MVCC SMAC is a committee of the Mar Vista Community Council. Its members are concerned with the impacts of the Santa Monica Airport (SMO) on the residents of Mar Vista, Venice, West Los Angeles and Santa Monica, and are committed to ensuring a safe, healthy airport. Our mission is to educate, empower, and advocate for solutions to improve the quality of life for everyone impacted by SMO. var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); </script> <script type="text/javascript"> var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-1482701-3"); pageTracker._initData(); pageTracker._trackPageview(); </script> |
CHRONOLOGY of Santa Monica Airport Events
May 27, 2008: The FAA issues a Director’s Determination in its Administrative Part 16 Hearing, stating that “we conclude that the City of Santa Monica is currently in violation of its federal obligations.” The City’s website states: “The 68-page document asserts that the City did not have the legal authority to adopt the Ordinance prohibiting the use of the Santa Monica Airport by category C and D aircraft. The FAA also references a grant for airport improvement projects accepted by the City in 1994. The grant requires the City to operate the property for 20 years, until 2014. The City received a payment in 2003 at the conclusion of the projects funded by the 1994 grant. It was not a new grant and does not extend the City’s obligations to operate the Airport until 2023 as asserted by the FAA. The City had previously contested the FAA’s position in its response to the FAA’s Order to Show Cause. The Director’s Determination is an initial administrative decision of the FAA , but is not the final decision of the agency. The City has the option of requesting an administrative hearing or appealing directly to a second level of administrative review. The City expects to contest the FAA’s determination and will decide in the next few weeks on the manner in which it will proceed.” The following is a link to the FAA Director’s Determination:
May 27, 2008: The City of Santa Monica submits application for Stay of Temporary Restraining Order with the 9th District Court of Appeals. The City’s website states: “The application argues that the City is likely to succeed on the the merits of the case because the City, as Airport proprietor, has the power to conform airport usage to airport facilities in order to protect safety and the FAA’s Cease and Desist Order were unlawfully issued. The application also argues that no significant harm would result from issuance of a stay, and a stay would promote the public interest.” The following is a link to the application: http://www.smgov.net/news/hotopics/airport/Motion52708.pdf
May 24, 2008: The City of Santa Monica announces it will file an appeal to the Temporary Restraining Order. "Tomorrow, the City anticipates filing an application for a stay of the District Court’s order enjoining enforcement of the Ordinance prohibiting C&D Aircraft from using the Santa Monica Airport in order to promote public safety. The application will be filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The application argues that the City is likely to succeed on the merits of the case because the City, as Airport proprietor, has the power to conform Airport usage to Airport facilities in order to protect safety and FAA’s Interim Cease & Desist Orders were unlawfully issued. The application also argues that no significant harm would result from issuance of a stay, and a stay would promote the public interest. Though there is no fixed schedule for ruling on stays, it is anticipated that the Ninth Circuit will probably rule on the application in the next several weeks." Kathryn Vernez Assistant to the City Manager,Community & Government Relations City of Santa Monica
May 15, 2008: Court hearing regarding the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order against the City of Santa Monica Following a brief hearing in court, Judge Wu issues a Preliminary Restraining Order against the City of Santa Monica, blocking the City from enforcing its ban on Category C and D aircraft. He again offers only procedural reasons for the decision, basically restating the his reasoning put forth in the April 28 judgement. The following is a link to Judge Wu’s order:
May 12, 2008: FAA submits memorandum to the Court responding to the City of Santa Monica’s May 5th statement. The FAA presents the same argument made in the April 28 hearing, stating that the FAA has the federal legal authority to issue a Cease and Desist order, and only the FAA or a Federal Appeals Court has the authority to rescind such an order. The following is a link to the FAA memorandum:
May 6, 2008: City submits a response to the FAA Cease and Desist order for the May 15th hearing. The City argues that the Ordinance is fully compliant and consistent with the City’s responsibilities as laid out in the 1984 Settlement Agreement between the City and the FAA; and that the Federal government cannot compel the City of Santa Monica to take a course of action (ie. allowing the larger jets) that directly affects the safety of its residents, and that directly contradicts the Safety regulations of the FAA concerning Runway Safety Areas. And the City argues that the FAA is carrying out an Administrative hearing concerning the Ordinance, and cannot prejudge the outcome of that hearing by issuing a Cease and Desist order that essentially prejudges the outcome of that hearing. The following is a link to the Santa Monica response:
April 28, 2008: Judge George Wu issues an Interim Restraining Order forbidding the City of Santa Monica to enforce the Ordinance. Wu said it was not clear he has the authority to adjudicate the merits of Santa Monica’s arguments, and thus made his decision to temporarily allow the Restraining Order based on his interpretation of the FAA’s legal authority to issue the Cease and Desist Order. He agreed to be briefed further on the case, and to hear arguments from both sides on May 15 after both sides have filed additional arguments.
April 23, 2008: FAA issues an Interim Cease and Desist Order. Pending a court hearing on April 28 regarding an Interim Restraining Order, the City agrees not to begin enforcement of the Ordinance until that date. The following is a link to the FAA Cease and Desist Order:
April 7, 2008: City of Santa Monica issues response to FAA’s Order to Show Cause. The city’s submission to the FAA argues that airport operations are governed by the 1984 Settlement Agreement between the city and the FAA, which only requires the city to accommodate slower aircraft at the airport. The FAA, as a party to that contract, cannot adjudicate contract compliance. Additionally, the city argues that the FAA is disqualified from adjudicating the validity of the ordinance because the FAA Airports Administrator Kirk Shaffer has already prejudged the matter, stating in a letter to the city that the ordinance is “flatly illegal.” The city further argues that the FAA’s attempt to coerce the city into continuing to accept C and D operations, without the safety precautions mandated by federal standards, violates the Tenth Amendment prohibition against the federal government commandeering local resources; and, in protecting the traveling convenience of a few at the expense of the safety of many, the FAA violates the Congressional mandate requiring the FAA to make safety its first priority, ahead of the economic interests of the aviation industry. The following is a link to the Santa Monica response:
March 26, 2008: FAA issues Order To Show Cause to the City of Santa Monica. This Order demands that the City of Santa Monica explain why it thinks it has the authority to change airport operations, which the FAA claims are solely within its domain and directs the City of Santa Monica to show cause why the FAA should not supplement and expedite its existing “Part 16 investigation”. This filing seems to be the first step towards moving the issue into the Courts. The following is a link to the FAA Order to Show Cause:
March 25, 2008: Santa Monica City Council holds public hearing on ordinance conforming the Airport to category A and B aircraft, and following the hearing the City Council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance. Prior to the final vote FAA Associate Administrator Kirk Schaffer presented the FAA’s proposals for safety improvements, essentially repeating the arguments stated in the March 7 FAA proposal. Members of the City Council followed this with a discussion of their reasons for finding the proposals inadequate and their concerns that the FAA was not addressing the safety concerns of the City and the residents who live in the communities surrounding the Airport. The following is a link to the minutes of the March 25 Santa Monica City Council meeting: http://www.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2008/20080408/032508%20Minutes.pdf
March 12, 2008: City of Santa Monica issues response to FAA March 7 proposal. The following is a link to the Santa Monica response:
March 7, 2008: FAA submits proposal to City of Santa Monica for safety enhancements for the Airport. The following is a link to the FAA letter:
January 29, 2008: A meeting takes place in Washington D.C. with Congressional leaders regarding the safety issues concerning the Santa Monica Airport. In attendance are Congressman James Oberstar (House Transportation Committee Chair), Congressman Henry Waxman, Congresswoman Jane Harman, FAA Associate Administrator Kirk Shaffer, and a contingent of City officials from Santa Monica, including Mayor Pro Tem Richard Bloom, Airport Manager Robert Trimborn, and others. Although no decisions are reached, the City of Santa Monica presents its case for enactment of the Ordinance conforming the airport to A and B aircraft. Congressman Oberstar requests that the City of Santa Monica and the FAA continue their dialogue to try and find a reasonable solution to their disagreements. The following is a link to a report by Mayor Pro Tem Richard Bloom of the meeting:
January 22, 2008: A Santa Monica Airport Town Hall Meeting hosted by L.A. City Councilman Bill Rosendahl and Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution (Martin Rubin, Director) takes place at the Daniel Webster Middle School Auditorium. The Forum addressed community concerns about jet pollution from Santa Monica Airport and its adverse impacts on residents' health. Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution and Rosendahl held a productive discussion with a panel of experts and a group of community members over how to address the toxic pollution, safety risks, noise that result from the airport. Also in attendance was Assemblyman Ted Lieu. The following link is to the CRAAP report on this Forum: http://home.earthlink.net/~jetairpollution/index.html
November 27, 2007: Santa Monica City Council has the first reading of ordinance banning Category C and D aircraft. This ordinance states the City is “conforming the use of Santa Monica Municipal Airport to its federally designated specification of ARC B-11, for public safety purposes including the safety of residents living immediately adjacent to airport runway ends and those individuals using and working at the airport.” The following link is to the staff report accompanying the ordinance item: http://www.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2007/20071127/s2007112707-C.htm The following link is to the ordinance: http://www.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2007/20071127/s2007112707-C-1.htm The ordinance was unanimously approved.
|
WELCOME Mar Vista Santa Monica Community Council Airport Committee An Online Resource to
Inform and Empower Neighbors for a Safer, Healthier Santa Monica Airport |
Welcome | MVCC SMAC |
