Loading...
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 -