A U.S. District Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on Sunday to halt the city of Santa Monica, California, from shortening the runway at Santa Monica Airport (SMO) from 5,000 feet to 3,500 feet. The city had planned to begin work on the runway shortening project on October 9, marking another step in the city’s effort to close the airport by the end of 2028 under a settlement agreement struck the FAA earlier this year.
But the city faced a number of legal objections from pilots and other interests in the airport community, as well as from national organizations such as NBAA. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the petition in one such case, from airport neighbor Kate Scott and James Babinski, a pilot who frequents the airport. Scott and Babinski argued that the city failed to comply with environmental review and public hearing requirements before moving forward with the terms of the settlement agreement.
The court determined that Scott and Babinski would “likely prevail at trial on the merits of their claim.” The court also agreed that the plaintiffs met the test for “irreparable harm” necessitating a TRO based on concerns that the runway shortening would require aircraft to fly lower over neighborhoods, increasing noise. Also, the court noted the concern that flight at the lower altitude over densely populated areas “increases the risk to pilots.”
The court gave the city until October 13 to submit a filing that would show cause why the TRO should not remain in place.
NBAA welcomed the decision. "This latest development highlights the important role of local and regional advocacy in preserving access to vital community airports," said NBAA Western regional representative Stacy Howard. "NBAA is pleased to see the court respond quickly to the aviation community's concerns with the city's shortsighted plan to drastically reduce the usability of this irreplaceable Southern California airfield."
The association is involved in separate litigation before the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, which argues the FAA did not follow statutory requirements in reaching the settlement agreement with the city.
A U.S. District Court gave the general aviation community a reprieve last month when it issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the city of Santa Monica from moving forward with plans to shorten the runway at Santa Monica Airport to 3,500 feet from 5,000 feet. Then, a week later, the same court dealt the community another blow in the long-fought battle to save SMO, dissolving the TRO and denying a request for a preliminary injunction.
The move cleared the way for the city of Santa Monica to continue a long, hard-fought effort to methodically dismantle the historic airport, a step toward shuttering it altogether by the end of 2028. Airport director Stelios Makrides hailed the decision, saying the court’s ruling “affirms that the legal complaints raised lack merit” and indicated that the runway-shortening work would be under way shortly.
Confidential Agreement Questioned
The FAA paved the way for Santa Monica to shorten the runway by reaching a surprise “settlement agreement” with city officials in closed-door meetings earlier this year. That agreement, which marked a striking turnaround for an agency that had fought for years to preserve the airport, also allows the city to close the airport by the end of 2028.
The meetings leading up to the settlement agreement were designed to take place in secret. Santa Monica Mayor Ted Winterer told Southern California Public Radio, shortly after the settlement agreement, “When the FAA first approached us about having the dialog about resolving our issues on a larger scale, they wanted us not to talk to anybody and they agreed not to talk to anybody….I mean, when you negotiate a settlement agreement like this there’s always the prospect of leaks, and then people attempt to get in and try to undo it. And if, for instance, NBAA or AOPA or any of the pilot lobbyist groups had gotten wind of this deal they would have done their utmost to thwart it.”
But it was the confidential nature of the agreement that has spurred legal challenges.
The TRO was originally granted on October 8 to airport neighbor Kate Scott and pilot James Babinski. Both had undergone flight training at SMO. They argued that the city failed to comply with public hearing and certain environmental vetting requirements before forging ahead with the runway-shortening project.
The court initially determined that Scott and Babinski would “likely prevail at trial on the merits of their claim.” The court also agreed that the plaintiffs met the test for “irreparable harm,” necessitating a TRO based on concerns that the runway shortening would require aircraft to fly lower over neighborhoods, increasing noise. Also, the court noted the concern that flight at the lower altitude over densely populated areas “increases the risk to pilots.” The court further faulted the city for failing to provide a timely objection to the TRO.
The Santa Monica Airport Association, AOPA and NBAA filed amicus briefs backing the case, stressing that the status quo will not impose additional harm to the city while the case over the future of SMO is fully heard in court. But if the city is permitted to move forward with plans, they told the court, the damage could be irreparable and have ramifications throughout the Los Angeles region.
But the city filed nearly 1,400 pages of documents to bolster its case and sought and received an expedited briefing period, providing little time for rebuttal. The city argued that the settlement agreement does not call for any action—and therefore doesn’t require hearings—and that the airport plans have been fully vetted in compliance with the law. The city disputed the plaintiff’s safety case, saying a shorter runway means fewer airplanes, improving safety.
The court cited the assessment of the city’s safety expert as it lifted the TRO on October 16, a week after issuing the order. The court also pointed to the FAA’s safety determination. While it found earlier that the case would likely prevail, it subsequently determined that the runway-shortening project did not necessarily require public hearings. But rather, the court cited the law as saying the city “may” host public hearings. Further, the court determined that since land acquisition was not involved, the city did not need to conduct public hearings for a runway reconfiguration.
The court ruling does not end the legal challenges, but it did permit the city to shorten the runway. NBAA, along with five stakeholders at the airport, has a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, charging that the FAA disregarded statutory requirements in signing the agreement. That case has the backing of AOPA and GAMA as “friends of the court.”
FAA administrator Michael Huerta, whose term at the helm of the agency ends almost a year after the agreement was struck, defends the action, saying it buys the community more time to fight to save the airport and that “decisions of land use and facilities under our Constitution are reserved for local governments.”