BEFOR E TH E FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . 

# CEI W SE P 2 2 200 9 

# /H i AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTA L LAW , AGC-60 0 SKYDIV E SACRAMENTO ,

Complainant , V . TH E CIT Y O F LINCOLN , CALIFORNIA ,

Respondent . Docke t No . 16-09-0 9

RESPONDENT' S ANSWE R

Pleas e serve : Scot t P . Lewi s Christin e M . Griffin ANDERSO N & KREIGE RLL P On e Canal Park , Suit e 20 0 Cambridge , MA 0214 1 T : 617.621.656 0 F : 617.621.666 0 slewis@andersonkreiger.co m cgriffin@andersonkreiger.co m Counse l fo

r Responden t

Septembe r

21,200 9BEFOR E TH E FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C .

SKYDIV E SACRAMENTO ,

Complainant , V . TH E CIT Y O F LINCOLN , CALIFORNIA ,

Respondent . Docke t No . 16-09-0 9

RESPONDENT' S ANSWE R Th e respondent . City o f

Lincoln , Californi a(th e "City") , submit s thi s answer , unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(d) , t o th e Complain t ("Complaint" ) b y Skydiv e Sacrament o ("Skydive"). ' Skydive' s Complain t

fail s t o provid e aclear

an d concis e statemen t

o f th e fact s Skydiv e relie s upon , a s require db y 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(b)(3) . Instead , th e Complain t i s atangle d an d incoheren t mi x o f repetitiv e factua

l allegation s an d legal argument s and , lik e som e othe r complaint s unde r Pt . 16 , Skydive' s complain t i s presente di n narrativ e form , rathe r than i n consecutively

numbere dparagraphs. ^ Al l o f thi s ha s mad e i t

difficul t for th e City t o prepar e arespons e to Skydive' s factua

l allegations . T o facilitat e th e FAA' s revie w o f th e pleadings , th e City ha s hand-numbere dth e individua l paragraph s o f Skydive' s complain t

o n th e attache d cop y o f

th e

' T o accommodat e th e schedul e o f th e City' s federal regulatory counsel , th e FA A grante d th e Cit y an extensio n o f

time , unti l Septembe r

21 , 2009 , to file it s Answer . ^ In th e future , whe n th e FA A docket s acomplain t i n thi s for

mi t shoul d requir e th e complainan t t o refil e th e complain t wit h consecutively-numbere d paragraph s befor e demandin g an answe r fromth e respondent .complaint . Th e City wil l refe r t o th e paragraph s o f

Skydive' s complain t

b y numbe r

i n thi s answer . Th e City wil l no t addres s Skydive' s legal argument s here . Th e City ha s move d t o dismis s th e Complain t

an dwil l presen t

it s legal argument s i n th e memorandu msupportin g it s mofio n t o dismiss . Th e City respond s a s follow s to th e individua l paragraph s o f Skydive' s Complaint. ^ 1 . Th e City neithe r

admit s no r

denie s becaus e o f

insufficien t

knowledg e o r informatio n tha t

Skydiv e Sacrament o i s th e nam e unde r whic h 80896 , L.L.C . operates . Th e Cit y neithe r admit s no r

denie s becaus e o f

insufficien t

knowledg e o r

informatio n tha t

80896 , L.L.C . i s aCaliforni aL.L.C . o r

tha t it s addres s i s 289 6 Fo x De n Circle , Lincoln , California , 95648 . Th e City admit s that

Skydiv e i s acommercia l aeronautica l use r o f th e Lincoln , Californi aRegional Airport (th e "Airport") . With regardto th e fourt h sentenc e i n thi s paragraph , t o th e exten t that thi s sentenc e consist s o f

legal conclusion s an d introductory remarks , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s sentence , th e City admit s that i t i s th e owne r

an d sponso r o f th e Airport , an ddenie s th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s sentence . Th e City admit s tha t

Timoth y Haye s ("Hayes" ) i s on e o f it s attorney s an d that

Haye s ma y b e reache d a

t 42 2 Century Par

k Drive , Suit e A , Yub aCity , California , 95991 . Th e City admit s that th e Cit y Manage r i s Ji mEste p an dthat

h e ma y b e reache d a

t 60 0 Sixt h Street , Lincoln , California , 95648 . A s t o th e las t

sentenc e i n thi s paragraph , denied . A s t o an y allegation s containe d i n thi s paragrap h that

hav e no t bee n specificall y admitted , denied .

Th e City submit s wit

h thi s Answe r

an accompanyin g volum e o f Supportin g Evidentiary Materials . Th e City refer s t o it s ow n exhibit s a s "Cit y Ex . " ; th e Cit y refer s t o exhibit s submitte d b y Skydiv e a s "Skydiv e Ex . . "2 . Wit h regar dt o th e first

sentenc e o f

paragrap h 2 , denied . Th e City state s that Pa t Garci a("Garcia") , wh o i s th e proprieto r o f Skydive , first

contacte d th e Airport

regardin g a possibl e skydivin g an dparachut e landin g are a( a"dro p zone" ) i n Septembe r an d Octobe r

o f 2007 . Th e City requeste dtha t Skydiv e submi t

awritte n proposa l s o that th e City coul d evaluat e th e proposal , an din particular , s o that th e City coul d revie w an y potentia l safet y issues . Skydiv e submitte dawritte n proposa l fo r aparachut e landin g are at o th e City durin g th e wee k o f Decembe r

10 , 2007 . Th e writte n proposa l was for aparachut e landin g are aonly , t o b e locate d o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport . I

t di dno t seek permissio n t o buil d an y building s o n Airport propert y near

th e dro p zone . Wit h regar dt o th e secon dsentenc e o f paragrap h 2 th e City admit s tha t i t denie d Skydive' s applicatio n t o pu t adro p zon e o n Airport

property , citin g safet

y issues . Th e City state s that th e City Airport

Advisory Committe e first considere d Skydive' s applicatio n a t it s meetin g o n January 9 , 2008 . A numbe r o f concern s wer e raise d a

t that meetin g regardin g ai r traffi c safety , give n th e proximit y o f th e propose d dro p zon e t o existin g flight path s an d Airpor

t traffi c patterns . Th e Committe e determine d that additiona l investigatio n wa s required , an d durin g th e winte r

an dearl y sprin g o f

2008 , th e City contacte d Ji mHinso n a t FAA' s Sacrament o FSDO , Racio r

Cavol e a t FAA' s Sa

n Francisc o ADO , an d Ric k Stockto n at

FAA' s Sacrament o FSD O t o discus s th e safet y implication s o f

th e propose d dro p zone . Thes e FAA representative s als o raise dsafet

y issue s an dconcern s abou t th e propose d dro p zone . Base d o n th e safet y concern s raise db y th e City an db y FAA , th e City denie d Skydive' s proposa l o n Apri l 9 , 2008 , wit h acop y sen t

t o FAA' s Sacrament o FSD O an d FAA' s Sa n Francisc o AD O {se

e Skydiv e Ex . 28) . Skydiv e wa s advise da t tha t time tha t i t coul dappea l th e decisio n t o th e City Council . Skydiv e di dno t

mak e an y suc h appeal . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi sparagraph , th e City ha s no t bee n formall y notifie d that Skydiv e filed aPar

t 1 3 Notic e o f Violatio n with th e FAA an di s unawar e o f an y actio n that

ha s bee n take n o n tha

t notice . T o th e exten t that th e remainin g allegation s i n thi s paragrap h consis t o f legal argument s o r

conclusions , n o respons e i s necessary . A s t o an y allegation s containe d i n thi s paragrap h hav e no t bee n specificall y admitted , denied . 3 . Wit

h regar dt o th e first

sentenc e o f

paragrap h 3 , th e City admit s that i t consulte d with Ji mHinso n a

t FAA' s Sacrament o FSDO , Racio r Cavol e a t FAA' s San Francisc o ADO , an d Ric k Stockto n a

t FAA' s Sacrament o FSD O regardin g th e safet y issue s raise d b y Skydive' s proposal . Th e City initiate dthes e consultation s in earl y 200 8 an d the n ha d ongoin g discussion s wit h bot h th e Sacrament o FSD O an dth e Sa n Francisc o ADO . A mor e forma l revie w wa s undertake n b y th e Sacrament o FSD O an d th e Sa n Francisc o AD O durin g September , Octobe r an dNovembe r

o f 2008 , an dth e Cit

y requeste d tha t

th e FAA Sacrament o issu e aforma l FSD O opinio n a t that tim e {se e City Exs . 1 & 2) . Thi s culminate d i n aconditiona l safet y lette r bein g issue db y FA A o n Novembe r 21 , 200 8 {see Skydiv e Ex . 3) . Th e City lack s sufficient informatio n t o admi t

o r den y whethe r

th e FA A AD O directe d th e Sacrament o FSD O to conduc t th e review . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s i n thi s sentence , denied . Wit h regar dt o th e secon dan dthir d sentence s o f thi s paragraph , th e City admit s tha t i n Septembe r

o f 2008 , th e City hel daconferenc e cal l with th e Sacrament o FSD O an d th e Sa n Francisc o AD O t o discus s th e Skydiv e matte r {se e City Ex . 1) . Durin g thi s conferenc e cal l th e Sacrament o FSD O reduce dit s expresse d leve l o f concern ove r

th e safet y issue s pose d b y adro p zon e locate do n th e Airport an dindicate d som e support fo r aconditiona l dro p zon e o n Airpor t property . Thi s wa s th e first indicatio n tha t

th e Airport

ha d receive d that

th e FAA Sacrament o FSD O migh t

hav e relaxe dit s vie w o n th e safet y issues . Durin g thi s phon e call , i t wa s agree dthat

ameetin g shoul db e arrange dwith Skydive , includin g th e FAA Sa n Francisc o ADO , th e Sacrament o FSDO , an dth e Airport . That meetin g too k

plac e o n Octobe r

15 , 2008 . Skydiv e wa s aske da t th e meetin g t o prepar e a

n operatio n plan fo

r aconditiona l dro p zon e o n th e Airport {se e City Ex . 1) . Subsequen t

t o th e meeting , i n alette r date d Novembe r

5 , 2008 , Garci ao f

Skydiv e agai n requeste da

n on-Airport

dro p zon e withou t

providin g th e operationa l pla n that had bee n requested . I

n Novembe r

2008 , th e Airport

me t with FA A representative s Ji mHinso n an d Ric k Stockto n to discus s th e Skydiv e proposal . Durin g th e meeting , th e Sacrament o FSD O informe d th e Airport

tha t it believe dthat

skydivin g activitie s o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

coul d b e safel y conducte dunde r

certai n operatin g condition s whil e th e Runway 3 3 (th e neares t Runway ) traffi c pattern wa s active . Th e Sacrament o FSD O als o provide d alette r to th e City t o thi s effec t date dNovembe r

21 , 200 8 {se

e Skydiv e Ex . 3) . A s t o any allegation s containe d i n thi s paragrap h that hav e no t bee n specificall y admitted , denied . 4 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 4 , th e City state s tha t th e Octobe r

18 , 200 8 lette r

from th e Northern Californi aRada r Approac h ("TRACON" ) speak s fo r itsel f A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 5 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 5 , th e City state s that , i n th e wak e o f th e Novembe r

21 , 200 8 lette r

fromth e Sacrament o FSDO , Skydiv e agai n requeste d a n on-Airport

dro p zon e an d als o simultaneousl y indicate dtha t i t woul d begi n usin g a

n off-Airpor

t dro p zon e o r

zones . Skydiv e hadbegu n lookin g for a n off-Airpor

t dro p zon e durin g th e sprin g o f 2008 . Skydiv e als o applie dfor

aCity busines s licens e o n Marc h 27 , 2008 . Th e licens e applicatio n was fo r operatio n o f

askydivin g busines s o n th e Airport withou t adro p zone . B y City Ordinanc e (Lincol n Municipal Cod e ("LMC" ) 20.04.050) , insuranc e i s require d befor e an y busines s ca n operat e a t th e Airport

{see City Ex . 3) . Th e City' s ow n insuranc e provide r recommende d thatSkydiv e obtai n a n insuranc e polic y with a$ 1,000,00 0 limit , consisten t with th e City Ordinance . Al l commercia l operator s o n th e Airport mus t als o ente r

int o a n agreemen t

with th e City governin g thei r

operations . Th e Agreemen t betwee n Skydiv e an d th e City wa s approve d o n May 14 , 200 8 a s par

t o f Skydive' s applicatio n fo

r aBusines s Licens e t o operat e o n th e Airport . Skydiv e provide dproo f

o f insuranc e coverage , pursuan t t o th e Ordinanc e an d th e Agreement , o n Jun e 6 , 2008 . Th e Busines s Licens e was issue d b y th e City o n Jun e 18 , 2008 . At o r abou t tha t time , Skydiv e bega n pursuin g adro p zon e o n privat e propert y locate d directl y adjacent

to , an dwes t

of , th e Airport

know n a s th e Weygand t

Property . Skydiv e propose dthat

adro p zon e o n thi s propert y woul d operat e conditionall y dependin g o n ai r traffi c pattern s an dwoul dalternat e with anothe r off-Airpor

t dro p zon e locate d on e t o tw o mile s from th e Airport . Th e City ha dn o objectio n t o th e off-Airpor t dro p zon e that

was locate d on e t o tw o mile s fromth e Airport , s o lon g a s it was operate d withi n safet y guidelines . That

dro p zon e i s locate di n th e County , outsid e th e City , an d i s no t subjec t t o City ordinance s an d by-laws . However , th e City di dhav e objection s t o th e us e o f th e Weygand t

off-Airpor

t dro p zone , locate d adjacent t o th e Airport , base do n safet y concern s containe d i n applicabl e Cit y zonin g by-laws . Betwee n Apri l an dSeptembe r o f 2008 , th e City consulte d wit h Ji mHinso n a

t th e Sacrament o FSDO , regardin g Skydive' s propose d off-Airpor t dro p zone s an d th e ai r

traffi c safet y concern s raise db y th e proximit y o f th e Weygand t

Property t o th e Airport . Th e Sacrament o FSD O supporte destablishin g th e dro p zon e o n th e property locate d on e t o tw o mile s fromth e Airport

outside o f

th e Airport

traffi c patterns . Despit e th e zonin g an dothe r concern s raise d b y th e City , beginnin g i n Decembe r 2008 , Skydiv e indicate dtha

t i t woul dbegi n usin g th e off-Airpor t dro p zones , an d i n January o f 200 9 Skydiv e bega n usin g th e Weygand t Propert y fo

r parachut e landing .At

th e sam e time , i n lat e 2008 , Skydiv e renewe d it s reques t fo r a n on-Airport

dro p zone . Th e City responde dt o thi s reques t b y providin g Skydive , o n Decembe r 19 , 2008 , with a propose don-Airport

groun dleas e fo

r adro p zon e {see Skydiv e Ex . 5) . O n January 6 , 2009 , th e City receive dalette r

fromRichar dDurde n ("Durden") , alawye r representin g Skydive , containin g objection s t o th e groun dleas e an d outlinin g Skydive' s renewe d reques t fo r a n on Airport dro p zon e {see City Ex . 4). . N o buildin g improvement s o n th e Airport nea r th e dro p zon e wer e propose din thi s letter . Instead , Durde n propose d tha t parachuter s simpl y lan d i n th e dro p zone , "pic k

u p thei r parachute s an d wal k

t o aspo t o n th e close d runwa y wher e th e parachute s coul db e repacke dan dth e skydiver s coul d board " aplan e for anothe r jum p {se e City Ex . 5 a t 3) . Thi s lette r

als o threatene dth e City with aPart 1 6 Complain t

i f th e City di d no t compl y wit

h Durden' s demands . A s t o an y allegation s containe d i n thi s paragrap h that ar e no t specificall y admitted , denied . 6 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 6 , th e City state s that th e January 16 , 200 9 emai l speak s fo r itsel f A s t o an y additiona l allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 7 . With regar dt o paragrap h 7 , th e City lack s informatio n sufficient t o admi t o r den y th e allegations . 8 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 8 , th e City state s tha t Durden' s February 9 , 200 9 emai l speak s for itself . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s i n thi s paragraph , denied . Th e City state s tha t o n January 7 , 2008 , Haye s sen t alette r t o Skydiv e regardin g th e zonin g concern s implicate d b y th e off-Airpor

t dro p zon e o n th e Weygand t property . I n earl y February 2009 , Haye s contacte d Durde n b y phon e t o indicat e that h e woul d revie w an drevis e th e propose d lease , a s requeste d b y Skydive , an dthat

h e woul dprovid e a

n additiona l draf

t leas e fo r fiirther revie w b y Durde n an d Skydive . A ne w draf

t leas e wa s provide d t o Skydiv e b y th e City , containin g concession s tha thadbee n requeste db y Skydive , o n Marc h 9 , 200 9 {se e Skydiv e Ex . 9) . Becaus e Durde n ha d threatene dlitigatio n ove r

thes e issue s i n hi s January 6 , 200 9 lette r t o th e Mayo r

an d City Counci l members , th e City determine dthat additiona l communication s betwee n th e partie s o n thi s matte r shoul d tak e plac e betwee n th e lawyers , an d Haye s too k ove r communicatio n with Durde n regardin g thi s matter . A s t o an y additiona l factua l allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 9 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 9 , th e City admit s that afte r Durde n threatene d litigatio n wit h th e City in hi s Januar y 6 , 200 9 letter , th e City communicate d wit h Durde n throug h Haye s an d di dno t

agre e t o ameetin g betwee n principals . A s t o an y allegation s containe d i n thi s paragrap h tha

t ar e no t specificall y admitted , denied . 10 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 10 , th e City state s tha t Durden' s Marc h 2 , 200 9 emai l speak s fo r itsel f Th e City state s that

asecon d draf

t dro p zon e leas e wa s provide d t o Skydiv e o n Marc h 9 , 200 9 {se

e Skydiv e Ex . 9) . Th e City lack s informatio n sufficient t o admi t o r den y whethe r th e draf t leas e was sen t

o n t o th e FAA AD O b y Complainan t o n Marc h 10 , 2009 , allegin g that

i t di dnot compl y wit

h th e City' s gran t

obligations . A s t o an y remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragrap h that hav e no t bee n specificall y admitted , denied . 11 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 11 , th e City lack s informatio n sufficient t o admi t o r den y th e allegations . 12 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 12 , th e City state s that Durden' s Marc h 18 , 200 9 emai l speak s fo r itsel f A s t o an y additiona l allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 13 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 13 , th e City state s that Durden' s Marc h 23 , 24 , 2 5 an d Apri l 2 , 1 3 an d21 , 200 9 email s spea k fo r themselves . A s to an y additiona l allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied .14 . Wit h regar dt o paragrap h 14 , th e City admit s that i t di d no t mee t wit h Skydiv e i n Marc h o r April , 2009 , regardin g th e propose d dro p zone . A s t o an y additiona l allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 15 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 15 , th e City admit s that , i n th e wak e o f Durden' s January 6 , 200 9 letter , whic h threatene d litigatio n agains t th e City , th e City determine d tha t it s lawyer , Hayes , shoul db e th e contac t perso n with Skydiv e o n thes e issue s an d therefore that Cit y principal s di dno t

contac t Skydiv e concernin g thes e issues . Th e City fijrther state s tha t

sinc e approximatel y January 1 , 2009 , th e Airport manage r ha s no t receive d an y phon e call s o r phon e message s fromSkydiv e regardin g th e propose d lease s for th e dro p zone . A s to an y additiona l allegation s containe di n thi s paragrap h tha t ar e no t specificall y admitted , denied . 16 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 16 , th e City admit s that o n Apri l 30 , 2009 , athir d draf t dro p zon e leas e (th e "Lease" ) wa s sen t b y th e City t o Skydiv e containin g revision s mad e i n respons e t o Skydive' s request s {se e City Ex . 5 ; Skydiv e Ex . 19) . O n o r abou t May 1 , 2009 , Durde n an dHaye s ha daphon e cal l regardin g th e statu s o f th e draf t lease , an d Durde n emaile d Haye s regardin g th e draf

t leas e {se e Skydiv e Ex . 20) . Th e City ftirther

state s that

whil e th e City wa s negotiatin g th e draf t lease s with Skydive , th e Cit y consulte dwit

h FA A several times , b y phone , b y letter , an d b y emai l concernin g th e statu s o f th e negotiation s an dth e term s o f th e propose d leas e {see City Exs . 6-11) . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 17 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 17 , to th e exten t tha t thi s paragrap h consist s o f conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . Th e City lack s informatio n sufficient t o admi t o r den y whethe r

th e FAA AD O ha s bee n unwillin g t o respon d to Skydive' s request s o r Skydive' s Par t 1 3 complaint . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied .18 . Wit h regardt o paragrap h 18 , th e City admit s that Skydiv e i s i n th e busines s o f providin g skydivin g instructio n andservice s t o skydivers , that Garci aha s previousl y rente d hangar spac e o n th e Airport

an dtha t Skydiv e ha s rente d hangar an d offic e spac e o n th e Airport sinc e 2008 . Wit

h regar dt o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 19 . Wit

h regardto paragrap h 19 , th e City admit s tha t i t i s th e sponso r

o f th e Airport . Th e City admit s that

th e Airpor

t i s amoderat e sized , non-towere d airpor t an d that i t doe s no t hav e schedule dairlin e service. Th e Cit y state s tha t th e Airport

i s adesignate d Regiona l Relieve r Airport an dservice s ligh t

aircraf t an dlarg e busines s clas s je t aircraf t an d include s an FAA

owne dan doperate dInstrumen t Landin g System . Th e City admit s that th e Airport

currentl y occupie s abou t

77 5 acres . Th e Cit

y admit s tha t

th e Airpor

t wa s buil t b y th e U.S . Governmen t

fo r th e U.S . Army Ai r

Forc e durin g Worl dWa

r II . Th e Cit

y admit s tha t

th e WWI I airfiel d ha d fou r runways , thre e o f

whic h ar e n o longe r

operational . Th e fourt

h runwa y (15-33 ) ha s bee n reconstructe dtwic e an dextende dt o it s presen t length . Th e City admit s tha t it s websit e report s 81,00 0 aircraf

t operation s fo

r 2007 . Th e City admit s that i t ha s no t publishe d dat aregardin g aircraf t operation s fo

r 200 8 o r 2009 . Th e City admit s tha t FA A dat afo

r 199 3 sho w 71,00 0 annua l operations . Th e City state s that approve d forecast s fo

r th e Airport

sho w 83,91 1 annua l aircraf t operation s fo

r 200 8 an d99,00 0 annual operation s fo r 2015 . Th e 200 8 an d 201 5 number s wer e adopte d(Octobe r

2008 ) b y th e City i n th e Airport Maste r Plan an d wer e reviewe d an d approve db y th e FAA' s Sa n Francisc o ADO . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 20 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 20 , th e City state s that th e cite d federa

l regulatio n an d th e Unite dState s Parachut e Associatio n Skydiver' s Informatio n Manual spea k for themselves . Th e City state s tha

t t o th e exten t

tha t thi s paragrap h contain s conclusion s o f law , n o respons e i s

1 0required . Th e Cit y admit s tha

t th e propose d Leas e contain s provision s fo r adro p zon e consistin g o f askydiv e an dparachut e landin g site . Th e City admit s tha t th e propose d Leas e doe s no t contai n provisio n fo

r constructio n o f

an y buildin g o r

improvement s o n th e dro p zone . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 21 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 21 , th e Cit y admit s that

Skydiv e i s on e o f

th e large r purchaser s o f

fue l base da t th e Airport . Th e larges t

purchaser s o f

fiie l fromth e Airport , however , ar e no t

base da t th e Airport . Th e City lacks informatio n sufficient t o admi t o r den y whethe r Skydive' s busines s hadbee n reasonabl y goo dthroug h th e recession . A s t o an y remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 22 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 22 , th e City admit s that ther e i s ope n spac e o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airpor

t an dtha t thi s spac e i s near

portion s o f

tw o abandone d runways . Th e City admit s that

par t o f th e wes t sid e o f th e Airpor

t i s use d t o stor e debris . City vehicle s an d ne w City tras h receptacles . Th e City admit s that on e non-aviatio n tenant , DeSilv aGate s FCI , aJoin t Ventur e o f

DeSilv aGate s Constructio n an d FC I Constructors , Inc . ("DeSilva") , ha s bee n permitte dt o us e th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport . DeSilva' s non-aviatio n leas e i s fo r temporary constructio n managemen t office s tha t

ar e bein g use d durin g th e constructio n o f th e nearb y Lincol n Stat e Highwa y 6 5 Bypas s project , a$17 5 millio n highway projec t fiindedb y federal , stat e an dlocal funds . DeSilva' s leas e i s for a1-yea r termthat i s renewable , an d it s us e o f th e lease dpremise s i s limite dt o temporary office s an d storag e o f mino r constructio n equipment . Th e leas e sit e an dconstructio n office s ar e no t ope n t o th e genera l public . Thi s sit e i s locate d i n a "non-aviation " are aa s show n o n th e Airport' s FAA-approve d Airport Layou t Plan {se e City Ex . 12) . N o utilitie s ru n to th e temporary offices , excep t fo r atemporary electricit y connection . Th e City state s that

a n additiona l non-aviatio n tenant . Energ y Absorption s Inc . ("Energ y

1 1Absorptions") , whic h i s engage din th e busines s o f conductin g cras h test s involvin g automobile s an dhighway equipment , use s par t o f th e abandone d runwa y o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

fo r cras h tests . N o structure s hav e bee n erecte d b y thi s non-aviatio n tenant . Thi s tenant' s leas e i s fo r a2-yea r term . Wit

h regar dto th e exhibit s cite d i n thi s paragraph , the y spea k fo r themselves . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 23 . Wit

h regar dto paragrap h 23 , th e City state s that Garcia , th e proprieto r

o f Skydive , first contacte dth e City regardin g apossibl e skydivin g an d parachut e dro p zon e i n Septembe r an d Octobe r o f 2007 . Th e City requeste dthat Skydiv e submi t

awritte n proposa l s o tha t th e Cit y coul d evaluat e th e proposal , an di n particular , s o tha t th e Cit y coul d revie w an y potentia l safet y issues . Skydiv e submitte dawritte n proposa l for adro p zon e t o th e City durin g th e wee k o f Decembe r 10 , 2007 . Th e writte n proposa l was fo r adro p zon e only , o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport . I t di dno t seek permissio n to buil d an y building s o n Airport propert y nea

r th e dro p zone . Th e City state s that DeSilv aan dEnerg y Absorption s hav e bee n permitte d t o engag e i n limite dactivitie s o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport , a s describe d i n paragrap h 22 , above . DeSilva' s leas e ter mcommence do n Septembe r 1 , 2008 . Energ y Absorptions ' leas e ter mcommence d o n Jun e 15 , 2006 . Th e City admit s that

Skydiv e initiall y requeste d t o us e larg e tract s o f unimprove d lan d o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

a s dro p zones . Skydiv e ha s offere d severa l different proposal s fo

r a dro p zon e o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport . Som e o f

thes e proposal s include d th e lan d no w use d b y DeSilv aan dEnerg y Absorptions . Th e City agree s that Skydiv e ha s no t

complaine d i n thi s actio n abou t

th e locatio n o f

th e dro p zon e describe d i n th e Lease . Th e City admit s that i t ha s no t agree dt o permi t

Skydiv e t o erec t

astructur e o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport

near th e dro p zone . Th e City admit s tha

t i t ha s permitte dDeSilv at o plac e temporar y constructio n offic e trailer s o n

1 2th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport

i n connectio n wit

h th e constructio n o f

th e nearb y Lincol n Stat e Highwa y 6 5 Bypas s project . A s to th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 24 . With regar dt o paragrap h 24 , th e City state s tha t th e Airport

security fenc e surround s al l improve dAirport facilitie s includin g aircraf t hangars , ramps , taxiway s an d runways . Th e portion s o f th e Airport

property outsid e o f

th e securit y fenc e o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

hav e aperimete r

barbed-wir e fence . Th e dro p zon e describe d i n th e Leas e i s locate d i n thi s spac e o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport

betwee n th e barbed-wir e fenc e an d th e Airport security fence . Skydiv e propose s t o hav e it s customer s lan d i n th e dro p zon e an d the n wal k throug h agat e bac k

t o a n are ainsid e th e security fenc e wher e the y ca n re-boar d aplan e fo

r additiona l jumps , agai n landin g i n th e dro p zone . Th e City admit s that i t doe s no t objec t t o thi s proposa l s o lon g a s i t

i s carrie dou t

consisten t

with al l safet

y guidelines , an d fiirther

admit s that provisio n fo

r thi s activit y i s mad e i n th e Lease . Th e City admit s that ther e i s vehicl e acces s to th e dro p zon e sit e fromth e roadrunnin g alon g th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport . Th e City admit s tha t thi s vehicl e acces s i s currentl y bein g use d b y non-aviatio n vehicles . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 25 . With regar dt o paragrap h 25 , th e City understand s tha t Skydiv e ha s pursue d off

Airport dro p zone s an dha s bee n usin g a t leas t on e o f thos e dro p zone s sinc e a

t leas t January o f 2009 . Th e City lack s informatio n sufficient t o admi t o r den y th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph . 26 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 26 , denied . 27 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 27 , th e City admit s tha t th e basi s for

it s initia l denial o f th e dro p zon e applicatio n wa s safet y concern s that

wer e share d b y th e City an d th e FAA' s Sacrament o FSD O an ddiscusse dwith th e FAA' s Sa n Francisc o ADO . Th e City admit s that i t

1 3receive dalette r date dNovembe r

21 , 200 8 fromth e Sacrament o FSD O whic h indicate d tha t Skydivin g activitie s o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

coul d safel y b e conducte d unde r certai n operatin g condition s whil e th e Runway 3 3 traffi c patter n was active . Th e City denies tha t i t "claimed " that

it s reaso n fo

r denial was safety ; th e City state s tha t it s actua l reaso n for

th e initial denia l wa s safety . Th e City lack s informatio n sufficient t o admi t o r den y th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph . 28 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 28 , th e City state s tha t th e Octobe r

18 , 200 8 lette r speak s fo r itsel f Th e City lack s sufficient informatio n to admi t

o r den y th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph . 29 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 29 , th e City state s that Skydiv e Ex . 2 9 speak s for itsel f 30 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 30 , th e City admit s that i t provide d apropose d leas e fo r a n on-Airport

dro p zon e t o Skydiv e o n Decembe r 19 , 2009 . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 31 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 31 , denied . 32 . Wit

h regar dto paragrap h 32 , th e City admit s that i t wa s contacte d b y Durde n i n January o f

200 9 a s counse l fo

r Skydiv e regardin g th e term s o f th e propose d leas e an d that Durde n requeste dameetin g with th e City . Th e City lack s informatio n sufficient t o admi t o r den y th e allegation s that

Skydiv e filed aPar

t 1 3 Complain t

wit h th e FA A AD O o r

that ther e ha s bee n n o respons e fromth e FAA . Th e statemen t that aPart 1 3 Complain t

i s moote d b y aPart

1 6 Complain t

i s aconclusio n o f

law a s t o whic h n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 33 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 33 , th e City lack s sufficient informatio n t o admi t

o r den y th e allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph .

1 434 . Wit h regardt o paragrap h 34 , th e City admit s tha t Durde n contacte d th e City an d provide dsuggeste drevision s t o th e draf t dro p zon e lease s tha

t ha d bee n provide d b y th e City in Decembe r

o f 200 8 an dMarc h o f

2009 . Th e City admit s tha t i t agree d t o mak e revision s to eac h o f th e draf t lease s in respons e t o Skydive' s concerns . Th e City state s that th e revision s include d aprovisio n for

loadin g skydiver s ont o aircraf t adjacent t o th e dro p zone . Th e City admit s tha t afte r Durde n threatene dlitigatio n agains t th e Cit y i n Januar y o f

2009 , Haye s becam e th e primary contac t for Durde n wit

h th e City . Th e Cit y admit s that i t di d no t mee t wit h Durde n i n th e sprin g o f 2009 . Th e City state s tha t th e email s betwee n Durde n an d th e City spea k fo r themselves . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 35 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 35 , th e City admit s that i t offer s adiscoun t

t o large

volum e purchaser s o f

fiiel. Thi s offe

r currentl y provide s discount s for large-volum e customer s wh o bu y mor e tha

n 30 0 gallon s o f

fiael i n asingl e purchas e fromth e Airport' s je t fiie l truck . Th e City ha s neve r

barre dSkydiv e fromparticipatin g i n th e program ; Skydiv e ha s no t qualifie d fo

r an y discount s becaus e i t

ha s neve r

bough t th e require d minimu mvolume s o f je t fue l i n asingl e purchase . Thi s fiie

l discoun t programi s primaril y use d b y larg e privat e o r charte r busines s je t aircraf t tha t bu y fiiel a

t th e Airport . Th e City admit s that

Skydiv e contracte d fo

r aTwi n Otte r

airplan e t o carry it s customer s an dthat th e pilo t o f tha t plan e eventuall y move d hi s plan e t o anothe r airport . Th e City admit s that th e ASO S fo

r th e Airport

i s arecorde d radi o broadcas t o f weathe r an d safet y information . Th e City admit s that

anotic e regardin g skydivin g wa s containe d in th e ASOS , that i t wa s remove dbriefl y o n ahandfu l o f occasions , an d tha

t o n on e occasio n th e City wa s reminde d t o replac e th e notic e b y asingl e pilot . Th e City admit s tha t Durde n informe d Haye s tha t th e notice s wer e missin g a

t on e poin t an ddemande d tha

t the y b e replace d an d tha t Haye s informe d th e Cit

y

1 5tha

t thi s reques t

hadbee n made . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 36 . Wit

h regar dto paragrap h 36 , th e City admit s that i t sen t Skydiv e asecon d propose dleas e o n Marc h 9 , 200 9 {see Skydiv e Ex . 9) . Th e City admit s that i t corresponde d with Durde n regardin g thi s draf t lease , bu t

that i t di d no t mee t wit h hi mregardin g th e draf

t leas e durin g th e sprin g o f

2009 . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 37 . Wit

h regar dto paragrap h 37 , th e City admit s that i t trie d t o respon d to th e concern s raise db y Skydiv e i n th e secon d draf t o f th e lease . Th e City admit s that Skydiv e propose dadditiona l change s t o th e leas e an d propose d additiona l discussio n abou t thos e change s betwee n th e parties . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 38 . Wit h regar dt o paragrap h 38 , th e City admit s tha t i s circulate d athir d draf

t dro p zon e Leas e t o Skydiv e o n Apri l 30 , 200 9 {se e Skydiv e Ex . 19) . Th e City state s tha t i t reasonabl y responde dt o concern s raise db y Skydiv e i n th e thir d draf t o f th e Lease . Th e City admit s that th e thirddraf t Leas e i s th e subjec t

o f Skydive' s Complaint . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 39 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 39 , th e City admit s tha t Durde n contacte d th e City agai n afte r receip t o f th e thir ddraf

t o f th e propose d Lease. Th e City admit s that Skydiv e attende d a City-sponsore dChambe r

o f Commerc e sessio n with anumbe r o f on-Airport

businesse s a

t whic h feedbac k relatin g t o busines s operation s o n th e Airport wa s discussed . Th e City admit s that n o additiona l substantiv e conversation s regardin g th e Leas e too k plac e betwee n th e City Manage r an dSkydiv e afte

r tha t meeting . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied .

1 640 . Wit h regar dt o paragrap h 40 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f conclusion s o f la w and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 41 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 41 , th e Cit y admit s that i t i s arecipien t

o f federa l grant s an d that i t provide dwritte n assurance s o f complianc e wit

h it s obligation s i n connectio n wit h receip t o f thos e grants . Wit

h regar dt o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , thos e allegation s consis t

entirel y o f

conclusion s o f

la w and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 42 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 42 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f conclusion s o f law and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 43 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 43 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f conclusion s o f law and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 44 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 44 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f conclusion s o f la w and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 45 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 45 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f conclusion s o f law and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 46 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 46 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f conclusion s o f law and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 47 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 47 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f conclusion s o f law and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 48 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 48 , th e City admit s that th e Leas e require s Skydiv e to obtai n an dmaintai n commercia l genera l liabilit y insuranc e for th e leased-premise s an d for skydivin g an daircraf

t operation s i n th e amoun t o f $1,000,00 0 pe r

occurrence , an d tha

t aggregat e limit s ar e to b e doubl e th e pe r occurrenc e limit . Th e Leas e fiirther require s Skydiv e t o obtai n an d maintai n automobil e liabilit y insuranc e fo r license d vehicle s utilize d o n th e lease d premise s

1 7o r

o n th e Airpor

t i n th e amoun t

o f $1,000,00 0 pe r

occurrenc e fo

r bodil y injur

y an d propert y damage . Th e Leas e require s tha t th e City o f

Lincol n an d it s officers , officials , employees , agent s andvolunteer s b e name da s additiona l insured s for al l injury , death s an d property damag e arisin g ou t o f performanc e o f

th e Lease . Th e Leeis e als o require s Skydiv e t o pay for an y increas e t o Cit

y insuranc e premium s cause db y th e City acquirin g insuranc e coverag e fo r skydivin g and parachutin g operation s o n th e Airport . Th e City ftirther admit s th e Leas e require s that an y independen t

skydivin g subcontracto r

o r othe r skydivin g commercia l operato r may us e th e lease d premise s onl y upo n providin g aCertificat e o f Insuranc e t o th e City that satisfie s thes e insuranc e requirements . Furthe r answering , th e City state s that Skydiv e ha s previousl y provide d th e City wit h Certificate s o f

Insuranc e indicatin g that Skydiv e ha s th e followin g insurance : Airpor t Premise s Liability Insuranc e i n th e amoun t o f $1,000,00 0 pe r

occurrence , $2,000,00 0 aggregate , wit h th e City liste da s a

n additiona l insured ; Aircraf t Liability Coverag e i n th e amoun t o f $300,00 0 pe r occurrence ; Membershi p Jum p Coverag e a t th e dro p zon e i n th e amoun t o f $50,00 0 pe r occurrence , $1,000,00 0 aggregate , with th e City liste d a s a n additiona l insured . Th e City admit s tha t

th e propose d Leas e term s regardin g insuranc e shoul d hav e include d provisio n fo

r aviatio n genera l liability insuranc e a s oppose d t o commercia l genera l liability insurance . Th e City agree s tha t th e insuranc e tha

t Skydiv e alread y ha s satisfie s som e o f th e necessary insuranc e requirements , bu t th e City woul d requir e th e followin g additiona l insuranc e coverag e befor e enterin g int o th e Lease : Aircraf t Liability Coverag e shoul d b e increase d t o $ 1,000,00 0 pe r

occurrence , $2,000,00 0 aggregate , an d shoul d b e expande d t o includ e coverag e fo r bodil y injury , property damage , an d an y damag e t o o r cause d b y passengers , an d th e City shoul db e liste da s a

n additiona l insured ; an d Automobil e Liability Insuranc e shoul d b e acquire d

1 8for

license dvehicle s utilize do n th e lease d premises o r o n th e Airport

i n th e amoun t

o f $ 1,000,00 0 pe r

occurrenc e fo

r bodil y injur

y an d propert y damage . Th e City require s thi s additiona l insuranc e coverag e becaus e i t i s mandate d b y City Ordinance s o r i t i s require d b y th e City' s ow n insuranc e provide r a s aconditio n o f

acquirin g aCity insuranc e polic y that include s coverag e fo

r skydivin g activitie s a

t th e Airpor

t {see LM C 20.04.050 , City Ex . 3 ; City Exs . 10 , 13) . Th e existin g Cit y Airport Polic y (provide d b y Ol d Republi c Insurance ) exclude s Airport Parachuting . Th e onl y polic y that th e City ha s bee n abl e t o locat e tha t woul d provid e th e City with Skydivin g coverag e woul db e fromAIG . Th e AI G polic y exclude s Airport Parachuting ; however , th e polic y amend s th e exclusio n o n th e conditio n that vali d an d collectibl e insuranc e i s availabl e t o th e name dinsure d(th e City) . Th e AI G polic y wil l onl y tak e effec t i n exces s o f

vali d an dcollectibl e insurance . Wit h regar dto al l bu t

th e automobil e liability insurance , AI G wil l requir e Skydiv e t o carry $ 1,000,00 0 i n coverag e t o mee t th e "vali d an d collectibl e insurance " requiremen t

{see City Exs . 10 , 13) . Th e City state s that , to th e exten t that Skydiv e can conclusivel y demonstrat e t o th e City tha t i t canno t obtai n th e require dautomobil e liabilit y insurance , th e City i s willin g t o discus s othe r level s o f automobil e liability insuranc e coverage . However , th e City note s tha t Garci aha s alread y previousl y provide dt o th e City alette r indicatin g that

h e i s insurabl e fo

r $ 1,000,00 0 i n automobil e coverag e {se

e City Ex . 14) . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 49 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 49 , th e Cit y lack s informatio n sufficient t o admi t o r den y th e allegations .

1 950 . Wit h regar dt o paragrap h 50 , th e Cit y admit s tha t i t i s awar e o f

Skydive' s contentio n tha t

i t canno t acquir e commercia l genera l liabilit y insuranc e coverin g skydiving . Th e City state s tha t

Skydive' s ow n propose d draf t leas e agreement , submitte d t o th e City i n Marc h o f 2009 , retaine da"commercia l genera l liabilit y insurance " provision , i f suc h insuranc e i s availabl e {se e City Ex . 8) . A s t o an y remainin g factual allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 51 . With regar dt o paragrap h 51 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f conclusion s o f law , an da s such , n o respons e i s required . 52 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 52 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f conclusion s o f law , an da s such , n o respons e i s required . 53 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 53 , denied . 54 . Wit

h regardto paragrap h 54 , th e City lack s informatio n sufficient to admi t o r den y th e allegations . 55 . With regar dt o paragrap h 55 , th e City admit s that th e Leas e require s tha t

any independen t

subcontracto r

o r othe r skydivin g commercia l operato r ma y us e th e lease d premise s onl y upo n providin g aCertificat e o f Insuranc e t o th e City that satisfie s th e insuranc e requirement s containe di n th e Lease . Thi s i s consisten t wit h th e requirement s impose d upo n th e City b y AI G t o obtai n insuranc e fo r skydivin g activitie s a

t th e Airport

an d wit h applicabl e City Ordinance s {see LM C 20.04.050(c) , City Ex . 4 ; City Ex . 14) . Th e City woul d requir e an y subcontracto r

engage di n skydivin g activitie s t o hav e th e sam e coverag e a s Skydive . Thi s woul d include , for

example , subcontractor s engage d i n operatin g airplane s an d repackin g parachutes . Thes e type s o f

subcontractor s ar e part

o f th e parachuting/skydivin g activitie s undertake n b y Skydive , pos e th e sam e risks a s Skydive , an d therefor e requir e th e sam e level s o f insurance . Th e City lack s informatio n sufficien t to admi t o r den y th e allegatio n that

Skydiv e contract s wit

h

2 0person s t o repac k parachute s an dwit

h aircraf t operator s t o provid e skydivin g aircraf t a s needed , o r th e allegatio n tha

t commercial genera l skydivin g liabilit y insuranc e i s no t available . T o th e exten t tha t thi s paragrap h contain s additiona l factua l allegation s that

hav e no t bee n specificall y admitted , denied . T o th e exten t tha t thi s paragrap h consist s o f conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . 56 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 56 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f conclusion s o f la w and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 57 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 57 , th e City admit s that th e Leas e require s Skydiv e t o obtai n an dmaintai n automobil e liabilit y insuranc e for license d vehicle s utilize d o n th e lease d premise s o r

o n th e Airport

i n th e amoun t

o f $ 1,000,00 0 pe r

occurrenc e fo

r bodil y injur

y an d property damage . Th e City lack s informatio n sufficient t o admi t o r den y whethe r

Skydiv e ha s bee n abl e t o findsuc h coverage , bu t note s tha t Garci aha s previousl y provide d alette r t o th e City whic h state s that

h e i s insurabl e for

$1,000,00 0 i n aut o coverag e (Cit y Ex . 14) . Th e Cit y state s that , t o th e exten t

that Skydiv e ca

n conclusivel y demonstrat e t o th e City that i t canno t obtai n th e require dautomobil e liability insurance , th e City i s willin g to accep t lowe r limit s o f coverage . T o th e exten t thi s paragrap h contain s additiona l factua l allegation s that

hav e no t bee n specificall y admitted , denied . T o th e exten t that thi s paragrap h consist s o f conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . 58 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 58 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f conclusion s o f la w and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 59 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 59 , t o th e exten t that thi s paragrap h consist s o f conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied .

2 160 . Wit h regar dt o paragrap h 60 , th e City admit s tha t i t ha s not provide d Skydiv e wit

h acop y o f al l o f it s commercia l Airport

leases , bu t

state s tha t i t ha s no t receive d an y reques t

fo r thes e document s fromSkydive . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , the y consis t entirel y o f

conclusion s o f

law and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 61 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 61 , th e City admit s tha t th e Leas e require s Skydiv e t o reimburs e th e City fo

r an y cost s incurre d b y th e City a s th e resul t o f obtainin g insuranc e coverag e for

Skydive' s activitie s a

t th e Airport . Consisten t

wit h pas t policies , th e City' s curren t Airport polic y (fo r

2009-2010 ) exclude s Airport Parachutin g risks an d offer s n o skydive r bodil y injur y o r propert y damag e coverage . Th e City' s 2008-200 9 polic y ha d th e sam e exclusion . Th e City' s curren t

insuranc e provider . Ol dRepublic/Phoeni x Aviation , doe s no t provid e Airpor

t Parachutin g o r

Skydivin g Insurance . Followin g asearc h b y tw o brokers , on e broke r locate d a n insuranc e compan y tha t

woul dprovid e th e coverage , AIG . In orde r t o obtai n thi s coverage , however , th e City , woul dnee dt o cance l th e existin g Airport polic y an d purchas e ane w Airpor t polic y fromAIG . AIG' s polic y woul dinclud e parachutin g coverage ; however , that polic y woul d cos t th e City a

n additiona l $7,00 0 - $8,00 0 annually . Th e City denie s that th e Leas e contain s condition s tha

t ar e no t applie dt o an y othe r

similarly-situate d Airport lessee . Th e Energ y Absorption s Leas e contain s th e sam e provisio n requirin g th e tenan t t o reimburs e th e City fo

r an y additiona l insuranc e cost s incurre db y th e City a s th e resul t o f th e tenant' s on-Airport

activities . Ther e i s n o othe r

tenan t at th e Airport

whos e activitie s hav e cause d th e City t o incu r additiona l insuranc e cost s a s th e resul t o f thei r on-Airport

activities . Wit

h regar d t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , thos e allegation s consis t entirel y o f

conclusion s o f

la w and , a s such , n o respons e i s required .

2 262 . Wit h regar dt o paragrap h 62 , th e City state s tha t i t require s tha

t avariet y o f different insuranc e coverag e b e obtaine db y it s tenants . Th e insuranc e requirement s containe d i n eac h leas e reflec t

difference s i n th e lengt

h o f leas e term s an d natur e o f tenan t activities , an d reflec t inpu t fromth e City' s ow n insuranc e providers . Th e City state s that al l o f it s currently

activ e groun d lease s fo

r Airport property contai n insuranc e provision s reasonabl y designe d t o shiel dth e City frominsurabl e risks. Th e Cit y state s that , fo r example , th e Energ y Absorption s Leas e specificall y require s th e tenan t t o reimburs e th e City fo

r an y increas e i n th e City' s insuranc e cost s attributabl e t o that tenant' s activities , bu t

that , t o date , n o additiona l insuranc e cost s hav e bee n incurre db y th e Cit y a s th e resul t

o f Energ y Absorption s on-Airport activities . I

n fact , th e City ha s no t

incurre dan y increas e i n insuranc e cost s a s th e resul t o f an y on-Airport activity b y an y othe r

groun dlessee . T o th e exten t th e allegation s containe d i n thi s paragrap h hav e no t bee n specificall y admitted , denied . 63 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 63 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f conclusion s o f law and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 64 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 64 , denied . 65 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 65 , t o th e exten t tha t thi s paragrap h consist s o f conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 66 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 66 , t o th e exten t that thi s paragrap h consist s o f conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 67 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 67 , th e City admit s tha t th e Ren t sectio n o f

th e Leas e provide s fo

r a n annual 5 % increas e in rent . Th e City admit s tha t n o othe r leas e wit h a n

2 3aeronautica l tenan t call s for a5 % annua l renta l rat e increase . Th e City state s that th e onl y existin g leas e wit

h acomparabl e term(th e leas e with DeSilva ) als o call s fo r a5 % annua l rental rat e increase . T o th e exten t th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragrap h consis t o f conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 68 . With regar dt o paragrap h 68 , th e City admit s tha t th e Leas e contain s apropose d tw o year leas e term . Th e City denie s tha t thi s i s inconsisten t

with th e lease s provide d t o £in y similarly-situate dcommercia l aeronautica l users o n th e airport . Th e City state s that longe r leas e term s hav e bee n grante dt o tenant s that mak e substantia l capital investment s for th e constructio n o f improvement s o n lease dAirport property . Th e City state s that th e Skydiv e leas e doe s no t contai n an y provisio n fo

r improvement s to th e dro p zon e sit e an d i n fac t prohibit s th e constructio n o f

an y buildin g o r

improvement . T o th e exten t tha t thi s paragrap h contain s conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 69 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 69 , th e City admit s that th e Leas e require s Skydiv e t o compl y with FA A findings regardin g safet y procedure s necessar y fo r operatin g adro p zon e o n th e Airport

an dt o compl y with th e term s o f th e Lette r

o f Agreemen t

betwee n Skydiv e an d TRACO N {se

e Skydiv e Exs . 3,4 , 19) . Th e City fiirther admit s that

th e Leas e require s Skydiv e t o compl y wit

h al l requirement s o f

law . T o th e exten t

tha t thi s paragrap h contain s conclusion s o f law , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 70 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 70 , th e City admit s that th e Lease , an d othe r

Airport leases , requir e tha

t th e tenan t

compl y wit

h al l applicabl e requirement s o f law . T o th e exten t

that

2 4thi s paragrap h consist s o f conclusion s o f

law , denied . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 71 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 71 , th e City state s tha t i t would , o f

course , expec t Skydiv e t o compl y with th e guideline s se t ou t b y th e Sacrament o FSD O an d TRACON , a s the y ma y b e amende dfromtim e t o time . I t wa s neve r

th e City' s intentio n to creat e conflictin g leas e terms . A s t o an y additiona l factua l allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 72 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 72 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f conclusion s o f la w and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 73 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 73 , admitted . 74 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 74 , th e City admit s that th e Leas e onl y permit s Skydiv e t o us e th e lease dpremises fo r th e purpose s o f

alandin g dro p zon e fo

r skydivers . Th e Cit y admit s tha

t lan dconstitutin g th e lease dpremises coul d b e devote d t o othe r uses , includin g ho t

ai r balloonin g an dhelicopte r hove r pads . However , th e City state s that thes e othe r

airpor t use s ar e alread y safel y takin g plac e elsewher e i n th e Airport . Th e City admit s tha t no t al l airplane s usin g th e Airport

hav e radios . Th e City admit s that airplanes , helicopter s an d ho t ai r balloon s hav e safel y mixe do n an duse dth e airport i n th e past . Th e City state s tha t us e o f th e Airport

b y skydiver s i n th e pas t

ha s bee n extremel y limited , an d th e City i s unawar e o f an y accidents . T o th e exten t tha t thi s paragrap h contain s conclusion s o f law , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 75 . With regar dt o paragrap h 75 , th e City admit s tha t i t doe s no t limi t it s othe r lease s t o sol e aeronautica l activitie s o r t o sol e type s o f

aircraft . T o th e exten t

tha t thi s paragrap h consist s o f

conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . A s to th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied .

2 576 . Wit h regar dt o paragrap h 76 , th e City admit s tha t th e Leas e doe s no t

permi t th e erectio n o f

an y buildin g o r

structur e o n th e lease d premises . Th e City admit s tha t i t ha s permitte dDeSilva , anon-aeronautica l tenant , t o plac e temporar y constructio n office s i n trailer s o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport

i n connectio n with th e constructio n o f th e Lincol n Stat e Highway 6 5 Bypas s project . Th e City admit s tha t part o f th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

i s use d to stor e debris . City vehicle s an dne w City tras h receptacles . Th e City admit s that , o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport , som e tenant s hav e bee n permitte d t o buil d o r leas e building s o n th e Airpor t tha t wer e no t buil t b y th e Airport . Th e City state s that Skydiv e currentl y lease s hanga r spac e o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport

an dhouse s it s office s i n that hangar . Th e City understand s tha t Skydiv e seek s t o erec t

abuildin g near

th e dro p zon e i n whic h t o hous e a

n offic e an drepac k

parachutes . Th e City admit s tha t th e erectio n o f

suc h abuildin g i s no t permitte db y th e Lease. Th e City state s tha t th e dro p zon e i s locate d o n apar t o f th e Airpor

t tha t ha s n o connectio n t o utilities . Ther e i s n o wate r o r sewe r connection , an d ther e i s n o on Airport electrica l connection . Th e City state s tha t th e propose d dro p zon e i s als o in aportio n o f th e Airport

that contain s avariet y o f

wetiand s an d vernal pools , whic h make s placemen t o f an y structur e mor e difficult . Th e City ha s reasonabl y determine d that i t woul d b e nearl y impossibl e t o buil dastructure , whethe r temporar y o r

permanent , o n thi s portio n o f th e Airpor

t unles s tha

t structur e wer e buil t

withou t wate r service , withou t

sewe r service , an d withou t

an y fire suppressio n systems . Skydiv e propose s t o erec t suc h astructur e an d t o allo w th e publi c t o hav e acces s t o tha t

structur e fo r

th e purpos e o f

Skydive' s busines s operations . Th e City ha s reasonabl y determine dtha t suc h astructure , intende d for us e b y th e public , doe s no t mee t minimu mhealth , sanitatio n an dsafet y requirement s an d therefor e canno t b e constructe d o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport .

2 6Th e City note s tha t th e onl y othe r

structure s o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e airport

ar e th e temporary office s i n trailer s use db y DeSilv aan d som e dilapidate d WWII-vintag e barrack s tha t ar e unoccupied . Th e onl y utilit y connecte d t o thos e trailer s i s electricity , take n from anearb y electri c pole . Th e DeSilv atrailer s ar e no t ope n t o th e public , d o no t provid e service s t o th e public , an dare use donl y a s temporary constructio n office s b y privat e employees . Th e City state s that al l aeronautica l activitie s ar e currentl y conducte d o n th e eas t sid e o f th e airpor

t an d that ther e i s roo mo n th e eas t

sid e o f th e airpor

t for Skydiv e to leas e o r

construc t additional buildin g space . Wit

h regar dto th e exhibit s that ar e cite d i n thi s paragraph , the y spea k fo r themselves . T o th e exten t that thi s paragrap h consist s o f conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 77 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 77 , to th e exten t tha t thi s paragrap h consist s o f conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . Wit h regard t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 78 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 78 , t o th e exten t that thi s paragrap h consist s o f conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . Wit h regar d t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 79 . With regar dt o paragrap h 79 , th e City admit s tha t th e Leas e require s Skydiv e t o indemnif y th e City fo

r damage s cause db y action s o f Skydive ; howeve r

th e Leas e als o state s tha

t suc h indemnity shal l no t

b e applicabl e t o injury , death o r damag e to propert y arisin g fro mth e sol e o r activ e negligenc e o r

willfu l misconduc t

o f th e Cit y o r it s officers , agent s o r

servants . Th e City admit s that

that th e Leas e doe s no t

provid e fo

r indemnificatio n o f

Skydiv e fo

r th e action s b y th e City . Th e City note s that thi s indemnificatio n languag e i s consisten t wit h City Ordinance s {se

e LM C 20.04.040 , City Ex . 3) . T o th e exten t that thi s paragrap h consist s o f

2 7conclusion s o f law , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 80 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 80 , th e City admit s tha t th e Leas e require s Skydiv e t o indemnif y th e City fo

r an y environmenta l harmcause d b y Skydive . Th e City admit s that th e Leas e doe s no t

provid e fo

r indemnificatio n o f

Skydiv e for

environmenta l harmcause d b y th e City . T o th e exten t

that thi s paragrap h consist s o f conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 81 . With regar dt o paragrap h 81 , th e Cit y admit s tha

t th e Leas e state s that

time i s o f th e essenc e fo

r th e performanc e o f

Skydive' s obligation s unde r th e Lease . T o th e exten t tha t thi s paragrap h consist s o f

conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 82 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 82 , th e City denies that th e Airport

manage r mad e an y threat s agains t

th e pilo t o f aTwi n Otte r

that was unde r

contrac t t o Skydiv e o r

tha t th e City cause dth e pilo t

t o sto p usin g th e Airport . Th e City lack s informatio n sufficient t o admi t o r den y th e remainin g allegations . 83 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 83 , th e Cit y admit s tha

t sinc e receivin g Durden' s January 200 9 lette r

threatenin g litigatio n agains t th e City , th e City' s primar y contac t wit h Skydiv e ha s bee n Hayes . Th e City admit s that it offer s adiscoun t

t o purchaser s o f

mor e tha n 30 0 gallon s o f

fiiel i n asingl e purchas e whe n mad e fro mth e Airport' s je t

fue l truck , bu t

denie s tha t Skydiv e ha s eve r

qualifie dfor

suc h adiscount . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe d i n thi s paragraph , denied . 84 . With regardt o paragrap h 84 , th e City admit s that Skydiv e i s amon g th e larges t purchaser s o f

fiiel base da

t th e Airport . Th e larges t

purchaser s o f

fiie l fromth e Airport

are .

2 8however , no t base da t th e Airport . Th e City admit s that purchaser s o f

fue l pa y federa

l taxe s o n thei r purchases . Th e City admit s that i t makes aprofi t

o n it s fue l sale s a t th e Airport , bu t

state s that an y revenue s generate db y it s fijel sale s ar e use d onl y for airpor t purposes . T o th e exten t that thi s paragrap h consist s o f conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 85 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 85 , denied . 86 . Wit

h regar dt o paragrap h 86 , th e City admit s that thi s ha s bee n adifficul t financial tim e an dthat

both partie s wil l incu r

cost s a s aresul t

o f Skydive' s Complaint . T o th e exten t that thi s paragrap h consist s o f conclusion s o f

law , n o respons e i s required . A s t o th e remainin g allegation s containe di n thi s paragraph , denied . 87 . With regar dt o paragrap h 87 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f apraye r fo r relie f and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 88 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 88 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f apraye r fo r relie f and , a s such , n o respons e i s required . 89 . Wit

h regardt o paragrap h 89 , thi s paragrap h consist s entirel y o f aprayer for relie f and , a s such , n o respons e i s required .

City' s Statemen t

o f Additiona l Fact s i n Suppor t o f Answe r AFl . Skydiv e an dth e City hav e bee n engage d i n negotiatin g aleas e agreemen t fo r a "dro p zone " t o b e locate do n th e Airport . Skydiv e woul d us e th e dro p zon e a s askydivin g an d parachutin g landin g area . AF2 . Skydiv e attempt s to portra y th e City a s unwillin g t o negotiat e th e leas e terms . Thi s i s no t

th e case . Th e City twic e revise d th e draf t leas e i n respons e t o Skydive' s requests . Th e City does , however , objec t t o certai n request s Skydiv e ha s mad e an d i s unwillin g t o acced e to

2 9som e o f

Skydive' s demands . Th e Cit y believe s tha t i t ha s reasonabl y exercise d it s proprietary rights i n dealin g wit

h Skydive . AF3 . Th e City currentl y ha s groun d lease s with eleve n tenant s a t th e Airpor

t {se e City Exs . 15-25) . Al l o f

thes e tenant s ar e eithe r

(a ) long-termaeronautica l tenant s that hav e mad e significan t

capital investment s i n th e Airport o r (b ) short-termnon-aeronautica l tenant s engage d i n activitie s tha

t ar e no t ope n t o th e public . AF4 . Th e City' s nin e aeronautica l tenant s a t th e Airport

al l hav e long-termgroun d lease s tha t

anticipat e tenant-finance dconstructio n o f hangars , aircraf

t manufactur e an d repai r facilitie s o r

othe r permanen t

improvement s at

th e Airport : Mik e Devli n (2001 , 30-yea r leas e fo r constructio n an dus e o f

hangars ) (City Ex . 15) ; Crosswin d Propertie s LL C (2001 , 30-yea r leas e fo r constructio n an dus e o f

hangars ) (Cit y Ex . 16) ; Mar k an d Nanc y Machado , d/b/ aVelocity Wes t (1998 , 35-yea

r leas e fo r constructio n an d us e o f

industria l buildin g fo

r manufactur e an d maintenanc e o f

smal l aircraft ) (City Ex . 17) ; Grou p Financial , Inc . (1997 , 40-year leas e fo r constructio n an dus e o f

hangars ) (City Ex . 18) ; Nunn o Corporation , Ltd . (1986 , 20-yea r leas e fo r th e constructio n an dmanagemen t o f hangar s an d offic e space , extende d for 1 0 year s upo n expiration ) (City Ex . 19) ; Gen e Cantrel l an d America n Rive r Development , Inc . (1984 , 50-yea r leas e fo r constructio n o f

a n FB O facility for

leas e t o aircraft-relate d businesses ) (City Ex . 20) ; Cem o Developmen t

Compan y (1983 , 50-yea

r leas e for constructio n o f

a n FB O facilit

y for leas e t o aircraft-relate dbusinesses ) (City Ex . 21) ; Thoma s Camillucci , Gre g Sanosk i ("Lincol n Skyways" ) an dRober t

M . Coon , Edwi n F . Kras s ("Kraco n Aircraft" ) (assignee s o f amende d 1978 , 40-year

leas e fo r constructio n an d us e o f

hangar s an d offic e space ) (City Ex . 22) ; an d Place r Hanga r Co . (1978 , 40-year

leas e fo r constructio n an d us e o f

hangars ) (City Ex . 23) .

3 0AF5 . Th e City als o ha s tw o non-aeronautica l tenant s with short-termgroun d lease s a t th e Airport : DeSilv aGate s FC I ("DeSilva" ) (2008 , one-year leas e fo r temporary constructio n managemen t

office s for

highwa y project ) (thi s leas e ha s bee n renewe d for on e year ) (City Ex . 24) ; an dEnerg y Absorption s Incorporate d ("Energ y Absorptions" ) (2006 , two-year leas e fo r conductin g cras h test s usin g automobile s an d highwa y barrier s n o mor e than si x time s pe r year ) (thi s leas e ha s bee n renewe dtwic e for additiona l one-yea

r terms ) (City Ex . 25) . AF6 . Thi s dispute i s ove r th e term s o f

aLeas e for

adro p zon e t o b e locate d o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport . Th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport

consist s almos t

entirel y o f

ope n spac e tha

t i s locate doutsid e th e securit y fenc e an di s designate d a s anon-aviatio n are ao n th e approve d AL P {se e City Ex . 12) . AF7 . Th e FA A an dth e City hav e approve d th e dro p zon e that i s propose d b y Skydive . Th e FA A an dth e Cit y hav e determine d tha t skydivin g ca

n safel y tak e plac e o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

a t th e propose ddro p zone , subjec t t o certai n condition s outline d b y th e FAA i n it s Novembe r

21 , 200 8 lette r

{se e Skydiv e Ex . 3) . AF8 . Skydiv e i s i n th e busines s o f providin g skydivin g instructio n an d service s t o skydivers . Skydiv e ha s sub-lease dhangar an d offic e spac e o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport

sinc e 2008 . Skydiv e ha s aBusines s Licens e fromth e City t o operat e a t th e Airport , ha s mad e promotiona l skydive s o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport , wit

h specia l accommodation s b y th e Airport for safet y an dha s generall y bee n operatin g a s aparachutin g an d skydivin g busines s fo r som e tim e o n th e eas t

sid e o f th e Airport , wit

h off-Airpor

t dro p zones . AF9 . Skydiv e seek s t o mov e it s dro p zon e t o a n on-Airport

locatio n o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport

an dha s requeste daleas e fromth e Airport fo r suc h adro p zone . I

t no w complain s abou t anumbe r o f th e specifi c term s containe d i n th e City' s propose d Lease .

3 1AFIO . Skydiv e complain s that th e dro p zon e sit e woul d als o b e suitabl e fo r us e a s a helicopte r hove r padan dfo

r th e launchin g an d landin g o f ho t ai r balloon s an d protest s that thes e woul dno t b e permitte duse s o f

it s dro p zone . AF l 1 . Th e City , i n th e exercis e o f it s proprietary rights, ha s determine d that helicopte r an dho t ai r balloo n activitie s shoul dcontinu e t o tak e plac e onl y o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport , a s the y currentl y do ; th e City i s oppose dt o creatin g ne w spac e fo r ho t ai r balloo n o r

helicopte r activitie s o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport . N o aeronautica l activity currenti y take s plac e o n th e wes t side , wher e ther e i s n o improve daeronautica l infrastructur e an d n o aeronautica l facilitie s o r services . AF l 2 . Th e eas t

sid e o f th e Airport

i s th e cente r

o f al l aeronautica l operation s o n th e Airport . In th e las t

year , 3 2 ne w hangar s hav e bee n buil t b y th e City o n th e eas t

sid e o f th e Airport , an dth e eas t

sid e o f th e Airport

alread y contain s ahelipad , a n approve d helicopte r

flight pattern , ahelicopte r

repai r sho p an dgenera l accommodation s an d service s fo r helicopters . Ho t ai r balloo n usag e als o take s plac e o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airpor

t fromtim e t o time . Helicopter s (regularly ) an dho t

ai r balloon s (occasionally ) hav e bee n operatin g o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport safel y an dcomfortabl y for anumbe r o f years , an d n o fe e i s charge d b y th e City fo r helicopte r an dho t ai r balloo n take-off

s an dlandings . Ther e i s n o goo d reaso n t o mov e thes e operation s t o th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

o r t o creat e duplicat e operatin g area s fo r thes e aeronautica l activitie s outsid e th e security fenc e wher e ther e i s n o hangar space , n o aviatio n services , n o aeronautica l building s o r

utilities , an dwher e vehicl e acces s road s ar e ol d an d poorl y maintained . Th e dro p zon e itself

, whic h wil l b e simpl y aleve l spac e fo r parachut e landing , i s no t necessary fo

r helicopte r an dho t ai r balloo n use , a s thes e aeronautica l use s ar e alread y accommodate d withi n th e existin g improve dairfiel dfacilitie s o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport .

3 2AF l 3 . Skydiv e ha s bee n operatin g onl y a s askydiv e an d parachutin g busines s an d i s no t

t o th e City' s knowledg e i n th e busines s o f conductin g helicopte r

o r ho t ai r balloo n operations . AFl4 . Skydiv e als o complain s that th e Leas e prohibit s Skydiv e fromplacing , constructin g o r

buildin g an y structur e o n th e lease d premises . AF l 5 . Ther e i s n o reaso n wh y abuildin g i s require d o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

in orde r fo r Skydiv e t o engag e i n it s skydivin g activities . Ther e i s ampl e spac e o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport

t o accommodat e Skydive' s needs , an d Skydiv e alread y sub-lease s hangar spac e o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport . AF l 6 . Th e onl y structure s that currentl y exis t

o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport

(othe r than thre e unoccupied , dilapidate dWWII-vintag e barracks ) ar e th e temporary trailer s use d b y DeSilv a {se e City Ex . 2 6 [photograp h o f DeSilv atrailers]) . Th e Cit y ha s permitte d DeSilva , anon aeronautica l tenant , t o plac e it s temporar y constructio n office s o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airpor

t i n connectio n wit

h th e constructio n o f

th e nearb y Lincol n Stat e Highwa y 6 5 Bj^as s project . A s soo n a s th e highwa y constructio n i s completed , thos e temporar y structure s wil l b e removed . Th e onl y utilit y tha

t run s t o thos e structure s i s a n electri c lin e strun g straigh t fro ma n electri c pole . Onl y employee s workin g o n th e constructio n projec t hav e acces s t o DeSilva' s offices ; the y ar e no t ope n t o th e public . AF l 7 . I n additio n t o thes e temporary structures , th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

i s als o use d fo r som e othe r

non-aeronautica l purpose s that d o no t requir e structures . Th e City store s mino r debris , som e City vehicle s an dne w Cit y tras h receptacle s o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport . Th e City als o permit s on e o f

it s tenant s t o perfor

mcras h test s involvin g automobile s an d highwa y barrier s o n a

n abandone dportio n o f

ol d runwa y o n th e wes t

sid e o f th e Airport . Ther e ar e n o othe r activitie s currentl y takin g plac e o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport .

33AF l 8 . Th e Cit y oppose s th e placemen t o f an y permanen t

structur e ope n t o th e publi c o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

becaus e ther e ar e n o accessibl e utilit y connection s o n tha t sid e o f th e Airport . Th e neares t

wate r an dsewe r

connection s t o th e dro p zon e ar e approximatel y 3,00 0 fee t fromth e dro p zon e site , an dan y electrica l connectio n woul d hav e t o b e ru n fromelectri c powe r line s runnin g alon g anearb y road . Additiona l constructio n difficultie s woul d b e cause d b y th e man y wetland s an dverna l pool s tha t exis t i n thi s area . AF l 9 . Th e Cit y wil l no t

agre e t o th e constructio n o f astructure , t o b e ope n t o th e public , whic h doe s no t

mee t basi c safet

y an dsanitatio n standards . Th e City woul d requir e an y open-to the-publi c buildin g o n th e wes t sid e o f th e Airport

t o have , a

t aminimum , ho t

an d col d runnin g potabl e water , restroo mfacilities , an dafire suppressio n syste m{see LM C 13.04.499 , 13.04.45 0 City Ex . 27 ; Lincol n Ordinanc e 314B , a s amende d b y Lincol n Ordinanc e 322B , Cit y Ex . 28 ; Californi aFir e Cod e Section s CI01-CI05 , regardin g fire hydrants . Cit y Ex . 29)60 . I t woul d b e difficul t an dexpensiv e for

thes e service s t o b e provide d t o an y structure , temporary o r permanent , a

t th e dro p zone . Th e City therefor e wil l agre e onl y t o Skydive' s us e o f structure s o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport

fo r it s offic e an d parachut e repackin g facilities . AF20 . Fro ma

n airport managemen t

perspective , th e City als o seek s t o retai n a s muc h aeronautica l activity a s possibl e inside th e security fenc e an d o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport . Th e City' s curren t

airpor t developmen t

progra mi s focuse d o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport . Ther e i s ampl e buildin g spac e availabl e t o Skydiv e o n th e eas t sid e o f th e Airport

an d ther e i s n o nee d t o buil dastructur e o n th e wes t sid e {see City Ex . 12) . A char t depictin g th e site o f

th e propose d dro p zon e i n relatio n t o th e Airport boundar y an d security fenc e a s wel l a s i n relatio n t o Skydive' s existin g h ange r spac e i s reproduce d a s City Ex . 30 .

3 4FIRS T AFFIRMATIV E DEFENS E

Th e Complain t

doe s no t establis h areasonabl e basi s fo r further investigatio n b y th e FAA . SECON D AFFIRMATIV E DEFENS E Th e Complain t

doe s no t contai n sufficient

evidenc e to mee t

Skydive' s burde n o f

proo f t o establis h tha

t th e City ha s violate dGran t Assuranc e 22 . THIR D AFFIRMATIV E DEFENS E Th e Complain t

doe s no t contai n sufficient

evidenc e t o mee t

Skydive' s burde n o f

proo f t o establis h that

th e City ha s violate dAssuranc e 2 3 o r 4 9 U.S.C . § 40103(e ) b y grantin g an y prohibite dexclusiv e rights. FOURT H AFFIRMATIV E DEFENS E Th e Complain t

doe s no t contai n sufficient

evidenc e t o mee t

Skydive' s burde n o f

proo f t o establis h that

th e City ha s impose da

n unlawfii l unattainabl e conditio n FIFT H AFFIRMATIV E DEFENS E Th e City' s ha s lawfiill y exercise d it s proprietary rights a s owne r an d operato r

o f th e Airport . B y its^^ttcHineys ,

ffi n ANDERSO^^&XREIGE RLL P On e Canal Park , Suit e 20 0 Cambridge , M A 0214 1 T : 617.621.650 0 F : 617.621.666 0 slewis@andersonkreiger.co m cgriffin@andersonkreiger.co m Counse l for

Responden t

3 5CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y i n accordanc e wit

h 1 4 CFR§ 16.15(a ) that

toda y I serve d th e foregoin g Respondent' s Answe r

an dth e accompanyin g volum e o f Supportin g Evidentiary Materia l o n th e followin g person s a

t th e followin g addresse s b y Federal Express : Richar dJ . Durde n Attorne y a

t La w 2798 7 Richmon d Hil l Road Conifer , C O 8043 3 Offic e o f Chie f Counsel , Attention : FA A Par t 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t AGC-61 0 FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1

Date dthi&^ " ia y o f

Sentember , 200 9

3 6SKYDIV

E SACRAMENTO Coniplainanf

, vs . TH E CIT Y O F LINCOLN , CALIFORNI A Responden

t Richar dJ . Durde n P2911 4 Attorae y at

La w 2798 7 Richmon dHil

l Rd . Conifer , Co . 8043 3 616/901-651 6 Attor-ie y fo r Complainant 1 4 CF R§ 1 6 COMPLAIN T I . Entities/Person s Tha t

Ar e th e Subjec t

o f th e Complain t 0 J Skydiv e Sacramento i s the nam e unde r whic h 80896 , L.L.C , aCahforni aL.L.C . operate s (Exhibi t 1) . It s addres s i s 289 6 Fo

x De n Circle , Lincoln , California , 95648 . I t i s acommercia

l aeronautica

l use r o f th e Lincoln , Californi aRegiona l Airpor t (Airport) . A s represente d b y counsel , i t make s th e following Complaint fo r violation s o f

4 9 US C § § 47107,40103(e ) an d Grant Assuranc e 22 , failur

e t o compl y wit h gran t obligation s an

d Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Otder s an

dAdvisor y Circular s prohibitin g establishmen t of exclusiv e right s a

t a n airport , unjus t

discriminatio n agains t

acommercia

l aeronautica

l activit y seekin g airpor

t acces s an dth e establishmen t

o f unattainabl e an

ddiscriminator

y standard s fo

r acommercia

l aeronautica

l activit y seekin g airpor

t access , agains t

th e Cit y of Lincoln , Californi a(City ) a s th e owne r an d sponsor o f th e Lincoln , Californi aRegiona l Airpor t (Airport) , a s wil

l b e mor e full y set ou t below . Th e Cit

y o f Lincoln , California , through it s Cit y Attorney , Timoth

y Hayes , ma

y b e reache d a t 42 2 Centur

y Par k Drive , Suit

e A , Yub aCity , California , 9599 1 an d through it s Cit

yManager , .li mEstep , 60 0 Sixt

h Street , Lincoln , California , 95648 . Th e violations , upo n information andbelie f

ar e due lo th e action s o f

air^xir t manager , Davi

d Dal y an d others , unknow n l o Complainant , employedb y the Cit y of Lincoln , California . H . 1 4 CF R§16.2 1 Certificatio n |*j 1 I n September

2007 , Skydiv e Sacrament

o applied fo

r permission t

o lan d it s custome

r skydiver s on apropose ddro p zon e on th e Lincol n Regiona l Airpor t (Airport) an

d t o erec t a buildin g adjacen

t t o the dro p zone fro

mwhic h t o ru n it s busines s an

d repack parachute s (Exhibi t 1) . Th e Cit

y o f Lincol n denie dComplainant' s applicatio n fo r adrop zone on th e Airpor

t citin g safet y issues . Complainant

objecte dto th e City' s denia l an d filed a14 CF

RPar t 1 3 notic e o f violatio n wit

h th e FA A regardin g th e City' s denia l o f acces s o f a n aeronautica

l use r t o a n airpor t tha t wa s i n receip t o f federa l gran t mone y (Exhibi t 2) . Th e FA

A has , t o thi s date , not

responde d t o the Par i 1 3 complaint

andi t i s no w moote d b

y thi s Complaint . Xi \Th e Cit

y sough t asafet y review fro

mthe FA A ADO , which directe d the Sacrament o FSD O t o conduc t th e review . Th e FA

A conducte d it

s safet y review ove

r anumbe r of months , completin g it

i n Novembe

r 2008 . Th e FA A specifically foun

d tha t adro p zon e coul d b e operate dsafel

y o n the airpor

t (Exhibi t 3) . [ j 7 Complainant

als o contacte dth e Norther n Californi aRada

r Approach (TRACON) t

o discus s saf e skydivin g operation s andreceive d aLette r o f Agreemen

t o n Octobe

r 18,200 8 fro

m the TRACO

N fo r it s skydivin g operation s a

t Lincol n Airpor t (Exhibi t 4) . j^ T Followin g th e safet

y finding b

y the FAA , Complainan

t sough t t o negotiate a

n agreemen

t fo r drop zon e acces s an

derectin g abuildin g wit

h the City . Th e Cit

y refused t

o negotiat e and o n Decembe r 20.200 8 unilaterally issuedadro p zone leas e (Exhibi t 5) , whic h wa s not acceptabl e t

o Complainan

t du e to the siz e o f

th e dro p zone an

d provision s tha

t appeare d t

o violate th e City' sFA

A grant obligations . Complainanl , throug h counsel , objected lo the leas e an d sough t l o mee t wit h th e Cit y t o negotiate a

n acceptabl e leas e (Exhibit 6) . The Cit

y refused . ^ 3 ^^^ ^ -'anuar y 16 , 200 9 Complainanl again sough t hel p fro mthe TA A AD O fo r the action s of th e Cit y of Lincol n an dit s airpor

t manage r i n keepin g i

t of f of Ih e Airpor t (Exhibit 2) . jjl T Th e i'A

A neve r responded . 1^ ^ On Februar

y 9 , 2009 , th e City , through it s attorney , advised Complainant' s counse l tha t th e Cit y wa s reworkin g the lease . Complainant' s counsel requested ameetin g to negotiat e leas e term s "rathe r

tha n hav e Mr . Dal

y (airpor t manager ) issu e anothe

r lease/agreemen

t tha t ma y require furthe

r negotiatio n an

ddelay " (Exhibi t

6) . [ff ] rh e Cit

y neve r agree dto ameeting . ^1< Q O n March 2 , 2009 , Complainant' s counsel aske d whethe r the revise d leas e wa s forthcomin g an

dwa s tol di

t wouldb e ou

t shortly (Exhibi t

8) . Thi s second dro p zone leas e (Exhibi t 9 ) was receive dabout

tw o weeks later . I

t wa s sen t o n t o the FA A AD O b y Complainan

t o n March 10 , 2009 , pointin g out tha t i t di d no t compl y wit h th e City' s grant

obligations . tjl j Th e FA

A AD O di dnot

respond . Q2 J O n Marc

h 18 , 2009 , Complainant' s counsel contacte d counsel fo r the Cit y t o outlin e suggeste dchange s t

o th e revise ddrop zone leas e an d t o transmi t suggeste d alternativ e agreement s (Exhibi t

10) . Q^' y O n Marc

h 23 , 24 , 25 , April 2 , 1 3 an d 2 1 Complainant' s counsel contacte d counsel fo r th e Cit y to reques t

ameetin g t

o discus s dro p zon e leas e tenn s (Exhibit s 1 1 through 18) . h H l Th e Cit

y wouldnot

agre e t o meet . Qs" ! Th e airpor

t manage r ha dnot returned telephon e call s fro mComplainant' s presiden t sinc e approximatel y th e first

o f Januar y 200 9 (Exhibi t

1) .^ p l On Apri l 30 , 200 9 athir

ddro p zone leas e (th e Lease) wa s issued b y th e Cily , agai n without an y negotiatio n (Exhibit

19) . Counse

l fo r Complainan

t contacte d counse l fo

r the Cit y the next da y wit h concern s abou

t the Leas e an

d wa s told tha t the Cit y woul d not negotiate . Counse l fo

r Complainan

t aske dtha t the attorney fo

r the Cit y confir mtha t the Cily would no

t retaliate agains t

Complainanl shouldComplainan t file aPar t 1 6 Complain

t (Exhibit 20) . Ther e ha s been no respons e lo tha t request . C-J I A s the FA

A AD O has bee

n unwillin g t

o eve n respon d t o request s fo

r help o n the discriminator

y portion s o f

the lease , the FA

A AD O ha s no

t responde d t

o Complainant' s Par

t 1 3 complaint (no w mootedb

y thi s Complaint) an

d th e Cit y has refused t

o negotiat e leas e terms . Complainant

has mad e substantia

l an dreasonabl e good fait

h effort s t o resolv e thi s matte

r and ha s exhauste dit s remedie s fo r the City' s action s keepin g i t fro maeronautica

l activit y o n th e Airport . Ther

e doe s not appea r lo b e an y reasonabl e prospec t

fo r timel y resolutio n of

th e disput e an dthu s Complainant' s sol e option fo r relief now consist s of

filing aPar

t 1 6 Complaint . III . Factua l Backgroun d rW 7 Skydiv e Sacramento i s i n th e busines s of

providing skydivin g instructio n and service s fo r skydivers . I

t ha s rente dhanga

r an doffic e spac e o

n the Lincol

n Regiona l Airpor t a s apar t of it s commercia

l operatio n sinc e 2007 (Exhibi t 1) , however , due t o th e issue s to b e addresse d i n thi s Complaint i t ha s ha dt o leas e lan

dof f o f th e Airpor

t premise s fo

r adro p zon e rather

tha n bein g allowe d to conduc t

tha t aeronautica

l activit y o n th e Airport . ^^H l Th e Cit

y o f Lincoln , Californi ai s th e sponso r of the Lincoln Regiona

l Airport , a moderate sized , nontowere dairport . I t doe s no t have schedule d airlin e service . I t currenti y occupie s about

77 5 acres , but

ha s onl y on e runwa

y (Exhibit 21 , airpor t we b page , Exhibi t

2 2aeria

l phot o an dExhibit 2 3 airpor t diagram/map) , l l was buil t fo r the U.S . Arm

y Ai r Forc e durin g Worl

dWa r II . Tw o o f

it s origina l thre e runway s ar

e no w closed . I

n 2007 , the most recen t yea r fo r whic h dat ai s show n o n th e Airpor

l websit e (Exhibi t 21) ; i t claime d abou

t 81,000 aircraf t operations . Whil e the current recessio n has ha

d adevastatin g effec

t o n genera l aviatio n an doverall operations , the airpor t ha s not publishe d it s operationa

l number s fo

r 200 8 o r 2009 l o date o n it s website .s

o i t i s no t know n by ho w muc

h operation s have dropped , although a n estimate ha s operation s a

t fewe r tha n 10 0 pe r da y (Exhibi t 1) . Prio r t o 2007 , growt

h i n usag e o f th e Airpor t wa s slow ; th e FA

A datafo r 199 3 showed 71,00 0 annua l operation s (http:/'.\vvvw.gcri.com.'.i010web/atrport.cfin?Sile"lJliVll . [26 1 I t shoul db e note dtha

t the ter m"dro p zone " ma

y hav e tw o meaning s i

n common usage : i t ca n mea n the specifi c are ao

n which skydiver s lan

d an d i t ca n mea n askydivin g establishment . I n 14 CF RPar t 105. 3 i t i s defined , i

n part , a s "an

y pre-determine d are aupo n which parachutist s or object s lan

dafte r making a n intentiona

l parachut e jump or drop" . I n th e Unite d State s Parachute Associatio n Skydiver' s Informatio n Manua l adro p zone i s defined a s a"skydivin g establishment

o r intende dparachut

e landin g area" . Fo

r ihe purpos e o f

thi s Complain

t th e Ixas e offeredb y th e Cit y i s fo r aparachut

e landin g are aonly ; however , the City' s refusa l to allo w Complainan

t to set up askydivin g establishment , wit h abuilding , adjacen

t t o th e parachut

e landin g are ai s apar

t o f the issues . Thus , herei n "dro p zone " wil l usuall y mea n th e parachut

e landin g are abut

may , on occasion , refe

r t o th e skydiving establishment ; however , th e meaning shoul db e obviou s fro

mcontext . VlS } Complainant' s busines s ha s bee n reasonably good through the recession . Complainan t is , fro mwha t limite ddat ai s available , th e larges t singl e purchase

r of fue l o n th e airpor

t (Exhibi t 1 )[j^'- J A s ma y b e .see n fro ma n aeria l photograp

h o f the Airport , ther

e i s significan

t ope n spac e lo th e wes t o f the runwa y (Exhibi t 22) . Thi s i s largel

y o n an d nea r the tw o close d runways . Par t o f the are ai s currently bein g use dfo r dumpin g tras h an

d debris , suc

h a s tor n u p pavement , b

y the City . Som

e spac e ha s bee

n rente dto nonaviation businesse s whic h hav e erecte d temporar

y building s o

n leasedlan

do n the Airport . Exhibi

t 2 4 show s the building s an

d operatio n o f

on e busines s o n th e wes t side o f th e airport , wes t

o f th e securit

y fence ; exhibit

2 5 show s som

e of the materia l dumpe do

n on e o f th e abandone drunway s o

n th e wes t side o f the airport , west

o f the securit y fence . (."^Z j I n Septembe

r 2007 , whe

n Complainan

t sough t t o open it s business , it s president , Pa t Garcia , mad e aforma

l request , i

n asixty-pag e documen

t (no t reproduce d here du e t

o size) , to us e som e o f th e ope n lando n wes t sid e o f th e Airport , wes t

o f th e securit

y fence , a s adrop zon e an

d l o erec t abuildin g to operat

e the busines s an

d repack parachute s (Exhibi t

1) . I n exhibi t 2 6 building s ca

n b e see n o

n the wes t sid e o f th e airport . The

y belon g t o th e nonaviatio n businesse s o n the wes t side of the airpor t an dwer e no t presen t whe n Mr . Garci amad

e hi s application . (The nonaviatio n businesse s made applicatio n fo r lan d afte r Complainan

t an d wer e immediatel

y grante dleases. ) The

y are nea r th e location Mr . Garci arequeste d to plac e hi s company' s building . Th e requeste ddro p zon e was t o b e o n th e grasslan d nort

h o f the abandone d runway s and wes t o f th e securit

y fenc e (Exhibi t

1) . The dro p zone land involved wa s not improved (and i s not) andwa s bein g usedfro mtim e t o time fo r hove r practic e b y helicopter s an d sometime s a s alaunchin g site fo

r hot ai r balloons . (Th e sit

e o f th e drop zone a s outiine d i n th e Lease , exhibi t 19 , i s no t a t issue . Bot

h Complainant

an d the Airpor

t agre e a s to th e locatio n an d dimensio n o f th e drop zone . I

t i s essentially i

n th e location Complainan

t originally requested . Th e Cit y ha sneve

r agree dt o allo w Complainan

t t o erec t abuildin g i

n conjunction wit

h the drop zone although i t ha s approve dbuilding s fo

r th e nonaviatio n businesse s o n th e v/es l side o f

th e airport. ) r^f l There i s agat

e i n th e securit

y fenc e adjacen

t to the proposed drop zone , making i t ea.s y fo r ajump airplan e t

o taxi u p t o the securit

y gat e s o skydiver s ca

n wal k fro mthe drop zone , through th e securit

y gat e an dboar dIh e airplane . Th e securit

y gal e i s wel

l clea r o f al l safet y zone s surroundin g the runwa y an dthe airpor

t ha s used tha

t are ato par

k airplane s i

n th e past , s o there i s no safet

y issue . Exhibit s 26 an

d2 7 sho w a n airplan e parked b

y th e securit

y gat e i n Januar y o f thi s year . Loadin g ajump airplan e a t th e securit

y gat e keep s skydiver s awa

y fro mall othe r aircraf t aroundth e hangar s ando

n the ramp s o

n th e eas t side o f th e airport , make s certai n there i s n o reason fo

r aperso n t o b e walkin g acros s the runwa y an d taxiway s an

d keep s jumper s o n th e wes t sid e o f the securit

y fenc e unti l tim

e t o loa d the airplane . Ther

e i s vehicl e acces s t

o th e propose dbuildin g anddro p zon e sit e fro mth e roa d running alon g the wes t

side o f the airport ; th e vehicl e acces s i s currenti y bein g usedb y th e nonaviatio n businesse s on the wes t side o f th e airport ; se e exhibi t

23 , airpor t diagram/map . \l'^' \Whil e Skydiv e Sacrament o waited fo

r th e Cit y t o rul e o n it s dro p zone application , i t rente dlandabout

si x mile s fro

mth e Airpor

t fo r adro p zone . Thi s require d tha t jumper s rid e back to the Airpor

t i n ava n afte r each jump . Th e cos t

an d inconvenienc e of

the va n ride place d Skydiv e Sacramento a

t acompetitiv e disadvantag e wit h it s thre e competin g skydiv e operator s i n th e area , all o f

which coul dlan

do n their airport s (Exhibi t

1) . Cji A Followin g Complainant' s Septembe r 200 7 applicatio n th e Cit

y too k seve n month s t o den y Complainant

us e o f th e lan dfo r adro p zon e o

n th e Airpor

t (Exhibi t 28) . (VT I Becaus e the Cit

y ha dclaime dtha

t it s reaso n fo

r denia l wa s safety , an

d the partie s knew tha t th e FA A ha dth e final wor

do n safet y o f dro p zon e proposals , th e Sa n Francisc o AD O wa scontacte dan dasiifet y stud y wa s requested . Ih e ADO ha d the Sacrament

o FSD O conduc t

the study , which wa s complete do n Novembe

r 21 , 200 8 wit

h afinding tha

t adrop zone coul d b e operate dsafel

y (Exhibi t 3) . rpk l Whil e th e safet

y revie w was i

n process , Complainan

t als o contacte d NORCA

L TRACO N regardin g saf

e operation s andcoordinatio n betwee n jum p aircraf t an d ai r traffic control . The TRACON foun

dtha t skydivin g operation s could b e conducte d safel y an d o n Octobe r 18 , 200 8 issue d aletter

o f agreement

regarding such operation s (Exhibit 4) . Tp n Complainant

made anothe

r reques t a s acommercia

l aeronautica

l operator to land on the airpor t (Exhibi t 29) . (^6 ? O n Decembe

r 20,2008 , without

negotiation , th e Cit

y presente d adrop zon e leas e (Exhibi t 4) . [ 3 n Upo n examinatio n o f the leas e i t

wa s apparen

t t o Complainan

t tha t ther e wer e significan

t problem s wit

h it , notably arequiremen

t fo r $ 1,000,00

0 of commercia

l genera l insuranc e coverag e fo

r skydiving . There i s no suc h insuranc e available , a

t an y pric e (Exhibi t

30) , and i t ha s no t been availabl e sinc e th e 1980s . There wer e recital s regardin g estimate s of traffic increase s on th e Airpor

t which wer

e ou t of date an d untrue , t o which Complainan

t coul d no t agre e an dwer e no t include din othe

r commercia

l aviatio n lease s on th e Airport ; recital s tha t implie dtha

t th e Complainant' s activitie s on the airpor t wer e unsafe , which recital s wer e not include din other

commercia

l aviatio n lease s o

n th e Airpor

t an d recital s tha

t indicate d tha

t skydivin g wa s asecond-clas s aeronautica l activit y an d coul d b e exclude d fro

mth e airpor

t i n favo r of other aeronautica

l activities . \^Z3 , Complainant

retaine dcounse

l who contacte d th e City , outlinin g problem s wit h th e Leas e an drequestin g ameetin g to negotiat e amutually agreeabl e lea.se . Complainan t als o filed aPar

t1 3 complaint wit h the FA A ADO . T

o date , ther

e has bee n n o respons e fro

mth e FA A an d tha t complaint i s moote db y this . Par t 1 6 Complaint . y^UC i Complainant

wa s able t

o leas e lan d close r t o the Airport , cullin g down o n the time tha

t its customer s ha

dt o spendriding i

n ava n afte r eac h jump , but

the fac t tha t Complainan

t ha d lo transpor t it s customer s b

y va n afte r eac h jum p was stil l a

n added cos t

an d place d i t a t a competitiv e disadvantag e t o thos e operator s whos e customer s coul d simpl y lan d o n thei r airpor t dro p zone , wal

k t o the office , repack

thei r parachute s an

dreboar d the jump airplan e (Exhibi t 1 ) Complainant

als o ha dt o pa y $3,50 0 t o have th e lan

d fo r tha t dro p zone graded . Rj^ T Afte

r Complainant

le t the Cit y kno w tha

t the leas e wa s unacceptabl e counsel fo r the Cil y advise dtha

t th e Cit y woul drevis e th e lease . Notin g tha t loadin g skydiver s adjacen

t t o the drop zon e s o n o va

n ride was require dafte

r ajum p was on e o f

the mos t important facet s t o th e succes s o f th e dro p zon e (Exhibi t

8 ) Complainant' s counsel bega n wha t becam e aserie s o f

request s fo

r meeting s wit

h the Cit y to negotiat

e leas e term s (Exhibit s 6 , 8 , 11-1 4 an d 16) . Ove

r th e cours e o

f request s fo

r meeting s ove

r the next fe w months , th e Cit

y neve r agree d t o mee t to negotiate . |[^ 1 Whil e th e Cit

y wa s revisin g th e lease , th e airpor t manage r carrie d ou t

wha t wa s athinly veile dcampaig n o f

harassmen

t of Complainant . Despit

e publishin g anewsletter

an d promisin g a forty-cen t per gallo n fue l discount/rebat

e fo r purchaser s of

mor e tha n 300 gallon s of

fue l an d Complainant

regularly purchasin g mor

e tha n 300 gallon s o f

fue l i n aday , th e airpor

t jnanage r refused t o provide th e discount/rebat e (Exhibit s 1 , 7 an

d 31) . Complainan

t contracte d fo

r aTwin Otte r airplan e t o carr

y it s customer s t o altitude . The airpor t manage r applie d pressure to the pilo t o f th e Twi n Otter

ove r tiedow n an

dfue l fee s whic

h Complainan

t ha d paid and eventually mad

e threat s to th e pilo t

whic h cause dhi

mt o tak e th e airplan e an

d leave , costin g Complainant severa l thousan ddollar s i

n revenu e unti l i

t coul darrang e fo

r anothe r twin-engin e turbopro p jumpairplan e (Exhibi t 1) . Th e ASO S fo

r the Airpor

t i s arecorde d radi o broadcas t o f weathe r an d .safet y information tha

t i s listene dt

o b y pilot s prio

r t o departin g fro

mor arrivin g a t th e Lincol n Airport . A notic e tha

t skydiving was taking plac e wa s placed o n the ASO S fo

r th e purpos e of increasin g th e leve

l of safet y fo r all users o

f the Airport . Thre e time s th e airpor t manage r remove dth e notice . The firs t tw o times complaint s fro

mairpor t users cause d hi

mt o replac e il . Th e thir dtime i t took notic e t o th e City' s attorne y t o hav e th e notic e pu

t bac k o n th e ASO S (Exhibi t 1) . r % j Afte

r severa l request s (Exhibit

9) , an d acontinuin g refusa

l t o mee t to negotiate , the Cit

y sen l ou t asecon ddro p zon e leas e on Marc h 9,2009 . T'^l l Thi s leas e wa s a

n improvemen

t i n term s of th e siz e and locatio n o f

th e dro p zone , however , i t

retaine dterm s tha

t wer e inappropriat

e i n acommercia

l operatin g lease , especially requirin g insuranc e tha

t wa s unattainabl e a

t an y pric e an d havin g Complainan

t pa y fo r th e City' s insuranc e when no othe

r operator s ha

dl o d o so . I t stil l containe d term s an

d condition s tha

t wer e no t require do f

othe r commercia

l aviatio n operator s o

n the Airpor

t an d include d tenn s tha

t wer e internall y inconsistent , settin g u p Complainan

t t o violat e the term s o

f th e leas e no matte

r wha t i t did . Complainant

responde dt o th e secon

d leas e wit h tw o suggeste d approache s t o a n agreemen

t andagai n requeste dameetin g to negotiat e a n agreemen

t fo r adro p zone a s Complainan t wa s continuin g to face acompetitiv e disadvantag e an d los s of busines s (Exhibi t

10) , I S^T ^'^ ^ ^^^

y ^^^ ^ ' ^ woul drevis e th e lease , bu t still , despite repeate d request s (Exhibit s 6 , 8 , 11-1 4 an d16) refusedt

o negotiat e an dcontinued it s practic e o f

unilaterally issuin g adro p zon e leas e o n "take i t

or leav e it " ternis . Th

e thir d drop zon e Leas e wa s sen

t ou t o n April 20 , 200 9 (Exhibi t 19) . It i s th e subjec t

o f thi s Complaint .

1 0\ ^ 1 Followin g th e issuanc e of the thir dproposed Lease , Complainan t mad e altempt s t

o negotiate wit

h the City , eve

n attendin g aJul

y meeting o f

all o f th e commercia

l operator s wit

h th e Cit y sjwnsoredb

y th e Chambe

r o f Commerc e i

n whic h the operator s outline d thei r continue d problem s i

n dealin g wit

h the airpor

t manage r an d the Cily , eve

n though Complainan

t wa s told tha t the Cil y Manage r wouldmee

t t o discus s the lease . Complainant' s phone cal l t o hi mt o d o s o wa s neve r returne d(Exhibi t

1) . Thi s Complain

t followed . IV . Violation s b

y Cit y o f Lincoln , Californi a Applicabl e I^a

w ufo l 4 9 US C § 47101 , etseq. , provide s fo r Federa l airpor t financial assistanc e fo

r th e development

o f public-us e airport s unde

r th e Airpor

t Improvemen

t Prograi n (AlP ) establishe d b y th e Airpor t an dAirwa y Improvemen

t Act (AAIA) , a s amended . 4 9 US C § 47107 . e ( seq. , set s fort h assurance s to which a

n airpor t sponsor agree s a s aconditio n of

receivin g Federa

l financia l assistance . Upo

n acceptanc e o f

a n AI P grant , the assurance s become abindin g obligatio n betwee n the airpor

t sponsor andthe Federa

l government . Th

e FA A ha s astatutor

y mandat e t o ensure tha t airpor t operator s compl

y wit h th e sponso

r assurances . U \ \4 9 US C § 47107(a) states , i n part : "Genera l Writte n Assurances . - fhe Secretar y o f Transportatio n ma y approv e aproject

gran t applicatio n unde

r thi s subchapte

r fo r a n airpor t developmen

t projec t onl y i f the Secretar

y receive s written assurances , satisfactor

y to th e Secretar

y that

- (1 ) th e airpor

t wil l b e availabl e fo

r publi c us e o

n reasonabl e condition s an

d without unjust discrimination; . , , "

1 1A s arecipien t o f federa l grant s fo r th e Lincol

n Regiona l Airporl , the Cil

y of Lincol n provide d writte n assurance s o f

complianc e wit

h it s obligatio n t

o mak e the airpor

t availabl e fo

r publi c us e without unjust discrimination , \jC l Th e owne

r o f an y airpor t develope d wit

h Federa l gran t assistanc e i s require d to operat e th e airpor t fo r the us e an

dbenefi t o f th e publi c an

d t o mak e i t availabl e lo al

l types , kinds , an

d classe s o f aeronautica

l activit y o n reasonabl e tenns , an

d without unjust discrintination ; see Gran

t Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination , o f the prescribe d sponsor

assurance s whic

h implement s th e provision s o f 4 9 US C § 47107(a)(1 ) through (6) . r/f^ l FA

A Order 5190.6A , Airpor

l Complianc e Requiremenls , describe s i n detai l th e responsibilitie s assume db

y th e owner s o f

public-us e airport s develope d wit h Federa l assistance . Appendi x 5 o f

th e Orde r clearly define s parachut

e activitie s a s a

n aeronautica

l activit y an d give s that activit y n o greate

r or lesse r weigh t tha n other aeronautica

l activitie s protecte d b

y gran t assurances . Parachute activitie s ar e give n equa l acces s t o airport s develope d wit

h Federa l , assistanc e a s ar

e al l othe r definedaeronautica

l activities . Sectio n 4,8.b . o f the Order , entitle d Parachute Jumping , states :

"Parachute jumpin g i s a

n aeronautica

l us e and request s t

o airpor t owner s fro mparachut

e jumpin g clubs , organization s or individual s t o establis h adro p zone within th e boundarie s o f a n airpor t should b e evaluate don the same basi s a s othe r aeronautica

l use s o f th e airport. " (emphasi s added ) Q<J 1 4 9 US C § 40103(e ) prescribes , in part :

"N o Exclusiv e Right s a

t Certai n Facilities.- A perso n doe s no t hav e a n exclusiv e righ

t to us e a n ai r navigatio n facilit

y o n whic h Governmen

t mone y ha s been expended. " y 4 y FA

A Advisor y Circula r A C 150/5190-6 , which wa s create d b y th e FA A to provide guidanc e t o airpor

t sponsor s i

n complyin g wit

h th e statutory ' prohibitio n on grantin g o f exclusiv e 1 2rights (4 9 US C § 40103(e ) andunjusti y discriminatin g agains t

aeronautica

l user s of airports , ll make s clea

r i n Sectio n 1.

2 Agency Policy ; "A n exclusiv e right s violation occur s whe n the airpor

t sponsor exclude s others , eithe

r intentionall

y o r uninlcntionally , fro

m participatin g i

n a n on-airpor

t aeronautica

l activity. " 14C M Th e action s of

the Cit y i n establishin g unaltainabie , unequa l an d unreasonably discriminator

y term s i n the leas e i

t seek s t o impos e o

n Complainan

t amoun t t o violation s of

th e statute s an dit s gran t assurance s a s wil

l b e se t fort h below . Specifi c Violation s \4n i 1" ^ th e Leas e th e Cit

y ha s attempte d t

o impos e o n Complainan

t (Exhibi t 19) , the Cit

y i s i n violatio n o f

it s grant assurance s i n th e followin

g sections . T M H A . Sectio n 1 1 o f th e Leas e (Exhibit

19) , Insuranc e impose s insuranc e requirement s o n Complainan

t a s aconditio n o f

the Lease . Complainan

t currently carrie s variou s liabilit y policie s fo r it s skydivin g operation , o

n whic h i t name s the Cit

y a s a n additiona

l insured , an

d stand s read

y t o continu e thos e policie s a s require d b y th e Lease . However , on e o f th e type s of insuranc e specified , commercia l genera l liabilit y insuranc e tha

t cover s skydiving , simpl

y doe s not exist . Sectio n 11.a . o f

th e Leas e require s "commercia l genera l liabilit y insuranc e fo

r premise s use , skydivin g an daircraf t operations , an

d automobil e liabilit

y fo r license d vehicle s utilize don th e Premis e or

on Airport. " Th

e coverag e require d b

y the Cit y i s "$1,000,00 0 pe

r occurrenc e fo

r th e enumerate ditems " (Exhibit 19 , Sectio n 1 l.a.i.) . Further , th e Leas e require s tha t an y skydivin g exclusio n fo

r commercia

l genera l liabilit y mus t b e delete d (Exhibi t

19 , Sectio n ll.a.u.) .

1 3l ^ J I

t ha s no t bee n possibl e t

o obtain commercia

l genera l liabilit y insuranc e fo

r skydiving sinc e th e 1980 s (Exhibit

30) . Commercia

l genera l liabilit y insuranc e fo

r skydivin g i s no

t availabl e a

t an y pric e fo r an y level of coverag e (Exhibi t

30) . [ p Q Th e Cit

y wa s advised , an

dhas neve r disagreed , tha

t commercia

l genera l liabilit y insuranc e tha

t cover s skydivin g i s no

t availabl e i

n the insuranc e market

a t an y price . Qsi ) Placin g a

n unattainabl e requiremen

t fo r airpor t acces s i s aviolatio n o f

4 9 US C § § 47107 , 40103(e ) an

dth e gran t agreements . Section 3-12 . Administratio n o f Policy , of FA A Orde r 5190,6A , discussin g th e minimu mstandard s fo

r commercia

l operator s seekin g t

o operate o

n a n airpor t s o tha t the airpor l sponsor complie s wit

h 4 9 US C § § 4710 7 an

d 40103(e ) state s i

n relevant part :

" , . . A pruden

t airpor t managemen

t shoul d establis h minimu

m standard s t o b e me t b y all wh o would engag e i

n acommercia

l aeronautica

l enterpris e a

t th e airport . I

l i s the prerogativ e o f

the airpor t owne r t o impos e condition s o

n user s of the airpor t t o ensur e it s saf e an defficien t operation . Such condition s must , however , b e fair , equa

l andnot unjustl y discriminatory . Tha

t i s t o say , the y must b e relevan

t t o the proposed activity , reasonably allainable , an duniforml y applie d" (Emphasi s added) LSt J Th e FA

A require s tha

t standard s b e reasonably attainable . Insuranc e tha t i s unattainabl e at any pric e doe s no

t fit an y definitio n of

attainable , reasonabl e or

not . \Si ^ B y establishin g a

n impossibl e standar

d fo r insurance , th e Cit

y i s preventin g Complainan t fro m"participatin g i

n a n on-airpor

t aeronautica

l activity " (AC 150/5190-6 , Sec . 1.2) , aclea r violatio n o f

4 9 US C § § 47107 , 40103(e ) an d th e City' s gran

t obligations . |^'^' \Complainan

t note s tha t i n it s researc h int

o othe r drop zone s acros s the countr y tha t wher e liabilit y insuranc e i s require dth e approach varies , however , i t foun d n o dro p zone s wher

e a n airpor t sponso r require dunattainabl e insurance . I t wa s advised tha

i a t leas t on e dro p zon e

1 4agreemen t

specifiedliabilit

y insuranc e coverag e an

d added aclaus e 'i f

obtainable " t

o the standard . f^ ^ B . Sectio n 1 1 o f the Leas e (Exhibit

19 ) require s the sam

e insuranc e coverag e fo

r eac h o f Complainant' s subcontractors . Complainan t contract s wit

h person s lo repac

k parachute s an d wit h aircraf t operator s t

o provid e skydivin g aircraf

t a s neede d (Exhibit

1) . As se t ou t i n the precedin g section , commercia l genera l skydivin g liabilit

y insuranc e i s not

available . Settin g a standardfo

r an y subcontracto r

o f Complainan

t tha t i s unattainabl e ha s th e effec l o f barring Complainant

fro mparticipatin g i

n a n on-airpor

t aeronautica

l activity , aviolatio n o f

4 9 US C § § 4710 7 an d40103(e) , se e Section 1. 2 of FA A Advisor y Circula r AC150/5190-6 . \^o j Th e sectio n o f

th e Leas e requirin g unattainabl e insuranc e fo r subcontractor s o f Complainant

i s aviolatio n of

4 9 US C § § 47107 , 40103(e ) an d th e City' s gran

t agreements . L'?1 ? ^

- Automobil e liabilit y - Sectio n 11 , of

the Leas e (Exhibi t

19) als o require s $1,000,00 0 i

n automobil e liabilit

y coverage . Thus fa

r Complainant

ha s no t foun d suc h coverag e fo r acompan y o f it s smal l size . To th e exten t thi s insuranc e i s unattainabl e i t i s aviolatio n o f

th e City' s grant

assurance s a s set

fort h above . T o th e exten

t such a n insuranc e requiremen

t i s mor e tha n i s require do f

othe r commercia

l aeronautica

l enterprise s o

n th e airpor

t i t i s aviolatio n a s se

t fort h in subsectio n E , below , {S'i l D T

o th e extent

tha t an y portion o f

Section 1 1 o f

th e leas e (Exhibi t

19) call s fo

r liabilit y coverag e tha

t i s not availabl e t

o Complainanl , i

t shoul d b e stricke

n a s no t attainabl e an

d aviolatio n o f

4 9 US C § § 47107,40103(e ) an d th e City' s gran

t agreements . ( ^^' \Complainant

recognize s tha

t the FA A ma y no t have th e authorit

y t o rewrite th e leas e a

t issu e beyon drecognizin g section s tha t ar e i n violatio n of

the grant assurances ; however . Complainan t

recognize s an

dha s n o objectio n t

o th e City' s desire t

o b e a n additiona

l insured o n 1 5Complainant' s insuranc e coverag e an dComplainan

t woul d prefe r tha t skydivin g insuranc e wer

e available . Complainan

t als o recognize s tha

t the insuranc e marke

t ma y chang e i n the futur e an d suggest s tha

t the insuranc e coverag e section s of the polic y ca

n b e mad e t o compl y wit h the la w an dthe gran t assurance s b

y conforming th e liabilit

y limit s wit

h thos e o f th e other commercia

l operator s on the airpor

t an dthe insertio n o

f th e word s "i f

obtainable" . Thus , shoul d th e insuranc e marke

t chang e during th e ter

mof the lease , such insuranc e woul d b e obtained . Complainant

note s tha t thi s was suggeste dto City , however . Cit y ha s refuse

d t o negotiat

e thi s sectio n o f the lease . [ko l E . I' o the extent the liabilit y limit s required i

n Sectio n 1 1 of

th e Leas e (Exhibi t

19 ) are highe r tha n thos e o f othe r commercia

l aeronautica

l enterprise s on the airport . Complainan t object s to thos e limit s a s aviolatio n o f 4 9 US C § § 47107 , 40103(e ) an d th e grant

assurances . A s previously pointe dout . Sectio n 3-12 , Administratio n o f Policy , of FA A Orde r 5I90.6 A establishe s requiremen

t fo r standard s tha

t ar e establishe d fo

r commercia

l operator s fo

r aeronautica

l activit y o n a n airpor t s o a s t o avoi d unjust

discrimination : "Suc h condition s must , however , b e fair , equal , an d not unjustiy discriminatory. " (Emphasi s added ) Cit y ha s thu s fa

r no t provide dComplainan

t wit h copie s o f

lease s wit h th e other

commercia

l aeronautica

l operator s o

n the airport . Th e Cily i s require d to impos e equa l condition s o n Complainant

regardin g liabilit

y limit s wit

h thos e operators . T o th e exten t tha t they ar e not equal , th e Cit y i s i n violatio n of

4 9 US C § § 47107 , 40103(e ) an dit s grant assurance s (FA

A Orde r 5190.6A) , ShouldComplainanl b e given evidenc e tha t the liabilit

y limit s are equa

l an d attainable , i

t wil l withdra w thi s sectio n o f

it s Complaint . I ^ M F . Sectio n 1 1 .c . o f the Leas e (Exhibi t

19 ) require s tha

t Complainant

pa y fo r the City' s insuranc e coverag e fo r th e aeronautica

l activit y o f skydiving . Thi s establishe s aconditio n 1 6o

n Complainant

placedo n n o othe r aeronautica

l use r or commercia

l aeronautica

l enterpris e o

n the airport . \J^'Z \1 '^

^ airplan e fiight

school s do no t

have t o pa y fo r the City' s insuranc e coverag e fo r th e ris k i t face s fo r airplan e (ligh

t schools , fh e helicopte

r fiight school doe s no

t have t o pa y fo r th e City' s insuranc e coverag e fo r the risk i t face s fo r ahelicopte

r fiight school . Th e aircraf

t maintenanc e facilitie s do not hav e lo pa

y fo r the City' s insuranc e coverag e fo r the risk i t face s fo r aircraf t maintenanc e facilities , fhe aircraf t renta l companie s d o not

have t o pa y fo r the City' s insuranc e coverag e fo r th e risk i t face s fo r aircraf t renta l companies . Th e aircraf

t charte r companie s d o no t

have to pa

y fo r th e City' s insuranc e coverag e fo r th e risk i t face s fo r aircraf t charter companies . The renter s of hangar s o n th e airpor

t do no t hav e to pa

y fo r the City' s insuranc e fo

r the risk i t face s fo r rentin g aircraf

t hangars . 1 ^5 / Placin g arequiremen

t o n onl y Complainan

t t o pa y fo r th e City' s insuranc e i s not onl y a conditio n tha

t i s no t equa l t o the condition s placed o

n the othe r commercia

l operators , aviolatio n o f 4 9 US C § § 4710 7 an

d40103(e ) (Sectio n 3-12 , Administratio n o f Policy , o f FA A Orde r 5190,6A) , i

t i s als o aviolatio n o f

th e prohibitio n agains t

unjus t discriminatio n i

n the statute s an

d tha t Order , \ J ^ \Th e requiremen

t to pa y fo r th e City' s insuranc e i s als o inappropriat e i n tha t Complainan

t ha s been unabl e to locat

e an y evidenc e tha

t an y airpor t sponso r ha s eve r been held liabl e a s a resul t o f a n injur y or deat h i n askydivin g accident . (L^' \O . Recital s C , D , E , F , G and H o f th e Leas e (Exhibit

19 ) mak e gratuitou s remark s abou t expecte dlevel o f

ai r traffic a t th e airpor t whic h hav e prove

n t o b e wildly out

of touch wit h realit y a s genera

l aviatio n activit

y ha s plummete d durin g th e recessio n (current prediction s ar

e tha t i t will no t regain 2007 level s fo

r anothe r te n years , se e www.avweb.com) , safet y o f a 1 7particula

r aeronautica

l activit y an dthe righ t o f th e Cit y t o kic k Complainanl of

f of th e airport . Such comment s making the implication tha t commercia

l skydivin g operatio n i s asecond-clas s aeronautica

l citizen , ales s tha

n desireduse

r of the airport , tha

t bette r watc h its ste p amon g it s betters , ar e absolutely inappropriat

e an di n violatio n of

the statutor

y requiremen

t tha t the Cit y mus t trea t all aeronautica

l user s equally , se e Sectio n 3-12 , Administratio n o f Policy , o f FA A Order5l90.6A . I ( ^ I T^h

e mer e fac t tha t someone believe d tha

t us e of the airpor t wa s onc e expecte d to increas e i n th e futur e i s irrelevan

t t o the term s o f

the Leas e an

d is , withou

t more , not relevan t t o whethe r the Cily ca

n tos s Complainan

t of f o f th e airport . (Th e curren

t recessio n i s als o a

n indicatio n tha

t suc h prediction s ca

n prov e to b e horrendousl

y wrong an

d hav e n o plac e i

n aleas e suc

h th e on e a

t issue. ) I t i s settle dla

w tha t i f the FA A finds tha

t a n aeronautica

l us e o f the airpor t i s unsafe , it , an dit alone , ma y the n prohibi t suc h use , n o matte r wha t aeronautica

l us e i t is , see Sectio n 4-8 , Restriction s o

n Aeronautica

l Us e o f Airport , FA

A Orde r 5190.6A , Tha

t us e ma y b e airplanes , helicopters , balloon s o

r skydivers , ye

t the Cit y di d no t put suc h languag e i

n lease s fo r an y othe r aeronautica

l enterprise s o

n th e Airport , Th e FA

A i s th e final arbite

r a s t o whethe r a n aeronautica

l us e o f a n airpor t ma y b e carrie d out

safely . Fo

r th e Cit y t o singl e ou

t Complainan

t fo r a n insultin g reminde

r tha t it s operatio n ma

y b e terminate d o

n th e airpor

t whe n i t doe s no t do s o fo r an y other aeronautica

l use r tha t ha s aleas e o

n th e Airport , fail s the tes t

o f equa l treatmen t and unjus t discriminatio n unde

r th e grant assurances . Th e reference d recital s shoul d b e stricken fro mthe Leas e a s aviolatio n o f 4 9 US C § § 47107,40103(e ) an d th e grant

assurances . I (^'] \H . Th e final sentenc e o f Leas e Sectio n 2 , Rent , provide s fo r a n annua l 5 % increas e i n rent . Complainan

t ha s bee n unabl e t o locat

e aleas e between an

y other aeronautica

l use r o f th e airport an dth e Cit y tha t ha s such ahig

h annua l renta l rat e increase . T o th e extent

the annua l 1 8increas e i s unequa l t o tha t o f the othe r commercia

l operator s o

n the airport , i

t should b e either stricken o r b e adjuste dto a n annua l increas e equa

l t o othe r commercia

l user s a s aviolatio n of

4 9 US C § § 4710 7 an

d40103(e) , see FA

A Order 5190.6A . M ^ I I . Th

e Cil y will onl y allo w atwo-yea

r ter mfo r the Leas e wit

h Complainant , Section 3 (Exhibi t 19) . Thi s i s inconsisten

t wit h Ih e lease s provide d othe

r commercia

l aeronautica

l enterprise s o

n th e Airpor t an damount s to unjus t

discrimination , i

n violatio n of

4 9 US C § § 47107,40103(e ) an

dthe grant

assurance s a s set

out i n FA A order 5190.6A . Th e ter

mshoul d b e equa l to tha t o f othe r commercia

l users , to th e understandin g o f Complainant , 20 year s wit h a n optio n t o renew . I t ^ I J Sectio n 5 o f the Leas e (Exhibi t

19 ) Operatio n o

f Dro p Zon e set s u

p a n irreconcilabl e inconsistenc y i n th e Lease , creatin g unjus t discriminatio n b

y establishin g a conditio n i

n which Complainan

t ca n b e unabl e to compl

y wit h th e Leas e term s n o matte r wha t i t does . Th e Sectio n restate s the term s o f the findings o f

th e FA A a s t o th e procedur

e to safel y operate adro p zon e o

n th e airpor

t (Exhibi t 3 ) an d th e Lette

r o f Agreemen

t between Skydive Sacrament o an dNorther n Californi aTRACO

N (4) . A t first glanc e tha

t seem s innocuous , jus t

a routin e sectio n requirin g complianc e wit h specifi c guideline s fro

mthe FAA , even i

f i t i s redundan t whe n th e term s o f

Section 8 o f

th e Leas e requirin g complianc e wit h FA A rules . However , upo

n inspectio n i t

become s a

n extremely clever

time bom b t o preven

t Complainan

t fro mhavin g acces s t

o th e Airport . I n^ l ^"^^ ' ^^^^

^ ' ^ nothin g comparabl e t o i t i s i n th e lease s between th e Cit y an d othe r commercia

l aeronautica

l user s of th e airport , aviolatio n o f

4 9 US C § § 47107,40103(e ) an d th e grant assurances , se e FA

A Orde r 5190.6A . Wha

t i s i n th e other

leases , a s well a s thi s one , i s Sectio n 8.a. , whic h require s tha t th e Lesse e compl

y wit h al l applicabl e law s and regulations . 1 9Sectio n 8 i s perfectl y acceptabl e an

di s applie d equally , without discrimination , among th

e commercia

l user s o f the airport . I I t I Becaus e the underlying guideline s se t ou t b y th e Sacrament

o FSDO an

d Norther n Californi aTRACO

N ar e subject t o chang e b

y thos e agencie s and onl

y th e current guideline s wer e memorialize di

n Section 5 o f

th e Lease , whe

n th e condition s ar

e changed b

y th e FAA , an

d Complainan

t complie s wit

h th e changedconditions , i t i s immediately i

n violatio n of

Section 5 o f the Lease , eve

n thoug h i t i s i n complianc e wit

h Sectio n 8.a

, By creatin g aleas e tha

t set s u p Complainant

fo r breach whe

n the FA A change s th e safet

y procedure s fo

r Complainant' s operations , the Cit

y ha s taken actio n tha

t i s calculate d to prohibi t

Complainant' s acces s t

o the airport , aviolatio n o

f 4 9 US C § § 47107 , 40103(e ) and th e City' s gran t assurances . []l2 ^ Sectio n 5 o f

the Leas e shoul db e stricken a s aviolatio n o f 4 9 US C § § 47107,40103(e ) and th e City' s grant

assurances . Becaus e Sectio n 5 o f the Leas e i s currently redundan t becaus e of Sectio n 8.a.' s terms , th e Cit y i s i n n o wa y prejudice d b

y strikin g i

t fro mthe Lease ; i

n complyin g wit

h Sectio n 8 , Complainan

t als o complie s wit

h the curren

t guideline s fro

mthe FA A FSD O andADO . I y z I K . Sectio n 6 of

the Leas e (Exhibi t

19) define s th e use s to whic h Complainan

t ma y put the dro p zone t

o b e leasedfro

mthe City , P'l/l' l 1 , Par

t (a ) of th e Us e sectio n allow s Complainan t t o onl y us e th e premises , a n open fieldtha

t i s idea l fo r adro p zone , solel

y fo r th e purpos e o f

adrop zone . Th e are ai s logically useabl e fo

r other specifi c aeronautica

l activities , particularly ho

t ai r balloo n launchin g an dhelicopter

fiight trainin g (hover) . A s all o f Complainant' s skydivin g activitie s ar e performe

d wit h radi o communication s durin g each jum p run , mixin g i

n earl y mornin g and lat

e evening balloo n launche s (th e onl

y time ho t air balloonin g take s plac e du e t o the FA A restriction s o

n 2 0balloon s prohibitin g their operatio n whe

n thermal s ar

e exlanl ) an

d helicopte

r training whe

n skydivin g i s no

t takin g place , make s sens e an d ca n b e done wit

h the sam e leve l of safet y a s i s currentl y presen

t i n the mix of

aeronautica

l activitie s elsewher

e o n the airport . Complainan

l note s tha t no t al l airplane s usin g the airpor

l hav e radio s an

d the y hav e safel

y mixe d wit h othe r airplane , helicopter , skydiving an dho t ai r balloo n tralfi c fo

r years , I 1^ [ ' ^ h e Cit y doe s no t limit it s commercia

l operator s wit

h who mi t ha s lease s t

o asol e aeronautica

l activit y o n their leasedpremise s o

r to asol e typ e of

aircraft . Accordingly , the us e restrictio n shoul db e struc

k dow n a s unequa

l an d unjustl y discriminatory , contrar

y t o 4 9 US C § § 47107 , 40103(e ) an

dthe City' s gran

t assurances , se e FA

A Orde r 5190.6A . (TC l ^ ^^^

^ (^ ) ^ ^ ^^' ^ ^^ ^ sectio n of

the Leas e prohibit s Complainan t fro m erectin g an

y buildin g o

r structur e improvemen

t on the premise . Thi s i s unreasonabl e an d unequa l treatment , clearly discriminatin g agains t Complainant , Adjacen

t t o the are ao f

th e airpor t to b e use dfo r the dro p zone th e Cit

y ha s allowe d nonaeronautica l lessee s to erec t building s fo

r their businesse s (Exhibit s 1 , 2

4 an d 26) . Jus t

sout h o f th e premise s the Cit

y i s storin g large , unserviceabl e vehicle s such a s buse s a s wel l a s dumping tor

n u p pavemen

t (Exhibit s I an

d25) . Othe

r commercia

l lessee s hav e built

o r ar e leasin g building s o

n th e airpor

t tha t were not buil t b y the Airport . Complainan t seek s t o erec t abuildin g or

building s i

n which to hous e a n offic e an

dspac e t o repack parachutes ; tha

t is , to carr y out it s business . There i s no safet y o r aestheti c reason fo

r the Cit y t o prohibi t suc h building , especially if

the structure s ar

e temporar y andca n b e removeda

t the endo f th e lease . Th e conditio n imposed o n Complainan

t i s unequa l to th e condition s applie dt o othe r commercia

l enterprises , aeronautica

l an d nonaeronautical , o f

the airport .

2 1I '7 /

j I t i s particularly egregiou s tha t fo r a n airpor t buil t wit h Federa l mone y fo r th e purpos e o

f aeronautica

l us e t o hav e th e Cit y giv e preferenc e an

d bette r leas e condition s lo nonaeronaulica l tenants . Th

e restrictio n shoul db e stricken fro mthe leas e a s aviolatio n o f 4 9 US C § § 47107 , 40103(e ) an

dthe gran t assurances . Whe

n Par t (d ) o f the Us e sectio n i s stricken an d buildin g i s permitted , Par

t (b ) prohibitin g storag e o f

an y kin d shoul d b e amende d to allo w storag e o f material s pertinen

t t o Complainant' s business , written i n amanne r consistent wit h othe r coiTimercia

l lease s between aeronautica l user s an d the City . [ "H ^ J 3 . Par

t (g)o f the Us e sectio n o f

th e leas e (Exhibi t

19) i s gratuitous , extraneous , insultin g verbiag e intendedto presen t Complainan

t a s ales s tha

n desirabl e tenan

t o n th e airport . Suc

h languag e i s no

t i n othe r commercia

l lease s between aeronautica l enterprise s an dth e Cily , thu s creatin g unequa l treatment

of Complainan

t an d unjus t discriminatio n agains t Complainant

i n violatio n o f

4 9 US C § § 47107,40103(e ) an d th e gran t assurances , se e FA

A Order 5190.6A , Par

t (g ) o f th e Us e sectio n o f

the leas e shoul d b e ordere d stricken , I "7 ^ / L , Sectio n 1 3 o f

th e Leas e (Exhibi t

19) require s Complainan

t an d it s subcontractor s to indemnif

y the Cit y fo r action s o f Complainan

t an d subcontractors . However , i t doe s no t provide fo r indemnificatio n o f

Complainan

t fo r the action s o f

th e Cit y tha t ma y caus e har

mt o Complainant , A s such , i

t i s unequa l treatmen t of Complainan

t b y th e Cit y an d i n violatio n o f

4 9 US C § § 47107,40103(e ) andth e City' s grant assurances . A

n order shoul d b e issued either strikin g Sectio n 1 3 of

th e leas e o

r requirin g tha

t the indemnificatio n provisio n b e mutua l an d equal , I ^6 J M . Sectio n 14 o f the Leas e (Exhibi t

19) i s the environmenta

l sectio n an

d contain s a

n indemnificatio n sectio n wit h requirement s a s outline d i n th e precedin g paragraph . Becaus e i t doe s not provide fo

r indemnificatio n o f

Complainan

t fo r action s o f the Cit y whic h ma y caus e 22har

mt o Complainant . I

t is , therefore , unequa

l treatmen t o f Complainanl b

y th e Cit y an d i n violatio n o f

4 9 US C § § 47107,40103(e ) an d the City' s gran

t assurances . A

n orde r shoul d b e i.ssLie deithe r strikin g the indemnification provision s o f Sectio n 1 4 o f the Leas e o r

requirin(» tha

t the indemnificatio n b

e mutua l an dequal . / ^ 1 / ^ " Section 25 of

th e Leas e (Exhibi t

19 ) make s tim

e o f th e essenc e fo

r Complainant' s performanc e but

no t City . Suc h unequa l treatmen t o f Complainanl i s aviolatio n o f 4 9 US C § § 47107 , 40103(e ) an

dthe City' s gran

t assurances . A

n order shoul d b e issued either

strikin g Sectio n 2 5 o f th e Leas e o r requirin g tha

t i l b e mutua l an d equal .

» V . How Complainan t Ha s Bee n Affected j ^Z A Complainan

t ha s suffere

dfinancial los s fro

macompetitiv e disadvantag e i n bein g unabl e t o hav e it s customer s lan

do n adrop zon e o

n the Airpor

t s o a s t o avoid ava

n ride bac k t o the point wher e the parachute s ar

e repackedan

d jump airplan e reboarde d (alon g wit h facin g th e cost s involvedwit

h providing ava

n an ddriver) (Exhibi t

1) . I t ha s als o ha

d t o pa y some $3,500 to grade an

dleve l the drop zone i

l ha s rented . Complainan

t suffere d los s o f busines s whe

n the airpor l manage r mad e repeatedthreat s agains t

the pilo t o f aTwin Otte

r tha t was unde r contrac t t o Complainan

t t o carr y jumpers . Th e threat s wer e successful i

n tha t the pilo t too k th e airplan e an

d left , leaving Complainan

t t o us e asingle-engin e airplan e tha t coul d onl y carr y asmall fraction o f the customer s wh

o woul dhave otherwis e gone i

n the Twi n Otter . I ^2> T Complainan

t ha s bee n unabl e t o ge t the airpor t manage r t o retur n telephon e call s sinc e Januar y o f thi s year . Further , the airpor t manage r se t u p aforty-cen

t pe r gallo n rebat e progra

m fo r person s purchasin g larg e quantitie s o f fue l (Exhibit 7) , includin g Complainant , but ha s ye t to retur n Complainant' s mone

y fo r the thousand s o f

gallon s o f fue l i t ha s purchased . 2 31^4 7 Complainan t i s one o f the largest , \[ ' no

t ih e largest , purchase

r o f fue l o n the Airport , I

t pay s subslantiii l federa

l taxe s forairpoi t

improvemen

t wit h ever y gallon o f

aviatio n fue

l i t purchase s fro

mth e City , Th e Cit

y make s aprofi

t o n ever y gallon o f

fue l i t sell s t o Complainanl , Ye t Complainan

t cannot ge t th e benefi t o f thos e federa

l airpor t improvemen

t taxe s an d the mone y i t pay s t o the Cil y becaus e the Cit

y ha s prevente d i

t fro malega l and saf e on-airpor

l aeronautica

l activity , I ^j [ ^ ^ ' 5 particularly ironi c tha

t whil e th e Cit

y i s discriminatin g agains t

Complainan

t a s i f i t wer e som e sor t o f aeronautica

l untouchable . Complainan t i s one of the ver y fe w aeronautica

l businesse s o

n the Airpor

t tha t i s doin g reasonabl

y wel l durin g the recessio n and whos e busines s woulddoubl e or

tripl e whe n usin g a n on-airpor

t drop zone , meaning mor

e incom e to th e City . I

n atime whe

n it i s financially strapped , the Cit y i s turnin g down asafe , lega l wa y o f increasin g it s revenue s o

n th e Airport . L ^ 1 Complainan

t i s furthe r affecte db y the discriminator

y behavio r o f th e Cit y i n tha t i t i s face d wit h th e cost s o f

thi s Complaint . A

t adifficul t financial time , s o i s th e City , VI . Relie f

Desire d [Q'] 1 Complainan

t seek s a n Orde r fro mth e FA A confirmin g the term s o f

Sectio n 3-1 2 o f

FA A Orde r 5190.6 A tha

t standard s fo

r commercia

l aeronautica

l enterprise s on a

n airpor t tha t ar e not attainabl e ar

e in violatio n o

f 4 9 US C § § 47107,40103(e ) an d a n airpor t sponsor' s grant assurance s andprohibitin g Cit y froi n imposin g liabilit

y insuranc e requireinent s o n Complainan

t an dit s subcontractor s tha

t ar e unobtainable ; thu s strikin g th e portion s o f Sectio n 1 1 o f

th e Leas e regardin g skydivin g commercia l genera l liabilit y an d aut o insuranc e coverag e an d polic y limit s tha t ar e no t available . 2 4^ ^ M Complainan t furthe r seek s a n Orde r fro mth e FA A confirmin g th e term s of

Sectio n 3-1 2 o f FA A Orde r 5190.6 A implementin g 4 9 US C § § 47107 , 40103(e ) an d gran t assurances , tha

t condition s o

n al l thos e wh o engag e i n commercia

l aeronautica

l enterpris e o

n a n airpor t must b e equa l andprohibitin g Cit

y fro mimposing term s i

n the followin

g Leas e sections : 1 1 (automobil e liabilit y insuranc e policy limits) ; I I.e . (Complainan t t o pa y fo r City' s liabilit

y insuranc e fo

r il s specifi c aeronautica

l activity) ; Recital s C , D , E , F , G an d H ; the final sentenc e o f

Sectio n 2 (annua l rent increase , t

o th e exten

t i t i s not equa l t o othe r commercia

l aeronautica

l enterprise s o

n the Airport) ; Sectio n 3 (Leas e term , t o the extent

i t i s les s tha n other commercia

l aeronautica

l enterprise s o

n the Airport) ; Sectio n 5 ; Sectio n 6,a , (to th e extent i t limit s th e typ e o f

aeronautica

l activit y on th e drop zone) ; Sectio n 6.d . (to th e extent i t prohibit s erectio n o f

abuildin g fo

r Complainant

t o carr y ou t it s business) ; Sectio n 6,g , (to th e exten t i t prohibit s storag e o f

business

relate dmateria

l withi n Complainant' s building) ; an d Section s 13 , 1 4 an

d 2 5 (t o th e exten

t th e obligation s se

t ou t ar e no t mutual) . 1 ^ 7 P'"^"y ' Complainan t seek s a n Orde r fro mth e FA A requirin g tha

t Cit y enter into aleas e wit h Complainant

within thirt

y day s tha t i s i n complianc e wit

h th e Order(s ) the FA

A issue s i n thi s matter

an dthe City' s gran

t assurance s and tha

t Cit y tak e no retaliator

y actio n agains t Complainant

fo r filing thi s Complain

t Respectfull

y submitted , Richar d J . Durden , Attorne

y a t La w Attorne y fo r Complainant

Date d 3 / . 2 ^0 / By : 2798 7 Richmond Hill Roa d Conifer , Colorad o 8043 3 (616)901-6515 6 2 5CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

1 hereby certif

y tha t I have ihi s da

y serve d the foregoing Complain t o n the following person s a t the following addresse s b

y UnitedStale s Posta

l Servic e Expres s Mail : Timoth y Haye s 42 2 Centur

y Par k Driv e Suit e A Yub aCily , Californi a9599 1 Ji mEste p Cit y Manage r Cily of Lincol n 60 0 Sixt h Street Lincoln , Californi a9564 8 Date dthi s 31' ' da

y o f July , 200 9

Tichar d J . EMde n Fo r Coinplaman

t 

# A

.•j^t!-*^!!<? : 

### •U::^. .