HomeMy WebLinkAboutS17-City Attorney
-
'CCITY OF SAN BEQ\lARDINOO- MEMORANDUQ
,
To JAMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
Subject Noise Question at Spirit Baseball Games
FromDENNIS A. BARLOW
Sr.Asst.City Atty
DateAugust 11, 1987
Approved
Date3.6330
In our discussions of the above question I mentioned to you
that the case of Greater Westchester Homeowner's Association et
al. v. City of Los Anaeles (1979) 26 Cal.3d 86, 160 Cal.Rptr.
733 may be of some benefit. This was an action in inverse
condemnation and nuisance by neighbors against L.A.
International Airport due to noise, smoke and vibrations.
The trial court Findings of Fact specified that the noise of
the jet aircraft:
Winterfered with person-to-person
conversation in the home, . . . [with] normal
telephonic communication, with the ability to
enjoy the use of the out-of-doors' portion of
their property and . . . to hear and enjoy
television programs1 that such noise caused
frequent arousal from sleep and, in some cases,
interfered with the ability . . . of school-age
members of the families to study in their homes.w
(At page 734)
The trial court concluded that a nuisance recovery was
independent of plaintiff's claim for diminution of their
property values.
In relation to the present question, the Supreme Court
concluded (at page 738) as follows:
wWe find significance in the depth
and continuous nature of city's involvement
in the creation and maintenance of a nuisance
in question. City concedes that it, and not
the federal government, decided to build and
then to expand the airport in the immediate
vicinity of the residential area. It is
undeniable that City chose the particular
location and direction of the airport runways.
It approved their usage by jet aircraft. It
entered into service agreements with commercial
air carriers all with full and prior knowledge
of the potential noise impact. . . Nonetheless,
City chose, and was not forced by anyone, to
develop LAX in its particular location. City
voluntarily elected to expand the facility, with
foreknowledge of the pre-existing nature and
usage of the surrounding area. There is no
PRIDE ~
IN PROGRESS
#If S~ 17
r'....
Q
IlL
-
b..
-
-
o
o
o
evidence before us that City opposed the current
level of federally-approved jet service at LAX."
The decision of the trial court was upheld for the most part
and plaintiffs were additionally granted their costs on appeal.
DENNIS A.
Sr. Asst.
DAB:ca