Bradley C. Michaud 

Office of the City Attorney 

City Hall brad ley. michaud@smgov. net 

City of 

Santa Monica® 

1685 Main Street 

Room 310 

Santa Monica 

CA 90407-2200 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administrative 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

October 20, 2014 

Re: FAADocketNo.16-14-04 

Dear Docket Clerk: 

Enclosed please find an original and 3 copies of the City of Santa Monica's Answer to 

Complaint and Supporting Exhibits in the above-referenced action. 

Also, enclosed with this filing in the above-referenced matter, please find a face sheet 

together with a pre-paid, self-addressed envelope. Please stamp the face page as received, and 

return the face page in the enclosed envelope. Thank you. 

/bern 

Very truly yours, 

C. MICHAUD 

City Attorney's Office 

tel: 310458-8336 • fax: 310 395-6727 

'I,;•,• ,, , .. ,,--,co;_--
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

k 23 

24 

© 25 

26 y 27 

28 

MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE, City Attorney 

JOSEPH LAWRENCE, Assistant City Attorney -=-:~;:;::;;! ........,~~ 

LANCE S. GAMS, Deputy City Attorney .-~re: ffU ~ U 'W ~ m\ 

IVAN CAMPBELL, Deputy City Attorney 0 u;; \W u;; 1\J) 

1685 Main Street, Room 310 

Santa Monica, California 90401 OCI 2 3 2014 

Telephone: (310) 458-8336 

Facsimile: (310) 451-5862 PART 16 DOCKETS 

lance.gams@smgov.net 

Attorneys for Respondent 

CITY OF SANTA MONICA 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE WITH 

FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS BY THE CITY OF 

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 

FAA Docket No. 16-14-04 

CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S ANSWER TO 

COMPLAINT AND SUPPORTING 

EXHIBITS 

Respondent CITY OF SANTA MONICA (hereinafter "CITY"), by and through its 

attorneys of record, respectfully submits the following Answer, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

§16.23(d) and §16.26(b),(5), to the Part 16 Complaint filed by the National Business Aircraft 

Association, Inc., Krueger Aviation, Inc., Harrison Ford, Justice Aviation, Kim Davidson 

Aviation, Inc., Aero Film, Youri Bujko, James Ross, Paramount Citrus LLC and Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association (hereinafter collectively referred to as "NBAA") with the 

Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") on or about July 2, 2014. 

I. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. The CITY has not committed a 

violation of any Act or Grant Assurance, nor has the CITY failed to take action that it is 

required to take under any Act or Grant Assurance. In fact, the Complaint does not even 

1 

rTTV ()F !':.ANTA MONTrA 1

S: ANS:WPR TO rnMPT .ATNT ANn STTPP()RTTNG PYHTRTTS. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

allege that the CITY has acted, or failed to act, in a way that violates any Act or any Grant 

Assurance. 1 

NBAA spends considerable time in its pleading discussing actions that the CITY has 

taken or attempted in the past 50 years to close or restrict operations at Santa Monica 

Municipal Airport (hereinafter "SMO" or "the Airport"). However, there are NO specific 

actions currently pending by the CITY to do either of these things. On the contrary, and as 

admitted in the Complaint (p. 7, para. 27), the City Council has previously voted to offer 

three (3) year lease extensions which would run through June 30, 2018 and is in the 

process of considering proposed leasing guidelines. 

Apparently unsatisfied and unwilling to await Council's consideration and approval of 

new leasing guidelines for the Airport, Complainants are essentially seeking from the FAA 

an order forcing the CITY to lease its property to them for eight (8) more years until 2023. 

However, Complainants have no "right" to be lessees at SMO for a specific and guaranteed 

length of time in the future, whether it be for 1 year, 3 years or 8 years. As a result, CITY's 

leasing options and possible decisions in the future are subjects that should be and are well 

beyond even the most liberal and expansive interpretations of the FAA's authority and 

power to exercise control over airport sponsors. 

NBAA's Complaint simply declares that the CITY has "made assertions" that its 

Grant Assurance obligations run only through 2014. Similarly, the Complaint declares that 

the CITY has "adopted proposals" directing CITY staff to "plan to implement further 

measures" and "consider" possible options for future activities and limitations at SMO. As 

the FAA has made clear elsewhere, such planning does not run afoul of any Federal 

1 Complainants relegate comments about the CITY's obligations under the 1948 Instrument 

of Transfer and Grant Assurance 23 to a footnote, which are obviously not issues for which 

Complainants are seeking redress in this Part 16 Complaint. As such, the CITY simply 

states that it disagrees with Complainants' positions on these issues and will leave it at that 

for purposes of this proceeding. 

2 

rTTV OP ~ANTA MONTrA'~ AN.~WP"R TO rOMPT .ATNT ANn STTPPORTTNG FYHTJUT~ 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

obligations. "In fact, there is no Federal obligation which prevents an airport sponsor from 

studying the feasibility of future airport plans." Kenneth D. Paskar and Friends of 

LaGuardia Airport v. The Port Authority of New York, FAA Docket No. 16-11-04, Director's 

Determination, page 37. 

Moreover, Part 16- an administrative enforcement mechanism- is not intended to 

afford advisory opinions based on speculation or supposition as to an airport sponsor's 

plans for the future. To the contrary, the Part 16 process is only intended to address 

actual, current violations of Grant Assurance obligations, and through it "the FAA may 

make a formal agency finding regarding an airport sponsor's status of compliance with its 

federal obligations." (Airport Compliance Manual) Here, no violation has occurred and no 

obligation needs to be enforced; and no question has been raised concerning the CITY's 

current compliance status- certainly a noticeable void in the Complaint. As a result, and 

for the reasons stated below, the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety with 

prejudice. 

In the alternative, and if the FAA rejects the valid grounds it has to dismiss the 

Complaint and instead decides to render an initial determination on the issue of the 

expiration date of the grant obligations, the CITY respectfully requests that such 

determination be that the grant obligations ended 20 years after the Grant offer was 

accepted on June 29, 1994, specifically on June 29, 2014. 

The CITY contends that the plain language within the four corners of the Grant 

Agreement, and of Amendment No. 2 to that Agreement, is crystal clear and unambiguous. 

The Grant Agreement obligated the CITY to continue to operate the airport for the use and 

benefit of the public for a period not to exceed 20 years. The simple 2 page Amendment to 

that Agreement in August of 2003 increased the amount of the Grant Agreement but 

expressly stated "All other terms and conditions of the Grant Agreement remain in full force 

and effect." Nonetheless, NBAA asserts a wholly different interpretation, despite the fact 

that there is no support for that different interpretation within the actual language of those 

documents. However, if there is any ambiguity in the documents, both federal and state 

3 

rTTV n"P "ANTA MnNTrA'S ANSWPR Tn rnMPT A TNT ANn STTPP()RTTNG PYHTR.TTS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

law dictate that such ambiguity must be interpreted against the drafter of the contract, in 

this case the United States acting through the FAA. As a result, the CITY's very 

reasonable interpretation of the contract taken from the plain and express language within 

the four corners of those documents must control and, therefore, the FAA's determination 

must be that CITY's Grant obligations ended pursuant to the Agreement in June of 2014. 

II. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

The CITY owns, and has always owned, SMO. The Airport's history began in the 

1920's, when CITY purchased undeveloped farmlands that included an airstrip. Over time, 

the Airport grew to its present size and configuration; and for several decades it became 

the home and manufacturing center for Douglas Aircraft. During these years surrounding 

residential neighborhoods grew up around the Airport and very close to its runway ends. 

These neighborhoods provided the housing for thousands of Douglas workers. 

In 1941, the CITY leased the Airport to the United States in aid of the World War II 

war effort and to help protect the Douglas factory; but the CITY retained its fee interest in 

the land. The Federal government reconfigured the Airport and, together with the CITY, 

expanded it. In 1948, after the war ended, the United States officially surrendered its 

leasehold interest to the CITY. 

In the post-war years, with the advent of jets and Douglas' departure from the CITY, 

neighbors began protesting the Airport's adverse impacts. In 1975, to alleviate noise and 

protect residents' quality of life, the CITY Council adopted noise limits, a night curfew, 

various restrictions on high-impact flight training operations, a ban on helicopter operations, 

and a jet ban. Litigation ensued. Ultimately, the United States District Court upheld all of 

the ordinances except for the jet ban, which was invalid!'lted on constitutional grounds; and 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, recognizing that Federal law does not preempt 

the CITY as "airport proprietor" from adopting ordinances intended to limit its own liability 

and protect the CITY's "human environment". 

4 

f'TTV nF SANTA M()Nlf'A'S AN.~WPR Tn f'()MPT .ATNT ANn STrPPnRTTNn FYl-HRTTS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

While that litigation remained pending, the City Council adopted a new noise limit, its 

enforcement was enjoined, and the City Council adopted a resolution declaring its intention 

to close the Airport when legally possible. The then-pending litigation was settled with the· 

CITY's promise to adopt a new Airport Master Plan and Noise Mitigation project. However, 

airport users filed complaints with the FAA The CITY and Federal government responded 

by entering into negotiations about the Airport's future, which produced the 1984 Settlement 

Agreement. By its own terms it resolved all then-pending disputes about the Airport and 

obligated the CITY to operate the Airport until2015. 

After the lease to the Federal government ended, the CITY accepted federal grants 

to fund Airport improvements; and the CITY leased parcels on the Airport land to various 

tenants. In doing so, the CITY took care to ensure that all grant obligations and lease 

terms ended on or before July 1, 2015, when the CITY would have no further obligation to 

operate the Airport pursuant to the terms of the 1984 Settlement Agreement. 

The last Grant that the CITY accepted was for Project Number 3-06-0239-06, 

conferred by Contract No. DTFA08-94-C-20857, which was executed on June 29, 1994. It 

expressly provides that "the terrns, conditions and assurances of the grant agreement shall 

remain in full force and effect throughout the useful life of the facilities developed or 

equipment acquired for an airport development or noise compatibility program project, or 

throughout the useful life of the project items installed within a facility under a noise 

compatibility program project, but in any event not to exceed twenty (20) years from the 

date of the acceptance of a grant offer of Federal funds for the project." (Please see Grant 

Agreement, Part V, Assurances, attached to this Answer as Exhibit "A") The CITY 

accepted the Grant offer on June 29, 1994, with the June 30, 2015 expiration date for the 

1984 Settlement Agreement specifically in mind. 

This last Grant Agreement was amended twice. On November 8, 1999, the CITY 

and the FAA executed "Amendment No. 1" to the Grant Agreement, using the same 

contract number and project number as in the original Grant, solely to change the 

5 

rTTV n~ -::.ANTA MnNTrA'~ AN~WPR TO rnMPT AfNT ANn ~TTPPORTTNG FYHlRTT~ 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

description of the "airport development" to be instituted under the Grant Agreement. Then, 

on August 27, 2003, CITY and the FAA executed "Amendment No. 2" to the Grant 

Agreement, again using the same contract number and project number as in the original 

Grant, solely to increase the Grant amount by $240,600. This Amendment specifically 

provides that "[a)ll other terms and conditions of the Grant Agreement remain in full force 

and effect." (Please see Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No.2 to the Grant Agreement, 

collectively attached to this Answer as Exhibit "B") 

In recent years, the Airport has continued to spawn controversies. The CITY has 

been involved in disputes with the aviation community and/or the FAA over runway safety 

and landing fees. Additionally, the CITY has defended multiple lawsuits and claims filed by 

neighbors who have alleged that the Airport has endangered their health and safety, 

among other complaints. 

In December 2010, anticipating the expiration of the 1984 Settlement Agreement, 

the City Council directed staff to proceed with a comprehensive public process regarding 

the Airport's future. The process was designed to identify viable options between the 

extremes of either maintaining the status quo at the Airport or moving towards full closure. 

At the conclusion of this three-phased "Visioning Process", an April 30, 2013 staff report to 

the City Council summarized the findings of the process and recommended, among other 

things: adoption of a proposed Resolution revising SMO landing fees and applying them to 

all aircraft as of August 1, 2013; and, development of a City-funded pilot program for 

retrofitting training aircraft with mufflers or other sound mitigation equipment. The City 

Council approved these recommendations, and also directed staff to: continue identifying 

and analyzing possibilities for current and future actions to reduce airport noise, air 

pollution and safety risks through airport reconfiguration, revised leasing policies, voluntary 

agreements, mandatory restrictions, and all other means; continue assessing the potential 

risks and benefits of closing or attempting to close all or a portion of the Airport; and, return 

to Council in 2014 with assessments so that Council could determine whether the CITY 

6 

I'TTV ()p ~ANTA MnNTI'A'~ ANSWFR Tn rnMPT .ATNT ANn STTP"PnRTTNG FX"l-HRTTS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

should, after the expiration of its current obligations, implement additional changes to 

reduce the Airport's adverse impacts and enhance its benefit to the community or pursue 

closure of all or part of the Airport. 

Though the Visioning Process report did not take a position on whether the 

CITY should pursue closure of SMO at the expiration of the 1984 Agreement, it did 

conclude that the Airport status quo was unacceptable to a majority of the CITY's residents 

who participated in the process. After the public hearing on April 30, 2013, the Airport 

Commission, residents, neighbors and members of the aviation community continued to 

express their views about SMO's operations and its future, both publicly and to CITY staff 

and Council. 

In October of 2013, in order to clarify its rights to control the Airport land, the CITY 

filed a lawsuit against the FAA in the United States District Court for the Central District of 

California to quiet title to the Airport land and also assert various constitutional claims 

related to ownership and control of the land. The District Court dismissed the action based 

on, among other things, its conclusion that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the quiet title 

claim and that the other claims were not ripe (because the CITY had not acted to close the 

Airport). The CITY's appeal of this ruling is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of f\ppeals. 

The expiration date of the grant assurances is not an issue in that litigation; the District 

Court, having found it unnecessary to resolve the dispute, and in accordance with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, assumed for purposes of the Motion only that the CITY 

was correct as to its interpretation of the expiration date. 

In March of 2014, staff returned to the City Council with further recommendations 

regarding the future of SMO. (Please see City Council Staff Report dated March 25, 2014, 

attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 6.) The Report recommended that the City Council 

direct staff to: continue to pursue CITY control of the use of its airport land; begin 

positioning the CITY for possible closure of all or part of SMO after July 1, 2015, including 

the preparation of a preliminary conceptual plan for a smaller airport that excludes the 

7 

rTTY nF ~ANTA M()NTrA'S ANSWPR T() rOMPT .ATNT ANn .'-:.TTPP()RTTNG- FYHTATTS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

SMO's western parcel; continue to identify and undertake efforts by which the CITY might 

reduce adverse impacts of SMO operations; increase efforts to ensure that the use of SMO 

leaseholds is compatible with surrounding uses; revise leasing policies to maintain lease 

revenues at a level at which SMO would be self-sufficient and would not again burden the 

CITY's General Fund; and continue receiving and assessing community input on 

preferences and possibilities for the potential future use of the land. 

After public comment and deliberation, the City Council added additional directions. 

Specifically, the City Council directed staff to: offer to repay grant funds to terminate the 

contested obligations; complete contingency planning including work on a conceptual plan 

for SMO's future while continuing to establish CITY control of the City-owned airport land; 

offer to renew current leases for three years with one-year options thereafter at the CITY's 

discretion; develop leasing guidelines sensitive to the environment and to remediation 

needs and, once the guidelines are adopted, lease renewals and options should be 

evaluated against the guidelines; evaluate options regarding fuel sales at SMO; and, 

consider and allow time to fulfill any obligations imposed upon the CITY by the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in scheduling the exact time of its return to City Council. 

Prior to the vote on the staff recommendations and the modifications thereto, 

the City Council publically and expressly confirmed that they were not making any 

final decisions about SMO's future. This position was reiterated by Deputy City Attorney 

Ivan Campbell a few months ago in his letter responding to Complainants' attorney Richard 

Simon, when Mr. Campbell wrote "The City Council continues to consider the Airport's 

future and to express concerns about the impacts on the health and safety of its neighbors. 

But, the Council has made no decision about the Airport's future." (Please see Exhibit 12 

to the Complaint) 

On August 12, 2014 the City Council considered proposed leasing guidelines from 

staff, but decided to seek additional input from the Airport Commission and community 

before making any decisions on them. Such proposed leasing guidelines do not suggest 

8 

!'TTY n"P ~ANTA MnNTI'A'S ANSWFR Tn rnMPT ATNT ANn STTPPnRTTNG FXHTP.TTS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

that current tenants at the Airport, including the Complainants, will not be offered new 

leases allowing them to remain at the Airport beyond June 30, 2015. On the contrary, such 

proposed leasing guidelines specifically contemplate leasing space to aviation and nonaviation tenants beyond that date while the legal constraints on the CITY's authority to 

control the Airport and Airport usage are resolved. (Please see certified copy of Staff 

Report for Agenda Item 8-A for the August 12, 2014 Santa Monica City Council Meeting, 

attached to this Answer as Exhibit "C") 

In summary, there have been no decisions made by the CITY as of the present time 

that can be considered a violation of any Act or Grant Assurance, nor has the CITY failed to 

take action that it is required to take under any Act or Grant Assurance. Instead, the CITY 

continues to evaluate its options for the future of the Airport, while at the same time working 

to ameliorate SMO's negative impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, foster uses and 

practices that are as environmentally friendly as possible under the circumstances, and 

make the Airport economically viable and self-sufficient. 

Ill. 

THE FAA SHOULD EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT 

The CITY respectfully urges the FAA to dismiss the NBAA's Complaint. The CITY 

filed a Motion to Dismiss the NBAA's Part 16 Complaint on or about August 14, 2014. The 

FAA has not yet ruled on such Motion, but may do so if it so chooses at any time including 

after the parties' Answer, Reply and Rebuttal pleadings have been filed. 

The Part 16 regulations, provided in 14 C.F.R. §16.26(a), specify three grounds for 

mandatory dismissal of a complaint with prejudice: (1) the administrator lacks jurisdiction; 

(2) the complainant lacks standing; and (3) the complaint fails to state a claim. See 14 

C.F.R. §16.26(b)(1)(i)-(iii). The CITY believes and argues that under any or all of these 

grounds the FAA should dismiss NBAA's Complaint with prejudice. Alternatively, the 

Complaint should be dismissed because Complainants failed to initiate and engage in good 

faith efforts to informally resolve the disputed matter as required by 14 C.F.R §16.21. 

9 

I'TTV fiR S:.Al\TTA MONTI' A'S: ANS"WFR TO rnMPT.ATNT ANn STWPORTTNG FYHTRTTS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

A. The Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because It Fails to State a Claim. 

Part 16 provides a compliance enforcement mechanism. Thus, a Part 16 complaint 

must state "the specific provisions of each Act that the complainant believes were violated," 

and must "[d]escribe how the complainant was directly and substantially affected by the 

things done or omitted to be done by the respondents." 14 C.F.R §16.23(b)(1) and (4). 

"Part 16 requires all relevant facts to be presented in the complaint documents." Moore v. 

Sumner County Regional Airport Authority, 2010 WL 10241036, FAA Docket No. 16-07-16 

(July 13, 201 0). "[l]n addressing allegations of noncompliance, the FAA will make a 

determination as to whether an airport sponsor is currently in compliance with the 

applicable federal obligations." Larry L. Davis v. Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, 2011 

WL 273404, FAA Docket No. 16-10-01 (Jan. 18, 2011) (emphasis in original). 

NBAA's Complaint must be dismissed because it does not identify "the specific 

provisions" that Complainants contend the CITY has violated. See 14 C.F.R §16.23(b)(1). 

Indeed, the Complaint does not identify any Act that the CITY is currently violating. Nor 

does the Complaint identify any particular Grant assurance that CITY is currently violating. 

Instead, the Complaint alleges only that the CITY's "public announcements" implicate "the 

validity and enforceability of the entire AlP Grant Assurance regime" by making assertions 

about the duration of the CITY's grant obligations. These assertions are vague, 

speculative, and notably hyperbolic. Making public statements about planning for the future 

of SMO simply does not violate either statutes or grant obligations. 

Indeed, the FAA has previously recognized and made clear that studying and 

discussing possible future plans for an airport DOES NOT violate any Federal obligations. 

"In fact, there is no Federal obligation which prevents an airport sponsor from studying the 

feasibility of future airport plans." Kenneth D. Paskar and Friends of LaGuardia Airport v. 

The Port Authority of New York, FAA Docket No. 16-11-04, Director's Determination, page 

37. In Paskar, the Director acknowledged and noted that "The FAA recognizes an airport 

sponsor's proprietary rights with regard to future airport planning. Airport sponsors retain 

10 

rTTY OF SANTA M()NT('A'S AN.o;;;.WPR Tn rnMPT.ATNT ANn STTPPnRTTNG "PYHTRTTS 
1 the prerogative to develop their airports in any manner that meets their federal obligations 

2 and is consistent with the approved Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout plan for the 

3 airport." (Citing Orange County Soaring .Association Inc. v. Riverside County, FAA Docket 

4 · No. 16-09-13, Director's Determination, page 25.) 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

The Complainants are seeking an improper advisory opinion on an abstract 

question, based on speculation about the CITY's plans. In this proceeding the FAA should 

follow the lead of the Federal courts, and should avoid engaging in unnecessary decision 

making. See, for example, Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273, 61 

S.Ct. 510, 512 (1941). See also, Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1950 

(1968) (no justiciable controversy is presented when the parties are asking for an advisory 

opinion). Here, there simply is no concrete dispute that is ripe for adjudication. 

B. The Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because It Does Not Allege That the CITY 

Has Taken Any Actions that Have "Directly and Substantially" Harmed 

Complainants, And Therefore They Have No Standing To Bring The Complaint. 

The Complaint must be dismissed because it does not allege that the CITY has 

taken any actions that "directly and substantially" harm Complainants. See 14 C.F.R 

§16.23(b)(4) 

It is axiomatic under federal law that to have standing a party must be directly 

20 affected. Hollingsworth v. Perry, ---U.S.---, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2662 (2013) (To have 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

standing, a litigant must seek relief for an injury that affects him in a "personal and 

individual way."). Likewise, in a Part 16 proceeding, in order to have standing to file a 

complaint under 14 C.F.R Part 16 a person must be "directly and substantially affected by 

any alleged non-compliance." 14 C.F.R §16.23(a). 

In this case, the Complaint fails because it lacks allegations of concrete harm to 

Complainants arising from any CITY actions. The allegations that "Complainants' 

businesses and operations already have been, currently are, and will continue to be 

adversely affected by the City's repeated public announcements" concerning SMO's future 

11 

rTTV ()F <::ANTA MONTrA'S AN<::WPR T() r()MPT ATNT AND STWP()RTTNO FYl-HRTTS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

are not only vague and conclusory, but they are entirely unsupported in the Complaint and 

documents filed therewith. On the contrary, and as Complainants recognize, the Santa 

Monica City Council is currently considering new leasing guidelines, as a part of which 

tenants with leases set to expire on June 30, 2015 may be offered three year extensions 

through the middle of 2018. 

The assertion that such a provision would somehow be "contrary to the general 

obligation of a sponsor to offer long-term leases to tenants" is unsupported by any 

authority. In fact, the FAA has already determined that the exact opposite is true. In 

Santa Monica Airport Association, eta/, v. City of Santa Monica (hereinafter "SMAA'), FAA 

Docket No. 16-99-21, Director's Determination, page 21, the Director held that Santa 

Monica did not have an obligation to extend long term leases given the language of the 

1984 Settlement Agreement: "it is reasonable that the City has not provided long-term, full 

service FBO leases to Complainants[.]" Similarly, the Director found that "It would likely be 

unreasonable for the Airport to be required to enter into a lease agreement with an FBO or 

any aeronautical user that would provide for the Airport to be operated as an airport beyond 

July 1, 2015." The Director went so far as to state that "The FAA is unpersuaded that 

month-to-month leases granted to Complainants as a result of their location on the airport 

is an unreasonable condition on airport use." 

In the SMAA decision, the Director also recognized that there was no violation where 

"complainants do not allege that the City has attempted or is attempting to terminate their 

leases at the present time." Likewise, in the present case, the CITY is not attempting to 

terminate Complainants' leases. Council has previously approved a policy of granting three 

year extensions and is still in the process of developing leasing guidelines. There is no 

evidence or even supportable contention that Complainants have been directly and 

substantially harmed by any actions of the CITY. 

The standing requirement ensures that the FAA's resources are not expended on 

matters in which the Complainant's interest is insufficient to justify the burden of processing 

12 rrrv r.P ~Al\.TTA Mnl\.TTrA'" ANSWFR Tn rnMPT ATNT AND STTPPORTTNG PYHTP.TTS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

a Complaint under Part 16. Here, the Complainants' interest is insufficient, and scarce 

public resources should not be expended when there are undoubtedly other disputes that 

are ripe and therefore more pressing before the agency. 

C. The Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because The Matter Sought To Be Resolved 

Is Outside Of The Jurisdiction Of The FAA Administrator. 

The scope of the FAA's Part 16 jurisdiction is established by 14 C.F.R §16.1. 

However, NBAA does not cite to any of §16.1's subsections to support its claim that the 

FAA has jurisdiction in this case based on existing facts. 

The explanation for this is simple: the Complaint falls outside of the Part 16 

jurisdiction of the FAA Administrator. Not only does it involve the interpretation and 

determination of the expiration date of a contract, but NBAA is seeking an advisory opinion 

as to the legality of "possible" future conduct. It is seeking a determination that !f the CITY 

does certain things in the future it will violate its Grant conditions. This would be 

tantamount to a person being arrested for possession of marijuana because he is thinking 

of obtaining some in the future and does not believe that it should be illegal for him to do 

so, even though he is not in possession of marijuana at the time of the arrest. 

The Final Decision and Order in the SMAA Part 16 proceeding, Docket No. 16-99-

21, is instructive on this point as well. In affirming the Director's decision to dismiss 

that Complaint, the FAA Associate Administrator wrote: "The FAA understands that SMAA 

is interested in establishing a record of the need for this Airport [ ... ]. While the FAA is 

always supportive of protecting public airport assets, the purpose of a Part 16 investigation 

process is to determine whether or not an airport sponsor is in compliance with its Federal 

obligations in the current factual situation." (SMAA, Final Decision and Order, page 22.) 

(Emphasis added.) 

The 1984 Settlement Agreement ensures that the status quo at the Airport will be 

maintained at least until July 1, 2015. Litigation between the CITY and the Federal 

government is pending and is likely to continue well beyond that date. Likewise, evidence 

13 

rTTV ()p ~ANTA M()NTrA'~ AN:-:WPR Tn rnMPT .ATNT ANn ~TTPPnRTTNG RXl-HRTT~ 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

points to lease extensions for most if not all Complainants, and others, for at least several 

more years beyond even that date. Any determinations made with regard to the instant 

Part 16 Complaint, other than dismissal, will involve a prospective and hypothetical 

exercise only, which should not take up the time and resources of the FAA. 

D. The Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because Complainants Failed To Make A 

Sufficient Good Faith Attempt At Informal Resolution Before Filing The Complaint. 

The Complaint should be dismissed because Complainants have not engaged in 

good faith efforts to informally resolve the disputed matter with the CITY. See 14 C.F.R 

§16.21. "Good faith" efforts at informal resolution may include "mediation, arbitration, or the 

use of a dispute resolution board, or other form of third party assistance." Good faith efforts 

would not include asking the CITY to "renounce" its belief that the Grant obligations expire 

in 2015, as the Complainants requested in their June 25, 2014 letter to Deputy City 

Attorney Ivan Campbell. (Please see Exhibit 13 to the Complaint.) Even if the CITY were 

to do this, it would not allow Complainants "to understand and plan for the future", their 

alleged concern in their June 11, 2014 letter to the CITY (please see Exhibit 11 to the 

Complaint), given that such a renunciation would not guaranty that the Complainants would 

be offered tenancies at SMO until 2023, or even beyond 2015. 

Complainants have not attempted "mediation, arbitration, or the use of a dispute 

resolution board, or other form of third party assistance." /d. Complainants have alleged 

nothing more than that they sent two letters over a three week period to the CITY. (See 

Compl. ~~ 31-34.) This is not initiating or engaging in good faith efforts to resolve the 

disputed matter. 

Despite its belief as to the expiration date of the Grant obligations, the City Council 

has not yet made any decisions about SMO's future or even about its leasing policy and 

guidelines, which are still under consideration. The public process on the future of SMO is 

continuing. Complainants and their representatives have been and can continue to be a 

part of that public process if they so choose. 

14 

rTTV ()p <;;ANTA M()NTI'A'c;: AN.;:WFR T() ('()MPT.ATNT ANn ~lTPP()RTTNn PYHTRTT~ 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IV. 

CITY'S GRANT OBLIGATIONS TO THE FAA ENDED ON JUNE 29,2014 

If the FAA decides to issue a determination on the question posed in the Part 16 

Complaint- do the Grant obligations expire in 2014 or 2023- rather than simply dismissing 

that Complaint for any or all of the reasons raised above and in the CITY's Motion to 

Dismiss, the CITY respectfully argues that the law and the facts on the issue 

overwhelmingly favor a determination that June 29, 2014 was the expiration date. 

Whether this issue falls under the Federal common law or California State law, the 

analysis pertaining to contract interpretations is the same. In the landmark decision of Erie 

Railroad Company v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817 (1938), the Supreme Court held 

that, except as to matters governed by the U.S. Constitution and Acts of Congress, the law 

to be applied in any case is the law of the State in which the Federal Court is situated. 

Nevertheless, more recent cases have determined that "[f]ederal law controls the 

interpretation of a contract where the United States is a party." Westlands Water District v. 

Patterson, 864 F.Supp 1536, 1543 (E.D. Cal. 1994) (citing United States v. Seckinger, 397 

U.S. 203, 209, 90 S.Ct. 880, 884 (1970); Kennewick Irrigation District v. United States, 880 

F.2d 1018, 1032 (9th Cir.1989)) 

A very basic but important principle of contract law is that " ... the plain language 

within the four corners of the contract must first be examined to determine the mutual intent 

of the contracting parties." United States v. Westlands Water District, 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 

1134 (E. D. Cal. 2001). Moreover, in examining the four corners of the contract, "language 

is to be given, if possible, its usual and ordinary meaning. The object is to find out from the 

words used what the parties intended to do." /d. (citing Fla. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Schutte, 103 

U.S. (Mem.) 118, 140, 13 Otto 118,26 L.Ed. 327 (1880).) As such, where the language of 

a contract is unambiguous, and only one reasonable interpretation can be given to the term 

or language at issue, that reasonable interpretation controls. 

However, "[i]f a contract is capable of two different interpretations, the contract is 

15 

('TTY ni=< I:;.Al\TTA MONT('A'S: ANS:Wt=<R Tn I'OMPT.ATNT ANn S:TrPPnRTTNfi. PYHlRTTS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ambiguous." Comedy Club, Inc. v. lmprov West Associates, 553 F.3d 1277, 1285 (9th Cir. 

2009) (citation omitted). Moreover, "[a]mbiguous provisions are construed against the 

drafter even if the drafter is the government." Westlands Water District v. Patterson, supra, 

864 F.Supp at 1543 (citations omitted). As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, this 

remains true even if one of the parties is the United States government. "Among these 

principles is the general maxim that a contract should be construed most strongly against 

the drafter, which in this case was the United States." United States v. Seckinger, supra, 

397 U.S. at 210, 90 S.Ct. at 884. Therefore, even if NBAA could persuade the FAA that the 

NBAA's interpretation of the contract is also a reasonable one, thus creating an ambiguity, 

such provision (the expiration date of the contract) must be construed most strongly 

against the United States. 

A final very important and well established principle confirms that, in the area of 

contract interpretation, the agency is not entitled to any deference. "Although traditionally, 

an implementing agency is granted deference in its interpretation of statutes and 

regulations, where the rights at issue arise under contract the rule of agency deference is 

inapplicable." Westlands Water District v. Patterson, supra, 864 F.Supp at 1542. In a case 

with several important similarities to the instant one, involving a different federal agency 

(HUD) providing federal financial contributions to a project, the Court likewise found 

"[a]lthough the contract signed by the parties contains the same language as 42 U.S.C. § 

1437f(c)(2)(8), this case does not stand on mere agency interpretation. The existence of 

the contract changes the nature of our review. Section 1437f(c)(2)(B) notwithstanding, the 

parties executed a contract, and our inquiry focuses on the contractual requirements. This 

focus does not demand deference to HUD's statutory interpretation." Clay Tower 

Apartments v. Kemp, 978 F.2d. 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1992). 

It is within this backdrop, and with these important well established legal principles 

guiding the way, that the 1994 Grant Agreement and its 2003 Amendment must be viewed. 

First, there can be no doubt but that the parties entered into a contract. The Grant 

Agreement clearly states, in Part I on page one, that an "Offer" is being made by the United 

16 

I'TTV n""R c;:ANTA MnNTI'A'!': ANSWPR TO rnMPT ATNT ANn STTPPnRTTNG FYHTRTTS 
1 States, acting through the FAA, and that by executing the Grant Agreement in Part II on 

2 page five the CITY is giving its "Acceptance" to the agreement. Further, in exchange for 

3 certain terms and conditions the FAA agreed to provide a grant of Federal funds. The 

4 Agreement even states, on page 5, that " ... this Offer and Acceptance shall comprise a 

5 Grant Agreement, as provided by the Act, constituting the contractual obligations and rights 

6 of the United States and the Sponsor with respect to the accomplishment of the Project. ... " 

7 Offer. Acceptance. Consideration. And all encompassed in what the FAA has identified 

8 as "Contract No. DTFAOB-94-C-20857". Under the circumstances, it would be very 

9 reasonable to conclude that the CITY and the FAA intended to and were entering into a 

10 CONTRACT with each other in June of 1994, and quite unreasonable to take the position 

11 that the CITY and the FAA did not enter into a contract at that time. 

12 As is well known and can be seen in its plain language, the Agreement provided that 

13 Federal funds would be given to the CITY for a variety work at SMO that was all described 

14 in the Agreement and approved in advance by the FAA. As such, on page one of the 

15 Agreement AND on the Application For Federal Assistance attached thereto AND in the 

16 Part IV- Program Narrative Application For Federal Assistance attachment, such items as 

17 the paving of the infield, installation of runway signs and taxiway lights, the construction of 

18 a maintenance run-up enclosure and the construction of blast walls were all part of the 

19 overall project as contemplated in 1994. Notably, the construction of the blast walls, along 

20 with other work, was anticipated for "Phase 2" of the project. 

21 In addition to multiple Phases of the project being anticipated, "Amendments" to the 

22 Agreement were also contemplated and provided for back in 1994. For instance, in 

23 Condition No. 1 of the Agreement, the parties agreed that 'The maximum obligation of the 

24 United States payable under this offer shall be $1,604, 700.00. For the purpose of any 

25 future grant amendments which may increase the foregoing maximum obligation of 

26 the United States under the provisions of Section 512(b) of the Act, the following amounts 

27 are being specified for this purpose .... " (Emphasis added.) 

28 Similarly, it was expressly anticipated that the grant amount of $1,604,700.00 would 

17 

rTTV n~ ~ANTA MONTrA'S: ANS:WFR TO rnMPT .A TNT ANn S:l TPPORTlNn "PYHTRTTS 
1 not be the final amount to be paid by the FAA, and that an audit and adjustments up or 

2 down would be instituted at a later date! Specifically, Condition No. 3 of the Agreement 

3 states, in part: "Final determination of the United States [sic] share will be based upon the 

4 final audit of the total amount of the allowable project costs and settlement will be made for 

5 any upward or downward adjustments to the Federal share of costs." 

6 As such, multiple phases of the project, amendments thereto and a final audit and 

7 accounting at which time the Federal government's financial contribution towards the 

8 project in its entirety would be finalized were all specifically and expressly contemplated 

9 and expected by the parties back in 1994. AND YET, notably absent from the Agreement 

10 was ANY language, suggestion or even hint that the additional phases or amendments to 

11 the Agreement or the final audit after the work was completed would constitute a separate 

12 agreement which would trigger the start of a new grant obligation period from the date of 

13 any of those events. On the contrary, and as expressly found within the four corners of the 

14 Agreement (Part V- Assurances), the terms, conditions and assurances shall remain in 

15 force for a period of time not more than 20 years " ... from the date of the acceptance of a 

16 grant offer of Federal Funds for the project" (Emphasis added.) 

17 There can be absolutely no doubt, and it would be absurd to suggest otherwise, that 

18 the obligations under the Grant Agreement were set to expire in June of 2014. The CITY 

19 certainly planned and relied on that eventuality, which of course was just prior to the 

20 expiration of the 30 year 1984 agreement it entered into with the FAA. As such, the 

21 document that Complainants argue somehow extends the expiration period of the 1994 

22 Grant by 9 extra years must be "Amendment No. 2 To Grant Agreement For Project No. 3-

23 06-0239-06". So let's look at that two page Amendment to see where it is that the 

24 document specifically informs the CITY, or even reasonably could be read to suggest, that 

25 increasing the funds for the work performed on the project by a small percentage would 

26 start a brand new 20 year obligation period to begin. 

27 First, the document is titled "Amendment No. 2 To Grant Agreement". By its very 

28 words, crafted by the FAA, this IS NOT a new Grant Agreement, but merely an Amendment 

18 

('TTY ()P <;.;ANTA MnNTrA'~ ANSWP"R Tn f'()MPT ATNT ANn S:TTPP()RTTNG FYHTRTTS 
1 to the one that the parties signed 9 years earlier. It is important to remember that 

2 Amendments were contemplated by the parties in the Agreement. If this 2 page 

3 Amendment was intended to be a brand new Grant Agreement, which would trigger the 

4 running of a new 20 year expiration period, it would have, and certainly should have, said 

5 so. 

6 Second, the document is identified by a Contract No., DTFAOS-94-C-20857. Not 

7 surprisingly, this is the identical number given to the original Grant Agreement to which the 

8 Amendment applies. Had the FAA wanted the document to be treated as a stand-alone 

9 contract 9 years after the original was executed, a new and different contract number could 

10 have been given to this later document. But it wasn't. 

11 Third, it is quite clear that the ONLY thing altered by this Amendment is the 

12 maximum financial obligation of the Federal government for the work performed under the 

13 original Grant Agreement, and nothing else. No new items not originally contemplated by 

14 the Grant Agreement were added byway of Amendment No. 2. Significantly again, funding 

15 amount changes were contemplated from the very beginning and provisions for them were 

16 part of the Grant Agreement. 

17 Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the Amendment, drafted by the FAA, states in 

18 plain language and in the most unambiguous manner imaginable: "All other terms and 

19 conditions of the Grant Agreement remain in full force and effect." In other words, every 

20 other term and condition in the Grant Agreement executed in 1994, including its duration, 

21 remained "in full force and effect". Any other reading of that phrase doesn't just strain 

22 incredulity, it obliterates it. The FAA could have easily, without even adding an additional 

23 page to this 2 page document, stated quite simply in a single sentence something to the 

24 effect of acceptance of these additional funds will extend the grant assurance obligations of 

25 the Sponsor. But it didn't. In fact, if at the time the FAA intended for a new expiration 

26 period to begin or to extend the existing maximum end date by an additional 9 years, CITY 

27 argues the FAA had an obligation to inform the CITY of that intention so that it could make 

28 an informed decision as to whether or not to accept those additional funds. 

19 

rTTV OF SANTA MONTrA'S ANSWPR Tn rnMPT _AfNT ANn STTPPnRTTNn FXffiRTTS 
1 In conformance with the principles and maxims of law discussed above, CITY 

2 contends that the plain language of the four corners of thes.e documents, both the 1994 

3 Grant Agreement and the 2003 Amendment thereto, are utterly and completely 

4 unambiguous. In such instances, there is no need to look at such things as parol evidence 

5 or the subsequent conduct of the parties to shed light on the intent of the parties in entering 

6 into the contract. However, Complainants are requesting a determination that must come 

7 from some form of ethereal view of these documents. If such a result could somehow 

8 mysteriously emanate from a reading of the documents, then at best it could only be said 

9 that there is ambiguity in the language of the documents. Again, IF this were true (which 

10 CITY vehemently argues it is not), case law requires that the contract should be construed 

11 most strongly againstthe drafter, which in this case was the FAA. 

12 But let's suppose that a proper analysis of the meaning and intent of the contract 

13 requires looking at some other document to assist in determining the true intent. The CITY 

14 respectfully argues that one would have to look no further than the CITY's letter to the FAA 

15 dated September 27, 2002, which letter the FAA specifically references in the Amendment. 

16 (Please see letter and Attachment 1 thereto, attached to this Answer as Exhibit "D") In fact, 

17 the Grant Agreement was expressly being " ... amended in conformance with Sponsor's 

18 letter dated September 27, 2002." 

19 The September 27, 2002 letter, from the CITY Manager to the FAA's Airports 

20 Program Engineer, explains that the reason that the CITY was requesting increased 

21 funding by way of the amendment to the Grant was " ... to reflect increased costs and 

22 changed conditions which occurred during construction." (Emphasis added.) As stated 

23 in the letter, such request did not require any update or approval of the Airport Layout Plan 

24 because no work not contemplated by the Grant Agreement had been done. 

25 The work which resulted in the increased costs was outlined in the letter's Attachment 1, 

26 entitled Change Order Summary. That document states that two change orders were 

27 issued for the project. The first was a change order to the construction contract, which was 

28 issued at the end of the project to adjust the construction contract to reflect actual 

20 

('TTY CW SANTA M()NT('A'S ANSWP.R Tn ('()MPT -ATNT ANn STWPORTTNn FXl-lTRTTS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

quantities measured in the field and the work which needed to be done to complete the 

project. The second and related change order, this one to the construction management 

contract, was issued to reflect the increased costs associated with the additional inspection, 

construction management and coordination services needed for the project. All of the 

required additional work was described and explained to the FAA in Attachment 1, and all 

involved improvements specifically contemplated by the 1994 Grant Agreement. It should 

be reiterated that multiple phases of the project and amendments to the Grant Agreement 

were anticipated, that the grant amount of $1,604,700.00 would not be the final amount to 

be paid by the FAA, and that an audit and adjustments up or down would be instituted at a 

later date. August of 2003, when Amendment No.2 was executed, was this "later date". 

Again, if the FAA believed that any of this work was for some aspect of the Project 

which was not originally contemplated by the parties, it could have stated in the 

Amendment that such increased work or financial obligation would extend the grant 

assurance obligations of the CITY. The absence of such a simple sentence suggests that 

the FAA did not intend for that to be the result. Regardless, it certainly did not inform the 

CITY of it. 

v. 

CONCLUSION 

Complainants want more than the law and regulations allow. They want the FAA to 

exceed its authority which, in the context of this Part 16 proceeding, is limited to ensuring 

that CITY is presently in compliance with its Grant obligations to make SMO available for 

aeronautical use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination -which there is no 

doubt but that it is. Complainants say they want to be able "to understand and plan for the 

future". Such a desire is common. However, Part 16 is not a procedure for obtaining 

advisory opinions about the future, or for establishing lease terms. 

The FAA need not address in this proceeding the issue of whether the CITY's Grant 

obligations expire in 2014 or 2023; rather, the questions which the FAA can and should 

21 

f'TTV n"F SANTA MONT(' A'S ANSWPR Tn rnrvfPT .ATNT ANn STTPPORTTNCi FYHTRTTS 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

answer are whether the Complaint states a valid claim and whether the Complainants have 

standing to make it. As such, and for all of the foregoing reasons, the CITY respectfully 

requests that the Director reject the allegations in the NBAA's Complaint, and grant the 

CITY's previously filed Motion and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. In the alternative, 

and if the FAA chooses to address the issue of the expiration date of the Grant assurances, 

CITY respectfully requests that the Director issue its initial determination with a finding that 

the Grant Agreement means what it states. No amendment to it, including the 2003 

funding reconciliation, extended the original expiration date, and therefore the Director 

should find that the CITY's grant obligations pursuant to the Grant Agreement expired on 

June 29, 2014. 

14 Dated: October 20, 2014 MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Attorneys for Respondent 

CITY OF SANTA MONICA 

22 

r'TTV ()F '=:ANTA MONT('A ~ ANSWF"R TO ('()M"PT ATNT ANn STTPPnRTTN0 FXHTRTT!': 
,,... • .!.tl 

TO: 

FROM: 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR~ FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 

GRANT AGREEMENT 

Part I - Offer 

Date of Offer JUN 2 7 1994 

santa Monica Municipal Airport/Planning Area 

Project No. 3-06-0239-06 

Contract No. DTFAOS-94-C-20857 

City of Santa Monica, California 

(herein called the "Sponsor") 

The United States of America (acting through the Federal Aviation 

Administration, herein called "FAA") 

WHEREAS, ·.the Sponsor has submitted 'to the FAA a Project Application dated June 2, 

1994, for a grant of Federal funds for a project at or associated with Santa Monica 

Municipal Airport/Planning Area which Project Application, as approved by the FAA, 

is hereby incorporated herein and made a part hereof; and 

WHEREAS, the FAA has approved a project for the Airport or Planning Area (herein 

called the "Project") consisting of the following: 

Pave infield areas; Install runway distance remaining signs and 

guidance signs and flush mounted taxiway lights 1 .Seal and mark north 

'and south·parallel taxiways and parking aprons; Construct maintenance 

run-up enclosure; refurbish airport beacon; t'ealign west perimet.er 

road; Construct blast walls -Phase 2; Install perimeter fence 

including gates, 

all as more particularly described in the Project Application . 

• 

Page 1 of 5 Pages 

·I ' 
" 

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to and for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the 

Airport and Airway Improvement Act of .1982, as amended by the Airport and Ain•ay 

Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, herein called the "Act", and/or the 

Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement of 1979, and in consideration of (a) the 

Sponsor's adoption and ratification of the presentations and assurances contained in 

said Project Application and its acceptance o£ this Offer as hereinafter provided, 

and (b) the 'benefits to accrue to the United States and the public from the 

accomplishment of the Project and compliance with the assurances and conditions as 

herein, provided. THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE 

UNITED STATES, HEREBY OFFERS AND AGREES to pay, as the United States share of the 

'allowable costs incurred in accomplishing the Project, 90.00 percentum, 

The Offer is·made on and subject to the following terms and conditions: 

Conditions 

1. The maximum.obligation of the United States payable under this offer shall be 

$1,604,700.00, For the purpose of any future grant amendments which may 

increase the foregoing maximum obligation of the United States under the 

provisions of Section 512(b) of the Act, the following amounts are being 

specified for this purpose: · 

$0 

'$1,604,700.00 

for planning 

for airport development or noise program 

implementation 

2. The allowable costs of the project shall not include any costs determined by 

the FAA to be ineligible for consideration as to allm<ability under the Act •. 

3, Payment of the United States share of the allowable project costs will be made 

pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of such regulations and 

procedures as the Secretary shall prescribe. Final determination of the United 

States share ><ill be based upon the final audit of the total amount of the 

allowable project costs and settlement will be made for any upward or downward 

adjustments to the Federal share of costs, 

4, The· Sponsor shall carry out and complete the project ><ithout undue delays and 

in accordance with the terms hereof, and such regulations and procedures as the 

Secretary shall prescribe, and agrees to comply with the assuranc·es which were 

made part of the project application. 

5. The FAA reserves the right to amend or.withdraw this offer at any time prior to 

its acceptance by the Sponsor. 

6. This offer sl\all expire and the Un:l.ted States shall not be obligated to pay any 

part of the costs of the project unless this offer has been accepted by the 

Sponsor on or before June 30, 1994, or such subsequent date as may be 

prescribed in writing by the FAA. 

7. The Sponsor shall take all steps, including litigation if necessary, to recover 

Federal funds spent fraudulently, wastefully, or in violation of Federal 

antitrust statutes, or misu'!ed in any other manner in any project upon which 

Federal funds have be.en expended. For the purposes of this Grant Agreement 1 

the term "Federal funds" means funds however used or disbursed by the Sponsor 

tliat were originally paid pursuant to this or any other Federal grant 

agreement. It shall obtain the approval of the Secretary as to any 

determination of the amount of the Federal share of funds. It shall return the 

recovered Federal share, including funds recovered by settlement, order, or 

judgement, to the Secretary. It shall furnish'to the Secretary, upon request, 

Page 2 of 5 Pages 
•,' 

all documents and records pertaining to the determination of the amount of the 

Federal share or to any settlement, litigation, negotiation, or other efforts 

taken to recover such funds, All settlements or other final positions of the 

Sponsor, in court or othe~<ise, involving the recovery of such Federal share 

shall be approved in advance by the Secretary. 

8, The United States shall not be responsible OJ:' liable for damage to property or 

injury to persons which may arise from, or be incident to, compliance with. this 

Grant.Agreement. 

9, It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that this Grant 

Offer is made and accepted upon the basis of Engineer's estimate; and the 

parties hereby Covenant and agree that within 160 calendar· days from the date 

of acceptance of this Grant Offer the Sponsor shsll furnish final plans and 

specifications 'to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and that no 

construction work will commenCe he~eunder nor will there be any advertisement 

for bids for accomplishment of such work until the said final plans and 

specifications have been approved by the FAA; and the parties do hereby 

Covenant and agree that any reference made in this Grant Offer or in the 

aforesaid Project Application to plans and specifications shall be considered 

as having reference to said final plans and specifications as so approved, 

10, Buy American Requirement. Unless otherwise approved by the FAA, it will not 

acquire or .permit any contractor or subcontractor to _acquire any steel or 

manufactured products produced outside the United States to be used for any 

projects for airport development or noise compatibility for whieh funds are 

provided under this grant. The sponsor will include in every contract a 

provision implementing this special condition. 

11. The Sponsor agrees to perform the following: 

11.1. Furnish a construction management program to FAA prior to start of 

construction which shall detail the measures and procedures to ·be used to 

comply wit.h the quality control provisions of the construction contract, 

including, but not limited to, all quality control provisions and tests 

required by the Federal specifications, The program shall include as a 

minimum: 

11.1.a, The name of the person representing the Sponsor who has overall 

respons~bility for contract administration for the project and the 

authority to take necessary actions to comply with the contract, 

11, 1, b, Names of testing laboratories and consulting engineer firms with 

quality control responsibilities on the project, together with the 

description of the services provided. 

11.1.c. Procedures for determining that testing laboratories to meet the 

requirements of the applicable American Society of Testing 

Material's standards on laboratory evaluation, referenced in the 

contract specifications (D 3666, C 1077), 

l1.1,d. Qualifications of engineering supervision and construction 

inspection personnel, 

ll.l,e, A. listing of all tests required by the contract specifications, 

including the type and frequency of tests to be taken, the method of 

sampling, the applicable test standard, and the acceptance criteria or 

tolerances permitted for each type of test, 

Page 3 of 5 Pages 
·.• 

11.1. f. Procedures for ensuring t·hat the tests a1:e taken in accordance 

with the program, that they.are documented daily, that the proper 

corrective actions, 1vhere necessary, are undert·aken. 

11.2. Submit at completion of the project, a final test and quality control 

report documenting the results of all tests performed, highlighting those 

tests performed, highlighting those tests that failed or did not meet the 

applicable standard. The report shall include the pay reductions applied 

and reasons for accepting any out-of-tolerance material. An interim test 

and quality control report shall be submitted, if requested· by the FAA. 

11.3. Failure to provide a complete report ·as. described in paragraph 12.2; or 

failure to perform such tests, shall, absent any compelling 

justification, result in a reduction in Federal participation for costs 

incurred in connection with construction of the applicab.le pavement. Such 

reductions shall be at the discretion of the FAA and will be based on the 

type or types of required tests not performed or not documented and will 

be commensurate with the proportion of applicable pavement with respect 

to the total pavement constructed under the grant agreement. 

11. 4. The FAA, at its discretion, reserves the right to c.onduct independent 

tests and to reduce grant payments accordingly if .such independent tests 

determine that sponsor test results are inaccurate. 

12. The attached new Part V Assurances are hereby incorporated hereto, and hereby 

substituted in lie~ of those in the Sponsor's Project Application, and made a 

part hereof. 

Page 4 of 5 Pages 
The Sponsor's acceptance of this Offer and ratification and adoption of the Project 

Application incorporated herein shall·be evidenced by execution of this instrument 

by the Sponsor, as hereinafter provided, and this Offer and Acceptance shall 

comprise a Grant Agreement, as provided by the Act, constituting the contractual 

obligations and rights of the United States and the Sponsor with respect to the 

accomplishment of·the"Project and compliance with the assurances and conditions as 

-provided herein. Such Grant Agreement-shall become effective upon the Sponsor's 

acceptance of this Offer. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION 

By: 

Part II - Acceptance 

LP 

P. Milligan, Supervisor 

Standards Section 

The sponsor does hereby ratify and adopt all assurances, statements, 

representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements contained in the Project 

Application and incorporated materials referred to. in the foregoing Offer and does 

hereby accept this Offer and by such acceptance agrees to comply with all of the 

terms and conditions in this Offer and in the Project Application. 

Executed this _ _,2"'9'-'t"'h,__ __ day of ·-~~;LDl~e~-------• 1994. 

City of Santa Monica, California 

Name of Sponsor 

(SEAL) By: ~~ 

Attes~: ALJ:J~ Sponsor's Designated Official 

Representative 

Title: City Manager 

Title: City Clerk 

CERTIFICATE OF SPONSOR'S ATTORNEY 

t, ___ M_ar __ s_h_a __ ~ __ ._M __ o_u_t_r~_·e _______ , acting as Attorney for the Sponsor do hereby certify: 

That in my opinion the Sponsor is empowered to enter .into the foregoing Grant 

Agreement under the laws of the State of California. Further, 1 have examined the 

foregoing Grant Agreement and the actions taken by said Sponsor relating thereto, 

and find that the acceptance thereof by said Sponsor and Sponsor's official 

representative has been duly authorized and the execution thereof is in ~11 respects 

due and proper and in accordance with the laws of the said State and the Act. In 

addition, for grants involving projects to be_ carried out on property not owned by 

the Sponsor, there are no legal impediments th~t will prevent full performance by 

the Sponsor. Further, ·it is roy opinion that the said Gra)1t Agreement constitutes a 

legal and ·binding obligation of the Sponsor in accordanc.e with the terms thereof, 

Dated at Santa. Monica, CA thiS 29thday of 

Page 5 of 5 Pages 
OM& Approv•l No 0~.()()43 

APPLICATION FOR ' 2.1MTE sua.wrnea ~ ldentlr~er 

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 6/15/93 

1. T"t1"! Of SUBMISSION': ' a. DATE JllEC!IVE'C·I!iVtrATE Stat• Aw/lcollon ldonl~io< 

A;Jplic&tlon PNapplicatlon 

[X] Con$truction 0 Con.slr'.lcllon 

.C. DAn: REC!I¥'ECI II'( nD£RAi Ali!NCY Fodttaf ldentlHer .... 

0 Nofl.Cotl.sltueUon 0 Non-Construellon 3-:.66-0239-06 .. AlP 

5. APPLJe.ANT INFORUJ.TION 

~alName; Organiullon.al Unit: 

City of Santa Monica Santa Monica.Municipal Airport 

Add tit$.$ (giWJ city, county, #lats, f:lld zip code): NamG and ~number of the '*.son. to be c:xrtlcttd on m.r.tt«t Involving 

3223 Donald Douglas loop South thi5 ~icalioo (gfv. vn cod.a) · 

· Santa Monica, CA 90405-3279 Timothy A. Halsh (31 0} 458-8591 

(Los Angeles County) 

I. EMPLOYER ti)ENTlFICAl10H NUMBER (EIH): 7. TYn 01' Affl.J<:.IJIT; (t<>t*r >pproprfllolotl#r In box) [!J I 9 I 51-16 I o I 0 I 0 I 719 I o I A. Stolt H. h <!epo' idont Sehoo! Pill. 

B. County I. Stlit.ConUOIIod INtffiJilon of~ Leami<>Q 

I. TYPE Of ~I.ICAOON: 

C. Uunlclpal J. Privalt Uoivo<slty 

D. ToWNhip K lncll1n Tribe 

QJ·N•w · 0 Continuation 0 F!ovidon 11. '""'"''" 

L. Individual 

t1 Ravtsl'on. entt11 appropd!Jtl Jit1~r(s) In ~(as): 0 D 

F. lnlo<inunlelpal U. Profit Orpanilltion 

G. Spoelal Ollttk:l N. Oth<tt (Spoc:lty); 

A. lncrt.a.se Awatd B. 09creue Aw~1d C. lnaan& Duration 

0. OecrU$8 Ouralion Oth.l< (SPIJ<f/y}: t. H.UI! OF 'ED£ RAJ. .I.O!NCV: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

10, CATALOG OF ,!CEIW. DOW!:SnO 

12 I o 1. l I o 16 i1. DE&eaiFTI'IEmt.EOFAHUCAHT'I I'ROJECT: ~ ASSISTANCE NUMBER: 

Blast walls; fenci ng/ga·tes ;- perimeter road • TTT\.J;, alignment; repair taxiways and aprons, 1 i ghting/signing; aircraft run-up enclosure; pave 

12. AA.eA!i .ARECT!O 1!1'( PROJECT (CitifS, countitU, 11-1.19$, •tc.): infield areas; and refurbish rotating beacon. 

City of Santa !·1onica and. Los Angeles 

County, California . 

U. Pf:tOPOSEO PROJECT: 1-4. CONOR!SSfONAl CISTRICTS dF: 

S!.l!lrl 011te Endin.g Care •· Applicant ~b. ProjQ<:I 

July 1994 sept. 1995 ·28th 28th 

! 

tS. E:mhiATEil FUHOiNO: 1f, I"' APPLICA'nOH SUBJEC!tO JI:EVl!W IV $TATE tx!CtmvE OROE'R 1:1l7l PftOCE$$'1' 

•· Flldenl. $ l ,604, 700 ,00 •• . YES. THIS PAEAPPI.ICATIOWA!'PI..ICATION W/>S MADE AVAlLABLE TO THE 

STATE EXECUTlVE OI!OEA 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON: 

b. Applicant ' . - 178,300 .DO DATE 6/15/93 

c. S!.Att ' . .00 

b NO.O PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BV E.O. 12372 

d.l=tl ' .00 

... 0 OR PROGAAM HAs NOT ~N saECTEO BY STATE FOR REVIEW 

•. Othof ' ' .00 

f, ProgtZim lnt;OI'M • .00 17. II ntE AHUCAHT DEUHOVENT OH ~ n:D£l'AL DEJT?' . -· 

g TOTAL I 1,783,000 .oo 

.o Vit ' H "Y.s,• attach an .,:pliN1ion. !X] No 

11. TO THE JEST OF MY KHOWL.EtXJE AH!li!LIEF.ALL DATA tH THiS ..,.,.L.JC.A.T'IQH.1'ft£.Anl.)C.tll10N ~E n.uE ANC COM.ECT, TKE t()CUW!HT KA:5 JIEEH DULY 

AVTHOAittC IV THE QOVERHIHO BOD'¥' OF lliE APPLICANT AH.C THE APPLICANT WIU COMPlYWTT'Ii THE ATTACH£.C AUUJU.HCU If TK! J.lll$T.otc'E IS AWARO£C 

•· T'J'Ped Name or ·Authoc!Hd Rapfuanlative b. TnJo c;. TNphone nUmber 

John Ja 1 il i City Manaaer ( 31 o'\ 458-8301 

d. $Q'nature ol AuU)Ofind Aeptuentallw •. O.tt S+gn9d 

~ ;J~ 06/02/94 

M8Vl01JS CClllonS NOt Usable _~tandard. ~orm .~?: .. ' ~ /Ht::~ ~-88) 

Authorized for "Local Reproduction 
U.S, DEPARTME.NT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 ·-"ERAL AVIATION AOMINISTRAT!ON 

OMS NO, 80.R011!4 

Item 1. . . . 

PART II 

PROJECT APPROVAL INFORMATION 

SECTION A 

Does this assistance request require State, lcca! 1 

. regionar, or other priori!Y rating? 

Name of Governing Body--------------

Priority Rating ------------------

Yes 

Item 2. 

Does this assistance request require State, or local 

odvisory 1 educational or health clearances? 

X No 

Name of Agency or Board __________________ ___ 

Yes X No (Attach Documentation) 

Item 3. 

Does this ossi stance· request require clearinghouse review (Attach Comments) 

in accordance with OMB Circular A·95? 

___ Yes ___ X No 

Item 4. 

Does this assistance recp;est reqvi·re State, local, 

regional or other planning approval? 

_ _:X:_.Yes -~-,-No 

Item 5. . 

Is the propo·sed project covered by an approved 

comprehensive p·Jan? · 

Name of Approving Agency Soutflern California 

Date Association of Governments 

Check one: State 0 

Local IXJ 

Regional D 

X Yes ___ No Location of plan ___ _,Cwi_,tc:t.y~o.Lf.-eS,a"'n-"t"'a'--"M"o"-n'-'i-"c-"'a __ 

Item 6. 

Will the assistance requested serve a Federal Nome of Federal Installation------------

installation? Yes_.....,X_No Federal Population benefiting from Proiect-------

Item 7. 

Will the assistance requested be on Federal land 

or· i nsto I lotion? 

Nom~ of Federal lnstollati~n _· -----------

Location of Federal Land----'--------..,.----

___ Yes _ __,._No Percent of Proiect ----------------

Item 8. 

Will the assistance requested have an impcc::t or effect 

on the environment? X ___ Yes~--No 

Item 9. . 

Will the asststonce reqUested cause .the displacement of' 

individuals fomilies.r busin-esses, or forms? 

Yes X 

Item· 10. 

Is there other related Federal assistance on this 

project previous, pending, or onticipated? 

Yes X 

No 

No 

See instruction for add!tional information to be 

provided. 

Number of: · Individuals 

Families 

Businesses ------- Farms 

See instructions for additional information to be 

provided. 

FAA Form 5100-100 16·73} SUPERSEDES FAA FOAM :5100·10 PA:GES I THRU 7 Page 2 
•.• ' ; . 

: ' ' ·: 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION- FEDERAl. AVIATWN ADMINISTRATION OMB NO, 04·R0209 

PART Ii: ·SECTION C 

. '.-

The Sponsor hereby represents and certifies as follows: 

1. Compatible Land Use.-The Sponsor has taken' the following actiOns to assure compatible usage of land adjacent to or in 

the vicinity o~ the airport: . 

The Airport Layout Plan shifts a substantial portion of aeronautical· services from 

the southside of the Airport to the northside .. The northside provides compatible 

land use adjacent ·tO air.port operations that the so.uthside did not provide, This 

action has significantly decreased the impact of aircraft noise and fumes on the 

noncompatible land use· ad~acent to the Airport. 

2. Defaults.-The Sponsor is not in default on any obligation t<1 the United States or any agency of the United States Governme~t re1ative to the development, operation, or maintenance of any airport, except as stated herewith: . 

None 

3. Possible Disabilities.-There are no facts or circumstances (including the existence of effective or proposed l~ases 1 use 

agreements or other legal instruments affecting use of tbe Airport or the existence of pending litigation or other legal proceedings) 

whic.h in reasonable 'probability might make it impossible for the Sponsor to carry out and complete 'the Pro/"ect or carry out the 

provtsions of Part V of this Application, either by limiting its legal o.r financial ability or other-wise, exi::ept as fo laws: 

None 

4.· Land.-( a) The Sponsor holds the following property interest in the following areas of land* which are to be developed or used as part of or ·in connection with the Airport, sUbject to the following exceptions, encumbrances, and adverse interests, 

all of which areas are identified on the aforementioned property map designated as Exhibit "A": 

The City of Santa Monica has title 'in fee to an property indicated on the Property 

Map, "Exhibit A" (refer·to the Pr'eapplication submitted June 16, 1993). 

Easements to the Southern California.Edison Company, General Telephone Company, 

Southern Counties Gas Company, and Los Angeles Co~nty Flood Control District are 

identifi~d on Exhibit.A and do not affect the proposed projects. 

*State character of property interest in each area and lis't and identify for each .all exceptions, encumbrances, and adverse interests 

of every kind and l!ature,_ including h'ens, easements, leasesr etc. The $eparat·e areas of land need on(y be identified here by the 

area numbe~s shown on the property map. 

FAA Form 5100-100 (4-761 Page 3a . 
DEPARTMENT OF TRA.~SP.ORTATION- FEDERAL AVIATION AOMIHI.STRATION OM8 NO. 04·R0209 

PART II . SECTION C (Continued} 

The .Sponsor further certifies that the ·above is ~ased on a title examination by a qualified attorney or title company and that 

such attorney or title con'lpany hs.s determined that the Spons'or holds the above property interests. 

(b) The Sponsor will acquir~ within a reasoriahle time, but in any event prior to the start of any construction work under 

. the Project, the followirig property interest in the following areas of land* on which such construction wol-k is to· be performed, 

all of \~hich areas are identified on the aforementioned property map designated as Exhibit uA '': 

None 

(c) The Sponsor wiH·acquire within a reasonable time, and H feasible prior to the co~pletion of all constructi"on work under 

the Project, the following property interest in the following areas of land* which are to he developed or used as part of or in 

connection with the Airport as it will be .upon completion of the Project, aU of which areas are identified on the aforementioned 

property map designated as Exhibit 11A1

': 

None 

5. Exclusive Rights.-There is no grant of an exclusive right.for the conduct of .any aeronautical activity at any airport owned 

or controlled by the Sponsor except as.follows: . 

None 

*State character of property interest in each area and list and identify for each all eXceptions, encumbrances, and adverse interests 

of every kind and natw:e, including liens, easements, leases, etc. The separate areas of land need only be identified here by the area numbers·shown on the property map. 

FAA Form 5100-100 (4-iol Page 3b 

FAAAC 81-06913 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OMB NO, &O·ROt$4 

PART Ill- BUDGET INFORMATION- CONSTRUCTION 

SECTION.A- GENERAL 

1. Federal Domestic Ass~stonce Cotolo9 No •• , •• , •• , • ; , , 20.106 

2. Functional or Other Breakout •... , , , . , .•. , , .. , ... . . 

SECTION B- CALCULATION OF FEDERAL GRANT ' . . . ··. . 

; ''· ·-···· . U:;,e~ o_n_l_y fOf rovi:oion::; 

Toto! 

Cost Clcsstficotioo Amount 

Latest Approved AdfiJ!Stment · Re'(julfed 

Amount tor(-) 

1. Administration expense s s s 10,000;00 

2. Preliminary expense 30 000.00 

3 •. Land, structures, righl·of-way. ' -a-" · 4. Architectural engineering ~asic fees ' 120,000.00 

5. Other architectural engineering f.ees -0- . 6. Project inspection fees 143,000.00 

7. Land development -0-

8. Relocation Expenses ~0-

9. Relocation payments to Individuals and Businesses -0-

10. Demolition and removal .. .. -0-

11. Construction and project-improvement 1 480 000.00 

12. Equipment · -0-

13. Miscellaneous -0-

14. Total (Lines 11hrough 13) 1 783 000,00 

' 

15. Estimated Income (if applicable) -0-

16. Net Project Amount (Line 14 minus 15) 1,783,000.00 . 

17. Less: Ineligible Exclusio~s -0-

18. Add: Contingencies -0-

19. Total Project Amt. (Excluding Rehabilitation Grants) 1,783,000.00 

20. Federal Share requested of. Line 19 1 .604. 700 00 

21. Add Rehabilitation G1ants Requested (100 Percent) -0-

22. Total Federal grant requested (Lines 20 & 21) 1,604,700.00 

23. Grantee share 178,300.00 

24. other shares ---- ·- ' -0- . 

25. Total project (Lines 22, 23 & 24) s s s 1,783,000.00 

FAA form 5100-lQO [6 73) SUPERSEDES FAA FORM 5100 ·10 PAGES 1 THRU 7 Pogo 4. 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . FEDERAL AVI A TIO A INISTRAT N " OM 10 

SECTION C -EXCLUSIONS ~~~· .. 

C\ou.iflc?tion ln•ligi~l• for E~<<:lvded fTom 

P~til;lpo::~lion Co"ting.,ncy Provbiol1 

~· fll ,;, c-

.. $ $ 

' 

b 

c. 

d • 

.. 

f. 

•• Toto!.s s s 

SECTION D - PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING NON-FEDERAL SHARE 

27. Grantee Share s 178,300.00 

a. Securities ~- .... . b, Mortgages : 

c. Appropriations (By Applicant) 

d. Bonds 

e. Tax L~vi es 

f. Non Cash 

g. Other (Explain) ' 

h. TOTAL - Grantee sha~e 178,300.00 

28. Other Shares 

a. State 

b. Other 

c. Total Other Shares 

29. TOTAL s 178,300.00 

SECTION E - REMARKS 

p Part V Assurances. are'incorporated herein. 

b Title VI DOT Assurances are incorporated herein. 

b "Exhibit A", Property Map; 

June 16, 1993). 

is incorporated by reference (see Preapplication submitted 

b Plans and Speci f-i·ca ti ons for AIP 3-06-0239-06 are incorporated by r.eference. 

PART IV PROGRAM NARRATIVE fAttcch See Instructions) 

FAA form 5100.100 {6-731 SUPERSEDES FAA FORM 5100.10 PAGES\ THRU 7 Page 5 
·, 

PART IV- PROGRAM NARRATIVE 

APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 

SANTA MONICA AIRPORT 

Santa Monica, California 

AIP Project No. 3·06-0239~06 

.Project 1-· Blast Walls -Phase II 

Aircraft bast from jets departing on Runway 3-21 has become an increasing 

problem at Santa Mollica Airport, Phase I of the Blast Wall Project placed walls 

near the departure runup areas. The walls have effectively prevented debris from 

blowing. across roadways and into residential areas. Phase II of the Blast Wall 

Project will prevent and deflect the high velocity blast of departing aircraft from 

reaching the residential areas east of the runway end. This will provide 

significant relief to those affected by the aircraft blast. 

Project 2 - Fencing and Gates - Phase II 

Runway incursions continue to be a problem at Santa Monica, requiring further 

restrictions on access. The Phase I Access Control Project involved the 

installation of six (6).access control gates and pm:imeter fencing. Additional 

signage, road closures, restrictions to access, and education of users have. reduced 

the number of runway incursions. Furthm: actions are required, including the 

installation additional access control gates and fencing. 

Project 3- Perimeter Road Realignment 

I 

The circulation of vehicles on the Airport's airside has caused significant safety 

problems over the past several years. Numerous improvements have been made 

to reduce runway incursions and vehicle and aircraft co:irllicts including the 

installation of an FAA access control project. With all of the improvements, 

runway incursions continue to be a significant problem. To complete the safety 

improvements, the City proposed to realign the west perimeter road to connect 

with Airport Avenue. This will greatly enhance safety by redirecting vehicles 

outside the air operations area. 

Project 4 -. Repair, Seal Coat, and Mark Existing Taxiways 

This project consists of a crack seal and seal coat of the existing north and south 

parallel taxiways. The condition of tlte taxiways at the Airport has deteriorated 

because of frequent use by large business jet aircraft. Some of the taxiway 

pavement is part of the original runway built in 1942. N:umerous longitudinal 

cracks exist on the taxiway. Some reconstruction will be required in isolated 

areas where structural failures have occurred because of the larger aircraft using 

the facility. 

Page 1 of 3 
., 

Project 5 - Lighting and Signing 

This project consists of the installation of runway distance remaining markers 

that are needed by large. business jets requiring the full runway length. 

Additionally, guidance signs are to be installed to define the runway better and to 

prevent runway incursions. The fmal component of this project is to recess 

taxiway lights in those areas where above-ground lights are repeatedly struck by 

aircraft maneuvering on the ground. 

Project 6-Repair, Seal Coat and Mark Existing Parking Aprons -

Phase II 

This project consist of a follow-up to the original project submitted as part of the 

AIP-04 project in 1988. The aircraft parking aprons have permanently been 

established as a result of the significant change that occurred in 1986 when the 

aeronautical activities were moved from the southside to the northside of the 

Airport. As a result, some of the City parking areas require crack repair, seal 

coat, and tiedown reconfiguration. An increase in aircraft tiedown capacity will 

result with the reconfiguration of.the aprons. 

Project 7- Aircraft Maintenance Runup Enclosure 

Aircraft runup noise for maintenance inspections has become an increasing 

problem at urban airports like Santa Monica. The amount of space allocated on 

the Ah·port to conduct these operations safely and with as little intrusion to the 

surroul).ding neighborhoods has become increasingly difficult. The maintenance 

run up enclosure is required to abate the increasing number of turbine engine runups at the Airport as this segment· of Santa Monica's traffic increases. The 

maintenance runup enclosure will handle business jet aircraft with up to 60-foot 

wing spans. 

Project 8 - Pave Infield Areas 

The infield areas between the north and south parallel taxiways and the runway 

presently consist of oiled native material. These areas have deteriorated, causing 

drainage problems and debris that is blown onto the runway by jet blasts. Project 

8 will cap these areas with asphalt to eliminate drainage and FOD problems now 

being experienced. 

Project 9 - Refurbish Rotating Beacon 

The present airport r~tating beacon is low-powered and difficult to see at night or 

in low visibility in the Los Angeles Basin. The beacon is over 40 years old and is 

in need of replacement. Additionally, the existing tower needs painting and 

repairs. 

Page 2 of 3 
SANTA MONICA AffiPORT 

AlP 3-06-0239-06 

PROJECT COST SUMMARY 

Total Federal Local 

Project Cost Share Share 

•\ Blast Walls - Phase II $ 330,000 $ 297,000 $ 33,000 

Fencing/Gates 111,111. 100,000 11,111 

Perimeter .Road Realignment 311,000 279,900 31,100 

Repair, Seal, and Mark Taxiways 202,000 181,800 20,200 

· Lighting and Signing 63,889 57,500 6,389 

Repair, Seal, and Mark Aprons 220,000 198,000 22,000 

Aircraft Maintenance Run up 

Enclosure 385,000 346,500 38,500 

Pave Infield Areas 125,000 112,500 12,500 

Refurbish Rotating Beacon 35.000 31,500 3.500 

TOTAL $1,783,000 $1,604,700 $178,300 

,. 

-Page 3 of 3 
' . 

Fax f:rorr. 

A; General 

FAA LAX ADO 

PARTV 

ASSURANCES 

Airport Sponsors 

October 1, 1990 

[Incorporates revisions of Assurances 9 and 26 (11/04/92)] 

1.. These a.:cunwce!O. s.hall hr. r-..nmplicd with in the performance ·or grwt agreements for airport 

development, airport planning, and noise c0111patibility program grants to airpotl sponsors. 

:z. , fhe:se: assurances are rcquii·I:'U to be :;ubmiUed a~ pa,.t Qf the projct:t application hy ~ponsors 

requesting funds w>der the provisions of the Airport and Airway Improvrnneot Act of 1982, as 

PAGE 11 

amended by the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, or the Aviation Safety 

and Noise Abatement Act of 1979. As used herein, tbe term, "public agency spunsuo' rucan• • puhllc 

agency with control of a public use airport; the term "priYatc sponsor' means a private sponsot of a public- ~o o.irport; a:.o.d the tertn "gpon$or'' includes public agency :JPOtlSOrs and private sponsors. 

3. Upon acceptance of the grant offer by the sponsor, these assnrances ate incorporated in and become 

part of the grant agreCIIlCDt. · 

B. Duration and h.ppllcability. 

1. Airport Development or Noise Compatibility Program Projects Undertaken by a Public Agency 

SponsoJ:". The tc.mu;, conditions ~nd m:~ances of the grant agreement ~hall remain in full for~e and 

effect throughout the useful life of tho facilities developod or equipment acquired for an airport 

development or noise compatibility program project, or throughoot the useful life of the p.:ojcct items 

installed within a facllity Wldct a noise oompa.t.ibillty program pX"Oject, but in aa.y ev~t not t" ~Yceed 

twenty (20) years f.rom the date of the acceptance of a grant offer of Federal funds for tbe project. 

However, there shall be no limit on the duration of the ossurance against exclusive rights or the terms, 

conditions, and assurances with respect to real property acquired with Federal funds. Furthcnno•c, the 

duration of the Civil Rights assurances shall be as specified in the assurance. 

2, Airport Development or Noise Compatibility Program Projects Undertaken by a Pri•ate Spomer, 

The preceding paragraph 1 also applies to a private sponsor except that the useful life of project itcnts 

installed within a facility or the useful life of facilities developed or cq uipu•=t acqmrcd und~r .Wl airport 

development or ·noise compatibility program project shall be no less than ten(lO) years f.rom the date of 

tho accepbnee o£ Fedel"a1 ::..irl fnr the proj~ 

3. Alrport Pluulng Undertaken by a Sponsor. Unless otherwise specified in the grant agreement, 

only Assurances 1, Z, 3, .S, 6, J..J, 18, 30, 32, :n, 34 nnd 26 in Section C apply to plonnin~ projects. The terms, 

conditions, and assurances of the grant agreement shall remain in full force and effect daring the life of the 

project. 

C. Sponsor Certification. The sponsor hereby assures and certifies, with respect to this grant that: 

L General Federal Reqni.-ements. It will comply with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, 

c:o:ecutive orders, poucics, guidelines and requ.irements as they relate to the application, acceptance and usc 

of Federal funds for this project including but not limited to lh~ following: 

a. Federal Aviation Act of 1958" 49 U.S.C. 1201, et seq. 

b. Davlo·B•con A<t • 40 U.S. C. 276(o), et ••<!·lJ 

c. Federal Fair Labor Standards Act· 29 TJ.S.C. 201, et seq. 

Pagel of 11 

3187256849 84/87/88 tf>:4t Pg: 11 
B4/B7/2BB8 13:05 3107256849 FAA LAX ADO 

• • 

Fax fror-"t 

PAGE 12 

d. Hatch Act - 5 U .S.C. 1501, et seq .V e. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Rc.1l Property Acquisition PoUcloo Act of 1970- 42U.S.C •. 

.w<ll, et. seq-!/ Y 

£. National Hiatorio P<e...-v:.tion Aot nf 1966- Section 106 - 16 U .S.C. 470(f).l/ 

g. Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974-16 U.S.C. 469 through 469c.l/ 

b. Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 ·Section 102(a) - 42 U.S.C. 4012a.l/ 

i, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 -7}J U.S.C. 794. 

j. Civil Rights Act of 1964- Title VI- 4:2 U.S.C. 2000d through d-4. 

k. Aviation Safety =d Noise Abatement Act of 1979, 49 U.S.C. 2101, et seq 

1. Age DC!crimination Act of 1975- 42 U.S.C, 6101, et seq. 

m. Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 • 42 U.S. C. 4151, ot'!eqJ./ n. Airport and Airw~y lmpro:weroonl Act of 1981, :u .,..,derl 4Q U.S.C. 2201, et seq. 

o. Fowerplant and llldustrial Fuel Use Act of 1978- Section 4()3- 2 U.S.C. 8373.!/ 

p, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act- 40 U.S.C. 327, et scq.l/ 

q. Copeland Antikiclc:back AcJ.- 18 U.li.C. 874.},j 

r. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969- 42 U .S.C. 4321, ct seq.!/ 

•· End=gorcd Species .Ad- 16 U.S.C, 668(a), et seq.lJ 

t. Single Andit Act of 1984-31 U.S.C. 7501, et seq.eJ 

u. Drug-Free Wot,kplace Act of 1988-41 U.S.C. 702 through 706. 

Executive Order:s 

E;recutive Order 12372 --Intergovernmental Review of Fed<rall'rognuu> 

EJrecutive Order U246- Eqoal Employment Opportunity l/ 

Federal R<gulations 

a, 4~ t:l.,'K Part !8 ~ Uniform AJml.n.UJtrativc Rcq:uire:m.ents foT Grants ~nd Ccoperative 

Agreements to State and Local Governments~/ 

h. 49 CFR Part 21 - Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of 

Tnlll'lportation-Effectuation of TWe VI of the Civilllights Act of 1964. 

c. 49 CFR Part 23- Participation by Mlnodly Business Enterprise in Departme.nt of 

Tr~portation Ptog:I~n;C~• 

d. 49 CFR Part 24. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulation 

for Fede'"l and Federally As~ted Programs.l/ 'lJ 

e, 49 CFR Part zf ... Non-Olscrl.minatiuu on the l3asi3 o£Hnndie3;p m-;program!C. :~nd 

Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal F'wandal Assistance.l/ 

f. 49 C:FR Part 29- Dobmncnts, Suspension~, and Voluntary Exclusions. 

g. 49 CFR Part 30 ·Denial of Public Works Contracts to Suppliers of Goods and s~,·vicc• of 

Countries That Deuy Procurements Market Access to U.S. Contractors. 

h. 29 CFR Pa<t 1 - rroccdw:oo for Predetermination of Wage Rates.l/ 

i. 29 CFR Part 3 ·Contractors or Subcontractors o.n Public Buildings or Public Works Fmanced 

in Whole or Part by Loans or Grants From U.S.lf 

j. 'l9 CFR Part 5 -Labor Standards Proruion.s Applicable to Contn<:-to C<n"Cring Fed~olly 

Financed and Assisted Con.struotion..l/ 

k. 4~ CFR PMI 60 - Office of Federal CMtnc! Compliance Pr~ams, Equal Employment 

Oppottu.nity, Department of Labor (Federal and Federally-Assisted Contracti».g 

Requiromcnts).l/· 

L 14 CFR Part 150 - Airport Not•e Compaubility Plan.U,g. 

Ofli.e or ManaQ<>mont and Budeet Cin:ulan 

a. A-87 • Cost Principles Applicable to Grants and Contracts with Slate and Local 

Goveillll1onts~ 

b. A-128 - Audits of ~tate and Loc.'\1 Govemments.V 

l/ These laws do not apply to airport planning sponsors. 

Page :2 of 11 

311!7256849 ll4/B7/Il8 16:41 Pg: 12 
04/07/2008 13:05 3107255849 FAA LAX ADO PAGE 13 

Fax frorr~ 

'lJ These laws do not apply to private sponsors. 

"J} 49 CFF. Part 18 and OMB Circular A-87 contain requirements for State a.od local 

goveTnments receiving _Federal assistance. Any requirements levied upon State and 

local governments by this regnlation and circular shall also be applicable to private 

sponsors receiving Federal assistance under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act 

of 1982, as lUDcudcd. 

Specifie assurances required to be included in grant agreements by any of the abo>e Jaws, 

reguiatiqns or circulats are ineorporatcd by retcrcnce in the grant agreemcnr. 

l. Rl$ponstbility and Authority tat t.hr. Spnnsor. 

a. Pnblic Agency Sponsor: It has lcglll authority to apply for the grant, and to finance and· carry · 

out the proposed project; that a resolution, wutio.u or similar action ho.G been duly .tdopted ot _passed 

as an official act of the applican~s governing body authorizing the filing of the application, 

includine all understandin~ and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the 

person identified ru; the official representative of the applicant to act in connection with the 

application and .to provide ~uch additional infonnation as may be required. 

b. Private Sponsor: It has legal authority to apply for the grant and to finance and carry out the 

proposed project and comply wit\t all terms, conditions, ilDd assurances of this grant agreement. It 

shall designate an official representative and shall in Wrltlng dircr.::l WJtl autho1lzc. that pcr:mo to file 

this application, including all UDdcr.tandiJlgs and assurances contained therein; to act. in connection 

with. the appHto .. Mion; and to prov.ide such additional informatioo a$ rnay be required. 

3. Sponsor Fond 1\.vailablllty. It bru; sufficient funds available for that portion of the project co>Js which 

ar~ uut to b-e paid by the United. Sto.ton. lt hall. &uffi.clent funds av~il~hle tn a~sure operation and 

maintenance of items funded under the grant agreement which it will own or control. 

4. Good 1"itle 

"· It holds aood title, satisf•dnry to the Secretary, to the landing area of the airport or site thereo~ 

or will give assU<ance satisfactory to the Secretary that good title will be acquired. 

b. "'f'or .noise compatibility vw~·am project$ tQ be ¢nrricd ·aut on the property of the .. ~pnn~nr, 1t 

holds good title satisfactory to the Secretary to that portion of the properly upon which Federal funds 

will be opcnded or will give assUIIDlce to the Se<rerary that good title will be obtained. 

S. l're•erving Righi$ and Powo~ 

- a. It will not take or pe<mit any action whi.ch would operate to deprive it of any of the rights and 

powers necessary to perform any or all the terms, conditions, and as:surances in the grant agreement 

without the written approval of tb.c Secretary, and will ~ct promptly to acquire, extinguish or modify 

any outstanding rights or claimS of right of others which would interfere with •uch performance by tbe 

<r>nnsor. This shall be done in • m~er acceptable to the Secretary. 

b. It will not seU, lease, encumber or othOIWise transfer or dispose of any part of its title or other 

inter""ts in the property shown on Exhibit A to this •rpli<.ation nr, for a noise compatibility program 

projett, that portion of the property upon which Federal funds bave been expended, for the duration 

of tbe terms, conditions, and a.,urances in the grant agreement without approval by the Se<retary. lf 

the transferee is found by tho Secretary to be eligible under tbe Airport anu Ait·way Iroprovcmcnt Ad: 

of 1982 to assume the obligations of the grant agreement and to have the power, authority, and 

finand:d r~oouroos to oarry ont "11 ,uch obligations. the sponsor shall insert in the contract or document 

transferring or disposing of the sponsor's interest, and make binding upon the transferee, all of the 

terms, con.ditlons and assmances contained in this grant agreement. 

Pagc3 of 11 

316725&849 64/67/68 1&:42 Pg: 13 
04/07/2008 13:05 3107255849 FAA LAX ADO PAGE 14 

Fax fro"' 

c. "fvr all uolsc <Ompatlbility program project• ,.;,;cit are to b•, oomed out by ;u>Otbor unit of local 

government or ate on proporty owned by a unit of local government other than the sponsor, it wm 

enter into "" agreement with that government. Except as otherwise specified by the Secretary, that 

agreement shall obligate that go11Crnment to the same terms, condilious, ami aoour an coo that would be 

applicable to it if it applied directly to the F M for a grant to undertake the noise compatibility 

progrnm project. That agreement and <h•n~es thereto must be Mtisfactory to the Secretary. It will 

take steps to enforce this agreement against the local government if there is substantial non-compliance 

with the tenns of the agreement. 

d. For noise compatibility program projects to be cnrricd out.~ privately owood property, it will 

enter into an agreement with the owner of the property whicli includes provisions specified by the 

Secretary. It will take steps to enforee this agreement against the property owner whenever there is 

substantial non-eomplianco with the terro• of the agreemettt. 

e. If the sponsor is a private sponsor~ it will take .steps satisfactory to the Secretary to ensure that the 

ajrpQrt will continue to function as a. public-usc airport in accordance with these assnrattces for the 

duration of these assurant:es. 

f. If an arranaoment is made for tnanagement and operation of the airport by any agency or person 

other than the sponsor or an employee. of the sponsor, the sponsor will reserve sufficient rights and 

authority to insure that the airport will be operated and maintained in aceordanec with the Airport and 

Airway Impruvtru~ent Act o£ 1982, the regu.L\tions and the ternu:, conditions ~:net as..~urances in the grant 

agreement and shall insure that such arrangements alao requires compliance therewith. 

6. Consistency witll Local Plans. The project i1! reawnably consistent with pl;u>s ( .,Ustiug at the time o£ 

submission of thls application) of public agencies that are authorized by the State in which the project is 

lo.,..tod to pl., for ~ developmont of the area surrounding tho airport. For noise compatibility progr:un 

projectS, other then land acquisition, tc be carried out on property not owned by the airport and ovc:r 

which property another public agency bas land use control or authority, the sponsor shall obtain from each 

.such ageo.cy a. written declaration tb.at such agellcy !)uppu.rt.:s chat p.rojec::t and the px-ojoct i~ ~a:l&ol12bly 

consistent with the agency's plans regarding the property. 

7. Consideration with Loatl lnt«est. It has given fair oon:!idcration to the interest of communities 

in or near wbich the project may be located. 

8. Consultation with Users, 1n making a decision to undortake any airport development project under 

the Airport and Ai.rway Improvement Act of 1982, it h"' undertaken reasonable consultations with affected 

parties using the ~~ at which project is proposed. 

9. PubHc: llcnr:ing:J. In projects involvi.:ng the lol"!dion of an airpOrt, an airport runway, or a major 

runway extension, it has afforded the opportunity for public hearings for the purpose of considering the 

economic, social, and environmental effects of the airport or runway location and its oonsisteoey with goala 

and objectives of such planning as has be<n carried out by the OOIJlJllunity ~~nd it shall, when rcqu-ed by 

the Secret,ary, submit a copy of the transcript of such heurings to the Sec:retary. Further, for such projects, 

it h::u;; on it& management board e.ithf.'.r vnting representation from tb.c commu:nities where the project is 

located or bas advised the communities that they have the right to petition the Secretary concerning a 

proposed project, 

10. Air ~nd Water Quality Standurds. In projects involving airport location, a major !11llway 

enen•inn, nr mnway loeatlon it will provide for the Governor of the state ill which the project is located 

to certify in writing to the Secretary that tbe project will be located, designed, constructed, and opetated 

""as to comply with applicable air and· water quality standards. In ony c..c where such standards have not 

lx:en approved and where appli~.::~4tt;; a.U: and watc.t quality .rt.and.atd.." han- bcctt promulgatetf hy the 

Administrator of the Enviroomeni:al Protection Ageru;y, certification shall be obtained from such 

Administrator. Notice of certification or refusal to certify shall be provided within sixty (60) days after tho 

project application has been received by the Secretary. , 

Page 4 of l1 

3187256849 B4/ll7/ll8 Pg: 14 
04/07/2008 13:05 3107256849 FAA LAX ADO 

• • 

Fax frorr. 

PAGE 15 

lt. Local Approval, In projects involving the construction or extension of any runway at any l:l"n"ral 

aviation airport located ascride a line separating two counties within a single state, it has received approval 

for the proje<;t fruw t!.c g~rning body of all villages inoorporat•.rl nnder the laws of the state which are 

located entirely within fi.., miles of the nearest boundary of the airport. 

U. 1'enniaal Development l'rerequisltes. For projects which include tenninal J~velopmcnt at ~ public 

airport, it has, on the date of submittal of the project IJ1'ant application, all the safety equipment required 

for certif><:otion of suoh airport nnder .ection 612 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and all the security 

equipment required by rule of regulation, and has provided for access to the passenger enplaning and 

deplaning area of such airport to passengers enplaning or deplaning from aircraft other than air carrier 

aircraft. .; ... 

13. Ar.r.nnnting Sr,Jtcrn, Audit:'o and ~ec:ordkeeping Requirementsw 

a. It shall keep all project accounts and records which fully disclose the amonnt and dlsp<>sition 

by th~;- recipient o£ the proce~dA of t.he gran.t. tht-; totnl cost of the project in coonecdon 'With which the 

grant is given or usod, ond the amonnt and natnre of that portion of the cost of the project supplied by 

other sources, and such ather financial records pertinent to the project. The accounts and records shall 

be kept in accordance 'With an accounting sy.::;lt}.lll that will .Ea.dllmte M. offective auWt in accm~rlAn~ 

mth the Single Audit Act of 1984 . 

b. It shall make available to the' Secretary and the Comptroller Generol of the United States, or any 

of their duly authorized representatives, for the pUI'JlOSO of audit and exatnittation, any book<, 

documc;.nb, pap~e1 aud record$. of the rt:::cipi,..n.t th:d Me pertinent to the grant. The Secretory may 

require that an appropriate audit be condncted by a recipient. In any case in which an 

independent audit is made of the accounts of a sponSor relating to th.e dispQsition of the proceeds 

of a grant or relating to the project in wJJJJcctlon with which the grant ws.a given o.r used .. it !:.hall me 

a certified copy of such audit with th~ Compl:toller General of the United States not later than si:c ( 6) 

months fnllnwing the close of the fiscal year lor which the audit was made. 

14. Minimum Wage Rates. It shall include, in all contracts in excess of $2,000 lor work on any projects 

funded under the graiJ.t agt·eewc~ whic:b. involve labort provis:ioru: es.tablishine; minimum rates of wage~ 

to be predetermined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, as 

amended (40 U.S.C 276a-276a-5), which coottactors shall pay to skilled and unskilled labor, and such 

minimum rates shall be stated in the invitation for bids and sball be inc.luded in prupuoaJs '" bicb for 

work. 

15. Veteran's PJ.'e£ereucc. It shall include, in an contracts for work on any projects funded under the grant 

agreement which involve labor, such provisions as are necessary to insure that, in the employment of 

labor( except in executive, admittisttative, and supervisory ,posltlons), prcf.,roncc shoJI be given to veto=• 

of the Vietnam era and disabled vtle.rans as defined in Section S15(c)(l) and (2) of the Airport and Ntway 

Improvoment Act of 1982. However, thi.< preference shall apply only where the individnnls are avallable 

and qualified to perform the work to which the employment relates. 

16. Confonnity to Plans and i'ipecl!lcations. It willexccule lho project oubjcct to plans, specilicatioos, •nd 

schedules approved by the Secretary. Such pla.us, specifications, and schedules ~hall be submitted to the 

Secretary prior to oom.m•n<t>ment of site preparation, construction, or other performance under this grant 

agreement, and, upon approval by the Secratary, shall be incorporated into this IJ1'an! agreement. Any 

modifications to the appra...d plans, specifications, and schedhles shall also be subject to approval by the 

Secretary and mcorporatlon into lhc ll''""t agreement. 

17. Construction lns~~Cction and Approval. It will provide and mMntain competent technical supervision 

at the construction site throughout the proje<t to ensure that the wod< con.li:Jnhs with the plans, 

specifications, and schedules approved by the Secretary for the projeet. It shall subject the 

con~U ~ctiou work OA any project cont:amed in an appJ:oved project A.l'ttlicatioD. to inspection and 

approval by the Secretary and such work shall be i.o. accordance with regltlations and pro~dves 

Pogo 5 of U 

311'17256849 1'14/1'17/1'18 16!42 Pg: 15 
04/07/2008 13:05 3107255849 FAA LAX ADO 

Fax froJ'I'I 

prescribed by the Secretary. Such regulations and procedure• •hall roqu;rc ouch coot =d proweo• 

reporting by the sponsor or sponsors of such project as the Secretary shall deem necessary. 

18. PlllllJ1ing Project:J, In carrying out planning projects: 

PAGE 15 

a. It will execute the prujt:d i.n ac..ordance with the apptoved prog;r~m narrative contained in the 

project application or with roodifications similarly approved. 

b. It will furnish the Secretary with such periodic reports as requll:e~ P"-' tallling IQ the plmtniog 

project and planning work activities. 

c. lt will include in all published material prepared in connection with the planning project a notice 

that the material was prepared under a grant provided by the United States. 

d. It will make such material available for CJC3lllwation by the public, and agrees that no mater;.,! 

prepared with funds under this project shall be subject to copyright in the United States or any other 

COW>try, 

•· It will giV< the Secr~t•ry uruestrictcd authority to publish, disclose, distribute, and otherwise usc 

any of the material prepared in ronne~tion with this grant. 

f. lt will grant the Secretary lh~ de,ht to d4appro.,;c the Sponsot'~ employment of ~pec:ific consultn.nl:!t 

and their subcontractors to do all or any part of this project as well as the right to disapprove the 

proposed scope and cost of professional services. 

g. It will grant the Secretary the right to disapprove' the use of the sponsor's employees to do all or 

any pax-t of the p;coject. 

b. It understands and agrees that the Secretary's approval of this project grant or the Secretary's 

approval of any plan:ning material developed as part o( thiti grant doe-3 not constitute ar imply any 

=urance or commitnlcnt oo the part of the Secretary to approve any pending or future application for 

"'Fedel':al airport gr.qnt. 

1?. Operation and Maiu..,an ... 

a. It will suitably operate and maintain the airport and all facilities thereon or connected 

therewith, with due regard to climactic and flood coodltioru;, Any proposal to t=pornrily close the 

airpo:n for nono.cYonn.utical py,rpos=s must first bl'!; 01-pprnved by the S~c:rcli:U y. ~c.ltirport «nd all 

facilities which are necessary to ""rve tbe aeronautical users of the airport, other than facilities owned 

or eo:11uolled by the United Stat!."'~~, $;haD be operated at all times in a safe and scniceable condition and 

in accordance with the minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by applicable Federal, 

state and local agencies for maintenance and operation. It will not cause or pennit any activity or 

action thereon whicb would inter.ferc wilh its u5c for airport purpot.es. 

ln furtherance nf t.hi• assurance, the sponsor will bave in effect at all times arrangements for-

(1) Operating the airport's aeronantical facilities whenever rcqnired; 

(~) Promptly :marking and ll!lhting hazards resulting from airport conditions, incluiliog 

temporary conditions; and 

(3) Promptly no~ airmen of any condition all'ecting aeronautical use of the airport. 

Nothing contained herein shall be construed to require that the airpor.t be operated for aeronautical 

use during temporary periods when snow, flood or other climactic conditions interfere with sucil 

operation. ~d maintenance. Furlher, notbh:lg herciD. shnll be construed as rr.rJ.uiring the maintcnancct 

:Poge 6 Ql 11 

311'17256849 ll4/ll7/l'l8 Pg: 1& 
04/07/2008 13:05 3107255849 FAA LAX ADO 

Fax f:rol!'l 

PAGE 17 

repair, restoration, or replacement of any structure or facility wbicb is substantially damaged or 

destroyed due to an act of God or other condition or circumstance beyond the control of the spousor. 

b. It will suitably operate and maintain noise compatibility proll'am item$ that it OWD8 or <ontrols 

upon which. Federal funds have been expeuded. 

20. Hazard Removal and Mitigation. It will take appropriate action to assure that sucb terminal airspace 

~ U rcq"Uixcd to protect i.DE;tnmteJlt a:nd visnl'll operations to the aitport(including established 

minimum flight altitudes) will be adequately cleared aud protected by removing, lowering, relocating, 

marking, or lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport hazarii'{.and by preventing the estab6sbment or 

croation ot" future airport hazard.,, t· 

2.l. rnmj>lltible Land Use. lt will take appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning .law.~, to 

tbe extent rea:sonable. to restrict the use of the land adjacent to or in tbe itnntediate vicinity ol the airport 

to aCtivities and purposes compatible with normal airport operatio!IS, iududlng landing and takeoff of 

uiroa..Ct. I.u addition, it the project ir. for noi~e: eomp:atlbility prngnun implementation, it 'will not cau~e or 

permit any chllllgc in land use, within its jurisdiction, that will reduce the compatibility, with respect to 

the airport, of the noise compatibility JlfOll'aJll measures upon wbieh Federal funds have been expended. 

22.. Economic Nondiscrimination. 

n. It will make its airport available as an airport for public use on fair and reasonable tams and 

without unjust discrimination, to all type..., kinds, and classes of aeronauti<al uses. 

b. In any agreemc11t, contract, lease or other arrangement under which a right or privl1egc at the 

airpo.rt is granted to any person, finn, or corporation to conduct or engage in any aeronautical activity 

for furnishing servi.ces to tb.e public at the airport, the::: ~po!.l:;or will in:scrt nnd enforce pl'ovisions 

requiring the contractor to-

(1) fumish said services on a fair, equal, and not unjustly discriminatory blll<is to all users 

thoreo~ and 

(2) charge fair, remionable, aud not unjustly dis minatory prices for eacb unit or service, 

provided, that the contractor may be allowed to make reasonable and nondiscriminatory 

discounts, rebaccs, or other similar type.s of price reducUOil!i to vohuu~ purchase ... 

c. Each fJXCd bru::ed op~ra.tor at any ah~pnrt nwned by the sponsor shall be sUbject to the same 

rates, fees, rentals, and other cbargcs as arc uniformly applicable to all other fixed-based operators 

making the same or similar ~es of sucb airport and utilizing the sa.ne or similar facillties. 

d. Each air carrier using such airport shall have the right to service itself or to use any fixed-based 

nperator that is authorized or permitted by the airport to serve any sir carrier at such airport. 

e. Each air carrier using such airport (whether as a tenant, nontenant, or subtenant of another air 

carrier tenanl) >hall ue subjoct to ouch nondiscrimin~tory and oub<tantiolly comparable rule$, 

regulations, conditions, rates, fees, rentals, and other charges with respect to facillties directly and 

substantially related to providing air transportation as are applicable to all sucb air carriers which make 

similar use of such airport and which utilize similar !acilities, subject to reasonable claMili<ations aucb. 

as tenants ot nontenants and sig:uatory curiers and non-signatory curiers. Classification or status a.s ten~"\ or signatory shall .wt be u.tu·e.a.,,nSihly withheld by any airport provided an air carrier assumes 

obligations substantially similar to.thoso already irnposed on air carriers io such classifications ot 

statns. 

L lt will not e."<Crcise or grant any right or privilege wbicb operate.• to prevent any person, frrm, or 

<.nf1>0mtion operatine aircraft on the airport from porforrniD$; any oervices on its own aircraft with its 

own employees (iDdudlng, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and fueliog) that it rnoy chuosc tu 

perform. 

!:'age'/ of 11 

3187256849 1'14/87/88 1£.:43 Pg: 17 
04/07/2008 13:05 3107256849 FAA LAX ADO 

. . 

Fax froM 

PAGE 18 

g. In the event the sponsor itself exercises any of the rights !llld privileges referred tu U. thls 

assurance, the services involved will be provided on the same conditioru; as would apPly to the 

furnishings of such ~t;.rvlc~'\ by cotU.r~~tors or ctJnl':~~::~ionaires of the sponsor under these provisionz. 

h. The sponsor may establish such fair, equal, and not unjustly discriminatory conditions to be met by 

all users of the airpOTt as may be necessary for tbe oale and cffloi<IJJ.t op~ratiou of the airport_ 

i. The spoD!lor may prohibit nr limit any giv,:n typo, kind, or class of aeronautical use of the airport 

i£ such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to servo the civl1 aviatiu.u 

needs of the public. 

23. Exclusive Rights. It will permit no exclusive right for tbe uoc of the airport by !IllY persons proViding, 

n. intendin~ to provide, aeronautical services to the publio. Fot purposes of this p..-agrapb, the providing 

of services at an airport by a single lixf:d-bw;ed operator shall not bo .:on.:;tn>od aa "" <o<cludve .-ight ii 

both of the foUowing apply: 

a. It would be unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical for more than one fued·bascd 

operator to provide s71-ch servic.es, and 

b. If all<:JWing more tban one fixed-based aperator to provide ,uoh services would require lhe 

reductions o£ space leased pursuant to .ai1. ~ting agreement 'between Sllc.b. single-based operator and 

such aitport. · 

It fw:thcr agrcco lhet it will no~ oither directly or indirectly, Jll'anl or permit aoy person, firm or 

corporation the e:<clusive right at the airport, or at any other airport now owned or controlled by it, to 

conduct any aeronautical activities, inclndwg, but not limited to ch..-tcr flights, pilot training. aircraft 

reDtal and sightseeio~ aerial photography, t;.~-op du8tia.g. tleria.l advertising 2!'rl .,.urveying. air carrier 

operations, aircraft sales and services, sale of aviation petroleum products whether or not conducted in 

eoajUXlction mth ~ther aeronautical activity, repair and maintenance of aircraft, sale of aircraft parts, and 

any other activities which because of their direct relationship to the operation of aircr.rt can be rcgorded 

as an aeronautical activity, and that it will terminate any o:xdusive right to conduct an aeronautical activity 

now eldsting at such "" airport ®fore tb• grant of ony •~•i•t•nce nuder the Airport and Ai.Jway 

Improvement Act of 1982. 

24. Fee nod Rental Structure.. It 'Will n'taintain a fee and renLal ;,tructu:re <:onlli::J.tent with M~1.1r~nce 22 and 

23, lor the facilities and services being .Provided the airport users which will make the airport as self-

>u>taluing •• po53ible w:u!M ~ d.r<urn.•t•nces c>isting at the particular airport, taking into account such 

factor> a. the volumo of ttaffic and economy of colkctioiL No part of the Ft:deral share of an airport 

development, airport plan:ning or noise compatibility project for wbich a graot is mado1111der the Airport 

and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, lbe I'ederal Airport Acto< the Ajrport and Airway Development 

Act of 1970 shall be included in the rate base in establishing feeo, rates, and charges for users of that 

airport. 

25. Airport Re .. nu._ If the airport is under. the control of a public agency, all revenues generated by the 

airport and any lrn:al = on a.;atioo. fuel e<t>bUobe<l •fter DeCOIDber 30, 1987, will be apended by it for 

the capital or operating costs of the airport; the local airport system; at other 10<:01 facilities wbic~ are 

QWlled or operated by the owner or operated by the owner or operator of the airport and directly and 

subotantiaUy related to the actual a1r transportation of P"''""'l!"'" or praporty; or fa.- noi!t\ mitigation 

purposes on or off the airport. Provided, however, that if covenants or assurances in debt obllgatioos 

losucd before September 3, l~. by the owner or operator of the airport, or provisions euaaed before 

September 3, 1982, in goverciug •tatutc controlling the owner or operator's financing. provide fuf tho rue 

of the revenues from any o.fthe airport owner or op.,rator's facilities, including tbe airport, to support not 

only the airport but also tlle aiipurt vwncr or opc,.ator's genlllral <icbt obligations or other fadl.ities, then 

this limitation on the use of aU revenues genetatcd by the llirport (and, in the case of the public ailJ>ort, 

local taxes on aviation fucl) shaU not apPly. 

Page 8 of 11 

3107256849 04/07/BB Pg: 18 
B4!07!20BB 13:05 3107255849 FAA LAX ADO PAGE 19 

Fax fro111 

21t Reports and lu:spections. It will submit co Lb~ &\.;J:ctary such oll.J3nual or apceiol fi~cid und 

operations reports as the Secretary way rellSoWJbly request. A report of the Airport budget Wl"U be 

available to the public at reasonable times and places. For airport devt:lopment projects, it will also make 

the airport and all airport records and documents affecting the airport, including deeds, leases, operation 

and use agree.ments, regulations and other instruments, available for inspection by any duly authorized 

agent of th~ S<lcrctaty u~ou rca:>Oll•blc rcquoot. For noloo eom,patibility program prnjects, it will also make 

records and doCWJJents relating to the project and continued compliance with terms, conditions, and 

assurances of the graot agreement including deeds, leases, agreements, regulations, and other instrunlents, 

available for in..<pection by any duly authoril!fld agent of the Secretary upon reasonable req •~•t. 

l7. U•• of GoVP.rnm•nt Alrcran. lt will make available all of the fu.cilitics of the airport developed with 

Federal financial assiStance and all those usable far landing and takeoff of aireraft to the United States fQr 

use by Government aircraft in common with other aireraft at all times without charge, except, if the usc 

by Government airaafl is sul.Jsht.utiat, cb.Mgc :may be xno.d6 for a r¢:.\.SOnable sh:a.re., propottlonal tn such 

usc, for t.he cost of operating and maintaining the facilities used. Unless otherwise determined by the 

Secretary, or otherwise agreed to by the spon.<or and the using agency, substantial use of an airport by 

GovcrDillent aircraft will be consid~red to exist when operations of such aircraft are in exce5s oC lh~ 

which, in the opinion of the Secretary, would unduly interfere with use of the landing areas by other 

~uthorized :Vr,raft, cr durms •ny <:>Iendar month tbat" 

a. Five (5) or more Government aircraft are regularly based at the airport or on land adjacent 

thereto; or ~ · 

b. The total number of movements (counting each landing as a mo•cment) of Goverwnent aircraft is 

300 or more, or the gross aceumulative weight of Govemment wrcraft using the 

airport (the total movements of Government aircraft multiplied by gross weights of such aircraft) is in 

~ oC five million pounds. 

18. Land for Federal Fa<IUties. It will furnish without cost to the Federal Government for use in 

connection with any air traffic control or air na'rigatlon acti:viUc:s, or w~r-I"cpcttillg and eommuoi«~.tion 

activities related to air traffic control, any areas of land or water, or estate therein, or rights in buildings 

of the sponsor as the Secretary cqnsiders necessary or desirable for construction, operation, and 

maintenance at Federal expense of space or focilities fur such purposes. Such areas or any portion tllereof 

will be made availAble as provided herein within four months after .receipt of a written request from the 

Secretary. 

29. Airport Layout l'!lUI 

a. lt will keep up to date at all times an airport layout plan of the airport showing (1) boundari.es of 

airport and all proposed additions thereto, together with the boundarie• of all offsite areas ()Wiled or 

-controlled by the sponsor for airport purposes and proposed additions thereto; (2) the location and 

nature of aU oxioting and proposed airport facilities and structures (such as runways, taxiways, aprons, 

terminal bulliling., haugan; iiDd roads), iDcluding all proposed extensio.,. a.nd rodnc.tinn.< of existing 

airport faCllitics; and (3) the location of all existing and proposed nonaviation areas and of all existing 

improvements ther~on. Such airport layout ~Jan and each amendment, revision, or modification 

thereof, shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary which approval sball be evidenced by !.he 

sigoature of a duly authorized representative of the Secretary on the face of the airport layout plan. 

Tho, 3pot150r will not :make or perntit any chang('_<;, or ;~lteration5 in the airport or in any of its facilities 

which are not in conformity with the airport layout plan as approved by the Secretary and which 

might, in the opinion of the Secretary, adversely affect the safety, utility, or efficiency of the airport. 

b. If a clumge or alteration in lhe· airport or its facilities is made which the Secretary determines 

~dmr<~ly affect• the s'lfety, utility, or efficiency of any federally owned, leased, or funded property on 

or off the airport and which is not in conformity witb the airport layout plan as approved by the 

Secretary, the owner or operator will, if reque•ted by the Secretary (1) eliminate such adverse effect in 

a ;uotu.u.er apprcrvcd by the:. Sc.actnry; Of' (2) bear :ill costs of :reloc.ati.:og SU('.h pmpe:rty (or replacement 

thereof) to a site acceptable to the Secretary and all costs of restoring such property (or replacement 

P•ge 9 of 11 

31!1725&849 Pg: 19 
04/07/2008 13:05 3107256849 FAA LAX ADO 

' . 

Fax frof!l 

F'AGE 20 

tbc.reot) to the level of safety, utility, emctc:~, a.nU ~ost qf opcru,tion elri&ting. before the 111t~:rproved 

change in the au-port or its facilities. 

30. CivU Rigltt!i. It will comply with such rules as are promulgated to asl!Ute that no po•ooo shall, on the 

ground$ of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, or handicap be e~uded from participating in any 

activity conducted wjiJl or bcucfiting fro.w funds received from this grant. This assurance obligates the 

sponsor for the period duriDg which Federal financial assistance is extended to the program, e~cept where 

Federal financial assistance is to provide, or io in the form of personal property or real property or interest 

therein or structures or impravem.~;nts thereon, in which case the;: .a$Surancc. obligntC$ the 6ponso.r or any 

transferee for the longer of the foUowing periods: (a) the period during which the property is used for a 

purpcoe for whlclt Fe.dr.r"l financial assistance is extended, or for another purpose inYOlvmg the provision 

of similar services or benefits or (b) the period during which the·sponsor retains ownership or po...,cs.sion u( 

the propetty. 

31. Disposal or Lund. 

a. For land purchased under a g•ant for airport noise cOlllpadbiUcy purpv>cs, lt will, when the land is 

no longer needed for such purposes, di<por.e of such land at fair market value at the earliest practicable 

time. 'l'h.o.t portio" of the pro~'""' of such disposition which is proportionate to the United States 

share of ae<jui&itiou of such land will, at the discretion of the Secretary, (1) be paid to the liecretllry for 

deposit in tho Trust Fund, or (2) be reinvested in an approved noise compatibility project as prescribed 

by the Seerctary. : 

h. (1) For land purchased under a grant for airport development (othet than noise compatibility) 

purposes, it will, when the land is no longer needed lor airport purpoS£5, <lllipo>e o£ ouch bnd nt foir 

market value or make available to the Secret:uy an amoun.t equal to the United Slates proportionate 

ohoro of the fair markot value <>f the land. That portion of the proceeds of such disposition, wbicb is 

proportionate to tb.e United Stareo share of the cost of acquisition of such land will, (a) upon 

application to the Secretary, be <einvested in another eligible ai,-port improvement project or projects 

approved by the Secretary at that airp01~ or within tho national :riq>ort &yste.m, or (b) be paid to the 

Secretary for deposit in the TnLSt Fund if no such eligible project' exists. 

(2) Land shall be considered to be needed for airport pW'pOses nuder this .,,~rauc~ i£ (a) it mny 

be needed fur aeronautical purpoi<'S (iucluding runway protection zone) or serves as noise bulier land, 

aud (b) the rcvcnuo from mtcrim uses ol '"<h lAnd contribotcs to the finandalself-sufficiency of the 

airport. Further, !WJd purchased with a grant received by an airport operator or owner before 

December 31, 1987, will be considered to be needed for airport purposes if the Secretary or the 

Federal agenq making such grant before December 31, 1987, wa> notified by tho operator or owMr nf 

the use of such land, did not object to such use, and the land continues to be used for that purpose, 

•uch ru;e having commenced not later than December 15, 1989. 

c. Disposition of such land under (a) or (b) will be subject to the retention or reservation of any 

interest or right therein necessary to =u<= tbat ouob. land w.1l only be used for purposes which are 

compatlblo with noise levels associated with the operation of the ai,-port. 

3l. Engineering and Design Servl.,.s. It will award each <ontract, or sub-contract fur v•·ogran>. 

management, construction management, planning •tudios, feaS1billty studios, architectural oerviccs, 

prdimin:uy ""gin~ering, de$ign, engineeri.ne, <nrveying, mapping. or related services with respect to the 

project in the same manner as a contract fo.r architectural and engineering services is negotiated under 

title IX of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 or an eqWvalent quallf\cationsbased re<Jniremcnt prescribed for or by the spQil!lor ot tbe ailpml. 

33. Forol!P' 1\:lslrkct Restriction•. lt will not allow fnndS pro'l'ided under this g<311t to be used to fund aJJ.Y 

project which uses allJ' product or $ervice of a foreign country during the period in which s11dl foreign 

country is listed by the United State.< Trade ll.cpresentative as denying fair and equitable market 

opportunitlc., tor product$ and :sup!Jllcr:; of the: United Stat0c in procurement anrJ ~nn!'ttruction. 

l'agc 10 of 11 

3187256849 84/87/88 16:45 Pg: ZB 
04/07/2008 13:05 3107255849 FAA LAX ADO PAGE 21 

Fax frol'l'l 

34. Polici•s, Standards, and Specifications. It will catty out the project m accOTdanco with poUcics, 

standards, and specifications approved by the Secretary including but not limited to the advisory circulars 

listed in th, Current FA A Advi•ory r.irculors for AlP Projects, dated J.une I. 1924 and included in tlris 

grant, and in accordance with applicable state policieo, standards, and specifications approved by the 

Secretary. 

35. Relncar;on and Real Property Acquisition. (1) It will be guided in acquiring real property, to the 

greatest rotten! practicable under State law, by the land acquisition policies in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 24 

and will pay or reimburse property OW!lers for necessary expenses as specified in Subpart B. (2) It will 

provide a relocation assistance program offering the services des&ihed in Subpart C and fair and 

n:asooablc relocation paymCDts and G:::l=)i!lto.nc.e to dkpla,ced persons u required in Subp~J'1:1; n ""d E of 49 

CFR Part 24. (3) It will make available within a reasonable period of time prior to dlsplacement 

com parable replacement dwellings to displaced pen; om; in accordance with Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 24. 

36. Drug·Free Workplace. It will provide a d>:ug-ftee workplace at the site of Vl<lrk specified in the 

!!"'"'' appll•JO<inn in accordance with 49 CF.R Part 29 by (1) publis~ a statement notifying its employcc:s 

that the Ulllawful manufacture, distnbution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is 

prolubitcd in the sponsor's WO>"kplaee and specifying the actions that will be taken against its employees for 

violaliou uf •uch proluoitions; (2) c:.mbJi.bing a <~rug.froe o.wn:ren.,.. program to in{., tts employc!!S 

about the dangers of dJ:ug abwe in the workplace and any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and 

employe<:~~ assistance programs; (3) notifying the FAA within ten (10) days after recei>ing notice of an 

employee ~l.nal drug staMe conviction for a violation occuning in the workplace; and (4) maldng a 

good faith effort to mainWII a drug-free workplace. 

Page 11 of 11 

31117256849 114/117/IIB Pg: 21 
04/07/2008 13:05 

' • 

. Nt 

-lH 

drG1&2 

I' :1/5100-1<1( 

150} 

1501 

150; ~??fl-14A 

150,'5220-16A 

150{52:20-19 

aia1 

. Cl-lGl 

150, 

, "'"'. rncl&.2 

150/.'i".?i1-I?R 

150/5320-14 

~61&2 

cl:h1 

Fax frol'tl 311!7256849 

. 

3107255849 FAA LAX ADO 

CURRENT FAA ADVISORY CIRCULARS FOR AIP PROJECI'S 

Effective Date: 6/l/94 

and Lighting 

and ~ CorumltiW.t 

Grant 

, and 1 l<>htl .... 

• F'<re and l1. .. eue 

:Used on an. 

· F'1rc and 

:& .~ ... .:. 

· r.... : F~te and Rescue 

,for 

Wlltct Su!>lllv . Guide for Wmr/Foam 'lyPe Ai<craft Reoeue <~Y~d Flr<"lighting 

,sensor. 

: Fu:e 313d Rescue 

: :Rcoouc 

oGuide 

oGuide 

:for 

' of ~, SllOW and lee r,.,ntrnl 

Guide. 

. 'for Lifts Used to I Airline • With 

Airport Design 

Deshm of · n.;..;, 

U•e ~for 'n, .;, :Grm>t, 

A 

Aiiport Pavement Design and E'laluati011 

Coru:trudioo, and MainterlaJlce of Skid Resistant Airport 

Runway Length Requirem01ll6 for Airport Design 

:for Aimnrl 

Wstallation Details fur RunW11y Touchdown Zom:; l.l<>h,;.., Systems 

I Circle. • 1•, Marker System 

Economy Approach I i<>hNn~ Aids ~ 

, Power for A ;,..,rt 

for Airport Sign Systems 

,• 

1!4/1!7 /I!B 16 :45 

PAGE 22 

Pg: 22 
04/07/2008 13:05 3107255849 FAA LAX ADO PAGE 23 

150 5340-19 Taxiwav Centerline' ·~•.: S1'5tem 

150 5340-21 Airoort MisceUaneoos u.ilitin~ Visual Aids 

150 5340-238 ::>uoolemental W"!ll<l Cones 

150/5:340-24 Runway and T.OOway Edge Lig!J.ting System 

CHGl 

150 5340-27A Air·to-GroWld Radio Control of AiroortTiaht;~., S1'5tems 

150 5345-30 Soecifieation for L821 Panels lor Remote Control of Aimort Lirlltin1< 

150 534~C.)A Circuit SCl.:a:or Switch 

150/5345-70 Specificatiou for U!24 Underground Electrical ~!e for Airport Lighting 

CI'IG1 ~' ' . -- . 

150/5345-10£ Specification for cOn.•tant Current Rt:R)t]ators Rerodator Mo!Utors 

1S0/5345-12C S.,..,dfi,..tion for Aimort and Helioort BeactJn 

150/5345-13A ::>~!ion for J-841 AU>iliary Relay Cabinet A.1:1ombly for Pik>t Control of 

Airnort Liohtiru>: Circuits 

150/5345-?<;B Spcci6cation for Lll23 Plug and Receptacle, Cable Conneotorn 

CHG 1&.2 

150 /5345-Z?C Soecilkation for Wmd Cone Assemblic:J 

150/2'15·Z8D · ~:"recision Approach Path ladk:ttO< (:1' API) S)"'tem< 

CHG1 

150/5345-398 FAA Soec:ifieati011 LSS3, Runway and Taltiway CentC,.Jinc Rctro<cllcd:ive 

CHG1. Marlcets 

150/5:345~ Specification for Airport Light Bases, Transfonner Housings, Junction B<>xcs 

CHOl ud .A.c:ccO!Iorieo 

150/5345-430 Suecifieation for Obstruction : "'luioment 

150/534;H4~ Soecili<:ation for Ta:xiwav and Runwav Sill:llS 

150 5345-45A J- - t Aooroacll LWit Structure 

1SO 5345-46A Snedli<:ation for Runwav and T axiwav LW!t Fcttures 

150 5345-47A Isolation Trllll>ifOI mas for Ak!>ort ' -•" ' ~SvstettJS 

150 5345-49A Sllcc:ification L854 Radio Cootrol Eouioment 

150/534~,.'1() Specification for- Portable Runway Lights 

CHGl 

150/5345·51 Specification for Di$charger Type Flasher Equipment 

CHGl 

150/5345-52 Generic V'ISual Glidcslooe Indicators (GVGI) 

150/5360-9 Plannin• and Pesil1ll. of Airoort Tell!ll!!al Facilities at NouHub Locatious 

150/5360·12 Airoort SiM.iD£ & Graphics 

150 /536()..13 Planning and Design Guidance for Airpo~ Tenninal Facilities 

CHGl 

l5QL5370-2C OllCtlltional Saf<;~Y. on Airoorts Durin• Construction 

150/5370-68 f'.nn<lrtlction Provre.-.. and Insoection Report~rt Grant PrOlll'am 

150/5370-lOA Standards for Specitying Construction of Airports 

CHG 1, Z, 3, 4, 5, 6, 

7 

150/5370-11 Usc of Nondestructive Testing Devices in the Evaluation of Airport Pavements 

C:::HGl 

150.15370-12 Quali!Y Control of Construction for Airoort Grant Proiecls 

l50/5390-2A Hetioort DcsiiZ!l 

150/j390-3 Vcrtiport Desil!,n 

Fax fr-orr. 31117256849 Pg: 23 
' ll4/07/201l8 13:65 3107256849 FAA LAX ADO PAGE 84 

U.S. Department 

of Tre~nspurtation 

Federal Aviation 

Admlniall'l!1lon 

f'ago 1 of 2. Pogoo 

Contract No, DTF ADB-94-C-20857 

Santa Monica Airport · 

Santa Monica, California 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO GRANT AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT NO. 3-06-<l23!t-()6 

WHEREAG~ the f'ederBJ Avimion /\dm1niatrat!on (h~reinsfter rBf9rTf.'lr1 tn as the "FAA .. } has d$term!ned lt to be In the 

· ' Interest of !he Unibod States that the Grant Agreement between the F M, acting for and on behalf of the United 

States, and the city of Santa Monica, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Sponsor"), accepted by said Sponsor on the 6th 

day at June, 1994, be amended a$ nereinaftsr provldod. 

Fax froM 

NOW I Ht:f<EFORE, WITNeSSETH: 

That In consideration of the beneflts to accrue lo the parties hereto, the FM on behalf ofthe'\Jnltad States, on the 

one part, and the Sponsor, on the other part, co hereoy mutually agree u,.,t .,.;d Grant Agreement b<l and lc noreby 

amended as fellows: 

Delete the airport de'lelopment described on page ana and substituts in lieu thereof the rollowing d""cribed 

airport development. · 

Pava infield areas; install runway distance remaining sigM $nd guidance sJgns and tlush. mounted 

ta>dway lights; seal and mark north and south parallel taxiways; construct blast walls .Phasa 11: install 

PorimQt;Qr fQnee. JncfOOino o~tA.e;.; mhabirrtate north and south aircraft tledown areas; rehablfttate alrt:taft 

tiedown areas adj~nt to Taxiway B. 

. ' . ' 

IN WITNESS WHEREO~, the parties here!D have oaused this Amendment to said Grant Agreement to be duly 

exee<obld as of the 8th day of·...JiQYember , 1999. 

UNl'fEO STATES OF Al\IIERICA 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION ' 

3187256849 B4/B7/B8 16:38 Pg: 4 
04/07/2088 13:85 3187256849 FAA LAX ADO PAGE 85 

Fax fro"' 

TiHe: City Manager 

(SEAL) 

A=ll• e·~g,, Q!Py=-~ 

Iilla: City Clerk 

CERTIFICATE OF SPONSOR'S ATIORNEY 

Page 2 of 2 Page$ 

Project No. 3·0tHl239·06 

C<Jntract No. OTF AOS-94-C-20857 

City of:_Santa Monjca 

{Name of Sponsor) 

1. Marsha Jones Moutrie 

the "Sponsor") do ~ereby certify: 

, acting as Attorney for the city of Santa Monica, (hereinafter referred to as 

That 1 have examined the foregoing Amendment to lhe Grant Agreernt~nl and the proQ!odlng:t "taken by itlo 

Sponsor reletlng thereto, and finding the ••ecutlon thereof by said Spon•or has. been duly allll1or1zed and is In all 

nospects due arid proper and In acwrdance with the law. of the State of Califomla, end fUrther that, in my opinion. 

said Amendment to Grant Agreement consfltutes a legal and binding Obligation Of me Sponsor In au"-ur<lance with 

the terms thereof. · 

Dated at Santa Monjca , this 8th day of November ,1999. 

By: --I-[Y]l..jJ-(.tl)._J~~Li,...,~~!AM.,_"'-"Jd:£..JhL...!.,~~rtL'-"'{.~~~-c........· 

11He:_......:C"-'ic..::t:.Ly_,A~t:..!t~o:!.r~neyr.._ ________ _ 

318725&849 1&:39 Pg: 5 
04(07!2008 13:05 

U.S. Department 

ofTransportation 

·Federal Aviation 

Administration 

3107256849 FAA LAX ADO PAGE 82 

Page 1 of 2 Pages 

Contrnct No. OTFAOR-94-C-20857 

Santa Monica Airport/Planning Nea 

Santa Mon'lca, California 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO GRANT AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT NO. NO. 3-Q6·0239-o6 

WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administra.tion (hereinafter referred to as the "FAA") has determined it to be in the 

Interest Of the United States that the Grant Agreement between the FAA, acting for and on behalf of the United 

States, and the city of Santa Monica, (hereinafter referred to as the "Sponsor"), accepted by said Sponsor on tho 

29th day of June, 1994, be amended in conformance With Sponsor's letter dated September 27, 2002. 

NOW THEREFORE, WITNESSETH: 

Tl1at In con•ideratlon of the benefits to .accrue to th'" parties hereto, the FAA on beha~ of the United States, on the 

one part, and the Sponsor, on the other part, do hereby mutually agree that said Grant Agreement be and Is hereby 

amended as follows: 

The maximum obligation stated on page 2, condition 1, is hereby increased by $240,600.00, 

from $1,604.700.00 to $1,845,300.00. · 

All other tenms and conditions of the Grant Agreement remain in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to said Grant Agreement to be duly 

executed as ot the 2 7 d~;y of August, 2000. 

Fax frotr~ 31B725&849 

UNITED STATES OF AMe"JCA 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION 

Supervisor, 

JJ~~~ Standards Section 

B4/ll7/BB 1&:38 Pg: 2 
(SEAL) 

Titlo: CiS-y CJs=-rk 

By: 

Title: 

rAA LAX ADO PAGE 03 

page 2 of 2 Pages 

Contract No. DTFAOB-94-C-20857 

Santa Monica Airport/Planning Area 

SOJnta Monica, Callfcmha 

City Manager 

CERTlFlCATE OF SPONSOR'S ATTORNEY 

I, Marsha Jones Moutr ie , acting as Attorney for the Sponsor do hereby certify: 

That I have examined the foregoing Amendment to the Grant Agreement and the proceedings take~ by the 

Sponsor relating tl1crclo, 3Md liqding ths execution thereof by said Sponsor h•~ bQen duly authorize~ and rs .rn all 

respects due and proper and in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and further that, rn my oprnr~n. 

said Amendment to Grant Agreement constitutes a legal and binding obligation of the Sponsor in accordance Wllh 

the terms tnereat. 

Dated at Santa Monica , this 27th day of _ _;A:=u.:.g.;:.u:.:s:.:t::._ __ ,2003. 

By: 

Fax from 3lll7ZS6B4'3 

l'g: 3 
State of California 

County of Los Angeles 

City of Santa Monica 

I, Vernice Hankins, Staff Assistant to the City Clerk of the City of 

Santa Monica, do hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and 

belief the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Staff Report Item 8-A 

(Santa Monica Leasing Guidelines) from the August 12, 2014 City Council 

meeting, which is on file in the City Clerk's Department, and that I have 

carefully compared the same with the original. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 

the seal of the City of Santa Monica, this 131

h day of August, 2014. 

Vernice Hankins 

Staff Assistant Ill, City Clerk's dffice 

City of Santa Monica 
e_. 

~ City.of 

Santa Monica .. 

To: Mayor and City Council 

City Council Report 

City Council Meeting: August 12, 2014 

Agenda Item: S~A 

. From: Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works/Airport Director 

' 

Subject: Santa Monica Airport Leasing Guidelines 

Recommended Action 

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Leasing Guidelines for the 

leasehold and license management of properties at the Santa Monica Airport (Airport or 

SMO). 

Executive Summary 

The Santa Monica Airport Leasing Guidelines (SMO Leasing Guidelines) set forth the 

. general policy objectives and practices for leasing and licensing for all properties 

currently situated at the Airport. The parameters provided are intended to promote 

standardized, equitable, efficient, and transparent management of the tenant 

recruitment, selection, and negotiation process, as well as identify the standards of 

performance that are expected of the Airport tenants. If Council ·approves these 

proposed guidelines, staff will administer them and approve le~ses that are consistent 

with them; leases not conforming to the proposed guidelines would require Council 

approval. · 

These guidelines were formulated based on: Council's direction to staff at its meeting on 

March 25, 2014; the legal obligations and legal constraints presently associated with the 

Airport land and its uses; environmental and remediation requirements; concerns about 

compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods; and the viability of the Airport Fund to 

remain independent from General Fund subsidies. 

Background 

Santa Monica Airport is located on 227 acres, closely surrounded by single-family 

residential neighborhoods. The Airport consists of 187 acres of land currently 

designated and used for aviation activities and 40 acres currently . used for other 

purposes compatible with airport activities. As of the date of these guidelines the 

Airport facilities are comprised of approximately 114 non-aviation and 11 aviation leases 

. as well as 186 license agreements for airplane hangars and aircraft parking areas (tiedowns). 

1 
The current Non-Aviation Airport Property leasing guidelines were approved by Council 

at its December 5, 2000 meeting. A majOr objective of those leasing guidelines was to 

provide leasing opportunities for the local arts community, which was being forced out of 

the City by new development and rising land values. Through the years artists have 

occupied various spaces at the Airport. 

In recent years the City undertook an extensive visioning process for the future of the 

Airport property. Among other things, that process was intended to identify any 

opportunities for the Airport's future, short of closure,. that would be more compatible 

with surrounding neighborhoods and to identifY improvements to the infrastructure that 

might benefit the community. 

Most recently, at the March 25, 2014 meeting Council provided direction to staff that, 

. upon expiration, current leases may be renewed for three years with unlimited one-year 

renewals at the City's option. The direction to staff was to develop leasing guidelines 

sensitive to the environment, to neighbors' concerns and to remediation needs; and, 

once adopted, to apply the guidelines in assessing applications for lease renewals. 

Council also directed staff to consider the former Light Manufacturing and Studio District 

zoning standards as a model and to evaluate options regarding fuel sales at the Airport. 

Presently, use of the non-aviation Airport property is diverse and comprised of a 

. museum, technical offices, artist day studios, educational facilities,. contractor facilities, 

architectural offices, law offices, film related businesses, and general office space. 

Aviation use leases include flight schools, aviation service providers, hangars, and 

'Fixed Based Operators (FBOs). 

All Airport leases will expire on or before June 30, 2015. Staff from various City 

departments collaborated in engaging a qualified appraiser and auditors to establish 

future lease rates that will be applied to all new leases on the Airport in 2015. Prior to 

negotiating new leases with existing tenants staff will ensure that the tenants have met 

their obligations under their current lease agreements. 

2 
Discussion 

The proposed Guidelines contain new policies and practices for leasing and licensing of 

Airport properties (Attachment A). They would supersede the current guidelines and 

become effective upon the date of Council's adoption. 

The Guidelines identify programs that mitigate, as much as possible, environmental 

impacts to the community, and maintain the viability of the Airport Fund independent 

from General Fund subsidies while the legal constraints on the City's authority to control 

the Airport and Airport usage is resolved. 

The new Guidelines have been developed with the following objectives: 

1. Establish practices and procedures for evaluating potential leasehold interests, 

and for lease management and administration. 

2. Foster uses and practices that are sensitive to the environment and protect the 

he~lth of Airport neighbors and users and protect the City from future 

environmental exposure. · 

3. Maintain compatibility of uses of non-aviation airport property with Santa Monica 

Airport operations and, consistent with applicable law, promote use of the 

aviation property in a manner compatible with the adjacent residential 

community. · · 

4. Continue to provide opportunities for arts, education, and culture, including, but 

not limited to, the Artist Space Program administered in conjunction with Cultural 

Affairs Division. 

5. Serve as the framework for achieving and maintaining a viable, sustainable 

Airport Fund that is independent from the General Fund ant;! other subsidies. 

6. Incorporate within these Guidelines the City's rights, legal obligations and legal 

constraints that relate to the Airport, the aviation leases and the use of the 

Airport. 

To ensure that the leasing program achieves its objectives it shall be managed in a 

manner consistent with the following standards: 

1. Term: The lease term may be month-to-month, or year-to-year for up to threeyears. However, the initial term of leases approved under these guidelines shall 

expire by June .30, 2018. After that date,. annual renewals may be granted 

pursuant to these guidelines at City's discretion. Leases longer than three years 

3 
are outside the purview of these guidelines and therefore require Council 

approval. 

2. Allowable Uses: To the extent allowed by law, uses would be aviation, 

arts/cultural, creative space, professional, theaters, museum, educational, 

professional offices and other uses that are low intensity and serve the adjacent 

community while implementing standards that are sensitive to the environment. 

3. Environmental Responsibility:· New lessee. requests shall be reviewed to 

assess potential negative effects on the environment. The Airport may require 

environmental-studies or testing as appropriate and necessary, and any needed 

remediation shall be peiformed prior to establishment of new uses. · . Lessees 

seeking renewal or extended leases will also be responsible for any 

environmental contamination, resulting from their prior use, as a condition to a 

renewed or extended lease. At the time of the application, an assessment of the . 

proposed use will be conducted, and appropriate insurance and/or remediation 

requirements will be incorporated into the lease based on proposed usage. 

4. Right of Refusal: The Airport may refuse a lease application if it determines that 

the proposed use may create a high intensity use and/or expose the City to 

additional environmental exposure, or otherwise poses an unacceptable potential 

for harm to the public health and welfare or the environment. 

The majority of the Airport revenue is derived from leases. To help support the Airport's 

fiscal self-sufficiency, all rents, fees, and charges on the Airport must reflect fair market 

·value for both aviation and non-aviation properties .. Fair market rents for individual 

buildings on non-aviation airport properties and prevailing market rents for aviation 

properties will be appraised in the as-is condition quantified in the spring 2014 

appraisal. Rental rates for new or renewed leases of airport properties will be set as · 

follows: 

1. Rates: All new and renewed leases will be leased at Market Rate based on the 

appraisal commissioned by the City in 2014. The initial lease rates will be 

adjusted by the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to stay accurate with 

market conditions as new/renewed leases arise. 

2. Renewals: For tenants who have three year leases, and who wish to be 

considered for lease extensions, would need to contact City staff in writing, no 

more than one year or less than 60 days before the lease terminates, to request 

th!3 one-year lease extension. The City at its own discretion will approve or 

disapprove the one year extension for that year or any year thereafter. 

3. Percentage Rent Provision: In addition to a base rent, the City may elect to 

require that certain leases include a percentage rent provision, which can be 

differentiated by categories of sales. The City, as Landlord, shall have the right to 

4 
audit tenant's financial records to ascertain that the gross sales figures reported 

by the tenant are accurate. · 

4. Existing Tenants: All existing airport tenants in good standing that are current in 

rent payments, not otherwise in default of their current agreements, and agree to 

abide by the rules of the Airport as stipulated in Section 5 "Performance 

Standards" of the guidelines, will be offered the opportunity to retain use and 

occupancy of their currently leased premises subject to the "Term" provisions .. 

5. Whole Building Leases: Whole building leases may, at the City's d,iscretion, be 

subject to public Requests for Proposals intended to optimize leasehold 

occupancy and the self-sustainability of the airport 

6. Sub-Leases: Assignment or subletting of leases or spac~ sharing is prohibited 

without the written consent of the City, and granting or withholding ·consent will 

be conditioned on express standards and conditions set forth in the lease. · 

7. Lease and License Areas: Operation and improvements to lease and license 

areas are subject to the City's standard regulatory rules, review and approval 

process. 

8. Triple Net Leases: Unless otherwise specified, tenants shall pay all property 

taxes and assessments (including Possessory Interest Tax), insurance, and 

utilities. · 

9. Commercial Operations Permit (COP): Prospective tenants proposing to use 

the Santa Monica Airport to engage in an activity that requires a business license 

from the City, are required to acquire a commercial operations permit issued by 

the City Manager. All COPs will be presented to the Airport Commission for their 

recommendation and comment prior to City Manager's approval. 

10.Annual Adjustments: All leases will be subject to annual CPI adjustment on 

their anniversary month. 

11.Appraisals: Properties will be appraised for fair market rental rates at three year 

intervals. 

Independence from General Fund Subsidies 

All Airport leases expire on or before June 30, 2015. Whatever the Airport's future, it is 

a City asset used by members of the public. And, to support its core public services, it 

must be self-sustaining as an enterprise and not dependent upon alternate funding. 

·Given that the Airport's future is presently unknown and that it may take years until the 

City's -legal authority is clarified by the courts, lease revenues at the Airport must be 

·maintained to promote the Airport's ongoing self-sufficiency, avoid future subsidies from 

5 
the General Fund, and repay the General Fund, which has historically subsidized the 

Airport. 

General Fund subsidies, as of June 30, 2013, reached $13.6 million. In contrast, during 

fiscal year 2013-14, the Airport Fund remained free of additional General Fund 

subsidies due in part to the adoption of the new landing fee structure that became 

effective August 1, 2013. 

Leasing is the Airport Fund's main revenue source. Revenue from current leases 

comprises approximately 63% of total Airport revenues, which is the largest component 

of the Airport Fund. The percentage of lease revenue contributing to the Airport Fund's 

total revenue will increase after July 1, · 2015 with the addition of properties that will 

revert back ,to the City of Santa Monica. Atlantic Aviation and Gunnell Properties 

manage two of these properties. Both are located on Donald Douglas Loop North and 

were established under.a 30 year development agreement, which currently provides a 

land lease rental rate to the Airport. As the development agreements expire, the lease 

revenue for these properties will significantly increase as a result. of new rental 

agreements with prospective tenants, whiCh include improvements on the properties. 

Use of Low Intensity Zoning Regulations 

Council Suggested the use of the former Light Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD) 

zoning standard as a model for the Guidelines. Some community members and the 

Airport Commission recommended LMSD as a Viable solution in drafting the Airport's 

guidelines with the belief that LMSD satisfies the current federal obligations for the 

Airport. However, staff has significant concerns about the legality of this approach. 

LMSD's only permitted aviation use is for aircraft parts other than engines. Staff doubts 

that this sole aviation use will satisfy the City's current federal obligations. Nonetheless, 

the former LMSD standards may be useful, later, for planning future use of the Airport 

land. 

6 
Environmental Concerns and Impacts on the Community 

At Council's direction to evaluate options regarding fuel sales at the Airport, staff has 

been in contact with major fuel providers to find alternative solutions to current aviation 

fuels available throughout· the aviation industry today capable of reducing the 

environmental impact to the community. Although some community members believe 

that the City can cease allowing the sale of fuel altogether, it is staff's opinion that such 

actio,n would most likely lead to litigation. 

It is uncertain when an alternative to 100 low lead (1 OOLL) Avgas will become available 

in the industry. 1 OOLL is the standard fuel used by piston engine aircraft and has been· 

in the center of controversy due to the low levels of tetraethyllead contained in the fuel. 

Although the federal government has provided funding to find an unleaded alternative to 

this fuel, staff's research revealed that it will be a long and timely process until a 

replacement fuel to 100LL makes its way to common use. Staff has continued their 

efforts and found approved alternatives to 1 OOLL available in the market today. 

Currently, only a handful of aviation fuel manufacturers have an unleaded aviation fuel 

alternative that can be used by most piston engine aircraft based at the Airport. The 

unleaded fuel requires operators to acquire an approved Supplemental Type Certificate 

(STC) from the Fed~ral Aviation Administration (FAA) prior to utilizing the fuel and it 

also requires that the Airport build the appropriate infrastructure (i.e. fuel tanks) to 

support the storage and dispensing of the fuel. Also, there is a 100 octane very low 

·lead (1 OOVLL) alternative fuel that can replace the 1 OOLL and can be used by the entire 

mix of aircraft using the Airport. This fuel does not require an STC prior to dispensing 

nor does it require additio~al infrastructure. The 1 OOVLL fuel uses approximately 20-

30% less tetraethyl lead than the maximum allowed for standard 1 OOLL fuel. Staff is 

currently in talks with fuel manufacturers to detenmine the time line of avail.ability'of these 

fuels. Once commercially available, fuel service providers at the Airport would be 

required to offer unleaded avgas and 1 OOVLL in lieu of 1 OOLL. 

7 
The proposed Guidelines also address a replacement fuel for JetA, the common fuel for 

reducing the turbine engine aircraft. The Guidelines propose that once an alternative 

fuel (e.g. biofuel) becomes available in the industry, fuel service providers at SMO will 

be required to sell a blended biofuel in lieu of JetA. Staff conducted research in the 

areas of biofuel, specifically blended biofuels (usually up to 50/50 blends), that could be 

used by all turbine engine aircraft without the requirement of an STC from the FAA. 

Studies have shown that biofuels, even at a 50/50 blend, could reduce ultra-fine 

particulars by as much as 60%. Furthermore, on June4, 2013 United Airlines 

announced that they have executed an agreement with AltAir for delivery of 5 million 

gallons of biofuel sometime in 2014 for United Airline's operations out of Los Angeles 

International Airport .. Staff js currently in talks with biofuel manufacturers, including 

AltAir, to determine biofuels' environmental benefits and timeline of availability to the 

industry of such biofuels. Because of these recent developments, staff is .confident that 

biofuels could be made available at SMO in the future. 

Offering alternative aviation fuels would be an incremental step in the City's effort to 

mitigate Airport impacts on the community, and it would avoid litigation as to whether 

the City has a federal obligation in providing fuel available for all aircraft currently using 

the Airport. 

Additional provisions in the proposed guidelines that would address impacts on 

neighbors and the environment are as follows: 

1. Flight schools will be. requested to use newer type of aircraft that are quieter or 

use Federal Aviation Administration approved noise reduction technologies and 

leasing preference would be given to those that do. 

2. Flight schools and tenants of the Airport will .be requested to avoid pattern 

operations during certain hours (i.e. weekends, holidays, nights) and leasing 

preference would be given to those that do . 

. 3. Fixed Based Operators will be required to provide annual inspection reports to 

the City that show the condition of the existing underground fuel. tanks, to make 

repairs and remediate leaks, and to install any new tanks above ground. 

4. Fixed Based Operators, maintenance facilities, and flight schools will have one 

year to replace existing gas or diesel-powered vehicles used to perform their 

8 
primary functions (i.e. fleet vehicles, Ground Power Units, aircraft tugs, etc.) with 

alternative fuel vehicles (i.e. CNG, Electric, etc.) 

Environmental Analysis 

The leasing guidelines identify the types of airport leases that will be Within the authority 

· of the City M~;mager to administer and approve. There is no issuance of a lease . 

involved, nor do any of the guidelines commit the Manager to approve certain leases, or 

limit the Manager's discretion to impose mitigation measures, adopt alternatives, or 

deny a lease application altogether. Further, these guidelines do not limit the City 

Council's full leasing authority going forward, nor do they commit the Council to lease or 

not lease any property in the future. Because .the City Council's action to approve the 

guidelines does not commit the City to a definite course of action on a project, it does 

not involve a project "approval" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 

15352(a). In addition, the approval of the guidelines is not a "project" under CEQA 

·pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) •. which excludes "general policy and 

procedure making." Finally, even if the guidelines may be viewed as an activity that will 

ultimately involve the issuance of a lease, there is no possibility that their approval may 

have a significant effect on the environment given that they do not commit the City to 

any course of action and are so general as to make the evaluation of particular impacts 

too speculative for review. Consequently, even if the guidelines were to constitute a 

CEQA project, their approval is subject to the common sense exemption pursuant to 

CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3). 

Commission Action 

Staff presented an overview of the objectives and standards of the proposed leasing 

guidelines to the Airport Commission during their meeting on July 28, 2014 for 

consideration and comment. The Commission did not provide a formal 

recommendation or feedback regarding these guidelines. 

9 
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions 

There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the 

recommended action. 

Prepared by: Stelios Makrides, Airport Manager 

Approved: 

Martin Pastucha 

Director of Public Works/Airport Director 

Attachments: 

Forwarded to Council: 

Rod Gould· 

City Manager 

A- Proposed Santa Monica Airport Leasing Guidelines 

10 
ATTACHMENT A 

Approved by the Airport Commission:-'---

Approved by City Council: ___ _ 

SANTA MONICA AIRPORT LEASING GUIDELINES 

The Santa Monica Airport Leasing Guidelines ("Guidelines") provide the framework for 

·fair and consistent leasing and licensing of City-owned properties at the Santa Monica 

Airport. The Guidelines provide parameters and general policy on allowed uses, 

standards and terms, and tenant recruitment and selection. They reflect the general 

intent and goals of the City of Santa Monica ("City") Cit the time they were approved 

and do not convey any right upon anyone, or impose any obligation on the City. 

iNTRODUCTION 

Santa Monica Airport is one of the oldest single-runway, general aviation airports in the 

country. It is located on 227 acres, bordered on three sides by single-family residential 

neighborhoods. The Airport consists of 187 acres currently designated for aviation related 

activities and 40 ~cres currently designated for compatible "non-aviation" uses- specifically 

commercial activities that do not depend or rely on the airport for their business. · 

As of the date of these guidelines there are approximately 11 aviation leases, 186 licenses 

for airplane hangars and aircraft· parking areas (tie-downs) and 114 non-aviation leases and 

licenses on the Airport. Aviation uses include flight schoois, aviation service providers, 

hangars, and Fixed Based Operators. Non-aviation uses are diverse, and include 

restaurants, museum, theatre, arts studios, and creative and general office uses. 

Lease and license revenue accounts for 63% of total annual Airport revenues and supports 

the Airport's goal of achieving financial self-sufficiency, reduction in future subsidies from 

the General Fund; and the repayment of the principal of past General Fund subsidies. 

-Historically, the Airport's operation and maintenance has been subsidized by the General 

Fund.- As of June 30, 2013, the Airport has a principal debt obligation to the General Fund· 

of $13.6 million. · 

All Airport leases expire on or before June 30, 20i5. Whatever its future, the airport and 

its property remains a City asset. These leasing guidelines take into account Council's 

direction on March 25, 2014, the legal obligations and constraints relating to the airport, 

the aviation leases and the use of the airport, and the purpose for which airport leases 

have been developed, as specified below. 

1 
1. PURPOSE OF THESE LEASING GUIDELINES 

These guidelines have been developed to: 

I. Establish practices and procedures for evaluating potential leasehold 

interests, and for lease management and administration. 

II. Foster uses and practices that are sensitive to the environment and 

protect the health of Airport neighbors and users and protect the City 

from future environmental exposure. 

· Ill. Maintain compatibility of uses of non-aviation airport property with Santa 

Monica Airport operations and, consistent with applicable law, promote 

use of the aviation property in a manner compatible with the adjacent 

residential community. 

IV. Continue. to provide opportunities for arts, education, and culture, 

including, but not limited to, the Artist Space Program administered in 

conjunction with Cultural Affairs Division. 

V. Serve as the framework for achieving and maintaining a viable, sustainable 

Airport Fund that is independent from the General Fund and other 

subsidies. 

VI. Incorporate within these guidelines the City's rights, legal obligations and 

legal constraints that relate to the airport, the aviation leases and the use 

of the airport. 

2. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE 

Leasing and licensing at the Airport is the responsibility of the City of Santa Monica 

Airport Division in coordination with the City's Economic Development Division. 

3. GENERAL LEASING STANDARDS 

To ensure a program that achieves the purposes described above, the leasing 

p_rogram at the Airport shall be managed in a manner consistent with the following · 

standards: 

I. Term: The lease term may be month-to-month, or year-to-year; for up to 

three-years. However, the initial term of leases approved under these 

guidelines shall .expire by June 30, 2018. After that date, annual renewals 

may be granted pursuant to these guidelines at City.'s discretion. Leases 

longer than three years are outside the purview of these guidelines and 

therefore require Council approval. 

II. Allowable Uses: To the extent allowed by law, u~es would be aviation, 

arts/cultural, creative space, professional, theaters, museum, educational, 

professional offices and other uses that are low intensity and serve the 

adjacent community while implementing standards that are sensitive to the 

environment .. 

2 
Ill. Environmental Responsibility: New lessee requests shall be reviewed to 

assess potential negative effects on the environment. The Airport may require 

environmental studies or testing as appropriate and necessary, and any 

needed remediation shall be performed prior to establishment of new uses . 

. Lessees seeking renewal or extended leases will also be responsible for any 

environmental contamination, resulting from their prior use, as a condition to 

a renewed or extended lease. At the time of the application, an assessment of 

the proposed use will be conducted, and appropriate insurance and/or 

remediation requirements will be incorporated into the lease based on 

proposed usage. 

IV. Right of Refusal: The Airport may refuse a lease application if it determines 

that the proposed use may ·create a high intensity use and/or expose the City 

to .additional environmental exposure, or otherwise poses an unacceptable 

potential for harm to the public health and welfare or the environment and 

it's within the City's legal constraints presently associated with the Airport 

land and its uses 

4. RATES AND RENEWALS 

Rents, fees and charges on the Airport shall reflect fair market value for both 

aviation and non-aviation properties. Fair market rents for individual buildings on 

non-aviation airport properties and prevailing market rents for aviation properties 

will be appraised in the as-is condition quantified in the spring 2014 appraisal. 

Rental rates for new or renewed leases of airport properties will be set as follows: 

I. Rates: All new and renewed leases will be leased at Market Rate based on 

the appraisal commissioned by the City in 2014. The initial appraisal lease 

rates will be adjusted by the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as to 

stay accurate to market conditions as new/renewed leases arise, and until 

the next market study is conducted.· 

II. Renewals: For tenants who have three (3) year leases, and who wish to be 

considered for lease extensions, would need to contact City staff in writing, 

no more than one year or less than 60 days before the lease terminates, to 

request the one-year lease extension. The City at its own discretion will 

approve or disapprove the one year extension fc;>r that year or any year 

thereafter. 

Ill. Percentage Rent provision: In addition to a base rent, the City may elect to 

require that a lease include a percentage rent provision, which can be 

differentiated by categories of sales. The City, as Lan'dlord, shall have the right 

to audit tenant's financial records to ascertain that the gross sales figures 

reported by the tenant are accurate and that the appropriate percentage rent 

amount is. paid. 

3 
IV. Existing Tenants: All existing airport tenants in good standing that ·are current 

in rent payments, not otherwise in default of their current agreements, and 

agree to abide by the rules of the Airport as stipulated in Section 5 

"Performance Standards" below, will be offered the opportunity to retain use 

and occupancy of their currently leased premises· subject to the "Term" 

provisions prescribed in Section 3.1 of-this report. 

v. Whole Building Leases: Whole building leases may, at the City's discretion, be 

subject to public Requests for Proposals intended to optimize l_easehold 

occupancy and the self-sustainability of the airport. 

VI. Sub-Leases: Assignment or subletting of leases or space sharingis prohibited 

without the . written consent of the Landlord. Landlord's granting or 

withholding consent will be subject to express standards and conditions set 

forth in the lease. 

VII. Lease and License Areas: Operation and improvements to lease and license 

areas are subject to the City's standard regulatory rules, review and approval 

process. 

VIII. Triple Net Leases: Unless otherwise specified, tenants shall pay all property 

taxes and assessments (including Possessory Interest Tax), insurance, and· 

utilities. 

IX. Commercial Operations Permit (COP): Prospective tenants proposing to use 

the Santa Monica Airport to engage in an activity that requires a business· 

license from the City, are required to acquire a commercial operations permit 

issued by the City Manager. All COPs will be presented to the Airport 

Commission for their recommendation and comment prior to City Manager's 

approval. 

x-. Annual Adjustments: All leases will be subject to annual CPI adjustment on 

their anniversary month. 

XI. Appraisals: Properties will be appraised for fair market rental rates at three 

year intervals. 

5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 

All lessees shall use the airport and any airport property in a manner that is 

compatible with Santa Monica Airport operations and with the adjacent residential 

uses; to encourage activities that complement adjacent residential and commercial 

uses; and to establish practices that are sensitive to the environment and protect the 

City from future environmental exposure. 

I. Flight Schools & Flying clubs 

Existing flight schools ·and flying clubs will be provided the opportunity to renew 

4 
their leases and preference will be given to prospective tenants that abide by the 

following performance standards: 

a. All flight schools and flying clubs will be requested to use newer type aircraft 

that are quieter (i.e. light sport) or use Federal Aviation Administration 

approved noise reduction technologies in reducing their noise footprint. 

b. All flight schools and flying clubs will be requested to avoid performing 

pattern operations at Santa Monica Airport during weekends, holidays, and 

evening hours. 

II. Fixed Based Operators {FBOs) 

Existing FBOs will be provided the opportunity to renew their leases and 

prospective FBOs to obtain a lease if they abide by the following environmental 

standards. All FBOs will be required to minimize their environmental impact by 

performing the following improvements to current or as applicable proposed 

facilities: 

a. Ground Power Units {GPU) used to power jet aircraft on t[!e ramp must be 

performed by CNG or electric power vehicles, or by in-ground wiring. FBOs 

will have 1 year from the signing of the lease to meet this requirement. 

b. All new fuel tanks constructed must be above ground. 

c. Annual inspection reports will be provided to the Airport that shows the 

condition ofthe existing underground tanks. 

d. All diesel- or gas-powered vehicles and equipment used by the FBOs to 

perform their primary functions, such as fleet vehicles and equipment, must 

be powered by alternative fuels (i.e. CNG, Electric, etc.). FBOs will have 1 year 

from the sighing of the lease to meet this requirement. 

e. Hangars must be used only for the storage of aircraft and auxiliary 

equipment. 

f. Biofuels will be sold in lieu ·of JetA and 100 Very Low Lead and aviation 

· unleaded fuels will be sold in lieu of 100" Low Lead as soon as these fuels are 

approved and commercially available. 

Ill. Aviation Maintenance Facilities 

Maintenance facilities will be required to minimize their environmental impact by 

ensuring that all vehicles used inside the Airport Operations Area {AOA) are 

powered by alternative fuels. 

I;V. Hangars · 

a. Hangars that have a land lease agreement with the City will be on a month to 

month tenancy under a . City approved lease agreement which will be 

updated as deemed necessary by the City. 

b. Hangars must be used only for the storage of aircraft and auxiliary 

5 
equipment. 

c. No subleasing is allowed. 

d. The City will request hangar owners to avoid from performing pattern 

operations at Santa Monica Airport during weekends, holidays, and evening 

hours. 

V. Tenants shall respond to Landlord's written inquiries regarding.any complaints or 

issues, including postings on social media sites related to Tenant's operations. 

Tenant will provide an action· plan for ·improvement if so requested by the 

Landlord. 

VI. As applicable, the above requirements may be incorporated in leases, licenses 

and other agreements. In addition, the City may add to· any Lease or License 

further or different or additional operational and performance standards as the 

airport concludes are appropriate to the particular Tenant's operation. 

6. MAINTENANCE AND TENANT IMPROVEMENTS 

All leaseholders shall be responsible for maintaining their facilities in attractive and 

safe condition, in compliance with applicable building and life safety codes and all 

·applicable environmental laws, ordinances, regulations and standards. 

Airport facilities will be inspected prior to new or extended leasehold occupancy and 

refurbished, by the City or tenant (at the City's election}, to a decent, safe and sanitary 

condition appropriate for use. If tenant makes improvements to the facility as a 

mutually agreed upon condition of a lease, the City must first review and approve the 

proposed design and scope of work. All necessary building permits must be obtained 

and thework must be inspected for compliance with applicable code(s). Appropriate 

rental credits for the approved work performed may be negotiated as part of the 

lease. Any Tenant Improvement Credit th<,~t exceeds two months' worth of tenant 

monthly rent must be approved by the Airport. Director. 

7. TENANCY RELATIONSHIPS 

Each tenant or licensee will be responsible for interior maintenance an·d repair at its 

sole expense, and the City generally will retain responsibility for maintenance and 

repair of roofs, building exteriors, landscaping and common use parking for all Airportmanaged leaseholds unless otherwise specified in the lease or license. Tenants who 

lease whole buildings from the City will be responsible for any and all maintenance, 

repair and improvements including roofs, building equipment and exteriors of the 

facilities as well as interior maintenance and repairs. · 

8. TENANT RECRUITMENT 

All City:owned buildings appropriate and suitable for leasing r:nay be subject to a 

pl,lblic procurement and solicitation process to identify prospective tenants and 

licensees whose financial and professional experience, and products and/or 

services are consistent with the Leasing Standards set forth herein. 

6. 
All prospective tenants must submit a Lease. or License Application to the City. 

Information contained in the Lease Application shall describe the proposed use 

for the available space; provide information about the respondent; ·provide 

references; describe in detail the financial capability of the respondent to perform; 

and set forth preliminary terms and conditions. 

Upon confirmation that the proposed tenancy is consistent with: General Leasing 

Standards; verification of references and credit history; mutual preliminary 

concurrence in proposed lease terms and conditions; and approval of a Comme'rcial 

Operations Permit, a lease agreement will be prepared for review by the City 

Attorney and execution by the prospective tenant before being referred to the City 

Manager for approval. Leases for terms greater than terms specified in these 

guidelines require Council approval. 

S'taff may cooperate with commercial real estate brokers who are authorized to 

negotiate leases on behalf of prospective tenants. 

Recruitment for artist day studios will adhere to the criteria set forth by the Cultural 

Affairs ' Division of Community and Cultural Services Department. The Airport and 

Cultural Affairs work together to maintain the list and update ·financial 

qualificat'ions. Candidate tenants for available Artist Day Studio space are required 

to file Program applications for screening purposes, and qualifying artists are 

selected only from the screened waiting list. 

9. LEASE APPROVALS & DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY . 

The City Manager has the authority to negotiate and execute leases with terms of 

. three years or less on terms consistent with these Leasing Guidelines.' To be valid, 

such leases must be on the basis of written agreements prepared and approved as 

to form by the City Attorney. Leases for terms of occupancy greater than three years 

or otherwise outside the parameters established by these guidelines will be 

n·egotiated by City staff under the direction of the City Manager and will require City 

Council approval. 

10. GENERAL PROVISIONS 

These guidelines may be altered by the City at any time, in its sole discretion, and 

shall not create any right or reliance interest for any person. These guidelines are 

intended to be consistent with, a·nd subject to all requirements of law applicable to 

the City's operation of the airport, and shall not be interpreted or construed to 

conflict with or to violate any such provision of law. 

7 
Civil Engineering and Architecture Division 

1918 Main Street, Suite 300 

Santa Monica, California 90405 

City of 

Santa lU.onica" 

Septe'mber 27, 2002 

Ruben Cabalbag, P.E. 

Airports Program Engineer 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007, WWPC 

Lawndale, CA 90009 

Post-It' Fax Note 7671 

To 'j; o b Tr• "beY"" 

CoJDepl. AtfiP0/2-f 

Phone I# 

Fax# S7Z-'11.fo/.5 

Data h"of )> pages 

Ftom 8,, I L -z:.e tiJ 

Co. 

Phone# 

Fax• 

Subject ·Santa Monica Airport Grant Amendment for Project No. AlP 3-06-0239-06 (II) 

Dear Mr. Cabalbag: 

The City of Santa Monica requests to amend the Federal Grant for Project No. AlP 3-06-

0239-06 (II) to increase participation amount by $240,600 to a total of$1 ,845,300 to reflect 

increased costs and changed conditions which occurred during construction. These 

modifications are outlined In Attachment 1. 

This modification to the grant will more effectively enhance and Improve the overall 

condition and safety of the public-use areas of the Airport. This request will not require an 

update and approval of the Airport Layout Plan. 

lf you have any questions or desire additional information regarding this matter, please 

don't hesitate to contact our Airport Manager Mr. Robert Trimborn at (310) 458-8591. 

Sincerely, 

Susan McCarthy 

City Manager ) 

cc: Robert Trimborn, Airport Manager 

Anthony Antich, P.E., City Engineer 

Bill Zein, P.E., Sr. Civil Engineer 

Donald Patterson, Sr. Administrative Analyst 

tel: 310 458-8721 • fax: 310 393-4425 

H:\Grants\Airport Amendment. doc 
ATTACHMENT 1 

CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY 

AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS 

SANTA MONICA AIRPORT 

AIP PROJECT NO. ~-06-0239-06 (II) 

Two change orders were issued for the project. One to Clarke Contracting Corporation for 

' the construction, and the other to Hy-com & Associates for constmction management. The 

details of those change orders are summarized below. 

Construction Contract Change Order No.1 

Construction Contract Change Order No. 1 was issued at the end of the project to adjust 

the contract to reflect actual quantities measured in the field, and revise the scope of work 

as necessitated by the project. Specifically, the follo,wing changes were ordered: 

1. Drill additional 6' depth for each blast wall foundation pile to provide total 

embedment of 12' -6" in native soil. 

2. Repair AC pavement in aircraft service aiea prlor to slurry sealing. 

3. Relocate existing irrigation lines in conflict with blast wall foundation. 

4. Tag and relocate umnarked electrical conduit and irrigation control wires exposed 

during drilling for blast wall foundation. 

5. Revise survey and layout of tie-down spaces and taxiway in South Apronare.a: 

6. Fill abandoned tie-down PVC caps with concrete to provide level surface for sluny 

seal application. 

7. Increase width of blast wall foundation from 7' to 7' -6" to accommodate location 

of anchor bolts for prefabticated blast w~ll and concrete wall. 

8. Remove existing taxiway striping in conflict with new taxiway striping using wet 

sandblasting method. 

9. Install12 additional tie-downs in concrete ar,~a on south side of runway. 

10. Install tie-down stall numbers as requested by Airport Manager. 

Page 1 of4· 
11. Repair electrical conduit and irrigation control wires damaged during drilling of 

blast wall foundation. 

12. Install additional striping for helipad. 

13. Delete requirement to ·provide tie-down chains and hooks from Item 8 -Tie-Down 

Anchors. 

14. Replace rubberized asphalt with conventiomil asphalt in resurfacing areas .. 

15. Adjust bid items as follows: 

a. Increase the quantity of Bid Item 2, ·crack Seal 

b. Reduce the quantity of Bid Item 3, Asphalt Slurry Seal 

c. Delete Bid Item 4, Asphalt Slurry Seal (Fuel Resistant) 

d. Increase the quantity of Bid Item 5, Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix 

e. Increase the quantity of Bid Item 8, Tie-down Anchors 

16. Adjust asphalt quantities and cost to balance contract. 

The reasons for the changes ordered are as follows:· 

1. The additional drilling depth was required to achieve the required embedment 

depth of 12'-6" in native soil as shown on the plans. The additional drilling depth 

in native soil was determined by the geotechnical inspector based on the logs 'and 

observation of the drilling operation. . .. · ' 

2. The AC pavement in the aircraft service itrea was low in some spots and needed to 

be repaired to provide a smooth grade transition prior to application of slurry seal. 

3. The irrigation lines were located where the foundation of the blast wall would be 

constructed and had to be relocated. 

4. The drilling of the foundation piles had to be stopped while the conduit and electric 

wires were identified and tagged for future repair. 

5. The location of aircraft tie-downs next to the hangars on the south apron shown on 

the plan did not match field dimensions and had to be revised. 

6. 14 tie-downs needed to be relocated because of taxiway clearance requirements, 

which were not identified before the tie-dcrwns were installed. The abandoned tiedown cups had to be filled to provide a' sniooth . surface for application of slurry 

seal. 

7. The width of the foundation as shown on the plan did not provide room for the 

anchor bolts and the concrete wall. · · ' · 

Page2 of4 
8. The existing taxiway striping in the south tie-down area was in conflict with the 

new tie-down layout and taxiway striping. The conflicting striping was removed 

using a wet sandblasting method. 

9. Airport management requested 12 additional tie-downs in the concrete area south 

of Airport Avenue due to the shortage of tie-down stalls. Since Bid Item 8, Tiedown Anchors did not specify concrete coring for installation this was considered 

extra work and was done on time and material. 

10. Numbering of the aircraft tie-down stalls was not specified in the original contract. 

The striping sub-contractor provided a reasonable cost, and Airport management 

authorized this additional work. · · 

11. The irrigation controller conduit and wiring was not marked in the field or shown 

on the plans. They were d~maged during the drilling operation and needed to be 

repaired. 

12, Additional striping was necessary to provide aircraft access to some of the newly 

installed aircraft tie-down stalls, and tore-stripe the Helipad area, which was added 

to the slurry seal work. 

,, 

13. Airport management elected to provide the tie-down chains and hooks, The 

Contractor was requested to provide a credit for this deleted requirement. •,·),· 

14. Rubberized asphalt is not suitable for appli~~tion in layers of 1" or less. Part of the 

· pavement rehabilitation involved complete J;econstru~tion or new construction of 

the full asphalt pavement section. Both app1ications were better suited . to 

conventional asphalt installation. The Contractor was requested to provide a credit 

for switching to conventional asphalt. 

15, The adjustments to bid items reflect the change between bid quantities and actual 

material quantities measured in the field and necessitated by the projept, 

16. Cost adjustment to balance the contract 

Construction Management Contract Cltange Order No. 1 

Construction Management Contract Change Order No. 1 was issued to provide additional 

inspection, construction management, and coordination services associated with increase in 

scope and design modifications to the constructioh contract. Specifically, the following 

changes wen' ordered: ·· · • I . .,. 

1. Provide additional inspection, constmcti~d",management, and coordination services 

associated with increase in scope and with necessary design modifications to the 

construction contract 

Page 3 of4 
The reasons for the changes ordered are as follows: 

1. Additional services were needed to coordinate changes· to the drilling and 

construction of blast wall foundation, .m<;Jdify the anchor plate design, provide 

layout plan for the installation of aircraft tie-downs, and revisions I adjustments to 

stripping layout to accommodate field conditions. 

Page4 of4 
PROOF OF SERVICE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 

I, Bradley C. Michaud, declare: 

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 

1685 Main Street; Santa Monica, California 90401. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a 

party to the action in which this service is made. 

On October 20, 2014, I served the document(s) described as CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND SUPPORTING EXHIBITS on the interested parties in this action by 

enclosing the document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: 

Richard K. Simon, Esq. 

1700 Decker School Lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

rsimon3@verizon.net 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov 

Jjg BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with this firm's practice for the collection and the 

processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In the 

ordinary course of business, the correspondence would be deposited with the United States 

Postal Service at 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401, with postage thereon 

fully prepaid the same day on which the correspondence was placed for collection and 

mailing at the firm. Fallowing ordinary business practices, I placed for collection and mailing 

with the United States Postal Service such envelope at 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, 

California 90401. 

Jjg COURTESY COPY TO COMPLAINANT'S COUNSEL BY ELECTRONIC DELIVERY 

D [State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 

the above is true and correct. 

Jjg [Federal] I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court 

at whose direction the service was made. 

Executed on October 20, 2014, at Santa Monica, Califo