SR-061907-8D~r
~;tYo, City Council Report
Santa Monica
City Council Meeting: June 19, 2007
Agenda Item:
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Robert Trimborn, Acting Airport Director
Subject: Recommendation to Support California State Assembly Bill 700 if
Amended
Recommended Action
This report recommends that the City Council support AB 700 if amended to ensure
that:
• The City of Santa Monica is not compelled to undertake an unfunded State
mandate
• The study reflects the best science available and based on a review of all
existing relevant data -not on pre-judged methodology contained within. the
existing legislation
• The proposed study is not discriminatory in nature and includes all aircraft using
the Airport including jets, turbo-prop and piston-powered aircraft
• The study facilitates a comprehensive understanding of general aviation aircraft
emissions and does not unfairly single out and protects Santa Monica from
inappropriate and unfair financial and legal burdens."
1
Note: The recommended amendments to AB 700 have been incorporated in Attachment
#2: "Recommended Bill Language Incorporating Staff Recommended Amendments"
Further, staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to work with the bill's author
to amend the existing legislation so that it supports a true. scientific study which builds
on the data generated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) funded general aviation airport study by South Coast Air Quality Management
District ("SCAQMD") and ameliorates potential financial and liability exposure resulting
from its implementation.
Background
AB 700 was introduced on February 22, 2007 by Assembly Member Ted Lieu (53`d
District) to have the State of California through the California Air Resources Board
("GARB") address air quality in the vicinity of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport and
the manner in which general aviation aircraft affect air quality. The proposed legislation
directs GARB to complete a study of air pollution caused by "jets and turbo-prop
airplanes" landing and departing from the Airport and report its findings to the
Legislature no later than July 1, 2009. In reaching its conclusions, the State Air
Resources Board is directed to collect data on the taxiing and idling times and other
relevant data of aircraft at the Santa Monica Municipal Airport for one calendar year and
to use the information and modeling findings for its report to the Legislature (see
Attachment #1 "Current Bill Language').
2
Discussion
In February 2007, the SCAQMD completed its collection of emissions data at the Van
Nuys and Santa Monica Airports. It is anticipated that the SCAQMD will complete its
analysis of the data by the fall of this year and release the data and its findings to the
public at that time. The City of Santa Monica collected additional information on idling
times for departing aircraft concurrently with the study by SCAQMD during its last three-
month cycle at the Santa Monica Airport in order to address some of the concerns
raised by AB 2501 legislation on this matter which had been proposed by Assembly
Member Lieu last year. The Aircraft Augmentation Study was designed to address
concerns that the SCAQMD study might not be able to discern the difference between
emissions caused by aircraft and those generated by traffic on Bundy Drive and/or 23`d
Street bordering the Airport. The data collected by the City through its Aircraft
Augmentation Data Study was forwarded to SCAQMD to be used in conjunction with
the air sampling data collected at the Santa Monica Airport.
It has been assumed that the SCAQMD data would assist the City and other parties in
continuing its assessment of the air quality in the area of the Airport. Until the release of
the SCAQMD data in the fall, determination of exact studies to undertake and the scope
of those studies would be speculative since it is not clear where future efforts. should be
concentrated. However, the City is involved in efforts to identify alternatives to be
implemented based upon a range of possible findings from the SCAQMD study. These
efforts include identification of sources of funding and cooperation with other public
agencies on the federal, state and local IeveL
3
The CARB study mandated by AB 700 is an alternative method proposed by Assembly
Member Lieu. As currently proposed, it does not impose an obligation upon the City of
Santa Monica to conduct any study nor does it impose an unfunded mandate.
However, AB 700 does not currently identify a specific funding source.
Following its review and approval 6y various State Assembly Subcommittees, AB700
was approved on June 5, 2007 by the full Assembly (without amendments) and referred
to the Senate. After Mr. Lieu introduced his bill on the Assembly Floor, Assembly
Member Julia Brownley made a statement clarifying concerns expressed by City staff in
analyzing the bill. She made the following points, while noting her concerns about the
health and safety of the citizens in both hers and Mr. Lieu's districts:
• Without the specific identification of a funding source, the City of Santa Monica
desires an amendment ensuring that the passage of the bill will not impose an
unfunded mandate on the City.
• The bill should be amended so that the study reflects the best science available
in CARB's judgment, and based on a review of all existing relevant data:
• The bill should be amended so that the study takes into account all aircraft and
not just those currently enumerated in the bill:
• There is a concern that the study will be used to sue the City and Mr. Lieu has
agreed to discuss this issue with the City and interested parties.
Mr. Lieu responded that he would work with Ms. Brownley and the City to address these
concerns in the Senate.
4
The following-synopsis details the rational behind the City staffs concerns;
Unidentified Funding Source
As previously discussed, AB 700 does not identify a funding source and therefore staff
is concerned that in the event one is not secured, the financial burden for the AB 700
study would be shifted to the City of Santa Monica. Therefore staff recommends that the
legislation be amended to categorically eliminate the possibility that the City be
financially responsible for any component of the study.
Scientific Method
It has been the practice of this City to advocate for studies that utilize the best scientific
sources and methods. The current legislation limits the scientific sources and methods
for studying the air quality in the vicinity of the Santa Monica Airport. It is important that
the data gathered and compiled by the recently completed US EPA funded SCAQMD
study discussed above be part of the basis for future studies of the air quality in the.
vicinity of the Santa Monica Airport. Staff recommends that the City Council support an
amendment to the legislation so that the study reflects the best science available in
CARB's judgment, and based on a review of all existing relevant data
Expanded Data Set
The current legislation directs CARB to study aircraft which comprise only 15% of the
operations at the Santa Monica Airport. A complete understanding of all general
aviation aircraft permits viewing the results in the context of all sources of emissions in
5
the area. As previously stated, AB 700 as currently drafted, precludes the inclusion of
all aviation emission sources which might skew the results of the study. Therefore, staff
supports an amendment that takes into account all aircraft and not just those currently
enumerated in the bill.
Potential Liability Exposure
In discussion with the City Attorney's Office about the formulation of the legislation, they
informed us that there is the possibility that claims against the city might arise as a
result of the study. It is important that Council be made aware of this potential
exposure. -While the City of Santa Monica owns the Santa Monica Municipal Airport,
jurisdiction over the operation of general aviation aircraft using the Airport, including the
design and certification of aircraft engines, rests with the federal government. The issue
of air quality and aviation operations are complicated matters and completion of
scientifically valid studies and their use for meaningful solutions require a candid and
open process by all parties involved. Use of the data for litigation against the City will
lead to a wasteful expenditure of time and financial resources. It does not matter who
the prevailing party would be in such litigation because the long term solutions and
necessary changes must come from the entity that has jurisdiction and authority over
aircraft emissions, the federal government.
The current legislation does not indemnify the City from liability exposure. Although the
Article IV, §16 of the California Constitution prohibits "special legislation" regarding only
one member of a class of cities when general legislation can be made applicable to the
6
entire class of cities, the current version of AB 700 is only directed at the City of Santa
Monica. Many airports, including airports with significantly more aircraft operations,
exist within the State of California and in the general vicinity of Santa Monica Airport
and face the same issues as the City of Santa Monica with regard to jurisdiction over
aircraft and pre-emption of local action by the federal government control over aircraft
and air quality matters. Rather than recognizing air quality and aircraft operations as a
national issue, the proposed legislation only identifies Santa Monica Airport for study.
With the focus specifically on Santa Monica and no comparative data from other
airports, staff is concerned that Santa Monica Airport has been singled out for litigation
when it faces issues that are no different than other airports in this State and across the
nation.
Since aircraft designs and operations are regulated by the FAA, staff recommends that
the legislation be amended to state that no public entity be held liable based upon the
findings of the AB 700 mandated report. by CARB to the Legislature so that the focus
remains on a report based upon sound scientific principles, not litigation tactics.
Summary
In its current version, AB 700 does not impose a State mandated program on the City of
Santa Monica nor is it an unfunded mandate for the City. Given the assurance by bill's
author that AB 700 will be amended, it is important for the City to state its position and
direct staff to work with the bill's author to amend the existing legislation so that it
supports a true scientific study which builds on the data generated by the SCAQMD
7
EPA funded general aviation airport study and to ameliorate potential financial and
liability exposure resulting from its implementation.
Budget/Financial Impact
As currently drafted AB 700 will place no financial burden on the City of Santa Monica.
Prepared by: Robert Trimborn, Acting Airport Director
Approved:
Robert Trimborn
Acting Airport Director
attachments
Forwarded to Councih
P/L,~mont Ewell
F Manager
8
Attachment #1 Current Bill Language
BILL NUMBER: AB 700 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 25, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2007
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Lieu
FEBRUARY 22, 2007
An act to add Section 39607.7 to the Health and Safety Code,
relating to air pollution.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 700, as .amended, Lieu. Air pollution: Santa Monica Airport.
Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions of air
contaminants for the control of air pollution from vehicular and
nonvehicular sources. The State Air Resources Board is designated as
the state agency with the primary 'responsibility for the control of
vehicular air pollution, and air pollution control districts and air
qualitymanagement districts are designated with the primary
responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources
other than vehicular sources.
This bill would require the state board tocomplete a study of air
pollution caused by jets and turbo-prop airplanes taking off and
landing at the SantaMonica Airport.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to address through
this act the increase in air pollution from the Santa Monica Airport,
and the effects ofthat pollution on the residents of the
surrounding area. _
SEC. 2. Section 39607.7 isadded to the Health and Safety Code, tc
read:
39607.7. (a) The state board shall complete a study of air
pollution caused by jets and turbo-prop airplanes taking off and
landing at the Santa Monica Airport and report its findings to the
Legislature no later than July 1, 2009.
(b) The state board shall collect data on the g
taxiing andidling times of planes at the
airport and other relevant data for at least one calendar year, and
utilize this data and modeling to reach its conclusions.
9
Attachment #2 Recommended Bill Language Incorporating Staff Recommended
Amendments
AB 700 Assembly Bill - AMENDEDBILL NUMBER: AB 700 AMENDED BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 25, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2007
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Lieu FEBRUARY 22, 2007
An act to add Section 39607.7 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to air
pollution.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 700, as amended, Lieu. Airpollution: Santa Monica Airport.
Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions ofair contaminants for
the control of air pollution from vehicular and non vehicular sources. The
State Air Resources Board is:designatedas the state agency with theprimary
responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution, and air pollution
controldistricts and air quality managementdistricts are designated with
the primary responsibility for the control of air pollution from all sources
other than vehicular sources.
This bill would require the state board to complete a study of air.
pollution caused by jets and turbo-prop airplanes and all general aviation
aircraft taking off and landing at the Santa Monica Airport.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the. Legislature to address study through
this act the increase in air pollution quality from the Santa Monica Airport,
and the effects of that pollution the air quality on the residents of the
surrounding area.
SEC. 2. Section 39607.7 is added to the Health and SafetyCode,to
read:
39607.7. (a) The state board shall complete a study of air pollution
caused by jets and turbo-prop airplanes and all general aviation aircraft
taking off and landingat the Santa Monica Airport andreport its findings to
the Legislature no later than July 1, 2009.
(b) The state board shall collect data on taxiing and idling times of
planes at determine the airport best scientific approach and other
methodology and use all relevant data for at least onecalendar year, and
utilize this data existingscientific data to conduct the study and modeling
to reach its conclusions.
- (c) The report of the California Air.Resources Board to
the Legislature required by this section shall not be admissible as evidence
in any judicial or administrative proceeding .involving the City of Santa
Monica.
(d) No public entity shall be liable for injury based upon~the
findings of the California Air Resources Board report to the Legislative
required by this section.
10
/~ ~
~I(yto?
AB 700 Assembly Bill - AMENDEDBILL NUMBER: AB 700 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 25, 2007
AMENDED IN A53EMBLY APRIL 10, 2007
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Lieu
FEBRUARY 22, 2007
An act to add Section 39607.7 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to air
pollution.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 700, as amended, Lieu. Air pollution: Santa Monica Airport.
Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions of air contaminants for
the control of air pollution from vehicular and nonvehicular sources. The State
Air Resources Board is designated as the state .agency with the primary
responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution, and air pollution
control districts and air quality management districts are designated with the
primary responsibility .for the control of air pollution from all sources other
than vehicular-sources.
This bill would require the state board to complete a study of air pollution
caused by jetsam-=turbo-prop ___________and all general aviation aircra £t
taking off and landing at the Santa Monica Airport.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION_1.--It is the intent of the Legislature to ~ec''er-easstudy through this
act the = - air eaquality from the Santa Monica Airport, and the
effects of th-a' ~^'isathe air quality on the residents of the surrounding
area.
SEC. Z. Section 39607.7 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to
read:
39607.7. {a} The state board shall complete a study of air pollution caused
by jets and turbo-prop airplanes and all general aviation aircraft taking ofE
and landing at the Santa Monica Airport and report its findings to the
Legislature no later than July 1, 2009.
(b} - The state board shall =-~'_-- }
y
_-~=a==~tdetermine the ______'~.best scientific approach and at-ke-methodology and
use all relevant ~3-€s~-at~ea s~~a e3'e*~dsr*yea~asd tit" 'ee t4's
existing scientific data to conduct the study and '^^^'-Wiz„-~~reach its
conclusions.
or
sect
of the California Air
e
Citv of Santa
of the Calitornla Air Resources Board report to the Legislative
Gactinn
June 18, 2007
Memorandum to: Santa Monica City Council
From: Ping Ho
-~ >~'v,~
~~
~a0r91b7
~~
~~
s ~ '3.
Re: Analysis and suggested revisions of recommended amendments to AB 700, as submitted by Robert
Trimborn for the 6/19/07 meeting
Thank you for the proactive efforts to work with Assemblymember Lieu on crafting a mutually acceptable
bill that will meet the needs of the community.
In my review of the document containing the recommended actions, one concern is that there is far too
much emphasis on SCAQMD study as being a source of useful information. The key source of
information for any upcoming study will be the recently completed LAX study, funded by the
California Air Resources Board, which has done exactly what AB 700 seeks to do -correlate specific
aircraft activity with emissions in the community. Page 4 of the preliminary LAX study report notes that
the 8-24 hour sampling approach used in SCAQMD studies lacks the sensitivity to detect potentially large
quantities of emissions from aircraft operations over repeated short time periods. It is my understanding
that the measurement of aircraft ground activity for the SCAQMD augmentation study was not done with
the kind of scientific rigor that a meaningful study would require.
Another concern is the process by which these amendments will be completed. Which staff
members are working with the bill's author on the amendment to the legislation? How can we be sure
that it will be conducted in a timely manner?
A third concern is the wording of the recommended amendments, both in grammar and content.
Some of them don't even make sense as written. See below:
SECTION 1 -ORIGINAL WORDING BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER LIEU:
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to address through this act the increase in air pollution from
the Santa Monica Airport, and the effects of that pollution on the residents of the surrounding area.
SECTION 1 -PROPOSED REVISION BY "STAFF": [THIS MAKES NO SENSE AS WORDED]
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to address study through this act the increase in air
pollution quality from the Santa Monica Airport, and the effects of that pollution the air quality on the
residents of the surrounding area.
MY COMMENTS:
It looks like "staff' is proposing to change the term "air pollution" to "air quality." "Air quality from Santa
Monica Airport" does not adequately reflect the nature of the problem. "Air pollution' is an acceptable
term if one considers the findings of a 1999 modeling study of pollution emanating from Santa Monica
Airport, done by Dr. Bill Piazza for the Los Angeles Unified School District Office of Environmental Health
and Safety. However, if a replacement term for "air pollution" must be sought, "aircraft emissions" would
be a more accurate alternative.
Therefore, I propose that the wording of this section be left as it originally was or revised to read as
follows:
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the legislature to address through this act the increase in aircraft
emissions from Santa Monica Airport, and the effects of those emissions on the residents of the
surrounding area.
PART "a" -ORIGINAL WORDING:
39607.7. (a) The state board shall complete a study of air pollution caused by jets and turbo-prop
airplanes taking off and landing at the Santa Monica Airport and report its findings to the Legislature no
later than July 1, 2009.
PART "a" -PROPOSED REVISION BY "STAFF":
39607.7. (a) The state board shall complete a study of air pollution caused by jets and turbo-prop
airplanes and all general aviation aircraft taking off and landing at the Santa Monica Airport and report its
findings to the Legislature no later than July 1, 2009.
MY COMMENTS:
Should be revised to read as follows:
39607.7. (a) The state board shall complete a study of air pollution caused by all general aviation aircraft
taking off and landing at the Santa Monica Airport and report its findings to the Legislature no later than
July 1, 2009.
The phrase "all general aviation aircraft" covers everything including the jets and turbo-prop airplanes, so
to include all three of these items is redundant (the Wikipedia definition of general aviation aircraft is as
follows: "General aviation refers to all flights other than military and scheduled airline flights. General
aviation flights range from lic_I ders and powered parachutes to large, non-scheduled cargo jet flights.")
PART "b" -ORIGINAL WORDING:
(b) The state board shall collect data on the taxiing and idling times of planes at the airport and other
relevant data for at least one calendar year, and utilize this data and modeling to reach its conclusions.
PART "b" -PROPOSED REVISION BY "STAFF": [THIS MAKES NO SENSE AS WORDED]
(b) The state board shall collect data on taxiing and idling times of planes at determine the airport best
scientific approach and other methodology and use all relevant data for at least one calendar year, and
utilize this data existing scientific data to conduct the study and modeling to reach its conclusions.
MY COMMENTS:
Should be revised to read as follows
(b)Based upon a review of existing studies, the state board shall collect data on the taxiing and idling
times of aircraft and gather other relevant data for at (east one calendar year, and utilize this data in
conjunction with a modeling study to reach its conclusions.
It is not necessary to state that all "methodology" and "data' will be considered in determining the best
scientific approach because the simple phrase, "a review of existing studies' would cover all of it,
published or as-yet unpublished. (Academics use the general phrase "reviews of scientific literature.")
It is also not necessary to state that the study will use the "best scientific approach" because that is the
purpose of a review of existing studies.
PART "c" -PROPOSED ADDITION BY "STAFF":
(c) The report of the California Air Resources Board to the Legislature required by this section shall
not be admissible as evidence in any judicial or administrative proceeding involving the City of Santa
Monica.
MY COMMENTS:
This addresses the City's primary concern. I don't have any suggestions for changing this.
PART "d" -PROPOSED ADDITION BY "STAFF":
(d) No public entity shall be liable for injury based upon the findings of the California Air Resources
Board report to the Legislative required by this section.
MY COMMENTS:
I think that proposed Part "c" covers the City's interest adequately and that proposed Part "d" should be
deleted. Part "d" appears only to protect the FAA.
At the last City Council meeting regarding discussions of EMAS, there seemed to be a consensus among
City Council members regarding the need for the City to take a stronger position against the FAA. This is
an opportunity to take such a stand.
I have also been informed that it is difficult to sue the FAA anyway, so their need for additional protection
doesn't make sense to me.
It also doesn't make sense to include this section even as a nod to the aviation community because they
will be no more likely to support this bill with or without proposed Part "d."
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns and recommendations. I will have an opportunity to
meet with Assemblymember Lieu on Friday and would like to be able to state that the Santa Monica City
Council and the affected community are a united front on these issues.
Respectfully yours,
Ping Ho
Member. Friends of Sunset Park Airport Committee
pinpho(a~ucla.edu
310-435-4578