Anita C. Willis, CA SBN 162671 

LAW OFFICES OF ANITA C. WILLIS 

400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300 

Culver City, CA 90230 

Telephone: (310) 391-4737 

Facsimile: (310)391-7572 

Pamela J. Walls, CA SBN 123446 

County Coimsel 

County of Riverside 

3960 Orange Street 

Riverside, CA 92501 

Telephone: (951) 955-6300 

Facsimile: (951)955-6363 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

Attorneys for County of Riverside 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

ORANGE COUNTY SOARING 

ASSOCIATION, LARRY TOUHINO, 

AND CHRIS MANNION, 

Complainants, 

THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a general law 

county and political subdivision of the State of 

California, 

Respondent 

FAA Docket No. 16-09-13 

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 

REBUTTAL BRIEF 

C 3 

County of Riverside Rebuttal Brief 

1 
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REBUTTAL BRIEF 

1. Complainants' Reply Brief Inaccurately Interprets the County's Position; 

The County's Actions were Reasonable and Necessary for the Safe Operation of the 

Airport and do not Violate Grant Assurance 2 

A. The County had a right to close Runway 4-22. the runway previously designated 

for glider/sailplane operations. 

As referenced in the County's Answer and Motion to Dismiss, the closure of Runway 4-

22 was a proper exercise of the County's authority over the Airport. The County acknowledges 

its obligations pursuant to Grant Assurance 22. However, the closure, and ultimate removal of 

the Runway 4-22, an airport improvement completed without FAA assistance subsequent to the 

County's acquisition of the Airport property, is within the authority of the County. Grant 

Assurance 22 does not require the County to keep that runway open in perpetuity. Even if the 

improvement was developed with FAA Grant funds, such improvements are subject to a 

requirement to remain in place for period of 20 years (the useful life), not in perpetuity. (FAA 

Airport Compliance Manual - Order 5190.6B) 

Complainants' cite the FAA Director's Determination in (Mr. William Dean Barton d/b/a 

Ultralights of Sacramento v. County of Sacramento, CA, FAA Docket No. 16-00-11, final agency 

decision dated August 9, 2001), in support of their position that the Airport cannot close the 

runway. However, the facts of the Ultralight decision are distinguishable since in Ultralight, 

there was no claim or analysis of a claim arising out of the closure of an improvement which had 

not been developed with federal grant assistance. In Ultralight, the County of Sacramento denied 

County of Riverside's Rebuttal Brief 

2 
access to Ultralight based upon safety concerns and a "history of unsafe ultralight operations at 

the Airport and multiple complaints." (id. at p. 7). However, in this case, the County of 

Sacramento did not close or modify any runways or other facilities which affected the ultralight 

operations. The airport operator merely determined that it would no longer allow the ultralights 

to operate. 

As previously stated herein, the County does not dispute the applicability of Grant 

Assurance 22, or the FAA's role in making the final determination as to safety. The dispute is 

with Complainants' assertion that Grant Assurance 22 prevents the County from closing an 

improvement developed without federal assistance. Furthermore, the Grant Assurances do not 

require the County to undertake an economically infeasible project to insure access to one class 

of aeronautical activity. {FAA Compliance Airport Manual - Order 5190.6B, Chapter 17.). Nor 

does any Grant Assurance require an airport sponsor to undertake major repairs, reconstruction 

and/or rehabilitation to extend the useful life of an improvement. {FAA Compliance ManualFAA Order 5190.63, Chapter 4). 

Nevertheless, the closure of Runway 4-22 resulted in the elimination of glider/sailplane 

departures from the Airport (landings are allowed) since the only operational runway left is 

Runway 5-23, the main runway. Sailplane/glider operations on Runway 5-23 were never 

contemplated by the Airport. Runway 5-23 has never been open to glider/sailplane operations. 

The Coimty has always considered glider/sailplane operations incompatible with the current mix 

of aeronautical uses as well as an unmitigated and unreasonable safety risk. Recognizing that a 

safety determination regarding the "reasonable and safe operation of the airport" is within the full 

County of Riverside's Rebuttal Brief 

3 
purview and exclusive authority of the FAA, the County requests that the FAA undertake any 

such analysis it deems necessary and appropriate to make a determination. 

B. Runway 4-22 Does not Meet Applicable FAA Standards and it is Economicallv 

Infeasible for the County to Make the Improvements Necessary for Safe 

Operations on that Runway 

Despite Complainants' assertions to the contrary, the County underwent a great deal of 

analyses over the years to address the issues related to continuing the glider/sailplane operation 

at the Airport. In its master planning for the Airport, the County engaged the consulting firm of 

Mead and Hunt, a highly regarded consulting and engineering firm with tremendous expertise in 

Airport planning. (See Exhibit Z, Supplemental Declaration of Colby Cataldi). Both the 1989 

Master Plan and the Draft 2004 Master Plan identified and addressed the significant issues 

(deficiencies) related to the length and placement of Runway 4-22, and included proposals to 

address the problems identified. (See Exhibits A & D to Respondents Answer and Motion to 

Dismiss "RA"). 

Moreover, Complainants are correct in stating that elimination of glider/sailplane 

operations was not an option on the table during the development of either Master Plan. 

However, airport users (including glider/sailplane users) were well aware of the 2004 master 

planning process and the issues that were raised regarding glider/sailplane safety. The safety 

issue is not something new that the County came up with to justify its ultimate decision to close 

the runway. As pointed out in the County's Answer and Motion to Dismiss, there were 28 

reports of sailplane accidents at the Airport over a 40 year period of time. ( See Exhibit O to RA). 

County of Riverside's Rebuttal Brief 

4 
Safety has been an ongoing concern which the County has wrestled with while balancing its 

various obligations and responsibilities as an airport operator. 

Additionally, Complainants' have failed and refused to consider the economic costs and 

constraints associated with their recommendations. Their "analyses," conclusory allegations, 

and accusations are merely smokescreens based upon self interest, including their misguided 

attempt to extract money from the already cash strapped County. Improving Runway 4-22 is not 

economically feasible for the County, which is faced with severe and imprecedented losses of 

revenue in every area of its operations. The County is in no position to undertake such 

improvements, particularly without an identified revenue stream to support the development 

costs, including land acquisition, as well as the associated operational costs. (See Exhibit Z). 

Moreover, the County is not required to undertake such an improvement project. (See FAA Order 

5190.6B). 

C. Complainant's Offer of Innuendo and Self Serving Statements does not Negate 

the County's Legitimate Justifications for its Actions 

Complainants would have the FAA believe that they have been waiting for the County to 

come up with a "reasonable" proposal, suggesting that, had one been received, they 

(Complainants) would have been supportive. However, prior to the County's action to close 

Runway 4-22, Complainants had not offered any support for changes to their existing operating 

methods, nor had they addressed any of the safety issues raised during the master planning 

process. 

For example, in addressing the historical lack of Radio Telephony communications and 

County of Riverside's Rebuttal Brief 

5 
lack of adherence to standard operating procedures, Complainants merely state that will support 

reasonable proposals...and did not address the historical lack of adherence to procedures at all. 

Regarding the County's acknowledgment that Complainants' had relocated to a nearby 

airport in Riverside County, Skylark Airport, Lake Elsinore, CA, Complainants discoimted the 

fact that they have continued to operate at a nearby location as irrelevant. They assert that 

notwithstanding the availability of nearby private facilities such as Skylark Airport and Warner 

Springs Ranch Airport in northeast San Diego County, the County is required to provide for 

sailplane/glider operations at one of its airports. Complainants want to have their cake and eat it 

too, regardless of the costs to the citizens of Riverside County. 

Moreover, the Claimants go to extremes in alleging that the County has made false and 

misleading assertions in its arguments in response to the Part 16 Complaint. For example, they 

claim that the County's assertion that "most gliders are not designed for landing on hard surfaces, 

causing damages to gliders and the runway" as false. Yet this statement is based on the 

composition of the gliders which actually used Hemet-Ryan Airport. Most of them were older, 

and that was one of the issues that caused many of the gliders to favor the use of the unimproved 

surface versus the improved runway. 

Yet, even more disturbing is Complainants' fabrication of a letter addressed to Rob Field 

dated August 22, 2009 (Complainants' Exhibit 33) which neither Rob Field, nor the staff (Harry 

Oliver and Chad Davies) who were supposedly copied on the letter, have ever seen it.. Moreover, 

this "new" letter was not mentioned or included as an Exhibit to the Part 16 Complaint. This 

August 22, 2009 letter fi-om OCSA offered to dispute the County's statement (as "patently false") 

County of Riverside's Rebuttal Brief 

6 
that "Complainants never followed up or made a request for a lease, and none was offered by the 

County." However, pursuant to the County's standard practices, and particularly under these 

circumstances, the County would have responded to such a letter, had it been received. (See 

Exhibit Z). Nevertheless, the County had no obligation to allow Complainants to assume the 

Sailplane Fixed Base Operator lease or any other lease considering its planned closure of 

Runway 4-22. 

2. The County had no '^Undisclosed" Plans for Commercial Development of the 

Airport's South Side 

The County has not denied that it has considered redevelopment of the area previously 

used by the glider operations for redevelopment, including, but not limited to expansion of the 

California Department of Forestry ("CDF") fire suppression operations (See Ex. G to RA). 

However, none of those plans had been developed or pursued, as the County had a lease 

obligation with Sailplane Enterprises which wasn't scheduled to conclude until 2011. However, 

subsequent to Sailplane Enterprises request for an early lease termination, the County has begun 

to explore these options, including drafting a preliminary concept plan and having discussions 

with CDF. The County has been completely up front in its actions regarding the decision to close 

Runway 4-22. (See Exhibit G to RA; Exhibit Z). 

3. Complainants' are not Entitled to Relocation Expenses Pursuant to Grant 

Assurance 35 

Without reiterating the arguments contained in the Answer and Motion to Dismiss, 

Complainants are off base in their assertions that the County has undertaken a development 

County of Riverside's Rebuttal Brief 

7 
project which gives rise to the relocation procedures set forth in Grant Assurance 35. The 

County is not a "displacing agency" and the Complainants are not "displaced persons" as defined 

for the purposes of 29 C.F.R. Part 24. The Complainants' personal property, if located at the 

Airport, was located there pursuant to an agreement with Sailplane Enterprises, the Lessee of the 

premises and the FBO for the glider/sailplane operations. That lease was voluntarily terminated 

by the lessee. Complainant had no right to hold over beyond the lessee's voluntary lease 

termination. Complainants have no right or entitlement to relocation expenses. 

Respectfully submitted on behalf of Respondent County of Riverside this 27* day of 

January, 2010. 

LAW OFFICES OF ANITA C. WILLIS 

'^Anita C. Willis 

''Attlbmeys for the County of Riverside 

County of Riverside's Rebuttal Brief 

8 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that 1 have this day served the foregoing Respondent County of Riverside's 

Rebuttal Brief on the following persons at the following addresses by overnight mail: 

Office of the Chief General Coimsel 

ATTN: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 

Room 925 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Facsimile: (202) 267-5769 

Original Plus 3 Copies via Federal Express 

Ronald J. Cozad 

LAW OFFICES OF RONALD J. COZAD 

2100 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 214 

Carlsbad, CA 92011 

1 Copy via Federal Express 

Dated this 27* day of January, 2010 

a.(M)!L 

C.Willis 

i^the County of Riverside 

County of Riverside's Rebuttal Brief 

9 
EXHIBIT Z 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

ORANGE COUNTY SOARING FAA Docket No. 16-09-13 

ASSOCIATION, LARRY TOUHINO, 

AND CHRIS MANNION, 

Complainants, 

THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a general law 

county and political subdivision of the State of 

California, 

Respondent 

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF COLBY CATALDI IN SUPPORT OF ANSWER 

AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT 

I, Colby Cataldi declare as follows: 

1. I am Assistant Director of Airports, Economic Development Agency, County of 

Riverside. The testimony herein is based upon my personal knowledge in my capacity 

with the Respondent, County of Riverside. 

2. The County of Riverside is facing one of the most severe economic downturns in its 

history. Due to significant decreases of revenue (from the State, property taxes, etc.), the 

County is in the midst of restructure, cost cutting measures and staff reductions to 

continue its ongoing operations within these fiscal restraints. 

3. The improvements considered in the 1989 Master Plan and the Draft 2004 Master Plan 

were not pursued because they were not economically feasible. The County has not 

identified funding to cover the costs of the proposed improvements. Furthermore, the 
sailplane operation would not generate sufficient revenue stream to pay for the 

improvements, including but not limited to development costs, land acquisition, 

operational costs and staffing. One of the reasons that Sailplane Enterprises sought early 

termination of its lease and ceased operations was due to the poor economics associated 

with the glider/sailplane operation. 

4. The County has used the services of industry recognized consultants to assess the 

sailplane operation at the airport, which include Mead and Hunt, a highly regarded airport 

consulting and engineering firm, which assisted in the preparation of the 1989 Master 

Plan and the 2004 Draft Master Plan. 

5. The County has no record of receiving a letter from Complainants addressed to Rob Field 

and dated August 22, 2009, which is attached to Complainants Reply as Exhibit No.33. 

Had the County received the referenced letter, pursuant to its standard practices, and 

particularly under the circumstances, the County would have provided a response. 

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed this 25"" day of January, 2010 at Riverside, California. 

Colby Cataldi, Assistant Director of Airports 

Economic Development Agency 

County of Riverside 

Supplemental Declaration of Colby Cataldi 

2