UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC. ) 

 ) 

 Complainant ) 

 ) 

v. ) Docket No. 16-15-03 

 ) 

CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ) 

 ) 

 Respondent ) 

 ) 

RESPONDENT’S REBUTTAL TO 

COMPLAINANT’S REPLY TO ANSWER 

 Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.23(f), Respondent City of Renton, Washington (“City”) 

submits this rebuttal to the Reply of Complainant Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. (“PFA”) to the City’s 

Answer to the Complaint in this case (“Reply”). In its Reply, PFA sets out its five principal 

arguments: (1) Boeing is not engaged in aeronautical activity on the 760/770 Parcels; (2) the City 

discriminated against PFA by misleading them regarding the availability of the 760 Parcel and 

deciding to lease the parcel to Boeing before officially considering PFA’s application; (3) the 

selection of Boeing’s lease over PFA’s lease proposal is based on post hoc justifications; (4) the 

Airport has not complied with the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) grant assurance, and (5) PFA has 

standing to maintain its Part 16 complaint, even absent a valid Operating Permit. As discussed 

more fully below, the City has provided facts supported by declarations showing that Boeing’s 

intended activities on the recently-leased parcels come well within the scope of aeronautical 

activities as that term has been defined by the FAA. The incomplete and misleading set of facts 

(at Reply, pp. 10-12) supporting PFA’s claims of prohibited discriminatory treatment of PFA, 

presumably in violation of Grant Assurance 22, were effectively dispelled and placed in their 
2

proper context in both the City’s Answer and the Fact Statement submitted in support of that 

Answer. As additionally highlighted below, the uncontroverted record evidence shows that PFA 

submitted a timely application seeking a long-term lease of the 760 Parcel, that the other 

alternative parcels rejected by PFA were suitable for PFA’s intended purposes, and that the City 

Council fully and fairly considered PFA’s application to lease the 760 Parcel. Further, while the 

City does not believe that the ALP needs to be updated to reflect the aeronautical activities that 

Boeing will conduct on the leased 760/770 Parcels, it explains below how any updates the FAA 

deems necessary can readily be incorporated into the Airport’s ongoing review of its Master 

Plan.1

 The only truly new facts set forth by PFA are those presented in an attempt to justify its 

failure to renew its most recent Operating Permit before the July 31, 2015 expiration date, an 

event that the City contends in its Answer deprives PFA of standing to bring this Part 16 action. 

Indeed, this undeniable omission is the subject matter of 8 out of 12 facts in the Paholke 

Declaration submitted in support of PFA‘s Reply. However, as discussed more fully below, 

such an important “oversight” does indeed deprive PFA of the standing it may have otherwise 

had to pursue this case. 

I. The City Did Not Unjustly Discriminate Against PFA 

 The crux of PFA’s Grant Assurance 22 claim is that the City unjustly discriminated 

against it because the City did not agree to lease PFA a particular parcel of property—the 760 

Parcel. This claim is made, despite the undisputed fact that PFA was offered, and flatly rejected 

																																																								

1 A more thorough analysis of all the facts and legal arguments explaining why the City has not violated any of its 

grant assurance obligations as alleged in the Complaint, whether or not raised again in PFA’s Reply, can be found in 

the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support Thereof (filed June 4, 2015) and its Reply 

to PFA’s Answer to RNT’s Motion for Summary Judgment (filed June 15, 2015). The City would ask that the FAA 

look to those documents, both of which are incorporated herein by reference, for a full explanation of its defenses, to 

avoid the need to duplicate them here or in additional legal briefs. 
3

(several times), several alternative accommodations. The fact that PFA refused those 

alternatives guts its primary argument, and exposes PFA’s complaint as nothing more than an 

improper attempt to use the Part 16 process to bully the City into leasing PFA the sole property it 

desires. But Grant Assurance 22 does not guarantee PFA the right to have any property it 

desires. So PFA is left with unpersuasive, post hoc arguments in hopes that it will get from the 

FAA through Part 16 what the Airport has refused and what the grant assurances do not require. 

 A. It Is PFA’s, Not The City’s, Post Hoc Analysis That Is A Work of Fiction 

 PFA claims that the Airport’s justification for a lease award to Boeing—to wit: that PFA 

is just being “picky” because there are other suitable spots on the field where PFA could conduct 

its operations—is an invention “concocted” after the fact and is, in any case, unsupported as a 

factual matter. Reply, pp. 14-15. But it is PFA, not the Airport, whose post hoc analysis twists 

the facts. 

 First, PFA says that it initially rejected the 820 Parcel, located just three parcels away 

from PFA’s current operations, because it wanted to wait for something “more suitable” because 

820 was “not a good fit.” Reply, p.16. PFA claims to have rejected it again when offered in 

2015 because there will not be any way to safely access the Parcel once Boeing assumes 

possession of the 760 and 770 Parcels. Reply, p.17. This is a post hoc rationalization on PFA’s 

part. The 820 Parcel is accessible from Perimeter Road, as are all the other parcels. Declaration 

of Jonathan Wilson in Support of RNT’s Rebuttal (“JW Dec. Rebuttal”), ¶¶ 6, 7, & 11. The fact 

is that while the 820 Parcel is just as safe as the other parcels offered to PFA, it happens to be 

located right next to PFA’s competition at the Airport—Rainier Flight Services (“Rainier”). JW 

Dec. Rebuttal, ¶ 8. PFA conveniently fails to mention that it also rejected the 770 Parcel, which 

was offered at the same time, even though that parcel is substantially closer to PFA’s current 
4

location than is the 820 Parcel and is, like all parcels, accessible to/from Perimeter Road. JW 

Dec. Rebuttal, ¶ 7; see also, Declaration of Jonathan Wilson attached to Summary Judgment 

Motion, ¶ 9, Ex. JW-1. 

 PFA also acknowledges that it rejected the Old Restaurant site when it was offered as an 

alternative, noting that it was not then and is not now available for aircraft tie-downs and, in any 

case, PFA claims that there is “no practicable and safe way” to transport customers to and from 

that location. Reply, p.17. As far as the condition of the property is concerned, PFA ignores the 

fact that it is currently being redeveloped to accommodate aircraft parking and, to make it 

suitable for this purpose, that the scope of work will include moving the Airport fence to bring 

this parcel within the usable and accessible Airport properties.2

 See Declaration of Jonathan 

Wilson attached to City’s Reply to PFA’s Answer to RNT’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

(filed June 15, 2015), re-submitted herewith. Thus the full facts clearly show that PFA was not 

the victim of any grant assurance violation, but simply was and continues to be picky, choosing 

to reject other usable parcels while insisting on having its “ideal” 760 Parcel. 

 By basing its claim that the Airport violated Grant Assurance 22 when it failed to award 

PFA the lease for the 760 Parcel on the lack of any suitable alternatives, notwithstanding its prior 

and subsequent rejections of the 770 and 820 parcels, as well as the now-under-development Old 

Restaurant site, PFA ignores the well-established principle that the grant assurances do not 

require an airport owner to provide a tenant with the exact piece of property it wants, particularly 

when it is competing against another existing tenant for the use of the property. PFA has not 

offered any legally-based rebuttal to the line of cases relied upon by the Airport. See Roadhouse 

Aviations, LLC v. City of Tulsa & the Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust, FAA Dkt No. 16-05-

08, 2007 FAA LEXIS 240, at *55 (June 26, 2007) (Final Decision); ALCA v. Miami-Dade 

																																																								

2

 The Contract for the Engineering Design is ready for signature. See JW Dec. Rebuttal ¶ 11. 
5

County, FL, FAA Dkt No. 16-08-05, 2010 FAA LEXIS 234, at *71-72 (Aug. 31, 2010) 

(Director’s Determination); Jimsair Aviation Services, Inc. v. San Diego County Reginal Airport 

Auth., Dkt No. 16-06-08, 2007 FAA LEXIS 272, at *47-48 (April 12, 2007) (Director’s 

Determination); Skydive Monroe, Inc. v. City of Monroe, GA, Dkt No. 16-06-02, 2007 FAA 

LEXIS 117, *20-22 (March 30, 2007) (Director’s Determination); Mainardi v. Lincoln Park 

Airport, Inc., Dkt No. 16-02-12, 2004 FAA LEXIS 877, at *35 (Oct. 18, 2004) (Final Decision). 

The preferences of tenants and subtenants are just preferences, which do not impose any legal 

obligation on an airport. Santa Monica Airport Ass’n v. City of Santa Monica, FAA Docket No. 

16-99-21, 2003 FAA LEXIS 144, *46 (Feb. 4, 2003) (Final Decision). The Airport need only 

allow PFA access to a “suitable” property to satisfy Grant Assurance 22. See FAA Order 

5190.6B. As commonly defined “suitable” means having the qualities that are right, needed, or 

appropriate for something. See www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suitable. Both the 770 

and 820 Parcels, the only two parcels available at the time PFA first requested additional space, 

as well as the now-under-development Old Restaurant site, are suitable for the tie-down of 

PFA’s aircraft training/rental fleet. The distance from PFA’s current building, which PFA 

emphasizes in its Reply, does not render them unsuitable. It is not atypical for aircraft to be 

parked at a remote location from which an airport service provider will shuttle the crew and/or 

passengers to the building where other services, such as bathrooms, a pilot store and lounge, 

food, and rental cars are located. 

B. Pro-Flight And Boeing Are Not Similarly Situated 

PFA’s claim of unjust discrimination should also be rejected because PFA and Boeing 

are not similarly situated. Under well-established law, there can be no unjust discrimination 

where the complainant is not similarly situated to the airport user about which it complains. See
6

ALCA v. Miami-Dade County, FL, FAA Dkt No. 16-08-05, 2010 FAA LEXIS 234, at *89-93 

(Aug. 31, 2010) (Director’s determination); Northern Air,Inc. v. County of Kent, MI, Dkt No. 16-

11-10, 2013 FAA LEXIS 316, at *73 (March 28, 2013)(Director’s determination); 

Aerodynamics of Reading, Inc. v. Reading Regional Airport Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-00-

03, 2001 FAA LEXIS 566, at *29 (July 23, 2001) (Final Decision); Truman Arnold Cos. d/b/a 

TAC Air v. Chattanooga Metro. Airport Auth, FAA Dkt No. 16-11-08, at *60-61 (Oct. 4, 

2013)(Director’s determination); Moore individually and d/b/a Warbird Sky Ventures, Inc. v. 

Sumner County Regional Airport Auth., FAA Dkt No. 16-07-16, 2009 FAA LEXIS 437, at *107 

(Feb. 27, 2009)(Director’s determination). Two aeronautical users are not similarly situated 

unless they assume similar obligations, use similar facilities, and make similar use of the airport. 

See FAA Order 5190.6B, § 9.2. 

The differences between the Boeing and PFA operations plainly show that the two are not 

similarly situated. As discussed more fully in the City’s Summary Judgment Motion (at pp. 27-

29) PFA conducts a traditional FBO operation from the Airport, and seeks the 760 Parcel for 

expanding its flight school operations. Boeing, on the other hand, manufactures aircraft, and 

seeks to use the 760 Parcel for final completion of modifications of new aircraft. Given the vast 

differences between the PFA and Boeing operations, they are in no way “similarly situated” and, 

accordingly, any differences in treatment cannot provide the basis for a finding of economic 

discrimination under Grant Assurance 22. 

 C. The City Fully And Fairly Considered PFA’s Application 

 The facts leading up to the lease of the 760/770 Parcels, including the City’s handling of 

both PFA and Boeing, are fully set forth in the City’s Fact Statement supporting its Answer, ¶¶ 

14-24 (filed Aug. 7, 2015)(“Fact Statement”). However, a few of those facts pertaining to PFA’s 
7

treatment by the Airport demonstrate the flaws in PFA’s rendition of the facts at pages 10-12 of 

its Reply, where it claims to have been intentionally misled. These are as follows: 

 The 760 Parcel that PFA expressed interest in between 2011 and 2013 was 

occupied by another tenant until April of 2013. Fact Statement, ¶ 13 (citing 

Complaint, Ex. 7). 

 As soon as PFA sought additional space, the Airport offered PFA the 770 and 820 

Parcels that were available. Fact Statement, ¶ 12 (citing Wilson Dec., ¶ 9, Ex. 

JW-1). 

 From the time the 760 Parcel was vacated in April of 2013 until Boeing needed to 

physically occupy the property, the Airport allowed PFA via an oral month-tomonth lease to tie-down its aircraft rental/training fleet there. Fact Statement, ¶ 

25 (citing Complaint, ¶¶ 15, 30; Wilson Dec., ¶ 11). 

 PFA submitted an application for the 760/770 Parcels on June 6, 2013, seven 

weeks before the lease of those properties was considered by the City Council’s 

Transportation/Aviation Committee (“Transportation Committee”). Fact 

Statement, ¶ 16 (citing Complaint, ¶¶ 23, 26, Ex.7); ¶ 19 (citing Complaint, ¶ 28). 

 The Transportation Committee heard a presentation by PFA as well as Boeing on 

July 25, 2013, and asked questions of the presenters, before its members 

independently voted to enter a lease with Boeing for the 760/770 Parcels. Fact 

Statement, ¶ 19 (citing Declaration of Jesse Uman attached as an exhibit to 

Summary Judgment Motion (“Uman Dec.”), ¶¶ 6-10); ¶ 20. See, also, 

Declaration of Marcie Palmer (“Palmer Dec.”), ¶¶	3,	7,	Declaration	of	Don	

Persson	(“Persson	Dec.”),	¶¶	6,	7,	&	Declaration	of	Greg	Taylor	(“Taylor	

Dec.”),	¶¶	6,	9,	10,	all attached as Exhibits to Reply to PFA’s Answer to RNT’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment (filed June 15, 2015)	and	re-submitted herewith). 		

These facts make it absolutely clear, notwithstanding anything that was said to PFA by the 

Airport manager, Ryan Zulauf, PFA was fully aware of the availability of the 760 Parcel and, 

armed with that knowledge, submitted a timely application to lease the property. These are the 

critical facts to be considered for purposes of this Part 16 action, because they render irrelevant 

any statements PFA deems misleading, even assuming that they occurred as PFA contends.3

 

																																																								

3

 For example, PFA’s belief that Mr. Zulauf intentionally misled PFA by advising that the 760 Parcel could not be 

leased because of a drainpipe that needed repair, by failing to promptly advise PFA of Boeing’s lease application, or 

by discouraging PFA from applying because of a prior decision to lease the parcel to Boeing, did not cause any 
8

Indeed, a Part 16 action looks at and addresses only the Airport’s current compliance status, it 

does not impose punishment for past personal wrongs. Wilson Air Center v. Memphis and 

Shelby County Airport Auth., FAA Dkt No. 16-99-10, 2001 FAA LEXIS 567, at *12 (Aug. 30, 

2001) (Final Decision)(lead case for proposition), aff’d other grounds, Wilson Air Center, LLC v. 

FAA, 372 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2004); Flightline Ground, Inc. v Louisiana Dept. of Trans & Dev., 

2015 FAA LEXIS 20, at *37 (Jan. 15, 2015) (Final Determination); Order 5190.6B, § 2.8(b) see 

also Sum. Judg. Mem., at pp. 5-6 (citing other cases). Thus, as a matter of law, even if Mr. 

Zulauf’s conduct had somehow violated any grant assurances, which the Airport has denied and 

continues to deny, subsequent curative actions would make any FAA action unnecessary and 

unwarranted. Id. Therefore, as a matter of law, the City Council’s full consideration of PFA’s 

timely application eliminates the need for the FAA to consider any alleged harm to PFA by Mr. 

Zulauf.4

 When PFA claims that the decision had already been made before the Transportation 

Committee met and deliberated on the 760/770 lease, it totally ignores the record evidence that 

PFA cannot and has not rebutted. As explained in the declaration of Jesse Uman, Boeing’s 

representative at the Transportation Committee meeting where the 760/770 lease applications 

were considered, as well as the declarations of all three Transportation Committee members, the 

Committee listened carefully to presentations by PFA and Boeing representatives, asked 

questions to flesh out specifics of the two proposals, and even asked the PFA representatives if 

they had any further comments regarding the lease of the 760 and 770 parcels, before they voted 

on the matter. See Uman Dec., ¶¶ 7-10; Palmer Dec., ¶¶ 3, 7; Persson Dec., ¶¶ 6, 7; Taylor Dec., 

																																																																																																																																																																																		 actionable harm because PFA nevertheless submitted a timely application to lease the property that was 

subsequently considered on the merits. 

4

 As Mr. Zulauf is now an employee of the FAA, he is unable to stand up and speak for himself to deny these 

allegations. 
9

¶¶ 6, 9, 10. Further, each of the Committee members testified in their declarations that they went 

into the meeting with open minds and made their decision based upon the applications and the 

information presented at that meeting. Ibid. This testimony is uncontroverted. Mr. Zulauf’s 

decision to recommend to the Transportation Committee that the Airport award a lease to Boeing 

simply has no bearing on the Committee members’ state of mind. It does not show that the 

actual decision makers, the City Council (first in Committee and then as a whole), did not fully 

and fairly consider PFA’s application. To the contrary, the Transportation Committee 

proceedings clearly show that the City met its obligation under Grant Assurance 22 to avoid 

unjust discrimination when making its lease determination for the 760/770 Parcels. 

 D. An Award To Boeing Was Justified Even If PFA Would Accept A Short-

 Term Lease. 

	 PFA	for	the	first	time	in	this	proceeding	claims	that	it	did	not	request	a	long‐term	

lease,	implying	that	this	fact	would	have	mandated	an	award	to	PFA	instead	of	Boeing.		

Reply,	pp.15‐16.		However,	the	length	of	the	lease	is	not	the	determinative	factor	in	an	

award	of	the	lease	to	Boeing.		To	the	contrary,	the	City	would	have	been	fully	justified	in	

leasing	the	760	Parcel	to	Boeing	even	if	PFA	had	shown	the	alleged	flexibility	in	the	term	of	

its	lease.			Boeing	clearly	evidenced	a	demonstrable	need	for	the	five	737	MAX	aircraft	stalls	

that	could	be	accommodated	only	on	the	adjacent	760	and	770	Parcels.		Fact	Statement,	¶	9	

(citing	Shineman Dec. ¶¶ 2, 8; Wilson Dec., Ex. JW-3; Johnson Dec., ¶¶ 12-13, 15); Fact	

Statement,	¶	18	(citing	Johnson	Dec.,	¶	17;	Wilson	Dec. Answer,	¶	25).		PFA	safely	

conducted	its	operations	from	its	existing	location	prior	to	April	13,	2013,	without	making	

any	use	of	the	760	Parcel.		Fact	Statement,	¶13	(citing	Complaint,	Ex.	7;	Wilson	Dec.,	¶	10).		

In	addition,	to	the	extent	additional	space	was	nevertheless	needed	by	PFA,	its	

training/rental	fleet	of	smaller	aircraft	could	be	accommodated	on	a	number	of	Airport	
10

parcels,	including	the	770,	820,	and	Restaurant	parcels	that	had	been	offered	to	PFA	and	

rejected.		Fact	Statement,	¶	18	(citing	Johnson	Dec.,	¶	17;	Wilson	Dec. Answer,	¶	25).		

 Besides, PFA is now attempting to rewrite the history of the transaction. While its 

application for the 760/770 Parcels does not expressly contain any duration for the requested 

lease, the “Purpose of Use” portion of the application, PFA’s presentation at the Transportation 

Committee’s hearing on the competing lease applications, and PFA’s later written “Bottom 

Line” settlement demand, make it absolutely clear that PFA wanted a long-term lease of both 

parcels. Complaint, Ex. 7; Palmer Declaration, ¶ 11; Complaint, Ex. 6f (Oct. 1, 2014 e-mail 

captioned “Bottom Line“). PFA’s intended use, as described in the application, was to grow its 

flight school and aircraft rental business, increase the size of its aircraft fleet, rework the car 

parking area, remove unused portable buildings, and construct a “T” hangar on the new space, all 

plans that would require long-term use of the property. Complaint, Ex. 7. This was affirmed by 

PFA, when asked for its “Bottom Line” to settle this matter: 

We would be willing to consider this matter closed if the following terms are met: 

1) A long term lease of the 760 parcel to Pro-Flight. The term would coincide 

with the term that our sister company, Renton Gateway Center, has on the 

adjacent 750 parcel. 

Complaint,	Ex.	6f.		PFA’s	belated	offer	in	December	of	2014,	nearly	one	and	a	half	years	

after	the	City	had	leased	the	parcels	to	Boeing,	to	accept	tie‐down	spaces	on	the	760	Parcel	

for	the	short	term	was	accompanied	by	unacceptable	conditions,	such	as	the	elimination	of	

the	requirement	to	provide	fuel,	that	PFA	knew	could	not	be	accepted	by	the	Airport.		

Complaint,	Ex.	6g,	p.1.				

PFA’s	current	claim	that	it	did	not	seek	a	long	term	lease	is	disingenuous.		If,	in	fact,	

PFA	did	not	seek	a	long	term	lease,	why	did	it	not	accept	the	820	Parcel	when	it	was	offered	

to	it	for	a	short	term	to	coincide	with	the	duration	of	the	remainder	of	the	Boeing	lease	of	
11

the	760	Parcel?		That	would	have	allowed	PFA	to	have	tie‐down	availability	at	the	Airport	

until	Boeing’s	short	term	lease	expired.			PFA’s	rejection	of	the	820	Parcel	for	a	short	term	

is	illustrative	of	its	true	motive	to	enter	into	a	long	term	arrangement	with	the	City.		In	any	

event,	as	discussed	above,	a	willingness	to	accept	a	shorter	lease	term	would	not	in	any	

way	have	invalidated	the	City’s	decision	to	award	the	lease	to	Boeing	after	comparing	the	

merits	of	both	applications.		

II.	 Boeing’s	Intended	Use	Of	The	Disputed	Parcels	Clearly	Comes	Within	the	

	 Scope	of	Aeronautical	Activities	As	Defined	By	The	FAA	

 In its Answer, echoing the argument made in its Summary Judgment Memorandum (pp. 

17-21), the City demonstrated how Boeing’s activities at the Airport come within the scope of an 

“aeronautical activity” as that term has been defined by the FAA. As set forth in the declaration 

of Clifford E. Johnson attached as an exhibit to the City’s Summary Judgment motion, at ¶ 19, 

If during flight testing there is a need for changes in the 737MAX design, Boeing 

plans to incorporate those changes into the airplanes parked on the 760 and 770 

parcels. During the development stage of the 737 MAX program, the airplanes 

will possess experimental airworthiness certificates. Once the 737 MAX aircraft 

is awarded a type certificate, the newly built aircraft will be capable of being 

issued standard airworthiness certificates. When the 737 MAX model is FAA 

certificated and each aircraft is ready for delivery, the aircraft will begin their 

initial flights from the Renton Airport. 

 In the declaration of David K. Shineman submitted by the City in support of its Answer in this 

case, Boeing expanded upon this description, emphasizing that the new parcels would be used 

differently than Boeing’s existing leased space, which is “used for pre-flight operations on 

previously certificated airplanes (the 737 NG).” Shineman Dec., ¶ 10. The new parcels, by way 

of contrast, 

will be used for “change incorporation” (“CI”) of the pre-certification 737 MAX 

airplanes and any design and engineering changes and other modifications, as 

well as repairs and maintenance, required by the FAA for certification of the 737 
12

MAX airplane, [which] will be performed while those airplanes are stored on the 

760, 770, and 820 Parcels. 

Ibid. Boeing also stated that when Boeing conducts its initial test flights, after completion of any 

needed changes, repairs, and maintenance, those flights will be operated under Part 91 of the 

FAA’s regulations. Id. at ¶ 4. 

 PFA’s opposing argument is that because the FAA does not consider aircraft 

manufacturing itself to constitute an aeronautical activity; any activities related to a 

manufacturing operation likewise should not be considered aeronautical. Reply, pp. 7-8. The 

fatal flaw in PFA’s argument is that it is inconsistent with the position taken by the FAA itself. 

Appendix Z to the FAA Compliance Manual, Order 5190.6B (“Order 5190.6B”), broadly defines 

“Aeronautical Activity” to include “[a]ny activity that involves, makes possible, or is required 

for the operation of aircraft or that contributes to or is required for the safety of such operations.” 

Among the non-exclusive list of activities that fall within this definition are “aircraft storage” 

and “repair and maintenance.” The Order does not contain the limitation that PFA would have 

the FAA include—that such activities are excluded from this category if they relate to the 

manufacture of aircraft. Reading such a limitation into what the FAA has deemed an 

“aeronautical activity” would make a nullity of the FAA’s own determination of the limits of the 

concept. 

 Further, PFA totally ignores the FAA’s recently-adopted Policy on the Non-aeronautical 

Use of Airport Hangars, a policy issued to clarify the Agency’s position on aeronautical uses and 

adopted after the cases relied upon by PFA were decided. See Sum. Judg. Mem., at pp. 18-21. 

In that Policy document, the FAA states unequivocally “that final assembly of an aircraft, 

leading to the completion of the aircraft to a point where it can be taxied, will be considered an 

aeronautical use.” See “Policy on the Non-aeronautical Use of Airport Hangars”, 79 Fed. Reg. 
13

42483, 42485 (July 22, 2014). In short, the Agency distinguished the type of aircraft 

manufacturing activities that Boeing conducts at its facility across the river, many of which are 

non-aeronautical, from the activities that will take place on Boeing’s newly-leased property at 

the Airport—distinct aeronautical uses such as storage, maintenance, and modifications needed 

to ensure airworthiness of the 737 MAX aircraft. Given that the FAA has found such activities 

to be aeronautical, the Airport cannot be charged with discriminating in violation of its 

obligations under Grant Assurance 22 on PFA’s theory that the City gave a preference to a nonaeronautical user. 

 The fact that PFA provides certain aeronautical services at the Airport that neither Boeing 

nor any other party provides (Reply, pp.9-10) does not have any bearing on this legal analysis. 

Moreover, the Airport has repeatedly acknowledged that “PFA is a valued tenant at the Renton 

Airport.” Complaint, Ex. 6g, see also Ex.10. That is why the Airport has made every reasonable 

effort since 2011, when PFA moved to its current leased parcel and started complaining about its 

space shortage, to accommodate its claimed need for additional space. Complaint, Ex. 2; Fact 

Statement, ¶ 12 (citing Wilson Dec., ¶ 9, Ex. JW-1); Fact Statement, ¶ 25 (citing Complaint, ¶¶ 

15, 30; Wilson Dec., ¶ 11); Fact Statement, ¶ 26 (citing Jacobson Dec., ¶¶ 7-9) Fact Statement, ¶ 

29 (citing Jacobson Dec., ¶ 11, Ex. DJ-3; Complaint, Exs. 6d & 6e). Further, the Airport did this 

even though PFA’s predicament was created by its own failure to sublease adequate space in its 

original agreement with its “sister company” landlord, Renton Gateway Center (“RGC”). Fact 

Statement, ¶ 11 (citing Wilson Dec., ¶¶ 4, 8, Ex. JW-1; Wilson Dec. Answer, ¶ 7, Ex.C; 

Complaint, Ex. 14). There is simply no objective evidence to prove the new PFA contention that 

the Airport thinks things “would be fine without PFA on the field”. But, no matter the services 
14

PFA supplies, nothing in the grant assurances requires the City to grant PFA a lease on any and 

every parcel PFA demands be leased to it. 

 Equally important, the City has not failed in its obligation to serve the public by granting 

Boeing a lease as PFA implies. The parcels recently leased to Boeing to accommodate its 

proven need for additional space to store, repair, and do maintenance on the new 737 MAX 

aircraft are not the only Airport property available to meet the flying public’s interest and the 

aeronautical needs of the Airport. To start with, notwithstanding the Boeing lease, PFA will 

continue to provide the aircraft repair and maintenance services previously provided at the 

Airport. The services for which PFA claims to be the sole provider—fuel, oxygen, nitrogen, 

rental cars, a pilot store and lounge, lavatory services, catering, and a GPU—will also continue 

be provided by PFA.5

 JW Dec. Rebuttal, ¶ 3, Exhibit JW Rebuttal 1. 

 Beyond that, as PFA acknowledges, there are other Airport tenants who are meeting the 

public’s interest in general aviation services and the aeronautical needs of the Airport, in some 

respects duplicating some of the services that PFA offers. Rainier, Ace Aviation, and NW 

Seaplanes offer aircraft maintenance; BEFA, Leven, Ace Aviation, and Aerodyne, offer tiedowns for aircraft; Aerodyne can accommodate business jets; BEFA and Rainier offer flight 

instruction; and N.W. Seaplanes offers charters. See Reply, p.9; Fact Statement, ¶ 5 (citing 

Wilson Dec. Answer, ¶ 21). 

 The Airport itself directly provides additional parking spaces for general aviation aircraft, 

both leased tie-down spaces and transients and will continue to do so. JW Dec. Rebuttal, ¶ 12. 

Further, should demand increase in the future for either leased tie-downs or transient aircraft 

																																																								

5

 In its application for an Operating Permit, PFA has indicated it will continue to offer these services. The terms and 

conditions of the Operating Permit have yet to be negotiated. PFA has been asked by the Airport to provide to the 

city a business plan that will show how it will continue to operate and offer the services it identified in its 

application and do so from the premises that are identified in its current sub-lease with its sister company, RGC. See

JW Dec. Rebuttal ¶ 3, Exhibit JW Rebuttal 1.
15

parking, the 11 spaces that are expected to be available on the Old Restaurant parcel, will satisfy 

the expected demand. JW Dec. Rebuttal, ¶ 11. Consequently, even with the short-term Boeing 

lease, the Airport has sufficient space to meet the public’s interest and aeronautical needs of the 

Airport. 

III. Boeing’s Aeronautical Activities Are Consistent With The Airport Layout Plan, 

 As Required By Grant Assurance 29 

 PFA essentially restates the argument presented in its Complaint (¶¶ 55-60), that the lease 

of the 760/770 Parcels to Boeing, when those parcels are designated for General Aviation 

(“GA”) on the Airport Layout Plan (“ALP”), violates Grant Assurance 29 requiring the ALP to 

be updated at all times. Reply, pp. 19-20. PFA tries to make its case more impressive by 

describing the City’s argument that Boeing’s activities come within the scope of GA with 

hyperbolic terms such as “outlandish” and “absurd”. However, PFA’s argument is dependent 

upon the underlying argument that Boeing is not engaged in any aeronautical activity on these 

parcels. Reply, p.20. As discussed at pages 11 through 14, above, Boeing will be engaged in 

storage, repair and maintenance of its 737 MAX aircraft on the 760/770 Parcels, activities that 

come well within the scope of aeronautical activities as defined by the FAA. Further, GA 

includes flights in experimental aircraft conducted under Part 91 (General Operating and Flight 

Rules). See GAO 13-36, Report to Congressional Committees, “General Aviation Safety” (Oct. 

2012), at p.5. Until the 737 MAX model aircraft has been certificated by the FAA, their initial 

test flights will be conducted under the provisions of Part 91. 14 C.F.R. § 91.319. This is yet 

another legally-supported conclusion that PFA has not rebutted other than with a heavy dose of 

rhetoric. 

 Moreover, given the short term of the Boeing lease (5-7 years, with 2 years already 

expired), this does not appear to be the type of permanent change that ordinarily results in a 
16

formal change to the ALP. If, however, the FAA feels it should be amended, the discrepancy 

can be eliminated and the modified ALP submitted to the FAA for approval. Importantly, it 

would not require the initiation of a new proceeding to revise the ALP. Independent of this 

proceeding, early in 2014, the Airport contracted for a review and update of the Airport Master 

Plan.6

 See Renton Airport Advisory Committee meeting minutes for June 10, 2014, 

rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Living/PBPW/AIRPORT/04_Public_Relations/Approved%20RAA

C%20Meeting%20Minutes%2006-10-14.pdf. By the time the City’s Answer was filed, the 

Airport had completed Chapter’s A through C, and was working on Chapter D. Wilson Answer 

Dec., ¶ 24. Since the ALP is Chapter H of the Master Plan, the ALP review would be 

incorporated into that process and FAA consideration of any needed modifications obtained in a 

timely manner. There is substantial precedent supporting ALP changes made after-the-fact to 

accommodate an inconsistent use (should such be found), in order to avoid any possible violation 

of Grant Assurance 29. See,e g., Boca Airport, Inc. d/b/a Boca Aviation v. Boca Raton Airport 

Auth., FAA Dkt No. 16-00-10, at *66-67 (April 26, 2001) (Director’s Determination) (Airport 

sought approval 6 months after selecting proposal); Northern Air, Inc., v. County of Kent, MI, 

FAA Dkt No. 16-11-10, 2013 FAA LEXIS 316, at *61 n.32 (March 28, 2013) (Director’s 

Determination) (Airport will update its ALP upon completion of construction); JetAway 

Aviation, Inc. v. Montrose County, CO, FAA Dkt No. 16-08-01, 2009 FAA LEXIS 251, at *60 & 

n.16 (July 2, 2009) (Director’s Determination). 

																																																								

6 Diane Paholke was a member of the Renton Airport Advisory Committee (RAAC) when the update of the 

Airport’s Master Plan was begun. RAAC members and others in attendance at RAAC meetings are made aware of 

such projects as the update to the Airport Master Plan and the sub parts of that Plan. Ms. Paholke was marked in 

attendance at the kickoff meeting for the Airport’s 2014 Master Plan Update. (JW Dec. Rebuttal, ¶ 9).
17

IV. PFA Can Not Complain About The Airport’s Failure To Offer It A Lease 

When It Lacks A Valid Operating Permit At The Airport 

 Although PFA’s arguments fail on the merits, the FAA should also reject PFA’s claims 

as a whole based on its lack of standing under Part 16. 

The City alleged as an affirmative defense included in its Answer that PFA lacked 

standing to bring this Part 16 action because it is no longer “directly and substantially affected” 

by the alleged acts of non-compliance with the grant assurances, as required by 14 C.F.R. 

§16.23(a), due to its failure to extend the term of its Operating Permit beyond July 31, 2015. 

Answer, ¶ 12 & Affirmative Defense 7. This omission deprives PFA of the authorization 

required by sublessees to provide FBO services at the Airport. PFA cannot and does not deny 

these factual or legal allegations. To the contrary, as explained in PFA’s Reply, “the initial term 

of PFA’s Operating Permit ended July 31, 2015, but is extendable upon written notice to the 

Airport ninety (90) days before the termination date. Complaint, Ex. 2, Section 4.2.” 

 In an attempt to justify its failure to seek an extension of its Permit, PFA says it was “an 

oversight” and that it advised the Airport of its intent to renew “as soon as the oversight was 

discovered.” Reply, p.18. PFA then goes on to chastise the City for requiring PFA to submit a 

new application, instead of waiving the 90-day requirement, just as it allegedly waived the 

requirement for Rainier Flight Service (“Rainier”) to provide fuel services. Ibid. 

 As a factual matter, the Airport manager first learned of the expiration of the Operating 

Permit from the City’s counsel, not from PFA. The Airport Manager notified PFA and RGC of 

the expiration of the Operating Permit. JW Dec. Rebuttal, ¶ 4. Exhibit JW Rebuttal 2. So far as 

the Airport can determine, PFA is the first subtenant to fail to timely seek to renew the 

subtenant’s operating permit. Ibid. 
18

Second, the Airport should not reasonably be expected to waive the 90-days advance 

notice requirement because that time period is intended to allow the City sufficient time to 

reevaluate a sublessee’s proposed use of the sub-leased premises and determine whether it is in 

the Airport’s best interest to renew an existing Permit on the prior terms and conditions or 

impose new or different terms. JW Dec. Rebuttal, ¶ 5. Thus, by insisting that PFA re-apply for 

a new Operating Permit, the City is not retaliating as PFA suggests; it is simply doing its due 

diligence to ensure the viability and suitability of Airport subtenants, thereby ensuring the 

airport’s sustainability. Indeed, since PFA has raised questions about the viability of its 

operations if it is not awarded a lease for the 760 Parcel, it is particularly important here that the 

City be given the opportunity to determine whether a new permit should be issued and, if so, 

whether any terms and conditions should be modified from the initial Operating Permit. 

Third, contrary to PFA’s assertion, the City has not waived the requirement that Rainier 

provide fueling services, as contemplated by its lease. Rainier’s lease of the 800 Parcel was 

entered on November 1, 2014, and Rainier has diligently pursued the establishment of a new 

fueling operation since that time. Fact Statement, ¶ 4 (citing Wilson Dec., ¶¶ 6, 25; Wilson 

Answer Dec., ¶ 2, Ex. A). In fact, Rainier has loaded aviation fuel into one of the two tanks on 

its leased premises, installed a credit card reader, and prepared for submission its “spill 

prevention and containment plan”. JW Dec. Rebuttal, ¶ 10. Once approved, Rainier will be able 

to sell fuel and will become an FBO at RNT. Ibid. 

 If, as is currently the case, PFA’s legal authority to operate at the Airport has expired, as 

a result of its own inaction, it is difficult to imagine how it could be directly and substantially 

affected by any Airport actions that arguably violate the grant assurances. PFA cites to Martyn 

v. Port of Anacortes, WA, Dkt. No. 16-02-03 (April 14, 2003), as proof that a party that is not an 
19

approved airport tenant or operator may bring a Part 16 action. However, the very different 

facts of the Martyn case do not provide standing to PFA under the present circumstances. In 

Martyn, the Complainant alleged a denial of access to the involved airport for the purpose of 

constructing and operating a hangar facility, based upon the airport’s decision not to enter a lease 

with him. The circumstances creating the alleged grant assurance violation were entirely within 

the airport’s control. In the present case, the facts placing PFA’s standing in jeopardy were 

exclusively within PFA’s control. PFA was an existing Airport subtenant, operating pursuant to 

essentially a 4-year Operating Permit granted by the City, that did not ask in a timely manner to 

renew its Permit. See Complaint, Tab 2, ¶ 4.1. Thus, any direct and substantial effect that the 

City’s failure to award PFA a lease for the 760/770 parcels might theoretically have had is 

eliminated by this intervening and unexcused failure to act by PFA. 

CONCLUSION 

 For all the reasons set forth in the City’s Answer and the supporting Fact Statement, as 

further explained in the above Rebuttal and in the City’s Summary Judgment Motion and 

Memorandum, PFA’s Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. PFA should not be allowed 

to use the FAA and the grant assurances to bully the Airport into leasing to it the one and only 

parcel that PFA deems acceptable. This is particularly true as PFA has repeatedly rejected other 

reasonable alternative properties offered by the Airport for tie-down of PFA’s training/rental 

fleet. PFA should not be allowed to blame the Airport for PFA’s own initial failure to properly 

plan for its needs and PFA’s failure to competently negotiate with its sister company, RGC, to 

secure a sub-lease that would have afforded it the space it deemed necessary to conduct its FBO 

business at the Airport. PFA now seeks to use its own shortcomings to justify a reversal of the 

Airport’s properly-taken decision to lease the 760/770 Parcels to Boeing. Evicting Boeing from 
the contiguous leased 760/770 Parcels would be more than onerous. Unlike PF A, which was 

offered other parcels that could have met their needs, Boeing's need for these two contiguous 

large parcels has been proven, as contiguous parcels allow for more aircraft parking than two 

separated parcels. Boeing has more than reasonably relied on the decision of the City taken in 

2013 to lease these parcels to it and for two years has planned and counted on the ability to store 

and perform needed modifications and repairs on pre-certification 737 MAX aircraft there. 

Boeing has already started to manufacture the 737 MAX at its plant across the river-and the 

aircraft will begin to roll off the production line by the end of the year. See Polek, Gregory, 

"Boeing Starts Final Assembly of First 737 MAX", Air Transport (Sept. 15, 2015), 

www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/20 15-09-15/boeing-starts-final-assembly~ first737-max. Invalidating the short term lease with Boeing would be particularly unwarranted 

where the lease to Boeing has not and will not in the future prevent the Airport from continuing 

to serve the public interest and the long-term needs of the Airport's FBOs, including PF A and all 

·other aeronautical users of the Airport consistent with the grant assurances. 

Dated this 8th day of October, 2015. 

Respectfully Submitted: 

etta L. Fontes, WSBA # 9604 

r. Assistant City Attorney 

20 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this gth day of October 2015, I caused to have filed and served by 

e-mail transmission 1) the Respondent's Rebuttal To Complainant's Reply to Answer, 2) 

Declaration of Jonathan Wilson, Airport Manager, Renton Municipal Airport in Support of 

Renton's Rebuttal to Complainant's Reply to Answer, and Exhibits thereto, 3) Declaration of 

Councilwoman Marcie Palmer (dated 11 June 20 15), 4) Declaration of Councilman Don Persson 

(dated 11 June 2015), 5) Declaration of Councilman Greg Taylor(dated 11 June 2015), 6) 

Declaration of Jonathan Wilson (dated 12 June 2015), and 7) this Certificate of Service in the 

matter of Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. v. City of Renton Municipal Airport, Docket# 16-15-03, 

upon the following: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief of Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Room921 

800 Independence Ave, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

e-mail: 9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov 

(Telephone 202-267-3473) 

Benjamin H. Klein 

Law Offices of Paul A. Lange. LLC 

80 Ferry Boulevard 

Stratford, CT 06615 

e-mail: bhk@lopal.com 

(Telephone 203-375-7724, ext. 108) 

nior Assistant City Attorney 

City.ofRenton 

City Attorney's Office 

· 1055 South Grady Way 

Renton, W A 98057 

Phone: (425) 430-6486. 

Fax: (425) 430-6498 

e-mail: zfontes@rentonwa.gov 
















DECLARATION OF 

JONATHAN WILSON, AIRPORT MANAGER, 

RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 

IN SUPPORT OF RENTON'S 

REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINANT'S 

REPLY TO ANSWER 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC. ) 

 ) 

 Complainant ) 

 ) Docket No. 16-15-03 

v. ) 

 ) 

CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL ) 

AIRPORT ) 

 ) 

 Respondent ) 

 ) 

____________________________________) 

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN WILSON, 

AIRPORT MANAGER, RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 

IN SUPPORT OF RENTON’S REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINANT’S REPLY TO ANSWER 

I, Jonathan Wilson, hereby declare based upon my personal knowledge, under penalty of 

perjury under the laws of the state of Washington, that the following is true and correct: 

1. I am the current Airport Manager at the Renton Municipal Airport (“RNT”). Prior to my 

appointment as the Airport Manager in October, 2014, I served as the Airport’s Assistant 

Manager for 7 years. 

2. The Airport had granted to Pro Flight Aviation, Inc. (“PFA”), an Operating Permit for a 

term of 4 years plus 24 days. The Term of that Operating Permit coincided with the then 

effective sub-lease between PFA and its sister company, Renton Gateway Center. The 

Term of the Operating Permit expired on July 31, 2015. See Section 4 of the Operating 

Permit, attached to PFA’s Complaint, at Tab 2. At this time, PFA does not have an 

Operating Permit to conduct business on RNT. 
3. PFA has made an application for a new Operating Permit. A copy of that application is 

attached hereto as Exhibit JW Rebuttal 1. The application indicates PFA intends to 

continue providing aircraft repair and maintenance services at RNT, as well as providing 

the other services previously provided by them. The terms and conditions of the new 

Operating Permit are being determined at this time and have yet to be negotiated between 

the parties. As it appears that the facts and circumstances of PFA’s operations have 

changed since the original Operating Permit was granted, the Airport has requested a new 

Business Plan from PFA indicating how it will operate on the sub-leased premises. 

Thereafter, terms and conditions for the new Operating Permit will be negotiated. 

4. The failure of PFA to petition to extend its Operating Permit on a timely basis was 

discovered by Airport’s counsel as she was drafting the Answer to the Part 16 Complaint. 

I learned of it when I was asked by counsel to determine whether PFA had made a timely 

request to extend. As PFA had not made a timely request to extend, I hand delivered a 

letter to PFA and its sister company, RGC, indicating that PFA’s Operating Permit had 

expired. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit JW Rebuttal 2. A records 

review indicates that at no time prior to the Airport’s drafting of its Answer to PFA’s 

Complaint did PFA notify the Airport of its “oversight” regarding the expiration of its 

Operating Permit. During my eight year tenure here at RNT, I cannot recall there being a 

situation where the Operating Permit holder has allowed its permit to expire. 

5. The Operating Permit provisions for an extension of the Operating Permit impose a 90 

days advance notice requirement to allow the Airport an opportunity to consider any 

changed conditions (as we have here) that might affect the terms and conditions of the 

Operating Permit. PFA’s Operating Permit is linked to the specific sub-leased premises, 
nothing more. However, unlike the circumstances presented 5 years ago (for the initial 

Operating Permit), PFA has now indicated it cannot fully operate its business from within 

the boundaries of the sub-leased premises. That is a significant changed circumstance 

that could affect the purpose of use or other terms and conditions of the Operating Permit. 

RNT needs the time to obtain the information from the applicant (PFA, here) and 

consider the circumstances and determine the appropriate conditions to impose. A 

waiver of this time period would eliminate the Airport’s ability to properly consider the 

application. 

6. The 820 Parcel has ingress and egress from/to Perimeter Road by way of a driveway that 

serves the 820 Parcel and another tenant. Attached hereto as Exhibit JW Rebuttal 3, is a 

true and correct photo from Google Earth, depicting the driveway serving the 820 Parcel 

and the neighboring parcel. 

7. The 760 and 770 Parcels both have access to/from Perimeter Road as well. 

8. The 820 Parcel is adjacent to the 800 Parcel, which is the location of Rainier Flight 

Services (“Rainier”), soon to be another FBO on the airport. 

9. RAAC members and others in attendance at RAAC meetings are made aware of such 

projects as the update to the Airport Master Plan and the sub parts of that Plan. Ms. 

Paholke was marked in attendance at the kickoff meeting for the Airport’s 2014 Master 

Plan Update. 

10. Rainier has arranged for the sale of fuel from its leased premises. One of the tanks on its 

premises has been cleaned out, fuel has been loaded into it and a credit card reader has 

been installed. Upon approval of its spill prevention and containment plan, Rainier will 

be able to sell fuel. At that time, Rainier will be an FBO at the Airport. 
11. The development of the Old Restaurant Site for tie downs is still in progress. The 

contract with the engineering design firm is being completed as this declaration is being 

signed. This parcel, like all others on the west side of the airport will have access to 

Perimeter Road. 

12. In addition to the aircraft parking offered by Airport tenants, the Airport provides tiedown spaces to meet the needs of GA aircraft, including transient aircraft. The Airport 

will continue to do so. Additionally, the added tie-down spaces on the Old Restaurant 

site will satisfy the expected demand for tie down spaces controlled by RNT. 

DATED THIS_/ __ day of October, 2015. 

'l~~ Jonathan Wilson, 

Renton Airport Manager 
EXHIBIT 

JWREBUTTAL 1 
Attachment C 

Renton Airport 

Clayto11 Scott Field 

616 W. Perimeter Road- U11it A, Re11toll, WA 98057 

Pirone 425-430-7471 I Fax 425-430-7472 

AiRPORT LEASE/OPERATING PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 

peceovEn 

_____ 

AUG -4 2m5 u _,~~;~ 

Please read the Airport Leasilrg Policies and the Airport Regulatio11s a11d Mi11imunr Sta11dards prior to jilli11g ;, 

tlris application. 

Applicant Name: _P~_·o-_FI_Ig_ht_A_,_·Ia_tl_o_n_,I_n_c. _________________________ _ 

ContactPerson: __ n_i_n_ne_P_n_h_o_~_e,_P_n_s_~_e_nr ________________________________ __ 

Phone: 425-228-9510 Email: pl'ofligbta11lationint@yahoo.com . 

- ., ' 

Mailing Address: 7SO W. Perimeter Rd Unit #1, Renton, WA 98057 

Lease Area Location, if known: FBO/officc nrcn, Hnngnrs A & B, nnd ramp space nt above location 

Type of Lease (circle all that apply): Ground 

Buildin 

perating Permit (for subleasing 

If Operating Permit Application, name of Business from whom Subleasing: 

Renton Glitewny Center;LLC 

Provide a detailed description (Purpose of Use) of the intended commercial aeronautical activities: 

Sec attached sheet. 

Describe the means an.d methods to accomplish the intended activities: ..- !•. 

Sel' nttacbed ·sheet 

(Attach additional sheets as necessary) 

August 4, 2015 

Applicant Signature (if sublease, signa Date 

Airport Manager Signature Date 

H:·Filc Sys\AlR . Airpon. Tnmsponation Services DivisioniOI Admimstmlioml2 Real Property 

Managcmcnt\AiJpm1 Leasing Policics\Renton Airport Leasing Poh~y • revised 02-25-08 Post Peiffie 

FINAL· RZ Edits+CMC edits 2·22-0S.doc 

Page 22 of22 
Renton Gateway Center, LLC 

750 W. Perimeter Rd Unit #1 

Renton, W A 98057 

TI ~©~D"~""' 

n AUG - 4 2015 ~ Purpose of Use of the intended commerCial aeronautical activities: 

c 

:.7~ 

We will use the subleased areas for the following: 

• Aircraft Maintenance, including major and minor repair, and major and minor 

alteration of airframes, engines, avionics, interiors and aircraft components. 

• Storage and tie-down· of aircraft, both indoors and outdoors. 

• Commercial flight operations including flight training, aircraft rental, sightseeing, 

aerial photography, and any operations conducted under 14 CFR part 91 and 

14CFR Part 135. 

• Sale of aviation fuels and lubricants. 

• Sale of aircraft parts, components and pilot supplies. 

• Aircraft servicing with fluids and compressed gases. 

• Aircraft grooming 

• Aircraft sales, leasing & management. 

Means and methods to accomplish the intended activities: 

• We will continue to use our existing infrastructure, equipment, personnel, and 

substantial capital investments as we have for the past many years. 

Operating Pennit Application - attached sheet 

~ 
EXHIBIT 

JW REBUTTAL 2 


EXHIBIT 

JW REBUTTAL 3