City,
FAA to Try to Settle Suit |
By Lookout Staff
November 11 – In an effort to avoid a lengthy and
costly legal battle, City and federal aviation officials will try
to settle a lawsuit that challenges Santa Monica’s ban on
larger, faster jets at its municipal airport.
The mediation was called by the hearing examiner two weeks before an appeals
court is set to hear oral arguments in the City’s challenge to a U.S.
District judge’s preliminary injunction barring Santa Monica from imposing
the ban.
The City also is challenging the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA)
Interim Cease and Desist order, arguing that the agency has “acted outside
the scope of its authority.”
“The fight is costly,” City Attorney Marsha Moutrie wrote in a
report to the City Council, which will take up the issue Tuesday. “If
the case does not settle, it will likely continue for another two to three years.
“There are several complex legal issues, and precedent is relatively
scarce,” Moutrie wrote. “Thus, the ultimate outcome is highly uncertain.”
What is “virtually certain,” the City Attorney added, is that “whatever
the outcome of the current appeal, another will follow.”
Any proposed settlement would likely involve costly improvements
to the system that stops jets from over-running the runway, which
abuts neighboring residences.
The cost of installing an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) to slow
the C and D aircraft covered by the ban would cost $3 million for
a 175-foot bed with a 25-foot setback and $8.5 million for a 500-foot
bed.
“The FAA is highly unlikely to voluntarily accept any safety solution
that excludes a significant portion of the current fleet,” Moutrie wrote
in her report.
“Accordingly, staff has considered the possibility of extending the runway
plateau to lengthen the area available for safety enhancements at the runway‘s
ends.”
But building an extension at the 62-year-old airport would cost between $7
million and $9 million, in addition to the cost of the EMAS bed, according to
staff.
“It is possible to recoup at least some of these costs through the imposition
or increase of user fees,” Moutrie wrote.
Friends of Sunset Park (FOSP), the neighborhood group that represents Santa
Monica residents who live near the airport, opposes the proposed safety enhancements.
“FOSP does not support EMAS in lieu of the Aircraft Conformance Plan
because EMAS has no effect on undershoots, veer-offs, or any other incident
that could occur after the aircraft leaves the ground,” the group’s
officials wrote in a letter to the City on Saturday.
“FOSP does not support federal funding for any additional safety measures
to Santa Monica Airport if this would obligate the City to the federal government
in some way,” the neighborhood officials wrote. “Funding must come
from the airport users.”
In ordering the City to suspend the ordinance approved by the council in April,
the FAA argued that the measure -- --which bans C and D aircraft with approach
speeds of between 139 and 191 mph -- is unnecessary and would harm jet operators.
The City has called the federal government’s challenge a “legal
assault” on an ordinance responding to increasing concerns that soaring
jet traffic -- from 4,829 jet operations in 1994 to 18,575 last year -- is putting
neighboring homes, as well as pilots, in danger.
In a brief filed in August, the City argued that the ordinance approved by
the council is legal because the City is merely trying to implement federal
runway standards.
The City also contends that the FAA’s interim cease and desist orders
were issued illegally without a hearing, that as airport proprietor
it has the legal right to protect public safety and limit its own
liability and that the Tenth Amendment protects the City from federal
coercion.
|
