L. B. Council Adopts Tough Noise Limits for Jet Flights

The City Council has unanimously approved a plan to control expansion of the Long Beach Airport by imposing strict noise limits for adjacent residential areas.

If the limits are adhered to, the number of daily commercial flights can be increased on a quarterly basis from the current 18 to a maximum of 32.

The plan is scheduled to become city law in 45 days. However, both federal and city officials said that the plan might be challenged in court by the Federal Aviation Administration and several airlines.

An FAA spokesman said Wednesday that he was disappointed with the council’s decision to override the recommendations of a citizens’ task force that had proposed 41 daily commercial flights at the airport.

The spokesman, Edward P. Faberman, FAA deputy chief counsel, said that a preliminary FAA review shows that the council’s decision is “not justified.” He said, however, that he would review the plan to see whether it should be challenged in court.

On July 28, the plan also must be approved by a U.S. district judge who three years ago struck down a prior city ordinance regulating airport noise.

City Officials Hopeful

This time, however, city officials said they hope the new plan will survive legal challenges.

City Atty. John C. Calhoun, who helped draft the plan, said it “certainly will be challenged” in court. “It’s just anybody’s guess as to how it will be decided,” he said.

Although the plan allows a maximum of 32 flights, council members Edd Tuttle and Tom Clark said they doubted that figure would ever be reached.

While the plan would penalize the airport’s current airlines for not reducing average noise levels to a 65-decibel limit in adjacent residential areas, it offers little incentive for those existing airlines to continue reducing noise from their aircraft. The plan says that if the 65-decibel limit is adhered to, up to two daily flights can be added on a quarterly basis. Under the plan, however, those additional flights would first be offered to new airlines, rather than airlines currently using the airport.

The plan drew objections from one airline that now uses the airport.

Lou Cancelmi, a spokesman for Alaska Airlines Inc., said company officials were “upset that apparently from a practical standpoint . . . incumbents do not receive any of the increase” in flights.

More Flights Wanted

“It seems unfair,” Cancelmi said. Alaska Airline now has three daily flights out of Long Beach and would like more, Cancelmi said.

The 65-decibel average limit is slightly louder than noise from a nearby freeway. The current average decibel limit in the residential area surrounding the airport now exceeds 65 decibels, council members said. Noise in the average Long Beach residential area is about 50 decibels, or the noise level of light traffic approximately 100 feet away.

If the noise level is not reduced, the plan calls for decreasing the number of daily commercial flights from 18 to approximately 16, council members said (a flight is defined as a takeoff and a landing). Airport noise can be decreased if quieter planes are used and if pilots reduce noise during takeoffs, council members said.

“It’s entirely up to the airlines in terms of the planes they use and the takeoff and landing methods they employ,” said Clark, whose fourth district is greatly affected by aircraft noise. “If they (airlines) stay with the same mix there will be cutbacks” in daily flights.

FAA spokesman Faberman, however, said that the current fleet of aircraft at the airport is “one of the quietest fleets in the world.”

“I’m not sure what more could be done” to reduce airport noise levels, Faberman said.

The council Tuesday also approved fines for airlines that violate the noise limits of up to $5,000 per occurence, instead of the current fine of $300. The plan calls for a warning for the first violation, a fine of $3,000 for the second violation and $5,000 for subsequent violations.

Under the plan, when the average decibel limit is exceeded, the airlines with the highest average noise level would lose two daily flights.

In approving the plan, council members said they were fighting to keep local control over development of the airport in the face of pressures from the FAA and airlines to increase commercial flights.

“We have thousands of people out there who should be able to enjoy their sleep at night,” Tuttle said.

No Federal Money

As proof of their seriousness, council members also decided Tuesday that beginning next year, the city will no longer accept an annual federal grant of $500,000 under the federal Airport Improvement Program.

“The sooner the city can get over its dependence on federal grants, the sooner we’re going to be able to determine what the future of this airport can be,” Tuttle said.

The city, however, would still be bound by current grant agreements to cooperate with the FAA for the next 20 years, council members acknowledged.

City officials have been attempting to draft legally defensible noise standards for the airport since 1983, when former a city ordinance governing airport noise was struck down by U.S. District Judge Laughlin Waters. The judge allowed an increase from 15 to 18 daily commercial flights at the airport after six airlines sued the city.

Arbitrary Controls

The judge criticized the former airport noise ordinance as arbitrary and not supported by sufficient technical data. He gave the city until a July 28 hearing to draft new regulations. The council then appointed a task force to study airport noise and produce the data on which new regulations could be based.

Last December, the task force recommended increasing daily flights to 41, but that drew objections from council members, who were bombarded with complaints about airport noise from hundreds of residents. Nearly 600 residents have filed airport damage claims against the city totaling $160 million.