SR-11-G
Santa Monica,
II G
AUG 1 2 1980
Callfornla
.0.
4 e
CA:SSS:se
Council Meetlng 08/12/80
1tJt?".- 009' .....V'3 e
STAFF REPORT
6I
SfP 9 1980
TO: Mayor and Clty Councll
FROM: Clty Attorney
SUBJECT: Alrport NOlse Abatement
INTRODUCTION
ThlS report dlscusses problems of abatlng alrcraft nOlse
durlng the pendency of NBAA v. Clty of Santa Monlca, In WhlCh
Unlted States Dlstrlct Judge Irvlng Hlll en]olned the Clty from
enforclng lts 85 declbel (dB) Slngle Event ~oise Exposure Level
(SENEL) ordlnance pendlng a trial on the merlts. We recommend
that, after conslderatlon by the Alrport Commlss1on, the Council
re-enact, as an lnterlm measure, the Clty'S 100 dB SENEL ordlnance,
strengthened by some procedural fea~ures.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In SMAA v. Clty of Santa Monlca, 481 F. Supp. 927 (C.D.
Cal. 1979), Judge Hl1l upheld the City's 100 SENEL Ilffilt and
three other nQ1Se abatement measures, whlle strlklng down the
Clty'S Jet ban. Shortly thereafter, the Clty repealed the 100 SENEL
ordinance lmposlng an 85 SENEL I1mlt. Before the new ordlnance
became effectlve, Judge Hlll prellmlnarlly en]olned lts enforce-
ment ln NBAA v. Clty, prlmarlly on the grounds that the new ordl-
nance constltuted an evaS10n and avoldance of his rullng en-
]Olnlng the enforcement of the Jet ban. Whlle the partles to the
.sr
SEP 9 1S80
II G
AU6 1 2 1980
.
~
~
lawsuit agreed that there was no legal impediment to the ma~ntenance
of a 100 SENEL lim~t dur~ng the pendency of the lawsu~t, there ~s
no Slngle Event Noise restrict~on currently ~n effect.
Recently, two early model Lear]ets, one from New Jersey, one
from Arlzona, landed at and took off from the municlpal a~rport.
These a~rcraft reglstered 108 declbels on the City's meter, and
generated numerous ~ompla~nts from ~rate citlzens. There can be
no reasonable dlspute that aircraft generatlng that much n02se con-
stltute an lntolerable nUlsanCE. Unfortunately, as there is no
SENEL law in effect, the owners and p~lots of the offendlng alr-
craft cannot be prosecuted. Moreover, even ~f the 100 SENEL was
in effect, obtalnlng a conv~ction agalnst the offending pllots would
be d2ff~cult, because they are not subject to the Jur~sdlctlon of
the Callfornla courts unless and until they return to the state.
A crlIDlnal complalnt can be flied and a warrant obtalned; however,
the defendant must be personally served within the state by a peace
offIcer or surrender hlmself to the court before the case may be
concluded.
PROPOSED SOLUTION
It is proposed that, durlng the pendency of the Iltigatlon
over the 85 SENEL, the Clty re-enact the 100 SENEL as an lnter~m
measure and provlde for lts enforcement by adrnlnlstratlve and C1Vl1,
as well as crlminal proceedlngs. The baslc features of the pro-
posal are as follows:
1) The 100 SENEL limlt, exactly as upheld in SMAA v. CIty,
would be re-enacted to be effectlve durlng the pendency of
-2-
-,
It
e
- .
serVlce of process on non-residents who are involved
~n motor vehlcle accldents, and has been upheld by the
Un~ted States Supreme court in Hess v. Pawloski,
274 U.S. 352 (l927).
6) It 15 proposed that an emergency ordlnance be adopted,
to remaln ln effect unless and untll the 85 dB SENEL llm1t
18 no longer en]olned. The ordinance should be clearly
delineated as an interim measure intended to restore the
status quo prior to the prelxminary inJunction, and should
not be codifled.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may adopt the proposed ordinance immedlately,
may dlrect the Clty Attorney to prepare one after rece1ving comments
from the Airport Comm1sslon, may modify the terms of the ordlnance,
or may choose not to enact any lnterim nOlse l~mlt.
Under no Clrcumstances should the Council adopt an SENEL
Ilmlt lower than 100 declbe1s prior to a decislon in NBAA v. Clty.
Such an actlon might seriously prejudlce the Cityfs position ln
that case.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Clty Attorney be
dlrected to prepare an emergency ordlnance lncorporating the
SlX proposed points, subrnlt lt to the Alrport Commlsslon for its
August 14, 1980 meeting, and present lt for lntroduction and
adoption at the August 26, 1980 Council meet1ng.
Prepared by: Stephen Shane Stark
-4-