Hello Patti (cc Larry and others),

I'm writing to follow up on our meeting two weeks ago.

Let me start by saying that I'm a club officer of the Torrey Hawks Hang Gliding Club, and I've spoken with literally hundreds of our members over the years regarding what we would like to see at the Gliderport. As you can imagine, there are many ideas that can come from such discussions, and many of them even conflict with one another. But the one common theme that always arises is the issue of fair treatment for all users of the park. It is imperative that any future lease agreement at the Gliderport contain explicit and well-defined procedures for ensuring that the public is treated fairly on our public land. These procedures must include oversight of any concessionaire / operator so that their own interests do not preclude the safe and equitable enjoyment of the park by the flying public. This is my first and most important request, and I'll expand on it in the following paragraph.

Because neither Parks and Recreation nor Real Estate Assets have the expertise to oversee the safe and equitable operation of a flight operation, the most obvious solution would be to empower the user groups of the park to advise the City via an Advisory Board as provided under City Charter Section 43a. Such a Board was created in 2008 resulting from the City settling a law suit. However, that Board was created under City Charter Section 43b which defines much more limited "Citizens Committees" and the limitations of that section of the Charter were inappropriately used to cripple and eventually terminate that important Board. It is my strongest recommendation that the Torrey Pines City Park Advisory Board be re-established as a permanent Advisory Board (City Charter Section 43a) with the same 4 flight clubs providing fair and equal representation:

       Sailplanes: Associated Glider Clubs of Southern California
       Hang Gliders: Torrey Hawks Hang Gliding Association
       Paragliders: San Diego Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association
       Remote Control: Torrey Pines Gulls RC Club

I recommend that this Advisory Board be restarted BEFORE any RFP is issued for the lease. After all, this Board contains the exact expertise in all 4 flight disciplines that is lacking in the City's staff. Furthermore, these 4 clubs represent the users of the park, and it is important that their inputs be considered in shaping the RFP itself.

Please note that this Advisory Board MUST be established as an official Advisory Board (or Citizens Committee) under the San Diego City Charter. There have been a number of private organizations claiming to "represent" pilots at the Gliderport (TPSC and TPPA for example). Neither of those private organizations have provided fair and balanced representation for all user groups at the park. Indeed, the TPSC (Torrey Pines Soaring Council) has a 7 year track record of violating its own bylaws to maintain a council biased toward RC and sailplane clubs (which hold 5 of the 7 seats) while restricting hang gliding and paragliding clubs to only 2 seats total. This is inconsistent with the usage of the park. Indeed, the sailplane clubs alone hold 2 voting seats even though they haven't flown one single flight at Torrey Pines in the last 5 years. By contrast, the Torrey PInes City Park Advisory Board had 4 flight representatives with equal representation for each of the 4 sports (sailplanes, hang gliding, paragliding, and remote control flying). This Board has the proper mix of clubs to represent all interests fairly at the Gliderport, and I strongly recommend that it be reconvened to oversee the RFP and the ongoing operation at the Gliderport.

My second recommendation is that the site be insured through local flying clubs as is customary with almost all other recreational flying sites throughout the US. I have attached a letter from the President of the U.S. Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association written to Mayor Faulconer on June 16th of this year pursuant to our club's request to provide a million dollar insurance policy naming the City of San Diego as additional insured (2014-06-16_Faulconer_letter_final_with_SOP.pdf). The letter to the Mayor outlines the USHPA insurance program and this program is available through both the Torrey Hawks Hang Gliding Club and the San Diego Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association. It is my strongest recommendation that the lease agreement specify that such insurance may be purchased by either or both of those clubs naming the City of San Diego as an additional insured against damages caused by the members of those clubs. This not only helps protect the City of San Diego, but it provides an alternate means of insuring that the Torrey Pines Gliderport remains open to recreational flying regardless of the financial and/or legal health of any concessionaire at that site. Per your request, I have attached a list of over 200 flying sites currently insured through the USHPA insurance program (see: attached PDF file named: "USHPA_Insured_Sites_2014.pdf").

My third request is that the Torrey Hawks Hang Gliding Club be permitted to install and maintain our own glider storage facility at the Torrey Pines Gliderport at our own cost. This is again in keeping with customary practice throughout the United States. Examples include Crestline Soaring Society (San Bernardino, CA), Sylmar Hang Gliding Association (Sylmar, CA), and the Fellow Feathers Hang Gliding Club (San Francisco, CA). The use of such club-operated storage greatly enhances the convenience to our members and it can be provided in a manner consistent with the other facilities at the Gliderport. I ask that provisions for such club-operated storage be outlined in the RFP.

As a fourth request, I would like the RFP be open to alternatives to the currently problematic concessionaire-centric arrangement. For example, the site could be managed by a group of clubs each providing their own insurance as mentioned above. The proceeds from both solo and tandem fees could be used to fund a lifeguard on duty at the Gliderport to ensure safe and equitable use of the facility. Such an arrangement would benefit the City by funding additional personnel. It would benefit the users of the park by having an objective daily management of the site. It would even benefit the concessionaire allowing them to concentrate on the business of selling equipment and training without the need to manage the site. Please note that this is just one example of the kinds of arrangements that MUST NOT BE PRECLUDED by any language in the RFP. I respectfully ask that the RFP be written to solicit a wide variety of such proposals so that the mistakes of the past are not perpetuated.

As a 5th request, I ask that any RFP/lease explicitly provide for fair access to the site by non-concessionaire instructors. I am NOT an instructor myself, but I have seen many students be forced to get instruction from the concessionaire's instructors even when they have already established excellent relationships with their own non-concessionaire instructors. The current lease, for example, provides this language in section 10.3:

       "Outside Tandem Fee is $25 per day per person,
         plus the daily $5 use fee."

However, this "Outside Tandem Fee" has not been honored. I have personally witnessed the concessionaire demanding that a tandem instructor pay $100 per flight to conduct tandem instruction at the Gliderport. It is customary throughout the United States (and beyond) that instructors at public sites may conduct both tandem and solo instruction with no fees beyond the normal use fees required of all pilots. The RFP should specify that proposals ensure fair and equitable access to all instructors.

Finally, let me conclude by saying that these 5 requests are just a starting point. The actual drafting of the RFP should be informed by a reconvening of the Torrey Pines City Park Advisory Board so that all perspectives can be considered. If such a reconvening is not done, then it is my strongest suggestion that the RFP be written in an open-ended and non-committal manner such that the widest variety of proposals are considered responsive and such that the City is not required to select any of them (allowing for a re-issuing of a revised RFP at the City's discretion).

Thanks very much for your time. I would appreciate a short reply letting me know that you've received this message.

Sincerely,
Bob Kuczewski