Bradley C. Michaud 

Office of the City Attorney 

City Hall 

brad ley. michaud@s mgov .net 

City of 

Santa Monica® 

1685 Main Street 

Room 310 

Santa Monica 

CA 90401 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administrative 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

December 23, 2015 

RECEIVED 

JAN 11 2016 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

Re: FAA Docket No. 16-14-04 

Dear Docket Clerk: 

Enclosed please find an original and 3 copies of the City of Santa Monica's Request for 

Hearing and Notice of Appearanaces in the above-referenced action. 

Also, enclosed with this filing please find a face sheet for each of the above documents 

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

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

Very truly yours, 

$t~(Jt4~ BRADL C. MICHAUD 

City A rney's Office 

/bern 

tel: 310 458-8336 • fax: 310 395-6727 
1 MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE, City Attorney 

JOSEPH LAWRENCE, Assistant City Attorney 

2 LANCE S. GAMS, Chief Deputy City Attorney 

IVAN CAMPBELL, Deputy City Attorney 

3 1685 Main Street, Room 310 

Santa Monica, California 90401 

4 Telephone: (31 0) 458-8336 

Facsimile: (310) 451-5862 

5 lance.gams@smgov.net 

6 G. BRIAN BUSEY, Esquire 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

7 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 6000 

Washington, D.C. 20006-1888 

8 Telephone: (202) 887-1500 

Facsimile: (202) 887-0763 

9 gbusey@mofo.com 

10 ZANE 0. GRESHAM, Esquire 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

11 425 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

12 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 

13 zgresham@mofo.com 

14 Attorneys for Respondent 

CITY OF SANTA MONICA 

RECEIVED 

JAN 11 2016 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

National Business Aircraft Association, 

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 

Complainants 

v. 

City of Santa Monica 

Respondent 

1 

FAA Docket No. 16-14-04 

CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S REQUEST 

FOR HEARING 

f'TTY np SANTA MnNl('A'S RF()TTFC:.T F()R HFARTNii 
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 

TO THE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION, AND TO THE COMPLAINANTS IN THIS MATTER AND THEIR 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

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

attorneys of record, hereby respectfully requests that, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 16.31, 

16.1 09(a),(b) and 16.201 (a), the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") 

provide the CITY with an opportunity for a hearing as allowed under its regulations to 

review the correctness and validity of the Director's Determination issued by the FAA's 

Byron K. Huffman, Acting Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 

on or about December 4, 2015 (hereinafter "Determination"). CITY believes that there 

exists good cause for a hearing and that such a hearing is warranted and appropriate, 

given the scope and detail of the Determination, the factual and legal issues that document 

raises, and the impact, proposed restrictions and limitations that such Determination and a 

potential Final Agency Decision will have on the CITY immediately and for the next seven 

to eight years. Moreover, in light of the substantial stakes in this matter for the CITY and its 

residents, due process requires that the CITY be afforded the opportunity to defend itself 

and present its case in the context of a full and fair hearing. A hearing and limited 

discovery will also allow the FAA to develop a more complete and accurate administrative 

record on which to base its Final Agency Decision. 

CITY contends that genuine issues of material fact exist that require oral 

examination of witnesses and submission of evidence in the setting of a hearing. Such 

issues include but are not limited to the circumstances surrounding and knowledge and 

intent of the CITY in making its Grant Application in 1994, the scope of the 1994 Grant 

Application, work performed by or on behalf of the CITY pursuant to the 1994 Grant 

2 

('TTY ()F SANTA MCINT('A'S RFCITTFSTFOR HFARTNG 
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 

Application and grant assurances, amendments to the 1994 Grant Application including 

whether or not the scope and duration of any grant assurances were ever extended or 

amended, and the circumstances surrounding and knowledge and intent of the CITY in 

2002 in requesting financial reimbursement and in 2003 by consenting to an Amendment to 

the 1994Grant Application. Additional issues include but are not limited to the FAA's 

communications with the CITY in and around 2002-2003 and the FAA's customs, practices, 

procedures and experience issuing and amending monetary grants to airport proprietors 

and amending or extending grant assurances. CITY also contends that because the FAA 

attached and relied on documents in its Determination which were not introduced or 

commented upon by any of the parties to this Part 16 proceeding, the meaning and intent 

of such additional documents should be the subject of oral examination and further 

evidence at a hearing. 

Additionally, the Determination raised a number of legal issues which can only be 

fully explored and addressed through a hearing. These issues include but are not limit~?d to 

jurisdiction, due process, contract law, grant law and procedure, possible agency bias and 

the proper burden of proof in Part 16 proceedings. 

CITY provides these non-exhaustive, general descriptions of the scope of the 

requested hearing in an effort to avoid undue delay regarding the selection of an 

appropriate hearing officer and the determination of a hearing schedule. However, CITY 

intends to request and perform limited discovery as provided for and allowed by the Part 16 

Rules, and to work with the opposing parties and the hearing officer in scheduling and 

completing that discovery in an efficient and expeditious manner. It is through and at the 

end of this process that all of the issues to be addressed at the hearing will be determined 

and the FAA will be able to reach a Final Agency Decision on a full and fair administrative 

3 

('TTY OF S.ANTA MONTrA'S. RFOTTPS.T FOR HPA"RTN(l 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

record. 

CITY also states that, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.33(c) and as confirmed by Acting 

Director Huffman in his e-mail to Deputy City Attorney Ivan Campbell on December 16, 

2015, CITY intends to file its Notice of Appeal and Brief on or before the current January 8, 

2016 due date. 

8 Dated: December 23, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

MARSHA JONES MOUT 

. A 

BY~~~~~~~~~~~~ MARSHA JON S M UTRIE 

JOSEPH LAWRENCE 

LANCE S. GAMS 

IVAN CAMPBELL 

Attorneys for Respondent 

CITY OF SANTA MONICA 

4 
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 December 23,2015, I served the document(s) described as CITY OF SANTA 

MONICA's REQUEST FoR HEARING 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-A WA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov 

~ 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. Following 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. 

~ 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. 

~ [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 December 23, 2015, at Santa Monica, California. ~ 

~~~·