for purposes of study
in the EI R process and in the development of the EI R.
14. That aeronautical growth be limited.
15. That the number of aircraft based at the Airport be limited to 825 (the estimated
number of aircraft now based at the Airport).
16. That the number of flight schoots on the Airport be limited to six (the number of
schools now operating).
17. That lease standards be prepared to reduce operational demand.
18. That tie-down COfluacts be modified to encourage'pilots to fly responsibly.
19. That a full-time Airport Manager be designated.
20. That an Environmental Quality Officer be hired Ind assigned to aircraft noise
abatement duties.
'21. That the City Manager seek alternate training fields for training flights, particularly
toUch and go and stop and go operations.
22. That a joint advisory committee for Airport noise abatement be formed consisting
of three members from the Environmental Quality Commission and three members from 'the
Airport Commission.
23. That an overfay zone be designated for use as a planning tool to harmonize
development in the proximity of the Airport with aimort use.
.
24. That the following landing aids be installed with all proposed mitigating treatments
as soon as possible:
a) Runway End Identifier Ughts (REIL) on 11-Left and 29-Left.
b) Medium Intensity Approach lig,ting System with Runway Alignment
Indicator lights (MALSRAJ L or MALSR) on 29.Right.
.
c) V"asual Approach STope Indicator (VASI) on all four approaches.
d) -Completion of the tnstrument landing System (ILS) for29-Right.
e) Distance Measuring Equipment for the Airport.
SECTION 2
That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to do all things reasonable and
~ry to implement the aforesaid policy decisions of this City Council. including. but not
~~~ .
- 1. Provide the Council with periodic repo~ on the progress of the airport noise
abatement program, at not less than six months intervals.
e
.
...
-c"
2) to the hours of 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekends and holidays.
b) Prohibit deparbJres during the hours of 11 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.
3. Expedite the installation of the permanent noise monitoring program and; pending
such installation, conduct a noise monitoring program with temporary equipment.
.. Implement the appointment of an ad hoc citizens advisory group to work with the
administrative staff in monitoring and evaluating the program of the airport noise abatement
program in making recommendations to this City Council for the improvement of such program.
5. Study and present to the Council at some future meeting various options that the
City might have for reducing the volume of flights at the Airport.
6. Study and report to the Council on the economic implications and feasibility of
declaring, in effect, that basic instruction and flight school operations are perhaps no longer a
..itable use for the Airport in terms of the demands of the community and oU91t to be amortized
over a one; three or five year period.
SECTION 3
That the Land Management Team is di,.ta=d to:
1. p~ requests for leases on the Airport in accordance with the aforesaid policies
of this City Council, particularly the limitation of the number of flight schools to six and, in
cooperation with the City Manager, the limitation of the number of aircraft based on the Airport to
825.
2. In cooperation with the City Manager and City Attorney, deVelop "fly rig,tn clauseS
for inclusion in future leases and tie-down contracts and develop lease standards to reduce
operational demand.
SECTION 4
That. the City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to coopef'csu: with and assist the
City Manager and Land Management Team in the implementation of said policy decisions.
SECTION 5
That the Airport Commission. flaMing Commission ...d Environmental Quality
Commission are hereby directed to consider said poHcy decisions in reaching their own decisions
and making recommendations to the City Council on mai~rs coming before them.
Introduced, approved and adopted this 25th day of October .1gn
ISI KEN MILLER
Mayor of the City of Torrance
A'I i'fST:
__..-v ",~.,.~..,;.:J..-_~-- _~~"i'-~ ~~o!"-.......~.....___,..""""-_.~-"..
:~'~~~~':'~:~ ,,-
. .
-# ... - ---..
-' ,.- e.- ---- -- -,- ~ -
~c._ c_~ ..-~_:_j_'~7~}t~~?~~4 ~-- _ ~ ~~-:~
~ ~ ~
0-
0--
STA'l'E OF CALIFORNIA l
COCN'fi OF LOS ANGELES J
CIT!' OF TORRANCE )
- - t ~
s.
_ J _ __. ~
~'I'; ~ - ~ -t:"- ;:..:;:~ - :--_- ~..--:.._~~",-......~~ .1-~~';~- ~:o::
_.~- ~:I>:~-- -=~""~_~"-_--~""
I,. VEBNON W. COIL, Cit;y Clerk of the City of: Torrance,
Calitornia, do hereby certify that the toreqoinq reso~ution
was duly introduced, approved and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Torrance at a. reqular meeting of said Council
held on the 25th day of October , 1977 ,. by the ~ollQW-
inq roll call vote:
:
.
COUNCIl...A"-tEMBERS: Armstrong, Brewster. Geissert, Wilson
and Mi ller.
AYEs:
NOES:
CotlNCILMEMBERS : Brown, Ros 5 berg.
ABSENT :
COCNCILMEMBEP.S : ~one.
ISI VERNON W. COIL
Ci.ty Cl.erk of the City of 'torrance
"
"
e
.
ORDINANCE NO, 2784
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCI l OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE
ADDING ARTICLE 8 TO CHAPTER 6, DIVISION 4 OF THE TORRANCE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NOISE LIMITS AND REGULATIONS FOR
LANDINGS AND TAKEOFFS OF AIRCRAFi AT THE TORRANCE MUNI.
CIPAL AI RPORT; ADDING ARTICLES 4 to 7 INCLUSIVE TO CHAPTER 1,
DIVISION 5 OF SAID CODE TO PROHIBIT NIGHT DEPARTURES (WITH
EXCEPTIONS) OF AIRCRAFT FROM SAID AIRPORT, TO PROHIBIT TOUCH
AND GO AND STOP AND GO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT CERTAIN TIMES
AT SAID AIRPORT, PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH REGU-
LATIONS AND PROVID!NG PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF
WHEREAS, the City of Torrance is the proprietor and operator of the Torrance Municipal
Airport (Zamperinl Fleldllocated within its corporate limits; and
WHEREAS, the City as the Airport proprietor has the authority to adopt reasonable rules
regulating the use of such Airport; and
WHEREAS, as the resurt of testimony at hearings held by the City Council on the adoption
of a proposed AIrport Master Plan and complaints received by City officials from persons livmg in
the vicmity of the Airport, it is apparent that the landing and takeoff of certam aircraft is causing a
noise disturbance in certain residential neighborhoods located in proximity to the Airport, parti-
cularly at night and on the weekends, and
WHEREAS, the City youncll has adooted as Master Plan ooals, amona others. that Alrnort
noi<;e standards compat!ble WItT} resident;;:1 st<indz.rds of liVln9 b~ adoPtee and enforced and th?t th~
,volume of fl ~qhts emcoatin9 from the Arrp9rt ffe contrljllletl r1 t1 level comoatlble with t'le
,rommunity trar,9uiliity, and
WHEREAS, It IS in the public interest that noise mltlRation and aircraft control measures set
forth in this ordinance be adoDted to insure the Deace ann trarl!":uiJiitv of Sllr}, rp",ir""'riti~1
neianborhoods wIthout Impairing the ability of the Airport to serve the general aviatIon needs of
the community,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCI L OF THE CITY OF TORRANCE DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS,
SECTION 1
That Article 8 IS hereby added to Chapter 6, Division 4 of the Torrance Municipal Code to
read in its entirety as foltows:
"ARTICLE 8 . AIRPORT NOISE LIMITS
SECTION 46.8.1
VIOLATION UNLAWFUL
It shal! Le unlawful for any person to pilot or operate or permit to be piloted or operated an
aircraft in violation of the provisions of SectIons 46.8.8, 46.8.9 or 46.8.14,
SECTION 46.8.2
EXTENDED AIRPORT 80UNDARIES DEFINED
,
,
e
.
~
SECTION 46.8.4
LANDING DEFINED
For the purposes of this Article, "tanding' shall mean the flight of an aircraft from the time
it descends below One Thousand (1,000) feet above ground level for its landing approach untIl it IS
taxied from the runway.
SECTION 40.8.5
SOUND EXPOSURE LEVEL
For the purposes of this Article, the sound exposure level is the level of sound accumulated
during a given event, WIth reference to a duration of one second. More specIfically, sound exposure
level, in decIbels, IS the level of the time-integrated A-weighted squared sound pressure for a stated
time mterval or event. based on the reference pressure of 20 mlCronewtons per square meter and
reference duration of one second.
SECTION 46.8.6
SENEL
For the purposes of thiS Article, the single event noise exposure level (SENEL), in decibels,
is the sound exposure level of a single event, such as an aircraft fly.by, measured over the tIme
interval between the initial and final times for which the sound level of a single event exceeds the
threshold sound level. For implementatIon of the provIsIons of this Article, the threshold nOtse level
shall be at least 20 decibels below the numerical value of the single event noise expcsure level limits
specified in Section 46.8.8 or 46.8.9 as the case may be.
SECTION 46.8.7
MAXIMUM SOUND LEVEL DEFINED
For the purposes of this Article, the maximum sound level, in decibels, is the highest sound
level reached at any instant of time during the time intelVal used in measuring the sound exposure
level of a single event.
SECTION 46.8.8
AIRCRAFT NOISE LIMIT
Except as provided in SectIon 46.8.10, no aIrcraft taking off from or landing on the
Torrance MUnicipal Airport may exceed a single event nOise exposure level (SENEL) of 88 d8A or a
maximum sound level of 82 dBA measured at ground level outside the extended Airport
boundaries.
SECTION 46.8.9
AIRCRAFT NOISE LIMIT AT NIGHT
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 468.8, except as provided in Section 46.8.10, no
aircraft taking off from or landmg on the Torrance Municioal Airport between the hours of 11 p.m.
of any day and 6:30 a,m. of the follOWing day may exceed a slOg Ie event nOise exposure level
(SENEL) of 82 dBA or a maximum sound level of 76 dBA measured at ground level outSIde the
extended Airpon boundaries.
SECTION 46.8.10
AIRCRAFT NOISE EXEMPTION
The followmg categories of aircraft shall be exempt from the provisions of Sectlons 46.8.8
and 46.8.9:
1. Aircraft operated by the United States of America or the State of California.
2. law enforcement, emergency. fire or rescue aircraft operated by any county or city
of said state.
3. Aircraft used for emergency purposes dunng an emergency which has been offiCially
proclaimed by competent authority pursuant to the laws of the United States, said State or the
City .
4. Civil Air Patrol aircraft when engaged in actual search and rescue mIssions.
5. Aircraft engaged in landings or takeoffs while conducting tests under the direction
of the Airport Manag9r in an attempt to rebut the presumption of aircraft nOise vialatlon pursuant
~
.
, '
e
e
SECTION 46.8.12
CULPABILITY OF AIRCRAFT OWNER OR LESSEE
For purposes of this Article, the beneficIal owner of an aircraft shall be presumed to be the
pilot of the aIrcraft With authOrity to control the aircraft's operations, except that where the
aircraft is leased, the lessee shall be presumed to be the pilot. Such presumptIOn may be rebutted
only if the owner or lessee identifies the person who in fact was the pilot at the time of the asserted
VIolation.
SECTION 46.8.13
DENIAL OF USE OF AIRPORT
(See Section 51 7.2 et seq. concerning denial of the use of the Airport for repeated
violatIOns of thIs ArtIcle.)
SECTION 46.8 14
PRESUMPTION OF AIRCRAFT NOISE VIOLATION
In the event that the Airport Manager determines to his reasonable satisfaction that available
published nOIse measurements for a particular type or class of aircraft Indicate that it cannot meet
the nOise levels set forth In Section 46.8.8 and 46.8.9, it shall be presumed that operation of such
aircraft will result in VIolation of the prOVisions of SectIOns 46.88 and 46.8.9 and such aircraft will
not be permitted to land on, tie down on, be based at or takeoff from the Torrance MUniCipal
Airport, except in emergencies as set forth In Section 51.4.2; provided, however, that the owner or
operator of such aircraft shall be entitled to rebut such presumption to the reasonable satisfaction
of the Airport Manager by furnishing evidence to the contrary.
SECTION 46.8.15
DESIGNATED ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS
The Director of Building and Safety, the Admmistrator of Environmental Quality, the
Environmental Quality Officers and such other City employees as are designated by the DIrector of
BUilding and Safety with the approval of the City Manager, all acting under the direction and
control of the City Manager, shall have the duty and authority to enforce the proviSions of this
Article, pursuant to the proVIsions of SectIon 836.5 of the State Penal Code."
SECTION 2
That Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 are hereby added to Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Torrance
MuniCipal Code to read in their entirety as follows.
"ARTICLE 4 - NiGHT DEPARTURES
SECTION 51.4.1
NIGHT DEPARTURES
Except as provided in Sections 51.4 2 to 51 A 4 inclusive, no aircraft shall depart (takeoff)
from the Airport between the hours of 11 p.m. each mght and 6:30 a m. of the following morning
on any day of the week.
SECTION 51.4.2
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT AIRCRAFT
The follo~ing categories of aircrah shall be exempt from the provisions of the SectIon
51.4.1
1. AIrcraft operated by the United States of America or the State of California.
2. Law enforcement, emergency, fire or rescue aircraft operated by any County or City
of said state.
3. Aircraft used for emergency purposes dUring an emergency which has been officially
proclaimed by competent authority pursuant to the laws of the United States, said State or the
City
~
.
1
,
e
-
1. In the reasonable opinion of the Airport Manager, the aircraft is performing
8..-ital economic functIon that cannot reasonably be performed unless a takeoff during the
prohibited hours is permitted; and
2. In the reasonable opinion of the Airport Manager, as determined by previous
ii:;.i;ng, the aircraft probably will not exceed the nOise levels set forth in Section 46.8.9.
b)
46.S.9.
Such am:raft in its departure shall not exceed the noise levels set forth in Section
SECTION 51.4.4
EMERGENCY EXEMPTION
An aircraft shall be exempt from the provisions of Section 51.4.1 if. in the reasonable
opinion of the Airport Manager, a bona fide emergency exists which requires a night departure for
the preservation of life or property; provided, however, that such aircraft in Its departure shall not
exceed the noise levels set forth in SectIon 46.8.9.
ARTICLE 5
TOUCH (AND STOP) AND GO OPERATlONS AND LOW APPROACHES
SECTION 51.5.1
TOUCH AND GO DEFINED
For purposes of this Article, a touch and go operation shall mean an action by an aircraft
consisting of a landing and departure on a runway without stopping or exiting the runway.
SECTION 51.5.2
STOP AND GO DEFINED
For purposes of this Article, a stop and go operation shall mean an action by an aircraft
consisting of a landing followed by a complete stop on the runway and a takeoff from that pomt.
SECTION 51.5.3
LOW APPROACH DEFINED
For purposes of this Article, a low approach shall mean an action by an aircraft consisting of
an approach over the Airport for a landmg where the pilot Intentionally does not make contact With
the runway.
SECTlON 51.5.4
PROHISlTED OPERATIONS ON WEEKDAYS
No touch and go operation, stop and go operation or low approach shall be permitted on
the Airport between 9 p.m. of one day and 8 a.m. of the following day. Monday through Fnday
inclusive.
SECTION 51.5.5
PROHIBITED OPERATIONS ON WEEKENDS
No touch and go operation, stop and go operation or low approach shalJ be permitted on
the Airport on Saturdays and Sundays except between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.
SECTION 51.5.6
PROHIBITED OPERATIONS ON HOLIDAYS
No touch and go operation. stop and go operation or low approach shall be permited on the
Airport except between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on any of the following holidays: New Year's Day,
Memorial Day. Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksglvrng Day and Christmas Day; prOVided,
however, that if any such holiday falls on Saturday or Sunday and, as a result a holiday IS obset'Ved
on the preceding Fnday or succeeding Monday, then such Friday or Monday, as the case may be,
shan be considered to be a holiday for purposes of thiS section.
ARTICLE 6 . AIRPORT NOISE UMITS
SECTION 51.6.1
REFERENCE TO NOISE ORDINANCE
.~
.
,
e
-
ARTICLE 7 . ENFORCEMENT
SECTION 51.7.1
DESIGNATED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
a) The Director of Transportation, the Airport Manager, Assistant Airport Manager, the
Airport Operations and Maintenance Chief, such airport workers and such other City employees as
are designated by the Alrportl Manager, with the approval of the City Manager, all acting under the
direction and control of the City Manager, shall have the duty and authority to enforce the
provisIOns of thIs Division 5 and alt other laws, rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the
Airport pursuant to the proVISions of Section 836,5 of the State Penal Code.
b} Acting under the direction and control of the City Manager, airport secUrity officers
who are peace officers shall also have the duty and authonty to enforce the prOVisions of thIS
DiVision 5 and all other laws, rules and regulations pertammg to the use of the Airport.
SECTION 51.7.2
DENIAL OF USE OF AIRPORT
a} In the event that any person has been convicted of three (3) or more cumulative
violations of the provisions of this Chapter 1, or of Sections 46.8.8 or 46.8.9 or of any other laws,
rules or regulations of the CIty. State or the United States of America pertainmg to the use of the
Airport (includmg forfeIture of bail after bemg arrested or charged by citation or complaint with
any such violation) within a three-year period, then for a period of three years thereafter, such
person shall be denied the right to land or takeoff from the Airport, except in bona fide
emergencIes for the preservation of life or property as reasonably determined by the Airport
Manager and shall be denied the right to lease, rent or use space for aircraft (including tie-down) at
the Airport insofar as the City has the right to deny such use of saId Airport.
b) For purposes of thIS Section, a determination of guilty by the Administrative
Hearing Board in accordance with the proviSIons of SectIon 51.7.4 shall have the same effect as a
conviction by a court.
SECTION 51.7.3
EXCLUSION OF VIOLATION PRONE AIRCRAFT
In the event that any aircraft has been operated by any person or persons who have
cumulatIVely been convicted of three or more vlolatJons of the prOVisions of Section 46.8.8 or
46 8.9 WIthin a three-year period {includmg forfeIture of ball after being arrested or charged by
citation or complaint with any such violation and Including a determinatJon of guilty by the
AdministratIVe Hearing Board ;n accordance With the proviSIOns ot Sectlofl 51.7.4}. then it shal1 be
presumed that operation of such aIrcraft will result in continued Violation of the provisions of
Sections 46.8 8 and 46.8.9 and such aircraft will not be permitted to land or tie-down, be based at
or takeoff from the AIrport except in emergencies as set forth in Section 51.4 2; provided, however,
that the owner or operator of such aircraft shall be entitled to rebut such presumption to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Airport Manager by furOlshmg eVIdence to the contrary including, but
not hmited to. changes In operatmg personnel, retrofitting measures, changes in engine or
maintenance.
SECTION 51.7.4
ENFORCEMENT OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS
a} In the event that any person is charged with piioting or operating or otheM'ise
causing an aircraft to exceed the smgle event nOise exposure levels (SENEL) or maximum sound
exposure levels set forth in Sections 46.88 or 46.8.9 at a place outside the City limits, the guilt or
innocence of such person shall be determined by the AdminIstrative Hearmg Board after a heanng
thereon. (See Section 12.2.1 et seq. of this Code.)
b) The charge may be made by citation in the same manner as provided for
misdemeanor citations by Section 839,"p of the State Penal yode. Otherwise, It shall be made by
complaint served on the defendant In the manner of complaints in civil cases in the Supenor Court.
..\ Th... h..",..,nn l:h::.ll hI:> t"nnrlill"'tpn in accorn:mc:p wi1'1, tlip renuirpmentl; nf due nrocess
<-
..
.
e
-
SECTION 51.7.5 UNLAWFUL TO USE AIRPORT AFTER USE DENIED
a) It shall be unlawful for any person to land an aircraft on or takeoff an aircraft from
the Airport or lease or rent space (including tie-down) for aircraft at the Airport after he has been
denied use of the Airport in accordance with the provisions of Section 51.7.2; or
b) It shall be unlawful for any person to land an aircraft on or takeoff any aircraft from
the Airport after such aircraft has been excluded from the Airport pursuant to the provisions of
Section 51.7.3.
SECTION 51.7.6
CULPABIUTY OF fNSTRUCTOR PI LOiS
In the case of any training flight in which both an instructor pilot and a student pilot are in
the aircraft which is flown in violation of any of the proviSions of thiS Chapter, the instructor pilot
shall be presumed to have caused such VIolatIon.
SECTION 51.7.7
CULPABIUTY OF AIRCRAFT OWNER OR LESSEE
For purposes of this Chapter. the beneficial owner of an aircraft shall be presumed to be the
pilot of the aircraft with authority to control the aIrcraft's operatIon. except that where the alrcrah
is leased, the lessee shall be presumed to be the pilot. Such presumption may be rebutted only if the
owner or lessee identifies the person who in fact was the pilot at the time of the asserted Violation.
SECTION 51.7.8 REGJSTRATION OF AIRCRAFT
a) The Airport Manager shall keep a register of aircraft based at the Airport. The
names, addresses and other reasonable identification. as determmed by the Airport Manager, of the
legal and benefIcial owners, the lessee (if any), the operators and the authorized pIlots of each such
aircraft shall be entered in the register.
b) For purposes of this Section. an aircraft which remains at the Airport for a period
longer than twenty-four (24) consecutIve hours or for a cumulative time of more than seventy-two
{72} hours in any thIrty (30) day period shall be deemed to be based at the Airport.
c) It shall be unlawful for any owner, lessee, operator or pilot of any aircraft based at
the Airport to fail to register such aircraft with the Airport Manager."
.
SECTION 3
Any prOVISions of the Torrance Municipal Code, or appendices thereto, or any other
ordinances of the City inconsistent herewith, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further.
are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jUrisdiction. such
decision shall not affect the validIty of the remaining portions of the ordinance. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed thiS ordinance and each section. subsection, sentence.
clause and phrase thereof. irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections. subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases be declared mvalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5
Any person violating any of the prOVIsIons of this ordinance shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof. shall be subject to a flOe not exceeding Five Hundred
Dollars (S5oo.oo) or six (6) months m the County Jail of Los Angeles County, or by both such fme
and imprisonment in the discretion of the Court.
.....
..
.
e
e
SECTION 6
This ordinance shall take effect thi~O) days after the date of its adoption and prior to
the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the passage thereof and shall be published at least once in
the Dally Breeze, a daily newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of
Torrance.
Introduced and approved this 18th day of October, 1977.
Adopted and passed this 25th day of October
, 1977.
/r:: Jltit~
/ Mayor of the City of Torrance
ATT~Z;t1<~~ tVkJ)
CIty Clerk of the City'of Torrance
APPROVED if TO FORM:
~~~L
STANLEY E: REMEL~YER
City Attorney
...
..
'.
.
e
e
,
"'
.
STATE OF CALIFOR..~IA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ss
CITY OF TORRANCE )
I, VER..~ON W. COIL, City Clerk of the City of Torrance,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution
was duly introduced, approved and adopted by the City Co~~cil
of the City o(~Torrance at a regular meeting of said Council
held on the 2::ll.h day of Octobe r , 'i 977 I by the follow-
ing roll call vote:
AYES:
COONCILMEMBERS: Armstrong, Geissert, Rossberg, \-lilscn
and ~1iller.
NOES:
COUNCIIJ.l'.EI'.1BERS: Brewster. BrONn.
ABSENT :
COUNCILMEMBERS : None..
15/ VERNON W. COI12
City Clerk of the City of Torrance
. ..
/' . ~
....
M (/ IV/ .V-VL.. Y S/ / <1 ?It
QUTL-OOk
~
{
Tou~h...And-Go Landings
(
,
i- Edltor The Santa
~ Monica CIty CounCIl has
i full authonty.. to make
~ and enforce .tdlnances
- ,JOvermng the use of the
airport One .ew or-
; -dmance IS urgently need-
~'ed a total ban on touch.
and-go landmgs Students
- '~racUC'e In endless clr-
- des over our residentIal
. neIghborhoods These
_ touch-aDd-go flIghts com-
~ -pnse 48 per cent of the
~aIrport's traffic, but they
~ause more than 75 per
kent of the nOlse_
Touch-and-go flights
are ROt only an mtotera-
. ble nUisance to aIrport
neIghbors. they are also
r1egal1y and economIcally
:_nnecessary There IS no
~FAA requirement that
l~udents make touch-and-
I'fo nights to quahfy lor a
"l(:~nse Ehmmatlng
l touch-and-go WIll not cost
(.the operators bUSiness,
~students must fly a
~r'runlmum number of
:;:.hours for wblch the
~erators Will sb11 get
Id
, Students don't need
.
1:.............. .....-""" - -
From:
touch-and-go The airport
operators don't make any
extra proftt from touch-
and-go AIrport neIghbors
cannot tolerate the nOise
generated by touch-and.
go There IS no excuse to
contmue touch-and.go
The Santa MonIca City
Councrl can go a long way
in making their aIrport a
good neighbor by
elImInating touch-and-go
Thomas J KIrwan.
Vemce
8'A
JAN 1 0 1978
cr
J:>-
::r
-i
l=o-
L
--
,
:;.
8'A
JI\N 1 0 1978
c_
-
'-'
:;:-' --r'1
"'>> JJ
---1 -:1i1
~ r:l "c;
=->
.. ... . . I '-^'-~l
,
,.....
r ';:-)-'
r~1 - ~ ,...,:;
~~.... -. ~ }
;--{ -....-
,
~
/N.D E~Ctt/L>~N-r-
-5EI-"- 23/ 19 ~
..
~t.. ,~., ..'1: 7' ,-'~. ,-~. "~ ---- :--
'- rr ouch-And-Go' NoJse
Editor: I beard only once - then
be's sone.
A touch-and-go ltu-
dent is not only repeat-
ing his noise over and
over, but his noise lasts
longer each time. Since
the Itudent is circling,
be remains over our
homes. His noise -each
circle - will be heard
for up to one minute and
SO seconds at a glveb
locauon. By contrast, an
aircraft that leaves the
8lrport is out of hearing
in 30 BeCOnds. Wlth each
circle, a touch-and..go
.tudent is making DOlse
3.67 times longer than
an aircraft leaving the
airport. But that isn't
all, students often fly
only 20 to 30 seconds
apart, forcing you to
listen to three of them
simultaneously Their
noise overlaps, and
-tbeir noise is contin-
uous.
(
Most of the noise from
the Santa Monica Air-
, port is caused by Itu-
I< dents making touch--
.J and-go landings.
1: 'lIJ'ouch-and-go" is tak-
t IDg off I llying around
; the airport in a clrcle,
l landing <the wheels Just
I barely touch the
;: JrOtmd) , '8I1d bnmed-
;. lately taking off and
~ fiymg around in another
. circle, and another eir-
... cle, and another circle,
I and...
. A touch-and..go circle
- DOrmally takes five
minutes I meaning a stu-
. dent will make that cir-
de 12 times in an hour -
~ 12 times he repeats his
noise But by cutting the
pattern abort, he can
~orten the tune to four
-mmutes and 15 seconds,
livmg him 14: circles In
an hour. That's 14 tunes
be repeats tus noise By
t contrast, an aircraft
I leaving the .u-port is
t ..J--
(
THOMAS J. KIRWAN
Vernee
-