Office of the City Attorney

City Hall

1685 Main Street

PO 8ox2200

Santa Monica. California 904lH

EXHIBIT

iJ. /01 4'1

C lly

Sanl. Monl •••'"

April 22, 2008

Kevin L. Solco

Acting Director, Airport Safety and Standards

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Re: Enforcement of Santa Monica's Aircraft Conformance Program

Ordinance No. 2251 (CCS)

Dear Mr. Soleo:

Yesterday, you communicated to Santa Monica Airport Director Robert Trimbom the FAA's

demand that Mr. Trimborn take specified actions by the close of business today. The actions

include withdrawing his letter of April 14, 2008 notifying aircraft users that the City Council had

adopted Ordinance No. 2251 ("Ordinance"), which prohibits the operation of Category C and D

aircraft at Santa Monica Airport, in order to protect public safety. Your communication warns

Mr. Trimbom that ifhe fails to accede to the demand, the FAA win issue a cease and desist order

requiring that the City refrain from enforcing City Ordinance No. 2251 pending the outcome of

the administrative proceeding, which the FAA initiated overfive 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 fact there was no stay and the 120 day period for decision

expired without extension.

Before responding to your demand, I must express the City's objections to the FAA's process.

As you are aware from the City's response to the Order to Show Cause, the City is represented

by counsel in this proceeding. Any communications you issue should be addressed to counsel

listed on that pleading, not to the Airport Director. The necessity of your doing so is particularly

obvious under these circumstances: you threatened legal action and required a response within

one day.

In the context of this more than five year old dispute, your demand appears both unreasonable

and misdirected on its face. The FAA is well aware that the Ordinance was adopted according to

the standard process dictated by state and local law. There were multiple public hearings over

the course of several months, four of which your agency attended. Even after the Ordinance was

approved on first reading, the second reading was postponed to ensure ample opportunity to

explore possibilities that might have existed for a cooperative resolution. Thus, the City Council

took the time to carefully consider both the safety of the community and the FAA's arguments

ngtanst the Ordinance, Ultimately, the Council concluded that the Ordinance should be adopted

to ensure safe and appropriate operation of the City's Airport. The Council's authority cannot be

circumvented by simply demanding that the Airport Director immediately withdraw a letter

tel: 310 458-8336 • fax: 310395-6727
Kevin L. Solco

Acting Director. Airport Safety and Standards

April 22. 2008

Page 2

intended to implement City law and policy by giving fair notification of the new law to aircraft

operators.

Additionally. your communication with Mr. Trimbom is further evidence that this process is

infected with prejudgment. As explained, at length, in the City's response to the Order to Show

Cause. the FAA has already decided the matter. Months ago, Associate Airport Administrator

Shaffer decreed, in writing, that the Ordinance is "flatly illegal". yesterday, the FAA's counsel,

conveyed a letter which asserts, without any basis in fact, that there will be dire consequences if

the Ordinance goes into effect. This assertion is apparently based solely on the number of

operations by noncompliant aircraft within the last year. It ignores the fact that fractional

operators have publicly stated that their participants may easily use compliant aircraft and that

charter aircraft users may do the same. Thus, the statements in yesterday's communications

perpetuate the FAA's practice of prejudging the outcome of this proceeding. The threatened

cease and desist order against the City would only constitute further evidence of the FAA's bias.

Such blind prejudgment has no place in governmental process. Even if your agency remains

determined to ignore standard requirements of Due Process in its efforts to place the convenience

of a smallpercentage of Airport users above public safety, you should consider the FAA's

reputation. It can only be protected, or perhaps salvaged, by treating the City fairly and

reasonably in this case.

To date. you have not done so. The FAA asserts that no emergency exists at this time that

'warrants implementation of the City's ban on C and D operations at the City's Airport. The

FAA further asserts that the City is somehow attempting to "divest the FAA of its jurisdiction

over its administrative process". Both statements are patently unreasonable. As the extensive

record on file with the FAA dearly demonstrates, the Airport facilities are not, according to the

FAA's own standards. adequate for C and D aircraft. There are no runway safety areas. and

there are homes in singularly close proximity to the runway ends. The City is responsible and

liable tOt the Airport's operation. The City must kcep the Airport safe and is simply attempting

to implement the FAA's own safety standards.

The City acted prudently to address these risks. The Ordinance was adopted through the

standard municipal process - indeed, as explained above, that process was extended to ensure a

full opportunity for consideration of the FAA's concerns and possible solutions.

And, it was adopted to fulfill the most basic of governmental duties - the duty to keep the public

safe. Your assertion that this effort is undertaken to divest your agency of jurisdiction reveals

stunning self-absorption or institutional paranoia.

Nor, contrary to your assertions, does the law require that an emergency exist prior to the

adoption of the Ordinance. Like your agency, the City serves the public and does so, by among

other things. adopting laws that protect public health and safety. Moreover, as Airport

proprietor, the City must both protect the public and lla.lt'iguarl.lugain5t liability for failure to keep

the Airport safe. Your agency's assertion that C and D aircraft have been using SMa for over

twenty years without incident would not. even if true. establish that the City may not meet the
Kevin L. Solco

Acting Director, Airport Safety and Standards

April 22, 2008

Page 3

FAA's own safety standards. The FAA's argument to the contrary is as foolish as saying that if

a city bridge designed to handle 10,000 pound vehicles has been able to support some 25,000

pound vehicles in the past, the City is therefore required to allow all such overweight vehicles to

use the bridge in the future. Indeed, if the "tombstone mentality" evidenced in your letter were

national policy - which it is not - compliant runway safety areas would only be required at those

airports which had already experienced serious runway overrun accidents.

Simply put, the law does not require Santa Monica to suffer a catastrophe in order to qualify to

meet FAA runway standards. In recent years, the number of faster aircraft operating at the

Airport has increased significantly. At the same time, federal acknowledgement of the

importance of runway safety areas has grown. Indeed, James Hall, who served as Chainnan of

the NTSB for six years. concluded in his Declaration, on file in this case, that runway safety

areas are "critically important" and "especially important to safety at [Santa Monica Airport] due

to its unique topography and close proximity to residential housing." He also concluded that in

the absence of meeting the federal standards, "Category C and D aircraft should not be permitted

to operate due to the serious risks of injuries and deaths."

The City, as a prudent airport operator, cannot ignore these realities. And, we are confident that

implementation of the Ordinance will greatly enhance public safety while only minimally

inconvenience Airport users. When the Ordinance was adopted, there were about 25C and 0

aircraft per day at the Airport. When the law goes into effect on April 24, 2008, the operators of

affected aircraft can and will either switch to compliant aircraft or make adequate arrangements

at one of the surrounding airports where C and D operations do not create serious safety risks.

They have choices. The City simply does not have the choice of ignoring the growing safety

risk.

Nor should the FAA ignore it. Your agency is already under criticism and pressure from

Congress for putting aviation indu:.1ryconvenience ahead of public safety. The City urges you

to change your course and steadfastly put safety rust. Even if you will not, or cannot, the City

must. Therefore, it must respectfully decline to withdraw Mr. Trimborn's letter notifying pilots

that the Ordinance win go into effect on April 241h•

Very trul y yours,

--" "" . J i'.) ... /,/. I'

f LS~~97rr{l/1~lt#·-i/A!_

M~HA J~!ES MOUUIDE

City Attorney

cc: Mayor and City Council

P. Lamont Ewell, City Manager

Bob Trirnborn, Acti.ng Airport Director

Marty Tachiki, Deputy City Attorney

Frank San Martin, Office of Chief Counsel, FAA