Anit aC . Willis , C A SB N 16267 1

LA W OFFICE S O F ANIT A C . WILLI S 40 0 Corporat e Pointe , Suit e 30 0 Culve r City , C A 9023 0 Telephone : (310 ) 391-473 7 Facsimile : (310)391-757 2 Pamel aJ . Walls , C A SB N 12344 6 Count y Coimse l Count y o f Riversid e 396 0 Orang e Stree t Riverside , C A 9250 1 Telephone : (951 ) 955-630 0 Facsimile : (951)955-636 3 

### PAR T 1 6 DOCKET S

Attorney s for

Count y o f

Riversid e UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . ORANG E COUNT Y SOARIN G ASSOCIATION , LARR Y TOUHINO , AN D CHRI S MANNION , Complainants , TH E COUNT Y O F RIVERSIDE , agenera l la w count y an dpolitica l subdivisio n o f th e Stat e o f California , Responden t FA A Docke t No . 16-09-1 3 COUNT Y O F RIVERSID E REBUTTA L BRIE F

C 3

County o f Riversid e Rebutta l Brie f 1COUNT Y O F RIVERSID E REBUTTA L BRIE F

1 . Complainants ' Repl y Brie f Inaccuratel y Interpret s th e County' s Position ; Th e County' s Action s wer e Reasonabl e an dNecessar y fo r th e Saf e Operatio n o f

th e Airpor t an dd o no t

Violat e Gran t

Assuranc e 2 A . Th e Count y ha darigh t t o clos e Runway 4-22 . th e runwa y previousl y designate d for glider/sailplan e operations . A s reference di n th e County' s Answe r an dMotio n t o Dismiss , th e closur e o f Runway 4

- 2 2 wa s aprope r

exercis e o f

th e County' s authorit y ove r th e Airport . Th e County acknowledge s it s obligation s pursuan t

t o Gran t Assuranc e 22 . However , th e closure , an dultimat e remova l o f th e Runway 4-22 , an airpor t improvemen t

complete dwithou t

FA A assistanc e subsequen t t o th e County' s acquisitio n o f

th e Airport

property , i s withi n th e authorit y o f th e County . Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 doe s no t

requir e th e Count y t o kee p tha t runwa y ope n i n perpetuity . Eve n i f th e improvemen t

was develope dwith FA A Gran t funds , suc h improvement s ar e subjec t t o a requiremen t

t o remai n i n plac e for

perio do f 2 0 year s (th e usefu l life) , no t i n perpetuity . (FA

A Airpor t Complianc e Manua l - Orde r 5190.6B ) Complainants ' cit e th e FA A Director' s Determinatio n i n (Mr . Willia mDea n Barto n d/b/ a Ultralight s o f

Sacrament o v . County o f Sacramento , CA, FA A Docke t No . 16-00-11 , final agenc y decisio n date dAugus t

9 , 2001) , i n suppor t

o f thei r positio n tha t

th e Airport

canno t clos e th e runway . However , th e fact s o f th e Ultraligh t

decisio n ar e distinguishabl e sinc e i n Ultralight , ther e wa s n o clai mo r

analysi s o f

aclai marisin g ou t

o f th e closur e o f

a n improvemen t

whic h ha d no t bee n develope dwith federal gran t assistance . I

n Ultralight , th e County o f Sacrament o denie d County o f Riverside' s Rebutta l Brie f 2acces s t o Ultraligh t base dupo n safet

y concern s an da"histor y o f unsaf e ultraligh t

operation s a

t th e Airport

an dmultipl e complaints. " (id . a t p . 7) . However , i n thi s case , th e County o f Sacrament o di dno t

clos e o r modif y an y runway s o r

othe r facilitie s whic h affecte dth e ultraligh t operations . Th e airport

operato r merel y determine dthat

it woul dn o longe r

allo w th e ultralight s t o operate . A s previousl y state dherein , th e County doe s no t dispute th e applicabilit y o f Gran t Assuranc e 22 , o r

th e FAA' s rol e in makin g th e final determinatio n a s t o safety . Th e disput e i s with Complainants ' assertio n tha t Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 prevent s th e Count y fro mclosin g an improvemen t

develope dwithou t

federal assistance . Furthermore , th e Gran t Assurance s d o no t requir e th e County t o undertak e an economicall y infeasibl e projec t t o insur e acces s t o on e clas s o f aeronautica l activity . {FA A Complianc e Airpor t

Manua l - Orde r

5190.6B , Chapte r

17.) . No r doe s an y Gran t

Assuranc e requir e a

n airport sponso r t o undertak e majo r

repairs , reconstructio n and/o r rehabilitatio n t o exten dth e usefu l lif e o f a n improvement . {FA

A Complianc e Manual

FA A Orde r 5190.63 , Chapte r

4) . Nevertheless , th e closur e o f Runway 4-2 2 resulte di n th e eliminatio n o f glider/sailplan e departure s fromth e Airpor t (landing s ar e allowed ) sinc e th e onl y operationa l runway lef t i s Runway 5-23 , th e mai n runway . Sailplane/glide r operation s o n Runway 5-2 3 wer e neve r contemplate db y th e Airport . Runwa y 5-2 3 ha s neve r bee n ope n t o glider/sailplan e operations . Th e Coimt

y ha s alway s considere dglider/sailplan e operation s incompatibl e with th e curren t mi x o f aeronautica l use s a s wel l a s a n unmitigate dan dunreasonabl e safet y risk. Recognizin g that

a safet y determinatio n regardin g th e "reasonabl e an dsaf e operatio n o f

th e airport " i s withi n th e ful l

County o f Riverside' s Rebutta l Brie f 3purvie w an dexclusiv e authorit y o f th e FAA , th e County request s tha t th e FA A undertak e any suc h analysi s i t

deem s necessar y an dappropriat e t o mak e adetermination . B . Runwa y 4-2 2 Doe s no t Mee t Applicable FA A Standard s an di t i s Economicall v Infeasibl e for

th e Count y t o Mak e th e Improvement s Necessar y for Saf e Operation s o n tha t

Runwa y Despit e Complainants ' assertion s t o th e contrary , th e County underwen t agreat deal o f analyse s ove r

th e year s t o addres s th e issue s relate dt o continuin g th e glider/sailplan e operatio n at th e Airport . In it s maste r plannin g for

th e Airport , th e Count y engage dth e consultin g firmo f Meadan dHunt , ahighl y regarde dconsultin g an dengineerin g firmwith tremendou s expertis e i n Airport planning . (Se e Exhibi t

Z , Supplementa l Declaratio n o f Colb y Cataldi) . Both th e 198 9 Maste r Pla n an dth e Draf

t 200 4 Maste r

Pla n identifie dan daddresse dth e significan t issue s (deficiencies ) relate dt o th e lengt h an dplacemen t

o f Runway 4-22 , an dinclude dproposal s t o addres s th e problem s identified . (Se e Exhibit s A & D t o Respondent s Answe r an dMotio n t o Dismis s "RA") . Moreover , Complainant s ar e correc t in statin g tha t

eliminatio n o f

glider/sailplan e operation s was no t

an optio n o n th e tabl e durin g th e developmen t o f eithe r Maste r Plan . However , airport

user s (includin g glider/sailplan e users ) wer e wel l awar e o f th e 200 4 maste r plannin g proces s an dth e issue s tha t wer e raise dregardin g glider/sailplan e safety . Th e safet y issu e i s no t

somethin g ne w tha t

th e County cam e u p with t o justif y it s ultimat e decisio n t o clos e th e runway . A s pointe dout i n th e County' s Answe r

an dMotio n t o Dismiss , ther e wer e 2 8 report s o f sailplan e accident s at

th e Airport

ove r a4 0 yea r perio do f time . ( Se e Exhibi t

O t o RA) . Count y o f Riverside' s Rebutta l Brie f 4Safet

y ha s bee n an ongoin g concern whic h th e County ha s wrestle dwith whil e balancin g it s variou s obligation s an dresponsibilitie s a s an airport operator . Additionally , Complainants ' hav e faile dan drefuse dt o conside r th e economi c cost s an d constraint s associate dwith thei r recommendations . Thei r "analyses, " conclusor y allegations , an daccusation s ar e merel y smokescreen s base dupo n sel f interest , includin g thei r

misguide d attemp t t o extrac t

mone y fro mth e alread y cas h strappe dCounty . Improvin g Runway 4-2 2 i s no t economicall y feasibl e for th e County , whic h i s face dwith sever e an dimprecedente dlosse s o f revenu e i n every are ao f

it s operations . Th e County i s i n n o positio n t o undertak e suc h improvements , particularl y withou t an identifie drevenu e strea mt o support th e developmen t costs , includin g lan dacquisition , a s wel l a s th e associate doperationa l costs . (Se e Exhibi t Z) . Moreover , th e County i s no t require dt o undertak e suc h a n improvemen t

project . (Se e FA

A Orde r 5190.6B) . C . Complainant' s Offe r o f Innuend o an dSel f

Servin g Statement s doe s no t Negat e th e County' s Legitimat e Justification s for it s Action s Complainant s woul dhav e th e FA A believ e tha t the y hav e bee n waitin g for th e Count

y t o com e u p with a"reasonable " proposal , suggestin g that , ha don e bee n received , the y (Complainants ) woul dhav e bee n supportive . However , prio r t o th e County' s actio n t o clos e Runwa y 4-22 , Complainant s ha dno t offere dan y support

for change s t o thei r

existin g operatin g methods , no r

ha dthe y addresse dan y o f th e safet y issue s raise ddurin g th e maste r plannin g process . Fo r example , i n addressin g th e historica l lac k o f Radi o Telephon y communication s an d Count y o f Riverside' s Rebutta l Brie f 5lac k

o f adherenc e t o standar doperatin g procedures , Complainant s merel y stat e tha t wil l support reasonabl e proposals...an ddi dno t addres s th e historica l lac k o f adherenc e t o procedure s at all . Regardin g th e County' s acknowledgmen t that Complainants ' ha drelocate dt o anearb y airport i n Riversid e County , Skylar k Airport , Lak e Elsinore , CA , Complainant s discoimte dth e fact that the y hav e continue dt o operat e at anearb y locatio n a s irrelevant . The y assert that notwithstandin g th e availabilit y o f nearb y privat e facilitie s suc h a s Skylar k Airport an dWarne r Spring s Ranc h Airport

i n northeas t

Sa n Dieg o County , th e County i s require dt o provid e fo r sailplane/glide r

operation s at

on e o f it s airports . Complainant s wan t t o hav e thei r

cak e an dea

t it too , regardles s o f

th e cost s t o th e citizen s o f Riversid e County . Moreover , th e Claimant s g o t o extreme s i n allegin g that th e Count y ha s mad e fals e an d misleadin g assertion s i n it s argument s i n respons e t o th e Part 1 6 Complaint . Fo r

example , the y clai mtha t th e County' s assertio n tha t "mos t glider s ar e no t

designe dfor

landin g o n har dsurfaces , causin g damage s t o glider s an dth e runway " a s false . Ye t thi s statemen t

i s base do n th e compositio n o f

th e glider s whic h actuall y use dHemet-Rya n Airport . Mos t o f the mwer e older , an dthat was on e o f

th e issue s that

cause dman y o f

th e glider s t o favo r

th e us e o f

th e unimprove d surfac e versus th e improve drunway . Yet , eve n mor e disturbin g i s Complainants ' fabricatio n o f alette r addresse dt o Ro b Fiel d date dAugus t

22 , 200 9 (Complainants ' Exhibi t 33 ) whic h neithe r

Ro b Field , no r

th e staf f (Harr y Olive r an dCha dDavies ) wh o wer e supposedl y copie do n th e letter , hav e eve r see n it. . Moreover , thi s "new " lette r

wa s no t mentione do r

include da s a

n Exhibi t t o th e Part

1 6 Complaint . Thi s Augus t 22 , 200 9 lette r

fi-omOCS A offere dt o disput e th e County' s statemen t (a s "patentl y false" ) Count y o f Riverside' s Rebutta l Brie f 6that

"Complainant s neve r

followe du p o r

mad e areques t

for alease , an dnon e was offere db y th e County. " However , pursuan t t o th e County' s standar dpractices , an dparticularl y unde r thes e circumstances , th e Count y woul dhav e responde dt o suc h aletter , ha di t bee n received . (Se e Exhibi t Z) . Nevertheless , th e Count y ha dn o obligatio n t o allo w Complainant s t o assum e th e Sailplan e Fixe dBas e Operator leas e o r an y othe r leas e considerin g it s planne dclosur e o f Runwa y 4-22 . 2 . Th e Count y ha dn o '^Undisclosed " Plan s fo r Commercia l Developmen t o f th e Airport' s Sout h Sid e Th e Count y ha s no t

denie dthat

it ha s considere dredevelopmen t o f th e are apreviousl y use dby th e glide r

operation s for

redevelopment , including , bu t no t limite dt o expansio n o f

th e Californi aDepartmen t

o f Forestry ("CDF" ) fire suppressio n operation s (Se e Ex . G t o RA) . However , non e o f

thos e plan s ha dbee n develope do r pursued , a s th e County ha daleas e obligatio n with Sailplan e Enterprise s whic h wasn' t schedule dt o conclud e unti l 2011 . However , subsequen t

t o Sailplan e Enterprise s reques t for an earl y leas e termination , th e County ha s begu n t o explor e thes e options , includin g draftin g apreliminar y concep t pla n an dhavin g discussion s wit h CDF . Th e County ha s bee n completel y u p fron t i n it s action s regardin g th e decisio n t o clos e Runway 4-22 . (Se e Exhibi t G t o RA ; Exhibi t

Z) . 3 . Complainants ' ar e no t Entitle dt o Relocatio n Expense s Pursuan t t o Gran t Assuranc e 3 5 Withou t reiteratin g th e argument s containe di n th e Answe r an dMotio n t o Dismiss , Complainant s ar e of

f bas e i n thei r

assertion s that

th e County ha s undertake n adevelopmen t County o f Riverside' s Rebutta l Brie f 7projec t

whic h give s rise t o th e relocatio n procedure s se t fort h i n Gran t

Assuranc e 35 . Th e Count y i s no t a"displacin g agency " an dth e Complainant s ar e no t "displace dpersons " a s define d fo r th e purpose s o f

2 9 C.F.R . Part

24 . Th e Complainants ' persona l property , i f locate da t

th e Airport , was locate dther e pursuan t t o an agreemen t

with Sailplan e Enterprises , th e Lesse e o f th e premise s an dth e FB O for th e glider/sailplan e operations . That leas e wa s voluntaril y terminate d by th e lessee . Complainan t ha dn o right

t o hol dove r

beyon dth e lessee' s voluntary leas e termination . Complainant s hav e n o righ t o r entitlemen t

t o relocatio n expenses . Respectfull y submitte do n behal f o f Responden t

Count y o f

Riversid e thi s 27 * day o f January , 2010 . LAW OFFICE S O F ANIT A C . WILLI S '^Anit aC . Willi s ''Attlbmey s for

th e Count y o f

Riversid e

County o f Riverside' s Rebutta l Brie f 8CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y tha t 1 hav e thi s da

y serve dth e foregoin g Responden t County o f

Riverside' s Rebutta l Brie f

o n th e followin g person s at th e followin g addresse s b y overnigh t mail : Offic e o f th e Chie f Genera l Coimse l ATTN : FA A Part

1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Roo m92 5 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Facsimile : (202 ) 267-576 9 Origina l Plu s 3 Copie s vi aFedera l Expres s Ronal dJ . Coza d LA W OFFICE S O F RONAL D J . COZA D 210 0 Palomar

Airport Road , Suit e 21 4 Carlsbad , C A 9201 1 1 Cop y vi aFedera l Expres s Date dthi s 27 * day o f

January , 201 0 

# a.(M)! L C.Willi s i^th e County o f

Riversid e

Count y o f Riverside' s Rebutta l Brie f 9

# EXHIBI T ZUNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . ORANG E COUNT Y SOARIN G FA A Docke t No . 16-09-1 3 ASSOCIATION , LARR Y TOUHINO , AND CHRI S MANNION , Complainants , TH E COUNT Y O F RIVERSIDE , ageneral la w count y an dpolitica l subdivisio n of th e Stat e o

f California , Responden t

SUPPLEMENTA L DECLARATIO N O F COLB Y CATALD I I N SUPPOR T O F ANSWER AN D MOTIO N T O DISMIS S COMPLAIN T I , Colb y Catald i declar e a s follows : 1 . I a mAssistan t

Directo r of Airports , Economi c Developmen t Agency , Count

y of Riverside . Th e testimon y herei n i s base dupo n m y persona l knowledg e in m y capacit y wit h th e Respondent , County o f Riverside . 2 . Th e County of

Riversid e i s facin g on e o f th e mos t sever e economi c downturn s i n it s history . Du e t o significan t decrease s of

revenu e (fro mth e State , property taxes , etc.) , th e Count y i s i n th e mids t

o f restructure , cos t

cuttin g measure s an dstaf f reduction s t o continu e it s ongoin g operation s withi n thes e fisca l restraints . 3 . Th e improvement s considere din th e 198 9 Maste r Plan an dth e Draf

t 200 4 Maste r

Pla n were no t pursue dbecaus e the y were no t economicall y feasible . Th e Count y ha s no t identifie dfundin g t o cove r th e cost s o f

th e propose dimprovements . Furthermore , th esailplan e operatio n woul dno t generat e sufficient

revenu e streamt o pa

y for th e improvements , includin g bu t no t limite dt o developmen t

costs , lan dacquisition , operationa l cost s an dstaffing . On e o f th e reason s tha

t Sailplan e Enterprise s sought earl y terminatio n o f

it s leas e an dcease doperation s wa s du e to th e poo r economic s associate d wit h th e glider/sailplan e operation . 4 . Th e County ha s use dth e service s o f industry recognize dconsultant s t o asses s th e sailplan e operatio n a

t th e airport , whic h includ e Meadan dHunt , ahighl y regarde dairpor t consultin g an dengineerin g firm, whic h assiste din th e preparatio n of th e 198 9 Master Plan an dth e 200 4 Draf

t Maste r Plan . 5 . Th e Count

y ha s n o recor dof

receivin g alette r

fro mComplainant s addresse dto Ro b Fiel d an ddate dAugus t

22 , 2009 , whic h i s attache dt o Complainant s Repl y a s Exhibi t No.33 . Hadth e County receive dth e reference dletter , pursuan t t o it s standar dpractices , an d particularl y unde r

th e circumstances , th e Count y woul dhav e provide daresponse . I declar e unde r

penalty o f

perjur y pursuan t

to th e law s of

th e Stat e o f

Californi atha

t th e foregoin g i s tru e an dcorrect . Execute dthi s 25" " da

y o f January , 201 0 a

t Riverside , California .

Colb y Cataldi , Assistan t

Directo r of Airport s Economi c Developmen t

Agenc y Count y of Riversid e Supplementa l Declaratio n of Colb y Catald i 2