> ## 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 protects itself from airport damage
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/city-protects-itself-from-airport-damage/
- Published: 2007-06-27T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-25T00:18:08.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica Airport, #archive-import

*By Susan J. Hartley Guest Commentary*

AS VICE-CHAIR OF THE SANTA MONICA Airport Commission, a board member of Friends of Sunset Park, and, most importantly, as a resident of Santa Monica, I am very opposed to amendments (c) and (d) to AB700, which were proposed by city of Santa Monica staff and approved with slight, inadequate alterations last Tuesday by the Santa Monica City Council.

Residents of Santa Monica and Los Angeles have been alarmed for years about the increasing air pollution, namely fumes from the jet emissions around the airport. These same residents have been trying to have Santa Monica acknowledge the existence of the fumes, identify and quantify them, and do the right thing — eliminate them. Progress, albeit slow, has been made. Santa Monica now finally acknowledges the existence of the fumes.

For two years, legislation has been pending to have a state-mandated study conducted of the air pollution caused by the jets and turbo jets. Last year, Santa Monica thwarted that proposed legislated study, purportedly, because the costs of conducting the study were to be borne by the city of Santa Monica — so much for the potential health hazards to the residents around the airport.

This year, after the legislation passed in the Assembly — rewritten so that the state funds the study and the State Air Quality Resources Board conducts the study — the city finally agreed to support AB700 only if Santa Monica is protected from any possible liability based upon the results of the study.

Amendment (c) proposed to exclude the results of the study as evidence in any administrative or legal proceeding. I reminded the City Council that this amendment would preclude Santa Monica from using the results as evidence in any legal proceeding against any entity (e.g., the FAA) should Santa Monica finally decide to take legal action to protect its residents. The City Council then changed (c) so that the city could use the results. This is an improvement because Santa Monica could use the results in a lawsuit against and/or brought by the FAA, the pilots’ association, and the fractional share jet owners and operators. It’s not enough, though, because impacted residents could not use the study results against the city and the state if health hazards are documented by the study and steps are not taken to ameliorate them.

Amendment (d) shockingly excluded every public entity from liability for injury, based upon the findings of the study. This amendment proposed by Santa Monica staff wouldn’t give anyone remedies for injuries based upon the study findings caused by Santa Monica Airport air pollution. Why then, one can ask, would any municipal, local, state or federal entity do anything to correct and/or eliminate the health hazards? Why would Santa Monica? They certainly haven’t risen to the occasion yet. After comments from others (I was cut off), City Council limited the liability preclusion for injuries based on the study findings to Santa Monica, state and other local entities.

These amendments to (c) and (d) are improvements, but as the sorry history of Santa Monica and its effects on the residents around it attest, legal and/or administrative action, or the threat thereof, seem to be the only motivating factor for governmental entities. How is Santa Monica protecting the residents if they are eviscerated of any legal recourse?

Similar air pollution studies conducted at other airports have disturbing findings: ■Increased levels of black carbon, which is an indicator of ultra-fine particulates that can lodge in the lungs and cause health problems, including lung cancer; ■Spiked formaldehyde rates (American Cancer Institute reports that formaldehyde has been classified as a human carcinogen. Research studies of workers exposed to formaldehyde have suggested an association between formaldehyde exposure and cancers of the nasal sinuses, nasopharynx, brain and possibly leukemia.); Santa Monica should be more concerned about documenting, quantifying, correcting and eliminating the human exposure to the hazardous air pollution caused by the air traffic at Santa Monica Airport than its exposure to liability. Residents should not be denied this important study or stripped of any of their legal rights to protect themselves and their children based upon the study findings.

Santa Monica staff and City Council, Julia Brownley, and Sheila Kuehl need to support Ted Lieu’s AB700 without the eviscerating (c) and (d) amendments.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 27, 2007.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/062707.pdf?ref=smdp.com)