News Councilmembers Gabelich & Reyes Uranga Propose Stiffer Penalties, Tightened Exceptions, Lease Termination Provision Re Late Night Airport Flights/Noise Ordinance Violations
(March 10, 2006) - Noting that late night flights are the leading cause of complaints regarding LB Airport operations, and saying "the high number of late night violations in recent months demonstrates that the current City penalty structure does not serve as an effective deterrent of curfew violations," Councilmembers Rae Gabelich and Tonia Reyes Uranga have agendized a multi-pronged Airport-related item for the March 14 City Council meeting.
It asks the City Attorney to:
- Draft an amendment to LB's Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance to impose a new progressive penalty structure for any noise violation that occurs between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.;
- Draft written guidelines precisely defining an "unanticipated delay" during the "bridge period" between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. "which should specify that only a delay by weather or by Air Traffic Control at the final point of departure in route to LB would constitute an unanticipated delay; and
- Work with the City Manager "to revise the City’s standard lease provisions with all existing and future aircraft operators, including air carriers, to clearly state that a willful failure to abide by the City's Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance could
constitute a material breach of the operator's lease with the City, and could result in a suspension or termination of Airport privileges."
In their agendizing memo, Councilmembers Gabelich and Reyes Uranga write in pertinent part:
The leading cause of complaints regarding operations at Long Beach Airport is late night flights.
During the five-month period from September 2005 to January 2006, there were 99 noise violations recorded at the Long Beach Airport between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Twenty-three of these violations were by commercial carriers and 76 violations were by other aircraft operators, according to Long Beach Airport records.
In addition to these violations, there were 239 non-exempt flights in 2005 that either landed or took off between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. that had their violations waived under the unanticipated delay exemption of the City’s Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance.
The high number of late night violations in recent months demonstrates that the current City penalty structure does not serve as an effective deterrent of curfew violations.
On October 18, 2005, the City Council unanimously requested the City Attorney
and City Manager to report back to the Council on the current fine structure for
late night flights, the recent history of late night violations and the City’s "bridge
time" policy.
On March 6, 2006, the City Attorney's office provided the requested information
to the Council in an off-agenda memo, which is included as an attachment to this
agenda item.
Among the significant issues covered in the memo are the City’s penalty
structure for noise violations occurring after the curfew period, the definition of an
"unanticipated delay" during the "bridge period" of 10:00 to 11:00 p.m. and the
status of the Consent Decrees with JetBlue and American Airlines.
The current penalty structure for violations of the City’s Airport Noise
Compatibility Ordinance were adopted in 1995 as part of the settlement
agreement between the City and the various air carriers involved in federal
litigation.
The first violation by an aircraft operator results in a written notice from the
Airport Manager. The second violation also results in a written notice with a
demand to prepare and implement a written compliance program. The third
violation results in a "surcharge" of $100 if the violation occurs within 24 months
of the requirement to prepare a compliance program, and a $300 "surcharge" is
imposed for each subsequent violation during the next 12 month period.
One of the concerns previously expressed about increasing the penalties for
noise violations was that an amendment to the City’s airport noise ordinance
could jeopardize its protection under the federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act.
However, according to the City Attorney’s memo:
"In August of 2000, the Board of Port Commissioners for the City of
San Diego (operators of San Diego International Airport) received
an opinion from the FAA’s Chief Counsel opining that an increase
in San Diego’s "curfew" penalty provisions would not violate the
provisions of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA)
provided that the increased penalties were designed to deter
curfew violations.
"...the letter received by San Diego from the FAA's Chief Counsel
suggests that Long Beach's penalty structure could be revised
upward in an effort to reduce total curfew violations."
Based upon the information provided to the Council by the City Attorney, we
believe it is important for the Council to take the necessary steps to provide an
effective deterrent against late night flight violations at the Long Beach Airport.
The March 6, 2006 memo to the Mayor and Councilmembers from Assistant City Attorney Mike Mais (approved by City Attorney Bob Shannon and cc'd to City Manager Jerry Miller) stated in part:
[T]he penalty/surcharge provisions of the [LB] Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance have not been revised since 1995 and the surcharges imposed by the Ordinance are
relatively minor. In August of 2000, the Board of Port Commissioners for the City of San
Diego (operators of San Diego International Airport) received an opinion from the FAA's
Chief Counsel opining that an increase in San Diego's "curfew" penalty provisions would not
violate the provisions of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) provided that
the increased penalties were designed to deter curfew violations.
Although San Diego ultimately chose not to increase its penalty provisions, the letter
received by San Diego from the FAA's Chief Counsel suggests that Long Beach's penalty
structure could be revised upward in an effort to reduce total curfew violations. In exploring
this option, Long Beach could consider a progressive penalty structure whereby the penalties are increased for each violation that occurred in any 12-18 month period. For example, the
initial penalty/surcharge could start at $500 and then continue to double for each successive
violation during the defined time period until a certain maximum penalty/surcharge was
reached.
For violations occurring during the 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. "bridge period," the City could consider drafting strict written guidelines or policies defining what precisely will constitute an unanticipated delay beyond the reasonable control of the air carrier. For example, guidelines could be established that would only waive violations for a weather related delay at the final point of departure in route to Long Beach. Air carriers not excused would be subject to the same progressive penalty schedule as those flights landing or taking off between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Finally, consideration could be given to rewriting certain of the City's "standard" lease
provisions with all existing and future aircraft operators, including air carriers. Such
provisions would make clear that a willful failure to abide by the City’s Airport Noise
Compatibility Ordinance could constitute a material breach of the operator's lease with the
City. In egregious situations such breach could result in a suspension or termination of
Airport privileges."
Based on the information provided by the City Attorney's office, Councilmembers Gabelich and Reyes Uranga ask that the Council:
1) Request the City Attorney to draft an amendment to the Airport Noise
Compatibility Ordinance to impose a new progressive penalty structure for
any noise violation that occurs between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
2) Request the City Attorney to draft written guidelines precisely defining
an "unanticipated delay" during the "bridge period" between 10:00 p.m.
and 11:00 p.m.. These guidelines should specify that only a delay by
weather or by Air Traffic Control at the final point of departure in route to
Long Beach would constitute an unanticipated delay.
3) Request the City Manager to work with the City Attorney’s office to
revise the City’s standard lease provisions with all existing and future
aircraft operators, including air carriers, to clearly state that a willful failure
to abide by the City’s Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance could
constitute a material breach of the operator’s lease with the City, and could
result in a suspension or termination of Airport privileges.
Return To Front Page
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com
|