You'll recall when we last visited this on-going saga, the City of
Santa Monica mayor and board of supervisors

http://www.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/index.htm
Mayor Herb Katz, Mayor Pro Tem Richard Bloom, Bobby Shriver,
Robert Holbrook, Ken Genser, Kevin McKeown, Pam O'Connor

enacted an ordinance contrary to the FAA's authority over the airport.
The FAA responded with an order to show cause, and additional letters
were exchanged.

Now the FAA has successfully managed to get a federal court to issue a
temporary restraining order blocking Santa Monica's attempt to usurp
FAA authority.

The City Council says it acted to protect local residents from jet
overruns and acted in accordance with the FAA's own safety
standards. In court, the judge asked the city attorney how many
aircraft of the type that would be affected by the ban had been
involved in overruns at the airport. The answer is none, but that
smaller, slower aircraft have been involved in overruns and the
city's attorney stated that the results of such an incident
involving larger aircraft would be disastrous. The judge responded
noting that the larger aircraft in question were flown by
professional pilots and were considered safer than smaller private
aircraft.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#197772

A hearing scheduled for May 15 will allow both sides (the city and
the FAA) to file additional arguments.

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode ...



Chronology:
http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airports/smo/
Developments Continue Unfolding on Santa Monica Airport Ban



On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:59:52 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in :


Perhaps the city should not have permitted housing development at the
ends of the runway; more suitable zoning might have been industrial or
commercial. Rather than crippling the airport, perhaps a more
equitable solution would be for the city to purchase those homes they
believe to be in danger, as a means of correction for their original
errors.

Land in the heart of metropolitan cities is worth more than gold. To
acquire metropolitan real estate, the emperor of Chicago finally
resorted to a midnight bulldozer raid on his own airport. The same
thing happened in the '70s at Dana Point Airport(?). This
shortsighted malfeasance is rapacious. Is Santa Monica next?



FAA moves to block ban on fastest jets at Santa Monica Airport
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...1,780534.story

City officials, citing safety concerns, say they will begin
implementing the ban today in defiance of the FAA.

By Dan Weikel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

April 24, 2008

The Federal Aviation Administration took legal action Wednesday to
overturn a ban on the fastest jets that fly out of Santa Monica
Airport, including aircraft popular among business executives.

FAA officials served the city of Santa Monica with a
cease-and-desist order challenging a municipal ordinance passed in
November -- and effective today -- that bars jets with approach
speeds of greater than 136 mph.

The so-called Category C and D jets include such popular models as
the Gulfstream IV, Challenger and Citation X aircraft. They
account for about 9,000 landings and departures a year, or about
7% of flight operations.

"We've worked very hard for nearly six years to reach an agreement
with the city of Santa Monica that addresses their concerns and
maintains access to the airport for all kinds of aircraft," said
Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman. "We made multiple proposals to the
city, all of which the city rejected."

Citing safety as its paramount concern, the Santa Monica City
Council unanimously passed the ...

Moutrie wrote that the FAA "is already under criticism and
pressure from Congress for putting aviation industry convenience
ahead of public safety. The city urges you to change your course
and steadfastly put public safety first."

Council members approved the ban, saying it would protect the
public, particularly residents living immediately next to the ends
of the airport runway and individuals using and working at the
airport.

Residents of Santa Monica and the Mar Vista neighborhood of Los
Angeles have complained for years that the airport's location and
lack of runway buffers create the potential for a deadly accident.



Additional interesting information on this subject:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article.../080424ca.html
http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2008/080423caban.pdf
Your enforcement of the Ordinance on April 24, 2008, can only be
interpreted as an attempt to divest the FAA of its jurisdiction over
its administrative process to which the City, as a federally obligated
airport, must adhere. Moreover, your attempted enforcement of the
City's Ordinance also suggests a complete disregard for the FAA's
authority and responsibility as the final arbiter of aviation safety
in the National Air Transportation System. The FAA cannot countenance
enforcement of the Ordinance under these circumstances while ...



http://www.smgov.net/cmo/FAACeaseandDesist.pdf
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, DC
)
IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE )
WITH FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS )
BY THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, )
CALIFORNIA )
------------- )

FAA Docket No. 16-02-08
INTERIM CEASE AND DESIST ORDER

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based
on a Notice of Investigation (NOI) dated October 8, 2002, initiated by
the Director of the Office of Airport Safety and Standards, and
supplemented by his March 26, 2008 Order to Show Cause. The NOI and
Order to Show Cause were issued in accordance with the FAA Rules of
Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14
Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 16. The FAA's investigation
seeks to determine the legality of the City of Santa Monica,
California's ("the City") Ordinance adopted on March 25,2008
("Ordinance") banning Category C and D aircraft operations from the
Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMa).

The City's banning Category C and D jet aircraft from SMO...



http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2008...nforcement.pdf
Your communication warns Mr. Trimborn that if he fails to accede to
the demand, the FAA will issue a cease and desist order requiring the
City refrain from enforcing City Ordinande No. 2251 pending the
outcome of the administrative proceeding, which the FAA initiated over
five years ago and recently attempted to "revive" through issuance of
an Order to Show Cause. Your letter claims that the proceeding was
"stayed.," but in vact there was no stay and the 120 day period for
decision expired without extension.



http://www.scpr.org/news/stories/200...a_faa_2wa.html
Ian Gregor: Well, we've said in the past that we don't believe that
cities have the authority, first of all, to decide which aircraft can
and cannot use airports, and secondly, we've said that the city of
Santa Monica has made a series of agreements with the federal
government over the last six plus decades that precludes them from
banning any aircraft from their airport.

Steve Julian: Now, city officials yesterday told the Los Angeles Times
they're going to implement the ban anyway. What action can the FAA
take if the city doesn't abide by the cease and desist order?
...

Gregor: Sure. Well, Santa Monica is a unique situation, because most
cities don't allow developers to build homes right up to the edge of
an airport. That said, these larger jets, these category C and D jets,
have been landing safely at Santa Monica for years, and years, and
years. It's perfectly safe for these planes to land on a runway the
length of which Santa Monica has.

We have made a number of safety proposals over the years that would
build runway safety areas at either both runway ends, or the departure
end of the runway that's most heavily used, and we've also offered to
fund a residential acquisition program if the city wants to buy up
some homes to create a larger runway protection zone. And
unfortunately, the city has rejected all of those proposals.

Julian: A lot of people may not want to sell their homes or lose them.

Gregor: Well again, that's really the city's decision as to what they
want to do. We've made proposals that would build larger safety areas
at each runway end, without eating up so much runway that, you know,
certain jets would be effectively precluded from using the airport.
And we think those are excellent safety options, and the city has
rejected them.



http://www.knbc.com/travelgetaways/15978421/detail.html
Those in violation of the ordinance could be subject to misdemeanor
charges, fines and possibly jail sentences. The law will not apply to
jets from other areas that landed earlier this week and will depart
today, according to The Times.

"We will start enforcing the law and see what happens. This is the
council's decision," Santa Monica City Attorney Marsha Jones Moutrie
told The Times.



http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...onica-airport/
It’s up to the city to choose between the options, or suggest another
option that would not restrict access to the airport. The city, which
accepted $9.7 million in federal airport development grants between
1985 and 1994, promised in 1984 to maintain the runway length and
width, the spokesman said, and in any case agreed when the airport was
transferred to the city in 1948 that the airport would be used “for
the use and benefit of the public…without unjust discrimination.

The spokesman added, “We believe the ban on Category C and D jets
constitutes discrimination and the granting of an exclusive right to
operators of other classes of aircraft.”



http://www.examiner.com/a-1357633~Sa...egal_move.html
Residents have complained for years about the potential for a jet to
overrun the runway and crash into nearby homes. The airport is unusual
in its proximity to homes, the nearest of which are within 300 feet of
the runway's end.