Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/2002 B A K E R S F I E L David Couch, Chair Sue Benham Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson MEETING NOTICE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMrn'EE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, October 7, 2002 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 27, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Transportation Development Fees -- Rojas 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding operation of Bakersfield Airport -- Rojas/Underwood B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Sidewalk Inspection Program -- Rojas 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~OHN~Council Committees\Urban Dev2OO2~udO2octO7agen.doc DRAFT Alan Tandy, City Manager Sue Benham Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SPECIAL MEETING ~ URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Friday, September 27, 2002, 12:00 noon City Manager's Conference Room - City Hall 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 12:08 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue Benham and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 9, 2002' AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding request from the Greater Bakersfield Convention and Visitors Bureau to acquire a portion of 515 Truxtun Avenue to build a new Convention and Visitors Center/offices City Manager Alan Tandy explained the Convention and Visitors Bureau is currently leasing office space from the City at 1325 "P" Street, which is the location for the proposed new ice rink/aquatics center. The City also owns property at 515 Truxtun Avenue, currently occupied by the Economic and Community Development Department. The City Council approved their relocating due to the condition of the building. Once vacated, this property will be declared surplus. There have been attempts to obtain private development proposals on 515 Truxtun, but there has been no interest. DRAFT AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Friday, September 27, 2002 Page - 2 - Staff is proposing that the City donate a portion of the surplus property at 515 Truxtun Avenue to the 'Convention and Visitors Bureau to build a new Convention and Visitors Center and offices, and also contribute $150,000 of Transient Occupancy Tax to assist with their relocation. There may also be a need to loan trailers from Recreation and Parks for temporary quarters during the building process. Don Jaeger, President, Convention and Visitors Bureau, spoke regarding their plans. They will be financing the cost to build the facility, which is preliminarily between $500,000 and $575,000. Mr. Jaeger expressed it is important for the Convention and Visitors Bureau to be Ic~ated in the downtown and 515 Truxtun Avenue is an ideal site for their relocation. Their plans are to build with future growth in mind and temporarily lease out a portion of the building to the Bakersfield Blitz on a five-year lease, which would allow for expansion in the future. The architecture of their proposed building fits with the other buildings in the area. Danny Ordiz, architect, spoke and showed a video slide of the preliminary design for the building. The Committee discussed parking and traffic flow. Site plan review will be done by the Development Services Director. Committee Member Benham expressed she would like the balance of the site to be developed into green space, consistent with the goals of '~/ision 2020. This item will return to the Committee at a future meeting to further discuss plans for the open space area-and updates regarding parking on '"P' Street. The Urban Development Committee unanimously voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the resolution and approve agreement to donate the land to the Convention and Visitors Bureau to use as a site for their new facility; and to contribute $150,000 of Transient Occupancy Tax to assist with their relocation expenses. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:54 p.m. Attendance - staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Real Property Manager Don Anderson; and Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater OtherS: Don Jaeger, Convention and Visitors Bureau; Danny Ordiz, architect John Cohrs; Daniel Phillips; Jenny Gatlin, Convention and Visitors Bureau board member; Jim Foss, Centennial Garden Executive Director; Mike Schaefer, Holiday Inn Select; Tammy Brown, KUZZ News; and James Burger, The Bakersfield Californian cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~JOHN~Council Committees\Urban Dev2002~ud02sep27summary.do¢ OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM November 19, 2001 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: John W. Stinso~,~Tsistant City Manager SUBJECT: Bakersfield Municipal Airport Information You requested that I provide some information regarding the Bakersfield Municipal Airport as background for the upcoming Urban Development Committee meeting. You asked that I provide the following information: 1. Council Goal: The City Council adopted the following goal regarding the closure of the airport under Goal #2 Enhance the City's transportation network, number 5. Support efforts for adequate air transportation.. "c. Study the potential closure of the Bakersfield Airpark as a potential safety concern." This goal was suggested by staff at the Department head retreat last February because of safety concerns due to conflicts with airplanes flying from the City's airport and air traffic at Meadows Field. This goal was recommended to be added by staff when the Council updated the Council Goals in April of 2002 and was adopted April 24, 2002 by the City Council. 2. A letter from Ray Bishop, Director of Airports for Kern County detailing information concerns regarding safety concerns regarding airplane flight conflicts and the structural approach conflicts between the City's airport and Meadow's Field. 3. The letter from the FAA in response to our inquiry into the possible closure of the Bakersfield Municipal Airport. S:\JOHN\TCM~Airport Information.doc CO' NTY OF KERN RAYMOND C. BISHOP Director System Airports Elk Hills - Buttonwillow Poso · Kern Valley · Wasco Telephone 661-393-7990 · FAX 661-861-3322 · email: airports@lightspeed.net Lost HilTs · Taft · Meadows Field 19 September 2002 Mr. Mike Maggard Councilman District 3, City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield Ca. 93301 Dear Mr. Maggard: During the Joint County / City meeting earlier this month, you asked about the documented safety activity at the City's "Sky Park" airport. Attached for your reference is a file with previous correspondence regarding the safety at Sky Park (L-45). Our file shows a Sky Park history of near misses and undisciplined flying. You should read the March 2000 report filed by the America West pilot in order to get a sense of the seriousness of some of this activity. I highlighted the America West report for your reference. It was by the grace of God that we avoided a mid-air collision with commercial airplane full of travelers. I do have to say that the City's efforts to improve safety seem to be positive and the Sky Park airport has apparently improved. We have not had any reportable incidents this past year. The FAA office in Fresno (FSDO) has been vigilant by frequently sending special surveillance monitors to the Sky Park airport to report any activity that is in violation of FAA regulations. Additionally, the controllers at Meadows Field continue to place special effort in watching the area towards Sky Park and watching for any possible conflict. It is my opinion that there are two separate problems inherent with the Sky Park airport. The first is a small group of pilots who tend to mm off their radios and transponders so they cannot be seen by the Meadows Field FAA controllers. These "rogue pilots" need to be reminded about disciplined flight safety and they need to be continuously watched by all parties involved. Your efforts here seem to have made a positive impact. The second is the structural problem of the proximity to Meadows Field and the Instrument Landing System (ILS) final approach. A small airport underneath a major airport's ILS is a design conflict and unintended conflicts will continuously be a problem. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any further questions. Respectfully, Director CC: BOS/CAO/City Mgr./FSDO, Jim Murry, and Tower Chief, Rick Harris BAKERSFIELD Alan Tand¥ · City Manager June 16, 2000 Mr. William C. Withycombe, AWP. 1 Regional Administrator Federal Aviation Administration, Western Pacific Region P. ©. Box 92007, WWP.C Los Angeles, California 90009-2007 SUBJECT: Your Letter of May 10, 2000 Reconsideration of Air Safety Bakersfield Municipal Airport (L-45) Dear Mr. Withycombe: We are disappointed in your response, dated May 10,2000, to our recommendation to study establishing Class C airspace at the Bakersfield Municipal Airport (L-45). To that er~d, we are modifying our request and providing more detailed information, hoping for a favorable reconsideration. Our request was not made to restrict access to our airport, but was intended to enlist your assistance to mitigate an urgent operational safety concern, which is under the sole jurisdiction of the FAA. Historically, L-45 garners a poor reputation. This is due, in part, to the location of L- 45, which is just outside of the'Meadows Field airspace and in proximity to BFL's ILS approach. It is also due .to a small number of pilots who push, bend, and break FAR's. This recent March was a padicularly worrisome period. During a period of only two weeks, four aircraft in-bound to .Meadows Field were forced to take evasive action to avoid aircraft.which had departed our L-45 airport. In at least one incident, the intruding aircraft was operating in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC)as a VFR operator. With the tower controller's assistance, the America West pilot used TCAS and leveled off, and turned left to secure separation. In this incident, the America West .pilot reported the unidentified aircraft "'definitely flying IMC in the climb." We are thankful for alert BFL controllers~ AWP/CCH briefing sheets are attached. ' · Our organization is committed to serving the flying public. We have recently completed the replacement and relocation of existing informational signs at our air~ort. We are developing a handout of the departure flight procedures and, are involved in a continuing pilot education program with local FAA Towe~: '~r~0nnel 'that b.e~an in early 1998. These efforts exhaust the remedies available-within our authority. City of Bakersfield · City Managers Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 W~lliam C. Withycombe June 16, 2000 Page 2 The problem seems to stem from a small group of rogue pilots that frequent L-45, and we are most fortunate that our alert Meadows Field controllers are currently augmenting separation of traffic. However, L-45 pilots are not required to have a transponder, and relying on skin paint is a worrisome proposition. Is there anything we can do to put structure into this situation? We understand that there are L-45 instances across the country where the number of instrument operations and/or passenger count fall slightly below the guidelines set in FAA Order 7400.2D, and yet, Class C airspace is included in the local airspace configuration. Rerha. ps_ ._y_ou~ cpuld_..__a_c_t .mo__re favo__ra_b_!y ~wi.t.h__ qur__r_equ._es_t _fo_r Class. C if it were amended from a surface request to "Class C from 1500'-3000'". The BFL space c~l~l-b-~'~e~l~anded to approximately six miles to create a tube, or corridor, of protection. This request would set aside only a small segment of airspace, and would protect the ILS to Meadows Field. We hope that during your re-examination of these problems, you will consider airspace protection as one element of a corrective action program. At the end of the day, our safety concerns are paramount, and we would like to ensure a long term remedy of this natural conflict of airspace between Meadows Field and L-45. Thank you for your assistance. Sincer_ely, lan Tandy, City Manager Attachments: AWP/CCH briefing sheet NPRTS 12/19/96; 06/26/98; 08~24/99 CC: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers County Board of Supervisors County Administrative Officer ~i'rector of Airports '"'"" AWP/CCH BR~.FING SHEET ~'~SUBJ'ECT: Airspace Problems at Bakersfield Municipal Airport NARRATIVE: Bakersfield ATCT/TRACON an ATC Level 7 Terminal Facility is encountering ongoing problems with aircraf~ departing and arriving fi.om Bakersfield Municipal Airport (L45). L45 is located 6 NM $outhea~ of Bakersfield Meadows Field and lays ~ NM West of the NILEY LOM (k~ Class "E" Airspace) used for the Runway 30R ILS Approach to Meadows Field. Over the past six years we have observed aircraf~ departing L45 with a climbing Hght turn Southeast bound on V197. These V'FR departttres generate safety alerts for aircra~ inbound on the ILS Approach to Meadows Field. The Fresno FSDO and Bakers.field ATCT persormel have conducted several safety seminars at L4~ w~th special emphasis placed on the relationship of L45 to Meadows Field and the FAC's overlay~_g L45. The Problems continue to exist. Three resent incidents have occurred as follows: I. On 3/16/00 an aircra~ traveling fi.om North of Meadows Field to Bakersfield Municipal Airport transitioned across the BFL local~zer and became traffic for N881DM (SBR1) while on an ILS approach to BFL. The unidentified trail% Penetrated the BFL Class D ah:space without communications wiT& the ATCT or TRACON. This intruder was close enough that the tower, when observing it, believed it to be on a right base leg to BFL. Efforts by the ATCT to call the intruder were unsuccessful. N881DM was in£ormed of the traffic and advised to climb (while on TT.S descent) to avoid conflict with the intruder. Efforts to identify th~ intruder aircraft w~e unsuccessful. ~.2. On 3/13/00 -the Arrival Radar Controller reported two imstances ofpossfble FAR violations that occurred on 3/12/00. Both involved unidentified aircraf[ that appeared to have depar~.ed Bakersfield Municipal Airport (L45). The weather at Bakersfield. Meadows, as reported at 1656 UTC,. showed overcast ceilings at 1,000 (1,500 MSL). Tops in the -vicinity of L45 were rePOrted at 3000 feet MSL with no breaks. a. The first instance occurred between I740 and 1741 UTC and involved Skywest 528.8 (SKW5288), an El20. After issuing SKW5288 vectors and clearance for the ILS approach to Runway 30K, the controller reported traffic two mi. les west of the aircratt heading east at 3,100 MSL. The E120. reported being in imu'ument meteorological conditions (IMC) at 3,000 and could not see the traffic. The corrtroller issued vectors around the traffic and then re-cleared the arrival for the ILS approach. b. The second, event occurred approximately 25 minutes later. A Dash 8, A/rshuttle 6337 (ASH6337), was on the localizer and cleared for the ILS approach. The controller observed a target four miles ahead of ASH6337 sqtmwki~g 1200, eastbound fi:om L45 at 800 MSL and climbing. The controller advised ASH6337 who adjusted the/r TCAS equipmem to watch the target. One minute later, ar 1805 UTC, ASH6337 reported leveling offand turning lef~ to avoid the aircraf~ which broke out oft_he clouds to their , fight. The Airshuttle pilot clearly stated that the unidentified aircr~ definitely flew through IMC ha the climb. The pilot of ASH6337 was very concerned and, intended to file an NAS report. Both incidents reqttired evasive maneuvers, once by ATC and.once by a pilot. Both incidents occurred when arriving PR a/rcraft were approx/mately two miles fi:om the outer marker. Both incidents involved intruder aircral~ that are capable of high performance climbs and appeared to have departed L45. Art audiocassette re-recording of transmissions pertinent to. the events was made and given to FAT FSDO. -As a results of th~above identified in~id~iSts;-F~esno FSDO Safety Office~ (James'Hem'y)' and the ATM Bakersfield ATC met with the I.,45 airport proprietor (City of Bakersfield) on Monday March 20, 2000. From this meeting several initiatives were developed: 1. I _will work with the City of Bakersfield on new signage with the current - departure procedUre ar L45 and a sign with Bakersfield Approach Frequency. 2. BFL ATCT & FAT FSDO will conduct a safety seminar with special emphasis on the problems associated with departures and arrivals at L45. 3. The City of BakerSfield. will explore the possibility, ofprovicling some PUC Aviation Training for the City Policy Department and provide presents at L45. :.. FAT FSDO will provide the training if'the Policy Department agrees. 4. FAT FSDO, resources pennit~ng will conduct some surveillance and '"enforcement action at L45. 5. Bakersfield ATCT will work with-the City of Bakersfield irt the development of a flyer for pilots at L45. This flyer will provide inf0rmalion on the arrival mutes to Meadows Field and way's to avoid possible cxmfeeti~ns. ,O. PaO ATED BY: Jam Snavely/^a'M BFq. ^TCTrm.qCC /(C I) 3' .3531 DATE:. Tuesday March 21,2000 Distn~oution: AWP-500/520/CCH/BFL/FAT FSDO ~'~/2000. ' ~ -~ NPTKS Query System .:~-~ SGGQ420~ SZCTiON i - Rec Id : WP17199702883 insp Code : JEH Record 4 of Phone : 559-487-5306 Callup Data -' Start Date :.12/19/!996 Cio~ed ~at~ : I2/19/1996 Statu~ : C Res~it~ : C Oesiqna~or : Affii DSGN : OTNA Office : Arcf~ Rep ~ : Depart goin~ : L45 Arriv Point : ~!ight 9 : Comp~ain~ ~ : i2-19-96 ~M$ : Occurence ~ : Sim/Der ID : Inciden~ ~ : !nap Uni~ : O In~p Type : 'gPM EIR ~ : Accident ~ : La~ DO Update : 12/20/1996 Down Office : Process ~a~e: 12/20/1996 Related Record iD: .Oriq ~nsp : Non-Cert Act N~me/Company : Airman ~/Name: Examiner ~/N~me: Appl. ~/Name: RI g/Name: Pa~s/Faii : Exam Kind : 8430-13 ~ : Tracking : Mi~c : Nu~ Mi$c : Local Use : ,._ Regn Use : Na~! Use : Act Time : Travel Time : Tray Co~t :, · '..~iggers : · : : Geographic : N Foreign : 'N S~CTION IV - COMMENTS Record ID: WP!7199702883 04/~3/2'000 ~ NPTRS Query System SGC~Q420P 11: 05 Dc ~ re--ce De~ail Forma~ AYWPHN~W SECTION i - Kec Id :. WP1719980~673 !n.~p Code : LAD Record 1 of 5 · .'"su Name : D~COSTA, LARRY 'A ' Pb. one: 559-487-5306 -.',?.'.,~lvity ~ : 1725 "Far : 91 NPG : Planned : N Callup Da:e : S:ar: Date : 06/26/1998 Closed Date : 06/26/I99~ Oe~ignator : Affi[ DSGN : OTNA Office : Arcf= Reg ~ : N8244S Depart Point : L45 Arriv Point Flight 9 : Complaint 9 : MMS : R-22 .. Occurence ~ : Sim/Der ID : Incident ~ : Insp Unit : O Insp Type : ASi EIR % : Accident % : La$~ DO U~da=e : 06/26/1998 Oown Office : Process Date: 06/30/1998 Related Record ID: Drig Insp : Non-C~rt Act Name/Company : Airman %/Name: EXaminer ~/Name: Appl. ~/Name: RI ,9/Na~ne: Pass/Fail : Exam Kind : ~. 8430-13 ~ : Tracking : Misc : Num Misc : Local Use : .._ Regn U~e : Natl Use : Acu Time : Travel Time : Tray. Cost :. '=riggers : : : Geographic : N Foreign SECTION IV- COMMENTS Record ID: ' WP17199805673 · ' .... NPTRS Query System ~i' :' $'GGQ420.° 0{~'~]'/2000 ' > '~ Detail For~a~ AYWPHNW ~hone : 5~9-487-~306 Cal!up Date : Start Oa=e: 0~/lS/1999 Closed Date : 08/24/1999 Sta=u~ : C Resui=s : C Oe~i~a=or : Affi! 0SGN : OTNA Office Arcf~ Reg ~ : N860C OeDar= ~o~n~ : L45 Arriv Point : Fligh~ ~ : Complain= ~ : CWP17990818 ~S ': STNSON-I08-3 Occurence ~ : In~p Uni~ : O = : 1999WP170033 Accident 9 : L~t ~O Ugdate : 08/26/1999 Do~ Office : Process Date: 08/26/t999 Related Record -Orig !nap : Non-Cer% Ac= N~e/Company : Ai~an ~/N~e: 339364075 READY, JOk~ W. Ex,inet ~/Name: Appl. ~/Name: Rt ~ / Name: Pass/Fail : Ex~ Kind : 8430-13. ~ : Tracking : Misc : N~ Mi=c : 000'000199906132 Local Use : Kegn Use : Na~! Use : ~c~ T~e : Travel Triggers : : : Geograpkic : N For~i~ : N SECTION IV - COUNTS Record ID: WP17199906075 U.S. Deportment Office of the Associate 800 Independence Ave., SW. of Transportation Administrator for Airports Washington, DC 20591 Federal Aviotion Administ~cflton 21 The Honorable Harvey L. Hall RECEIVED Mayor of Bakersfield MJt¥ 2 § 200?. 1501 Tmxtun Avenue Bakerfield, CA 93301 MAYOR'S OFFICE Dear Mayor Hall: Administrator Garvey has asked me to respond to your letter of March 13 regarding the possible closure of the city of Bakersfield's Municipal Airport (L45). We understand that the city has questioned the safety of aircraft operations at L45 and has requested the creation of Class "C" airspac,,e/at the Bakersfield Meadows Field Airport (BFL) as the solution. Since the Fed)ffal Government has preempted the areas of airspace use and management, air traffic,~ontrol, and aviation safety, both the Federal Aviation Administration's (FA.A) Western-Pacific Region's Air Traffic Division and the Fresno Flight Standards District Office, which are the FAA offices with responsibility for air traffic_ and safety determinations respectively, have addressed those issues. Upon consideration, FAA has determined that the BFL does not meet the Class "C" criteria and has taken several steps to enhance the safety of aircraft operations at L45. Although we view the steps taken by FAA's Western-Pacific Region as adequate in response to the safety concerns raised by the city of Bakersfield, we understand that the city continues to have safety concerns and requests whether the closure of L45 would be a practicable solution. As you may know, the FAA has supported the establishment and development of the L45 with significant levels of Federal assistance. Specifically, the city of Bakersfield has received Federal assistance totaling approximately $9.8 million for development of the airport, with the most recent Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant being awarded in 1996. With 40,000 operations and more than 100 based aircraft, the IA5 is an extremely important airport, not only for the Bakersfield area and the state of California, but also for the national transportation system. In accepting FAA-administered airport development assistance, the city of Bakersfield agreed to specific terms and conditions, i.e., assurances, required by Federal statute as a prerequisite for receiving such assistance, and has obligated itself in binding grant agreements to comply with those assurances. Because land was acquired with Federal funds, these assurances do not expire. The city's assurances include, among other things, commitments to make the airport available for public use as an airport; not to permit any activity that would interfere with use as an airport; and not to dispose of the airport, or encumber the airport title or other interest in the airport property and facilities during the period of Federal interest. Consequently, the city may not close the airport without FAA's consent and release of the city from the terms of the grant agreements. An airport sponsor's request for release of Federal obligations would be considered on its merits. The decision to grant or deny the request would be guided by the statutes, regulations, and FAA policy applicable to the specific types of agreements involved, including the repayment of any AlP grant funds as prescribed in FAA Order 5190.6A, Chapter 7 "Release, Modification, ReformatiOn or Amendment of Airport Agreements" (copy enclosed). Because we have not received a request for release from the city of Bakersfield, we have not considered closure of the airport, .and we are unable to speculate on the closure as an option. I trust that this information is helpful. Sincerely, "~: Woodie Woodward As_soeiate Administrator for Airports Enclosure ~ 10/2~89 Order 5190.6A CHAPTER 7. RELEASE, MODIFICATION, REFORMATION:OR AMENDMENT OF AIRPORT AGREEMENTS SECTION 1. GENERAL GUIDANCE ;7-L AUTHORITY TO RELEASE, MODIFY, b. Any Ixopeny~ when descri~ as pan of an · RI~ORM, OR AMEND. airport in an agreemem wi~h the United Slams or de- fined by an ALP, is consid~d to be "dedicated" or ~ a. The anth0rky Of the Administrator to release, obligatrd for airlxxt purposes by the terms of' the modify, reform or amend all ct pan of any airport agreement. If any of the prope~ so dedicated is not .are discussed in Chapter 1, paragraph 5 of this Order. amendment to or release from the agreement may be Airpom Division bianagers full auflmrky to take any NPIAS is ~ot to be comtmed as a demininafion by in Order 1100.5, FAA Or~,?!~tion--Regions and Cea- 7-2. GENERAL PRIN~. guidelines outlined in. paragraphs ?-37a and b below and on the speci~ factors pertinent to the type of a. Within the specific amh~ty conferred ~ agreement az detailed in. the following ~_eecfiom of this ed, act to tclease~ moffffT, x~foun cz amead any airlxxt permiuing the abando-=uent, sale, or disposal of a advance, or bern/it ~he-public intn=st in civil aviation, phr=s fl~e devclol~ent of a replac~mm~ airlxxt faSli- Such ~ may involve only relief from specific limi- ty) must be refen-ed to AAS-.1 fix ARP-1 approval al of oblJ~ted aiz~n Ix~perty. 7--3.-7-5. RESERVED. ,.. SECTION 2. SURPLUS'PROPERTY AGREEMENTS FAR Part 155 contaim procedm~ which must be roi- c. Property Identification. Very fow oldez lowed to r=lease airlx~ property from surplus property deeds of cmvcyance separately identify nonav~ .!..' smlmeat. Owne~ of surplus ~ property should be revenue use p~op~ty Emro ~ ~m~cxr~ fix aviation ad~J.sed to comult this mg-I,~_'m whenever chang~ in me. The mi~! ~plication f~ the propen~ and the lXC~'ty u~e a~ being c~atunpla~ Chan~ ~ sur- FAA's (CAA)di.vosal relx~n initially uaablis~ of fostering and lXOmoting Ihe development, hnpmve- changed land me plans approved by the FAA merit, ol~rafion cr laaintemnce of ~ airlx~t are eh-' to the authority of P.L. 81-311 (se~ pamgra~ 4-18~). b. Authorized Uses .of Sm'plus Propert/. .changes su~ to thc ~ ccuveyam= that :" Section '13(g) of &e Snrplm Pmpov] Act of 1944 (as ~ apixoved by the FAA..~ , .. amended by P.L. 80-289) aufltofizes conveyance of d. Land Transferred Under Re~flaflon 15, surplus federal property for "airlx~t lXrpos~" Refer W~- t~sm ,~dndnisWaflon. ~ to tl~ mendm~n~ to paxas~ 4-18 and Appendix 5 f=r a d/scmsion of of the Surplus Property Act in 1947 by PL. 80--289, Par 7--1 r~A.. "', Order 5190.6A 10/2/89 surplus Federal properties were conveyed for airpert eral fights so conditioned, the FAA will not tecom- t ~ under the procedures of WAA Reg~d _*tlon 16. mend conveyance of the C-ovenulleut's residual bret- in format but many of them stip.b~ a~t_ existing fa- cilitie~ may be used for coaipatibk~ nonaviation pur- d. National Emergency Use Pruvision pos~ anti1 such time as the FAA decides they am (NEUP). needed for an aviation purpos~ Th~ regulation and th~ (1) The FAA may grant a relearn of tiffs pro- from such nonaviat~ use. Income from such proper- clanse. Hov,~,v~, ~ of tbe DOD must be ty, including the net proceeds of a sale following re- specifically rextuested and obtained by the FAA when ment, maintemnce, or operation of a publicairporr By n m-um t ot l en. for National 7-7. RELF, A~ FROM SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. Use,," (see Clnptcr 13 of current edition of have been r~:~aled or modified by laws enacted subse- 1)). quont ~o tha A~t, such us: (2) When requesting a relearn of th~ r~aplnm a. Industrial Use Restrictions. This restriction clause, the ~ listed in Chaper 13 of Order 5190.2 is contained in certain surplus ~ cmveyaac~ must provide FAA with five scaled drawings and two which ~ the use of ~ Ixope~ -as an industrial copie~ of oiler ~hLbiis. TI~ re~ .(~al ~ b. Reser~. tion of F'~fionable Material This one copy of the ~_xhib~ for pr6ce~n5 to DOD. ..n-.s~..rva.. fion is contained in many surplus property (~)' Upon ~ of the DOD concun-e~o, ~g~aneats ~h ~ to ~he U.S. ~e rh,~ ~o ex. AAS-300 will f~ the deam-minatkm to Ibe region. plcre for, mine, md emract r~ _~mbl¢ ~ Sec- al Airpc~ o~ fcr release of the NEUp. : c. Other Reserved Subsurface luter~s~, me. pmvi~ giving~ the .Unilml .St~gs the option (1) Tm ra s od P trolem Some smplm raven title'in' e ¢ "bt.aetmi 'T is an imtxmmr nc~ be t~leased, conveyed or quimlaimed by the FAA 'L" Release or Obilgmiom for Prolm~ Not i~- under P-L. 81-3 Il. Request~ cotmeming these inum~s ~ived. The FAA may re, lea~ sn aiqx~ owner of ~ll (2) Resided Interest. Routinely, in dispm- no~ m fact, plican~ the GSA. imposes a IXl~iu'bifion sgn~,~ explor- 7-4L RI~-I*R4,SE FOR S/I-ROR:DISPOsAI~;'.".: lng'for ~x exiracting such minerals er petroleum in any Ibe airp~ owner undO' P.L. 80-2~9. As a matter of (1) If any such in'ope~ii'~'ion~ ineeded policy, the FAA, will not ~ ~o GSA or an-' ' ;'. ~he U.& (in a surplus airport propcny ~ be trans, m~y ~, .....mcasm.!~....n~., ~..~ Ulm_ a nma=mu~' ,5--240921 ' 0050(01X02-OCT-89-13,.22:48) 286T.FMT NII~ Order 5190.6A ~he continued re~fiou of ~he land. Such a ~lease has vizaiou uses) far ex__ceeding that indica~.by ila present the effec~ of a~g the conversion of a teal prop. rental value. As an e. xample,, a tract of undevelol~ erty asset into anolher form of asset (cash or physical land at an airport may be capable of yielding improvements) which better serves the purpose for nominal income to the airpo't f~m agriodmml or which 'the real lxop~-~ w~ in;tidily c. ol~ve~ ~ grazillg lea~e~ I~ca~ of its locatio~ it might havo'a objective is not .met unless an amount equal Io the net much greal~r value for comps'hie industrial develop- tY is realized as a consequen~ of therelease and such rent interest could yield considerably mo~ than its (2) tn ~ where an airport has a large teaso and sale may be justified. amount of revenm production property that has ~- & M~metary Consideration. A sale and dis- mained 'undeveloped du~ to the lw.k of demand for fl~ Ixml of airport-~ for less fl~n its FMV is in- lease fcr sale. This must be coo~linated wilh AAS- tiou of sale proceeds. 300. (1) in deumxfining FMV f~ a ~ mrna. b. Sponsor Owned Laud, Leased to Federal viafim use of staplus ahpon ~, the .Government During WW R, and Deeded Back V'm ation need mX be mca~ary. The value of intang~le paragraph 7-8a(t) above does not apply whea ~he re- u~dng the mom~aty cc~__deratiou Io be received lease involves land owned in fee, leas~ ~o ~e Federal for ~he ~. For example, conveyance of a proper- Gov~nm~t for a ~ of years and t~en included wi~h ty interest in a fight-of-way over surplus ahpcn land ~ pm~ and improverneuts ccuveyed back Io u~ a railrmd cr highway may be cov. siz~mt wi~ · e owner in a surplus property deed. In this case, inumt of ~e law if ~ resni~g track ca' roadway will c. Purpose of Release. must subm~ (1) As indicated in paragraph 7-3b(2), t~e a~t- (a) a plan identifying the intang~le benefits must i~ntif7 and justif~ the xeasea for which ee re- 'Co) the amoma ann'bated to the intang~le lease is teqt~'ted. One such justification conld be a benefits, and showing that rte e,xtx:ct~ net proceeds f~om the sale ef tbe tn°Pe~ at its current maker valne v~dl be re. (¢) the merit of its application as an offsea pmvement; the need for which is concutr~ in by at,on. FAA. In approving a release on this basis, _com~_~- (d) A plan reflecting Re cunmt and f'atnre ation will be given to the amount of funds ahealy ac. needs fe~ AIp fnndin8 of projects. FAA vn~l ~wiew of land needed to be disposed of to adeqt~ely ~,~ce n~eab~ of the lnOposaL ' (a) Oeteminin~ Land rashes. $~bject (2) FAA teco~i,~ t~t in some imtanoes, the conditions in (1)above, the value Io be placed on t~e conversion of unneeded airlxm land into a me~e land fc~ which a ~Jease has been ~ shall be ci~'items of airpert development er improvement are and best Use) of the land itself and any Federal ira-' Par 7--8 Order 5190.6A al improvemmts ~vc been added with~ Federal fi- b. The net ~ rutlized for the ~ of sur- nancing, the value of such improvements need not be plus property, ca' the equiwalent amonnL mas, be included for purposes Of determining the financial placed in nn identifiable ~ bearing account ~o be commitment of a release granted under the guidance in used fo~ th~ ~ listed in c. below. 'I'ne (3) Appraisals. With the exceptions noled tenance of the neronautical portion of the airport ia,, in this ~h. a release autlxrizing the sale and with the comun'ence of FAA, the revenne pmdncing dizp°sal of ~ land shall n°t be granted unless the ProPertY, if it can be clearly shown to enhance the ~.v. ~ has been SUttXrd~ by at least one independent enue prcxluction capability of that ~. FAA- APlraiz~ sl~ll be made by noninte~sted a~ me o~ more of the following ~ as agreed ~o by tween nplraise~ iuch appraizal repo'ts.~ invn~M_ ~nd (1) Eligible iten~ of airlift development set. EVlV of ~he land. The cost of obtaining appraisals ed in the airport's Capital Improvement Program shall be bo'ne by the airport owner but may be conzid- (CIP). 'ered as an off~et in determinh~g net proce___~ds (Appen- ' dix 5) realized from the sale. The requir~nent f~ an (2) Any aea~mu~ items of airport develop- (a) The appm:d,~_,_¢ fair madr~ o~ salvage (3) Retirement of airp~.lxmds which are se- ment 0f loans from other Federal ~ for such de. Co). The lXOlXUV] released is a utility system velopment to be sold to a utility company and will accommodn~ the continued airport use and 0peratio-,~ n~luimnen~ (4) Development of common use (c) It.would be in the public interest to x~- production property that clearly enhance the t~venm ~ public advertising and sale m ~e highesttespon- lxoduction capabilifiez of the property. sine bi _d,~__ in lieu of appraisals, d. Ail aemmmic~, imlxoVe, ments f-reded by (4) FAA employees must be sensitive to local proceeds from such sale will be .nccomplist~ in ac- tim in FMV at a given time and in a given location. 7-10. ~ X~VOLVI~G" ~ON~ e. Consent to Divert l~xeess Revenue from FROPERTY, STRUCrURI~.OR F~tCILrHE8. 7-9~ APPLIc~,TIoN OF PROCEEDS. invemc~ accountability. (whethe~ ~not the~ahlx~ at a. FAR Pan 155.7(d) nxluires rant any release of airport land ~o permit its sale ~ disposal shall be cunent edition of.Onler 51~R.).when it ~s ~ de- ceeds o£ a sale of the propexty at its current FMV. ' Following a ~ease by FAA based on such a conunit- O) :: iS ilo .........:' : :-:?..:.. vided they am compafib~ wi, h the airport operations. ' .... '' · '"'"' ...... .": .... ": ' ' ..... Page 50 Par 7-.8 SECTION 3. GRANT AGREEMENTS 7-16. GENERAL. Thismecti~mcov~thetequi~ which tuquires that the useful life of the ~ meres and' pr~ced~ ~o ~lease, ~ ~ modify my will be ~ lemt 10 yem~, This does ~o~ ~pply to in a FAAP/ADAP/AIp grant agreement, which has no such 20-year limi~on. The FAA hns 7-17. RELEASE FROM SPECII~C CONDITIONS legally de4m~ined__ that fl~e usefifl lifo of an ahlx~ a. Maintenance Obligation Release. A to- f~ which it was developed, or if the physical useful the obligation to maintain specif'a: ax~as of an ~ (See ~ 7-37c(5).) (2) The physical useful lifo of such a fact=lity b. Consent ix) Pertnit Interim Use. TI~ FAA able w~th o~dlun~y day-to-day mn{~,.,~.~___, nnd is not tY as a whole has net ceased to be used et needed for gra~ 2'-3) is a responsfl~ty of fl~e t~gional Ahlx~ statute. Consent to such use may he granted nnder the guidelines outlined in pnrag-aph 7-37a. (3) Relenses to perm~ alxmdonment, demoli- r.. Abandonment, Demolition m" Omv~sion of ADAP/AlP developed or improved facilities ~,{~nn bo Grant l~mded Improvements, Other Than Land. (~) Paragraph ~3 of ,his Onl= points out ~ omc~ dete,m~ ~ that the spmsor/own= obligation under a FAAP/ . (a) The grant agn~n, eat invoked has ~x- ADAP/AlP grant agreement ruud, in,_ in full ftxr. e and ~ or effect thtouE _hout the useful life of the'facilities in- proved under such FAAP/ADAP/AIP project, but in . (b) the facility in question is no longer' nny event not to exceed the 20=y~at life of the grant needed f~ lhe .purpose ft~ which it was develolmi agreement except for {he privately-owned ~ under FAAP/ADAP/AIp, ~r Pat ?-10 S---2409~1 .0~06(00~-.89-16-.5 .8=29) 2.~7.F1~ 9/11/89 Order $190.6A (c) the useful physical life of the facility in FAAP/ADAP/AIP funds.'It also applie~ ~o an AIP question has expired as above defined, gramming r~quest which may commit the FAA to Pr d= Release from ObH~ttion to Fnrnish Rent- subsequent release. A sponsor's request in either case ee ~pace or Cost l~ree Land. A Sl~nSOr may be must assure that: _w_ ,~n space c~ ~ have been constmc~ at F-ed- (a) the Government shall be rcimbuna~ ~ e~'pense and are a~mily -__~ied in ;teas provid- (see subl~mgra~ (2) be. tow); ~ ed bY the slxmsor in acco-dance with ~ 11(b')of Co) the total net pny-eeds w~I be teinve~ted the Federal Airpoa Acc A release may also be granted in the airport, in a reptacement aixlx~ c~ in anova. from the obligatic~ to furnish a~as of land, wa~ ~ operating public airport (see subparagraph (3) below). tiOn 18a(6) of the Airport and Airv~y Development (2) Reimbursement. The requirement fca' ~imb~usement' shall apply only ~ there is no Act of ~970 and section $11(aX'/) -of the Airport and placement or operating public airport owned or to he Airs~y ~uv~nent Act of 1982. However, prier to owned by t~o spousor (see also paragraph ?-~0). now- suchameesc, a ~~on should be mede on tho ever, the"iponsor may elect to reinvest the total ' seeable future. In this regnrcl, i~mal elem~/ts of thoport by' a con_~ between the respective airtxxt FAA nnd tl~ National Ocean~ and Aun~ Ad. °wn~s which hl~s the writt~ ~ of th~ FAA. '/-18. TOTAL RELEASE TO PERMI~ SALE for futnre c~ or noise), l~c amount ~) be re- te~ms and covenants of a grant agreen~mt. A qx~sor the an~unt of-Feckn~! ~ unclcr the project(s) is obli~t_ed to obtnin FAA consent to de3etc any lnnd in whVh the lend(s) was acquired. only if it is da=mined ~t_ t~ property is not needed (3) Reinvestment. Reinvesunent of mo total 7-19. SALE OR OTHER DISPOSAL OF AIR. duclion. ...... ,.=_,-,:.~,~.~:....,,,.,. ~,.. ,?, ..... :.. r-. PORT LAND ACQUXRED ~rlTH FAAP/ADAP/AIP 5 Ye~s.~.if.the~ .n~....pmceeds~ exceed tho cost a. Sponsors Not Receiving a Grant After De- Federal prtrata sluire of such 'e~:ess'.hs ~n(2) a~ovo ---......- ~...~..;...~.,,,~,,:~ .~..o-.,,.~:=~~...,:: ~' .. (1) Applicability. This paragraph is appllca- bet 30, 1987 ..... ..~. =~;,~,. ~,,?j~ ,.': .,.,,~;. hie to any request for release of part cr ali of an air ........ · ....... =.: · . '...- . : . . ~?? ~ ~:.~/,... -~¢~..-:'.~ .~...~,:.' ~...~ . . . par .?-~? ... 10/2189 ~ l~'~~bY~~~~ ~m~~ma~~~~ S~c~ ~ ~ ~on ~ of 19~, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~mc cff~ ~ ~ ~w ~ h p~ h ~ (~) ~d r~ N~ C~pa~'~ ~ ~t ~ f~ ~ ~w ~ h ~ a~~ma ~t~~~, ~ of~~'~g~~M~ ~l~,~~~~w~~ a~w~~~h ~'~~g ~, ~ ~ (~'~ ~lTe). ~ ~ ~ c ~me~n Y~ D~ ~ f~ ~ m~ ~t's ~~of ~ ~~~~~~- 7-~. ~~ OF ~ ~RT. a. Appr~ An~. ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ f~~ (~-1)~ ~~~~~~a~~ ~m~~~~m~~f~- ~ ~ f~ ~ ~~ ~a~t ~- ~~~~-l~a~ ~~of~ ~ ~~a. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~m, ~ a'~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~g a ~ ~n ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~ 7~) j~- ~d ~t a~mt ~ ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ &v~ ~ a ~~t ~ ~ b. Rep~t ~ ~~~a~ ~~t~~~~a~ Par 7-19 Page 53 .'- s--24o~t 0cost~oxo2-ocr--sg-t658:34} 2S6/.FMT 9ft l/S9 Order 5190.6A 10/2/89 SECTION 4. AMENDMENT OR MODIFICATION OF SECTIONS 16, 23, AND 516 7-26. GENERAL. Release of lhe coaditions in an viously conv~yed shall be filed with the FAA. Wac ap- instmmeat of cmveyance of any lands pur~_~,~ ~o plicafion should tegem~ce ~e crigiml applica~ and Secfio~ 16, Section 23~ or Section 516 (refer m the ap- lhe conve~nmc~ insmm~t. ~c~ao~ FAKs as discussea in ~rasxa~ 7-2'r~) is not ~ They may, ho~, ~ the aplmrval b. FAR Part 153 (FAAP) shatt be followed ia modified to provide fc~ a grm~r ct ~ksser InuPe~ in- Pan 154 (ADAP) govcrm Sectic~ 23 conveyances and cr ~ v~a. que~dag an mmmdmmt ~ medifi~fiou. (See ~ 5170.1, Tramf~r of F, eda~ Lands, Scctiou 23, of Ak- 7-2?. P~OCEDUI~,S. lxzt.and Ab-way Developmmt Act of 1F70.)) .. ammdmem ~ modification of a ~ intm~ ~ 7-28.~.7--3S. RESERVED SECTION 5. PROCEDURES S-.240921 00~1 (DO ,~5.=~CT. ~16.=31:12~ 2867.FMT 9/11~9 Order 5190.6A 10/2.~9 .' (m) A ptan,~ientifying the intan~bl¢ bene- (1) The past nnd present owner's compliance utcd to d~e intangible benefits and the merit of their to make a,railable a safe and nsable airlxxt for maxi~ · (i) a stateJ~.~t of t~ ah~port'$ sotuce axial J~ al~]Jcable' " application of funds for the preceding 3 years, (2) The reasonab~ and practicality of the ('fi) a statement of futm= soma. cs and ap* which a~c nccdcd ~d ~ ~ of ~ ~ · and ~n_{-~enance of the airlxxt, (3) Thc net Ixs=fit to be delved by civil ('iii) a s~___,_ement of thc finan~al capabil- avignon and the compatibility of thc proposal ~ the in_clud~ in the current.~, and (4) Cons~y with the Sui~lines for specif- (iv) must be shown to be in accot~lanc~ ic types of releases as disc_usscd in ~ Chaptez. with thc ALP. b. Determinations. The FAA ~ not ~elcase (3) Exhibits to be Furnished by Owner. more than that which the o~ter x~uests. The decision' to grant or d=~ the request, based on ~e above oval- " (a) Each copy of thc request will have at- uation factc~, mnst be ~midexl by the statutes, xcgula- inched two scared drawings (see (4) below) showing tions and policy applicable to thc specific types of .all ~ ixopeny and airport facilities which a~c cur- agx~.mcms involved. In addition, it must be &tcr- ~ifying thc ~qucst, such as ~ photolp-aphs, Further, it must be &ulnuined !hnt eilhe~. Ia'iate. (1) Thc public pmlx~ f~ which a term, con- graph 7-37c(3Xc) using a Futed l~ight. (¢) If d~ xclea~ action n~lUested wooM (2) TI~ tclea~ modification, xcformatim = l~mit a salc or ~ disposition of aitlx~t prope~, vent accomp~i~ment of the public purlx~.s fc~ which see paragraphs 7-9 and 7-19. ~hc ahlxxt or its facilities wc~c obligated, and such qui.,-ed to support a mtucst f~ re. tuas~ need not fully the Uui~l States in civil avi~tln-~ or Thc drawing se~es to 8~phicall7 explain ~z depict ~ (3) The release, mo~iR~fin~. ~r. fot~natim ~ and no FAA at.oval _o~n~! be given to ~my drawing flora c~_e~rn~! nece~ in fl~ public interest and to inconsi.m~t with the aitlx=t ow~s cmm~t ohtign- advance t~ inme.~ of the United States in civil avia- tiom tmtil a ~ has been execu~ in accordance rion, er with {he ~,idnnce coutained in this ~. (4) 'f'ne release, medificalion, t~formation ~ '/.3'/. FAA ACTION ON OWNER REQUES'~. amend,ne.ut will coufonn the Hghts aud obligations of the own~ ~o u~e mtut~s of the Uuited Stat~ and the and exhibits, nn evaluation of ~he total effect of Ihe ~ Completion of Aciton on Owner'm Request.' ' owners prolx~ shn{! be mnde. This c, vnluatio~ shall Upon completion of the review, nnd ioBowin$ c~u~- '- ... _ be lx{sed on the geueral policy =~_t_ed in pnra~ph 7-2 ~nc¢ of the regioual ofF_~e, Wnshingt~ h~' and shall include censideration of pe~inent factors ~ the DOD, as applicable, the ~ F~Id ottic~ · ~uch as: ~ ndvise the airport owns- that i~s ~ is grauted Pnr 7-;36 S-240921 O002(O0)(~-OCI'~l 6-~ 1:14) 2~5'/.FI~ Order $190.6A 10/2/~ (1) F~ Appr~ A~om ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~p of ~c ~ ~itm ~ ~~ ~. I~5 (~4 m ~ ~C~~~g~~~of ~). ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~d ~ ~ ~ ~i~' ~ of Au~ 21.1~1. ~ ~ ~ ~ F~ ~~. ~g.. ~. ~. ~d ~ ~ ~g S~ ~ ~de ~ ~.) P~. ~ ~ m~. F~ ~,~ ~I0. ~ ~ (c) ~ ~6~ ~l ~ f~ ~ ~ ~h c(4) ~ow. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ by ~e F~ ~ (2) Cou~t of R~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~y- f~l ~ ~ F~ ~H d~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~by ~ ~ ~. by ~ ~d ~d ~ ~c ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ {{m~ ~ a~ a (3) Con~t ~ R~ D~t ~r ~e ~. ~ ~ ~ ~,.~ ~ ~ ~y (a) ~]L~ ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (4) FM C~t by ~ ~ ~t to ~ ~ of a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~m ~ ~ ~ ~t m fl~ ov~ ~ ~ (a) ~ for U~ ~d ~ ~ fo~g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d ~ of ~ ~ ~) ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~vo m m ~ a~~ of ~ o~.~ ~ ~t of ~ ~b~. a fi~t of ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ m ~- f~ ~6~ ~fli~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~e'a~ ~lm ~m ~g ~ m~) ~- Cn~ ~F~my~~a~ ~ ora ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~ ~y ~fin~t ~ ~~~ ~ m ~ ~~. ~ ~) ContmC ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ F~ P~ 7~ 10/2/89 Order 5190.6A ubxl m the LOL In ~qddifim, tach a leua. or inam mere m airpcfl ~ ~ tb~ imlm2vanem is no ficipnted lxo~lems in achieving the ml~i~ut~on of air. less of its existing'condition. Such a release: ous rf"~l~ and equipment, the cost of ~ exist. (a) Dces not comfitn~ a l?.kn~ of the hnd ing leases). A reasm2ab~ linJe lhnit on tl~ cflmm!t_, flxxn tho other ~le icarus and COlXJiticM or coy= (S) Rebase of Maintenance Oblipflon. A to discontinu~ u,~ wbcn it becon~ msaf8 ~or Par 7-.37 57 (and 58) MAYOR HARVEY L HALL March 13, 2002 The Honorable Jane Garvey Office of the Administrator Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20591 Dear Administrator Ga .rvey;, The City of-Bakersfield is very concerned with the'viability of'the City of'Bakersfieid's M .aniciPal Airport (L-45) because of structural safety issues. This small City ail'port lies under the Counbj% large commercial airports ILS. Over time, repeated safety incidents have eroded the publics' commence in safe operatDns, and We' are forced to consider options that could result in permanent airfield dosage. This airfield lies practically underneath the ILS outer marker of Meadows Field airport (BFL), our community's only commercial airport. BFL traffic count last year eXceeded 191,000 movements. Over time, the merging of L-45 uncontrolled tr~. ~c though .the ILS is a systemic problem that results in extremel~y high levels of hazardous operations, including near misses. We have relayed these concerns to Mr. Withycombe, AWP-I, and have asked that the Meadows Reid Class 'D" airspace enveloping L-45' be re-designated as Class 'C". FAA AWP rejected our desire to increase ~afety though reclassifying airspace with positive control, in favor of more Fresno FAA Flight Standards District Office involvement and monitoring. This evolvement may be helping with the reported near misses, but random inspection and surveillance does not assure compliance of uncontrolled aircraft. Without doubt, the public confidence has eroded. (City letters to AWP expressing concern for safety and requesting positive controlled airspace are attached.) At the end of the day, we still have a very small community airport underneath a busy commends airports' ILS approach course. Unfortunately, there Is a growing constituency of homeowners, school advocates, and others who are calling for the City to close this dangerous airport. Today, the L-45 airport is home to few flyable aircraft, and the hangars are typically used as either RV/boat storage or construction sites for homebuilders in the process of assembling kit aircraft. Should these aviators need to relocate, they would have' adequate room at several local airports all within 15 minutes commute. In light of our'concems, we are wondering if closure would be a practicable solution to our problem. We are hoping to hear from you. s'7 ' LYi ' Harvey L. Mayor 1501 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield, California 93301 · (681~ BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, City Manager FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, Public Works Director DATE: October 7, 2002 SUBJECT: SIDEWALK REPAIR POLICY The State of California Street and Highways Code clearly states that sidewalk maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner. Prior to 1995 the City followed these guidelines to notify property owners of the need to maintain the sidewalk when in disrepair. However, full action of the.guidelines was not taken as repairs were not made by property owners and further action not taken by the City. In 1995 the Urban Development Committee made a recommendation for a sidewalk repair program that was approved by the City Council. This current program consists of the following: Document all complaints. · Define sub-standard sidewalk. · Establish guidelines for sub-standard sidewalk. · Consider budgeting for replacement (currently $50,000). · Work with Community Development for Block Grant funds. · Cause property owners to remove problems such as tree roots, (This is now done through the City Urban Forester) EXHIBIT 'A' $1DEWAI.KS § 5610 :5614. Contents of notice' 5614. i. Resolution for issua,cc of bonds: Notice to rep:tlr: Contents 5615. Repair by superintendent of streets on default 0f property owner: Written request by owner for repair of other sidewalk fronting his property: Eorm: Cost of requested repairs 5616. Notice of hearing on report of street superintendent and objection theret~ ~617. Filing of report: Contents 5618. Proceedings at hearing: Revisory powers of legislativc body: Confirmation of report: Adjournments: F~uality of decision § 5610. Duty of property owners: I,iability for conditions created by grantees of city permits, etc. The owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on any portion of a public street or place when that street or place is improved or if and when the area between tile property line of the adjacent property and the street line is maintained as a park or parking strip, shall maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or property and maintain it iii a condition which will not interfere with the public convctticnce in the use of those works or areas save and except as to those conditions created or maintained in, upon, along, or iii cotmection witll such sidewalk by any person other than the owner, under and by vit'ttte of any permit or right granted to him by law or by thc city autht~rities in charge the?eof, and such persons shall be under a like duty ill relation lhc~'cto. Added Stats 1941 ch 79 § 1. Prior Law: Stats 1911 ch 397 § 31 1st sent p 747, as atncnded by Stats 1935 ch 771 § 2 p 2148, Stats 1939 ch 508 § I p 18~6. Collateral References: Witkin Summary (Sth ed} p 2842. 37 Cai Jut 3d Highways and St,'cets § 40. 39 Am Jut 2d }{ighwa~,... Streets, a.d lh'idgcs §§ 77, 78, 361, 366, 367. 501. Annotations: Liability of abutting owner or occupant for conditiou of sidewalk. 88 ALR2d 331. NOTES OF DECISIONS in absence of statute, there is no common-law This act docs not impose liability on abulting duty resting on owner or occupant of prcmiscs owners for injuries received by travelers from allotting on public street to keep sidewalk iu defective sidewalks. Schaefer v Lenahan (1944) 63 repair, and he is not liable to Iravelcrs i.jurcd CA2d 324, 146 P2d 929. from defects in sidewalk which were not crcalcd by him. Schaefer v Lenahan (Iq44} 63 CA2d 324, Extent of liability created by this act is to pay for 146 P2d 920. repairs, IlOt Il.) pay damages lo an individual, nor Io rcimbusse city if it is compelled to pay such Purpose of this act is to provide means .f rolm- damages. Schaefer v i.cnaha.~ (1944) 63 CA2d horsing municipality for cost o£ repairs of side. 324. 146 i'2d 929. walk, not to transfer primary duty of repair I. property owners nor to relieve municipality fru.n Duty to mai.taiu portieres of sidewalk which have that responsibility. Schaefer v i.cnahan (1944) 63 bccu allcred for bc,~cfit of abutting property runs CA2d 324. 146 P2d 929. with land. and property owner cahoot avoid liabil- 185 § $610 IMPROVEMENI' AC'I' OF 1911 ily on ground that condition wa,~ creeled b)'. or at comi~lled to p~y commotion ~nd dam~ lo request nC his pr~cc~or~ in lille. Sari F;nncisco mcm~r or public injur~ thereby, ~ty h. dBht to v ilo Sin8 (1958) 5l C2d 127, 330 P2d 802. r~over ~mount ~ p~id from pro~y owner by Abulfing landowner tony bc held liable For dnngcr- why of indemnity. San Franci~o v Ho Sin8 (19~8) ous condition of ~rlions or public sidewalk ~hich 51 C2d 127, 3~ P2d. 802. had been ~ltcred or con~Crnc~ed For bcncfi~ or his Wi~h rc~nrd to ~rsons who ar~ [njur~ by der~- properly and which served usc h~dcpendcn~ nC nnd five condilion of sidewalk, which ~ndifion w~ npnrl rrmn. ordinnry ~nc[ nccn~lontcd tl~e fi~r crenlcd ,,r nmimain~ by abutting pro~rty owner, which such .qidcwalks arc designed. Sart Frnnci~co cily m~d landowner ~re joint or concurrent to~re~. v !!o Sing (19~8) 51 C2d 127. 330 P2d 802. ~rs: c~ch is dir~tly liable for hi~ own wrong and Whcr~ adjoining property owner for exclu4vc cnch tony be held liable rot entire damage suEer~. benefit or his own pro~rty plnccs ~n public s~rcct San Francisco v Ho Sing (1958) 51 Od 127, 330 or si&walk some ~rfi~cinl ~[ruc~ure and city is P2d 802. § 5611. Notice to repair: Duty to give When any portion of the sidewalk is out of repair or pending reconstruction and in condition to endanger persons or property or in condition to interfere with the public convenience in the use of such sidewalk, the SUl,erintencle1~t off streets shall notify the owner or !- person in possession off the properly fronting on that portion of such sidewalk so out of repair, to repair ihe sidewalk. Added Slat~ 1941 ch 70 § I. Prior l.a~s': Stal~ 1~11 ch 3q7 §31 2d ~c.t p 7~7, a~ amended by Stats 1935 ch 771 §2 p 2145, Stats ICUO ch 5)$ § I p 1886. Cnllateral References: See form set oul below, following Notes of Decisions. :, Annol,~lion.~: Relative right~ and liabilities of nbutting o~,,ners and public authorities in parkways in center of street. 81 ALP,. 2d 1436. NO'I ES OF DECISIONS lhls acl crcn~¢~ .n liability e,,r I,r,perly m~ncr in dc, m. Schaefer v Lenahan (1944) 63 CA2d 324. favor of Ihird per~o.,~ injmcd orr si&walk if 146 P2d 929. owner, after being given notice Io repair, fail~ to SUGGES1ED FORM Notice to Landos, ner to Repair Sidewalk To: __l .... [~N;~me nnd nchh'c.~.~ oF cm'ner or i,crson hr po.~session] You are hereby notified that the ~ __ [~pccit)' portion] of the sidewalk located at s__ [dcscripthm] is 4 ii. a state of dNrcpair, and] in such condition that it endangers persons and property and further interferes with the public convenience in the use of such sidewalk. You are further notified that the follmving repairs to the above-described portion of the sidewalk are required to be made: s [speci£y n'ork to be done, how it is to be done, and the mnteriMs to be ,xed in nmkhtg rcp.~i~]. You are further notified that il' within ~ [two weeks] after you have been given this 186 SIDEWALK8 § 8614 notice, you. have not commenced and are not proceeding with diligence and without interruption to comp]ete such repairs, the undersigned will undertake such repair work. You are further notified that in the event the undersigned makes the tepai~, the cost thermf shall be a lien upon your property described above· This notice is 8iven in accordance with the provisions of Sections :~ [5611 to 5614, inclusive] of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Dated )__, 19_)_ " [Signature] § 5612. Manner of giving notice Notice to repair may be given by delivering a written notice person- ally to the owner or to the person in possession of the property facing upon the sidewalks so out of repair, or by mailing a postal card, postage prepaid, to the person in possession of such property, or to the owner thereof at his last known address as the same appears on the last equalized assessment rolls of such city or to the name and address of the person owning such property as shown in the records of the office of the clerk. AddedStats 1941 ch 79 § I. Prior Law: Stats 1Oil ch 397 § 31 3d sent p 747, as amended by Stats 1935 ch 771 §2 p 2148, Stats 1939 ch 508 § I p 1886. Collateral References: 39 Am Jut 2d Highways, Streets, and Bridges §§ 77, 78. § 5613. Mailing and posting of notice The postal card shall contain a notice to repair the sidewalk so out of repair, and the superintendent of streets shall, immediately upon the mailing of tile notice, cause a copy thereof printed on a card of not , less than 8 inches by 10 inches in size, to be posted in a conspicuous place on the property. Itl lieu of posting a copy of the mailed notice on the property as provided itl this section, the superintendent of streets may, not less than seven days nor more than I0 days after the mailing of the first postal card notice, mail an additional postal card, postage prepaid, marked "Second Notice," to the person to whom the first postal card notice was addressed. The second notice shall otherwise contain the material required by this article; but shall not ' extend the time for commencing repairs specified in Section 5614. i.~ Added Stats 1941 ch 79 § 1; Amended Stats 1969 ch 21 ! § !. '"" i Prior Law: Stats 1911 ch 397 § 31 4th sent p 747, as amended by Stats 1935 ch 771 §2 p :} . 2148, Stats 1939 ch 508 § I p 1886. ;I Amendments: !1 ' 1969 Amendment: Added the second and third sentences. i[~': · § 5614. Contents of notice .i,".' The notice shall particularly specify what work is required to be done, .. ':, 187 {} 5614 IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911' and how it is to be done, and what materials shall be used in the repair and shall further specify that if the repair is not commenced within two weeks after notice is given and diligently and without interruption prosecuted to completion, the superintendent of streets - shall make such repair, and the cost of the same shall be a lien on the property. Added Stats 1941 ch 79 § I; Amended Stats 1~53 ch 798 § 1. Prior Law: Stats 1911 ch 397 § 31 5th sent p 747, as amended by Stats 1935 ch 771 §2 p 2148, 5tats 1939 ch 508 § ! p 1886. Amendments: 1953 Amendment: Substituted "two weeks" for "three days" after "if the repair is not commenced within". § 5614.1. Resolution for issuance of bonds: Notice to repair: Contents The legislative body may adopt a resolution determining that bonds shall be issued and assessnteuts collected and enforced pursuant to Part 5 of' this division. In such event, the notice to repair shall specify that bonds shall be issued to represent the security of the unpaid assessments, payable over a period of not to exceed six years, and shall further recite a maximum rate of interest to be paid on the indebtedness, which shall not exceed 7 percent a year, payable semiannually. Added Stats 1967 ch 615 § 3; Amended Stats 1968 ch 986 § 2, effective August 2, 1968. Amendments: 1968 Amendment: Substitued "7 percent': for "6 percent" in the second sentence. § 5615. Repair by superintendent of streets on default of property owner: Written request by owner for repair of other sidewalk fronting his property: Form: Cost of requested repairs If the repair is not commenced and prosecuted to completion with due diligence, as required by the notice, the superintendent of streets shall forthwith repair the sidewalk. Upon the written request of the owner of the property facing the sidewalk so out of repair, as ascertained from the last equalized assessment roll of the city, or as shown in the records of the office of the clerk, the superintendent may repair any other portion of the sidewalk fronting on the property that is designated by the owner. The superintendent shall have power to prescribe the form of the written request. The cost of repair work done by request pursuant to this section shall be a part of the cost of repairs for which, pursuant to this chapter, subsequent notices are given, hearings held and assessment and collection procedures are conducted. Added Stats 1941 ch 79 § I; Amended Stats 1963 ch 648 § I. 188 § $SS0 ' STREETS AND HIOHWAY$.CODE In an action by property owners against · city to the tuuance of any Judpnent, the trial court and other public entities, alleging plalntlffs were should afford defendants · tetsonable opportunity. subject to · special sewer t',sessment against their to make use of reassessment procedures (Sts. & property, made in anticipation of the transition of' J[y. Code, §§ 5:~00 et seq.) or ti) take other appro- the area from agricultural to urban development, priate action directed toward ameliorating in equi- but that their property was subsequently limited to table fashion the inequities appearing from plain- agricultural purposes for an indefinite period of' tiffs' complaint. Moreover, any such action by time by a city's open-space plan and zoning ordl- dcrcndant should be taken into account by the nance, plaintiffs were, if their allegations were trial court in its final dctermi,~ation. Furey V true, entitled to relief' by way of' declaratory relief' or mandate precludin8 the application of the sub- Sacramento (1979) 24 C3d 862, 157 Cai Rptr 684, ject land-use regulations to them. llowcver, prior 598 P2d 844. , · § 5610. Duty of property owners; Liability for conditions' created by grnntees of city permits, etc. Although an abuttin8 owner bears the duty to somehow creates the injurious sidewalk condition. repair detects in a sidewalk, regardles.~ or whether Flowever, abuttin8 owners are liable to pedestrians he created the defects (Sts.& Fly. Code, § 5610), for detects in a sidewalk attributable to their own an abutting property owner is not liable in tort to negligencE. Jones v Deetet (1984, 2d Dist) I.q2 Cai travelers injured on the sidewalk, unless the owner App 3d 798, 199 CaJ Rptt 8.25. § 5626. Filing of notice of lien; Form and contents The superintendent of streets may file in the off, ce of the count~, recorder of the county in which the parcel of property is located, a certificate substan- tially in the following form: NOTICE OF LIEN Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Improvement Act of 1911, i did, on the day of , 19_, cause the sidewalk, curb, or park or parking strip, bulkheads, retaining walls, or other works (as the case may be) in front of the real property hereinafter described, to be repaired and improved, and the legislative body of said city (county, or city and county) did, on the day of ., 19__, by Resolu- tion No.. assess the cost of such repair upon the real property hereinafter described, and the same has not been paid nor any part thereog and the said city (county, or city and county), does hereby claim a lien on said real property in the sunt of dollars ($. .), and the same shall be a lien upon said real property until the said sum, with interest at the rate of ~ percent per annum, from the said day of , 19__ (insert date of confirmation of assessment), has been paid in full and discharged of record. The real property hereinbefore mentioned and upon which a lien is claimed, is that-certain piece or parcel of land lying and being in the (name of city, or city and county) the county of , State of ., and particularly described as follows: (Description of property) Dated this .. day of ., 19 ..... Superintendent of streets. Amended Stats 1986 ch 507 § I. "' Amendments: 1986 Amendment: In addition to making technical changes, substituted the blank for."6" before "percent per annum" in the first paragraph of' the form. 18 In ~ & H Cod~l CITY OF BAKERSFIELD URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1-95 February 22, 1995 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM There is a need to adopt a formal policy regarding sidewalk repairs and or replacement. While the California Street and Highway Code and Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 12.40 indicates property owner responsibility for sidewalks, it is very difficult to enforce such codes. The City of Bakersfield does not have adequate resources to fully address these issues, however, a partial solution could be as follows: I. Enhance the current complaint program: a) Document all complaints on a standard form. b) Define what is considered a sub-stanclard sidewalk c) . Set up different levels of sub-standard sidewalks and establish guidelines for each level. ' 1. Trivial defects will be addressed according to the situation.' 2. 1' to 2" offsets would be repaired using asphalt concrete to ramp the lower slab to match the higher slab. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITrEE REPORT NO. 1-95 FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Page -2- 3. 2" or greater offsets would require the removal and replacement of the sidewalk. d) As budget allows, make repairs as per established guidelines and document repairs. While this is still the responsibility of the property owner, the City may consider budgeting $75,000 to $100,000 for replacement of the more severe problems. ..11. Work with the Community Development Division to explore ' 'funding for the hew or replacement sidewalks utilizing Community Development Block Grant funds where applicable. III. Cause the property owners to remove the problems such as tree roots that damage the sidewalks. The Committee recommends the policy outlined in this report be implemented. Res ~ectfully submitt~ Kevin :~tt, Chair ancN :ilmember UDCl-95.RPT