Loading...
sr-022674-7a3~«~.< ~, ~. ~'~. ~~._ T0: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff r„gyp-~_p r.'~ /4 TNIS ~IJ~JgT gE RETURNEb TO THE ClYY-CLERK'S OFFICE Santo Monica, California F bru~~ryG15, 1974 G ~ b ~`I SUBJECT: Noise-abatement measures at Santa Monica Municipal Airport Introduction; This report is pursu~±nt to consideration and endorsement, by the Airport Commis- sion, of certain additional noise-abatement measures at Santa Monica Municipal Airport, in the irter~st of aircraft noise abatement in the vicinity of the airfieid. Beekgraund• In the interests of the further reduction of aircraft noise in the vicinity of Santa Monica Municipal Airport, without compromise x~ith safety, the Airport Cam- mission--in $ddition to the J°t ban, the "Hfl JET11 signe, and the forthcoming noise- monitoring system, leas endorsed the foll.o~ring additional noise-zabatement measures; 1. Es tabl3sh `displaced thresholds' for landing aircraft of approximately 900' at both ends of the runway. This will hg a budget item consideration in the 1974- 7~ budget, 2. Prohibit any and all °mid-field' departures in order for aircrffift to ofrtain msxia€a¢~~ possible altitude before crossing the airport L'oundaries, J. ""Get_tough" policy with €;ny pilot t.,ho ~ail£ully sad repez~tc.dly violates airport rt:gula2tions. {See attached Airport l~irector'e letter to the To*~aer Chief, and Toy±ar Chief's x•eply. 4. l;estrict all h~:lieopter training to that axleich can by cents°,: at~d F?itl-,i.n thn confi;sus of the: Airport bouatdaries, i. e., ~pecif£:r::all,s c:~f- th4 north taxicray. /~ Tdor:~al 11c~lieoptr.x departures or 1ardings v;ould ;sot b€~ €+ffectt:e, hu`seevor. T0: Mayor and City Council "2' February 15, 1974 S. Further restriction® on 'Touch and @o' operations-were not reeommended as it was determined by the Airport Commission that said restriction would not reduce noise or traffic, but would increase aircraft operational cost. Alternative solution&; None Recommended Reco*mnendatian; The additional noise-abatement measures outlined above, Prepared by; C. ~. Fitsgerald OI~'Y OF Clyde V. Fitzgerald p.irport .L7irestor ~ ~,,, ~~ ~.,.~.~ ah ~ ~i February 7, 1974 i-lr. I~rry Morton, Chief ?.A.A. Control Tower S».nta Ffonica, California Subject: Alleged violation of established safety-and noise- abatement procedures for Santa Monica Airport. ~ ~;. ~;' CALIFORNIA ivIUNICIPAL AIRPORT (Clover Field) 3200 Airport Avenue EXbroo)z 7.2613 1. Ga'Ii~2never, or if at any time, it becomes apparent to the Control Tocaer operritars that we hav Apilot-jockey on our hands who seem to havU the idea that the 3asita Monica Airport safety and noise abatwrocnt ra:s;ulations are ssi2intained for everybody but him, if your office will iuu~eda.ately furnish me with the aircraft number, make of aircraft, date and type of violation, I will call said pilot in for an attitude adjustment conference. Failing corrective action on behalf of the pilot will leave me no alternative but to deny the pilot further use of the airport. A kncw sae both are aware that the majority of pilots---and pilot trx~isaecs, are af.ncere and earnest in observance of our airport regulations. It i> only. the nominal few who. generate the major problems for the majority who *.r~.nt to, and clo, comply. pear I~rry; This is pursuant to the above subject and the concern, by rosident~i a:urroun~ing the field, that the regulations are not, in certain instances, awin,~r, ., vigorously enforced as should be by the appropriate authorities. Z know that we both are aware that the Federal Aviation Adminis- trs.t3.on ;pre-empty the control of all aircraft flights, over local re„gulatiora. Tlxere is one local control procedure however, that Z believe we can effectively er-.erciae over any flagrant or repetitious violation of any of the above regulations. That procedure is as follows: .,carry „orton, Chief, F.A. A: ^towor h Paso 2 February 7, 197~r Z sincerely ~.ble to aleviato so hope, harry, f that with our joint cooperatio n Fae Sri,'.;: ~ ma o the problems faci:~; Santa Monica Airport tod.,y, Sincerely, ~~ ~~ r' ~"~ ~ ~ - " ~ 7 ~ ~ rimer ,.fi ,r r. v.. ~ 9~~ n ~ / Airport Direc~or "" '-"°' CC: to City Manager Czty Council Airport Com<niaaion membeza u._i r 111'J'i t_I i l i.Vi~ 1 1\1~i11V J'+~' VYY Y i`~'v tl'131V /ICIr\L i"i'JI~V 1U1i }71~i:ii iYJ~~}1~Yi%i~l AIRPORT TRAFFIC COId'PROL ^101T;I7 ~A„~ once: February 12, 1974 SANTA DiOIdICA ,`/i[TNICIPA"L AIRP03T /o~`~ ~L ~%~;, iu eEPw SA1vTA Ni01~IICA, CA 90405 ' ` ` ~ ~~" RcFnR TO: ~~ ~.._.~ xii r ~ J 2,% suarec: lu.leged violation of established safety and noise abatement o~~"~5~=°~~~ procedures for Santa Monica Airport .o: ir. Clyde V, i~itzgerald, Airport Director Sawa l~;onicat4~niicipal :airport >GU L:irport Avenue Sa:zta ionica, Ct; 90405 tCF~R:N'C~:: Your letter, dated February, 7, 1974. Coed afternoon Clyde arsuant to the above referenced letter, I am rorriting a facility order instructing the controllers to make the reports as requested, this procedure will bo fol].owod at all timoa tower staffing and worle' load porr~Li'ts, however, uo can not l.ISSUmo these additional duties on a mondatorv basis since our primary concern is Air Traffio Control. ide will attempt to determine aircraft altitude on those aircraft 4%rdch appear low, by requesting this information from the pilot.. We ~~r_il_ continue advising these aircraft of the recommended altitudes to be flocnz both north (1500') and south (1200') of the airport. is you snow, wo have for some time been advising pattern traffic to cli:ab over the VOR and the golf course and~or to avoid flying below reco~,m.erded altitudes over noise sensitive areas. I.l;o..ld appreciate you having a simple log form printed, with columns for i;ne information you request; 'this irould make our reporting procedure wziform, ..• ~~ 1 .,,;~~~1%U.;,.ct iaorrence P, Morton Fuciiity Gilief, Santa Monica Tower cc: A~~=542, Operations Branch ;l;~;_7, Regional Counsel ~: r Santa Monica City Council Santa Monica, California Ladies and Gentlemens 733 Appleby Street Venice, California March 3, 1g74 Yau are about to consider measures to reduce noise at your .airport. I made three recommendations to you in November which I believe would eliminate about ~~~ of the noise. So far, no action has been taken. The 83,000 people who live around your airport, both in Los Angeles a.nd Santa Monica, must have imr;.ediate relief---vac have waited far too long already,. About two weeks ago, it was loudly announced that the airport rules would b® strictly enforced, '~+'hen does this alleged enforcement begin? There is a rule that aircraft must reach Lincoln Blvd. AND a minimum altitude of 888 feet before turning crosswind. In those two weeks, there has been a marked INCREASE in violaticns of that rule. I have -seen planes turn as far East as walgrove Avenue. Are those pilots daring you to make them obey? You already know that you can not depend on the FAA control tower to enforce the rules---it is up to yau. I suggest that you station a police officer at the west end of the airport, with a good pair of b.inooui.ars, He should take the license number of every aircraft violating the rules, and issue a misdemeanor complaint against the aircraft°s owners this is already possible under Article X of the Municipal Code. A few court appearances may stop the violations. You have been told that eliminating student vaill not reduce noise or traffic, That is n who have been making that claim do not live They don't know what they're talking about, takeoff flight pattern---those students are least 2/3 of the noise. .touch-and-gc landings ~t true, The individuals anywhere near the airnnrt: I live directly under the half the traffic and at Flight school operators tell you that their students are required to make touch-and-go landings to qualify far a license, That is not true. The FAA does r_ot requ~.re any specific maneuver---onl.;yr a minim,zm number of hours. The maneuvers a student performs are entirely ;:p to the individual flight instructor. PRG}{IBIT TOUCH-AND-GC. Your Municipal Code new prohibits aircraf Santa AO1:1CG.p but tells them to turn left probably illegal----yau_ are discriminating t from turning right c~•er over Los Angeles. This is against Z,os A ~. eles ® a~~ D Santa Monica City Council, sht 2 March 3, 1974 residents and violating our civil .rights by denying us equal protection of the law. CHANGE THE FLIGHT PATTERN TO REQUIRE ALL AIRCRAFT TO REACH THE OCEAN BEFORE TURNING IN EITHER DIRECTION. Your airport operates 24 hours a day---aircraft take off during the night, disturbing the sleep of surrounding residents. LIMIT AIRPORT OPERATIONS TO DAYTIME HOURS ONLY. A local FAA °iofficial" keeps telling you that you have no authority over the. flight. pattern; that you have no control over aircraft "after the wheels leave the ground°'. That is not true. You, as the elected City Council, have full authority to determine and enforce the flight pattern and all other rules of YOUR airport. I am enclosing copies of the FAA Regulatory Docket No. 9071, otherwise known as "The Dreifus Decision", issued in Washington D. C., July 10, 1969, This Decision has the force of Law, and has-been upheld. in the Courts, including the Supreme Court of New-York. EXERCISE YCUR AUTHORITY AND TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR AIRPORT. Your airport, as it is presently operated, is a public nuisances The airport is YOUR problem: you have the legal authority to solve it, and the moral responsibility to do so. If you can't make your. airport a good neighbor, then close it. Sincerely----an- determined. /~ ~-~~~ Thomas J. Kirwan €- .. r e... .. `.• J UNITED. STATES OF A,~IEf.ICA FEDERAL AVIATI0;7 AD?tIaIST1LATI0Y DEPA.RZitE`T OF TI:7. St Oi~TATI0i2 LIASAINGTON, D. C. ' ~Y vE 9r 4e. x 4e de ~F eY it ~k 9r x k ie ~ ~4 Ae 9r 4e x t2 4e . . - ~ ~ In the matter of the petition of JORDAN A. DREIFUS _ is • *.• to amend the Fedcrai Aviation Regulations ~~ Regulatory Dock:•C 17a. 5071 to prescribe aircraft noise regulations x for turbojet aircraft operations at the Santa Pfonica, California Ph:n3cinal Airport * ' ~ ' .eY eF * * x :k is ~Y ~Y 4e ~. ~'c x a- x 9e 4r 9c 4e is s: x k DENIAL OF PETITION By letter dated July 19, 1968, and: supporting letters dated September 3, 1968, October 1, 1968, January 27, 1969, Pfarch 3, 1964, ffiarch 6, 1969, i•farch I8, 1969, and ?4ay 24, 1969, Jordan A. Drei.fus, on his o:an behalf, petitioned for rule making to a~uend the Federal Aviation Regulations to prescribe noise restrictions and limitations for turbojet aircraft operating at the Santa ,fonica 2•iunici.pal Airport. ' In support of his recuest,~petitioner makes the following arguments (here condensed): (1) Petitioner's residence near the airport is becoming exposed to increasing turbojet aircraft traffic and resin=ing noise. (2) Other. airport neighbors are suing the airport seeking damages based on aircraft noise.. (3) The FAA has ,the authority under section 307 of the Federal Aviation Act to issue noise standards governing the flight of aircraft at the airport. , (G) New section 611 of the Federal Aviation Acr givss the Fe+.~1 tae duty to issue noise standards governing the flight of aircraft ' at the airport.. . (S) New section 611 of the Federal Avia*_ion Act has probably obliterated all State or local authority to issue se:ca re,ulations. a F' 3 t (6) (~) ($) Z The exclusive jurisdiction of the FAA in t}ie field of aircraft noisy abatement was upheld in the case of American Airline:,-Inc, vs. Town'af Flemostead, 2%2 Fed, Supp, 226.{1966). Under Agency Order 7110.13, entitled "Aircraft -Noise Abatesent Programs," the FAA has instituted voluntary noise abatement procedures for airports including runway use restrictions, air traffic control procedures, and routings where compatible 'With safety. Failure of the FAA to issue restrictions at Santa Ma^.iea and other airports would a'_locr the State. and local governments to issue their own airport use restrictions. The restrictions would result in chaos, confusion, interference and obstruction to aircraft aperations, which cculd be contrary to the national interest. The Iocal restrictions could be azbitrary, unreasonable,.2nd obscure, and could discriminate against "general aviation" as distinct from interstate commercial carriage or 3°air transportation," Aside from resulting in Iiti.gation, local discrimination against "general aviation".would be contrary to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. . (9) Failure of the FA_A to issue noise abatement regulations for Santa Monica. and other airports . xaould be incompatible with the primary reason for- tl~e Feder~~7, t1_v7,3~%4n Apt Qt 1.95, wt??.Fii i~rr~s tke uaiifieatian of the control of aircraft operations in a single Federal agency to assure safety and the orderly development of aviation. (lOj State and local noise abatement restrictions wouid not be effective because of the uncertainty with which they teauid be met by the courts: Petitioner states that a Santa Monica municipal regulation concerning aircraft noise at the airport was recently declared invalid by a State court, (11) The FAA has the authority to zestrict the use of Wasnington National Airport. Petitioner supplements the aoove arguments with noise e::posure 3ata developed by a consultiro firm, a reference to noise levels specified in FAA Notice of Proposed Rule Ma'.tin,; G9-1, the relationship of these figures to a Santa i.anica Airport noise report, and newspaper articles concerning the severity of the airport noise problem. ° 3 Petitioner makes two basic requests, (1) a general rcyucst to 'issue any aircraft noise regulations "as may be necessary or appro- priatc in the circumstances" to relieve the noise burden on the neighbors of the Santa Monica Airport,-and (2) a specific request . to restrict the hours of operation of turbojet aircraft at l-he airport, as was attempted by the City of Santa Plonica in the ordinance that petitioner states was held invalid by the State Court. With respect to petitioner's first, general request, the FAA $as, in fact, implemented Order 7110.13 {cited by petitioner} with • respect to the Santa .*Ionica Airport, in cooperation with the Gity of Santa i';onica. This has involved (1) the use of a noise abatement runway when permitted by wind conditions;.{2) +.he use of a noise abatement departure path to avoid congested areas; and (3) the use of raised traffic patterns. Zn addition, the FAA monitors the con- ditions at the airport in order to anticipate new noise problems, or possible solutions, at the airport. Further, section 91.87 of Yart 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations prescribes noise abatement approach, departure, and runway requirements that must be complied with by turbine-pos~ered and large airplanes. 3eyond these rules, and the FAA's monitoring of the Santa Monica Airport under the FAA -0rder, the FAA believes that further relief from aircraft noise should involve airport use restrictions similar to those that petitioner states were issued in the Santa ;ignite City Ordinance. In short, the FAA at present does not kr.gv? of and actiop, short of the typz attempted by Santa Monica, r.,ar r.,iii satisfy the needs o£ the neighbors of the airport or supply the relief requested.- In light of the above, petitioner's general • request far rule making not of the kind attempted by the City of Santa Y,onica is hereby denied. In support of petiti'oner's specific request for time limitations, ' similar to those attempted by the City of Santa lignite, petitioner slates tl',at such rules "would avoid a major area of possible dispute with surrocnding residents." The FAA agrees that nondiscriminatory time restrictions may be an effective and appropriate means of ad„pting i aircraft noise to the needs of 1aca1 communities. Petiti.ener states # that the "final question for consideration is: what level of government has the po:aer to so. regulate or restrict aircraft operations? and what level of government should be the proper level to exercise such power?" With regard to the existence of Federal po:aer to substitute its judgment for chat of the local govern:~,ents who own and operate airports, the FrW ~ agrees with petitioner (see petitioner's arguments 3 and 4 above) thak the Federal Aviation Act provides broad po:aers in the field of aircraft noise abatement. ~ Hocaever, with respect to the question as to which,ler•el. of govern- • went would be the proper one to deny the use of airports to aircraft on the basis of ncise ccnsiderations {as would be involved in the requested time limitations}, the FAA does not agree with petitioner .. . that new section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act has obliterated-the authority o` State or local governa:ent proprietors of airports, (sec petitioner's argument S above). To the contrary, Senate Report 1353, Aircraft Noise Abatement, July 1, 1968, (concerning Public Law 90-411, IL R. 3.00, July 2i, 1968, which added new section 611 to the Federal A~*iatioa E.ct of 1958) rakes the folio;ping state;,ient of. Congressional intent concerning the relation of the new. legislation to local govern .ant initiatives, a~ld in so doing adopts verbatita " views expressed by the Secretary of Transportaticn in his letter to the Senate Comr„ittee Of June 22, 1968 (emphasis supplied}; 'The courts have held that the Federa:. Govern- 'tzent presently preempts the field of noise regulation-insofar as it involves controlling . the flight of aircraft, Local noise control, legislation limiting the permissible noise level of all overflying aircraft has recea*_Iy been struck do .-n because it conflicted with Federal regulation of aiY traffic. American Airlines v. Tc;m of Harostead, 272 F. Supp. 226 (I3,S,D,C~, E,D., ti.Y., 1966). The court said, at 231, 'Tha legislation operates in an area co.,-aitted to Federal care, and noise limiting rules operating as do those of the ordinance must come from a Federal source.' 13,12. 3400 would merely expand the Federal Government's role in a field already preempted, . It cronld not .change this pree-ption. State and local kc.vera~:=_nts wi_1 remain enable to use Their notice noeaers to control aircraft noise by renulatin^ the flight of aircraft, 1lowever, the proposed legislation will not affect the rights of a State or local public agency, as th.^_ ~ronrietor of ~.-~ airno_t> fro;n issuing regulations or establishing requirer..ents as to the permissible level of noise which can be created by aircraft using the airport. P.irpert o:aners ac*_ing s nroorietars can presently deny the use of their airports to aircraft cn the basis o£ noise considerations so long as such exclusion is nondiscriminatory. Just as an airport o;;ner is responsible for de- ciding how long the runways trill be, so is'the oc~ner responsible for outaining noise easem_nts necessary to persait the landing and takeoff of the aircraft. The Federal. Govcrn~ent is in no position to require an airport-to accept service by larger aircrafl-,and, for that pur- pose, to obtain longer run;:ays. `Likewise, the ' .Federal Goverra.euL- is in no position to require an airport to accept service by noisier aircraft, and for that purpose to obtain additional noise easements. The issue is the se-vice desired by' thn airporto:m cr and file ..tens it is willinz_ this issue, he Feder<^.1 Goverrmtnt si;cul.d not substitute its icd^r ~~: for ti',t o~ tt:-e 5t2tes or el.ec•~nts of local. covcrn^eat caho, nor the most part, o::;t .;:d on~rate ocr i:ation°s airports. The Droposcd 1c~isiation is rot desiened to do this and caul not -rz*:cr,t airport proprietors £rom excludine arv aircraft' cn the basis of noise The 8ro2der policy behind the above quoted letter of June 22, 1968, was earlier stated, ir, other terms, in the Secretary's letter of 2•farch 1, 1968, to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Co:amerce of the ;louse of Representatives (emphasis supplied): local cammuaities should, if not inconsistent Frith overriding national interest, have the option to determine the effects of transports- • Lion on t:aeir environment The exercise of this and other authority by ' local cor~aunities should eontinue. Local co:nmunitics select airport sites and determine Frhere they best cviil serve co-•.~,unity reeds. They bear the responsibility for insuring co~- patible land use in the airport environs. They have the necessary proaotional, proprietary, planning and land use au'lioriti_es to carry out _ this responsibility. They have a very inf-luen- tiai voice in determining tt7e type of service they want through their appearances in route proceedings before the CA3. In shortisiven the ' limits imposed by <,erenautical tec:nolo_v, th_e com.~unity can and should continue to bear a heavy share or the responsibility ior~assurinc t coa;aatibi7.ity of she air service they sec'c ~~d eniov with the e:rairon-:ental cbjactives of the cocraunity_. Based on thz above guidelines, pet itioaer~s remaiuiag arguments (see above) supporting,L'ederaliy issoefi tine rastrictions at the ~_. i 6 Santa ilonica Airport must be answered as follows: Petiti.oaer's argument 5, stating th<^.t new secticn 611 has probably obliterated all State and local auL-hority to .issue such reoulati.ors is .not correct. I•:hile States may not-use their police power to regulate in any spay the flight of aircraft for noise pur- poses, State and local governr.,en~al proprietors of airports may deny the use of their airports to aircraft on the basis of noise .considerations so ions as such exclusion is nondiscriminatory. Petitioner's argument 6, implying that the rase of P.merican Airlines, Tnc. v. Tccm of fieanstead requires that the FBu1 issue tir„e limitations for the Santa 4oaica airport is not supportable. While this case stated that noise limiting rules operating as those of the Her,:pstead ordinance must cor..e free a Federal source, ethe material cuoted from the Senate Report distinguished such ordinanoes from the action taken, by airport proprietors, to exclude aircraft, using their airports, because of noise considera- bons, The He-,;pstead ordinance was not an .action taken by an airport proprietor to exclude aircraft from the airport. . Petiti©ner's argument S, describing the adverse effects of Local airport use restrictions is not supported by any facts or ~x ~Ei3ci?C._ ii:i~:;rr f0 I:f10 1'.~av5, lhi.6 fOPCi? OL ~OGL~ iy 108t7CR01?'•~ IIO.u`E ~ . .control is clearly in the national interest in the light of the quoted portion of the Senate Report. Further,.-there is no indication that the noise restrictions Yequired by petitioner would be discri_rninatively applied. Petitioner's argument 9, covering the unification objective of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, is correct insofar as it describes the need for a single Federal agency in the field of the safe,orderly 'developr.;ent of aviation. Hoorever, the Senate Report makes it clear that, just as the Fr`.A recognizes the proprietary interest of airport aperators by not requiring an airport to accept service, so it should ,.recognize the proprietary interest of airport operators by rot substituting its jud~mert, so far as acceptance~of noisy aircraft by the airport is conceived, for that of the State or local govern~antal .elements that ocan and operate the nation's airports. Petitioner's argument 10, covering the uncertainty crith which State and local .^.oise rules would be met by the`courts, must be answered directly from the congressional intent. expressed in the Senate P.eport: any action Y.hat would prevent gay public airport proprietor from taking any nondiscriminatory action to exclude aircraft on the basis of noise considerations would appear to conflict with that . , _-_ ,_ - - _~ .,-_ _ .7 express congressional intent, In any case, as stated above, the senate fieport states that the Federal Governrt^_nt should not sub- stitute its judgment io, t-hat of public airport proprietors on -the issue of the service desired .by those proprietors and their resulting judgments concerning the locally determined need to _ accept or exclude aircraft on the basis of noise considerations, Petitioner s argument 11 operations at ty'ashiagtoa Rational Airport isanotovalidtsincetthet F~1 is the proprietor of that airport. Such action by the FAA would nit be a substitution of its judgment for that of a state or local g®veraciaatal proprietor. Althouvh no hA.4 regulation concerning the 1°cal Santa iioaica air- p ort noise Problem is appropriate at this time for the reasons mentioned above, it should be noted, as stated in Sotice 69-1 that the FAA is - s tudying verious types of operating rules fo levels around airports - r obtaining optimum noise appropriate rules caa beadevalotedwhere such study indicates that of proposed rule maI{inp ~ p ~ theY gill be issued as a notice o ,Or pi,i'p 1lC COu.^,ent. Tn considaration of the foregoing,. Z find that the requested rule making under sections 307 and 611 of the Federal Aviation Act would not be is the public interest and that is not justified, - t're iastitLtion of rule making ~~eretore, in accordance with sections 11..73 and i1.~7 of Fart 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the petition of .7oxdaa A. Dreifus for rule marring under sections 307 and 611 of the Foderal Aviati°a Aot, respeotively, is hereby denied, a-91,.-° ~ P, . " s ~ "w/i~'x ~,/'1, D. D. Thomas Acting Administrator Issued in Washington, D. C, oa ~ p JOL ~VJ9