Bradley C. Michaud OfficeoftheCityAttorney City Hall bradley.michaud@smgov.net

City of Santa Monica® 1685 Main Street Room 310 Santa Monica CA 90401

Office ofthe ChiefCounsel AGC-600 Federal Aviation Administrative 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk December23, 2015



## RECEIVED JAN 11 

## 2016 PART 16 DOCKETS Re: 

### FAADocketNo. 16-14-04 Dear Docket Clerk: Enclosedplease find an original and 3 copies ofthe City ofSantaMonica's Request for Hearingand Notice ofAppearanaces inthe above-referenced action. Also, enclosed with this filing please find a face sheetfor each ofthe above documents together with apre-paid, self-addressedenvelope. Please stamp the face pages as received and returnthe face page inthe enclosed envelope. Thankyou. Very truly yours,

# $t~(Jt4~ BRADL C. MICHAUD City A rney's Office /bern

tel: 310458-8336 • fax: 310 395-6727

### 1 MARSHAJONES 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: 

### (310) 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 AircraftAssociation, 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 AssociationComplainants


## v. City ofSanta 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 TOTHE 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, pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### §§ 16.31, 16.109(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 ofthe Director's Determination issued by the FAA's Byron K. Huffman, Acting Director, Office of Airport Compliance and ManagementAnalysis

on or about December4, 2015 (hereinafter "Determination"). CITY believes thatthere exists good cause for a hearing and that such a hearing is warranted and appropriate, given the scope and detail ofthe 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 ofthe substantial stakes in this matterfor the CITY and its residents, due process requires thatthe 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 allowthe FAA to develop a more complete and accurate administrative record on which to base its Final Agency Decision. CITY contends that genuine issues ofmaterial fact exist that require oral examination ofwitnesses and submission ofevidence in the setting of a hearing. Such issues include but are not limited to the circumstances surrounding and knowledge and intent ofthe CITY in making its GrantApplication in 1994, the scope ofthe 1994 Grant Application, work performed by or on behalf ofthe CITY pursuantto 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 GrantApplication 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 ofthe CITY in 2002 in requesting financial reimbursement and in 2003 by consenting to an Amendment to the 1994GrantApplication. 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 ofthe parties to this Part 16 proceeding, the meaning and intent of such additional documents should be the subject oforal 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 ofthe requested hearing in an effort to avoid undue delay regarding the selection of an appropriate hearing officer and the determination ofa 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 ofthis process that all ofthe issues to be addressed atthe 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, pursuantto 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 ofAppeal 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 MARSHAJONES MOUT 

## . A



# BY~~~~~~~~~~~~ MARSHAJON S M UTRIE JOSEPH LAWRENCE LANCE S. GAMS IVAN CAMPBELL Attorneys for Respondent CITY OF SANTA MONICA



### 4PROOF OF SERVICE 

### STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I, Bradley C. Michaud, declare: I am employedinthe County ofLos Angeles, State ofCalifornia. My business address is 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica; California 90401. I am over the age ofeighteenyears and not a party to the actionin whichthis service is made. On December23,2015,

### I served the document(s) described as CITY OF SANTA MONICA's REQUEST FoRHEARING 

### onthe interestedparties inthis actionby enclosing the document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Richard

### K. Simon, Esq. 1700 DeckerSchoolLane Malibu, CA 90265 rsimon3@verizon.net Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Attention: FAAPart 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 Federal AviationAdministration

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 ofbusiness, 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 atthe firm. Following ordinarybusiness practices, Iplacedfor collection andmailing with the United States Postal Service such envelope at 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California90401.

**~** 

### COURTESY COPYTO COMPLAINANT'S COUNSELBYELECTRONIC DELIVERY 

### D [State] I declare underpenalty ofperjuryunder the laws ofthe State ofCaliforniathat the above is true and correct.

**~** 

### [Federal] Ideclare that I am employed in the office ofamember ofthe Bar ofthis Court atwhose direction the service was made. Executed on December23,2015, 

### at SantaMonica, California.

**~**



# ~~~·