Noise Element - LA City Planning · noise management and are consistent with state and federal...

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

NOISE ELEMENT

i

Noise Elementof the Los Angeles City General Plan

City Plan Case No. 97-0085Council File No. 96-1357

Adopted by the City Council February 3, 1999Approved by the City Planning Commission November 12, 1998

An Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, theCity of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability, and uponrequest, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to itsprograms, services and activities.

iii

City of Los AngelesRichard Riordan, Mayor

City Council1st District — Mike Hernandez

2nd District — Joel Wachs3rd District — Laura N. Chick

4th District — John Ferraro5th District — Michael Feuer6th District — Ruth Galanter

7th District — Richard Alarcón8th District — Mark Ridley-Thomas

9th District — Rita Walters10th District — Nate Holden

11th District — Cindy Miscikowski12th District — Hal Bernson

13th District — Jackie Goldberg14th District — Richard Alatorre15th District — Rudy Svorinich

City Planning CommissionPeter M. Weil, President

Robert L. Scott, Vice PresidentMarna Schnabel

Nicholas H. StonningtonJorge Jackson

Los Angeles City Planning DepartmentCon Howe, Director of Planning

Franklin P. Eberhard, Deputy DirectorGordon B. Hamilton, Deputy Director

Robert H. Sutton, Deputy Director

Citywide Planning DivisionR. Ann Siracusa, ACIP, Principal City Planner

Noise Element Revision StaffAnne V. Howell, City Planner

Graphics Services SectionRey Hernandez, Graphics Designer III

Louie Angeles, CartographerJoyce Odell, Cartographer

v

Introduction___________________________________________ xiii

Chapter I - Background _________________________________ 1-1

Planning Area ______________________________________________ 1-1

Demographics ______________________________________________ 1-1

California State Noise Element Requirements _____________________ 1-1

CONTENT

NOISE MEASUREMENT AND STANDARDS

INSULATION STANDARDS

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

IMPLEMENTATION

Element Scope _____________________________________________ 1-2

ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED

Chapter II - Existing Conditions, Noise Impact Issues __________ 2-1and Noise Management History

Introduction ________________________________________________ 2-1

Building Sound Insulation and Nuisance Noise ___________________ 2-2

CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION _________________________________ 2-2

CITY NOISE ORDINANCES _____________________________________________ 2-3

ZONING AND LAND USE _______________________________________________ 2-3

BUILDING SOUND INSULATION REGULATIONS ____________________________ 2-5

NUISANCE NOISE ____________________________________________________ 2-5

Building Mechanical EquipmentDisturbing The PeaceCity Park FacilitiesBarking DogsCommercial VehiclesEmergency Vehicles

Table of Contents

vii

Automotive Vehicles _________________________________________ 2-6

VEHICLE EMISSIONS

STREET NOISE

FREEWAY NOISE

Rail Systems _______________________________________________ 2-8

RAILROADS _________________________________________________________ 2-8

Jurisdictional AuthorityNoise IssuesAlameda Corridor Project

NEW RAIL SYSTEMS __________________________________________________ 2-9

Train And Light Rail NoiseSubway Noise And Vibration

Aircraft and Airports ________________________________________ 2-11

JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY _________________________________________ 2-11

FederalStateLocalAirport Land Use CommissionCity Of Los AngelesSummary

REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS _______________________________________ 2-12

Environmental AssessmentFederal Aviation Regulations Part 36 (FAR Part 36)California Airport Noise StandardsAirport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (FAR Parts 91 and 161)Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150 (FAR Part 150)California Noise Insulation StandardsLocal Noise Compatibility Programs

HELICOPTERS ______________________________________________________ 2-15

Planning Commission And Fire Department PermitsHelicopter Noise

AIRPORTS IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA __________________________________ 2-16

LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (LAX) ___________________________ 2-18

LAX ZoningLAX Noise ManagementLAX - FAR Part 150 And LAWA Compatibility ProgramsLAX - Community Plan Noise IssuesLAX Plan

ix

VAN NUYS AIRPORT (VNY) ____________________________________________ 2-23

VNY ZoningVNY Noise ManagementVNY - Community Plan Noise IssuesVNY Plan

BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA AIRPORT (BUR) ________________________ 2-25

BUR Noise ManagementBUR - Community Plan Noise IssuesBUR Plan

SANTA MONICA AIRPORT (SMO) ______________________________________ 2-27

SMO - Community Plan Noise IssuesSMO Noise Management

WHITEMAN AIRPORT ________________________________________________ 2-31

Whiteman Noise ManagementWhiteman Zoning And Community Plan

ENDNOTES ________________________________________________________ 2-31

Chapter III - Goals, Objectives and Policies __________________ 3-1Definition of Noise-Sensitive Uses Goals, __________Objectives And Policies

Chapter IV - Implementation Programs _____________________ 4-1

xi

Exhibits (within text):

Exhibit A: Airports Within/Adjoining ___________________________ 2-16the City of Los Angeles (Freeways, Etc.)

Exhibit B: Los Angeles International Airport Noise Contour _________ 2-17

Exhibit C: Van Nuys Airport Noise Contour _______________________ 2-18

Exhibit D: Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Noise Contours _____ 2-19

Exhibit E: Santa Monica Airport Noise Contour ___________________ 2-20

Exhibit F: Whiteman Airport Noise Contour ______________________ 2-21

Appendix and Exhibits (at end of text):

Appendix A: Evolution Of Transportation Systems In Los Angeles: ____ A-1A Context For Los Angeles Noise Issues

Exhibit G: Glossary of Terms And Acronyms_______________________ G-1

Exhibit H: Common Noise Levels _______________________________ H-1

Exhibit I: City Guidelines for Environmental (Exterior) _______________ I-1Noise Compatible Land Use

Exhibits

xiii

Introduction

California State Government Code Section65302g mandates that noise elements beincluded as a part of city general plans and thatcities adopt comprehensive noise ordinances.The city’s 1975 Noise Plan and ordinanceachieved compliance with state law. This elementrevises and updates the 1975 plan and referencesthe city’s noise standards, which are containedin Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 111 etseq. In addition to addressing issues, such asairport related noise, which were addressed inthe 1975 plan, the element addresses noisesources and noise mitigation strategies andregulations that came into existence after 1975,including new fixed rail systems.

The noise element applies to the city as a whole.It addresses noise mitigation regulations, strategiesand programs and delineates federal, state and cityjurisdiction relative to rail, automotive, aircraft andnuisance noise.

Regulation of noise relative to vehicles is largely

outside the authority of municipal government.Primary municipal authority relates to regulationof land use, implementing federal and stateregulations and enforcing nuisance noise. Thiselement describes noise management programs ofeach jurisdictional entity, as they relate to the Cityof Los Angeles.

The exhibits contained herein include examples ofnoise commonly experienced by city dwellers, localairport noise contours, state environmentalguidelines and a history of Los Angelestransportation and associated noise issues.

Chapters III and IV set forth noise managementgoals, objectives, policies and programs of the Cityof Los Angeles. Implementation programs includenoise mitigation guidelines for community plan-ners and permit processors, noise managementactivities in which the city is engaged andaffirmation of the Alameda Corridor Project whichwill consolidate freight rail lines, thereby reducingnoise impacts on local neighborhoods.

1-1

Planning Area

The Noise Element relates to the entire City of LosAngeles. Within the city’s boundaries are approxi-mately 467 square miles of land area, including ap-proximately 214 square miles of hills and mountains.The San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains boundthe city on the north, the Santa Monica Mountainsextend across the middle of the city and the PalosVerdes Hills and Pacific Ocean are on the south andwest. Some noise impacts are generated by sources,such as rail, highway and freeway systems, which arewithin the purview of other governmental entities.Noise generated by aircraft associated with Los Ange-les-based air facilities potentially impact people out-side the city. Therefore, the element takes into accountother jurisdictions and governmental entities.

Demographics

The 1990 federal census estimated that the city’spopulation was 3,485,399 individuals. The 1996Citywide General Plan Framework Element (akaFramework) of the city’s general plan estimatesthat the population of the city would be increasedby approximately 820,000 people to 4,306,564by the year 2010 and that employment will beincreased by an estimated 390,000 jobs. Circu-lation and transportation systems, a primarysource of urban noise, continue to evolve in re-sponse to the city’s changing needs and intro-duction of new technology.

California State Noise ElementRequirements

Content

In 1971 the state of California required cities andcounties to include noise elements in their generalplans (Government Code Section 65302 et seq.).

State law intended that noise elements guide policymakers in making land use determinations and inpreparing noise ordinances that would limit expo-sure of their populations to excessive noise levels.The law required that local jurisdictions preparenoise ordinances that would help manage noise. In1984, state noise element provisions were revisedto shorten the list of noise element requirements,encourage local jurisdictions to design their ownnoise control approaches and to eliminate the re-quirement that general plan noise and circulationelements be consistent with each other.

Under the 1984 provisions, a noise element is re-quired to “recognize” guidelines prepared by the Of-fice of Noise Control of the California Departmentof Health Services and to analyze and quantify, “tothe extent practicable, as determined by the legisla-tive body,” noise from the following sources: high-ways and freeways; primary arterials and major localstreets; passenger and freight on-line railroad opera-tions and ground rapid transit systems; commercial,general aviation, heliport, helistop and military air-port operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine teststands, and other ground facilities and maintenancefunctions related to airport operation; local indus-trial plants, including, but not limited to, railroadclassification yards; and other ground stationary noisesources identified by local agencies as contributingto the community noise environment.

The subject element complies with state law by de-scribing airport related noise management programsand identifying and analyzing noise sources and noisemanagement measures. It also provides guidelinesfor noise management within Los Angeles.

Noise Measurement and Standards

State law (Government Code Section 65302 et seq.)specifies that, as is practical, a community noise equiva-

Chapter I — Background

1-2

lent level (CNEL) or day/night average level (Ldn) beused to measure noise exposure for the identified noisesources. Modeling is permitted as a tool for measuringnoise. However, as will be noted in Chapter II, stateand federal law has preempted local authority with ref-erence to many of the above listed noise sources.

In response to the 1971 state requirements, the citysimultaneously prepared a noise plan and a compre-hensive noise ordinance. It utilized noise contoursand modeling in order to establish ambient noisestandards that were linked to zoning classifications.Identical standards were incorporated into the ordi-nance and plan to facilitate implementation and en-forcement. The ordinance was adopted in 1973 (LosAngeles Municipal Code Section 111 et seq.). It hasbeen amended several times. The city’s first noise planwas adopted in 1975. The intent of state law was toprompt local jurisdictions to establish noise standardsvis-a-vis the state’s noise insulation standards and toenact plan implementation measures to address lo-cal noise problems. The city met these objectives withthe adoption of the ordinance and plan. The noisestandards contained in the ordinance guide the city’snoise management and are consistent with state andfederal standards.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)permit processing procedures and the ambient noisestandards contained in the city’s noise ordinanceguide noise impact assessment and mitigation rela-tive to new development that is subject to CEQAenvironmental assessment review. This element,combined with the city’s noise ordinance, complieswith the noise measurement and standards require-ments of state law, to the greatest extent practicable,by providing sample noise exposure contours forlocal airports and by outlining airport and othernoise management programs.

Insulation Standards

The California Department of Health Services noiseoffice, which is cited in the 1984 general plan law,no longer exists. The most current guidelines pre-pared by the state noise officer were issued in 1987and are contained in the “General Plan Guidelines”

issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning andResearch in 1990. The standards contained in thecity noise ordinance are consistent with the noiseofficer’s 1987 guidelines.

General Plan Consistency

State general plan law requires that all elements andall parts of a general plan be integrated, internallyconsistent and compatible (Government Code Sec-tion 65300.5). The Framework element of the city’sgeneral plan provides broad policies and guidelinesfor preparation of the other elements of the generalplan. It identifies the noise element as one of twelvegeneral plan elements but contains no other noiseelement policies or guidelines. The subject noise el-ement references and is consistent with general plancommunity plans that contain noise managementissues or programs. In addition, it references and isconsistent with local airport plans, as required byCalifornia Government Code Section 65302.3.

Implementation

General plan law requires that a general plan bemeaningfully implemented (Government CodeSection 65400). The noise element is implementedby a variety of city regulations. In addition, the air-port plans and individual community plans con-tain implementation features that address noise re-lated land use issues.

Element Scope

The subject element updates and replaces the city’s1975 noise plan. It identifies new significant po-tential noise sources, addresses the issue of vibra-tion relative to rail and identifies historic and cur-rent significant noise management approaches.

Issues Not Addressed

Occupational noise is not addressed. State and fed-eral governments, not cities, have jurisdiction overstandards and enforcement relative to occupationalhealth, including noise.

1-3

The goals, standards, objectives, policies and pro-grams presented herein are within the jurisdic-tion of the City of Los Angeles. Programs out-side the authority of the city are not listed. Forexample, rail, state highway and freeway and as-pects of airports that are unrelated to land usegenerally are under federal and/or state, notmunicipal authority. The roles and relationshipof various authorities are discussed in ChapterII, providing a context within which the elementand can be better understood.

2-1

IntroductionNoise is unwanted sound and, therefore, is an im-portant factor in the quality of urban life. Thereare two main types of sound: ambient and intru-sive. Ambient sound is the background sound thataggregates all sound emissions, far and near, as re-ceived within a particular locale. It is the “given”level of sound to which we are accustomed in ourresidential, work or other particular environments;the generally not unpleasant “hum” of sound aboutus. Intrusive sound is greater than the ambientsound level; it is perceived as “noise.” It may beintermittent (siren, barking dog) or continuous(air conditioner equipment). Abatement of intru-sive noise generally involves one or more of thefollowing: reducing the noise at the source (turn-ing down the volume), isolating the noise sourceby establishing buffer land uses (industrial usesaround airports), blocking noise (walls, berms),or protecting the receiver (industrial ear protec-tors, home insulation).

The decibel (dB) is the standard unit used for mea-suring noise. To more closely approximate noise asit is received by the human ear at different frequen-cies, the decibel scale is ‘A-weighted’ (dBA). ‘A’measures the level of sound the way sound is re-ceived by the human ear. The range of human hear-ing is approximately 3 to 140 dBA, with 110 dBAconsidered intolerable or painful to the human ear.Continuous levels of 70 dBA or higher can causeloss of hearing. A comparison of types of commonlyexperienced environmental noise is provided inExhibit H. The goal of all noise mitigation is toreduce or manage intrusive noise so as to achieveor maintain healthful ambient sound levels.

Since the adoption of the city’s noise plan in 1975,significant noise management has taken place,largely due to public demand for noise abatement.Watershed legislation was the National Environ-

mental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) which requiredall significant potential environmental impacts tobe evaluated and mitigation measures determinedprior to issuance of land development permits.NEPA led to the establishment of state and localenvironmental laws, including the 1971 CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) and require-ments that general plans contain noise elements andthat cities adopt local noise ordinances. Public con-cerns about noise led to establishment of nationaltransportation policies and programs, includingnoise standards for aircraft. NEPA and CEQA re-quire environmental assessment and imposition ofnoise mitigation measures for new developmentprojects, including transportation projects. Millionsof dollars in public funds have been expended toreduce impacts of noise from existing airports andfreeways, as well as for research and developmentof new design, noise suppression technology andregulations for mitigating noise from transporta-tion and other sources.

Transportation systems are a primary source of ur-ban noise. Management of noise from the most sig-nificant of these sources (aircraft, trains and free-ways) generally has been preempted by federal andstate authority. Primary municipal authority is regu-lation of land use. The City of Los Angeles has es-tablished standards for ambient noise levels that arecorrelated with land use zoning classifications. Thestandards are contained in the city’s noise ordinance,Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 111et seq. Compliance is achieved by a variety of means,including barriers, buffers, separation of incompat-ible uses and reduction of sound at its source.

The first section of this chapter discusses ordinancesand other measures for regulating noise sources andmitigating noise impacts within the city. The othersections discuss the evolution of noise impacts and

Chapter II — Existing Conditions, Noise ImpactIssues and Noise Management History

2-2

management measures associated with local trans-portation systems. The Appendix provides an his-torical perspective of the evolution of transporta-tion systems and associated noise issues.

Building Sound Insulationand Nuisance NoiseSeveral city, state and federal regulations addresssound insulation and nuisance noise. These rangefrom use permit limitations and building construc-tion provisions to nuisance abatement. This sec-tion summarizes the city’s major noise managementprocedures and regulations.

California And Federal Legislation

CALIFORNIA NOISE INSULATION STANDARDS

The California Noise Insulation Standards of 1988(California Building Code Title 24, Section 3501 etseq.) establishes inter-dwelling (between units in abuilding) and exterior sound transmission controlmeasures. It requires that interior noise levels fromthe exterior source be reduced to 45 decibels (dB) orless in any habitable room of a multi-residential usefacility, e.g., hotels, motels, dormitories, long-termcare facilities, and apartment houses and other dwell-ings, except detached single-family dwellings. Mea-surements are based on a day/night average soundlevel (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level(CNEL). Both Ldn and CNEL utilize averaging, notsingle event exposure. Therefore, the passing of asingle train during a day would be averaged over the24-hour period, resulting in negligible exposure.

The significant noise generation sources identifiedby the Noise Insulation Standards are: highways,country roads, city streets, railroads, rapid transitlines, airports and industrial areas. Noise-sensitiveuses planned in proximity to such uses are requiredto be designed to prevent intrusion of significantexterior noise. The applicant must submit an acous-tical analysis, prepared by or under the supervisionof an acoustical engineer, indicating that a 45 dBor less interior noise level will be achieved withineach proposed habitable room. Interior allowable

noise levels can be achieved by reorienting theproject on the site, providing setbacks, shielding(e.g., buffer walls or berms) the receptor from thenoise source, incorporating sound insulation intothe building construction, requiring that windowsbe unopenable or remain closed and air condition-ing be provided, and any other methods.

To help permit processors assess whether specialacoustical analysis and mitigation is needed, localjurisdictions are to identify areas of 60 dB or greater,averaged over a 24-hour period. The noise elementof the general plan is to be used in helping to iden-tify sites with noise levels of 60 dB or greater. Inaddition, the state general plan law (GovernmentCode Section 65302 et seq.) calls for noise elementsto “recognize” the state health department noiseguidelines and to quantify, “to the extent practi-cable, as determined by the legislative body, cur-rent and projected noise levels” from transporta-tion and other significant sources. This elementidentifies noise levels of 65 dB or greater with ref-erence to airports.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA) requires that an environmental impactstatement (EIS) be prepared for federal or federallyfunded (including loans) projects. The EIS identi-fies potential impacts of the project and evaluatesfeasible alternatives for mitigating the impacts. Theimpacts and mitigation alternatives are taken intoaccount by decision makers. However, mitigationof impacts is not required by NEPA.

FEDERAL NOISE CONTROL ACT

The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 United StatesCode 4901 et seq.) gives the Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) authority to publish regula-tions and standards relative to transportation, con-struction and electrical equipment, motors, engines,etc. It reaffirms the Federal Aviation Administra-tion and EPA preemption of state and local con-trol over aircraft noise. It requires that the FAA toconsult with the EPA prior to promulgating oramending noise regulations.

2-3

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970(CEQA) was patterned in part after NEPA. It man-dates that mitigation measures be part of a discre-tionary land use development permit approval, in-cluding building permits, unless a project is deemedexempt from environmental assessment procedures.CEQA is intended to protect the natural environ-ment from avoidable damage, including from noiseimpacts, by requiring that proposed land develop-ment projects mitigate identified significant poten-tial impacts. Where an environmental impact reportis required, the decision maker may issue a permiteven if the potential impact cannot be reduced to alevel of insignificance, providing the decision makerfinds that project benefits outweigh the unavoidableimpacts. Impacts on the environment (or knownfuture environment) also are considered, includingnoise from exterior sources on project users or resi-dents. Where federal agencies or funding is involved,both NEPA and CEQA apply.

Conservation of nonrenewable energy resources is aconsideration under NEPA and CEQA. Mitigationmeasures typically include building insulation to re-duce heat gain and loss so as to reduce the amountof energy needed to heat or cool buildings. Evenwithout CEQA mitigation requirements, most newconstruction includes energy insulation features,combined with air conditioning and heating systems,to make projects more energy efficient. Insulationreduces exterior-to-interior noise impacts.

City Noise Ordinances

The City of Los Angeles has numerous ordinancesand enforcement practices that apply to intrusivenoise and that guide new construction. These aresummarized in the following sections.

The city’s comprehensive noise ordinance (LAMCSection 111 et seq.) establishes sound measurementand criteria, minimum ambient noise levels for dif-ferent land use zoning classifications, sound emis-sion levels for specific uses (radios, television sets,vehicle repairs and amplified equipment, etc.), hours

of operation for certain uses (construction activity,rubbish collection, etc.), standards for determiningnoise deemed a disturbance of the peace, and legalremedies for violations. Its ambient noise standardsare consistent with current state and federal noisestandards. They are correlated with land use zoningclassifications in order to guide the measurement ofintrusive noise that results in intermittent (periodic)or extended impacts on a geographically specific site.The intent is to maintain identified ambient noiselevels and to limit, mitigate, or eliminate intrusivenoise that exceeds the ambient noise levels withinthe zones specified. The standards guide buildingconstruction and equipment installation, equipmentmaintenance and nuisance noise enforcement. Thecity council initially adopted the ordinance in 1973and periodically amends it to reflect current issuesand noise management approaches.

As a general rule, the city’s building and safety de-partment enforces noise ordinance provisions rela-tive to equipment (air conditioning units, swim-ming pool pumps, car wash facilities and other ma-chinery) and the police department enforces provi-sions relative to noise generated by people (parties,amplified sound, etc.). The police department alsois authorized to enforce the mechanical equipmentand other provisions of the noise ordinance, rela-tive to nuisance noise complaints.

Zoning And Land Use

The city’s planning and zoning code (LAMC Sec-tion 11 et seq.) contains a variety of provisions thatdirectly or indirectly mitigate noise impacts on, orimpacts that are associated with, different types ofland uses. Permit processing is guided by the gen-eral plan, especially the community plans whichtogether are the city’s land use element. The plansdesignate appropriate land use (zoning) classifica-tions. Noise element programs (Chapters III andIV) outline considerations that may be taken intoaccount during community plan preparation andplanning permit processing. The noise ordinanceguides land use considerations by setting maximumambient noise levels for specific zones.

2-4

Los Angeles was the first jurisdiction in the nationto establish zoning by land use category (1904 and1908). Under the guidance of the city’s first plan-ning director, Gordon Whitnall, the zoning waschanged (1930) to create the standardized classifi-cations that are used today. These include regula-tion of height, area (including yards), density andparking. The combination of the various regula-tions contributes significantly to reduction of po-tential noise impacts throughout the city.

The most basic noise management measure is tra-ditional zoning that separates agricultural, residen-tial, commercial and industrial uses. Another isthe front yard set back that not only adds attrac-tiveness to a neighborhood but serves to distancehomes from adjacent street noise. Side and rearyards also serve as noise buffers. Through zonechange and subdivision processes, site or use spe-cific conditions can be imposed to assure compat-ibility of land use and to protect users of a sitefrom impacts from adjacent uses.

The commercial (C zones) and manufacturing (Mzones) provisions of the code contain use specificrequirements intended to reduce noise, odor andother impacts on adjacent uses. These include pro-hibiting of certain commercial and industrial useswithin so many feet of residential or less restric-tive uses or zones, requiring increased setbacksfrom residential uses, limiting hours of operation,containing uses wholly within an enclosed build-ings, requiring sound walls, prohibiting openingsthat face residential uses and prohibiting audibil-ity of noise outside a facility.

Conditional use and use variance permits (LAMCSections 12.24, 12.27, 12.28 and 12.29) allow theplanning commission, zoning administrators and, onappeal, board of zoning appeals and city council toassess potential use impacts and impose conditionsto mitigate noise impacts. Conditional use or usevariance permits are required in certain zones forschools, churches, homeless shelters, municipal fa-cilities, correctional institutions, alcohol sales, golfcourses, parks, rubbish disposal projects, mixed usedevelopment, stadia, automobile service and repair

facilities, certain types of parking, joint living andwork quarters, mini-malls, hotels and motels, drive-thru food establishments, nightclubs, keeping of cer-tain types of animals and other unique, potentiallynoise intrusive uses. In most cases the uses are al-lowed by right in less restrictive zones. Some are pro-hibited entirely in residential zones. The permittingprocedures include site investigations, notice toneighbors and hearings to assist decision makers indetermining if the use should be permitted and, ifpermitted, allow imposition of appropriate condi-tions of approval. Typical conditions include specificsite design, setbacks, use limitations on all or partsof the site, walls and hours of operation so as to mini-mize noise and other impacts. Violation of condi-tions can result in permit revocation.

Supplemental use districts or “overlay zones”(LAMC Section 13) for such uses as oil drilling,animal slaughter, surface mining and equine keep-ing typically contain construction, installation andoperational provisions that are intended to mini-mize or eliminate noise impacts on adjacent uses.For example, the surface mining provisions pro-hibit establishment of a surface mining districtcloser than 100 feet from a residential zone, un-less a landscaped buffer berm is provided, and limitmining activity hours. Oil drilling district noisemitigation provisions include drilling operationterm limits, drilling equipment noise guidelinesand a requirement that oil production activitiesbe inaudible outside the enclosed operations struc-ture. In some cases, the commission and city coun-cil are authorized to impose additional conditionsto further mitigate potential impacts associatedwith a particular supplemental use.

Other code provisions allow a zoning administra-tor to conditionally permit, without public hear-ing, particular uses allowed in a zone, provided thatthe uses meet certain criteria, such as provision ofadditional parking or walls. The additional park-ing requirements for such uses as health clubs, res-taurants, trade schools and auditoriums in part areto minimize noise impacts, especially in the eveningand at night on residential neighborhoods. Poten-

2-5

tial impacts include door slamming and people talk-ing as they walk to their cars.

The authority to revoke, discontinue a use or toimpose nuisance abatement conditions on estab-lished uses has become a major tool for reducingnuisance noise. Use permits may be revoked by thecommission, zoning administrator, or, on appeal,by the board of zoning appeals or city council fornuisance (including disturbance of the peace) ornoncompliance with conditions of a conditionalpermit. In addition, a zoning administrator maydiscontinue or, on appeal, the board or council, mayimpose operational conditions on existing commer-cial or industrial uses that are deemed a nuisance,including for excessive noise or disturbance of thepeace (LAMC Section 12.21-A.15). These two pro-cedures have been increasingly utilized in recentyears to encourage owners to operate activities ontheir properties in a manner that is compatible withadjacent uses, particularly residential uses.

Building Sound Insulation Regulations

With the development of inexpensive insulationmaterials, air conditioning and improved noise re-duction techniques it became economically feasibleto design buildings that provide effective insulationfrom outside noise as well as from weather condi-tions. It has been estimated that standard insula-tion, efficiently sealing windows and other energyconservation measures reduce exterior-to-interiornoise by approximately 15 decibels. Such a reduc-tion generally is adequate to reduce interior noisefrom outside sources, including street noise, to anacceptable level. Building setbacks and orientationalso reduce noise impacts.

Sound transmission control requirements wereadded to the national Uniform Building Code(UBC) in 1992. The UBC standards were incor-porated into the city’s building code (LAMC Sec-tion 91) in 1994. They are consistent with statenoise insulation standards (California BuildingCode Title 24, Section 3501 et seq.), requiring thatintrusive noise not exceed 45 dB in any habitableroom. As with state standards, the provisions do

not apply to detached single-family residential uses.The city’s airport noise abatement programs applythe standard to detached single-family dwellings.

The city’s building code guides building construc-tion. The insulation provisions are intended tomitigate interior noise from outside sources, as wellas sound between structural units. The provisionsvary according to the intended use of the build-ing, e.g., residential, commercial, industrial. Theregulations are intended to achieve a maximuminterior sound level equal to or less than the am-bient noise level standard for a particular zone, asset forth in the city’s noise ordinance.

Nuisance Noise

Nuisance noise is intermittent noise that exceedsthe city’s ambient noise levels or is otherwisedeemed a nuisance. It is addressed primarilythrough enforcement of municipal code provisionsdescribed in this section.

BUILDING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

In addition to standards and regulations containedin the noise ordinance, mechanical equipment noise(e.g., roof top air conditioners) is regulated by thebuilding code (LAMC Section 91). The city’s build-ing and safety department administers and enforcesthe code as it applies to noise relative to both in-stallation and maintenance of equipment.

DISTURBING THE PEACE

In addition to the noise ordinance, Los AngelesMunicipal Code Section 41 contains several dis-turbance of the peace provisions that are enforcedby the police department. These include regula-tion of noise from theaters, construction activi-ties, devices used to emit music, miniature golfcourses (including unduly loud talking) and “loudand raucous” noise. The latter probably is the mostcommonly requested noise enforcement provisionbecause it relates to general public nuisance, e.g.,loud parties. California Penal Code Section 415also authorizes local police departments to enforcenoise relative to public nuisances, including in-tentional noise making.

2-6

The street sales (vendor) ordinance (LAMC Section42.00) is enforced by the police department. It pro-hibits “loud, boisterous, raucous, offensive or insult-ing” activity associated with the sale of goods or ser-vices, including solicitation for sight-seeing tours.

CITY PARK FACILITIES

Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 63.44 regu-lates use of recreation and parks department facili-ties. Park rangers and other recreation and parksdepartment staff enforce regulations that includerestrictions on use of sound amplification systemswithin parks and regulation of concert uses of parkfacilities. In addition, the recreation and parks de-partment designs its facilities, locates activitieswithin park sites, enforces park use hours and hasoperational policies for individual sites that are in-tended to minimize potential noise and activityimpacts on surrounding neighborhoods.

BARKING DOGS

The animal regulation department administers thebarking dog noise ordinance (LAMC Section53.63). It investigates written complaints and is-sues warning notices to owners of properties onwhich barking dogs are located. If the problem con-tinues, a hearing is set before an animal regulationdepartment hearing officer who considers testimonyand attempts to resolve the problem. Dog licensescan be revoked and the owner required to removethe animal from the site if the problem continues.

COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

Engines of large commercial vehicles (six tires, grossweight of 10,000 pounds or more when empty) arenot permitted to be operated at night in any mannerdeemed disturbing to residents of dwelling units, in-cluding residential hotels (LAMC Section 80.36.3).The prohibition is enforced by the police departmentand applies to parked as well as moving vehicles.

EMERGENCY VEHICLES

It is operational policy of the city’s fire and policedepartments to limit use of sirens and horns, aspractical, when emergency vehicles travel past noisesensitive uses or through noise sensitive areas.

Automotive VehiclesThe noise most commonly experienced throughoutthe city is produced by automotive vehicles (cars,trucks, buses, motorcycles). Traffic moving alongstreets and freeways produces a sound level that re-mains relatively constant and is part of the city’s mini-mum ambient noise level. Vehicular noise varies withthe volume, speed and type of traffic. Slower trafficproduces less noise than fast moving traffic. Truckstypically generate more noise than cars. Infrequentor intermittent noise also is associated with vehicles,including sirens, vehicle alarms, slamming of doors,garbage and construction vehicle activity andhonking of horns. These noises add to urban noiseand are regulated by a variety of agencies.

Management of automotive vehicle and associatednoise is within the jurisdiction of federal, state and/or local authorities. This section reviews the juris-dictional authority of vehicle noise managementrelative to the City of Los Angeles.

Vehicle Emissions

Vehicle noise emission standards are promulgatedby the federal Environmental Protection Agency(Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations Parts 190 etseq.). The Federal Highway Administration (FHA)of the Department of Transportation has authorityto enforce noise standards pertaining to licensedinterstate vehicles with a gross weight of over 10,000pounds, providing the enforcement authority hasbeen authorized “curbing” (i.e., police) authority.The FHA in the Los Angeles region (headquartersin Riverside County), does not have curbing au-thority. State and local jurisdictions may adopt theEnvironmental Protection Agency regulations with-out amendment in order to enforce the regulations.However many cities, including Los Angeles, havenot done so because noise emissions, as describedpreviously and below, can be enforced locally asnuisance noise under other authorities.

Street Noise

Occupants of buildings are protected from trafficnoise and vehicle related noise by a number of lo-

2-7

cal land use, building construction and noise miti-gation measures. Separation of land uses throughgeneral plan and zoning classifications tradition-ally has provided one of the best means of reducingnoise impacts. Early land use practices and zoningdesignated commercial and industrial uses alonghighway corridors. This provided buffer uses be-tween highways and residential areas. Constructionof freeways that cut through existing communities,introduced traffic noise impacts into previouslyprotected neighborhoods.

Modern building construction noise insulation andair filtration (air conditioning) standards containedin the city’s building code generally are sufficientto mitigate noise impacts associated with city streetsand ambient noise. The code also requires that out-side factors, such as nearness to freeways or high-ways, be assessed in establishing noise insulationrequirements for a particular building. The city’snoise ordinance (Municipal Code Section 111 etseq.) and noise element provide minimum ambi-ent noise levels that are correlated with land usezoning classifications. The ordinance regulates ex-cessive noise generated by individual vehicles andincidents including noise from radios, horns, alarms,sound amplification equipment and other vehicleequipment. It also regulates hours of constructionequipment operation and rubbish truck collection.These sections of the ordinance are enforced by thepolice department. Other noise regulations andnoise mitigation procedures are contained in themunicipal code and environmental review guide-lines. The slower a vehicle travels, the less noise itgenerates. Therefore, speed limits, especially on lo-cal streets, reduce traffic noise impacts on adjacentuses. Together, the zoning and other statutes andprovisions establish the city’s standards and guide-lines for vehicle related noise management.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles hasjurisdiction over vehicle noise emissions within Cali-fornia. California Motor Vehicle Code Section 23130establishes vehicle noise limits for moving vehicles,including interstate trucks that operate on streets, high-ways and freeways within the state, and regulates noise

impacts on adjacent land uses. The provisions are en-forced by the California Highway Patrol and local lawenforcement agencies, such as city police.

Trucks tend to generate greater noise than cars. Cer-tain types of trucks are prohibited by the state fromtraveling on certain state highways due to safety con-siderations. Freeways serve as the primary truckfreight haul routes. Within the city, trucks are al-lowed to travel on streets except where prohibitedby state regulations or by weight or height limits,such as on bridges, in tunnels and on some moun-tain or substandard streets. Because trucks can travelon most streets and highways in Los Angeles, trucknoise can impact all areas of the city. Areas especiallyimpacted tend to be those that are located adjacentto industrial and warehouse sites. Truck traffic im-pacts, including noise, are such a problem in the portcommunity of Wilmington that the Wilmington-Harbor City community plan (adopted 1989) rec-ommends that certain major highways within thecommunity be designated as truck routes and thattrucks be discouraged from using other streets.

Freeway Noise

By the late 1960s, freeways were a major source ofnoise throughout the state. Entire communitieswere impacted, especially at night, by the steadyhum or roar generated by fast moving traffic. In1973-74 state and federal agencies, in response tothe 1969 National Environmental Policy Act,adopted formal policies and criteria for construc-tion of noise barriers to mitigate impacts. In Cali-fornia, the responsibility for freeway and highwaynoise management was assumed by the CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation (Caltrans). As a partof the nationwide highway noise abatement effort,Caltrans instituted a noise management programto reduce impacts from existing and new freewayson residential, school and other noise sensitive uses.

The program utilized noise barriers (sound walls)and/or building modification methods. The noisebarrier program was the most publicly visible ofthe methods used. By 1996 over 150 miles of thenearly 210 miles of walls nationwide had been con-

2-8

structed in California, including more than 115miles of walls in Los Angeles County. Sound wallstypically are eight to fourteen feet in height and areinstalled between the freeway and adjacent homesor other impacted uses.

Where sound walls alone cannot reduce interiorsound to acceptable levels, buildings sometimes aremodified by adding or improving air conditioning,acoustical glass and/or other noise insulation fea-tures. Such abatement measures primarily are ap-plied to schools. By 1996, the retrofitting programhad been almost entirely completed for impactedschools located within the city’s boundaries.

In addition, new freeways, such as the Glenn Ander-son Interstate 105 Freeway (formerly called theCentury Freeway), which opened in 1993, are con-structed with noise mitigation features. These in-clude walls and earth berms, freeway design (e.g.,locating freeways in trenches) and conversion ofsome adjacent, potentially impacted properties tofreeway compatible uses. The noise mitigation mea-sures for both existing and new freeways has con-tributed significantly to reduction of ambient ur-ban noise and has reduced direct noise impacts onadjacent uses and neighborhoods.

Rail SystemsNoise from rail systems is localized, impacting im-mediately adjacent communities. This section re-views noise and vibration management relative torail systems within the city.

Railroads

JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY

The city cannot regulate transcontinental or intr-astate trains operating within its borders. It has theauthority to regulate land use as long as its deter-minations do not conflict with or infringe uponstate or federal authority. Management of rail sys-tem related noise is within the jurisdiction of fed-eral and/or state authorities. For example, the Fed-eral Transit Administration (FTA) requires that all

rail systems that receive federal funding must beconstructed and operated in accordance with itsspecifications; the Federal Rail Administration(FRA) sets and enforces safety standards, includingregulation of noise emissions within locomotivecabs, and requiring that train horns be a minimumof 96 dBA at 100 feet in front of a moving train;the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)requires federal agencies to incorporate environmen-tal protection and enhancement measures intoprojects that are financed in whole or in part byfederal funds (including loans). The FTA has pro-mulgated noise and vibration impact assessment andmitigation guidelines for use by rail authorities forpreparation of environmental impact reports forfederally funded rail projects. Rail operations in LosAngeles are centered around Union Station and theeast Los Angeles rail yards.

NOISE ISSUES

Union Station is located in the Central City Northcommunity of Los Angeles, adjacent to El Pueblode Los Angeles Historic Monument. The train yardadjacent to the station bounds New Chinatown andextends to Taylor Yard, which is adjacent to thecommunities of Glassell Park and Cypress Park(Northeast community plan area). The station andyards serve both passenger and freight trains. Noisefrom Union Station and the adjacent yards largelyis buffered from residential uses by manufacturing,commercial, office and park (Elysian Park) uses. Inthe early 1990s use of the yards by Metrolink trainsgenerated public concern. An advisory committeewas formed. The committee prepared a commu-nity compatibility study that recommended noisemanagement measures.

Noise from freight train activities associated withindustrial and warehouse uses and around the LosAngeles-Long Beach harbors generally is bufferedfrom adjacent uses by surrounding industrial,warehouse and commercial uses. Overall im-provement in train equipment and servicingmethods has contributed significantly to reduc-tion in noise impacts. However, some residentialneighborhoods near active rail lines are impacted

2-9

by noise from intermittent passing trains and as-sociated rail and truck activities.

ALAMEDA CORRIDOR PROJECT

Construction of the six-lane, 20-mile project be-gan in 1997. The corridor extends from the portsof Los Angeles and Long Beach, though south andcentral Los Angeles to rail yards in the cities ofVernon and Commerce, interconnecting rail lineswith regional truck systems. It is intended to in-crease the efficiency of movement of freight andexpand rail capacity within the Southern Califor-nia region. This is to accommodate the expectedtripling of Pacific rim (Asia, North and SouthAmerica and other Pacific nations) trade over thenext quarter of a century. The project will consoli-date some 90 miles of railroad tracks and eliminateapproximately 200 at-grade street crossings. A 30-foot deep trench paralleling ten miles of AlamedaStreet is planned from the rail yards near down-town Los Angeles to the Artesia Freeway (Route91) in the city of Compton. Consolidation of raillines will reduce noise impacts by reducing the num-ber of freight haul lines and by providing bufferingof new lines, thereby eliminating or significantlyreducing noise associated with freight trains.

New Rail Systems

TRAIN AND LIGHT RAIL NOISE

The Southern California Regional Rail Authority(SCRRA) is a quasi-state agency that operates theMetrolink commuter train system. Since it is regu-lated by federal interstate commerce laws, it is ex-empt from local regulations. If a train system uti-lizes existing rail rights-of-way, it is deemed categori-cally exempt under the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) environmental assessment andmitigation procedures. Metrolink trains utilize ex-isting rail corridors, station areas and rail yards.Therefore its system generally have been deemedcategorically exempt under CEQA. However,SCRRA voluntarily attempts to abide by local noiseregulations and responds to noise complaints.

Other new rail systems are under the authority of

the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transpor-tation Authority (MTA). The MTA serves com-muter and short haul public transit passengerswithin the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area.As a quasi-state agency it is exempt from city noiselaws. However, the MTA attempts to comply withthe local noise regulations and to achieve the fed-eral standard of 85 dBA within 50 feet of a habit-able dwelling. The MTA uses comprehensive noiseand vibration criteria that varies according to landuse. This has enabled it, in some neighborhoods,to achieve even more restrictive sound emissionlevels than are set forth in the city ordinances and/or federal guidelines.

Before rail lines are constructed or new systems in-stalled, significant potential noise and vibrationmust be identified and mitigation measures assuredin accordance with federal and state environmentalimpact regulations (NEPA and CEQA). New railsystems and equipment are designed to comply withnoise standards established by the FTA, the Ameri-can Association of Railroads and the Public Utili-ties Commission relative to car, engine and trackdesign, horns, auxiliary equipment, train operation,sound of wheels at curves, crossing signal bells andother system associated noise. Significant noisemitigation has been achieved by both MTA andSCRRA through replacement of existing rails andwood ties or construction of new tracks with con-tinuous or seamless (not jointed) welded rails.Antilock braking systems prevent ‘flat spots’ on trainwheels which, in the past, caused them to bumpand clank whenever the flat spot and rail came intocontact. New car and wheel system design and noisedampening devices also reduce external noise. Theseand other features have eliminated the vibration,noisy “click-clack” sound and other noises com-monly associated with traditional railways.

The MTA Blue Line and Metrolink lines generallyutilize existing rights-of-way that bound existingindustrial, institutional, commercial, open spaceand other nonresidential areas, thus minimizingnew noise impacts on residential uses. Securing ofrail rights-of-way has enabled the MTA to, in some

2-10

cases, create open space, park and recreational buff-ers along rail lines, further reducing noise impactson adjacent residential areas. Noise impacts are vir-tually nonexistent for the MTA’s Green Line lightrail system because it is located almost entirelywithin the Glenn Anderson Freeway.

New development on properties adjacent to raillines must comply with the city’s building code in-sulation provisions. Along with zoning setbacks,building insulation generally assures adequate noisemitigation relative to adjacent rail lines.

The MTA and SCRRA have attempted to be re-sponsive to neighbors. After the Blue Line beganto operate between downtown Los Angeles andLong Beach, residents in the Long Beach area com-plained to the MTA of the sound of wheels on railsat one section of the line. People also complainedabout the loudness of the train horns. These com-plaints prompted the MTA to hire a noise consult-ant to investigate. Based on the consultant’s rec-ommendation, the MTA installed quieter horns,retrofitted cars with additional dampening fixturesand materials, modified the car design, ground therails and constructed a sound barrier at the noisecomplaint site, thereby achieving lower noise lev-els. The redesign of the cars and other modifica-tions benefitted properties along the entire BlueLine route and are being applied to other MTA lightrail systems. Similar complaints about the loudnessof Metrolink horns resulted relocation of the hornsfrom the roofs to the undercarriages of the trains,significantly reducing noise impacts.

Partially in response to community concerns, theplanned Metrolink maintenance facility at TaylorYard (Glassell Park and Cypress Park in northeastLos Angeles) was designed to reduce noise impacts.New technology and facility design enabled en-tire trains to be serviced without having to sepa-rate cars or locomotives. This virtually eliminatednoise from separation of air hoses and couplingand uncoupling of cars.

Nevertheless, the community experienced noiseimpacts due to increased activity in the yards. This

resulted in neighborhood demands for mitigationof rail yard noise and for development of more com-patible uses along the eastern portion of the prop-erty. A study group was formed in the early 1990s.It was comprised of the representatives of the Ameri-can Institute of Architects, community groups,property owners and operators, public agencies,elected officials and other entities who evaluatedthe potential use of parcels adjacent to and withinthe eastern portion of Taylor Yard. The team rec-ommended community oriented commercial andother neighborhood compatible development ofsome parcels along the north side of Taylor Yard.The recommendations were used in conjunctionwith the revision of the Northeast community plan,which was underway in 1998.

SUBWAY NOISE AND VIBRATION

MTA’s Metro Rail Red Line subway is partiallycompleted. A single subway line operates betweenUnion Station and Western Avenue (in theWilshire community). Other lines are under con-struction, including a branch to the San FernandoValley via Vermont Avenue and Hollywood Bou-levard (Hollywood community). Because it is anenclosed underground system, noise impact con-cerns have been minimal, except relative to con-struction activities. Subway construction wasgranted a variance from the city’s noise ordinanceconstruction hours to enable tunneling 24 hoursa day, in accordance with conditions of the vari-ance. Any construction activities must otherwisecomply with the noise ordinance.

In the Hollywood area the broadcast industry raisedconcerns about vibration and noise, especially dur-ing construction, relative to the proposed tunnelsbelow television, radio and recording studios. Thisresulted in the hiring by the MTA of a consultantto evaluate potential noise and vibration impactsand to propose mitigation measures as a supple-ment to the environmental impact report for thatsegment of the system. The measures issued in 1989included some subway realignment. Depth of thesubway tunnels, track engineering and vibrationdampening measures are expected to reduce or

2-11

eliminate impacts of vehicle generated vibration onuses located above the tunnels when the systembecomes operational.

Tunneling under the community of North Holly-wood began in 1996 and resulted unanticipatedproblems, including construction noise and vibra-tion impacts on sensitive uses, e.g., recording stu-dios. The MTA reanalyzed its planned train opera-tions and environmental conditions. In responseto its findings, the MTA adjusted its noise and vi-bration criteria, modified the track supports andoffered to modify some buildings that containedsensitive uses. The measures are intended to elimi-nate any significant above ground noise and anyvibration impacts, as measured relative to the highambient noise levels associated with the area.

Aircraft and AirportsAirport and heliport noise is localized, affectingcommunities immediately adjacent to the facilities.However, the intensity and intrusiveness of jet air-craft noise has resulted in such noise becoming amajor local concern. The primary issue raised dur-ing the hearings and public discussion relative tothe city’s first Noise Plan (1975) was the issue ofaircraft noise, especially noise impacts on commu-nities adjacent to the Los Angeles InternationalAirport (LAX). Issues also were raised in 1975 aboutnoise associated with heliports and the Hollywood-Burbank Airport (now called the Burbank-Glen-dale-Pasadena Airport). In the interim since the1975 plan was adopted many changes have takenplace that have enabled authorities to better addressnoise issues relating to airports. However airportnoise remains the primary unresolved noise issuefacing the city. This section reviews noise manage-ment of aircraft and airports (including heliports)within the city. It addresses this issue relative to thefive airports that are located within or immediatelyadjacent to the City of Los Angeles: LAX, Van Nuys,Burbank, Santa Monica and Whiteman airports.

Jurisdictional Authority

Management of aircraft and airport related noiseis within the jurisdiction of federal, state and/orlocal authorities.

FEDERAL

Under federal statutes, safety and national defensehave primacy over noise abatement. The FederalAviation Act of 1958 vested the Federal Aviation Ad-ministration (FAA) with exclusive authority over airsafety, management and control of airspace andmovement of aircraft through airspace. Local juris-dictions and local airport authorities have no directcontrol over airspace or air traffic control, which aresafety issues under the authority of the FAA. TheFAA determines landing and departure routes forpublic and private airports and heliports and sets con-struction and operational standards to assure safety.Federal authority preempts state and local authorityover aircraft operations, including aircraft noise emis-sions, aircraft flight patterns and airport use.

STATE

Enforcement in California of federal airport regu-lations is delegated to the California Departmentof Transportation (Caltrans) and is administered bythe Caltrans Aeronautics Program (CAP). CAP setsnoise guidelines for local airports. In addition, thestate is responsible for regulation of airport relatedland use and has established noise insulation stan-dards. It has delegated authority over land use regu-lation largely to local governments.

LOCAL

Land use compatibility with airport uses is largelywithin the authority of local jurisdictions, as longas actions do not conflict with or infringe uponfederal and state authority. Local governments can-not regulate flight hours, flight patterns or opera-tional procedures. Where the local government isalso the airport proprietor, it may adopt noise abate-ment measures affecting aircraft operations onlywith the express authorization of the FAA. The cityhas mapped airport hazard areas around the VanNuys (VNY) and LAX airports and established pro-cedures to regulate land development consistent

2-12

with federal safety regulations (LAMC Section12.50). Land use within flight path hazard areas,both within and outside of airport boundaries, mustcomply with height, glare and other safety consid-erations established by the FAA.

AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION

State law (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 etseq.) requires creation of county airport land usecommissions (ALUCs). The ALUCs advise localjurisdictions concerning coordination of airport andland use planning for adjacent geographic areas inorder to achieve orderly expansion of airports, re-duction of community exposure to excessive noiseand elimination of safety hazards associated withairport operations. The ALUCs prepare and adoptcomprehensive airport land use plans (CLUPs) that“provide for the orderly growth of each public air-port and the area surrounding the airport” withinthe ALUC’s jurisdiction and protect the welfare ofthe surrounding residents and general public. Theplans are based upon airport layout plans, as ac-cepted by the CAP, or locally adopted airport mas-ter plans. The ALUC plans anticipate airport growthfor a period of 20 years.

An ALUC reviews those sections of a city’s gen-eral plan (e.g. community plans and airportplans), as well as proposed plan amendments,specific plan ordinances and development per-mit requests that pertain to airport hazard andnoise impact areas in order to determine consis-tency with the CLUP. Local authorities may over-rule an ALUC’s determination.

State law provides for the Los Angeles County Re-gional Planning Commission to act as the ALUCfor Los Angeles County. The county’s 1991 CLUPcontains a CNEL of 65 or 70 dB noise exposure con-tours for each airport in the county. The CLUP “LandUse Compatibility Table” provides guidelines for es-tablishment of particular uses in areas exposed to aCNEL of 60 or more dB noise impacts. The City ofLos Angeles noise ordinance emission standards areconsistent with the 1991 CLUP guidelines. Revi-sion of the county’s CLUP was initiated in 1997.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Pursuant to the city’s planning and zoning code,aircraft landing fields are allowed by right in theM2 (light industrial) and M3 (heavy industrial)zones. In all other zones they are authorized byconditional use permit issued by the city planningcommission (LAMC Section 12.24.B.1) or, onappeal, by the city council. Most heliports are notlocated in M2 or M3 zones. The three airportswithin the city boundaries (LAX, VNY andWhiteman) generally are zoned in the M2, M3 orPF (public facilities) zones.

In 1998 Los Angeles World Airports, the city’s air-port authority, was preparing master plans for LAXand VNY. The plans are limited by the FAA to landuse considerations, including intensity of develop-ment. However, changes in airport land use mustbe approved by the FAA. The city is prohibited fromclosing an airport or reducing the intensity or typeof aircraft activity without FAA approval.

Because Whiteman Airport is a county facility, it islegally exempt from municipal zoning laws. However,as a matter of policy, the county attempts to complywith city zoning laws and land use procedures.

SUMMARY

In general: federal authority is over airspace andsafety, including aircraft noise standards; state au-thority is over airports, including airport noise stan-dards, and enforcement of airport safety (exceptwhere preempted by federal authority); and localauthority is over operations and land use (exceptwhere preempted by federal and state authority).

Regulations And Programs

A variety of regulations and programs guide andassist local airport authorities in achieving federaland state noise standards.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) and 1970 California Environmental Qual-ity Act (CEQA) require that environmental impacts,including noise impacts, be evaluated. NEPA requires

2-13

that mitigation measures be considered in projectimplementation. CEQA requires that mitigationmeasures be incorporated into the project to avoidor minimize significant impacts to the maximumextent feasible. Proposed new airports, includingheliports, are required to submit environmental state-ments as a part of their permit applications. Masterplans, zone changes, reconfiguration of airport uses(including runways) or other significant projects arediscretionary actions that trigger the environmentalassessment and mitigation procedures. All official en-vironmental review documents are subject to publicreview and comment.

FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 36 (FAR PART 36)

Congress in 1968 granted the FAA authority toimplement and monitor airspace regulations, in-cluding regulation of aircraft noise. The FAA in1969 promulgated “14 Code of Federal AviationRegulations Part 36” (FAR Part 36) establishingmaximum sound emission levels for new aircraftand phasing out of noisier aircraft. Subsequentamendments classified fixed-wing aircraft into threenoise impact categories, with Stage 1 applying tothe oldest and noisiest aircraft engines and Stage 3to the newest and quietest engines. New fixed-wingaircraft built in the United States were required tocomply with the Stage 3 standards. After January1, 1986 commercial fixed-wing aircraft were tocomply with the Stage 2 standards. Stage 1 aircraftwere phased out of use at civilian airports by 1990.

To comply with FAR Part 36, all new commercialpassenger airplanes are designed to reduce enginenoise to a minimum feasible level. Lighter and stron-ger composite materials and more streamlined de-sign have reduced needed engine power, therebyreducing engine noise emissions. New technologi-cal advances are anticipated to further reduce fixed-wing aircraft engine noise in the future.

CALIFORNIA AIRPORT NOISE STANDARDS

California Airport Noise Standards (CaliforniaCode of Regulations Title 21, Section 5000 et seq.)were adopted in 1970. They are administered bythe Caltrans Aeronautics Program (CAP). Under

the standards, civilian airports, including heliports,that are deemed to be a “noise problem airports”are required to meet a community noise equivalentlevel (CNEL) of 65 dB at airport boundaries byJanuary 1, 1986 (FAR Part 36) or to seek a vari-ance from CAP. Noise problem airports that wereunable to eliminate noise incompatibility withinthe established time frame were permitted to seekand renew variances. Variances provide extensionsof time for development of plans for compliancewithin a reasonable period of time.

CNEL is a noise measurement scale applied overa 24-hour period to all noise events received atthe measurement point. It is weighted more heavilyfor evening and night periods in order to accountfor the lower tolerance of individuals to noise dur-ing those periods. Noise is greater at the source(airport runway) and diminishes as the distancebetween source and the receptor widens. TheCNEL measurement is expressed as a contour linearound the noise source.

The California Noise Standards contain proceduresfor implementing noise and land use compatibilityrequirements. They establish systematic methodsfor measuring noise levels and addressing noiseproblems and define incompatible noise sensitiveuses, e.g., residential dwellings (including mobilehomes), schools, hospitals, convalescent homes andhouses of worship. An interior noise level of a CNELof 45 dB is the standard for all noise sensitive uses.

Counties are authorized under the noise standardsto issue a resolution declaring that a civilian airportwithin its boundaries is a “noise problem” airport,based upon receipt of noise complaints and othernoise impact data. Once so identified, the airportbecomes subject to the California Airport NoiseStandards, which are enforced by the county. Thecounty is required to validate the noise contours.Airports identified by the county as noise problemairports are to reduce noise problems (i.e., incom-patibility) through a variety of suggested strategies,including reconfiguration of airport land use, modi-fication of airport flight paths, rezoning, land ac-

2-14

quisition and other abatement measures. Theairport’s comprehensive land use plan is submittedto the county for review and adoption. The countysubmits the plan and quarterly reports (document-ing the contours and incompatible land uses withinthe contour areas) to the CAP. The CAP reviewsthe reports and approves the plans.

Five airports are within or adjoin the city (ExhibitA). The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisorshas deemed three of the five, LAX, VNY andBurbank, to be noise problem airports. All threeairports submit quarterly reports with contour mapsdepicting CNEL of 65 dB contours (Exhibits B-D) to the county and prepare noise abatement pro-grams. They currently operate under noise com-patibility compliance time extension variances.Santa Monica and Whiteman airports are not con-sidered noise problem airports because significantairport related noise is contained within the air-port or surrounding airport-compatible land use(Exhibits E and F).

AIRPORT NOISE AND CAPACITY ACT OF 1990 (FAR PARTS 91

AND 161)

The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (14Code of Federal Regulations [subsequently recodi-fied as 49 U.S.C. 47521 et seq.]) established FAAauthority over most airport noise management, pre-empting state and local authority. The Act sets pro-cedural requirements that must be met before noiseregulations can be enacted for an airport. It is imple-mented by “14 Code of Federal Aviation Regula-tions Part 161” (FAR Part 161), which establishesa program for reviewing airport noise and accessrestrictions on the operations of Stage 2 and Stage3 aircraft. In addition, FAR Part 91 establishes pro-cedures for phasing out of large (over 75,000pounds) Stage 2 aircraft and for reducing noiseemitted by Stage 2 aircraft. The goal is to phase outmost Stage 2 commercial fixed-wing aircraft fromairports by December 31, 1999. Any proposed newStage 3 noise mitigation measures must be autho-rized by the FAA. Prior to 1990, airports couldimpose more stringent standards than were con-tained in federal regulations. The Act allows noise

ordinances already in effect, such as the Van NuysNoise Abatement and Curfew Ordinance, to remainin effect, i.e., to be “grandfathered”.

FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 150 PROGRAM (FAR

PART 150)

In 1979, passage of the Aviation Safety and NoiseAbatement Act made matching funds available fornoise abatement. “14 Code of Federal Aviation Regu-lations Part 150” specifies how abatement and pre-vention measures may become eligible for the funds.The program is popularly known as “FAR 150 pro-gram.” The Burbank Airport Authority and LAWAare participating in the FAR Part 150 program rela-tive to the LAX, VNY and Burbank airports.

To qualify impacted areas for noise abatement orprevention funds, an airport authority must sub-mit noise exposure contour maps and prepare anoise compatibility program (NCP), as defined byFAR Part 150. The maps are to identify CNEL of65 dB or greater noise exposure contours for cur-rent and projected exposures. The NCP is to in-clude a description of how citizens, local jurisdic-tions and affected agencies will participate; an air-port land use compatibility plan; measures to pre-vent introduction of additional incompatible useswithin the noise exposure areas; and detailed pro-posals for achieving and maintaining compatibil-ity, e.g., reduction of incompatible land uses, air-port reconfiguration, modification of flight proce-dures, sound proofing or other noise managementmeasures designed to reduce impacts on existingsurrounding noise sensitive uses. To guide noise im-pact assessment and prioritization, FAR Part 150provides a land use compatibility table. It is com-parable to the state guidelines and the guidelinescontained in this noise element (Exhibit I). TheFAA may deny an NCP or approve eligibility forfunding for all or part of a proposed NCP.

The FAR Part 150 program in 1998 began requir-ing evidence that local authorities are preventingthe introduction of new noise sensitive uses withinnoise impact areas and stopped providing funds fornoise abatement for incompatible uses introducedafter January 1, 1998. The changes are intended to

2-15

encourage promulgation and enforcement of localland use compatibility measures.

CALIFORNIA NOISE INSULATION STANDARDS

The interior noise standard to be achieved by abate-ment programs is specified by the California NoiseInsulation Standards (Building Code Title 24, Sec-tion 3501 et seq.). It sets interior noise levels of 45dB in any habitable room, averaged over a 24-hourperiod. The standard is applied, per the CaliforniaAirport Noise Standards, to all “sensitive uses”pursuant to the airport noise compatibility program.

LOCAL NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAMS

In addition to federal noise abatement and pre-vention funding, local airport authorities may es-tablish their own programs. LAWA has establishedan abatement program relative to LAX. It is inde-pendent of the Part 150 program. In addition, localairports and jurisdictions have sought to reducethrough land use changes and other noise man-agement approaches.

Helicopters

PLANNING COMMISSION AND FIRE DEPARTMENT PERMITS

Aircraft, helicopters and heliport noise and safetyconsiderations are within the regulatory authorityof the state and federal governments, as describedpreviously. However, cities have authority over cer-tain land use and specific safety considerations.

In the 1960s the Los Angeles City Planning Com-mission (CPC) was given the responsibility (LAMCSection 12.24) for authorizing heliports, includingheliports1 used only in emergency situations. Thepermits are conditioned, based on potential impactsidentified during the permit review process, includ-ing environmental review and public hearings. Theconditions define and regulate the use of a specificheliport. If noise or other potential land use relatedproblems appear unsolvable, the CPC can deny thepermit. Permits can be revoked if noise impactsprove greater than anticipated or conditions of ap-proval are not observed. The county’s airport landuse commission is required by state law to confirmthe local heliport permit before final authorization

can be considered by the Caltrans Aeronautics Pro-gram. The FAA determination of conformity of aheliport and its flight paths to FAA guidelines oc-curs prior to CPC consideration. Therefore, thedetermination is part of the documentation pro-vided by the applicant to the CPC. If the state, FAAor the city fire department determine that a pro-posed or existing heliport is unsafe, the CPC’s per-mit becomes moot.

The fire department has the authority to deny orrevoke use of a private or public heliport if it deter-mines that a facility does not meet city safety re-quirements (e.g., failure to maintain a heliport in asafe condition, existence of trees or other obstruc-tions in the landing or departure paths or impropermaintenance of wind socks and lighting).

In 1974 all new buildings over 75 feet in heightwere required by the city to provide emergency he-licopter landing facilities (LAMC Section57.18.11). The authority to approve such uses wasassigned to the fire department. The new law re-sulted in a substantial reduction in the number andtype of permits considered by the CPC. Permitsfor banks and hospitals became the most commonrequests because banks needed to transfer paperrecords on a daily basis and hospitals needed heli-ports for transfer of patients and materials. Requestsfor commuter and passenger service operations gen-erally were denied by the commission. However,such requests were rare because of the availabilityof helicopter operations at local airports.

In 1978 the fire department was authorized to ap-prove “infrequent” helicopter landings in any zone(LAMC Section 12.22-A.6). Such landings mayoccur only twice a year at sites within specifiedsingle-family (RA, R1) and commercial (C1, CR)zones. Infrequent landing permits are to accommo-date occasional events such as educational programsand movie filming.

Commission hearings for heliports typically gener-ate community concern regarding noise impacts.To minimize noise impacts, the CPC generally lim-its the use (e.g., bank records transfer only), hours

2-16

0 11/41/21 2 3 4 MILES

01/21 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS

NPrepared by the Transportation Unit • City of Los Angeles Planning Department • Citywide Graphics • January, 1998

Airports (Freeways & etc.)Within/Adjoining The City of Los Angeles

EXHIBIT A

Source: Proposed Transportation Element of the General Plan, Los Angeles City Planning Department, 1997.

BUR

LAX

SMO

VNY

Airports

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport

Los Angeles International Airport

Santa Monica Airport

Van Nuys Airport

Freeways

VNY

Whiteman

BUR

SMO

LAX

Port of Los Angelesand Long Beach

UnionStation

Santa Monica Mountains

10

110

90

710

105

60

5

91405

110

47

10

5

101

405

170

210

2

5

134

118

2-17

EXHIBIT B

Los Angeles International AirportNoise Exposure Contour*

Noise Contour (a CNEL of 65 dB)

Airport Boundary

Note: Exhibit is illustrative and is not to scale. For further information contact Los Angeles World Airports.

*Based on: (1) Fourth Quarter Monitoring Report, Los Angeles World Airports, August 13, 1997 Los Angeles World Airports, April 07, 1997 (2) City Planning Department community plan maps.

Prepared by the Graphics Section • City of Los Angeles Planning Department • Citywide Planning Division • January, 1998

L A X

El Segundo Blvd

120th St

Imperial Hwy

Century Blvd

Manchester AveManchester Ave

Florence Ave

Slauson Ave

CentinelaAve

Jefferson

Culve

r Blvd

Centinela Ave

Blvd

Lincoln

Blvd

La Ti

jera

Blvd

Vista Del Mar

Sepu

lved

aB

lvd

Airp

ort

Blv

d

Avia

tion

Blv

d

Ingl

ewoo

d

Av

e

Haw

thor

ne

B

lvd

Prai

rie

A

ve Cren

shaw

Blv

d

Wes

tern

A

ve Verm

ont

Ave

Figu

eroa

St

Hoo

ver

St

Arbor Vitae St

Lennox Blvd

Grand Ave

Mariposa Ave

Maple AveHAWTHORNE

EL SEGUNDO

DELAIRE

LENNOX

INGLEWOOD

MORNINGSIDEPARK

SOUTH CENTRALLOS ANGELES

ATHENS

INGLEWOOD

WESTCHESTER

PLAYADEL REY

MARINADEL REY

FOXHILLS

110

105

405

90

City of Los Angeles

City of Los Angeles

City

of L

os A

ngel

es

City

of L

os A

ngel

es

INGLEWOOD

Westchester Pkwy

La C

iene

gaB

lvd

La B

rea

Ave

Bro

adw

ay

Mai

n S

t

2-18

405

EXHIBIT C

Van Nuys AirportNoise Exposure Contour*

Van NuysAirport

Northridge

Roscoe

Metrolink

B u

l l

C r

e e

k

Mission Hills-Panorama City-

North Hills

ResedaWest Van Nuys

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

Blvd Roscoe Blvd

Parthenia St

Strathern St

Stagg St

Saticoy St

Sherman Way

Vanowen St

Victory Blvd

WaySherman

Saticoy St

Strathern St

Sepu

lved

a

Has

kell

Woo

dley

Hay

venh

urst

Bal

boa

Loui

se

Whi

te O

akAv

e

Ave

Blv

d Ave B

lvd

Ave

Stagg St

Chase St

Glo

riaAv

e


Airport Boundary

Note: Exhibit is illustrative and is not to scale. For current information contact Los Angeles World Airports.

*Based on : (1) Fourth Quarter Monitoring Report, Los Angeles World Airports, September 8, 1997 (2) City Planning Department community plan maps.


2-19

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena

Airport

NorthHollywood

Sun Valley

Burbank

Roscoe

Blvd

Strathern St

Stagg St

Saticoy St

Valerio St

Sherman Way

Vanowen St

Kittridge St

Victory

Blvd

Erwin St

StOxnard

Hatteras

Burbank

St

Blvd

Laur

el

Can

yon

Blv

d

Radf

ord

Ave

Colfa

xAv

e

Lankershim Blvd

Lank

ersh

imB

lvdW

ebb Ave

Tuju

nga

Fair

Vine

land

Ave

Ave

Fair

Av

e

Ave

Sunla

nd

Blvd

Glenoaks Blvd

San Fernando Rd

Metrolink

Metrolink

Hol

lyw

ood

Clyb

ourn

Ave

Way

Pacific Ave

Hart St

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena AirportNoise Exposure Contours

EXHIBIT D

1996 Noise Contour (a CNEL of 65 dB)*

Airport Boundary

City of Burbank

City of Los Angeles

*Based on : (1) "Quarterly Noise Monitoring Report, at Burbank Airport, Fourth Quarter 1996", Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, July 1996. (2) City Planning Department community plan maps.


Note: Exhibit is illustrative and is not to scale. For further information contact the Airport Authority

2010 Projected Contour (a CNEL of 65 dB)** **Based on : "Environmental Impact Statement for Land Acquisition and Replacement Terminal Project," Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, August-1995.

170

5

2-20

City ofSanta Monica

Venice

Palms

Mar VIsta

CulverCity

WestLos Angeles

Santa Monica Airport

EXHIBIT E

Santa Monica AirportNoise Exposure Contour*


Airport Boundary

Note: Exhibit is Illustrative and is not to scale. For current information contact the Santa Monica Airport

*Based on : (1) Santa Monica Airport Noise Management Office, 1996. (2) City Planning Department community plan maps.


Pacific Ave Abbot Kinney Blvd

Calif

orni

a A

ve

Rose

Ave

Beethoven

St

Walgrove

Ave

23rd

St

City of S

anta Monica

City of L

os Angeles

Lincoln

Blvd

Venice

Blvd

Washington

BlvdWashington

Pl

Palms

Blvd

Bundy

Ave

Dr

Ocean Park

BlvdPico

Blvd

Olympic

Blvd

Santa Monica Blvd

Wils

hire Blvd

Sepulveda

Blvd

Westwood Blvd

Stewart Ave

28th

St

National Blvd

Centinela

R R

10

405

2-21

EXHIBIT F

Whiteman AirportNoise Exposure Contour*

WhitemanAirport


Airport Boundary

Note: Exhibit is illustrative and is not to scale. For current information contact the County Regional Planning Department

*Based on: (1) "Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan", adopted 1991, Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. (2) City Planning Department community plan map.


City ofSan Fernando

Arleta -Pacoima

SunValley

Sunland-Tujunga-Lakeview Terrace-

Shadow Hills

Tujun

ga W

ash

Metrolink

Pierce

St

Terra

Bella

St

Kagel Canyo

n

St

Osborne

St

Montague

St

Branford St

Van Nuys

Blvd

Filmore

St

Paxton

St

118

5

210

Foothill

Blvd

Dronfield

Ave

Borden

Ave

Glenoaks

Blvd

De Foe

Ave

Ralston

Ave

Gain

St

San Fernando

Rd

Telfair

Ave

Ralston Ave

Haddon

Ave

Laurel Canyon

Blvd

Arleta Ave

Herrick

Ave

2-22

of operation and number of flights. It sometimesrequires noise barrier walls and imposes landing ordeparture routes. However, because state and fed-eral authority preempts that of municipalities re-garding safety, flight path and noise barrier require-ments sometimes have been deemed inoperative bythe FAA or CAP if they interfered with flight safety.For many years the CPC imposed helicopter weightlimitations because it was assumed that weight couldbe correlated with the amount of noise generated.It ceased imposing the condition in the early 1980swhen it was advised that helicopter weight no longerhad any bearing on noise emissions.

Helicopter noise, unlike that of fixed-wing aircraft,is associated with the sound generated by rotorblades slapping against wind currents, not by theaircraft engine. Improvements in rotor systems isthe primary means of reducing noise generated byhelicopters. By the mid-1980s requests for condi-tional permits for heliports dwindled to zero, largelydue to the building construction recession, elec-tronic transfer of documents, increased popularityof limousine service and increased helicopter use ofairports. By then approximately 50 private heliportshad been permitted within the city, apart fromemergency heliports and at local airports (prima-rily at Van Nuys and Burbank airports).

In the 1980s noise reduction and concern aboutcrime resulted in the support by many local com-munities for police surveillance helicopters, caus-ing such use to increase substantially. In Los Ange-les, police and fire department helicopters operatefrom existing heliports that often contain fueling,parking and helicopter maintenance facilities.

HELICOPTER NOISE

Even with noise suppression improvements, heli-copter flight at 500 feet creates an audible soundthat is especially noticeable at night. National “FlyNeighborly” guidelines are implemented voluntar-ily by most pilots, thereby reducing noise impacts,especially in the vicinity of residential neighbor-hoods and noise sensitive uses. For example, vol-untary alternate flight routes have been requested

by the FAA relative to the Hollywood Bowl andother open air theaters during summer concert sea-sons. In the 1980s, to reduce noise impacts on ad-jacent communities, local airport authorities estab-lished helicopter operational flight procedures, spe-cific landing and departure routes, use restrictions(e.g., no flight training exercises) and restrictedhours of operation. These measures, along withrotor system redesign, significantly reduced noiseimpacts on neighborhoods. The operational pro-cedures were “grandfathered” as existing procedureswhen the Aircraft Noise and Capacity Act of 1990was effectuated (October 1990).

Airports In The Los Angeles Area

Los Angeles International Airport is known by itsFAA identifier “LAX.” It is one of four airport fa-cilities operated by the Los Angeles Department ofAirports. The department adopted the businessname of “Los Angeles World Airports” (LAWA) in1997.2 LAWA is an independent, fee supported,self-managing city agency governed by a board ofairport commissioners who are appointed by themayor and confirmed by the city council. LAWAestablishes rules and regulations governing the op-eration its four airports.

In 1930 LAX became the city’s first airport. LAWAsubsequently acquired the Van Nuys (VNY),Ontario and Palmdale airport properties. LAX andVNY are located within the city’s borders. OntarioAirport is located 30 miles east of Los Angeles,within the city of Ontario. The Palmdale RegionalAirport is located 35 miles northeast of Los Ange-les in the Antelope Valley within the Mojave Desert,near the city of Palmdale. A temporary airport ter-minal is located on U.S. Air Force property adja-cent to the city’s 17,750 acre future regional air-port site. Pending development of that airport, por-tions of the site are used for agricultural purposes(pistachio nut and fruit orchards, grazing sheep).The Ontario and Palmdale airports are not discussedin this element.

2-23

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)

LAX is located entirely within the City of Los An-geles. It is situated south of the Santa Monica Moun-tain range, within the Westchester-Playa del Reycommunity planning area. It bounds the cities ofEl Segundo and Inglewood, the county commu-nity of Lennox and the Pacific Ocean.

The airport was located in the middle of a beanfield. It rapidly expanded until today it occupiesan approximately 3,500 acre site. It has four lightedrunways ranging from 8,925 feet to 12,090 feetin length, each of which can accommodate widebodied passenger jet aircraft. A major contributorto the local economy, LAX is the fourth busiestairport in the United States and the world. In 1996it served 763,866 flights and 58 million passen-gers and its 98 acre “cargo city” handled over 1.89million tons of goods, 40 percent of which wasinternational freight. Among the facilities locatedon LAX property are commercial and light manu-facturing uses, the Centinela Hospital AirportMedical Clinic, a U.S. Coast Guard Air Stationand a 200 acre El Segundo Blue Butterfly habitatpreservation area.

LAX ZONING

The majority of the LAX site is classified in the M2and M3 (manufacturing) zones, which allow airportuses by right. Commercial, light manufacturing andopen space zoning around the perimeter of the sitehas encouraged development and retention of air-port compatible uses, which serve as noise buffersbetween the airport and adjacent noise sensitive uses.A portion of the zoning within the airport is condi-tioned to limit types of use and intensity of develop-ment in order to reduce street traffic impacts andencourage compatibility with surrounding commu-nities. Parcels along the north (Westchester) perim-eter generally are required to secure planning com-mission or planning department site plan approvalprior to issuance of building permits. This allows ad-ditional public review and ensures compliance withplanning commission policy.

LAX NOISE MANAGEMENT

Following the opening of the airfield in 1928, agri-cultural lands surrounding the airport graduallywere converted to urban uses. When jet aircraft wereintroduced in 1959, residents, merchants and schoolauthorities began complaining about noise, espe-cially noise associated with landings and takeoffs.A Sound Abatement Coordinating Committeecomprised of representatives of the air transport in-dustry, LAWA, FAA, the Airline Pilots Associationand commercial carriers was formed in July 1959to address the noise problem. Subsequently LAWAimplemented the committee’s recommendation thataircraft be required to maintain a straight depar-ture course, not turning until they were over thePacific Ocean. But noise complaints continued.

As a result of a legal action by Westchester propertyowners, LAWA, with the assistance of FAA funds,in 1965 began to acquire and remove more than2,800 homes that were severely impacted by air-craft noise and to relocate approximately 7,000 resi-dents of the homes. The program was completedin the 1980s with many of the homes relocated as apart of an affordable housing program. Twenty ofthe vacated homes were used for a sound insula-tion testing program. The program concluded thathomes severely impacted by airport noise could notbe adequately insulated at a reasonable cost usingmaterials and techniques then available. The studyis one of the most systematic investigations of dif-ferent methods and materials applied to dwellings.It has been used by federal and other agencies forformulating insulation standards and programs.

To achieve compliance with FAA and state noiseregulations, LAWA adopted (1972) a five-pointprogram to reduce aircraft noise and diminishgreater than CNEL of 65 dB aircraft noise impactson surrounding communities. The measures in-cluded termination of airport use permits for op-erators who repeatedly violated LAWA’s noise regu-lations. Nighttime noise impacts on residential ar-eas was reduced in 1973 when LAWA instituted apreferential nighttime runway system and reroutednight landing and departures over the ocean. Fol-

2-24

lowing a test flight of the Concorde supersonic air-plane to LAX in 1974 all supersonic aircraft wereprohibited from using LAX until such time as theycould meet LAWA noise standards. A 1,500 footlong concrete and landscaped earthen sound bar-rier was constructed in 1979 along the north sideof LAX between Emerson Avenue and theWestchester Golf Course to mitigate noise impactson the Westchester community. During the 1970sa lawsuit brought against LAWA by local schooldistricts was settled when LAWA agreed to providefunds for insulation of schools impacted by LAXand the school districts agreed to aviation (over-flight) easements.

LAX - FAR PART 150 AND LAWA NOISE COMPATIBILITY

PROGRAMS3

The major program in the 1980s and 1990s toaccomplish greater compatibility between airportsand their neighbors was the FAR Part 150 noisecompatibility program. In 1981, to qualify forFAR Part 150 funds, LAWA instituted a four-partstudy, “The LAX-Airport Noise Control Land UseCompatibility Study.” The study reevaluated thefeasibility of achieving acceptable indoor noiselevels, the methods and materials to meet the lev-els and the costs involved. It established new noiseidentification and mitigation procedures thatcould be applied to homes within a CNEL of 65dB contour. The new procedures included an air-craft noise monitoring system, which was installedto detect nighttime engine testing in maintenanceareas, and a 24-hour complaint and informationphone line to facilitate processing of and responseto community complaints.

The study provided documentation that enablesthousands of properties in the LAX noise impactarea to quality for noise abatement funds. Repre-sentatives of the aviation industry, regulatory agen-cies and communities impacted by noise partici-pated in the study. They assessed noise managementtechniques in relation to land use and recommendedmethods for achieving greater compatibility be-tween LAX and its neighbors. Public hearings andworkshops were conducted to help identify the

scope of the study and to secure information andideas. Committees explored different issues includ-ing helicopter noise, maintenance operations, night-time impacts, operations of aircraft in flight andon the ground and community specific issues. Us-ing advanced modeling techniques, airfield and air-craft operational strategies were evaluated for bothnoise reduction and safety. In addition, homeownersin noise impacted communities were invited toparticipate in a “validation” project to test noise in-sulation materials and methods. Of the 243 dwell-ings offer by owners for sound insulation testing,seven apartment buildings and 15 single-familydwellings were selected. Residents were interviewedto determine the effectiveness of insulation tech-niques and materials.

Data from the study resulted in establishment ofgeographic boundaries within which impacted ju-risdictions and properties could qualify to partici-pate in the FAR Part 150 program. The study pro-vided the information needed to qualify and estab-lish prioritization of properties and jurisdictions forFAR Part 150 funding and led LAWA, in 1987, toestablish its own sound insulation funding programto supplement federal funding. Other noise moni-toring and reduction benefits resulting from thestudy include: an ongoing dialogue between thecommunity and airport authority; revision of flightand on-ground aircraft and maintenance opera-tional procedures; acceleration of planning and re-development programs to reduce incompatible landuses in surrounding jurisdictions; enactment byLAWA of a requirement that aircraft using the Im-perial Boulevard terminal (near the city of ElSegundo) be towed between the airfield and theterminal; installation of auxiliary power units at allaircraft parking locations so that aircraft would nothave to run their engines in order to maintain airconditioning levels within the aircraft betweenflights; proposals for redesign of runways, includ-ing a plan for maximizing use of interior runwaysso as to focus noise away from adjacent communi-ties; reaffirmation of LAWA’s prohibition of super-sonic aircraft from use of LAX; establishment ofprocedures for improved pilot education concern-

2-25

ing flight noise management procedures and newhelicopter noise abatement (including requiring a2,000 foot flight altitude); construction of addi-tional sound barriers in Westchester and ElSegundo; and a determination that recent advancesin acoustical and thermal insulation materials andtechniques had made retrofitting a viable alterna-tive for some noise impacted areas and uses.

LAWA sound insulation funds were made avail-able in 1987 to impacted jurisdictions (Los Ange-les city and county, Inglewood and El Segundo).To qualify for LAWA funds a local jurisdictionmust be a participant in the FAR Part 150 pro-gram. Funding for both the FAR Part 150 andLAWA programs has been expanded to acceleratenoise management efforts. An estimated 29,041uninsulated dwelling units lie within the LAXCNEL of 65 dB noise exposure area (approxi-mately 20,051 multifamily and 8,990 single-fam-ily residential units). It is estimated that, by theyear 2010, LAWA will spend approximately $245million to soundproof more than 21,000 dwell-ing units and $220 million for purchase (for con-version) of incompatible uses. As of 1996, the cityof Inglewood had been allocated $8 million toconvert noise impacted residential properties toairport compatible uses and school districts hadbeen allocated $21 million for sound insulation.

Between 1981 and 1996 the LAX CNEL of 70dB noise exposure contour area had shrunk from2.6-square miles to one-square mile, while theCNEL of 65 dB contour remained at around three-square miles. Noise impacts on surrounding com-munities were significantly reduced by 1986, pri-marily due to the phasing out of all Stage 1 air-craft, the noisiest aircraft. Virtually all Stage 2 air-craft were phased out by 1996 and all will bephased out by the year 2000.

LAWA is preparing an exterior sound transmis-sion control ordinance to codify noise exposurecontours and establish uniform procedures and re-quirements for sound insulation of new and exist-ing noise sensitive uses, as defined by the Califor-nia Airport Noise Standards, based on the con-

tours. LAWA also is continuing its efforts to workwith the FAA and pilots to further reduce noiseimpacts through flight techniques and practices.For example, a LAWA-FAA instrument based pro-cedure recently was developed that enables pilotsto readily identify the Pacific shoreline. This en-ables them to maintain flight paths and turningpatterns that are less likely to impact the ElSegundo and Playa del Rey communities.

LAX - COMMUNITY PLAN NOISE ISSUES

In spite of all these efforts, airport related noisecontinues to impact surrounding communities,including the Los Angeles city communities ofWestchester-Playa del Rey and South Central, thecities of Inglewood and El Segundo and unincor-porated areas of Los Angeles County, especiallythe community of Lennox. Each jurisdiction is ad-dressing the issue of airport noise compatibilitythrough its general planning and noise manage-ment programs.

LAX is located within the community ofWestchester. To facilitate preparation of plans forLAX, the airport property was removed from theWestchester-Playa del Rey community plan. In ac-knowledgment of this action, Objective 7 of the1974 Westchester-Playa del Rey District Plan callsfor coordination of airport and airport related landuses to “provide adequate buffers and transitionaluses” between LAX and the community.

LAX PLAN

LAWA is preparing a airport master plan that ad-dresses the first major expansion of LAX since 1984.It will become a part of the city’s general plan and,therefore, will be considered for approval and/oradoption by the planning commission, mayor andcity council, following public hearings. The primarygoal of the plan is to reduce noise impacts on adja-cent communities, especially residential neighbor-hoods, while enabling significant expansion of air-port activity. The project also will address groundtraffic impacts (both noise and circulation) on sur-rounding communities. Noise has been a major is-sue in the project discussions.

2-26

Van Nuys Airport (VNY)

Van Nuys Airport is owned and operated by LAWA.It is located wholly within the City of Los Angeles.It is known by its FAA identifier “VNY.” VNY issituated in the center of the San Fernando Valley,north of the Santa Monica Mountain range, withinthe community of West Van Nuys and at the edgesof the community plan areas of Mission Hills-Pan-orama City and Van Nuys-North Sherman Oaks.VNY is a 730-acre general aviation airport (noscheduled air carrier services). It has two lightedrunways. The 8,000 foot long runway crossesSherman Way boulevard via an overpass and canaccommodate jet aircraft of up to 210,000 pounds.The 4,000 foot runway can accommodate aircraftof up to 14,000 pounds. In 1996 VNY was thebusiest general aviation airport in the world andthe seventh busiest civilian airport in the nation,handling over 526,433 annual flights and serving750 based aircraft (those that lease space at the air-port). In addition to airport related uses, VNY prop-erty contains a hotel, nine-hole golf course, restau-rants, agricultural uses and an office supplies store.

VNY ZONING

The majority of the airport property is classified inthe [Q]M2-1VL Zone. The [Q] ‘Permanent Quali-fied’ condition limits land use on specified sites toairport and airport related uses. The 1VL HeightDistrict designation limits structures to 45-feet inheight. Less than 16 acres of the property is classi-fied in the M1 and M2 (light manufacturing) zones.The remaining 59 acres lie within the airport over-fly (hazard) area and are classified in the OS-1XL(open space) and A1-1XL (agricultural) zones withstructures limited to 30 feet in height by the 1XLHeight District classification.

Pending completion of the VNY master plan, thecity council in 1993 imposed a two-year interimcontrol ordinance to regulate airport land usechanges. Subsequently the time period was ex-tended. The ordinance requires planning depart-ment authorization for virtually all changes in use.This is to ensure that new uses will not significantly

intensify airport activity, that they will be compat-ible with the surrounding neighborhood and thatthey will not preclude airport master plan actions.

VNY NOISE MANAGEMENT4

From 1949, when LAWA acquired the airport, to1971, additional acquisitions led to airport expan-sion and enabled establishment of peripheral air-port related uses to buffer airport noise from adja-cent residential neighborhoods. However, continu-ing complaints from neighboring communities re-garding noise, especially during the nighttime hours,prompted the city council in 1981 to adopt a noiseabatement and curfew law (Ordinance 155,727).The ordinance prohibited airplanes that exceeded74 dB from taking off from VNY between the hoursof 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. (except as provided by theordinance, e.g., military aircraft and in the event ofan emergency); prohibited repetitive jet pattern fly-ing and training operations; limited propeller drivenaircraft activities, engine testing and use of certainrunways during nighttime hours; and establishedpenalties for ordinance violations. Fixed-wing air-craft operators subsequently were required to signa “Quiet Jet Departure Program” agreement. Theagreement required pilots to observe flight tech-niques and procedures designed to reduce noiseimpacts on surrounding communities, e.g., modi-fication of hours and patterns for landings and de-partures. With the passage of the federal AirportNoise and Capacity Act of 1990, local governmentsand airports were prohibited from adopting newnoise restrictions without obtaining authorizationfrom the FAA. However the Act grandfathered ex-isting local noise ordinances, including the VNYnoise abatement ordinance.

In October 1982, LAWA prohibited scheduled com-mercial air carrier flights from using VNY. In 1985,in response to community concerns regarding poten-tial airport acquisitions, expansion, safety and noise,LAWA established the VNY citizens advisory councilto help assess community concerns and develop noisemanagement strategies. In 1992 it prepared the VNYPart 150 program with the assistance of a steering

2-27

committee, which included community representa-tives. It was not accepted by the FAA because the FAAdeemed that the airport noise exposure maps, uponwhich the program was based, were unacceptable.

Voluntary modified takeoff procedures were re-quested of jet aircraft by LAWA in 1993 to reducenoise and enable an assessment of the effects of suchmeasures on noise impacts. In 1994 noise moni-toring was improved to provide more accurate noisecontours on which to base the FAR Part 150 noisecompatibility program. By 1996, VNY and FAAnoise management strategies, including acquisitionof land for airport related uses and phasing out ofStage 1 (the noisiest aircraft), had reduced theCNEL of 65 dB contour to an area almost entirelywithin the airport boundaries and surrounding in-dustrial properties (Exhibit C). A new FAR Part150 Steering Committee was established in 1996to advise LAWA concerning noise issues and to rec-ommend abatement measures.

From 1995 to 1998, in response to continuing com-plaints from neighbors about noise, LAWA enacteda series of noise management policies, all of whichrequired approval of the FAA before they could beincorporated into the VNY noise abatement ordi-nance. These included prohibiting issuance of ad-ditional leases for Stage 2 based aircraft (July 1995),extending the curfew from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m. (May1996) and requesting permission to apply the cur-few to helicopters (March 1997). The curfew limi-tations and the nonaddition rule for aircraft with anoise emission level of over 77 dBA (calculated us-ing FAA Advisory Circular No. 36-3) were autho-rized by the FAA in August 1997. FAA ruled thatany proposed new helicopter restrictions must com-ply with FAR Part 161, following environmentalreview processes and public hearings, consistentwith federal procedures. The new curfew was in-corporated into the VNY noise abatement ordi-nance and became effective in February 1998. Thenonaddition rule was under consideration by citydecision makers in 1998.

VNY - COMMUNITY PLAN NOISE ISSUES

Some noise from VNY impacts adjacent commu-nities located within the general plan communityplanning areas of Reseda-West Van Nuys, MissionHills-Panorama City-Sepulveda and Van Nuys-North Sherman Oaks. The majority of the VNY islocated within the Reseda-West Van Nuys commu-nity plan area. The plan was adopted in 1986. Itspolicies call for all new development within VNYto be accomplished under conditional use permit.This enables the planning commission and citycouncil, on appeal, to review use change requestsand, if approved, to impose conditions, includingnoise impact mitigation measures. The communityplan designates 650 acres of the plan area for in-dustrial use, most of which is located within oraround VNY. The industrial uses provide buffersbetween the airport and adjacent residential neigh-borhoods. Some residential uses still exist withinthe noise contour area. The community plan wasbeing updated in 1998.

The Mission Hills-Panorama City-Sepulveda andVan Nuys-North Sherman Oaks community plansfor several decades have designated land immedi-ately adjacent to VNY for industrial uses. By thelate 1980s incompatible uses generally had beenphased out and an industrial buffer had been cre-ated adjacent to the southern and northwesternportions of VNY. Both community plans were be-ing revised in 1998.

VNY PLAN

A master plan for VNY was being prepared byLAWA, in coordination with the VNY citizens’advisory council and other affected and interestedparties, in 1998. The master plan will become apart of the city’s general plan and, therefore, will beconsidered for approval and/or adoption by theplanning commission, mayor and city council fol-lowing public hearings. The FAA also must approvethe plan. The primary goals of the planning effortare to reconfigure on-site airport land use andmodify airport use to make VNY more economi-cally viable while at the same time reducing im-

2-28

pacts on adjacent communities. Noise from cur-rent as well as potential future airport activities wasa major issue in the master plan discussions whichwere taking place in 1997-98.

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport (BUR)

The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, com-monly known as the Burbank Airport and by itsFAA identifier “BUR,” is not within the jurisdic-tion of the City of Los Angeles, although a smallportion of the airport is located within the city. It isowned and operated by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasa-dena Airport Authority, which is independent ofthe three cities for which it is named. Each of thecities appoints representatives to the Authority’sboard of directors.

BUR is located primarily within the City ofBurbank, north of the Santa Monica Mountains.Small portions of BUR are located within the LosAngeles communities of Sun Valley and NorthHollywood. The most westerly portion of BURbounds the Los Angeles planning area of NorthHollywood. In 1996, BUR occupied a 480-acre siteand had two lighted runways in excess of 6,000feet in length and capable of supporting 240,000pound jets. It served over 59,000 passenger air car-rier flights with nearly 5 million annual passengers,as well as over 125,000 flights by other types ofaircraft (air taxi, cargo, business, private flights anda small number of military flights).

BUR NOISE MANAGEMENT5

When the Authority purchased BUR in 1978, in-compatible uses within a CNEL of 70 dB noiseimpact contour totaled 385 acres. At that time,BUR was not a designated “noise problem” airport.However, the FAA and state encouraged civilian air-ports to reduce airport related noise impacts withintheir CNEL of 70 dB noise contour areas throughsuch means as changes in land use, installation ofsound insulation and changes in airport operations.To achieve this goal, the Authority in 1981 requiredcommercial airlines to phase out their Stage 1 andStage 2 aircraft and to operate only Stage 3 aircraft,

the quietest jet air passenger carriers, by 1989. Italso prohibited departures and landings of all gen-eral aviation Stage 1 and Stage 2 jet aircraft betweenthe hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Scheduled air car-riers were asked to comply voluntarily with the cur-few. Most of the carriers voluntarily complied. Stage3, freight and other private aircraft did not comeunder the mandatory or voluntary restrictions. Thegoal of only-Stage 3 passenger carriers operating atBUR was achieved ahead of schedule, in 1987.

Due to these measures, by 1986 only 83 acres ofimpacted land (residential and other noise sensi-tive uses) remained within a CNEL of 70 dB noisecontour area. In 1986 the Division of Aeronautics(later called Caltrans Aeronautics Program) changedits noise impact measurement standard from aCNEL of 70 dB to a CNEL of 65 dB. This resultedin an increase in the impact area to 446 acres. By1994, noise management measures had reduced thenumber of scheduled commercial airline flights toapproximately a dozen during nighttime hours, withonly three occurring after 6:30 p.m. In addition tothe noise reduction measures, between 1985 and1996 the total flights associated with BUR declinedfrom 246,000 to 184,000, further reducing noiseimpacts. By 1996, the impacted area within a CNELof 65 dB contour had been reduced to 373 acres.

In 1985 the Authority began preparation of its FARPart 150 noise compatibility program. The FAAapproved the program in 1989 and allocated fundsthat enabled soundproofing of four schools of whichtwo were located within the City of Los Angeles.Within the CNEL of 65 dB noise contour area (Ex-hibit D) approximately 2,300 dwellings within LosAngeles and Burbank could be eligible for grantassistance, depending upon the availability ofmoney from the Federal Aviation Trust Fund. In1997 funding became available and was offered forsoundproofing of 50 homes.

BUR - COMMUNITY PLAN NOISE ISSUES

In spite of all these efforts, noise from aircraft ac-tivity continued to impact Burbank and the LosAngeles community planning areas of Sun Valley,

2-29

North Hollywood and the Van Nuys-NorthSherman Oaks. Plans for the three planning areasgenerally designate land immediately adjacent toBUR for industrial uses. By the mid-1980s most ofthose lands had been improved with industrial uses,thereby creating buffers adjacent to the airport. Inaddition, revisions to the community plans between1979 and 1996 called for additional mitigationmeasures to reduce noise impacts.

BUR PLAN

A final environmental impact report (EIR) for landacquisition and a BUR replacement passenger ter-minal was approved by the Authority in 1993. Theproposed project included acquisition by the Au-thority of 130 acres of land for construction of anew passenger terminal and conversion of the ex-isting terminal site to airfield related uses. The newterminal site was selected in order to meet FAA ter-minal and runway separation requirements. TheFAA, for safety reasons, requires that a terminal notbe closer than 750 feet from the center line of anactive air carrier runway. The current terminal iswithin the runway hazard zone.

In 1993 the City of Los Angeles challenged theadequacy of the EIR. The superior court found infavor of Los Angeles and requested that the Au-thority prepare a supplemental environmental im-pact report addressing noise impacts associated withBUR’s projected increased aircraft activity. The re-port was prepared and, in 1995, the court foundthat the EIR met California Environmental Qual-ity Act (CEQA) requirements. Los Angeles ap-pealed the finding. In 1996 the FAA completed itsreview of the federally required environmentalimpact statement (EIS) for the project and deemedthat it met the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) requirements. In 1996 Los Angeles chal-lenged the adequacy of the EIS. It contended thatthe project was for the entire airport and wouldresult in increased airport activity and increasedimpacts on noise sensitive uses within the City ofLos Angeles, as indicated on the project’s EIS 2010projected noise contour map (Exhibit D). TheAuthority contended that the project was for theterminal only and that the increase in flight activ-

ity would occur whether or not a new terminalwas constructed. Lawsuits also were filed betweenthe Authority and City of Burbank over jurisdic-tional, noise and other matters. In March 1998 afederal court of appeals upheld the EIS. Other liti-gation was pending in 1998.

Santa Monica Airport (SMO)

Santa Monica Airport, known by its FAA identifier“SMO,” was established in 1919. It is the oldestcontinuously operated airfield in Los AngelesCounty. SMO is a general aviation airport (noscheduled air carriers) that is owned and operatedby the City of Santa Monica and is located entirelywithin that city. The site is south of the SantaMonica Mountains, east of the Pacific Ocean and afew miles north of LAX. It adjoins the Los Angelescommunity planning areas of Venice and Palms-Mar Vista-Del Rey. The 225 acre site has a single5,000 foot lighted runway that is capable of han-dling aircraft of up to 105,000 pounds. In 1994SMO served approximately 550 based aircraft andhandled over 208,000 flights annually. It has a ca-pacity for 750 based aircraft. In addition to airportrelated activities, the site contains conference andmeeting facilities and a large aircraft museum thatdisplays vintage, corporate and recreational aircraft.

SMO - COMMUNITY PLAN NOISE ISSUES

In the 1990s, noise from SMO activities was notidentified as a significant planning issue by eitherthe Venice or Palms-Mar Vista-Del Rey communityplans. The Penmar Golf Course in Venice adjoinsSMO at the northeast boundary of the plan area,providing a partial buffer at the west end of the SMOrunway. The golf course significantly mitigates noiseimpacts on Venice. The 1997 revised Palms-MarVista-Del Rey plan designates an area between SMOand Centinela Avenue for low density residential use.Footnote No. 4 indicates that the land should notbe developed with residential uses as long as the air-port is in operation. A portion of the area is devel-oped with residential uses, the remainder with de-veloped with airport related uses.

2-30

SMO NOISE MANAGEMENT

Until the 1960s SMO primarily served as a testingfield for the Douglas Aircraft Company. When thecompany moved its operations to Long Beach,SMO expanded its operations. By 1966 it rivaledVNY as the busiest general aviation airport in thenation, reaching a peak of 374,000 flights.

With the expansion of SMO and introduction ofjet aircraft in the 1960s neighbors began to com-plain about noise. During the 1970s the volume offlights continued to increase, as did complaints fromSanta Monica and Los Angeles neighborhoods thatwere under or adjacent to the SMO flight paths.

Several lawsuits were filed. The courts determinedthat the City of Santa Monica had an obligation totake reasonable actions to abate noise impacts. In1982 the U.S. Department of Justice advised SantaMonica that it intended to file suit, contending thatSanta Monica was in violation of federal law andcontracts relating to SMO operations. Santa Monicaresponded that it was obligated to continue airportoperations in order to comply with legal commit-ments to the United States. As part of apreagreement, Santa Monica in 1983 adopted arevised airport master plan and noise ordinance. Theordinance included limitation of flight departuresand engine start-ups to weekdays between 7 a.m.and 11 p.m. and weekends between 8 a.m. and 11p.m. (except for emergencies), limitation of touch-and-go pattern flying operations to daytime andnonholiday hours, prohibition of all aircraft deemedunable to meet a 95 dBA (single-event noise expo-sure level) standard and prohibition of use of SMOfor helicopter flight training. The ordinance setcriminal penalties for violations. A 1984 negoti-ated settlement between Santa Monica and the FAAprovided for SMO to operate through July 1, 2015,under certain conditions.

Provisions of the settlement included conditionsthat were incorporated into the Santa Monicanoise ordinance (restrictions, standards and pen-alties), required SMO to establish aircraft noise

abatement procedures and incorporated featuresof the new master plan (e.g., runway realignment,relocation of noise generating activities and des-ignation of a heliport site). A main feature of themaster plan was relocation of airport uses fromthe south (adjacent to Los Angeles) to the northside of SMO, creation of buffer zones by convert-ing the southeast (adjacent to Los Angeles) por-tion of SMO to airport oriented uses (a businesspark) and converting other land to park and non-residential uses. Flight patterns were establishedto contain noise within SMO and the Penmar GolfCourse (Exhibit E). In 1990 the final phase of themaster plan was implemented by the completionof the business park. Although the federal AirportNoise Capacity Act of 1990 prohibited local au-thorities from adopting new noise restrictionswithout obtaining permission from the FAA, itgrandfathered existing ordinances, including the1983 SMO noise ordinance.

In the early 1990s over $6 million in local and fed-eral funds was expended on noise reduction mea-sures, including construction of noise walls. Noiseabatement procedures incorporating provisions of thenoise ordinance and settlement were provided to air-craft operators and were revised periodically to im-prove noise abatement and reflect new technologyand safety considerations. Procedures included re-stricted flight operation hours, a minimum altitudeof 900 feet over the SMO vicinity for helicopters,compliance with other SMO-FAA established heli-copter noise abatement procedures and specific land-ing and departure routes over the golf course andadjacent freeways. Operators were urged to observeadditional voluntary procedures, including increasedaltitude for landing and departure patterns.

Noise impacts on properties within the Los Ange-les and Santa Monica generally were mitigated bythe various measures that were implemented fol-lowing the 1984 settlement. A greater than CNELof 65 dB noise contour generally is retained withinSMO boundaries and adjacent public, industrialand commercial areas.

2-31

Whiteman Airport

Whiteman Airport has been owned and operatedby the County of Los Angeles since 1970. It is lo-cated entirely within the City of Los Angeles com-munity of Pacoima, in the north San Fernando Val-ley. The 184.4-acre, general aviation airport has onelighted 4,100 foot long runway that is capable ofhandling aircraft of up to 12,000 pounds.Whiteman primarily serves single engine, fixed-wing, propeller driven aircraft. In 1995 it served551 based aircraft and handled over 88,000 flights.

WHITEMAN NOISE MANAGEMENT

Noise has not been a major issue relative toWhiteman. This is largely due to the fact that themajority of aircraft operations occur during day-time hours and only propeller (not jet) aircraft usethe site. Noise impacts generally are containedwithin the airport boundaries or adjacent indus-trial, open space or public lands (Exhibit F).

Much of the airport is separated from residentialuses by industrial, open space or public uses. Theopen space and public uses include county floodcontrol and associated recreational facilities, acounty communications center and a county re-gional fire department headquarters (including aheliport). Hilly terrain to the north of the runwayprovides a natural buffer.

From the 1970s to the 1990s the economic reces-sion contributed to a reduction in airport activityand concomitant reduction in airport related noise.Flights decreased from 140,900 flights in 1989 to88,000 in 1995. Based aircraft decreased from 655in the 1970s to 551 in 1995. The 1991 airportmaster plan indicates a projected increase to285,000 annual flights and 930 based aircraft bythe year 2010. The increase was taken into accountduring the updating of the Arleta-Pacoima com-munity plan and airport rezoning (1996).

WHITEMAN - ZONING AND COMMUNITY PLAN LANDCLASSIFICATION

Even though a county can preempt municipal landuse law, the county worked closely with the city plan-

ning department and neighbors during the Arelta-Pacoima community plan updating project. Thecounty supported rezoning of airport parcels so as toemphasize its desire to maintain the airport in a lowintensity use and to provide land use buffers betweenthe community and airport uses. Concurrent withthe adoption of the community plan changes in1996, the airport site was rezoned. The current zon-ing is mostly in the PF (public facilities) Zone, whichpermits continuance of the M2 Zone uses, i.e., air-port related uses by right. Portions of the propertyalong the northeast boundary are zoned as OS (openspace) and [Q]MR2 (restricted light industrial). The[Q] ‘Permanent Qualified’ conditions limit uses gen-erally to the MR1 (restricted industrial) Zone andrequire shielding of lights and other measures to pro-tect adjacent residential uses.

Endnotes

No. Description

1 The term “heliport” applies to all formal heli-port or helistop sites. The FAA requires thatall airports provide access for helicopters. Sincehelicopters may land on airport runways, noformal heliport facilities or locations at air-ports are required.

2 The official (charter) name of the airport is“Department of Airports.” However, through-out this element the agency will be referredby its business name, Los Angeles World Air-ports (LAWA).

3-5 Detailed descriptions of legislation and pro-grams are contained in the Regulations andPrograms section of this chapter.

3-1

Chapter III — Goals, Objectives and Policies

The following goals, objectives and policies relateto noise management within the city. The “Gen-eral Plan Guidelines” issued by the Governor’s Of-fice of Planning and Research (1990) advises that ageneral plan should contain goals, objectives, poli-cies, programs and implementation monitoring.Goals are described as a general setting of direc-tion, objectives as intermediate steps in attainingthe goal, policies as specific guides to decision mak-ing and programs as specific means of achievingthe policies. Each policy is to have at least one cor-responding implementation measure.

The programs for the noise element are containedin the Chapter IV program implementation list-ing. Program numbers are referenced in this chap-ter after each policy with the notation ‘P’ followedby the program number.

DEFINITION OF NOISE-SENSITIVE USES: For the pur-poses of implementation of policies and programscontained herein, the following land uses aredeemed “noise sensitive” uses: single-family andmulti-unit dwellings, long-term care facilities (in-cluding convalescent and retirement facilities), dor-mitories, motels, hotels, transient lodgings and otherresidential uses; houses of worship; hospitals; librar-ies; schools; auditoriums; concert halls; outdoor the-aters; nature and wildlife preserves, and parks.

GoalA city where noise does not reduce the quality ofurban life.

Objective 1 (Airports and Harbor)

Reduce airport and harbor related noise impacts.

Policy

1.1 Incompatibility of airports declared by LosAngeles County to be “noise problem airports”

(LAX, Van Nuys and Burbank) and land usesshall be reduced to achieve zero incompatibleuses within a CNEL of 65 dB airport noiseexposure area, as required by the CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation pursuant to theCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 21, Sec-tion 5000, et seq., or any amendment thereto.(P1 through P4)

Objective 2 (Nonairport)

Reduce or eliminate nonairport related intrusivenoise, especially relative to noise sensitive uses.

Policy

2.2 Enforce and/or implement applicable city,state and federal regulations intended to miti-gate proposed noise producing activities, re-duce intrusive noise and alleviate noise that isdeemed a public nuisance. (P5 through P10)

Objective 3 (Land Use Development)

Reduce or eliminate noise impacts associated with pro-posed development of land and changes in land use.

Policy

3.1 Develop land use policies and programs thatwill reduce or eliminate potential and exist-ing noise impacts. (P11 through P18)

Endnotes

No. Description

6 These standards are consistent with thestandards proposed promulgated by theCalifornia Department of Health Servicesand recommended by the Governor’s Of-fice and Planning and Research “1990General Plan Guidelines.”

4-1

Chapter IV — Implementation

The following programs are intended to implementthe policies set forth in Chapter III. All of the pro-grams are ongoing city programs that are fundedout of city funds or, as available, from federal, stateor other sources.

An asterisk (*) indicates the program lead agency,if any.

DEFINITION OF NOISE-SENSITIVE USES: For the pur-poses of implementation of policies and programscontained herein, the following land uses aredeemed “noise sensitive” uses: single-family andmulti-unit dwellings, long-term care facilities (in-cluding convalescent and retirement facilities), dor-mitories, motels, hotels, transient lodgings and otherresidential uses; houses of worship; hospitals; librar-ies; schools; auditoriums; concert halls; outdoor the-aters; nature and wildlife preserves, and parks.

Airports and Harbor:P1 Continue to develop and implement noise

compatibility ordinances and programs thatare designed to abate airport related noiseimpacts on existing uses, to phase out incom-patible uses and to guide the establishment ofnew uses within a CNEL of 65 dB noise ex-posure area of the Los Angeles Internationaland Van Nuys airports and within those por-tions of the city that lie within a CNEL of 65noise exposure area of the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport.

Responsible agencies: *Airport, Building and Safetyand Planning departments.

P2 Noise abatement, mitigation and compatibil-ity measures shall be incorporated into the city’sgeneral plan airport and harbor elements, in-cluding, where feasible, sound proofing of im-

pacted sensitive uses, buffering, land usereconfiguration, modification of associated cir-culation and transportation systems, modifica-tion of operational procedures, conversion orphasing out of uses that are incompatible withairport or harbor uses, and/or other measuresdesigned to reduce airport and harbor relatednoise impacts on adjacent communities.

Responsible agencies: *Airports, *Harbor and *Plan-ning departments.

P3 Continue to incorporate airport and harbornoise compatibility measures into the city’sgeneral plan community plan elements forcommunities that are significantly impactedby airport and harbor related noise, includ-ing, where feasible, conversion or phasing outof land uses that are incompatible with air-port and harbor uses, reclassification of zones,modification of associated circulation systemsand/or other measures designed to reduce air-port and harbor related noise impacts on ad-jacent communities.

Responsible agencies: *Planning, Airports and Har-bor departments.

P4 Continue to encourage operators of theBurbank-Glendale-Pasadena, Santa Monicaand Whiteman airports to continue imple-menting and improving noise managementmeasures so as to maintain a CNEL of 65 dBcontour within the airport and surroundingcompatible use boundaries and so as to main-tain or reduce any impacts on noise-sensitiveuses located within the City of Los Angeles toa CNEL of 65 dB or lower noise level.

Responsible agencies: City Council and Mayor.

4-2

Nonairport:

P5 Continue to enforce, as applicable, city, stateand federal regulations intended to abate oreliminate disturbances of the peace and otherintrusive noise.

Responsible agencies: Animal Regulation, Buildingand Safety, Police, and Recreation and Parks de-partments.

P6 When processing building permits, continueto require appropriate project design and/orinsulation measures, in accordance with theCalifornia Noise Insulation Standards (Build-ing Code Title 24, Section 3501 et seq.), orany amendments thereto or subsequent relatedregulations, so as to assure that interior noiselevels will not exceed the minimum ambientnoise levels, as set forth in the city’s noise or-dinance (LAMC Section 111 et seq., and anyother insulation related code standards or re-quirements) for a particular zone or noise sen-sitive use, as defined by the California NoiseInsulation Standards.

Responsible agency: Building and Safety Depart-ment.

P7 Continue to periodically update city codes andplans that contain noise management provi-sions so as to address new issues and noisemanagement changes.

Responsible agencies: Animal Regulation, Buildingand Safety, City Council, Planning, Police, andRecreation and Parks departments.

P8 Continue to periodically update guidelinesfor California Environmental Quality Act-required land development project review bycity agencies.

Responsible agencies: Airports, Community Devel-opment, *Environmental Affairs, Harbor, Housing,Planning, Public Works, Recreation and Parks,

Transportation, and Water and Power departmentsand Community Redevelopment Agency.

P9 Continue to operate city equipment, vehiclesand facilities in accordance with any applicablecity, state or federal regulations.

Responsible agencies: all.

P10 Continue to encourage public transit and railsystems operating within the city’s borders, butwhich are not within the jurisdiction of thecity, to be constructed and operated in a man-ner that will assure compliance with the city’snoise ordinance standards.


Land Use Development:

P11 For a proposed development project that isdeemed to have a potentially significant noiseimpact on noise sensitive uses, as defined bythis chapter, require mitigation measures, asappropriate, in accordance with California En-vironmental Quality Act and city procedures.

Examples of mitigation measures to consider:

(a) increase the distance from the noise source andthe receptor by providing land use buffers, e.g.,parking lots, landscaped setbacks or open ar-eas, utility yards, maintenance facilities, etc.;

(b) orient structures, use berms or sound walls,utilize terrain or use other means to block ordeflect noise, provided it is not deflected toother noise-sensitive uses and that the barrierdoes not create a hiding place for potentialcriminal activity;

(c) require projects with noise generating com-ponents (e.g., auto repair and maintenance fa-cilities) to have no openings in building wallsthat face sensitive uses;

4-3

(d) limit the hours of operation of a noise gener-ating use;

(e) limit the use of the site to prohibit potentialnoise generating uses that otherwise are al-lowed by right within the zone classificationof the project site;

(f ) require that potential noise impacts associatedwith project construction be minimized bysuch measures as designating haul routes, re-quiring less noisy equipment, enclosing ororienting noisy equipment (e.g., electrical gen-erators) away from noise sensitive uses, im-posing construction hours that are more re-strictive than those set forth in the Los Ange-les Municipal Code, requiring vehicle park-ing and deployment activities to be separatedand buffered from sensitive uses; or

(g) determine impacts on noise sensitive uses, suchas public school classrooms, which are activeprimarily during the daytime and eveninghours, by weighting the impact measurementto the potential interior noise level (or for exte-rior uses, e.g., outdoor theaters, to the exteriornoise level) over the typical hours of use, in-stead of using a 24-hour measurement.

(h) other appropriate measures.

Responsible agencies: Airports, Community Devel-opment, Environmental Affairs, Harbor, Housing,Planning, Public Works, Recreation and Parks,Transportation, and Water and Power departmentsand Community Redevelopment Agency.

P12 When issuing discretionary permits for a pro-posed noisesensitive use (as defined by thischapter) or a subdivision of four or more de-tached single-family units and which use is de-termined to be potentially significantly im-pacted by existing or proposed noise sources,require mitigation measures, as appropriate, inaccordance with procedures set forth in theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act so as to

achieve an interior noise level of a CNEL of 45dB, or less, in any habitable room, as requiredby Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 91.

Examples of mitigation measures to consider:

(a) Impose project orientation and bufferingmeasures similar to those cited in the priorprogram;

(b) orient the project so as to use structures, ter-rain or building design features (e.g., win-dowless walls or nonopening windows fac-ing the noise source) so as to block or reducenoise impacts;

(c) orient interior features of the project to re-duce or eliminate noise impacts on particu-larly noise sensitive portions of the project(e.g., locate bedrooms and balconies awayfrom the noise source);

(d) require insulation and/or design measures,attested to by an acoustical expert, to the sat-isfaction of the city’s Department of Buildingand Safety, to identify and mitigate potentialnoise impacts;

(e) determine impacts on noise sensitive uses,such as public school classrooms, which areactive primarily during the daytime andevening hours, by weighting the impactmeasurement to the potential interior noiselevel (or for exterior uses, e.g., outdoor the-aters, to the exterior noise level) over thetypical hours of use, instead of using a 24-hour measurement.

(f ) other appropriate measures.

Responsible agencies: Planning, Community De-velopment and Housing departments and Com-munity Redevelopment Agency.

P13 Continue to plan, design and construct oroversee construction of public projects, andprojects on city owned properties, so as tominimize potential noise impacts on noise

4-4

sensitive uses and to maintain or reduce exist-ing ambient noise levels.

Examples of noise management strategies to consider:

(a) site or alignment selection to minimize po-tential noise incompatibility;

(b) orientation of noise sources away from noisesensitive uses;

(c) placement of structures between noise gen-erators and noise sensitive receptors;

(d) enclosure of noise sources;

(e) erection of sound walls, berms or other noisebuffers or deflectors, providing that they donot deflect sound to other noise sensitive usesand that the barrier does not create a hidingplace for potential criminal activity;

(f ) restricted hours of operation;

(g) modification of noise sources (e.g., utilizingless noisy equipment); or

(h) determine impacts on noise sensitive uses, suchas public school classrooms, which are activeprimarily during the daytime and eveninghours, by weighting the impact measurementto the potential interior noise level (or for exte-rior uses, e.g., outdoor theaters, to the exteriornoise level) over the typical hours of use, in-stead of using a 24-hour measurement.

(i) other appropriate measures.

Responsible agencies: Airport, Community Rede-velopment Agency, Harbor, Public Works, Recre-ation and Parks, Transportation, and Water andPower departments.

P14 Continue to periodically update general planpublic facilities and utilities elements, taking intoaccount existing and potential noise impacts.

Responsible agencies: Airport, Harbor, *Planning,Public Works, Recreation and Parks, and Water andPower departments.

P15 Continue to take into consideration, duringupdating/revision of the city’s general plan com-munity plans, noise impacts from freeways,highways, outdoor theaters and other signifi-cant noise sources and to incorporate appro-priate policies and programs into the plans thatwill enhance land use compatibility.

Approaches to consider: rezoning, street realign-ment, site design, recommendations that the mayorand city council request that the California Depart-ment of Transportation, or other responsible agen-cies take reasonable measures to mitigate noise im-pacts associated with their facilities, etc.

Responsible agency: Planning Department

P16 Use, as appropriate, the “Guidelines for NoiseCompatible Land Use” (Exhibit I),1 or othermeasures that are acceptable to the city, toguide land use and zoning reclassification,subdivision, conditional use and use variancedeterminations and environmental assessmentconsiderations, especially relative to sensitiveuses, as defined by this chapter, within a CNELof 65 dB airport noise exposure areas andwithin a line-of-sight of freeways, major high-ways, railroads or truck haul routes.

Responsible agencies: City Council, Mayor and*Planning Department.

P17 Continue to encourage the California Depart-ment of Transportation, the Los AngelesCounty Metropolitan Transportation Author-ity, or their successors, and other responsibleagencies, to plan and construct transportationsystems so as to reduce potential noise impactson adjacent land uses, consistent with the stan-dards and guidelines contained in the noiseelement.


P18 Continue to support the Alameda corridor

4-5

project as a means of consolidating rail linesand improving buffering in order to reducenoise impacts on adjacent communities fromrailroad related uses.

Responsible agencies: City Council, Harbor,Mayor, Planning, Public Works, and Transporta-tion departments.

Endnotes

No. Description

6 These standards are consistent with thestandards proposed promulgated by theCalifornia Department of Health Servicesand recommended by the Governor’s Of-fice and Planning and Research “1990General Plan Guidelines.”

A-1

Automotive Vehicles

Automobile History

The first gasoline powered automobile was pro-duced by Benz in 1885. It was a three-wheeled car-riage that used Gottlieb Daimler’s 1885 motorbikeengine for power. The next year Daimler designedthe first four-wheeled carriage. By the start of WorldWar I a variety of gasoline powered vehicles werebeing produced, including Henry Ford’s Model T.The new “horseless carriages” or “tin Lizzies,” asthey were popularly called, were scoffed at and criti-cized for being dangerous to horses and people andnoisy nuisances. Mass production of automobilesfollowed Ford’s introduction of assembly lines andmoving conveyor belts in 1913. During the FirstWorld War inexpensive cars became readily avail-able, rapidly displacing the horse and buggy. By1920 Los Angeles County had become the mostmotorized metropolitan area in the nation with over481,500 registered automobiles.

Los Angeles Street System

On September 4, 1781, under the authority of theKing of Spain, Governor Felipe de Neve and elevenfamilies founded el Pueblo de la Reina de los Ange-les (the Village of the Queen of the Angels). Thepueblo was to provide food for Spanish troops trav-eling between the missions of San Diego and SantaBarbara. Prior to departure de Neve drew up a plansituating the pueblo along Rio El Porciùncula (laterrenamed the Los Angeles River) and identifying thelocations for a plaza, church, homes, farms, an irri-gation system and a road connecting the pueblowith the nearby San Gabriel Mission. The pueblo’sfirst named streets were Primavera (later namedSpring) and Aliso streets.

The first Los Angeles city land use survey was pre-pared by U.S. army lieutenant Edward O.C. Ordin 1849, in anticipation of Los Angeles city becom-ing a city of the new state of California. It was pre-pared under contract to the city. The plan estab-lished boundaries for city-owned lands, dividing thevacant lands west and north of the central plazainto blocks and lots and with a grid street system.That was the city’s first formal street map.

In 1870 the city’s first engineer, Frank Lecouvreurprepared the first master plan for development of aLos Angeles infrastructure. His plan separated sew-ers from flood control systems and reoriented newstreets in an east-west direction to facilitate the flowof rain water, thereby reducing flooding.

Introduction of motorized vehicles changed the modeof local transportation and street systems. Private carsbegan displacing the horse drawn vehicles duringWorld War I, resulting in traffic hazards and vehicleconflicts. To address worsening congestion, increas-ing conflicts between trolleys and automobiles and arising number of traffic accidents, especially at inter-sections, the private Los Angeles Traffic Commis-sion prepared the “Major Traffic Street Plan.” Theplan was drafted by renowned city planners FrederickLaw Olmsted, Jr. (Boston), Charles H. Cheney(Redondo Beach) and Harland Bartholomew (St.Louis), with the assistance of planning commissioner/commission secretary, Gordon Whitnall. Whitnallsubsequently was appointed the city’s first planningdirector. The plan was approved by city voters in1924, along with bond issues to pay for a portion ofthe first 37.5 mile phase. Railroads and the countyprovided the balance of the funds. The project in-

Appendix A (Not Adopted — Information Only)

Evolution of Transportation Systems in Los Angeles:A Context for Los Angeles Noise Issues

A-2

cluded the city’s first bridges to separate train andautomobile traffic. This increased safety and the speedof trains by reducing traffic conflicts. The city’s firsttraffic ordinance also was drafted by the commis-sion. It was adopted in 1925, requiring the city’s firststandard signs and signals.

Until recent times, establishment and constructionof integrated and efficient municipal street systemswas sporadic. Local governments had difficultypurchasing or exacting land for street rights-of-way.The state Subdivision Map Act of 1907 providedfor dedication of land for public purposes but ef-forts to secure dedications met with opposition. In1911 the state Improvement Act empowered localgovernments to use easements, eminent domain,assessment districts and subdivision procedures tosecure streets and other infrastructure systems. Togive local jurisdictions more leverage, the Map Actwas amended in 1921, enabling cities to requireeasements for public improvements. However, ef-forts to exact land were challenged. Dedicationscontinued to be voluntary or were secured throughpurchase following costly, often lengthy condem-nation proceedings. Systematic development of thecity’s street system was slow until the economicdepression of the 1930s.

Following the stock market crash of 1929, privatefinancing for public infrastructure systems dwindled.Los Angeles joined other cities in successfully cam-paigning for a share of the state gas tax to help com-plete its 1924 street plan. In 1934 the state allocateda share of the gas tax funds to cities for road projectsand authorized the state Division of Highways tobuild and maintain city roads to link rural state high-ways and to create a state highway system. Cities wereresponsible for construction and maintenance of ur-ban streets and highways. Federal and state publicworks programs provided millions of dollars for con-struction of streets and bridges during the period ofthe economic depression.

But, not until 1966 did the city gain significantleverage to exact public improvements in conjunc-tion with land development projects. In a land-

mark decision, Southern Pacific Railroad versus theCity of Los Angeles, the California Supreme Courtupheld the right of Los Angeles to withhold build-ing permits for noncompliance with public dedi-cation requirements. The decision strengthenedthe ability of all municipalities to secure publicfacilities in conjunction with new development.Local authority was further strengthened by the1971 California Environmental Quality Act thatrequired development projects to mitigate poten-tial environmental impacts associated with aproject, including anticipated traffic congestionand noise. The combination of regulations (MapAct, environmental and city) enabled Los Ange-les to require developers to dedicate land, constructpublic improvements or set aside funds for im-provements. This resulted in more systematic de-velopment of the street systems. By 1996, accord-ing to the city’s department of transportation, therewere 6,440.1 miles of streets within the bound-aries of the city, including 59.4 miles of unim-proved streets, 1,028.4 miles of primary arterials(major and secondary highways), 584 bridges and652 at-grade railroad crossings.

State Highways And Freeways

The first public road in California, El Camino Real(The Royal Road), was established in 1769 by Span-ish priest-explorer Father Junipero Serra and Spain’sgovernor of California Don Gaspar de Portolá tolink the California missions. The missions wereconstructed approximately one day apart by horse-back between San Francisco and San Diego. Fol-lowing California statehood in 1850, General S.H.Marlette was commissioned to “make plans andsuggestions or improvements of navigation, con-struction of roads, railroads and canals, preserva-tion of forests… and surveys of boundaries of theState and counties.” Although the legislature failedto allocate funds, Marlette raised money and be-gan the first survey and construction project in1855. It established the state’s first official road, theEmigrant Wagon Toll Road from Placerville, acrossthe Sierra Nevada Mountains to Nevada. Immi-

A-3

grants had come streaming into California follow-ing the announcement of the discovery of gold in1849. By 1864 almost all mountain passes wereaccessible by toll roads that linked mining campsand immigrant routes to towns and cities. The firsttraffic count in 1864 was along the Lake TahoeWagon Road. It recorded 6,667 footmen, 833horsemen, 3,164 stage passengers, 5,000 pack ani-mals, 2,564 teams and 4,694 cattle.

In the 1870s the state and federal governments be-gan planning a highway system. It was to link fed-eral and state roads and serve the expanding freighttraffic created by the land boom following the goldrush and extension of railroads to and within Cali-fornia. Construction was delegated to counties,which levied tolls to pay for the roads. This resultedin a variety of tolls and a disparate road system.Anticipating the popularity of automotive vehicles,the state created the bureau of highways in 1895.The bureau’s 1896 highway plan laid the founda-tion for the California highway system as it existstoday, with many of the routes following early mis-sion and immigrant routes. Construction of the firststate highway, Route 1, partially along a Pacific coastmission route from San Juan Capistrano, via LosAngeles and Santa Barbara, to San Francisco, be-gan in 1912. Funding for maintenance and con-struction of state and county roads was providedby the state’s first gas tax, a three-cent tax that wasapproved in 1923. A 1927 one-cent gas tax assuredsteady revenue for construction of the state roadsystem. In that year the state Division of Highways(DOH) was created to plan, construct and main-tain the highway system.

The first California nontoll highway, or “freeway,”was the six-mile Arroyo Seco Parkway (later re-named the Pasadena Freeway). It was completed in1940, connecting downtown Los Angeles with theadjacent city of Pasadena. After World War II, aninfusion of state and federal funds enabled the ac-celeration of highway construction. By the mid-1960s California had an efficient, integrated high-way system. But growing opposition to freewayconstruction, demands for community participa-

tion and environmental protection and a period ofeconomic inflation slowed system expansion. Peopleprotested that planned freeways would slice throughtheir communities, creating physical divisions, de-stroying neighborhoods, contributing to unplannedgrowth, local traffic congestion and noise. In the1970s public opposition halted the proposed Cen-tury Freeway in south Los Angeles, a proposedBeverly Hills Freeway and other freeways and high-ways in the Los Angeles area. In 1972, to addressshifting priorities, the state legislature establishedthe California Department of Transportation (akaCaltrans) to replace the DOH. Caltrans was chargedwith the responsibility of planning and implement-ing a multi-modal transportation system, includ-ing over 15,000 miles of state highways and free-ways. In 1974 a voter approved tax measure for thefirst time allowed gas tax funds to be used for non-highway system projects and enabled implementa-tion of an integrated transportation program com-prised of a variety of transportation systems (multi-modal system), e.g., roads, highways, bus, light rail,aircraft and other transportation modes.

Until the 1970s noise was not a major consider-ation in transportation system planning. Althoughmanufacturers long had designed vehicles for re-duced interior noise for drivers and passengers. Earlyin the century municipalities began regulating useof horns on city streets and eventually regulationsand standards were developed for regulating engineand tailpipe noise levels. In the 1970s, in responseto growing opposition of communities to new free-ways and to mitigate potential noise impacts free-way and highway system design incorporated noisereduction features. Concurrently the noise abate-ment programs were instituted to address noiseimpacts of existing systems on noise sensitive uses.

Fixed Rail Systems

Railroads

Invention of the high pressure steam engine by Ri-chard Trevithick in 1802 revolutionized land

A-4

transportation and led to the steam driven turbineengines that were used to power ships. GeorgeStephenson built the first public steam railroad inEngland in 1825. This ushered in the era of rail-road building around the world. Construction ofthe first transcontinental railroad in North Americawas completed on May 10, 1869 when the CentralPacific Railroad tracks were connected to the UnionPacific tracks at Promontory Point, Utah. The routelinked Chicago and San Francisco by rail, enablingrapid settlement of the western frontier and stimu-lating a real estate boom in California that triggeredconstruction of additional railroad lines within thestate and to points east. In 1872 Los Angeles votersapproved funds to help subsidize construction of arailroad between Los Angeles and San Francisco viathe San Joaquin Valley. In 1876 a route from LosAngeles to Texas was completed. Southern Pacificdecided to bypass Los Angeles by establishing afreight route from its yards in Colton, fifty mileseast of Los Angeles, through the Cajon Pass andPalmdale, along a desert route to New Orleans. Aslate as 1887 railroad companies considered SanFrancisco a more viable city than Los Angeles as adestination and connection point for both passen-ger and freight lines. In that year Santa Fe estab-lished a passenger line from Chicago, via Santa Fe,New Mexico, to Los Angeles. In spite of the ardu-ous five day trip, Santa Fe’s faster trains, with theirelegant Fred Harvey dining cars and Harvey Girlshostesses, helped make the Santa Fe Los Angelesline one of the most popular in the nation and tomake Southern California a popular destinationpoint for immigrants and tourists from the easternand Midwestern United States.

By the end of World War II less polluting electricand diesel engines had replaced steam engines onmajor lines. But the popularity of automobiles andexpansion of the trucking industry, along with ris-ing operational costs and higher fares and freightfees, contributed to a sharp decline in the demandfor rail services. Railroad companies shifted theirpriorities to freight services, cut passenger servicesand eliminated many passenger routes and opera-tions. By the late 1960s the extinction of passenger

and freight trains was predicted.

To save passenger service systems, the federal gov-ernment began subsidizing designated lines. In the1970s it established the National Rail PassengerCorporation (aka AMTRAK) as a quasi-publicagency to take over operation of national passengerservices. Public demand for less environmentallydamaging transport and for an alternative to auto-mobile and air transport, combined withAMTRAK’s passenger train improvement programand its interfacing of passenger rail connections withbus and air transport, revived the passenger train.Concurrently, many freight rail companies formed,merged with or entered into cooperative relation-ships with trucking and shipping companies. Bythe late 1970s freight rail service had been revivedby improved, more efficient equipment, especiallyuniform transferable cargo containers. Containers,designed to be carried by ships, trucks or trains,revolutionized the entire shipping industry.

Freight haul and AMTRAK passenger trains con-tinue to use rail lines that cross the city. The hubfor rail operations in Los Angeles is centered aroundUnion Station (adjacent to the city’s historic plaza)and the east Los Angeles rail yards. Many of thelines in the area have been in existence since the1870s, including lines connecting the downtownwith the harbor and transcontinental lines. In 1996Union Station served five weekly or daily transcon-tinental passenger trains and other trains connect-ing Los Angeles to San Diego, San Francisco andother cities within California.

First Los Angeles Street Cars

In 1874 Judge Robert M. Widney opened the firstLos Angeles street car line. It consisted of a twosingle open cars drawn by horses along a 2.5 milesingle track beginning at the Temple Street and zig-zagging down Spring to 6th Street (later extendedto the Plaza and San Fernando Street). Other en-terprising businessmen quickly developed compet-ing short haul lines. One line, the Main Street andAgricultural Park Railroad, offered 308 lots in whatis now Exposition Park to attract passengers. By

A-5

1885 few horse drawn cars remained. Most hadbeen replaced by cable cars. Electric powered street-cars were introduced in 1887 by Los Angeles Elec-tric Railway. The line went out of business in 1888when the power plant boiler burst. In 1888 con-struction in Boston by Frank J. Sprague of first suc-cessful electric street car system revolutionized lo-cal transportation. Sprague’s electrified trolley trainscould climb steeper grades, travel faster and, be-cause they could pull multi-cars guided by onemotorman, could operate more cheaply and effi-ciently than conventional street cars.

Between 1890 and 1910 the city’s population grewmore than sixfold, from 50,395 to 319,198, foster-ing a period of intense competition between thestreet car companies. Lines were built, damaged byfloods, rebuilt, bought by competitors and ex-panded. In 1893 General Moses H. Shermanbought out all the Los Angeles cable lines and be-gan converting them to electrical power. Shermanwas bought out by Los Angeles Consolidated Elec-tric Railway (LACE) in 1895. In that year LACEinaugurated the first interurban trolley line. It ranbetween Los Angeles and Pasadena. LACE con-verted its remaining cable and horse car lines toelectric trolley and installed handsome PullmanCompany open sided cars. Although its CaliforniaCar was popular, the company was unable to showa substantial profit.

Trolley competition was intense. By 1900 an esti-mated 72 separate trolley companies were operat-ing in the city, carrying passengers and goods. In1898 Henry E. Huntington, nephew of SouthernPacific railroad owner Hollis Huntington, pur-chased LACE and began buying up other linesthroughout the region. He wanted to develop aninterurban system that would compete with hisuncle’s company. He also was head of the PacificLight and Power Company, which constructed theBig Creek hydroelectric plant in the Sierra NevadaMountains in central California to power his LosAngeles Inter-Urban Railway system (L.A. Rail).As a direct challenge to Southern Pacific, he ransome of the L.A. Rail lines parallel to Southern Pa-

cific lines, including the Los Angeles to Long Beachharbor line that opened in 1902. To encourage rid-ership, he hired engineers to design a new highquality, all-season wooden car with glass windows.The handsome yellow cars built by St. Louis CarCompany were popular and set a national standard.Patrons dubbed them the “big yellow cars.” In 1903,E. H. Harriman bought a 45% interest in L.A. Rail,eventually taking over management of the PacificElectric Company (P&E), owner of L.A. Rail.Harriman oversaw the development of Huntington’sextensive interurban P&E L.A. Rail system. Thesystem soon was challenged by the versatile gas fu-eled automobiles. By 1913 the public was complain-ing that the P&E trolleys were crowded and noisy(compared to rubber tired vehicles), that fares wereexcessively high, stops inconvenient and that thetrolleys were a hazard to automobiles and othervehicles.

Competition And Noise Issues

Jitneys posed the first formidable challenge to P&E’strolleys. Eager citizens purchased automobiles andentered the jitney business, providing flexible ser-vice and flexible routes with which the fixed railsystem could not compete. By 1915 an estimated1,000 jitneys plied the city’s streets, drastically re-ducing trolley ridership. P&E reduced fares andlobbied successfully for jitney licensing and regula-tion, temporarily slowing jitney competition, butnot affecting the public’s desire for more flexibleservice.

Future U.S. Senator and 1924 presidential candi-date William McAdoo introduced the city’s firstgasoline fueled buses in 1923, the People’s MotorBus Company. But Harold Huntington, who hadtaken over the rail company from his father, tookMotor Bus to court, driving them out of businesswith his claim that buses were hazardous. But otherbus companies were formed, again causing trolleyridership to drop. The public outcry against thenoisy trolleys and their hazardous conflicts withautomobiles on narrow streets and at unregulatedintersections led to the adoption of the city’s first

A-6

street (1924) and traffic signal plans (1925) and toconstruction of grade separated bridge overpasses.P&E continued to add lines. Its big yellow cars ex-perienced a resurgence in the popularity during theeconomic depression of the 1930s, reaching a peakof 721 operating cars in 1932. But, with an up-surge in the economy and expansion of automo-bile use, ridership began to decline. To stimulateridership, P&E in 1937 ordered new, more com-fortable, streamlined, stainless steel and chrome carsand painted them red. Only two were deliveredbefore war industry needs intervened, postponingcompletion of the order until 1943. The shiny newcars were dubbed the “big red cars.”

At 1,164 miles of track, serving 125 cities, the P&Esystem was the largest electric rail system in theworld. Its lines emanated from Los Angeles, reach-ing to Santa Monica and Ventura County (west),Redlands in San Bernardino County (east) and Riv-erside, Corona and Newport Beach in Riverside andOrange counties (south). The busiest year for thebig red cars was in 1945 when thousands of ser-vicemen returned from the war seeking employmentopportunity in Southern California. But the era ofthe trolleys soon was over. Rapid population andeconomic expansion in all of Southern California,along with construction of the first freeways andincreased automobile use created too much com-petition for P&E. To cut its losses the company in1946 began eliminating short shuttle lines. Dieselpowered, rubber tired buses that could operate onany street further eroded the appeal of the trolleys.The Los Angeles to Long Beach line was convertedfrom yellow cars to red cars in 1960. By then thetrolley era was over. P&E continued to close linesuntil only the Long Beach line remained. It wasclosed on March 30, 1963, temporarily ending theLos Angeles commuter rail era.

First Los Angeles Subway

A 100 mile per hour elevated, electric poweredmonorail was proposed by the American RapidTransit Company in 1907. The company envi-sioned that the line would run from Pasadena to

Santa Monica. The idea did not get beyond theplanning stage.

Henry Huntington envisioned a subway systemand made it a reality. He purchased the rights-of-way from 4th and Hill Streets to what is now PicoBoulevard and Rimpau Avenue. In 1907 the citycouncil approved Huntington’s subway project. By1909 the Bunker Hill tunnel for the system hadbeen completed. Further work was halted by aneconomic recession.

To address increasing conflicts between the grow-ing automobile population and the trolley system,a 1915 study for the city proposed construction ofeither a subway or an elevated system. It stronglyrecommended a subway, so as to avoid the noiseand unsightliness of elevated systems like those thathad been or were under construction in New York,Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston.

In 1923, the California Railroad Commission votedto allow Huntington to increase trolley fares if hewould construct an underground railroad as a meansof reducing trolley and auto conflicts and potentialnoise. Within two years Huntington inauguratedthe first Los Angeles subway, the Hollywood Sub-way. It had two tracks, each less than a mile inlength. It ran from the new subway terminal build-ing at Hill Street (between 4th and 5th Streets),through Crown Hill to Glendale and Beverly Bou-levard near First Street. There it emerged as streettrolley lines, one serving West Los Angeles and theother serving Echo Park and the cities of Glendaleand, eventually, Burbank. The Beverly tunnel wasused by P&E until 1955 when the Glendale-Burbank line was discontinued. The TerminalBuilding and the tunnel still exist as reminders ofHuntington’s visionary effort.

Construction of an elevated (‘El’) line from 6th andMain Streets to the Los Angeles River near the city’sbirthplace, the historic plaza, was begun in 1923.It was halted when the powerful Los Angeles Timesnewspaper opposed the project. The Times por-trayed the El as a “dirty, deafening and hideous”contraption that would destroy the visual appear-

A-7

ance of the historic plaza and surrounding envi-rons. To settle the issue, the city council placed tworeferenda on the May 1926 ballot. Proposition 8,which would have provided funding for the El, wasdefeated. Proposition 9, backed by the Times, wasapproved. It endorsed construction of a train sta-tion east of the plaza, on the site of Old Chinatown.Union Station opened in 1939.

New Fixed Rail Systems

Various measures were proposed over the next sev-eral decades for new commuter train systems butall were defeated, partially due to claims that sur-face and overhead systems would be noisy and un-sightly. In 1959 the Metropolitan Transit Author-ity (MTA), a regional agency created by the state toevaluate metropolitan transit needs, proposed a newsubway system from downtown Los Angeles, run-ning east to the city of El Monte. The idea wasrejected by the voters. MTA was reconstituted bythe state legislature in 1964 as the Southern Cali-fornia Rapid Transit District (RTD). RTD wascharged with the responsibility of planning, con-structing and operating a regional public transitsystem. The system selected was a regional bus sys-tem which became one of the largest all-bus sys-tems in the world.

Increasing congestion on highways and a height-ening of interest in environmental quality, especiallyair quality, prompted the state legislature, in 1972,to reconstitute its transportation and highway func-tions into a new agency, the California Departmentof Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans was directedto reduce public dependence on the air polluting,gas guzzling automobile by developing an integratedmulti-modal transportation system including buses,fixed rail and aeronautics. Voters in 1974 approveda ballot measure authorizing use of gas tax moniesfor transportation projects other than highways andfreeways. In that same year the federal Urban MassTransit Administration allocated funds for multi-modal regional transit systems. Funds allocated tothe RTD enabled preparation of alternative plansfor potential rapid transit fixed rail routes.

New Subway And Light Rail Systems

In 1980 Los Angeles County voters approvedProposition A, establishing the county’s first taxspecifically intended to fund public transportation.The half-cent sales tax was allocated for planningand implementation of a multi-modal county trans-portation system, including a 150-mile rail system.Additional funds from federal, state, local and pri-vate sources, including voter supported bond mea-sures and, in 1990, a second county sales tax, en-abled system implementation.

Three new mass transit systems evolved from theinitial funding: (1) an urban subway system withinthe boundaries of the City of Los Angeles, (2) alight rail system within the county and (3) a re-gional commuter train system. They were designedto interconnect with each other, with bus andshuttle lines and with airport and long distanceAmtrak passenger train facilities.

To better integrate planning and management ofthe vast system, the state in 1992 established theLos Angeles County Metropolitan TransportationAuthority (MTA), consolidating the RTD and LosAngeles County Transportation Commission(LACTC). The RTD had been responsible for op-erating the bus and rail systems, constructing thesubway system and operating the new light rail andsubway systems. The LACTC had been responsiblefor constructing new light rail systems. The newMTA began operating on April 1, 1993.

The MTA opened its first Metro Rail Red Line sub-way in 1993. It was a four-mile line between UnionStation (downtown) and Alvarado Street at WilshireBoulevard (Westlake community). It was extendedto Western Avenue at Wilshire (mid-city Wilshirecommunity) in 1996. Another segment is underconstruction to the Los Angeles community ofNorth Hollywood and others are being planned toserve east and west Los Angeles.

The MTA’s Metro Rail Blue Line light rail systembetween the Los Angeles downtown and the cityof Long Beach opened in 1990. In 1991 it was

A-8

extended to MTA’s subterranean rail station atFlower and Seventh Streets in the city’s downtownfinancial district. The station serves as a transferpoint for the subway and Blue Line. The 20-mileeast-west Metro Rail Green Line light rail systemopened in 1995. Partially to reduce noise impacts,it is constructed largely within the median of theI-105 Glenn Anderson Freeway (formerly theCentury Freeway). It runs from the city ofNorwalk (east) to Aviation Boulevard, near the LosAngeles International Airport (west), where it be-comes a grade-separated system, continuing alonga 3.5 mile route to the city of Redondo Beach.Another light rail line is under construction fromUnion Station to the city of Pasadena.

New Interurban Trains

Concurrently with the development of the subwayand light rail systems, the Southern California Re-gional Rail Authority established the Metrolink re-gional commuter train system. Metrolink quicklybecame operational because it used existing railrights-of-way, thereby eliminating the need to ac-quire land and construct extensive rail systems. Thefirst Los Angeles line opened in 1990, followingpurchase of Southern Pacific Railroad rights-of-wayalong a route roughly paralleling the Pacific Coast,from Union Station to San Juan Capistrano in Or-ange County. Metrolink lines between Los Angelesand Moorpark (Ventura County), Santa Clarita (LosAngeles County) and Pomona (San BernardinoCounty) opened in 1992.

Metrolink trains primarily serve commuters,thereby avoiding competition with Amtrak. Theyoperate during weekday peak hours, with sometrains operating on Saturday and midday. AllMetrolink lines for southern California emanatefrom Union Station. Today Metrolink serves sixsouthern California counties: Los Angeles, Ventura,San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside and San Diego.It is interconnected with other transit systemsthroughout the region. During the January 17, 1994Northridge earthquake, when several freeways col-lapsed or were structurally damaged. Emergency

expansions of Metrolink provided commuter ac-cess from Palmdale-Lancaster and other commu-nities north of Los Angeles to areas south of thedamaged freeways.

In 1997, in response to a federal mandate thatAmtrak recover costs from the fare box or othermeans to pay for passenger lines, intrastate Amtraklines were threatened with future closure. In re-sponse, regional coalitions were formed to devisemeans of assuming responsibility for lines servingtheir regions, including adding lines to theMetrolink system.

Train And Trolley Noise Issues

In the 1800s and the early part of the 20th century,railroad lines were built through expanses of vir-gin, agricultural and ranch lands. As the popula-tion and economy grew, manufacturing uses wereestablished along the majority of rail routes withinLos Angeles. Street cars serviced residential andcommercial areas, much as buses do today. Noiseimpacts on passengers, rather than noise impactson adjacent properties was an issue relative to thetrolley system. Noise related to rail systems was a“given” of the urban environment and generally wasnot the subject of antinoise demands. Operationof trolleys and interurban trains primarily duringdaytime hours and infrequent passage of freight andpassenger trains also contributed to the lack of pub-lic complaint about noise associated with railways.

Passengers complained about noise within L.A.Rail’s yellow trolley cars, especially after the intro-duction of quieter rubber tired automobiles andbuses. Rubber was installed in the new red cars toreduce noise and vibration experienced by passen-gers, thereby making them more appealing to rid-ers. In the 1970s, greater public concern about theenvironment and health prompted promulgationof federal noise mitigation guidelines and standards.This resulted in quieter equipment and sound re-ducing track design.

A-9

Aircraft

Helicopters

Greek mathematician Archimedes developed aheliko or ‘screw’ machine around 200 B.C. to per-form specific tasks. In the 16th Century Leonardoda Vinci applied the concept, using the heliko inhis design of a vertical lift flying vehicle. The ma-chine proved infeasible due to inadequate powerto lift the craft. In 1907, Frenchmen Paul Cornuand Louis Breguet constructed and flew two verti-cal lift machines called “helicopters.” The 1915Peteroczy-Karman helicopters, which had to betethered to the ground and could not maneuverhorizontally, were used during World War I tomonitor enemy military activities. In 1939 IgorSikorsky produced the first practical helicopter thatcould be flown and maneuvered by pilot operatedcontrols. By 1941 he had developed a mechanismthat enabled pilots to control a helicopter’s pitchand roll, thereby increasing its practical use. TheSikorsky became the first mass produced helicop-ter, proving its versatility during World War II. BellAircraft introduced the first commercial helicop-ter in 1947. It was powered by piston engines andwas slow, noisy and vibrated so badly that it wasunpopular for use in passenger travel. The intro-duction in the 1960s of gas turbine engines suit-able for helicopters, enabled construction of lightermachines and a quieter and smoother flight. Untilthe 1970s the turbine engines proved impracticalbecause they experienced frequent, recurring andexpensive maintenance problems. A variety of tech-nological advances in the late 1960s and early 1970srevolutionized helicopter technology, includingstability augmentation, which improved the pilot’sability to control and maneuver the craft; solid stateavionics, which reduced the size and weight of com-ponents (replacing the bulky tube radios withlighter equipment); and more reliable twin turbineengines, which provided power redundance foradded safety. The improvements decreased vibra-tion and noise levels, increased passenger comfort,decreased maintenance and reduced noise impactson the surrounding environment.

With the improvements, use of helicopters fortransportation, commercial and other civilian usesincreased dramatically. Early application includeduse of helicopters for rescues, fire fighting and sur-veillance. In 1962 the Los Angeles City Fire De-partment acquired its first helicopter. It was usedfor dropping water and chemicals on targetedbrush fire areas. Following the 1963 collapse ofthe Baldwin Hills Dam, the helicopter was usedin dramatic rescues of stranded and endangeredvictims. The success of the operation convincedthe city to purchase of a fleet of helicopters foremergency services. During the 1960s and 1970semergency and private heliports were establishedthroughout the city. Noise impacts were reducedby siting of facilities, flight path orientation andchange in helicopter design.

Airplanes

The first successful flight of a powered, heavier-than-air craft was in 1896 by J.P. Langley whoseunmanned Model No. 5 flew three quarters of amile along the Potomac River. But it was Orvilleand Wilbur Wright’s successful flight of the firstpiloted plane, a biplane, at Kitty Hawk, NorthCarolina in 1903 that launched the air age. Public-ity flights and establishment of the first flying schoolby Glenn Curtis in 1907 and flight contests and airraces in Europe and North America heightenedpublic interest in flying machines. Aircraft produc-tion was accelerated during World War I when thesmall aircraft were used for surveillance and aerialfighting and began to be used for carrying mail andsmall amounts of freight, as well as for pleasure anddaredevil exhibition flying. Following the war, morepowerful gasoline fueled engines enabled construc-tion of planes that could fly faster and greater dis-tances. Soon planes were able to fly what was con-sidered a phenomenal 200 miles per hour.

In 1927 Charles A. Lindbergh, in his Ryan NX-211 monoplane The Spirit of St. Louis, broke theU.S. transcontinental record by flying from SanDiego to Long Island in 21 hours and 20 minuteswith only one stop. He then flew on to Paris in 33

A-10

hours and 39 minutes, the first solo, nonstop flightacross the Atlantic. His transatlantic flight caughtthe imagination of the public and generated in-creased interest in air travel. By the 1930s biplaneshad been replaced for commercial and military usesby larger, faster, more versatile and more aerody-namic monoplanes.

The first jet plane, the Heinkel He-178, was pro-duced in Germany in 1939. However, during WorldWar II conventional propeller or “prop” planes likethe DC-3 remained the primary transport and pas-senger aircraft. Technological advances were accel-erated by wartime demands, resulting lighter planesthat had greater range and speed and were moreefficient and comfortable. By the 1950s jet airlin-ers were being used for commercial flights. Not untilthe 1960s, with the advent of the jumbo jet withits expanded seating capacity, greater passenger com-fort and reduced fares, did air passenger servicebecome popular in the United States. In the in-terim the turbo props dominated the civilian mar-ket with their economical fuel consumption in car-rying heavy loads over short hauls and their abilityto land in difficult terrain and on short air fields.They were especially popular in rural and ThirdWorld areas.

Jet aircraft by the late 1960s had reduced the trans-atlantic flight time to six hours. The Anglo-Frenchsupersonic Concorde cut the time in half with itscruise speed of Mach 2, twice the speed of sound(approximately 1,350 miles per hour). TheConcorde’s maiden flight was in 1969. It enteredcommercial service in 1976. As of 1998 the singleConcorde craft was the only supersonic plane inservice but, due to its noise, it was barred from mostairports in the United States. By the 1990s jet planeswere the dominant commercial and military craft.Introduction of jet aircraft resulted in noise impactson surrounding neighborhoods and communities.Smaller piston engine and propeller planes remainedpopular for private and business use and sports andgenerated little or no significant noise impacts onadjacent communities.

Most of the airports in the Los Angeles area ini-tially were established within vast expanses of un-developed or agricultural land. In some cases theairports began as test fields associated with aircraftmanufacture. Communities grew up around thesites to provide homes and services for aircraft plantemployees who did not complain about airportnoise. With the advent of jet aircraft and transfor-mation of surrounding neighborhoods tononairport related populations, noise began to beconsidered a nuisance.

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)

The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce in theearly 1920s recognized that the fragile airplanes,then considered a novelty, were the beginning of anew transportation era. Because federal law at thattime prohibited use of federal funds for develop-ment of airports, the chamber lobbied the city toestablish a municipal airport, publishing a survey(1926) suggesting 13 possible airfield sites. Afterassessing terrain, wind conditions and other fac-tors of 28 sites, the city selected Mines Field (for-merly called the Inglewood Site), a 640-acre beanfield that had an emergency dirt air strip. Whenvoters turned down a bond issue for purchase ofthe land, the city negotiated a ten-year lease, withoption to buy, and began preparing three runwaysfor the September 1928 National Air Races. At theconclusion of the races, at which Lindbergh wasthe main attraction, Los Angeles took over MinesField and created the Department of Airports(DOA) to manage it.

The airfield was established as a general aviationfacility. Its few buildings and a control tower servedsmall, single-engine planes. The first permanentrunway was constructed in 1929. It was 2,000 feetlong and served as the landing site in August 1929for the Graf Zeppelin. In 1930 the field was offi-cially dedicated as the Los Angeles Municipal Air-port and the lease was extended for 50 years. Vot-ers were reluctant to fund additional improvementssince the Glendale Grand Central Airport andBurbank United Terminal (later Lockheed) ap-

A-11

peared to provide adequate facilities for what waswidely viewed as a passing fad. One disgruntledcritic filed a lawsuit demanding that the lease bevoided on the grounds that it was illegal to lease anairport without approval of the electorate. The statesupreme court upheld the lease.

While the public may have been skeptical, the air-craft industry was not. It quickly establishedmanufacturing facilities near the Municipal andSanta Monica airports. Douglas and Northropopened plants in 1932. North American and othermanufacturers followed. By 1937, 2,300 skilledworkers were employed in the aircraft industriesin the area. In the meantime air passenger travelhad become popular and larger aircraft, such asthe Douglas DC-3s, had been developed as pas-senger planes. Determining that the Glendale andBurbank airfields were not adequate for the newplanes, TWA, American, Western and Pan Ameri-can airlines agreed to make the Los Angeles air-port their base if the city would make necessaryimprovements. Some improvements, includingconstruction of a new runway, were made possibleby a federal Emergency Relief Administrationgrant through the federal Works Progress Admin-istration (WPA). WPA subsequently declined toprovide funds because the site was not owned bythe city. That problem was resolved when title wasacquired in 1937. Between 1937 and 1939, WPAand bond monies enabled construction of runwaysand other facilities and improvements. The boardof airport commissioners was created in 1940 tomanage the DOA and in 1941 the name of thefield was changed to the Los Angeles Airport.

During World War II the airport was used for mili-tary purposes. In 1943 the five major passenger air-lines signed leases transferring their operations tothe site. In anticipation of passenger air expansion,an airport master plan was prepared in 1944. Afterthe war, southern California emerged as the centerof the national aircraft industry with major activitytaking place around the Los Angeles and SantaMonica airports. Passage of the city’s 1945 airportbond issue by an overwhelming 5-to-1 majority

enabled acquisition of 2,000 acres of land and con-struction of massive terminal facilities and majorrunways. Airport activity was shifted west of theoriginal site to its present location.

The five airlines began operating at the airport in1946, making it a major passenger terminal for theregion. The following year voters approved a char-ter amendment making the DOA a self-managingcity agency, independent of the mayor and citycouncil and with control over its own finances. Theairport commission, appointed by the mayor,quickly acted to create a regional system and to ex-pand the airport into a world class facility. In 1950the commission renamed the facility the Los Ange-les International Airport, better known by its Fed-eral Aviation Administration identifier LAX. Thefirst runway overpass of its kind, the SepulvedaBoulevard overpass, was completed in 1953, en-abling the extension of the two main runways abovethe boulevard to accommodate jet traffic.

In January 1959 American Airlines began the firstjet service between New York and Los Angeles. Anew terminal and the first permanent passengerfacilities for LAX were completed in 1961. Withthe advent of jet aircraft, significant noise prob-lems began to be experienced by neighboring com-munities due to jet overflights and increased air-port activity. The DOA was made self sufficientby a 1963 charter amendment that allowed it toissue its own revenue bonds without having tosecure voter approval. It immediately embarkedon a program of diversification and expansion andbegan to address noise impact issues. In 1965 and1966 the first air freight terminals were opened toaccommodate an increasing demand for freightservices. In anticipation of the 1984 Los AngelesSummer Olympic Games, airport passenger facili-ties were upgraded, new international and domes-tic terminals were constructed, other terminalswere renovated, automobile circulation was en-hanced by a new second level roadway and otherfacilities were added or renovated. The airportdepartment (now calling itself Los Angeles WorldAirports, or LAWA) in 1998 was preparing a mas-

A-12

ter plan for LAX, of which noise management isan important consideration.

Van Nuys Airport (VNY)

Metropolitan Airport was established as a privategeneral aviation field on October 1, 1928. Threefactories, six hangers and a control tower wereadded in 1929. In 1942 it was purchased by thefederal government for use as a military base. LosAngeles acquired the airport in 1949 for one dol-lar with the proviso that the California Air Na-tional Guard could remain on the site. With thecompletion of the Sherman Way overpass in 1957the city renamed the airport the Van Nuys Air-port. The Sherman Way extension provided VNYwith a runway that could accommodate jet aircraft.Introduction of jet planes resulted in increasednoise impacts on adjacent communities. Acquisi-tions enabled expansion of airport operations andprovision of noise buffers between aircraft activi-ties and adjacent communities. By 1971 VNY hadbecome the busiest general aviation airport in thenation. In 1997 LAWA was preparing a master planfor VNY, in part to address noise issues.

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport (BUR)

When United Airport opened in 1930 it was thenation’s first “multimillion dollar airport,” boast-ing five 3,600-foot runways and related facilities.By 1934 the airport served more than 98,000 pas-sengers a year and was the main terminal for theLos Angeles area. In that year its name was changedto Union Air Terminal. The Lockheed aircraft com-pany, which owned an adjacent manufacturing fa-cility and airfield, purchased the site in 1940, com-bining the two sites and using them for the pro-duction of B-17 bombers, P-8 fighters and Hudsonbombers during World War II. The original sitehad been used by pilots, including North Holly-wood resident Amelia Earhart, to test planes pur-chased from Lockheed. In the 1950s air cargo andcommuter flights began using BUR. Subsequentlycommuter and distance operations were expanded,providing a convenient alternative to LAX. With

increased aircraft activity came increased noise im-pacts on adjacent communities.

When Lockheed announced its intention to sell theairport for conversion to other uses, the state Divi-sion of Aeronautics and FAA evaluated the facilityand determined that it was important to maintainthe site in airport use. To do so, the state legislaturein 1976 authorized formation of an airport author-ity to purchase and operate BUR. The cities ofBurbank, Glendale and Pasadena entered into ajoint powers agreement to form the authority, whichwas independent of the three founding cities. LosAngeles and the City of San Fernando declined tojoin. Each of the three members appointed threerepresentatives to serve on the authority’s board ofcommissioners. The board convened in 1977, for-mally inaugurating the Airport Authority. In 1978the Authority purchased the airport from Lockheedwith funding from the FAA and from revenue bondsissued by the Authority. The airport was renamedthe Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, retainingits FAA identification call letters of BUR. TheAuthority’s recently approved development plansare under challenge from surrounding jurisdictions,including the City of Los Angeles, in part due tonoise impact issues.

Santa Monica Airport (SMO)

In 1919 the City of Santa Monica established Clo-ver Field on a leased a portion of a barley field. Manyof the private pilots who used the field were associ-ated with the new Hollywood motion picture in-dustry. The Douglas Aircraft Company moved toSanta Monica in 1922 and began building militaryaircraft, using the airstrip for test flights. With theincreasing demand for airfields and expanding needsof Douglas, Santa Monica purchased 158 acres ofland in 1924 for airport expansion. It was at the SantaMonica plant that Douglas began manufacturing itspopular DC series of planes. In 1934 the DC-3 be-came the first successful mass produced plane forcommercial passenger service. Growth of jobs at theplant generated a housing boom, resulting in resi-dential development around SMO.

A-13

On the eve of World War II, the army leased theairport for army air corps and military purposes, re-turning it to Santa Monica in 1948. In the late 1950sDouglas shifted its primary manufacturing opera-tions to Long Beach because SMO could not pro-vide a long enough runway to accommodate largejet aircraft. By the 1960s, SMO rivaled VNY as thebusiest general aviation airport in the nation, reach-ing a peak of 374,000 flights in 1966. With increasedaircraft activity and surrounding land uses, noisebecame an increasing issue. Mitigation of impactshas been accomplished by a variety of measures, in-cluding changes in flight paths, airport use and con-figuration and surrounding land uses.

Whiteman Airport

Whiteman Air Park was established in 1946 as aprivate airfield. It was used primarily for training,business and recreational purposes. The Countypurchased the site in 1970 and renamed itWhiteman Airport. Noise issues have not been amajor issue relative to the airport. Recent land useand zoning changes were made to assure minimalairport impacts on adjacent residential uses.

Note: additional information about history, noise issues and noise

management programs is contained in the noise element text.

G-1

Exhibit G: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

ALUC: county airport land use commission.

Ambient noise: background or existing noise level. The composite of noise from all sourcesnear and far in a given environment, exclusive of occasional and transient intrusive noise.

Based aircraft: aircraft having legal contracts with the airport authority for use of airport prop-erty for a specific number of days. Typically the contracts are in the form of leases.

BUR: Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport.

Caltrans: California Department of Transportation.

CAP: Caltrans Aeronautics Program, formerly called the Division of Aeronautics. A divi-sion of Caltrans.

CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

CLUP: Comprehensive (airport) Land Use Plan of the county Airport Land Use Commission.

CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level): a noise measurement scale applied over a 24-hour period to all noise events received at the measurement point. It is weighted more heavilyfor evening and night periods in order to account for the lower tolerance of individuals tonoise during those periods.

CPC: Los Angeles City Planning Commission.

dB: decibel. A decibel is a unit for measuring the relative loudness of sound.

dBA: ‘A’ measures the level of sound the way sound is received by the human ear. Combinedwith dB (decibels) it is used to measure decibel level related to human hearing. CNEL is weighted,therefore the ‘A’ does not appear when CNEL and dB are referenced together.

DOA: Los Angeles Department of Airports. In 1997 the Board of Airports Commissioners,approved the name “Los Angeles World Airports” as the business title of the department.The official (charter) name, DOA, was not changed.

EIR: environmental impact report, a requirement of CEQA.

EIS: environmental impact statement, a requirement of NEPA.

EPA: federal Environmental Protection Agency.

G-2

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration.

FAR: Federal Aviation Regulation.

FHA: Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

FTA: Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Flight: a landing or departure of an aircraft.

General aviation airport: an airport that does not serve scheduled air carriers.

Intermittent noise: periodic noise, as opposed to ambient noise.

Intrusive noise: isolated noise incidents in which the particular noise is greater than theambient noise level.

LAMC: Los Angeles Municipal Code.

LAWA: Los Angeles World Airports, the business name for the Los Angeles Department ofAirports.

LAX: Los Angeles International Airport.

Ldn: average day-night sound level weighted to account for the lower tolerance of people tonoise during the night period. Approximately a half a decibel lower than CNEL.

MTA: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Noise contours: mapped lines around a noise source to indicate specific levels of intensity ofcommunity exposure to the noise, e.g., an airport.

Noise source: generator of the sound being measured.

SCRRA: Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink).

SMO: Santa Monica Airport.

VNY: Van Nuys Airport.

H-1

Exhibit H: Common Noise Levels(Caltrans Noise Manual, California Department of Transportation, March 1980)

Noise Level(dBA)

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Common Indoor Noise Levels

Rock Band

Inside Subway Train

Food Blender @ 3 feetGarbage Disposal @ 3 feet

Shouting @ 3 feet

Vacuum Cleaner @ 10 feet

Normal Speech @ 3 feet

Large Business Office

Dishwasher next room

Small Theater/Conference Room(background)

Library

Bedroom at NightConcert Hall (background)

Broadcast & Recording Studio

Threshold of Hearing

Common Outdoor Noise Levels

Jet Flyover @ 1,000 feet

Gas Lawn Mower @ 3 feetDiesel Truck @ 50 feet

Gas Lawn Mower @ 100 feet

Commercial Area

Quiet Urban Daytime

Quiet Urban Nightime

Quiet Suburban Nightime

Noisy Urban Daytime

Heavy Traffic @ 300 feet

Quiet Rural Nightime

I-1

Exhibit I: Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use(Based on the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, “General Plan Guidelines”,1990. To help guide determination of appropriate land use and mitigation measures vis-a-vis existing or anticipated ambient noise levels)

Land Use Category

Residential Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Home

Residential Multi-Family

Transient Lodging, Motel, Hotel

School, Library, Church, Hospital, Nursing Home

Auditorium, Concert Hall, Ampitheater

Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports

Playground, Neighborhood Park

Golf Course, Riding Stable, Water Recreation,Cemetery

Office Building, Business, Commercial,Professional

Agriculture, Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities

Day-Night Average Exterior Sound Level (CNEL dB)50 55 60 65 70 75 80

A C C C N U U

A A C C N U U

A A C C N U U

A A C C N N U

C C C C/N U U U

C C C C C/U U U

A A A A/N N N/U U

A A A A N A/N U

A A A A/C C C/N N

A A A A A/C C/N N

A = Normally acceptable. Specified land use is satis-factory, based upon assumption buildings involvedare conventional construction, without any specialnoise insulation.

C = Conditionally acceptable. New construction or de-velopment only after a detailed analysis of noise miti-gation is made and needed noise insulation featuresare included in project design. Conventional construc-tion, but with closed windows and fresh air supplysystems or air conditioning normally will suffice.

N = Normally unacceptable. New construction or devel-opment generally should be discouraged. A detailedanalysis of noise reduction requirements must bemade and noise insulation features included in thedesign of a project.

U = Clearly unacceptable. New construction or develop-ment generally should not be undertaken.

Noise Element - LA City Planning · noise management and are consistent with state and federal...

Documents

Transcript of Noise Element - LA City Planning · noise management and are consistent with state and federal...