> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# City officials should stop idling on airport
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/city-officials-should-stop-idling-on-airport/
- Published: 2006-07-22T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T19:02:52.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica Airport, #archive-import

*By GUEST COLUMN BY MARTIN RUBIN*

What’s up with AB 2501? Has city staff followed through with the May 25 Santa Monica City Council’s unanimous vote directing staff to work constructively with California Assemblyman Ted Lieu (D- Torrance), the author of AB 2501, and other interested parties to come to some agreement to meet mutual goals? A cost to City Hall of $35,000 or less was stipulated.

AB 2501 would require Santa Monica to record the start-up, taxi and idle, and take-off times of jets and to present the information to the public on a monthly basis for a one-year period. A one-year period is necessary to show seasonal changes. It seems to me that an airport would have this sort of information easily accessible. Indeed, it appears it is available from the airport’s audio recordings. Since we are talking an average of 25 take-offs a day, how difficult and expensive can that be? Airport staff argues that it will cost $400,000\. Please, where can I apply for the job?

Did city staff follow the directive and intent of the City Council motion? One month later, at the June 26 Airport Commission meeting, airport manager Bob Trimborn and Deputy City Attorney Marty Tachiki argued the merits of City Hall’s augmentation project and against AB 2501\. Because the augmentation project would limit the data collection to a three month period — December through February — and would exclude weekends,it is not in keeping with the spirit of AB 2501 to show seasonal changes, like Santa Ana wind conditions.

Trimborn and Tachiki attended the California Senate Transportation and Housing Committee meeting in Sacramento on June 27, the day after the Airport Commission meeting. I was present outside the meeting room when Trimborn and Tachiki spoke with Lieu. The entire thrust of their input toward Lieu was to sell the augmentation project. First Tachiki spoke and then Trimborn joined in immediately, aggressively arguing the merits of the project. I could hardly get an opportunity for my input. They argued the merits of the science and how it would enhance the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) monitoring study now underway. Lieu was not able to find any compromise in the discussion, though he did try.

In the Senate Committee meeting, Trimborn and Tachiki spoke in opposition to AB 2501\. Again, they spoke mainly of the augmentation project and the SCAQMD study. One would have thought that the SCAQMD took part in authoring this project when, in fact, the SCAQMD said that they are not certain that the data collected by the augmentation project will be useful or not until they actually look at it, and SCAQMD agreed that a full year of data would be better for a good modeling study.

Staff argued against AB 2501 and did not follow the City Council’s directive to work with Lieu. After all, City Councilman Ken Genser stated emphatically that his motion’s intent was to work constructively with the author and other interested parties. He said clearly,“ … the first choice is to work it out.” There was no mention of the augmentation project in the motion.

The Airport Commission at the June 26 Airport Commission meeting went against the airport staff recommendation to support City Hall’s Aircraft Operation Data Augmentation Project as a viable and scientific alternative to AB 2501\. Instead, they voted 3-2 to advise the City Council to support AB 2501 and that the City Council should suggest amendments to Lieu that would limit the scope of the data collection to jet and turbo prop aircraft only as they are the source of the community’s concerns. This is the first time that the Airport Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council regarding air pollution from airport operations.

On June 19, the Santa Monica Task Force on the Environment did not second motions by task force member Susan Mearns to support the augmentation project and oppose AB 2501\. The task force appears to be apprehensive in backing City Hall’s position, or shall I say city staff’s position.

Incidentally, AB 2501 is still in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee after a June 28 unanimous vote by the committee for reconsideration following a 6-7 vote against the bill. In order to be reconsidered, it will need to get waivers for both senate policy committees. I know it is very confusing, and so we will have to wait until August when the legislature convenes again to know for sure. However, Lieu is committed to reintroducing a new bill for the next legislature in 2007 if AB 2501 fails to move forward. He knows that this is a necessary first step to understanding the air pollution impacts from the airport.

The problem and the deciding factor seem to be the cost of collecting the data. I suggest that the City Council form a committee to investigate how data can best be collected. To pay for the data collection, I suggest that the airport use some of the monies collected from airport noise violations. The community worked hard to get proposition MM passed in 2001 that enabled City Hall to raise the cost of a noise violation from a maximum of $500 to the present system of between $2,000 and $10,000\. The airport collects between $70,000 and $100,000 a year from noise violation fines, according to Trimborn. Those unprecedented fines should be used to augment the cost of collecting data that will, through computer modeling studies, be used to show the extent of the air pollution into the surrounding communities. Again, as I asked in my May 31 column on this issue (SMDP, page 4), what do Santa Monica city officials feel is their responsibility regarding the operation of Santa Monica Airport? (Martin Rubin is the director of Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution and lives in West L.A.)

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 22, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/072206.pdf?ref=smdp.com)