Richard K. Simon, Esq. 

1700 Decker School Lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

RECEIVED 

MAR 2 5 2015 

(310) 503-7286 

rsi mon3 (illverizon.n et PART 16 DOCKETS 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Re: Part 16 Complaint 

March 25, 2015 

National Business Aviation Association, Krueger Aviation, Inc., Harrison 

Ford, justice Aviation, Kim Davidson Aviation, Inc., Aero Film, Youri Bujko, 

james Ross, Paramount Citrus LLC and Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association v. City of Santa Monica, California 

Docket Nos. 16-14-04/FAA-2014·0592 

Response ofthe Complainants to Request for Additional Information 

By its letter of February 19, 2015 ("Request"), the Federal Aviation Administration 

("FAA") has requested that the parties to this Part 16 proceeding supplement the 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 particular the 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 of the SMO runway. Complainants 

believe that the useful life of both is consistent with the FAA criteria discussed hereafter, 

and that of the useful life of the blast wall indisputably is substantially in excess of twenty 

years. Because Complainants do not have detailed information regarding the resurfacing 

project, this response will focus on the blast wall facility, which is sufficient, standing alone, 

to establish that the "not to exceed" date of August 27, 2023 governs the Grant Assurance 

obligations of the City of Santa Monica ("City"). 

1 
The Useful Life ofthe Blast Wall 

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 of this standard. As to the first part- "useful life"- Order 5190.6B, Chapter 4.4, 

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 built to FAA standards. 

Moreover: 

An airport sponsor cannot shorten its obligations by allowing projects to 

deteriorate. 

Thus, "useful life" is a measure of anticipated serviceability of a 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 of completion.! 

Page 2 of Attachment 2 to the Request - the Final Construction Report prepared at 

the completion of the Project- establishes that work began on both aspects of the project 

on September 24, 2001; that the work was substantially completed in February 2002; and 

that the project was submitted for final inspection on March 27, 2002. As the blast wall is a 

static structure, it should be considered as having been placed into service on that date. 

The City has already unequivocally acknowledged that the blast wall was paid for, at 

least in substantial part, by the funds provided under Amendment 2: 

The last grant was 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 of the runway, which would help shield Airport neighbors to the 

east from Aircraft emissions. 

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

2 
City 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 

blast wa!J.2 

Useful Life 

That the actual useful life of the 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 

at the 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 of his 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 of the 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 that the blast 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, if not 

all, of the 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 cost through 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- that the useful life of improvements funded 

by Amendment 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 

continue for at least another decade. 

Accordingly, the "not-to-exceed" date of August 27, 2023 remains the benchmark for 

determining the duration of the City's AlP grant-based obligations. 

1700 Decker School Lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

310-503-7286 

4 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have this day caused the foregoing answer to be served on the 

following persons by first-class mail with a copy by electronic mail: 

Elaine Polachek 

Interim City Manager 

Martin Pastucha 

Interim Assistant City Manager 

City of Santa Monica 

1685 Main Street, Room 209 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

elaine,polachek@lsmgov,net 

martin ,pastu c h a «v s m g ov, net 

Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney 

Joseph Lawrence, Assistant City Attorney 

Lance Gams, Deputy City Attorney 

Ivan Campbell, Deputy City Attorney 

City of Santa 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 of Santa Monica 

Airport Administration Building 

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

Dated this 25th day of March 2015, 

1700 Decker School Lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

310-503-7286 

5 
Declaration of Leopold L. Klabbers. Pll. in Support of Response ofthe 

Comp]_airnants to Request for Additional Information 

Leopold L, Klabbers, P.E. declares: 

1. I am a Civil Engineer with a practice focused for more than 30 years on airport 

projects, including the design and construction of numerous airport structures 

funded by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") through its Airport 

Improvement Program and its predecessor programs. 

2. I have 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 of California. 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of my current curriculum 

vitae, which describes in greater detail my airport engineering experience, including 

approximately 15 years spent as an engineer and as Director of Engineering and 

Planning at Burbank Airport, now known as Bob Hope Airport ("BUR"). 

4. During the course of my employment at BUR, I planned, designed and supervised 

the construction of numerous structures and improvements at that airport, and am 

familiar with the requirements of the FAA with respect to the useful life of FAAfunded improvements. 

5. Between 1985 and 1998, I was employed as Director of Engineering atAGl, Inc. 

(formerly Lockheed Air Terminal Inc.), which was in the business of airport 

privatization. My principal responsibility in that position was to evaluate the 

condition and potential of airport structures and facilities in numerous overseas 

locations being considered for private acquisition and operation, and to oversee 

improvements at those airports which were acquired. 

6. Among the structures I was responsible for at BUR was a blast fence at the 

northern end of runway 15-33, which is very similar to that which is currently 

located on the eastern end of the runway at Santa Monica Airport ("SMO"). The BUR 

fence was constructed in 1980 and slightly modified shortly thereafter under my 

supervision. It continued in service and remained in place and functioning when I 

retired in 2011. 

7. On March 3, 2015, I inspected the blast fence at SMO, which I understand was 

completed in 2002. It consists of a concrete foundation to which is bolted a steel 

structure manufactured by Blast Deflectors, Inc., a well-respected company with 

which I am familiar. It is my professional opinion that this blast fence had, at the 

time of its construction, a useful life of well in excess of20 years. My opinion is 

bolstered by the fact that today, after 13 years in service, the fence appears 
structurally sound and undeteriorated. It has, in my opinion, an ongoing useful life 

of far more than 10 years. 

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a group of photographs taken in my presence 

while I inspected the SMO blast fence. These photographs accurately depict the 

condition of the fence on March 3, 2015. 

9. In my experience, blast fences of the type located at SMO generally are designed 

to have, and do have, useful lives far in excess of 20 years. Moreover, even if the 

SMO fence were not maintained or were 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. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America 

that the foregoing is true and correct 

/ 

Executed thisP day of March, 2015 at Palm Springs, California 

~1. J,l '/I !(V 

v" Leopold L. Klabbers, PE