Richard K. Simon, Esq. 1700 Decker School Lane Malibu, CA 90265 

## RECEIVED MAR 2 52015 (310) 503-7286 rsimon3(illverizon.net PART 16 DOCKETS

Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Attention: FAA Part 16Airport Proceedings Docket AGC-610 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Re: Part 16Complaint March 25, 2015



### NationalBusinessAviationAssociation, KruegerAviation, Inc., Harrison Ford,justiceAviation,Kim DavidsonAviation, Inc., AeroFilm, Youri Bujko, jamesRoss, Paramount Citrus LLCandAircraft Owners andPilots Association v. City of SantaMonica, California DocketNos. 16-14-04/FAA-2014·0592 Response ofthe Complainantsto Requestfor Additional Information By its letter of February 19, 2015 ("Request"), the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") has requested thatthe parties to this Part 16 proceeding supplementthe pleadings previously filed by providing information regarding the useful life of the improvements made at Santa Monica Airport ("SMO") under Grant Amendment 2 for Project No. AlP 3-06- 0239-06, dated August 27, 2003 ("Amendment 2"). The Request incorporates three attachments consisting of documents prepared in connection with the subject improvements. In addition, the parties are asked to identify when such improvements were placed into service. Complainants respond as follows. The documents attached to the Request- in particularthe Final Construction Report (Attachment 2)

- specifically identify two projects undertaken with Grant Amendment 2 funds: (i) the resurfacing and striping of existing pavement in the area of Taxiway B, and (ii) the construction of a blast wall on the eastern end ofthe SMO runway. Complainants believe that the useful life of both is consistent with the FAA criteria discussed hereafter, and that ofthe useful life ofthe blast wall indisputably is substantially in excess oftwenty years. Because Complainants do not have detailed information regarding the resurfacing project, this response will focus on the blastwall facility, which is sufficient, standing alone, to establish that the "not to exceed" date ofAugust 27, 2023 governs the Grant Assurance obligations ofthe City ofSanta Monica ("City").

1The Useful Life ofthe BlastWall Background The Request notes that the duration of Grant Assurance obligations is determined by the lesser of the useful life of facilities developed with federal grant funds or twenty years from the acceptance of a grant offer. Complainants have previously addressed the second part ofthis standard. As tothefirst part- "useful life"- Order 5190.6B, Chapter4.4, establishes the basic rule for facilities constructed with Airport Improvement Program ("AlP") funds: The useful life of a federally funded airport development project extends for the period of time during which it is serviceable and usable with ordinary day-to-day maintenance.
Generally, improvements are presumed to last at least 20 years because they are builtto FAA standards. Moreover: An airport sponsor cannot shorten its obligations by allowing projects to deteriorate. Thus, "useful life" is a measure ofanticipated serviceability ofa facility at the time it is constructed "to FAA standards" and, absent evidence of an intent and agreement with FAA to construct a facility with a shorter life expectancy, must be presumed to be at least twenty years from the date ofcompletion.! Page 2 ofAttachment 2 to the Request

- the Final Construction Report prepared at the completion ofthe Project- establishes that work began on both aspects ofthe project on September 24, 2001; that the work was substantially completed in February 2002; and thatthe project was submitted for final inspection on March 27, 2002. As the blastwall is a static structure, it should be considered as having been placed into service on that date. The City has alreadyunequivocally acknowledged thatthe blast wall was paid for, at least in substantial part, by the funds provided under Amendment 2: The last grantwas accepted in 1994. In 2003, additional funds were added to that grant. The funds were used, at least in part, to pay for a blast wall at the eastern end ofthe runway, which would help shield Airport neighbors to the eastfrom Aircraft emissions.

1 Similar guidance appeared in Order 5190.6A, which was in effect priorto 2009.

2City Council Report, Agenda Item 8-A ("The Future of Santa Monica Airport") for the March 25, 2014 City Council meeting, prepared by City Attorney Marsha Moutrie and Director of Public Works Martin Pastucha (Exhibit 6 to the Complaint, page 9). This acknowledgment that the blast wall was paid for by Amendment 2 was reiterated at pages 24-25 of the same Report, even though it disputed the legal consequences thereof: The federal government's claim that the obligation extends until 2023 is based upon the fact that the grant was augmented in 2003 to fully fund the blastwa!J.2 UsefulLife That the actual useful life ofthe blast wall constructed with Amendment 2 funds will exceed 20 years from its completion is equally clear. Attached hereto and incorporated herein is the Declaration of Leopold L. Klabbers, PE, a civil engineer with more than thirty years' experience as a designer, engineer, construction overseer and structural evaluator of airport improvements. As a staff Engineer and later Director of Engineering and Planning atthe Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena (now Bob Hope) Airport, Mr. Klabbers oversaw multiple projects built with AlP (and predecessor program) grants, including the installation of a blast fence at the north end of Runway 15-33. That fence, built in 1980, remained in service at the time ofhis retirement from the Airport in 2011. On March 3, 2015 (thirteen years after its completion) Mr. Klabbers inspected the blast wall at the eastern end ofthe SMO runway. He concluded that: (i) it remained sound and in good condition, and (ii) it has an ongoing useful life in excess of ten years. Photographs taken during Mr. Klabbers' inspection are attached to his declaration, and confirm thattheblast wall remains as described by Mr. Klabbers. Conclusion In summary:
• The 2003 Amendment 2 funds to Project No. AlP 3-06-0239-06 paid for most, ifnot all, ofthe blast wall at SMO;

• The blast wall must be presumed to have met FAA's "useful life" criteria at the time the City was reimbursed for its costthrough Amendment 2;

• The blast wall was placed into service on or about May 27, 2002;

2 Complainants also note that the City, in its pleadings in this docket, has not previously contended- and presumably does not believe- thatthe useful life ofimprovements funded byAmendment 2 will conclude prior to 2023.

3• The testimony of Mr. Klabbers confirms that the blast wall remains in serviceable condition thirteen years after it was placed into service and that its useful life will continuefor atleast another decade. Accordingly, the "not-to-exceed" date of August 27, 2023 remains the benchmark for determiningthe duration ofthe City's AlP grant-based obligations.

1700 Decker School Lane Malibu, CA 90265 310-503-7286

4Certificate ofService I hereby certifythat I have this day caused the foregoing answerto be served on the following persons byfirst-class mailwith a copyby electronic mail: Elaine Polachek Interim City Manager Martin Pastucha Interim Assistant City Manager City ofSanta Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 209 Santa Monica, CA 90401 elaine,polachek@lsmgov,net martin,pastucha

## «vs m gov,net Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney Joseph Lawrence, Assistant City Attorney Lance Gams, Deputy City Attorney Ivan Campbell, Deputy City Attorney City ofSanta Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 310 Santa Monica, CA 90401 marsha,moutrie(rosmgov,net

**~~Jawrence@Jsmgov.net** lance,gams(a)smgov,net

**ivau,campbe]](wsmgov,n~** Stelios Makrides Airport Manager City ofSanta Monica Airport Administration Building 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dated this 25th day ofMarch 2015,

1700 Decker School Lane Malibu, CA 90265 310-503-7286

5

### Declaration ofLeopold L. 

### Klabbers. Pll. in SupportofResponse ofthe Comp]_airnants to Requestfor Additional Information

Leopold L, Klabbers, P.E. declares: 1. I am a Civil Engineer with a practice focused for more than 30years on airport projects, including the design and construction ofnumerous airportstructures funded by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") through its Airport Improvement Program and its predecessorprograms. 2. Ihave both a bachelors and a masters degree in civil engineering. the latter with a major in structures, and am registered as a civil engineer in the State ofCalifornia. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy ofmy currentcurriculum vitae, which describes in greater detail my airportengineering experience, including approximately 15 years spentas an engineer and as Director ofEngineering and Planning at Burbank Airport, now known as Bob Hope Airport ("BUR"). 4. During the course ofmy employmentat BUR, I planned, designed and supervised the construction ofnumerous structures and improvements atthatairport, and am familiar with the requirements ofthe FAA with respectto the useful life ofFAAfunded improvements. 5. Between 1985 and 1998, Iwas employed as Director ofEngineering atAGl, Inc. (formerly Lockheed Air Terminal Inc.), which was in the business ofairport privatization. My principal responsibility in thatposition was to evaluate the condition and potential ofairport structures and facilities in numerous overseas locations being considered for private acquisition and operation, and to oversee improvements atthose airports which were acquired. 6. Among the structures Iwas responsible for atBUR was a blastfence atthe northern end ofrunway 15-33, which is very similar to thatwhich is currently located on the eastern end ofthe runway at Santa Monica Airport ("SMO"). The BUR fence was constructed in 1980 and slightly modified shortlythereafter under my supervision. Itcontinued in service and remained in place and functioning when I retired in 2011. 7. On March 3, 2015, Iinspected the blastfence at SMO, which I understand was completed in 2002. Itconsists ofa concrete foundation to which is bolted a steel structure manufactured by Blast Deflectors, Inc., a well-respected companywith which I am familiar. It is my professional opinion thatthis blastfence had, atthe time ofits construction, a useful life ofwell in excess of20 years. My opinion is bolstered bythe fact thattoday, after 13years in service, the fence appearsstructurally sound and undeteriorated. It has, in my opinion, an ongoing useful life offar morethan 10years. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a group ofphotographs taken in my presence while Iinspected the SMO blastfence. These photographs accurately depictthe condition ofthe fence on March 3, 2015. 9. In my experience, blastfences ofthe type located at SMO generally are designed to have, and do have, useful lives far in excess of20 years. Moreover, even ifthe SMO fence were notmaintained orwere damaged, the concrete foundation to which the steel fence structure is bolted would remain useful and functioning essentially for as long as the Airport remained in operation. Ideclare underpenalty ofperjury underthe laws ofthe United States ofAmerica thatthe foregoing is true and correct / Executed thisP day ofMarch, 2015 atPalm Springs, California

**~1.** J,l '/I !(V v" Leopold L. Klabbers, PE