The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMITIGATION 1973 1. Dry Cleaning Setting: Clothing and other textiles may be cleaned by,treating them with organic solvents. This treat- ment process involves agitating the clothing in a solvent bath, rinsing with clean solvent, and drying with warm air. There are basically two types of dry-cleaning in- stallations -- those using petroleum solvents (Stoddard and l400F [600C]) and those using chlorin- ated synthetic solvents (perchloroethylene). The trend in dry cleaning operations today is toward smaller package operations that handle approximately 1500 pounds of clothes per week on the average. These plants almost exclusively use perchloroethy1ene,where the older dry cleaning plants use petroleum solvents. Impact: The major source of hydrocarbon emissions in dry cleaning is the tumbler through which hot air is circulated to dry the clothes. Drying leads to vaporization of the solvent and consequent emissions to the atmosphere unless control equipment is used. Mitigation: The primary control element in use in synthetic solvent plants is a water-cooled condenser that is an integral part of the closed cycle in a tumbler or drying system. Up to 95 percent of the solvent that is evaporated from clothing is recovered here. About half of the remaining solvent is then recovered in an activated carbon absorbe~, giving an overall control efficiency of 97 to 98 percent. -41- 2. Surface Coating Setting: Surface coating operations primarily involve the application of paint, varnish, lacquer, or paint primer for decorative or protective purposes. This is accomplished by brushing, rolling, spraying, flow coat- ing, and dipping. Some of the industries involved in surface coating operations are automobile assemblies (body shops), aircraft companies (aircraft maintenance and repair), container manufacturers, furniture manu- facturers, appliance manufacturers, job enamelers, auto- mobile repainters, and plastic products manufacturers. Impact: Emissions of hydrocarbons occur in surface coating operations because of the evaporation of the paint vehicles, thinners, and solvents used to facili- tate the application of the coatings. The major factor affecting these emissions is the amount of volatile matter contained in the coating. The volatile portion of most common surface coatings averages approximately 50 percent, and most, if not all of this is emitted during the application and drying of the coating. The compounds released include aliphatic and aromatic hydro- carbons, alcohols, ketones, esters, alkyl and aryl hydrocarbon solvents, and mineral spirits. Table 13 presents emission factors for surface coating operations. TABLE 13 Emission Factors for Surface Coating Operations Type of Coating Emissions (16/ton) Paint Varnish and Shellac Lacquer Enamel Primer (Zinc Chromate) 1120 1000 1540 840 1320 -43- For example, assuming 10 tons of paint required in aircraft and other maintenance were used in one year, the total emissions of hydrocarbons and other volatile substances escaping into the atmosphere would be 10 x 1120 pounds or 11,200 pounds. , Mitigation: Control of the gaseous emissions can be accomplished by the use of absorbers (activated carbon) or after burners. The collection efficiency of activated carbon has been reported at 90 percent or greater. Water curtains or filler pads have little or no effect on escaping solvent vapors; they are widely used, however, to stop paint particulate emissions. 3. Soap Manufacturing Setting: The manufacture of soap entails the cata- lytic hydrolysis of various fatty acids with sodium or potassium hydroxide to form a glycerol-soap mixture. This mixture is separated by distillation, then neutralized and blended to produce soap. !mr~ct: The ~3in atmosphere prllut.ior. problpm in the manufacturing of soap is odor, and, if a spray drier is used, a pat·ticulate emission problem may also occur. Vent lir:9s, vacuum exhausts, product and raw material storage, and waste streams are all potential odor sources. Mitigation: Control of these odors may be achieved by scrubbing all exhaust fumes and, if necessary, in- cinerating the remaining compounds. Odors emanating from the spray drier may be controlled by scrubbing with an acid solutian. -44- .- -.-. _.,_. ~.... ..- 4. Alfalfa Dehydrating Setting and Impact: An alfalfa dehydrating plant pro- duces an animal feed from alfalfa. The dehydrating and grinding of alfalfa that produces alfalfa meal is a dusty operation most commonly carried out in rural areas. However, since the area is near agricultural activities and the impacts of this use are similar to other urban manufacturing, it is included. Wet, chopped alfalfa is fed into a direct-fired rotary drier. The dried alfalfa particles are conveyed to a primary cyclone and sometimes a secondary cyclone in series to settle out the product from air flow and products of combustion. The settled material is dis- charged to the grinding equipment, which is usually a hammer mill. The ground material is collected in an air-meal separator and is either conveyed directly to bagging or storage, or blended with other ingredients. Table14 presents emission factors for alfalfa dehydrat- ing operation. When applied directly to the total amount of meal produced, it would give the total amount of oust (parti~ulate) produced. TABLE 14 Particulate Emission Factors for Alfalfa Dehydration Type of Operation Particulate Emissions l6/ton of Meal Produced Uncontrolled 60 Baghouse Collector 3 .~ ~ -45- Mitigation: Sources of dust emissions are the pri- mary cyclone, the grinders, and the air-meal separator. 'Overall dust losses have been reported as high as 7 percent, but average losses are around 3 percent by weight of the meal produced. The use of a baghouse as a secondary collection system can greatly reduce emissions. Mitigation:6 None required. Any industrial use requlrlng an operation permit will be referred to the Kern County APCD for review and control to insure that no pollution problem would result from such use. 6This covers both Primary and Secondary Impacts associated with the project. -46- . , ,~,..., ~ .., ~: 4 (a) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 5. HYDROLOGY Setting: The groundwater basin underlying the Kern River and the Bakers- field Airpark area is part of the Kern River Groundwater Storage Unit of the larger Tulare Lake Basin.l The Tulare Lake Basin, in turn makes up the Southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley Basin2 which is bordered on the North by the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta, on the East by the Sierra Nevada, on the South by the Tehachapi Mountains, and on the West by the Coast Ranges. The Tulare Lake Basin is a closed basin with interior drainage except during periods of excessive storm run-off. In years of normal or above normal Kern River flow, water that is not diverted or infiltrated to the groundwater basin flows to Buena Vista Lake beds and evaporation sumps. However, in most years before 1977 there was no flow in the Kern River Channel in the vicinity of Bakers- field due to many upstream diversions and drought. The Tulare Lake Basin, like the San Joaquin Valley Basin is filled by thick deposits of sedimentary material eroded from the adjacent mountains and deposited by streams. Unconsolidated continental sedi- mentary deposits from the principal aquifer underlie the San Joaquin Valley. These deposits, which include stream alluvium and lake beds, are more permeable than the consolidated rocks of the adjac~nt mountains. lThe Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley occupies the Southern portion of the Tulare Lake Basin. 2The Sacramento River Basin, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the San Joaquin River Basin, and the Tulare Lake Basin make up the San Joaquin Valley Basin. -47- According to a report published by the California Department of Water Resources,3 the San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin (which includes Tulare Lake Basin) covers an area of 13,500 square miles which is drained mostly by the San Joaquin River. It is composed of many younger and older alluvi~ms. The maximum well yield in the basin is 3,200 gallons per minute with an average of 1,100 gallons per minute. Estimated storage capacity at depths to 1,000 feet is over 570 million acre-feet with usable storage capacity exceeding 80 million acre-feet. The Tulare Lake Basin, a part of the San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin, is drained by two major rivers, the King River and the Kern River. The existing Kern River Channel oriented in a Southwesterly direction, is about four miles Northwest of the Airpark. The Central Branch Kern Island Canal, one of the major irrigation canals of the Kern River, flows through the Southwest portion of the study area. Recharge to groundwater basin in the area is primarily seepage from the unlin2d Central Branch Kern Island Canal. Depth to water in unconfined wells is about 200 feet. The maximum thickness of fresh water bearing deposits (4,400 feet) occurs at the Southern end of the San Joaquin Valley just North of Wheeler Ridge. As popularily known, there are two sources of water in Kern County. One is groundwater occurring in subsurface aquifers and extracted by pUIT,¡:;ing w€.lls. :rcunj\\'titcr ptcsently meets ne3.rly ~wc·,trirc's of the total water demands in the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley.. In recent years, over two million acre-feet of groundwater was pumped annually.4 High water quality was found in most areas of the San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin including the few wells in the vicinity of the project which are discussed later in this section. 3Department of Water Resources, California Resources Agency, California's Groundwater, Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 118, September 1975, Pages 65-67. 4Kern County Water Agency, Report on 1973 Water Conditions, Improvement District No.4, Bakersfield, California, October 1,1973. -48- The other source of water is surface water from streams and imported water, used mostly for agricultural purposes. The Central Branch Kern Island Canal presently supplies irrigation water to the agricultural land in study area. The study area is located within Improvement District No.4 of the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA). At the present time there are many water purveyors within Improvement District No.4. The major purveyors include the California Water Service Company, the East Niles Community Service District, and Oildale Natural Water Company. The study area is served by the California Water Service Company. Domestic water supplies in the project area are pumped entirely from groundwater sources while agricultural water is supplied from a combination of groundwater sources and surface supplies, primarily from the Central Branch Kern Island Canal. Groundwater temperatures in Kern County range from about 450F to about l050F TDS (Total Dissolved Solids). Content of the water varies from 64 to more than 7,000 PPM (part per million; unit used here is mili- grams per liter). The predominant water type varies from acquifer to acquifer, and the source of recharge. The character of the water on the East side of the San Joaquin Valley is predominantly sodium-calciUln bicarbonate; water on the West side principally contains sodium sulfate. During the spring and early summer months of 1975, Kern County Water Agency personnel collected water well samples from classified wells which were pumping at that time. The following information as related to the project area was extracted from two Kern County Water Agency 5 ' Reports. 5Kern County Water Agency, Water Supply Report 1978, San Joaquin Valley Area, Kern County, California, May 1979 and Kern County Water Agency, Ground Water Quality Survey of the San Joaquin Valley. Portion of Kern County, California, August 1975. -49- Groundwater in the project area is within the 300 TDS (total dissolved solids P.P.M.) contours of unconfined wells sampled in 1975. It is estimated that about 250 TDS is found in the study area. From confined wells sam~led from 1973-1978 the total dissolved solids estimated for project area exceeds 200 TDS. The electrical conductance of ground- water from both confined and unconfined wells in the area is less than 500 micromhos. The boron concentrations of groundwater from the area are less than 0.5 PPM (many crops do not tolerate concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 PPM and greater). However, one should under- stand, the groundwater basin in the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley is a very efficient basin, in that, there is very little outflow. Consequently, new salts introduced to the basin with imported water supplies are retained in the basin. The groundwater is the recipient of these salts in the form of recharge waters and deep per- colation or return flows from irrigation. It has been estimated that imported water deliveries carried 332,435 tons of salts to the ground- water basin in 1978. This volume of salt is about 15 percent more than in 1977. Depth to water is unconfined wells in the area is less than 300 feet. In Kern County in 1978 groundwater extractions have been calculated to ::)(; 1,35C,COO acre feet,·1i rzductiùn of over 1,L;.40,0:J0 acre fee'~ from the 1977 drought year, which was 2,800,000 acre feet. Groundwater supplied an estimated 38 percent of the total water supply to the San Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County in 1978, as opposed to 78 percent in 1977.6 6Ibid., Page 5 (1975 Report) -50- Groundwater recharge to the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin is primarily seepage from streams, unlined canals, excess irrigation water and municipal and domestic waste water. In 1978, several entities in Kern County were actively engaged in direct gròundwater replenishment operations. Efforts to use the above average runoff to the best advantage resulted in about 670,000 acre feet of groundwater recharge. The sources of water were the Kern River, California Aqueduct, and Fraint-Kern Canal. Non-direct recharge in the groundwater basin comes from losses of un- lined canals and flows from minor streams. Estimates of minor stream flow in 1978 total about 140,000 acre feet, mainly from floods on Caliente Creek and Poso Creek. Most of these waters are generally re- tained in Kern County and are counted in the water resource inventory.7 Since 1959, groundwater extractions have exceeded groundwater recharge in all but two years, 1969 and 1978. The average annual change in storage has been about 800,000 acre of reduced groundwater supplies. In 1978, water supply and use conditions allowed a net increase in groundwater storage of about 363,000 acre feet. This is a difference of around 2,000,000 acre feet from the 1977 decrease in storage of 1,700,000 acre feet.8 The overdraft condition in the past years has resulted in declining water levels and deterioration of water quality in some areas. Land subsidence has been associated with heavy ground- water withdrawals in a few areas. 7Ibid., 1. a., Page 18 8Ibid., 1. a., Page 21 -51- The latest information on groundwater quality obtained from chemical analysis of sample water from wells within the study area is included in Appendi'x A - 3. Impact: The impact of the proposed project on groundwater quality may be discussed under the major classifications of land use in the proposed plan such as residential, industrial and commercial, and open space and agricultural. (l) Residential US2S: According to the proposed Land Use Plan, medium density residential land use is proposed for the area South of White Lane and West of the Central Branch Kern Island Canal. Compared to existing City zoning, the proposed land use plan would result in an increase of 230 units in the area. As understood, urban development would occur only when urban services such as sewer and water, etc., are available. However, the type of effluent generated from the proposed land use plan would be similar to other residential areas or those under existing zoning. Effluent g9ne- rated win be carried by existing or future sewer lines to City Sewer Treatment Plant No.2. The additional amount of effluent generated is insignifi- cant (see Public Facilities, Sewer Service Section on Page 132). Impact to underground \'¡ater qual ity and to City sewer treatment plant is expected to be minimal. -52- (2) Industrial and Commercial Uses: Industrial uses recommended in the proposed Land Use Plan are limited to light manufacturing, outdoor equipment storage or display, for warehouse type storage facilities. Other recommended industrial use in or adjacent to the Bakersfield Airpark are primarily related to aircraft maintenance, display, and sale (including parts and aircraft). Effluent generated from such sources are not expected to require special treatment and can be readily treated with exi sti ng sewage treatment facil ities. The County:. H~Jth Department will have the full responsibility and strict control over the release of hazardous substances or industrial waste. Any adverse effect on"human health and/or to the environl]l{:!nt should not be permitted. Therefore, the degradation of! existing underground water quality due to sewag~ and surface runoff from industrial areas is not' expected. Commercial use proposed is limited to neighborhood shopping facilities. Effluent pro- duced would be very similar to those of residential uses. Any advE.:rs£ impact to tr.è underground wa+:rr quality is not expected. Also, the total acreage of commercial land proposed in the Land Use Plan is insignificant as compared to the total project area. (3) Open Space and Agricultural Uses: Open space pro- posed at the Southern end of the future runway will be reserved for recreational purposes (e.g., golf course) or allowed for continuous farming operations. Most irrigation water of the area comes from the canal and percolates into the underground water basin. -53- The quality of underground water will be affected by the irrigation water from the canal and chemicals applied to crops and soils in the area. The Food and Drug Administrêk:on (FDA), the Environmental Pro- tection Agency, (EPA) and the Soil Conservation Service are agencies that normally regulate the use of chemicals in farming and/or soils improvement. Discussion of this impact on underground water quality from the application of fertilizers and pesticides on crops is beyond the context of the present report. However, it must be assumed the various governmental agencies will act to the best interest of the general public and the quality of underground water will not be degraded. As indicated in the 1978 Water Supply Report, the water quality of the Kern River and the Fraint-Kern Cil(,ll remains relatively constant from a quality standpoint.9 The sourc~~ of water in the Kern Island Canal is from upstream Kern River and water has been widely used for irrigation purposes in Kern County for many years. It would be reasonable to bel~ev( tht rlO substantia' cha:13e tc "'he '.'ì':¿ì'Jrcu;ld ''later quality would result from the use of Kern River water in farming operations in the area. Mitigation: No mitigation measure is necessary for the present and pro- posed land use. Governmental services (such as sewer system and treat- ment facilities) and controls (such as those promulgated by EPA, FDA, and SCS, etc.) are the safeguards to protect a high quality of under- ground water for the public. 9See Footnote on Page 49 -54- (a) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 6. GEOLOGY/SEISMOLOGY Setting: The Geology of the valley floor area is considered to be a rather uniform extension of the Sierra Nevada Fault block which has , been covered by sediments. According to estimates based on geophysical and geological data, the sedimentary blanket is approximately 25,000 feet thick, a short distance East of the outermost foothills, along the East edge of the va11ey.1 In the Bakersfield area there is approximately 7,000 to 11,500 feet of sedimentary cover over crystalline basement. Between 1,400 and 3,800 feet of this cover consists of young unconsolidated sediments.2 Basement rocks probably consist of crystalline rock derived from lime- stone, chert, shale and sandstone, now much altered by metamorphic process. Sedimentary rocks of marine and non-marine origin border the valley to the East and South -- material of granitic origin.3 Historically, Kern County has been one of the most seismically active areas in California. It occupies the South end of the San Joaquin Valley which is bordered on the West, East and South by three major fault systems, all of which are considered to be active. These are the San Andreas, Breckinridge/Kern Canyon, and the Garlock Faults respectively (see Map 8).4 lReed, R. D., 1933 Geology of California, Page 335, Tulsa, Oklahoma American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 17th Edition, 1971 and Final EIR, Use and Disposition of Property and Water Rights acquired by the City of Bakersfield, Thomas Stetson, 1975. 2Ibid. 3Ibid. 4William H. Park, Geologist "Geological and Seismo1ogical Investigation for Rio Bravo Annexation" in Draft EIR for Rio Bravo Annexation. (Bakersfield, California: Quad Consultants, July 1976), Appendix B -55- r þ ('""\ 1',. ~ ('""\ o <:"' ~ )7 -z- Source: OakeshotT, G.B., et aI, 1955, Earthquakes in Kern County California During 1952; Cali:orni3 Divisio~ of Mines, Bulletin 171, rigu~e 2. J. - ~ . ......~....--. ... GEOLOGIC MAP OF CALIFORNIA 5HOWI~G PRINCIPAL FAULTS IN RELATION TO GEOMORPHIC PROVINCES AND GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC UNITS Geomo'ø."c p'.;).tftCes f,om Jtn_.n&,O'4]I' 0. 1~3a. G~O"":)f'h,¡; ",I~j) 0' C.OI,'''.'"'4. sçole 12.000.000 GeoIO;.c wt"', ..t"~'C:I.l~a from Jt'f'ltllll";,.OIO' p. ¡93Ef. Geoto91C mop of Callfo,n,o, scc¡~ I 5~C.oOO ~ LJ 0..0"'''0'. 1......"·0.. 'C'(illt r~~-~~~ '"<.] t'.'O'to." w......"'.G4', 'M." == ~~ 1e,ho" "Id.........." 'oc'" : . '. ! ".MlooC '..Ofttn.co-·..OIOu.... ....3". s.] ".;;:';:;.:::.~.:~:.:, ....tQ.O'._.~ .rr........... ~-_.....~ø..'.,:.... P',,-::.ow:ÞlO·O" '0 h.('.1' 'OCIII to....; h 8~~ o·"'.a-s''''Ii~:'''''~£.. ":'JA/£ :~:::¡O. GIC~,)I~"·t ....0,....'. DO......,'3I., Gf''2>IOqoc ...... Þ0V"'801, I..... . 4 1..EI.FIELI ...,... £1'..5... £.. GEOMORPHIC PROVINCES AND FAULTS MAP 8 o . 100 . MILES The City of Bakersfield is situated along the Eastern side, near the South end of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province (see Map 8). It is located in the White Wolf Seismic Area as defined by Hileman Allen, 5 et al. The White Wolf Fault traverses the Southeast end of the San Joaquin Valley from Wheeler Ridge to an area Northeast of Caliente, a distance of approximately 35 miles. lilt is a high angle reverse fault with a left strike slip component",6 and a total vertical displacement of roughly 10,000 feet. Impacts: (1) Earthquakes - Calculations by Central Coast Laboratories have indicated that a hypothetical earthquake of magnitude 8.25 on the San Andreas Fault system (35 miles to the ~outh) or a 7.7 magnitude event on the White Wolf Fault (25 miles to the South) could be ex- pected to generate a bedrock acceleration of 0.2g (gravity) within the vicinity of the airpark. Probable maximum intensity as a result of these magnitudes is VII or VIII on the Modified Mercalli Scale according to the California Division of Mines and Geology in the Urban Geology Master Plan (Bulletin 198). Earthquakes of this intensity create noticeable ground shaking and minor to moderate structural damage. There are smaller inferred subsurface faults in the area (see Map 9), however, none seem to present any significant hazard of sudden movement at the present time. 5Hileman, James A.; Allen, Clarence R.; Nordquist, John M.; Seismicity of the Southern California Region - January 1932 to December 1972, Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 1973. 6Ibid. -57- '~,.~ 'I: ¡ 1 I'i /,1 : :,"- '"'i . -; I -¡ L . ~. ',..,. S - I ::'}:~~~'·~l !_J.~ :./....~~i,._-:=,':/. -._..n~.,,,==r- ;,~....',.:- c..~~"< n," ":'.1.: ..~-~~'o~t=·~.: :;,,"...:-:~:.,:-,. -.':f ...'......; '.' I'"",·, I' '. .' ,7 ",'- , ., ., I '."'t :; I. : <'::--01.''''-1 "-" - ~---'J- '''''-'''.':-(t' . .' =-_--J--, ,,'.,J. ~: ,~ 11.' I ' ·"\Tn'~ 11//'j;,(I[-;¡ '~r;~'·-.I ,J. N'~ ! 'A:,:;';" r~j:':-r:.~ ~~:¿J~}!l!;[:!jü': }~-í[11 J, d'l i~-~~IÆ§;¡~-·:t"-';(:'~ic -:~~_.- :-.-1.1 \~r~; .Il.l ~l'" I,. lr2"~ ::;.:~·,:,:]:=J~'!:"·I-'¡:7~:: '\ i"1".. : 'l '==-' 'I I' ~ 1/' ,,--.', ,,' ''. '-!. I"~ ..~l;T\:;~I;·['~i'"""J-i[H ~f- ,.... :=- I ~~'·""'~'illL:i'jfl~~lt.'-~;(~t¡1;lt~ï·:~n~L'-~--~"'" ~!B"¡C;:""t=:::'".\ ~' .il :' I :.~J::7'~·l/;ffli~¡¡rt:t¡.r':-l-*'·~í~;\·-"-=~ " ~. ~-"'('f, 'I' ·'~.~II!!!:I'I'!'I:::I'11 ¡ . t..:..JUr.--=;"-.. ~ I J'. I. I I ..- /' h-. -I.tt·t. .. ....1..·11 ' "- ~~ .~~l)·::;~ ~', ~~! l¡~:-.. ~=-;._, '.'~i·~'_jl~;!:I!:¡~¡lii~~i! :l.L-J-l_l.__ _ ',. :-,~~2~ 71~~ ! ~~t 9ì :-~-':' ,II i Ì'" r ~ )n~..J nLt~~:-\\-1'..["..).~n~~~"~~ --~- ¡ ¡ --i-t- --¡r '''-; I I ~J i~: '!4''':.(:-..-_-.--,-~ -J I .; "-, - I ''-. .' Ii \" 'f\ ...../ ~ r- ~ : ,-~ , ~~- - : I ~¡- -... : " " I " '.), ' ~,,-.c.'j' ~ ' , ¡¡ 11 , .J"... ,,' I' .+ " 'L-.l . , ,I, ,l"""..... -- 1 ~ 11 ~_,J E~~\ ¥L,,:::1;-:r~Qt~,: 'ffi¿WATT~ ~~~}, DRy~¡±~__-: - - ill . :P ... ,,;1 :J[ .-.--~, '\ ~ \' , , ~0/; / .' , ~----~. ____.....J IE' l~, 'l 1,--");' j).". ,',: \~ ;;.........--.: wi, /"Æ;;j. '~~~_. .." "! ~ . --=~;.,.., '00; '/ '/"\'.\ ~--=-_',:J. /0;%'/ I ' ,[ : ~ 1" /,' ., ...,\' \ " ~I ,--.- ~ --- =tE=-J~f~;;:;~()'¡\'\ ~2,;~: ~~ ,! / I ,\ ð, :' ~:/f-j' \\ 'Tfíl I ---·1 ~I~ ¡ ,i --f-- ftj: , _J'JL ,l~(~~C:'Ù___.i\_~L__ ' _P.LAt-!L! 0 , ~9AD __,!__L-=. ~_,_'+'~__;._ r-~D~J;/~r~~~--~~-:--'i ~~--=-: ~ll~·_j¡~:-Jil-',r'l¡.':-. :::~.·T-\-" I ,.t-t'r-- .... :'-,\ \'\\ I øß: i t I ~ Î. Þ , =1DIr="""~' I .. 'þ:-=-~ ~~:L-l' --' ý~'i/i ~ '; L' ¡ I). . , ¿7'l ~1rf;Tn~:"~--:- - ,q':~:cur' >~~ ¡ '\ .- ;~.- - - j ~I u .¡.-~j ~'~ . --~ ---I-- /¡ ~ 'E.. ---, J -' I l~~ ~ Â. '. //. q ,l'::'--~:-=i ,.~t:_ _~._... ._~ WHITE LANE' . ~f i' -~Jf1·1f~t~·~ --¡-- ¡ {8WJ)¡~~ ~i _} (1 ):-~ ~l~ -'~ ~_ m mTI1Gl1B.L5~ 'JU , ~ 1-' ¡ l~? ~ ~ I - -:l . r 'L--LLL. 1f_r . ~ ~E=ïl ~LACHECOI- lª BïJ~ r rrnl L )JJJ c=jf:1 ~¿J I ...11 b~ 'D~ t . nrn-~:-tt, \ --- __J_~_ ---- rrr~ - ISo I I r- A 0 :MAP 9 ~ FEET ...ERSFfEl. A.I'AI. EXPANSION E.I SEISMOLOGY - - - - INFERRED SUBSURFACE FAUL 1S- EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN SOURCE: KERN COUNTY SEISMIC HAZARD ATLAS 2000 (2) Flooding Induced by Seismic Activity - There is a threat of flooding due to seismic events affecting Lake Isabella Dam. Isabella Dam, located about 40 miles Northeast of the City of Bakersfield (Map 2), impounds a reservoir of 570,000 acre-feet when filled to maximum capacity. The main rolled earthfill dam is 185 feet high and 1,725 feet long. Associated with the main dam structure is an auxiliary earthfill dam 100 feet high and 3,257 feet long. Several major earthquake faults are in the vicinity of the dam. The Kern Canyon Fault which shows evidence of recent move- ment, passes under the main dam itself. Should movement along anyone · of the faults occur, it could weaken the dam and trigger a seiche in the lake itself. This could result in a break in the dam or overflow of the dam causing a breech and failure. This could, under certain conditions, cause the entire lake storage to be released and result in the flooding of the Kern Canyon and the majority of the Bakersfield urban area as well as the lowlands of the County South and Southwest of Bakersfield.7 In the event of dam failure the subject area would be flooded approxi- mately six hours after release according to the "Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for the County and Greater Bakersfield Area Below Lake Isabella Damll. Airpark operations would cease under such conditions. Proposed land use plans for the project area designate a large amount of area to be used for manufacturing. Manufacturing processes may require the use of volatile materials or toxic chemicals which could create ad- ditional problems as a result of a seismic event or flood situation. Relocation of chemical containers due to flood waters could cause off-site problems and/or hamper rescue and cleanup operations. 7Jackson, Ray; Kern County Office of Emergency Services. Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for Count and Greater Bakersfield Area Below Lake Isabella Dam, 1976. Conversation with U. S. Corps of Engineers Sacramento indicates the dam was designed and constructed to withstand at least a O.lg psuedo-dynamic ac- celeration load (see definitions at end of this section) with at least a 0.35g peak acceleration load. Such loadings are compared with Modified Mercalli Scale intensities ranging from VII to VIII registered at the dam for events occurring at the four major faults in the area (Sierra Nevada, White Wolf, Garlock, and Breckinridge/Kern Canyon). An investigation, however, is underway to determine if the Kern Canyon Fault is active. If the study shows it to be active, further evaluations will be made. -59- (3) Landslides - The topography of the airpark and airpark environs is level (2% slope or less) or gently sloping and is free from the threat of landslides. (4) Subsidence - According to th·~ Kern County Water Agency. one to two feet of subsidence was measured;:) the vicinity of the airpark in the 50 years prior to 1970 due to ground- water overdraft (see Map 10). Present and future recharge practices in the Bakesfield area are expected to arrest subsidence activity in this area. No future subsidence is expected. However. it is estimated that additional wells will need to be drilled in.order to supply necessary water for the additional industrial land uses proposed in the Airpark Plan. Mitigation: Construction requirements in the Bakersfield area for seis- mic values as given in the Uniform Building Code are designed to cope with the projected ground shaking values. The Kern County Evacuation Plan for the County and Greater Bakersfield Area Below Lake Isabella Dam would be executed in the event of dam failure resulting from a seismic event. The six hours prior to inun- dation could be used to secure hazardous substances to reduce the chance of unnecessary destruction or contamination due to spillage. Specific conditions should be applied to industrial or commercial development to assure that hazardous substances are secured in an emergency. Subsidence in the past would indicate that monitoring of water with- drawal and recharge should be continued to insure no future subsidence takes place in the area. -60- ) ( \ \ I / : ( : : ) : . \....ç-, -' · N"'-iÎ:--<n ~.. i : . ) . '~ 'C)- Î ? " \§~ ;,) "-~ _.~.. , : 'I:' j, ... , ' , , 1..EISfIElD AIRPARK UPANSION E I. SUBSIDENCE SOURCE: KERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY, BAKERSFIELD CALIF. _.-.-._-....-"~._... .. ......-.._. ....-..--.......,. -- LAND SUBSIDENCE DUE TO GROUNOV~·~TER WITHDRAWAL 1926-1970 ............--. 51-- TOTAL SUBSIDENCE '-- -- - ' . ---'''~ ....... FROM US.6.S. G. E LOFGREN 1973 TU' I t JUS o . --......--.-----... . . ,. ~.,)" ~ ~ It ---------.¡. , T 31 S TitS '. ~ MAP 10 o 6 MILES .,........-._ ~'.'.~ _4_-· "'-"_"~"""" ..'_',.,.............""'_."__""'~.~_."'I"'<>.._.."..J............-......._,,.....__.."'_ DEFINITIONS magnitude: a measure of energy released by an earthquake. The rating of a given earthquake is the logarithm of the maximum P wave amplitude recorded on a seismogram 100 kilometers (62 miles) from the epi- center. intensity: a subjective measure of the force of an earthquake at a particular place as determined by its effects on persons, structures, and earth materials. ground acceleration: a measurement of the intensity of ground motion that occurs as seismic waves pass beneath an area, commonly used as a factor in building design. Acceleration is normally expressed in2terms of gravitational force (g), where 1 g = 9.8 m/sec . seiche: an oscillation of the surface of a lake or landlocked sea that varies from a few minutes to several hours, due to an earthquake. -62- MODIFIED V.ERCALLI ¡;c:"U; ÇF v..'UHQtßKE n.'DI::'I":'IES If most of ~hese effects are obser...ed Then the intp''1sit:\· is Earthquake shaking not felt. But people may observe rnd= 9ina1 effec':!3 of large dlstan=e earthquakes without ident~fying these eff~ct~ as eart~uake .:~used. Among chprn trees, structures. ¡iquids. bodies of water sway slowly, or ~oors swing slowly. E~fect on p~ople:' Shsking felt ~y those at rest, especially if they are inè~ors, and by those on upper fleors. Effect en people: F~lt by most people indoors. Serna can est~ate durati~n of shaking. But many may not =ecagnize shaking of buiiding ~s ~aus~j by earth- quake; the shaking i~ like that caused by the passing of ligh':: t!:uck~. other effects: Hanging ,'ejects swing. Stuctural effects: windcw~ 0= do~~s rattle. wooden ~liB ~nd frames creak. Effect on ?Caple: Felt by everyon~ in- door3. Many est~,ate duration of shak- ing, but they still may no~ cecognize it as caused by ~n earthquake. The shak~ng is like tha~ CÐuseè ~y passing of heavy txûcks, t~o~gh soxeti~e~ instead people may feel the ser.sat~on 0: a j~lt, as if d h~avy ~all ~ad struck the ~alls. Other effects: Hanging ob:ects ~wing. Standing autos xock. crockery clashe~, dishes rattlE or glasses clinK. Stractural effects: DDOiS close. open or swing. ~indoNs rattle. Effect on people, Felt by everyone in- doors and by mOR': people outdoors. Man~ now estimate n:;t only táe dur¡,tion of tl.e shaking but also its direction and have no doubt as to its cause. Sleepers awak- ened. Other effects: Hanging objects swing. Shutters o~ pictures ~ove. Pendulum clocks stop, start, or change rate. Standing autos rock. crockery clasr.es. åishes rattle or glasses clink. Li~uids disturbed, some spilled. Small unstable . objë'ct8 disylaced or ups~t. Structural effects: w~ak plaster and Masonry D crack. Windows break. Doors close, open or swing. Effect on peoole: Felt by everyone. Many are frightened and run outdooxs. People walk unsteadily. Other effects, Snøll church or scheol bells ring. pictures thro~ off ~alls. kDicknacks and books off shelves. Di8h~s and glasses are brcken. Furni- ture movp.d or overturned. Trees, bushes shaken visiblYI or ~eard to rustle. Structural effects: Mason!:y D damageå: some cracks in Hasonry O. ,leak chi.'":\:'\eys break at roof line. plaster b=eaku loo~e: stones, tiles, cornices, unbraceå parapets and architectural ornaments fall. Con- crete ir.rigation ditches damaged. If most of th~se ~fip.c~. úre obser·J~d Then thp. i"'jt~n~1t., :s I E:fe=t on ?~o!'le, pl:ff1c'Üt to &1';and, ~hak~r.g noticed by ~uco ¿river5. Other eff~ct5: Wav~~ =n pondq, ~a~~= t~=btd vith mad. SAall slijes ~~~ cav- ing in along san~ 0= ~r~vel b~nks. ¡,arge bells =i",,,. Furni:ucp. "':;ro1<<::-.. Hanging objects q~ive=. Struc!:ural effec';;s. i'!a~onry r. he~vily dø.maçed, Masonry C òaJrúg(!¿ or ?ò!l.rtiail'· collap3es i~ some c::.s~s; So:ae {~alnage in Masonry A stu~cc a:-.d SC":li! rr¡asol1=Y walls fall. Chimneys, fdccory sta'=:~s. rnC:1'~- me~ts. towe~s, elevated ~a;"\k~ t".Jis t 01 fa~l. Frame houses :r..ov-e-Ö O;"¡ !ü'Jt¡d;;. t 'tcns if n?t bolted dow:;,: bo\.:se ~i:s:~~: ·";~.Lls thro\oln out. D~cayi:'\g ;>il1.:-.' ~:r:>ke~ :>~L ,'TII II !II :IV Effect or, peeple: G",~~ral =.~: ohl:. ?.::)ol~ thrown to gro~~d. o'::her eftect=: c~.-"r;g,.s H'. =1;)'. :;r cec11p- erature of springs a~d wells. :~;~~s ir wet g=o~~ and or. ~t~ep sl~p~s. Ste~~lnQ ~f autos affect~c. Bz~nches D~~~er. ==o~ trees. Struc~ural effects: ~~sonrï ~ ~~str~y~d. ~-tasonTY C ~€1a\tily :l3.~a·~ej, sc:n~~im~.5 \.j'i,,:l~ complete collapse. Y·:"43cn::j'.G is 5z!'i.,:;~=1~: dð~aged. G~ner31 3a~a0~ tc £c~~da~~o~~. Pra~e str~~~u=es, ~t ~~~ D0:t~¿, ~ti:t~ê off foundatio~3. Frar~5 c=ac\~¿. Pese~- voi=s se.:iously èf'1·:-zq.ej. L;fiåe':Cìr':;-"::I-j ?i?C9 broke~¡. :':': v Effect o::>n ?,,"ople: .r;.en'?r~l c;;>:Üc. other effects: con1'!pi..;uc:u'; ,==a.::ks :.n gro1..mã ~n areas of £.'C.'ft g:-ound, s~~d l.S ejected through ~oles and ?~l~ U~ int~ a small crater, i:ö:1:: J..:1 r.~udd"! ar~.~a3.. ....·üt:~= fountains ~xe :or~ed_ Structural effects. ~~st ma5nn=~ 3n~ frame structures destroy~d ~lung wit~ ~~e~r fO\.:I1dations. Some :"¡'~:l-bui:t WQ~-Jel1 5tr~=t- ures &nd bridges d~strcved. 3e~~c~s d~~age to d~~, dikes a~d ecb~n~~nts. Railr':>ads bent slightly. X' VI Effect on people: GEncrai canic. other effects: Large landslides. ,;ati'r thrcwn O~ banks of canais, ri~ers, lak~$, etc. sand and mud snif~ed hor:~~~tall: O~ beaches and flat la~ã. Struc~ural ef~ect~: ~ncral èestructi~n of buildings. Und~rqrcunã p~pel~~es cc~?letel¡ out of service. Ra~.lroé1å~ bent great~~·. XI Effect on people: ~npral panic. 0ther effec~s, S3~e as Ir.tensity X. str~ctur~l effec~s. ~dm~qe naarl¥ to~ai, the ultimate catasw:c?!~e. other effects: Lar~e lock massi'S displaced Index of sight and level èis~ur~ed. ObJects thrO\oln into air. X!! VII . Masonry ~ Good woruanship and mortar rein- !c~ced ~c Ies~st late~al forces. Maser:Ij' a cood \lOl~T,anshi;:: "nd ;:10ltO\r reln" :!'orced. ~asonry C Gvo~ wor~~3nshi~ ~nd mOl~ðr ~n¡e- inforced Mèlsor.ry D ?::C; '",oriottr.èlnsiap a:~d Ir.or:ar and weak u~~:riall like aò~~e -6-3- (a) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 7. FLORA AND FAUNA Setting: ïhe project site and the study area are located at the edge of the urban fimits. Currently, over 71 p~rcent of the area is not developed to urban use. Most of this is in alfa:fa farming or utilized as pasture land (see Existing Land Use Map). Vacant land occurs at various locations of the study area. As revealed from field trips, visible plant life in these areas are identified as mostly annual grasses and weeds. Except for some full grown trees in developed (residential) areas and in ranch- ettes located along White Lane, no other trees or prominant plant life is seen in the area. There are occasionally blackbirds, sparrows, rabbits, ground squirrels, quail, etc., seen feeding in or out of those vacant lands and alfalfa fields. No endangered wildlife or plant life was dis- covered in the area. Impact: If the proposed plan and recommended land use is implemented in the area, more trees and selected ground cover will be introduced into the area. For example, when vacant land is developed into a light industrial park, more trees, grasses, and various ground cover will be used to replace existing weeds or cover bare ground for lJndscaping and soil conservation purposes. If existing agricultural land is improved and developed into a golf course or recreational park, more trees and plant life will be located into the area. As a result of these improve- ments, a better habitat for small animals and birds is achievable. It may attract small animals and birds from elsewhere. The proposed project will displace the animal life presently existing in the area but not destroy any endangered species of plant or animal. Mitigation: None required. -64- (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT The discussion on Land Use (l) and Noise (3) are closely related since the identification of a noise impact boundary bears directly on the pro- posed change in Land Use designations to provide uses compatible to a higher and s\ightly reoriented noise sensitive environment. The re- sultant Land Use Plan is also directly related to Population and Housing impacts as presented in the Socioeconomics portion (Page 164). 1. LAND USE Setting: The existing airpark is situated on 103 acres bounded by Watts Drive on the North, Madison Avenue extended on the East, Planz Road on the South, and Union Avenue on the West. Sixty-one percent of the site is presently undeveloped. The aircraft operating area bisects the proper- ty diagonally and includes a single runway 30 feet wide and 3,200 feet long. Four aviation oriented businesses are located on or adjacent to the air- park in addition to two non-aviation activities. The aviation enter- prises operating at the airpark are C & B Flying Service, Garriott Crop Dusters, Valley Propeller Service, and Aircraft Services (including radio operations). Non-aviation activities on the airpark property consist of a restaurant/office complex and a miniature golf course. Various hangar locations and a fueling station is also located near the North end of the runway. A City drainage sump is located adjacent to the West part of the runway. Access to the airpark facilities is from Union Avenue and/or Watts Drive, near the intersection of these streets. The environmental setting around the project site can be described as a combination of urban and rural characteristics. The change rate to urban development apprears rather slow, based on a visual impression of the age of improvements. Most commercial and industrial activities within the two-square-mile study area are confined to either South Union Avenue for direct exposure and access or to the airpark site. The predominant form of business activity involves either trucking or heavy equipment (repair, construction, warehousing, petroleum and agricultural industries services), since South Union Avenue (or Business 99) provides direct linkages to major regional transportation routes (Freeway 99, Highways 58, 65, and 178). -65- Many of these activities require larger parcels for equipment or materials storage and are usually low labor intensive in terms of their land re- quirements. Other uses include auto wrecking, repair and servicing, a swap meet, motels and restaurants. Residential areas within one-half mile of the airport are located to the East between Madison Avenue and Cottonwood Road within several older sub- divisions in the unincorporated County (see existing Land Use Map). The area to the North (between Watts Drive and Casa Lorna Drive) is in mixed industrial and public use (school and park) and vacant land. The areas to the South are largely in temporary pasture and stables near the airport (along P1anz Road) to intensive agriculture South of White Lane. The following table provides a general distribution of current land use within the study area described on Map 6. TABLE 15 Current Land Use) Bakersfield Airpark Study Area) 1978 Land Use Acreage % Total Residential) Low Densitya 119.0 9.3 Commercial 30.0 2.3 Industrial 125.0 9.8 Agri cu 1turE', !nter¡<;ivE' 261.0 20.4 Agriculture, Extensive (pasture, mini-ranch) 37ù.0 30.0 Recreation (Park) 9.5 0.7 School 9.5 0.7 Streets and Roads 56.0 4.4 Utilities (major power transmission) 7.5 0.6 Canals 17.0 1.3 Vacant, undeveloped 275.5 21.5 Total 1,280.0 100.0 alnc1uding eight churches comprising nearly five areas. From City of Bakersfield Land Use Inventory, October 1978. Data includes both City and Kern County area South of the Kern River within the Bakersfield Metro- politan Area. -66- -- -..---..-.-..-......- ~._..._. -----..-.---- ..._._~ The data shows the nearly 72 percent of the area is either in agricultural or vacant (undeveloped) use. However, much of the extensive agricultural land is with~n presently subdivided larger lots in the Northeast part of the study area and therefore represents an early stage in the commitment of land to urban use. Two other physical features include a major P.G.&E. (Pacific Gas and Electric) transmission tower line (approximately 100 feet high) bisect- ing the area near Pacheco Road (from East to West) and two canal segments (the Central Branch Canal bisecting the Southwest area and the East Branch Canal generally surrounding the residential subdivided areas). The area South of the study area (and Pacheco Road) includes a large sub- division (Rexland Acres) containing approximately 220 acres with over 800 single-family housing units. Other small, scattered home development has occurred along White Lane and Cottonwood Road. Although all areas South of the airpark not developed are either in pasture or intensive (irrigated) agriculture, the present City (BMAGP) Land Use Element recommends Low Density Residential (2-5 units per gross acre) use to the Arvin-Edison Canal. Those areas withln unincorporated Kern County in the study area are designated for Urban Expansion on the Kern County Land Use Element. Areas South of Pacheco Road reflect the existing development (Rexland Acres), urban expansion and Intensive Agri- cluture (East of Cottonwood Road and South of Panama Lane) except for some Urban Expansion along South Union Avenue and Rural Residential for 320 acres South of Panama Lane and East of Cottonwood Road. At least one inconsistency exists between the BMAGP land Use Element and the Zone Plan for 20 acres North of White Lane (see Maps 11 and 12). -67- M-2 IM-c.. \\ II \..,.~'" "'+0 IH R-S .. .."E 0 \ \ II l' , . 1"'-0 t j' , , JR-' ,/ ...... ~(}~(f::t~:·> . Œ' .... C-2·0 'f"' í,r lß r, I~. ;.; ~ I I, , ...... - ':'" "7:: ~ I ;.' . ';j .. ,.. " ' II' ~ - ~ ~ I. &.: ~í I I~L..) __.-,-_J _. l· 4 I t"--.' "."·'-"'-,'~'~:"í.' 1& ~! .;.:. ";" . . . _ . _ ," ; oil ¡ Z.. Q:' r:~Lt;~4~;Å> ! ., ~! . J ¡<:,N::::::::/:ii L l:: ~ I ,t......... .Jr .. . ... ~ . . . . - . . . . . . " .' - J' C-2-0 ~ '".- I~ -' .', ,: ,q" ~~':, ",!¡ ~ a: ,I ,~:¡,-¡III ~ I~ 0)- ,:-~ ~ H ¡ g &:,~, J n ~~~: L~ ~:'I I~~L õ~:;'iill ~~ " 1 ~':'. .i~O a-t,rl Z : _ '. I ct" \0,/ ~,' "J" ~, ~'''b:~ i ~II ,B~L "·r·o - T - -, l·-·.... C-2 -0 R-4-B WH A')-D t '-<-0 A-I . "...e [CO . . ~ . BAKEISFIELD AIRPARK UPANSIOH (I It EXISTING CITY AND COUNTY ZONING R-3 P-D ~ ___ROO.. A-I ::-.. . ' . R-S BA...D'....... I v~~'--_ :.:_J l ~==_J '-11- ~-- -'" C2 .~I I; . I R- t......~.. .:.Q...... I....c,[ ~:!.. R- ... :> 11 .. 0 oJ .. I _L r I ~I ~ .. . R- R-' z R-I IH T... T 1, T" T ? a: C1 Q' .'), tL;j .) A-I 110"0 A MAP 11 o 1200 . FEET Â MAP 12 , Ç> 1200 , FEET .¢!~ ~.:~ _~.J 1___._65 ____.. 70J ' ; n--~J-" -- ','-- --., C-·..· ---'rX--- :, ,. J I 4 ~! . ~ '11 Tl 6 I ~ V .......... l ".' ,I n _I IC,,:-- - -;" _.__m'~. ....-, ~ '-. <1~ / ~ :'Ii:.:'fú9.~.~ ~-=Jf~___. ì [~~ :Jr". / I ; \ 1 : '" '-1l . ....::!J '/ 'I '{:'~L~.JJ' ~ :.: J~=~~h . ,;::/ : ~w>l :h;'" L. , L.2~~~'" ; Ë· f , ...~ .- - - --.:1 ' ¡ ,,~;¡ ': ~!1 // l"'· J.Y- ..0 60 ~I /f' f. irlL"'· .....( I ~, ~: :/(.'''' .' [J . t ". "J '.. "--:;: I' , , -;í;~lr 01,', .. ¡ r . j. /(,..'21 L ~ _ -..;J [ ,: I :,¿,C'. './->II~~" 'J ¡ It·" ~f ·-'r......'~ ~I , , :;'j\.'-.f [7;. .- ,/,/;,'\ ~~ ",' l .. ;; I _..~ ·i ~;n,~) '~'il ,'. ' r~~{~' ~<l ¡ ,"~~:.:~ · '" / I ,;,.) . \ ~::\ ~ ~,," 0...; , '~~ ) '. ~ ~ Ž', t \,<, ï: .. \' '¡;;(~;'\~I'M;;\ ~~.:;_:~::.~~/~. /~/~"I ..(.. \ t....' .--~, <t- .;/.... ~ ..;.. \ ' .:.] . ___ I ,. \ C' .., ,., \. "':' ,.... ..\. \ 0 \ r----' " f_:' ~'. v.~ "'H I.' ¡ q"-¡ -,\ ("'t" ~ ~.'," .:.' ==íf:; \ \ ~ ~:;r··..;j \'">:'#~~''''''' .<.". ~ji Cl,Q \ \ ';0 "I~.1I~ '~_~", \.\ '~;II?)'''''II Fi.30 ..-¡, .. - ~...(, __ _.. _ .._~-:...l.... ~ '" ,- '>'. ' 1r.'.o-·~, t·: y -: ': :- f l :,., I A':~Y ..;",,c;,'. >;\V" l ., :-':;~:,;': nm<o ¡ ~': .: '~~. ,,~ C 2.0 Û ;;,~,O~: , ¡ :::'::.::: _'.:,'_,":. ,t""t~..tJ /_1.;: ~:':>.:~.-:, - ~ - *f"'.'''4-( j I &... I. ~ 'f'" r "..... '1 r-- '-' , ., I~ ..J~ :~ I( ¡ , , ~ ''', I I - . J'~~}-; '~BI~;- ~ I ;;! I ~'I i: !~~:;~;:;":.:' INDUSTRIAL . _('C>( '>t. J H·\> :::w........ J ~2.:.:2.:; m:~:~{~¡~¡~~~j COMMERCIAL 1'- ................. "4.A - .'--- :"~ r::::::::?JLOW DENSITY t'.'[i ~.~~~ ::::ENTlAL . , :~ · , · t .....:':"j<.G.. S PACE P :J .'\'." ~,. '::.r ¡'~i~':; SCHOOL I'. \.,,~,\::H , . ~~~'J þ.J-t".-:.:.--.... ~ lJ U ~ I '':'.D :~_O C~EL. V~L~E !J11 I;~ Jl_".;,._~JL ~~;'D- J ,.- 'rrp2...:-" BAKERSfiElD AIRPARK EXPANSION E I R EXI·STING LAND USE PLAN AND FUTURE AIR- .. . N ISE CONTOUR PORT NOISE 1998 - . --- - ." ~-.... '''-,~,- . Impacts: Approximately 59 acres are proposed for acquisition to permit the reorientation and extension of the airport runway South of Planz Road and allow sufficient Open Space to White Lane. One home with accessory structures would require relocation because it lies within the proposed clear zone 'beyond the Southern end of the runway. The secondary impacts of the project are reflected in proposed changes to the BMAGP Land Use Element primarily within the two-square-mile study area but also in one area subject to potentially higher noise levels (65 dB(A) +) South of Pacheco Road. Changes would also be recommended to the Kern County Land Use Element for unincorporated County areal and to the Kern County Council of Governments (Kern COG) in the development of a Land Use Plan consistent with its responsibilities as the local Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Table 17 describes each area in the study area proposed for BMAGP Land Use Element amendment based on the mitigation proposed in the noise im- pact review (see Table 18) as it relates to land use noise compatibility recommended in the BMAGP Noise Element (see also Appendix A-4). The following (Table 16) provides a summation of the proposed net change represented in the Proposed Land Use Plan (Map 13) over the Existing Land Use Plan (Map 12). TABLE 16 Change Represented by Proposed Airpark Land Use Plan in Acreage Over the Existing Land Use Plan (BMAGP) Land .Use Current Acreage Proposed Acreage Difference Industrial 273.0 552.0 +279 Commercial 26.0 26.0 0 Residential 906.0 479.0 -427 Open Space 9.5 157.5 +148 Public 9.5 9.5 0 lIt cannot be assumed that County areas within the study area will even- tually become subject to the BMAGP Land Use Element either by annexation of those areas to the City or County recognition of the BMAGP Land Use Element in the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area. Currently the City has imposed a moratorium on annexations pending a revenue/cost study of City services. _ ___.=-r::.( : 60 _J ..- '-.'. . ..._-\: r - 10 l~~{?t: :~··/t/»))~ : twmt/ittm/tt\: I t' .., '~..,...... .. . ....,.......,.,....,... , , :~.IJ~ .............................~................. /, ~"'~'" ..., I ,..,..".~ .....,.,...11.,.,.,.,., 'I '.. ~.tl'0~i:~fi~;:;ª;f;~~¡~..~~¡~ i· I .,<:::o-:. :.:::~::f.::::::::ì:¡:~:I·::r:. }:::):I::::::::::lf::::;¡J~:::::::::: ~ j\~~f: ': '+If\~~ II<t~: t&I:I\i~) t?(~¡«(~~ ~ -' : ~>J .,'.,::: ;tv:t:. ::; ::;::::.:' \;:? '~{/J<:~.~::' «. c -, f ~¡;:;::'~ \:j:: «J¡::;:::: \:1:/·) }¡iY~}\ ',)/(: ,~: ~ ,......,,~: ..',. ,.m~ ·1·, ...,.,', .......,. ,.,...,~~~,...." f..'....... . , ,:::}~lfS;~:;:~/:::~/::l~1¡¡i1t~2~Jf!;EU]¡\ ,~- , , I I .;..:.°0 I I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡ J~;~ _~~ , I !I ,. , , ,. , ' LL I B~ PI r=.D 31! . ~( . r::~:::::(¡i MEDIUM DENSITY :;::::;:;::} RESIDENTIAL r:::::::::::::::::1 LOW DENSITY }«»: RESIDENTIAL ~'.,'l ~.t ~ ~.' 0 PEN ',<;,LC ACE ""..(; :"/ S p MAP 13 I -.'~, II 60 CNEL VALUE I. ~ ... - -. - - -.. . . I I . f. ". dAKERSFIElD AIRPARK EXPANSION [I R AND FUTURE AIR- P.ROPOSED LAND USE PLAN PORT NOISE 1998 · __ NOISE CONTOUR å o t TABLE 17 Proposed Land Use or Eventual Zoning Amendment, Acreage and Justification Based on Bakersfield Airpark Expansion, Airpark Study Area Areaa Acreage Proposed Amendment Justification 1 2 3 4 4a 5 5a 6 6a 6b 6c 28 38 57 19 19 66 5.8 20 19 8.5 20 7 8 79 R-S to R-l Zone R-S to R-l Zone Low Density Residential to Industrial Low Density Residential to Industrial Low Density Residential to Industrial Low Density Residential to Industrial Low Density Residential to Open Space 4 Low Density Kesiùentiai to Industrial Low Density Residential to Industrial Low Density Residential to Open Space Low Density Residential to Open Space A-l Zone to Commercial Zone Low Density Residential to Industrial Low Density Residential to Open Space Allowance for lower density housing to West influenced by 60-65 dB(A) noise. Same as Area 1. Compatibility with airpark noise. Expanded runway. Compatibility with airpark noise and consistency with existing zoning. Compatibility with airpark noise. Safety approach zone (airport layout plan). Master plan proposed easement acquisition for a portion of the area. c.orr,pati U·; 1 Hy ~~i HI .1; rpilrk noise. Same as above. Safety provision for approach zone. Same as above. Conformance with BMAGP Land Use Element. Compatibility with airpark noise. Safety provision for approach Zone and compatibility with airpark noise. aSee Map 5 for identification of each area. 9 114 -72- Table 17 (continued) Proposed Zoning, Acreage and Justification Bakersfield Airpark Area Acreage Proposed Amendment Justification 10 61 Low Density Residential Compatibility provided noise to Medium Density Resi- mitigation is applied in (RM Zoning) construction and design. lOa 18 Low Density Residential Same as Area 10. to Medium Density Resi- dential 11 5 Low Density Residential Same as Area lOa. to Medium Density Resi- dential / / -73- TABLE 18 Recommendeå Land Use Element (BMAGP) Amendments Based on Bak£rsfield Airpark Projected Noise Effect and BMAGP Noise Element Recommendations (Appendix A-4 Proposed Land Use or Zone Designation Existing Land Use Interval Proposed Airpark (in dB(A)) (CNEL) se Existing Airpark ( i n db (A) ) i No Present Designation a Area Zone b R-l Zoneb R-l Zone Industrial I ndu.,; cd a 1 Industrial Industrial Open Space Industrial Industrial Open Space Open Space Commerci a 1 Industrial Open Space ty ty ty urn De n s i dc:ntial urn Densi dential urn Densi dential f\1edi Resi ~1edi Resi ~1e d i Resi r~i n i-Ranch Mini-Ranch Vacant Horse Pasture Horse Pasture Mini-Ranch Mini-Ranch Horse Pasture ~,1 i n i - Ra n c h t'1ini-Ranch ~1i n i-Ranch Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture and two homes Agriculture and vacant Mini-Ranch and Swap Meet Mini-Ranch 55-65 60 60-75 to source to source 55-75 70 source approx. 60 55-65 65-70 to source 60-70 60-70 70-75 to 65 65 70 GO 55-ïO 55-75 65 to source 60-75 60-70 60-70 55-65 60-65 60-ô5 60-70 60-65 60-70 55-70 dential dential dential dential dential dential dential dential dential al al denti denti i i b R-S Zoneb R-S Zone Low Density Resi Low Density Resi Low Density Resi Low Density Resi Low Density Res i Low Density Resi Low Density Resi Low Density Resi Low Density Resi A-l Zone Low Densi Low Densi Res Res ty ty 1 (. 3 4 4a 5 5a 6 6a 6b 6c 7 8 9 I '-I .::- I 60-70 60 60-70 . approx 60 60 GO appro x . ty Residential al al i i dent dent i i ty Res ty Res Low Dens i Densi Densi Low I" l 10 lOa 11 aSee Map 5 for area identification bTechnically the R-S Zone in the County of Kern allows a minimum site (lot) area of 12,000 square feet or 2.5 units per gross acre. The R-l Zone allows 6,OOO-square-foot lots or 5 units consistent with the upper limits of thE Low Density Residential designation of the City The plan propqses a doubling of the present amount of industrial develop- ment possible under the present Land Use Plan, a seventeen-fold increase of Open Space and a 47 percent decrease in buildout residential uses. Industrial designations are proposed in high noise impact (60-70 dB(A)) areas. Medium Density Residential use is proposed in moderately high noise impact (60-65 dB(A)) areas where mitigation in the construction (insulation, other improvements) and design could reduce interior noise to acceptable levels (45 dB(A)). Open Space designations are used in the high risk and noise area immediately below the approach to the run- way. Such open space could be the continuation of agriculture or more likely, the integration of a recreational type of use (golf course, equestrian facilities, or athletic field) with the medium density resi- dential designations to the West and/or professionally oriented in- dustrial use (research and development) to the East. The 114 acres of proposed Open Space includes a high (lOO-foot P.G.&E. major electrical transmission tower line which could pose safety problems under adverse weather conditions, night time activities or pilot error (see Safety sèctior., Page 107). For this reaSQn, the proposed plan recommends the entire area between the South end of the runway and Pacheco Road to be used as usable open space. Allow- ing development in the vicinity of the tower line could tend to obscure the facility to incoming air traffic. -75- . --~ , ~ .. _.-----------.J ',,- .J___ f!' ,c-! --_ ' f¡ ;;OR LAND USE L SEE MAPS, 1f . '" ., '. "'i,. ~¡¡¡'I: ~ '\' "~' '"'" \ -~Jl·it'k!<_,. PROPOI~ED \~~:..~ , l(j·\...,\~,:1".;:- ~o_~, ì[_~I~, \ ......__. .~.~" , _'" , ~ 4' J . . .. .. . . . . . . . \- \ \ ...1.,," __ _,==r . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .~ :~mmmmm@" \ ; p.--~-.-I~:~rrttrrt , ,--'~- -\-1' ',: bi~~~~~~~?F¡ \ ß'i~' , ::::::d0\::::::;: ;tV \ ~:r..:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.: c; \ 'n .... ./ ... ... ... . . \ ... ð~, I II! I\/\:r~~ré r {'" I," . . . . . . "I . . . \ \ 'Ni---- -. ¡r'1Fír-{- #¥#if ,\ \ '[ 'i"t~ J Jì@ff~ ,~ " ,'g ~::~~:;:;::: I I' ~; ............~.. \ 75 ' '-<, .;--'......~ ~-I:::~t¡¡¡¡¡¡!¡¡¡¡¡¡¡:¡~¡¡¡¡i \ - [' . lit; ¡v \~-,.S~- J¡j!]' \ I \ Ii . r' ,---,--- -- "':::':':':'::::;:::;:;::::: \11 Mitigation: As indicated earlier, the proposed Land Use Plan is a mitigation response to the additional noise impacts expected from full project development to 1998 and beyond. However, the plan it- . self presents certain secondary impacts discussed in various other portions of this Chapter which need to be addressed to determine if mitigation is feasible or appropriate. These impacts are associated with the proposed increase in industrial development inherent in the plan. Because of the lack of access to railroad facilities and the close proximity to existing residents, areas designated for industrial uses should be zoned for Light Manufacturing (M-l) uses. This would decrease the potential for adverse impacts to existing or future resi- dents. General Manufacturing (M-2) zoning would allow more uses with the potential for greater impacts. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) document entitled "Airport Land Use and Height Recommendations" addresses compatible industrial uses in the following manner. "Industrial uses are acceptable except for those that produce smoke, electronic interference, or display misleading lights. Sound conditioning of structures may be necessary to reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels for internal operations. Some industries cannot be located near airports because noise and vibrations interfere with delicate instruments. II The City Zoning Ordinance outlines permitted uses under manufacturing zones (M-l and M-2). M-2 uses include more uses that produce visible emissions that could affect pilot judgment upon approach or departure phases of flight. Architectural design zones should be applied to allow regulation of height, towers, stacks, and colors for pilot and non-user safety. Landscaping, signs, and setbacks should be re- viewed to blend industrial uses with adjacent open space and resi- dential development. -]8- ,500 36t600 AVE . Cas a . 9,400 ,^O eN> L/') --0 LO IX 0 0 ""1·0 fH 0 0 0 . ~"E N 2,000 2.1% 0\0 --0 0 0 "',1,0 0 ... 0 N") "'·1-0 :e-I ~:"rH ':)'t """---- .., ft., ................. ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........-........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... ........-........... ;;~¡~80'~;i~¡~ 1::,',1 )tf@HU,HNf~ r: "'H . ::~:::::::~:::·::::..:::tH..i*-K:: AVtt:( 6,200.1 I C·2·0 L~ R-I 5,800 14,300 ... I R.1 : _ 1 R.I 7,200 (, 6,000 , Dr. I' 15,200 2,300 - 1.8%- . 5 800 - 2% "d \ J 100 lIS 0 tiP ~ ~~ 1 000 I' -0 , . o~ I~N'''~_. \D -0 0 0 0 0 0 a- : I.."..; ~..AN 0 ¡-... ... "0 ~c: - 0: - 0 L,....vo;J oq< ... ~ ~ . 820 6.2% Watts Dr.' 5,000 , eN> ~ c\<> --0 0 0 0 0 C"1 0 ¡-... r--. C,2,O p " 0\0 ¡, ' I.D L 0\0 ~--. 'Û M .1-0 I t- I Q) of. 0 ~'~I 0.' O·'·D ) ot¿:t 0 . : ~~ ,~: f:'.,."'" 0 ool~ = ~ r-i ~, \\ I ~ :::...I~· c- ~ PROPOSED RUNWAY ~ '", · \l 1,150 -8% 8,900-8% L 2,200 w > '" ¡-"'I~ ø B .... ~ .. o -' ~rl P1anz 1500-7% 3,700 - 7% ~ ... .. ... , ~ , '" ) u . } ¥ ~ 1 "! '" 220 100 ~ " a: a: ... o 0 T Z '\ 0. .., I o RROO~ --==~=g ...... ~ l C-2 -D 630 8.7% White Lane 4,000 - 8% o\of.f 1.Dl;, , 800 1 ,200 (2,900) {2,900J = YEAR 1980 ADT VALUES: 'J :- o\Q = YEAR 2000 ADT VALUES; --0 ADT = Average Daily Traffic % = Percent Truck Traffic IHJHfxf>jJfU Road Closure Required --- Proposed Road o 0' o 0'3-D (J) 0 r-i 0... 0' <::--.I MH 4,500 7.2% 1500-8% Y270 7700 - 7r¿ 3,60 E I R CURRENT AND PROPOSED UNDER EXISTING AND PRO- POSED LAND USE PLANS ~I 3 000 "·z-o 6 400 000 BAKERSFIELD AIIPAI. UPANSION TRAFFIC GENERATION 00: "d' 0' o ~ ~ o dP +J I' +J, o 00 CJ 1 0\<> \)Q o o L.n MAP o . FEET (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 2. CIRCULATION Setting: Tr~ffic circulation within the two-square mile study area is based on major arterials spaced at 1-1/2 mile intervals with major collectors (or secondary arterials)l generally at one-half mile intervals. Local streets feed into the arterial/collector system at appropriate intervals (see Map 15). South Union Avenue and Cottonwood Road are the two North-South oriented major arterials while Casa Lorna Drive (an extension of Ming Avenue~ Easterly) and White Lane are the two East- West oriented major arterials. The major collectors are Watts Drive, Planz Road, Pacheco Road and Madison Avenue (the only North-South major collector in the study area). Since South Union Avenue (or Business 99) is a major connection to the downtown area, other major arterials and freeways (Highways 58 and 178) and to Oildale it currently accommodates the bulk of traffic passing through the area. On the basis of present Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts for each one-quarter mile segment of the system~ South Union Avenue serves 70.6 percent of the total traffic volume. 1980 ADT (Map 15) was estimated by direct assignment methods for plan area traffic generation with adjustments for through traffir. based on 1980 CALTRANS model pro- jections and hand fitting. The McKittrick Branch of the Southern Pacific Railroad touches the extreme Northwest corner of the Study Area requiring crossings both on South Union Avenue and Casa Lorna Drive. lThe difference in classification relates to the difference in nomen- clature used by the City (major collectors) and County (secondary arterials). The design standards and purposes of streets within these classifications appear to be the same. -80- Impacts: The project includes a proposal to close 900 feet of Planz Road (a major collector) between Madison Avenue and Union Avenue in order to extend the Airpark Runway. In order to mitigate the adverse effect of thi~ action (currently 1800 ADT served), a future connection is proposed from the Planz Road termination South to an angular con- nection with White Lane. Beneficial impacts are foreseen in this pro- posal by providing access to future Airpark industrial sites. The Master Plan Study2 indicates this improvement to be funded largely (up to 90 percent) from the FAA Grant Application. The intersection connection to White Lane will need to be redesigned for a right angle intersection rather than the proposed angle, dictated by the Central Branch Kern Island Canal in order to provide better turning movement and visability. The proJ2ct also proposes a new Madison Avenue connection from Watts Drive to Planz Road, improvement to the existing Madison Avenue from Planz Road to Brook Street and a Southward extension of Madison Street to Hhite Lane (see Airport Layout Plan). None of the Madison Street improvements are included in the project costs; rather, the Master Plan recommends that the City (or City and County) and/or project private development (FBO's, Executive Lease Sites) and adjacent development to the East fund these improvements3 as a consequence of the public funding expended on the Runway improvement. The project directly is expected to generate approximately 6,500 ADT over the present 17,000 ADT estimated from current development. The existing and proposed road system improvements appear adequate to accommodate the project. 2Bakersfièld Airpark Master Plan Study by R. Dixon Speas (July 1980) prepared for the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern. 3However, as later analysis of the proposed Land Use Plan will in- dicate, the Madison Street improvement is more important in mitigating the adverse effect of Planz Road closure than the proposed Planz Road to White Lane connection. -81- -----.-.-."..-..--. ....._-~ '-'~""" However, as a result of the proposed Land Use Plan as a mitigation to the project, additional improvements may be necessary over time in main- taining the present level of service. The City Public Works Department projected year 2000 ADT volumes (Map 15) based on ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) generation values for an estimated 37,000 additional trips (project and plan generation) over the estimated 17,000 trips gene- rated by existing development. The ITE data employed projected land use change and phasing over the next 20-year period. This represented 70 percent of ultimate or saturation development if it were to proceed ac- cording to the proposed Land Use Plan. While considerable traffic will be attracted to Madison Street as a re- sult of the activities proposed in the Layout Plan, the analysis also indicates significant generation from existing and proposed residential development directly East of the project. This is attributed to resi- dents seeking the shortest route to South Union Avenue and destinations North and West of the Study Area. The Planz Road to White Lane connection would have little value for present residents in the Crystal Heights sub- division attempting to travel North on South Union Avenue. Full Madison Street improvement would be of greater benefit in allowing motorists to reach Watts Drive or Casa Lorna Drive with connection to South Union Avenue. Greater consideration may be needed in assessing the range of Leneficiar~es in a M~di~)n St~eet improvrment ir crde~ to ~nrp rrfc~sRly determine who should pay for that particular project. Mitigation: As indicated above, the project surface transportation mitigation is confined to the Planz Road-White Lane connection as a direct consequence of the expanded runway. The Master Plan envisions full Madison Street improvement (including 3/4 mile of new right-of- way and construction) to be financed primarily by private develop- ment. Certain questions may be forthcoming as to whether some FAA Grant Funding should also apply to the Madison Street improvement since it appears to present a more direct benefit to present resi- dents rather than relying on the uncertain timing of Airport-related private investment (discretionary improvements) to finance access to the Eastern portion of the Airpark. -82- The proposed Land Use Plan will require an amendment to the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Circulation Element designating Wilson Road/Louise Avenue from South Chester Avenue to South Union Avenue as a major collectpr link thereby providing a continuous Wilson Road/Watts Drive facility. This action would enable a small discontinuity to be constructed as development occurs and for any other necessary right-of- way expansions and road development in the area. This connection would be needed after 1990. Projected ADT (year 2000) indicates consideration should be given to expanding South Union Avenue to six lanes North of Casa Loma Drive. , Since a considerable amount of the increased South Union ADT for year 2000 will occur from increased regional (through) traffic, its improve- ment cannot be directly assessed to the Plan. The entire Study Area road system will require upgrading although some year 2000 ADT figures may not justify specific improvements. The project and plan are important catalysts for the Southeast area and in the evolution toward a full urban community at some point after the year 2000. -83- (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 3. NOISE Setting: The description of the present noise environment involves two items; (1) the identification of ambient noise within the study area, and (2) the defi'nition of existing noise impacts presentc:,j by current airport operations and the population affected by aircraft (1)¡se. . . The first item, identifying the existing noise climate, was approached through a monitoring procedure at seven locations at representative times throughout the daytime hours. Since only daytime readings were taken, the findings do not represent a noise climate situation normally based on a 24-hour day. However, they do provide a basic relationship between noise production by location and land use. The following table describes median noise levels associates with seven locations (see Map 16) in the Airpark Study Area: TABLE 19 Median N:lse Values, Bakersfield Airpark Area, Typical Weekday - Daytime Hours (In Decibels - A Weighted Scale) Location IJse Ea r 1 y Late Ea r 1 y Late Average A.M. A.M. P.M. 1:'. :.1. l. Casa Loma Park Recreation 53 50 52 51 52 2. Highway 204 Comm 11 /Ind. 66 66 65 70 67 3. Watts/Lotus Resid/Commll 52 58 53 59 56 4. PlanzjCottonwood Resid/Vacant 58 55 -- 60 58 5. Pl anz/r~adi son Open/Airport 50 49 50 61 53 6. vi,hi te Lane Agriculture 54 55 52 56 54 7. Pacheco Road Agriculture 50 54 51 55 53 lOaytime Hours: Early A.M. -- 8:24 - 9:44; Late A.M. -- 10:34 - 11:49; Early P.M. -- 12:03 - 1 :42; Late P.M. -- 4:00 - 5:27 SOURCE: Monitoring conducted May 22-23, 1980 under fair weather conditions, some gusty winds (City Planning Department). -84- ~ 'J "~.R"'§J"'~.: . - 1- '/c~ - '::;~: .~';I~~/ :> ¡_.Jo",......, . _,0 ~c.:....::;-" _, t,',¡t <.A:>A ¡I :; '/,"'i. L' '~R~V( IUr : ~1;~'ON.J~~JbJ~ 'I \\:C.JRT,-S]~_~ Z F J - .---'~-l ': 50uf"t,C:"Ií. ~~:ë L,,=)'~ :- ~ f._o..,. ... _ ~, c-:; '~~ ~;'l~~rr:1flL~"PBT .AN£ \ (' A" :2 C U lJ D~ ,\\{<'O.; /~ 'T""U" ~ q l"lí --> ÆOd_l.vv~·~ [2J ~ ~~.,~ ~)f:~~.~ ' ..2' - ~7'" :~. L ~~! t r ~> ~~~ ~z;.~.~~., ~e~~~~~ /·...~rfZ'/ .'<; ~....£,. ..~~ :(0//"; \. _ - / í" /' 0 . '~<~ i": / :j'//¡', .,';~ ' ' ~ /( ~~ A It. I <F"'~" úR, l,IH TIL~fr=-;;__\'. ===-.- --- .::J b..n~ AV '''l.I~''''' - ----, ~ ()~- .".. I ý\ ~ ~_I ~ J"I~ R~D ~___~ ~ Þ- ,. ,.... ...........'.. ·"JI~~ ~,<::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: It~ ~ :::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .~:C?_ ~ C 2 R~ :..:i~~liiijii:'r:Gl~: ¡:~~ ~I u >~'O " '~0o/0~r;1~jfŠ\ ~ "_.~ '" ¡~õr~f/~r; R-I .0 ar ~ II: I .. I~ ~w J~ _ ~ _ ~ ¡~,.c.:"'.~"\'1:":..~ ~; ~ ~ ~ )ol"¡"¡:'OO¡' :-:. " 0 .'l:l..D4;¡~'. .. '.: . R·) ":)i ---:-' J ¡>::)?{)\: '-" _ J ,........... .., ~ LO..... H .. ---·~AIVE I; 11r-:i~, :@~~tr· . w 1:' ~~~: ::!m'mt!~ L'\ ~ ... ~ ':.:: ..:-:-:.... .:....-...... .I ~ I "'-', "._ """ . ~ ' '1 ,~ -, - ~ '- '. f/' r-- 11-, \\ . \ M-'-D a: a \ fn ! "i. "00;) l~- ~ I! I . .IL I :>RI.r ~I ßJ iJ 3 Ie A ',,,<0 :. I C."!>A G" A...., " ¡ I<Q.. J~" A... R ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~t..rr.s ....C'£ "OA '. M+O .... 0.. ~A v . ]..., R..t I ] ... :r '., .Ln,,""1 "VE '~,' J ::::-:..: .....4 ... IT ., "" II a: ~ .J I~õ r- õ Ð .., .,..,.. ,:1-, ',"'j« ~ too r--- ~ ¡ ¡ n¡ ¡1 :.-..,,;. ': ~. ;.'FL,nt ¡ R-I ~R-I ~ i II ~ ! :I¡¡ ~ I@¡¡ CT ~v¡ ! fJAN~V . ~.~ a" U v I'~: 8R_,.oANK :;:1 ¡. ¡' . ¡R-' % I. ~ ~ ....,:; uJ'\ ::> M.I-D ~. "" ~"., \ ~r Â6 ~ - " f C-2·' ~ ~ R·I ... :;) ~ ~ I/o L15 ROAO oJ ~ .4~ ¡ , ~ wn "' zl.' " f ~ ~I ~. : z ~ ~ I~· o ,.r> ..,.. <1 I~ ~.. - ~ "'~... ~ jJ~~L-J¿ ! J r ,..t=:::......~: I"!~O~~-=~::.~;;a I PLANZ -, ROAD 1 l....E WH " R-3-0 . . '. PAC "ECO . "" ~A7 RO"O _.:] 11-1-0- I ~Il"'" 1!"'-oj~·1t R·2-0 ¡~R Z 01 - . NOIS'E MONITORING LOCATIONS l AMBIENT NOISE -~ À Q ..... , , BAKERSfiELD AIRPARK nPANUON E I R MAP 16 1200 FEET ~ From the preceding table it is obvious that locations near urban major arterials (Highway 204 and Cottonwood Road) generate higher traffic volumes, including a higher percentage of truck movement, contributing to higher noise effects. These highway noise impacts need to be con- , sidered in terms of appropriate land use in the same context (see Noise Element Standards and Compatible Uses, Page ) as aircraft noise. As also expected, those locations associated with Open Space (1, 5,6 and 7) also had the lowest median ambient noise values. Higher values were also recorded in the late afternoon at all sites, except the Casa Loma Park, indicative of greater traffic movements at the end of the workday. As also expected, the higher single event noise readings were from motorized transportation -- either automobiles, trucks, busses, motorcycles, air- craft, helicopters or trains. The readings show daytime ambient noise levels in the high 50's associated with urban residential use and low 50's within agricultural areas along major roads. The second item necessary to identify the noise environment is to describe the noise produced by current aircraft operations. The expression of noise impact is provided by noise contours ranging from 60 to 75 deci- bels (dB(A)l). Map 6 identifies both noise effects produced by current operations on the existing runway and the existing land use affected by ~hi3 no~?e. Ps :able 20 i~cticates, ~h~ prp$~r.t Airpark a~tivities pro- duce noise capable of affecting the residential environment of over 24,000 persons or over 12 percent of the 1977 population of the Bakers- . field area. lOecibel is a unit for describing the amplitude of sound. The doubling of power will increase reception by 3 decibels. The A - weighted scale corresponds most closely to the sensitivity characteristics of the human ear. -86- TABLE 20 Total Population and Housing Units Affected by Current and Future Noise Produced by Bakersfield Airpark Activities Noise Intervals in dB(A CNEL 60-65 65-70 70-75 Total Noise Effect 60 dB+ H.U. Pop. H.U. -Pop. H.U. Pop. Housi ng Units Population - - - Existing (1980 operations, (a) present ru~way 68 198 61 200 38 127 167 525 Study Area Metro Area, 7,475 1 9, 031 1,800 4,583 21 53 9,296 23,667 N&W2 South Area3 13 39 7 21 20 60 - - - TOTALS 7,556 19,268 1 , 868 4,804 59 180 9,483 24,252 (b) future runway, Current Land Use Study Area 95 310 46 145 15 45 156 500 Metro Area 7,650 19,505 1 ,924 4,905 15 40 9,589 24,450 South Area 247 775 8 25 0 0 255 800 - - - TOTALS 7,992 20,590 1 ,978 5,075 30 85 10,000 25,750 2. Future (1998) operations, (a) future runway, Current Land Use (no growth assumption) Study Area 100 331 66 211 15 46 181 588 Metro Area 7,725 19,688 2,020 5, 143 34 86 9,779 24,897 South Area 458 1 ,440 15 47 473 1,487 - - - - TOTALS 8,283 21,439 2,101 5,401 49 132 10,433 26,972 (b future runway, Existing Land Use Plan Study Area4 2,630 6,770 650 1 ,790 70 195 3,350 8,755 Metro Area 7,725 19,670 2,020 5,140 35 90 9,780 24,905 South Area 1,955 5,110 230 600 2,185 5,710 - - - - - TOTALS 12.310 31.550 2.900 7.530 05 285 15.315 39,365 ".. I CX) ""-J I Table 20 continued Noise Intervals in dB(A CNEL 60-65 65-70 70-75 Total Noise Effect 60 dB+ H.U Pop. H.U. Pop. H.U Pop Housing Units Population ~(c~ Future Runway, Proposed Land Use Plan --------------- . , Study Area4 820 1,875 40 150 20 150 880 2,030 Metro Area 7,7255 19,6705 2,020 5,140 35 90 9,7805 24,9005 South Area 1,805 4,715 15 45 1,825 4,765 TOTALS 10,350 24,385 2,075 5,290 55 140 12,480 31 ,690 SOURCES: Draft Noise Analysis (April 19HO), PRC Speas for City of Bakersfield and County of Kern; Special Census, Kern County (July 1977) 1Two square mile area bounded by South Union Avenue (West), Casa Lorna Drive (North), Cottonwood Road (East), and Pacheco Road (South). 2Not including Rosedale. The flight path prepared by computer model (Speas) assumed a continuous one directional flight after an initial left turn after takeoff. This assumption becomes less reliable farther from the Airpark since individual paths would tend to vary depending on destination and the desire to avoid residential areas. 30efined as that area covered within the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (BMAGP) located South of study area (Pacheco Road). 4It was assumed that the present virtually fully developed character of this area would not change over the plan period; therefore, the current data is projected to future years. SA significant portion of these figures represents present urban use (30%). The reduction over 2 b., above, is due to proposed Open Space or Industrial use. The balance of future residential designated area falling within the 60-65 dB (A) interval would be acceptable to State CNEL standards (Title 21 Administrative Code) and mitigation outlined in City and County Noise Elements ~ ~ The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL),2 and average A - weighted (human ear response) sound level for a 24-hour day, is used in California and is acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for noise level description. Since much of the 24,000 + popu1ation currently experiencing airpark-generated noise involves the existing, nearly fully developed portion of the urban community (estimated 23,667 population in 1977), it was assumed that the character and population of this portion of the community wou1d not be altered over the p1anning period (to 1998). As shown in the following Impacts Section, the growth (and change) potential involves both the study area and the land area further to the South (see Map 14). ) As the Table also shows, the majority of present permanent popu1ation affected by airpark noise is that inf1uenced by the lowest (60 to 65 dB(A» CNEL level. Nearly 5,000 persons are subject to higher (65 dB(A) or greater) noise 1evels. Since the character of CNEL (24-hour day) noise descriptions is inf1uenced strong1y by single events (SEL) occurring over a brief duration (20-40 seconds), the Kern County Noise Element,3 State CNEL Standards4 and Land Use Compatibility recommendations in the State Noise Element Guidelines al10w for deviations above the 60 dB(A) leve1.5 2For a description of both the characteristics of aircraft noise including definitions, and the application of data and the methodology used to determine noise information on the Airpark's current and future ~ctiv¡ties (proposed) see Appendix C (a separate document). 3The Noise Level Standard for sensitive Land Use includes single~family residential, detached, units at 50 dB(A) under the L50 sca1e (a median noise value where 50 dB(A) is exceeded 50% of the time) with SEL permitted up to 15 dB(A} or a maximum of 65 dB(A). The L50 is roughly equivalent to a 60 dB(A) CNEL or Ldn (Average Day-Night weighted values similar to CNEL-- as used in the City Noise Element). . 4Title 21 of the Administrative Code requires that 10cal agencies provide assurance that the popu1ation is not affected by noise greater than 65 dB(A) CNEL by January 1, 1986. The present and future exposure above this 1evel is addressed in the Mitigation portion of this Section. 5Deviation above 60 dB(A) is t01erable on a conditional basis only for Low Density Sing1e Family, Dup1ex and Mobi1ehomes after an analysis of noise reduction in the design of new units. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply, wil1 norma11y suffice (Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan, Office of NoiseContr01, State Health Department, February, 1976). -89- The City of Bakersfield Noise Element (Page 4) also recommends the use of building sound insulation techniques as appropriate mitigation. Impacts: The proposed project will increase the number of homes and popu- lation subject to airpark activity noise by approximately 62 percent based , on full development according to the existing Land Use Plan (see Item 1 b., Table 20 ). This represents an increase of over 15,000 additional persons that will be affected by higher noise. As the City Noise Element recommends (Page 4), the noise impacts of important projects should be minimized through the land use planning process. Although the projected size of the noise impact area, as determined by the consultant6 would increase only slightly from 11.0 square miles (in 1980) to 12.66 square miles (in 1998) (15%), the greatest impact (or an increase of 12,400 persons) would be realized in the development of additional housing for future residents both within the Study Area and the area South of the study area (South of Pacheco Road to the Arvin-Edison Canal). The additional noise impact zone South of the Arvin-Edison Canal is outside the BMAGP Land Use Element and is within Intensive Agriculture and Rural Residentia17 designations on the existing Kern County Land Use Element.8 The reorientation of the runway, as proposed in the project, would add another 2,720 persons (within the 15,000 + increase) subject to airport noise without Turther residentlal construction and occup~ncy since the southern approach zone would cover the eastern portion of the Rexland Acres Subdivision (see Map 14). This, therefore, is viewed as the most direct noise impact of the project since it involves present population. 6 FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM), Version 2.7. 7Approximately 60 housing units may be allowed on the approximately 230 acres of Intensive Agriculture (minimum parcel 20 acres) and 120 acres of Rural Residential use (minimum parcel 2-1/2 acres). 8The County of Kern is currently revising its Land Use Plan, Open Space and Conservation Elements. -90- In response to the effect of the proposed project on future residents, the City staff has prepared a proposed land Use P1an indicating areas of amendment in order to permit activities compatible to the CNEl noise values projected for airport operations. As the discussion in the land Use section indicates, the form of the proposed changed designations include the remova1 of low Density Re- sidential use (42] acres) to be replaced by Industrial (279 acres) and Open Space (148 acres) designations. The effect of the proposed land Use Plan, as a mitigation for potential line source (aircraft flight path) adverse noise, is to introduce employment generating activities -- which are capab1e of pro- ducing their own point and line noise sources depending on the type of indust- rial use and the traffic (inc1uding trucks) generated. The net change in the land Use P1an in terms of potential noise production, wou1d be a redistribution of the urban noise impact. Surface transportation noise resu1ting from de- ve10pment of the proposed land Use P1an is not expected to adversely effect a significant number of existing residents.1 Mitigation: Severa1 forms of mitigation are possible in order to reduce the potential noise effects of the project. These alternatives include the pre- paration of a noise compati51e 1and use plan, the control of daily operations and the introduction of quieter aircraft operations through new engine and propeller modification. A summary of the impacts is provided at the end of this part in order to identify the differences among alternatives including an attempt to assess future fisca1 implications. 1. Proposed land Use Plan: As indicated, the proposed land Use Plan is a mitigation tool itself to reduce the potential adverse effect of airpark operational noise. Tab1e18 indicates the proposed land use element changes based on the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area Gene ra I P I an No i se Element recommendat i ons (~ee Append i x A-4). By including both the two-square-mile study area and the area South of Pacheco Road in the proposed amendment area, the potentia1 wou1d be achieved in reducing the ultimate population exposed to airpark noise activity by 7,675 persons (see Tab1e 20, Condition 2 b., minus Condition 2 c.). 1From the results of estimated current and project ADT (average daily traffic) ..nd truck mix (see map 15) as imput to FHWA Highway Traffic Prediction noise mode1 provided by the Kern County Environmental Hea1th Department (see appendix A-4) -91- The State recognizes the level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport at 65 dB(A) (CNEL). This is based on the assumption that normal construction will mitigate 20 dB(A) thereby allowing the interior noise standard of 45 dB(A) to be achieved.ll The City Noise Element also recognizes the use of building sound insulation as an appropriate miti- gation. The only undeveloped site in the Study Area proposed for continued residential use within the 60-65 dB(A) is existing MH (Mobilehome) Zoned property (61 acres) lo- cated between White Lane and Pacheco Road, West of the Central Branch Kern Island Canal. The plan recommends that permanent multiple family housing replace any con- sideration of mobilehomes which cannot be as effectively mitigated for noise impact at this site. 2. Control of Daily Operations: This form of mitigation in- cludes two options -- limiting agricultural operations to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) and permission of general aviation actlvities only (i.e., elimination of agricultural flights). Any limitations on agricultural activities suggested in this discussion are intended only to provide information to decisionmakers consistent with the intent and purpose of the California Environ- mental Quality Act. llSee Appendix A-5, Section 5014 (h) excerpted from Title 21, California Administrative Code. -93- By restricting agricultural flights to day hour oper- ations (Alternative B), the multiplier factor of 10 ap- plied to estimated CNEL noise levels is eliminated since other daytime ambient noise will have increased thereby decreasing the pronounced effect of aircraft operational noise. . As indicated in Table 21 this action would dramati- cally decrease the noise impact boundary from 12.66 square miles12 to 1.39 square miles which also considerably de- creases the current resident population influenced by air- craft noise from 26,972 to 1,045 -- a decrease of 25,927 population (see Table 22). Furthermore, the population subject to 65 dB(A) or greater -- the noise level which is more difficult to mitigate through normal construction -- is reduced from 5,533 to 35. The ultimate buildout popu- lation, as projected under the current Land Use Plan, that may become subjected to the noise impact of the project is reduced from 39,365 to 3,590. The influence of higher noise (65 dB(A) or greater) is more dramatically projected from 7,815 to 155 persons. The second control measure option (Alternative C, Tables 21 and 22, and Map 18) totally restricts airport activities to general aviation purposes. This would eliminate agricultural baser' op~""'?'-J:inn~ -From the Bakersfield Airpark -'- an option that would decrease the current employment base of the airpark. This alternative, however, provides the most dramatic current and projected future reduction in pro- ject generated noise influence. It reduces the present population that may be affected from 26,972 to 225 -- an almost insignificant level (only 5 present and future residents would be subject to 65 dB(A) noise). The area South of the study area would be totally unaffected by the project under this alternative -- both under current and projected land use conditions. 12The actual noise effect boundary for 1980 operations is 11.0 square miles. Information on 1998 General Aviation/Day Agricultural Operations is not available for direct comparison. See Map 17 for an indication of the potential noise impact boundary under this control option. -94- TABLE 21 Noise Impact Boundariesa as Determined Under Severa1 A1ternative Conditions or Options, Bakersfieid Airpark Expansion A I ternat i ve Condition Noise Impact Boundaries (square mi 1es) CNEL 65 + CNEL 60 + (see Maps 17 -20) A. 1998 Genera1 Aviation and Agricultura1 Operations (Existing and Proposed Land Use Plans) 2.52 12.66 B. Operational Controls 1980 General Aviation and Day Hour Agricultural Operations 0.28 1.39 C. 1980 General Aviation Operations only 0.12 0.65 D. Aircraft/Component Modi- Hcat ion 1998 General Aviation and Agricu·ltL.raì OpE:latiolls wit(. Quiet and Future Aircraft 0.30 1.44 E. 1998 General Aviation Operations only with Quiet Future Aircraft 0.26 0.88 aFor A1ternative A boundaries see Maps 12 and 13; CNEL 65 p1us boundaries are described in Appendix C (See Page 8, 11-16 for the several conditions-- Alternative A is Figure 6, Alternative B is Figure 4, Alternative C is Figure 5, Alternative D is Figure 7, and Alternative E is Figure 8,) For a visual identi- fication of the noise impact boundaries for A1ternatives B through E, see following Maps 17-20. SOURCE: Noise Analysis by PRC Speas (Los Angeles}, Apri1 1980 See Appendix C, under separate cover. -95- -"it I II "JL ..JI II ./:: II Ii I! ~-~'1 rn~. '-, J 1. ~! 11 I II Z. ~." R l·· I: ~--.J¡.-1 L--.....t':1. . ~-~-". ' "~__a'. I I __ _ ~ ::3C~"~r~1 ~~[~fÂI ,51:dWL.lJLJL).u.. . I!UJilJ~]/'~' 'L . 0·~1 -' r)ì L I II' ¡:iC Ì'-, lL-_;q M'T 11 ""i~.;;~' ,~- ,- (}:::::::: :::::-:.~,~., I~ ILJ 7' : r -Jr' I U ~ ;..0 [ 11;' .,~~~ . ......:...~.:.::':.. :-:y:: : ::::::;: .': ". ~ "Þ= " ' .( ~tl ~ -I I -.=- ''':::..: ~,':.:.,,) : )::-,..-) ~....:~:~:; ': ./ ~.. "'\- t--....: ~'¿ ~ -=j' -:- . ~J ....;t :í'l::'\}\ \\ ·:{~::\\~t\\, ~ ,-'",,; ~ " It}·~, :. J - , ~. :,~,,~·t;~\~\~ ;\\;J1;'::~~;~~~;;\~;i~~;;~~:i~i;i\\~\;~~;\\\\\;~' tIft? ; I ~\~ f'" I, . " Î ~'~ N ...'...: .....:.:-:-.......:. .......:.;.:........:.:.:.... .:.:............:....... '" l4~!'\.. ,.~. I ' -=-1 'I ~ (~t?}):: :}~::?~:}~::{:::. :·::::::::::::;:~i::: ::.. -_:=.1' Tfítiitî¡, " I "- ' -:J,_" \; .w lf4tr#:\\%jt\/.;~·~:::;.~:.~:;~·:::;:.;.:;:;:;. :::' . /;rirrr.j· , -"-"",J . .!! . ~··::::::::::::::::::::}}~t:~:}~~:~:>'~· :::....::... ~ I~ :. I "'\'}}}):}}{:/: "., d., F r !¡If ~~'" ~~l~ :', . ~~ ,1- . ··::~~t\\\tt\\\J.}:~::::: r J1 "- ".:.::J J-;(-::r'. ~ \ '- ; I f- ~ '\.} .\}ji r1 '\:~:):::::~ :::~. -':'='I i I ~ ~ ~~. ~ , I\~\ ::J \ ::WI:~ ':\~:<~~~.:~2\ I ¡ II I ",,- '\ý\' I 1\\ ' // ::::::::::1, ::. :::::::::::::;:::::\ I . J ~l . ~,-j - L.J. \. .ø :::.::::::f ::: ': ::~:?:::?: I T ll~ = n ~ " " ~I¿;r \:::ï" :::: '\\::::: A ' ~.;-- ~ '\ \~' ~ \> t: VrtfA ~.~ __ I ~- ~f;' i I ~~~%OO'l\¡A \\{~!¡ ~~~ . I Ê ¡ i =9Fj~Y"(~ '\. (;;~ ~,~,,¡l, I I s-+-=' )~~~~'\\'" ~ "~~\t\ \~i') . ~, ~I ~~ ~\ f: \{~^\ ,\, "i1 . I' ¿c¿ ~ I W A I "l \\h '\ç \t\ ! I' :: . W ~ '\ '~..." .:..;:~:~~" ~ì'1~':~:~ . $Y¿= ~þ~ I~" \:::. ~\ ¡,:::~¡\ U j// - - - ~¡"Ì,\ t \ hi \~\:\ \.~' '1:1 :\t / // ~II 0'", \ ¡ ';':'. \\, :-:.. E\ 1 ~ ¿51\" ~ ....:. -~,\,. '." ¡<\ ~- ~ .....~~\'~J :-;...... - ~ J " 'nt. T( })t ~ ~/,~, \ \t\\\~. \tt . ,~- to. I" -\#; ~.:..:..:..:..:.... ír, - ¡f _lg~t. JIi _ t '.: ......:.:. <"':':'.' ill ~~,~._' l .. I . ·~ìi, , .. YJ:~' ~~//,>. - - ~'- - - // '/ (1- , . ~- . 11980 r~ ~ 51 I f ~ , General Aviation and Day Agri- cultural Operations 1980 aircraft types CNEL 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 (llJ JI , IriB '~ II. II IAIERSFIELD AIRPARK EXPANSION E I R ALTERNATIVE 8, NOISE IMPACT SOURCE: R. DIXON SPEAS ASSOC., INC. . ;-' /~ _ V' f:! .: ( ¡ ,\ ' i ~ ~" · . · · -. Â MAP 17 o 2000 . FEET - ... "'~_j ~~ ~ ----"'- z .. ' '~rl ,. _--y-- 'ì": _. . r ~-2_Jo.c_~ ' · .' -.,. . ! PJ C?; ¡ L Ii I r I ~_.>Lf',-,-I'--"- -~, L- '~D~~L~¡ "tl1J~"~~ ~¡, ~ FfH~J~-Y~~,;~~~] ( ~ III f~.U,u uu r '" '-" ,=---" ~(7 ?~ "4'"=- ! _I~III' I I __ I- :f-~~f~~.I..-.f,J':"'. 1 - :=:J : ,'.' I' ~. "" ,~ ->-\', '.., I ] ~'=" i ¡' , ,tW%L ,... :~=~~i//h' '.~:N 1 -==_____.l_ '- "ill' 'LJQJ-.J >--' .... ·..·:··\}i :::::::.:~ = =1~==-~ .tnlF~ I I : /-. . '. ' ...:.::~~ = =~,WJ lJ.illl : I 1~.". ' I ,\,.",./.,:,\,.:<,i1'ii = æ"mmmmj , , ' ! .... '-- .,.,.".....,'.'",. ,..-.. ,,'illWillllllilJ "i -.---. : 'I . ~ \\~~! I .. ...:.~.///.::.~.":..",,,. T ~ ~-- _'"~ '-'4;_:,.-' J, ,_ ."?:i.:'. ,... .-" '--- ' I ~~lWl~rl~~t~11 ;': . ~>- ~\!1i''i';iÞ -- -=:1 r-~"'" i, lr. La \1 \ U'-1 :.:..:.:.:.:.:......:,::.:.':.' I, 1 I "I~ I ~1~11 '~1\"~ i n U..:;¡;I;·;'i:l~ I I ~>~! ~ ! I', , I J%J, ~'I.~ L_(iV ~W:) ~ ' If i.1 I: Ei~~~ 00 .....; {:.;.\, (~i;r lJ~ ~ ï ", ,~. .' g~~~~ '.f....; {'[{\ .~ U, E~~ .'~ I ~. ;b.. r r \ '.'. -~' .', 'I, ¡ Qffi-.~' : ~~ ~ II '-,t,'; xi;. ~~¡'} - / . ~ . "M ,~ · I Vi ,.'" / g;_ ~ 0: *'~ .oM \ I '\ X' ;' . / k ' .. ,/j - - - ~il ~ f" I'trn ~, ':; . " "-lic> \. \ "'" ',. I ~ ,..'. Sll , ~"O I /1.\ iii - c." _ r~ , ~, ~ .:~ '~.~ \ \ ?' , c'" _ ~ ~ ,<}. ~o OR I _JK ~,'\j%Š:!Ùi GO I ~ ~_I_, r' _ ~ ~~. ~. '.,'..., 'I ,,:.;~;r~~;'~; , . _ .~, y- . , . Ai ~~ ';..J-j '\\\Y tt "ð" rrL",-,,,, ' : ~%; I - T~ ' 51 U ¡ Î í ~~IL~~~~~' 1 ·l ,'~~ ~ ([I ~ ,,,'\1\ [S IT 1980 G , en1e9r8aol Aviation Operatio aircraft ns Only CNEL 60.0 65 0 70tYPe~ . .0 75.0 -- -- ..., · . · - · I · ~ = -- ·ID~. ~: .~ ""II. ....., BAKERSFIELD AIIPARK EXP ALTERNATlV US"I £'1 SOURCE,R, DIXON SPEAS~SSD~rNCNOISE IMPACT A MAP 18 q 2000 , FEET ~~tt Þ1Ït8.Hk r~E9-=:t:dt1. l~( '~~~f:p~r ffidc'..:)c¡¡ =- ,rfi=; /J/~G' - ~ f ,--- I -', l:~~y .j ~ ~ .~ ]~ ~ ~. ,'.... ..':":..... ::' .~ r-.. :L----~ '/§ I , ~ ..'..' ..., '... kl ........1-- ,vp ~ ' ~ ~ 'r7~u'.:A!:'\\51~;~:.. ": ·CC-;~i'l" 0- . ~----~ LC' ,.....:.:.........:.....:...:........:.:....:..........:..~' -m'L1*~~ I H[ .'1 .' i :\~~z%M: rtfi~~~ltth1.~ ~~};~~;~:'~.~ :. ':"'~ ~(r01.ßI.. Tll: ;·f;~J~1 ,I III : crf: rLnln '. """ @;;**C'w~i> ~tr.¡:' '\. "',,,I i fffiÌ,- L ~-j~J. " ~Jj~j I' ~";;î1\;;itšf~l' h fir: ""u.;'" : , ..~ ~'J' ··:·::.}ú/? .. jþ</.,.. : II i1, , " , I ' ,- :-=1.]', _, 1:-. ~ .'.::..::.:.:.......:....:' ...:.,....:....... , ' ". ~ ~~ ' f~ H~ l{".'.'."...' ""- -=11 I I ~, .~"' ~ulli H ~,!,;~!:c;;;"',";~~ I ,'" ~j: JlnJnr,\\l-~ 11#:}Ni'R~t%,~! II' ~ ~~ . I ~ r" ~ I t' \'\i¡t 'Æ¡;¡it\ Ii i t=- ~:..... I H=1 ill, I 11\ ~L _Va 00,...' }in I 'iW\'\ ~ Uf="'" 1Tl, .l2B~'e\\~~\ f:IVt@\ ~ \ IitX -n~'- =1 -;= lJ( JNJ~~ ~ ~ ........:'.... "~ :.....:..:.. :. ~f~~\\\ á\ 1'1\ ~;~ ~·\"~1 '- . t ///u :: I ./'//, '--- ~ I _~\ ~ j /I " ~ \y.:., ~\ tJ::" It' /-r-... r f,' " :10: ,(~=--llc=[~;i\\\\~; r r~n - \-' 0 ~ rrr.~ - ~-=-ETh\\I.. 1[_ ~j'A\\\Rtð 1 If~ f · ~ w J -=~n' ~1" ~,.' ¡ ,. \%~l% ,n \ ' ~.:- - . If ~~ J I ~.. "\ "::.}?:.,:,,".!t:;;;(:(.:: t , f F11 ' , ...:':::'.::~:i1:/':.:::. GO "- / f":.. . -- J: ..... .:':::.:~O:::..:':::.:::.::: . D' -:-. ~-~~'niFr· ~~~ ~'p. --I .~. '\~~t,~c . ~ ~ u iL, ä ~~ ¡ I _ ,I \}}/) ..... I 51 i , " Ii=0 n it k -Yf 1998 General Aviatio: operati~n~ Quiet future aircraft types I 11', lí i I CNEL 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 '" (, \ ; , - · · · ~~ II) I I ¡;, t ~ L j m r1 ~~ \\ ---- __J_~_ I I' '-- BAKERSFIELD AlftPA9K EXPANSION Ell ALTERNATIVE D, NOISE IMPACT SOURCE: R, DIXON SPEAS ASSOC. INC. ~ MAP 19 o 2000 FEET -" I' .J I Ji I' " .J-L I; l I: 'II II' ìClJ ~L...':' ,'r .. i :1'1" l..! ~ ,'" 1 .>....JL _ .........-~-- '-- __'_J'--£:~ ,...... ~ ,'~- '''-',. 'I ,u,~. ~ ...;c::;;·,,·_:oo ::: ---,r--lf--,---.""i;:T'..J.C .. A"u .-' - ·Dr::=-.......=J~."]'u '!-r~, ! ,;,;~; . u.:, '~T- -c:c 1 ...;..-...... ;_BEL. t---!--1.}~-cc II - i '~~_JL.A.l.dl.lt.k.:.)/. '.;J·L·' '" '¡;. ~ .. ~ -,. ; ~., ::.:.~::.::-~ - ~T i-yn: Fr-;! ¡.- FJC '- ~I' III-r'~r~'/ . '-":"1--~~-=:;~: '1ZLJ:/::::':'::::-:~ ¡1~l.tL .~' r '- L-...]~'-l ~ tiL .jl in'ln· t.J.'. ~-r-=; --,-~H . I~j 4t':'f:·~r.~::t:: .~.:.:, ¡:}nf ~~ 1>0.... V·· . -- I '), I \' }1 ø ---I -~ iil.~~'~-;(:-:: :::.::·::x :·Imr::.:.~.... // ......,,-..........' ¡. I ,....,,:.;/ L.:' - _~ -=- ' .',' .', '...' ~,.:. . '. '. '" K.:·,,· .~;L.':r:-w.L. '\, , I V" .' I ~::":"~~:::'::·~··:::::::::1:::I~fi::.:::·,:'~::""::>:':~:::,. :::~.~, .......,~ :~-~-:1 : "~Ùl~ - M . '., '.. +-- lJß sZ ~:·;~;~t!4r::? :r:::~<f:7:::r :t:::?:::::::~:::::::/~~.,..;r-- ~! ./~~~ ('11" --~ __ . _ ___.l~ -1] ~ . 'll:}::: :.:. . .... '. ',..',. ¡" '..... ..:.:,:.:;.t~':" ",~ F=- --=11 IT lDt~d I ~ --, i =~l' Rh . r 4~l{:I g:\·~·:::·:~[~r··}~r·f:l~~¡{ttr¡:I\lr~\f~l·l-t:.::}::·:":[}.:'~~:~~:~:j ~~~/(~:ìT~I! "", i ¡ . 3 [c:'r I J ....J .....~::-:.::::::/:::::::l ~/:::~/:.:.:Ui:::,:-,::::."':·::H:C<:-.-~~~~::~>:.:.µlljUJ~JI. ',,-, I nrc I . m ' ~'::::'::::::::::::~~~:~"::::::":"::::::::::'::.::. \*~ å: /DllliillIIll'lrrT :s..-\."--' : : ¡ iP- ~ll'M ti ~I :'<;;t\\ic;w1íÆli;:;'f'r ' ',I~~¡,¡\i : 1 Tt ~'" ! ,..,J.-- _ ~ i--.:1J ~ _ . '-, "'~:::::::':":':::':-:::':':J:.Ø' '::...'t-t:. ( : I ; I II! I ,i I ' '. I =:J'~- ~- ~~~ ~~\ l- -IH ':'\:'::'::,::' ::::::::.::::::.:~ \:::::::·:::·:::::t.':¡'!¿:.\ -':':'::"11 "'", : \ '" ¡ , .'. ,h ' '.'.. .... , I .J ~ ". ': ':'f ',:.: :'::.:. I I ~ ~ ~lm'6 \l:~~ ~~JI tj\'/:ir) \ii1~ß\~ II: ' ~, --~- : \ . '~ "~rJt; 0 ~::::::;;' :::::::: \~:~~It :t\: I ~ ~ ....., f ~; íf;¡: ~~~~;{~l~\~H£~~:;\ I~~~:¡i~~~~ I I ! ª -¡~' ê~~ ~' ~-' ~ ·bJ t~Z.\ '.~\! 'vil -'~: / .. -M~:::;U:, ,r--;;f~,;(¿:~\ .. I "ŽW\ ~ ! \ih·' ~ / --.J i ' ! .~~f?~"mr-~ \\ ;Þ LJ ,I .. <¿}:~ \:~ \f:IA '~L /-" r -Jfr=-=-.=_lr;ï . -=;J:=.," - ,.-. ~., '-----~- '---=-=-,.' ~,::¡-:: I :. ífS..'~~.:'¡""---..." .J -~ - F~'~ In-, =. - µ___ :=' .ff)' qì ' ~ ~I' ,.:::,:::" \" ~ t <~~ I I" I I \ !t~' ~ . :::-~l' !I - - - :, [" _: -- ,::}:}::.. \'" ;~:·::·¡t._ ¡-1 , j; , I t1 . :::':"'-:"\\ \_ :~:.. ." ';;:) \ì ~ \ I',' "/~'/', ~'\ ~ ::/', )'\.\ ... -. - -." . -- {::<. ,- ~ ~I ~ j .,. ~L ~,I :':::::{\::::,7~')U{',: r¡. I~~I~::.II ~i"~ _···:::::?:::::::::::;\~.~:.}:::::::,o ~' ¡;If. II ii if· ~'b-~ 'Wli&2' , ,'" ¡ 51 l' ,¡t=illJ -Il~ ",,':::?{:{::?). lPIIll I:'~)~ I'~ Xi.::::. I 1998 General Aviation & Agricultural f1ll ~ Operations JD Quiet future aircraft types JD' CNEL 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 II I ~ . .~__.Jc=JL_"_ [ , I .. ~ -. , . .' & Âo ÆET BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK EXPANSION E I R ALTERNATIVE E, NOISE Ir¡1PACT SOURCE: R. DIXON SPEAS ASSOC, INC. MAP 20 2000 " \ "- ~ ,- (, \ -- :- - · · · · TABLE 22 Esti¡;¡ated Current "nd Projected Population and Housing Units Affected by Aircraft noise Ur.der Several Alternative Conditions or Options Current (exi_ting 1978-80 Land Use) Projected (current Land Cse Plan Alternative/Option a 60 dB(A) and greater 65 dB(A) and 'greater 60 dB(A) and greater 65 d~'A} and greater Units Populat:on Units Population Units Population Uni:s Population - A. Total Impac6 Area 10.433 26.9n 2,150 5.533c 15,315 39,365 3.005 7.815c Study Areab 181 588 81c 257 3,350 8,755 72Dc 1.985d 2,054d 5,229d 2 Q__d Metro Areab 9,779 24.897 9,780 24,905 . :>;) 5.230 South Area 473 1.48;- 15 47 2,185 5,710 2.3.D 600 B. Total Impact Area 433 1.04-> 13 35 1,405 3,590 ¿;O 155 Study Area 55 145 11 30 680 1,780 é!J 155 Matro Area 371 88J 2 5 420 980 D 0 South Area 7 2') 0 0 305 800 D 0 C. Total Impact Area 92 225 2 5 420 1,075 2 5 Study Area 32 80 2 5 330 860 2 5 Metro Area 60 145 0 0 90 215 D 0 South Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) 0 D. Total Impact Area 609 1.465 12 30 1,228 3,180 28 75 Study Area 55 145 10 25 628 1.640 28 75 Metro Area 552 1 .315 2 5 560 1,435 0 0 South Area 2 :; 0 0 40 105 0 0 E. Total Impact Area 254 615 5 15 553 1,385 8 20 Study Area 35 90 5 15 303 790 8 20 Metro Area 219 525 0 0 250 595 D 0 South Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 aFar descriptions of ~ach alternativE;, and option, see Pages94-101 and Table 21 for noise impact bounda"'-_" in square miles. bStudyarea is two-sG~are-mile ga~ersfield Airp~rk Study Area, Sections 8 and 17, Township 30, Range 28. r~tro Area is the entire r.oise impact area affected within the urban developed areas of Bakersfield (City and County) North and West of :he Airpark 1tuCY Area. South area is the remaining noise impact area located Sout~ of the Airpark Study Area {see Map 1 4 . cInc1uding 15 units a~d 46 persons currently and 70 units and 195 persons projected subject to 70-75 dB(;~ dlncluding 34 units a~d 86 persons cu~rently and 35 units and 90 persons projected subject to 70-75 dB(A~ I ..... o o I 3. Aircraft and/or Component Modification: Two options are also suggested employing the introduction of quieter future aircraft (by 1998). Alternative 0 assumes that heavier general aviation and agri- cultural aircraft are replaced or modified with new generation aircraft, engines and propellers and other possible components which would reduce their noise effects. Alternative E assumes the same changes but without agricultural based activities. Since it ex- cludes agricultural activities, this option actually employs operational controls combined with aircraft modification or new generation equipment. Alternative 0 reduces the current population impacted by aircraft noise from 26,972 to 1,465 and the future population from 39,365 to 3,180. Only 30 persons currently and 75 persons in the future would experi- ence noise 65 dB(A) or greater. The adverse noise effects of Alternative E are less than half as severe as Alternative D. Only 615 current residents and 1,385 future residents would be within the noise impact boundary of the project applying this particu- lar option. 4. Other Mitigation: Obviously several forms of mitigation may be applied concurrently. In the review of previous alternatives it is apparent that land use planning could be included in the application of control or introduction of equipment modifications in order to further reduce or eliminate adverse noise influences. Individual analysis of the total possible combinations of options are beyond the scope of this study. -101- However, several other procedures for reducing the im- pact of aircraft noise have been successfully used at other general aviation airports. These alternatives are suggested in Appendix C (Pages 19-21) and are summarized briefly here: { (1) Displaced Threshold for Runway 33: By re- quiring landings and takeoffs to occur at a point 900 feet more Northerly would allow some aircraft (particularly under cooler night hour temperatures) to operate further from existing residences. This may be particularly applicable to noisier agri- cultural operations. (2) Construction of a Noise Reduction/Blast Wall at the South end of Runway 33. The noise reduction aspects of this improvement are under study by the consultant. The effectiveness of the wall for this purpose will relate to its extent (including height with relation to take-off point), design and construction. The wall is included in the Schedule of Capital Improvements (Appendix A-l). { ( < (3) Preferential runway during night hour opera- tions (particularly applicable to agri- cultural operations) when wind conditions permit. Early morning (before 7 a.m.) take- offs could be assigned to Runway 15 (North end) to avoid excessive sideline noise as well as reduce overflights to the North. However, unless flight paths were also regu- lated to avoid urban areas, an additional noise impact boundary would be created -- perhaps as severe as the present one. { (4) Pilot Education Program: Wide variations in noise from the same aircraft types suggest that there is a potential for reducing noise by making all pilots aware of noise effects and how various operations may reduce those effects. r ~ -102- Summary of Alternative Mitigation Effects: The several alternative mitigation þroposals are compared in Table 23 with the addition of a IIno growthll (Item A 2) Alternative. No attempt has been made to as- sign costs in terms of dollar amounts because of the intangibles as- sociated with time. Costs (or anticipated value loss) to property owners are not only dependent on unknown future local market factors, but also unknown future assessment practices, the nation's economy and its relation to rather limited (or finite) agricultural land re- sources, future local urban services and, of course, private initiative or abilities in packaging development projects. Benefits are quanti- fied only in terms of the fewer number of future homes (and population) subject to the higher (65 dB (A) and greater) or intermediate (60-65 dB(A) CNEL) noise values. Greater emphasis should be attached to those units at the higher noise levels because of the indoor noise potential prompting the State concern for a program addressing existing units by 1986. The comparison shows that the alternatives employing either opera- tional controls (Alternatives B and C) or aircraft modification (Alternatives 0 and E) nave the potential to require direct higher cost in terms of lost employment, aircraft improvement expenditure or environmental problems (later agricultural spraying). These direct costs may be off-set by the considerable number of future homes that would not be affected by adverse noise levels without the need to amend the current Land Use Elements of the City (BMAGP) and County General Plans. -103- 23 IGplications Associated aakersfield Airpark Expansion TABLE Comparison of Benefit and Cost th Several Altc~native t1itigation , I I j Wi near- (or lo~) (Direct) publish notlces ings, new plan maps, etc. (Indirect) possible market value ch~nge for proposed Open Space a~j Indu~tàl sites (property owners/de~elopers) i~ publ Cost fer Anticlpated or gain) fewer future homes (2,385 persons) to 65 dB(~) or greater noise fewer fut~re homes (5,290 persons) subject to 60-65 dB(A) than current Land Use Plan tional industrial land for employment oppor- ty to Southe~st Bakersfield subject cipated Benefit Ar.t 875 1,960 tigation Proposed Land Use Plan l>1i ve A 1 terna t i Al (Di rect) publ ish and atter.dant costssfDr public hearing, maps, etc. Probable loss of market v~1ue for prr-Dper- ties intended for conversion to ur~n use in response to expected r,¿rket demarnd fewer future homes (2,3Z5 persons to 65 dB(A) or greater noise fewer future homes (10,068 persons) subject to 60-65 ~a(A) than current Land Use Plan subject Addi tuni 855 4,027 Current Land Use (or no growth plan A2 loss of night hour operations (pri~rily 1 - 1-1/2 hours prior to 7 a.m.)' whum calm air permits accurate, more uniform ægri- cultural spraying; less ir.terferenCE with workers sub- ,995 fewer exi~ting homes (5,125 persons ject to 6~ dB(A) or greater noise 7,572 fewer existing homes (19,580 persons subject to 60-65 dB{A) and General Aviation Day Agricultural Operations (1980) B I - o .z::- I loss of 50 + persons employed (3Q% arf airpark e~p10yment) and related p~~ll secondary and tertiary benefits or nn- dustria1 base activities; potenti~T lDss of other non - GA FBO's (charter ser-vices. etc.) sub- 2,006 fewer exi~ting homes (5,155 persons) ject to 6~ dB(A) or greater noise 7,902 fewer existing homes (20,370 persons subject tv 60-65 dB(A) (1980 ) General Aviation Operations Only C I I cost of replacing or modifying noisier aircraft (e.g., re 13-14 ~gricu1t~1 based aircraft plus other noisy e~nes or components). Phasing ~ssible cnn- sistent with normal or near normaT ~ placement fut~re homes (7,740 persons) subject dB (A) or greater noise fut~re homes (28,445 persons) sub- to 60-65 dB (A) with current Land Use 977 fewer to 65 00 feller ject Plan 2 11 General Aviation and Agricultural Operations With Quiet Future'Aircraft (1998) D loss of a~ricultural base employm~ and other non - GA activities and thet~ related benefits to other service~~ ~ost of replacing and/or modifying other noisy aircraft 2,977 fewer future homes (7,795 persons) subject to 65 dB(A) or greater noise 11,765 fewer fut~re homes (30,185 persons) sub- ject to 60-65 dB(A) with current Land Use Plan ---- Only General Aviation with Quiet Future Aircraft (1998) E Anticlpated Cost lor lOSS Possible loss of safety margin on take- offs and landings; blast fence cost $57,000 estimated. Anticipated Cost Additional fuel and time may be re- quired to avoid additional noise im- pacts to urban development in South and Southwest Bakersfield for agri- cultural based flights to the ~e5t. cost for printed instructions, posters, signs, memoranda and brief- ing sessions or seminars n Minimum benefit from both measures should reduce noise by 5 dB(A) near 15 existing and 20 ultimate homes from 70-75 dß(A) noise Fence also collects trash and debris 1,788 fewer existing homes (4,460 persons) subject to 65 dB(A) or greater noise 7,371 future existing homes (lB,719 persons subject to 60-65 dB(A) and 435 fewer future homes (1.075 persons) sub- ject to 65 dB(A) or greater noise 9,260 fewer future homes (23.580) persons sub- ject to 60-65 dß(A) with current Land Use Plan - benefit not estimated due to the possible by various air~raft types e Measurab variation (0 r ga Benefit Anticlpated Table 23 (continued Alternative Mitigation Fl Displaced Threshold F2 Blast Fence F3 Preferential Runway F4 Pilot Education , - o V1 I , < As mentioned earlier, several forms of mitigation may be applied con- currently. It is also possible to prepare a strategy using one miti- gation form, such as a displaced threshold (F 1) in the short-term period13 (eãrly 1980's), and requiring ultimate compliance with another such as the use of Quiet Future Aircraft by 1998 (D). This option would require only limited disruption to present activities while not requiring amendments to the Land Use Elements. Options B and 0 permitting only day agricultural flights in the short-term with the transition to the use of Quiet Future aircraft by 1998 is another strategy that may be considered. The extent of noise impact from current traffic (ADT) on existing housing units is minimal. Future housing development in the event of project and plan approval, along some major arterials, will need to be evaluated according to the projected 65 dBA contour (see Appendix A-5) and possible noise attention. Some existing units along Cottonwood Road (Watts Drive - Casa Loma Drive segment) may require noise insulation in the future. 13Dramatic short-term benefits are possible with this approach. The preferential runway takeoff (if applied 100 percent of the time -- an un- likely assumption) would mitigate 788 homes and 4,460 persons currently from adverse noise effect (65 dB(A) or greater). Another 9,159 units and 23,179 present population would no longer be subjected to 60 dB(A) noise and greater. -106- (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 4. HEALTH AND SAFETY Setting: Safe operation of the proposed project is primarily dependent on airspace considerations. An airport's airspace is analyzed with re- spect to two primary concerns: interaction with surrounding airports and obstruction clearance requirements. The former concern -- inter- action with surrounding airports, occurs when the airspace reserved for an aircraft arriving and departing one airport must be shared with air- space reserved for aircraft arriving and departing another airport. Further, this interaction is categorized as occurring during either IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) weather conditions or during VFR (Visual Flight Rules) weather conditions. Because of the complexity of systems and terms used to describe airspace and airport operations, a discussion of airspace, holding, and the Instrument Landino System (ILS), follows to assist in the readers under- standing of the project impacts. A) Airspace: To facilitate safe and orderly manipulation of air traffic near airports, the air around airports is broken down into air- space units. At airports that have an operating tower, this is accom- plished by the air traffic area, a cylinder of airspace 5 miles in radius and 3000 feet deep, centered on the airport. Pilots within the airport traffic area are required to be in radio contact with the tower. Unless otherwise authorized by air traffic control, a pilot should not be in this area unless he or she intends to take off or land at the airport. An appropriate clearance must be received from the tower before landing. -107- At airports that do not have a control tower, or where a control tower is closed, the air traffic area disappears.l At these airports, a pilot may be able to contact either an FSS (Flight Service Station) or a Unicorn for traffic advisories, wind advisories, traffic flow information and runway-in-use details. These facilities are less sophisticated than tower facilities.2 At airports without towers, FSS or Unicorn facilities, visual indicators provide the information needed for a pilot to make a safe landing.3 To execute instrument approach landings and departures at those airports equipped with the necessary facilities (see instrument landing system section), the airspace around such airports is embedded in control zones. These zones begin at the surface, are usually 5 miles in radius, and have extensions necessary to accomm?date approach paths (the extensions often give a control zone the appearance of a keyhold), and rise to 14,500 MSL (Mean Sea Level) (see Figure A).4 lRichard L. Taylor, Understanding Flying, (New York; Delacorte Press/ E. Friede, 1977), Page 258. 2Aero Publishers, Inc., Airmans Information Manual, 1980, (Fallbrook California; Aero Publishers, Inc., 1980) Pages 41-43. 3Ibid., Page 43 4 Taylor -108- '-' ~""~ ~ ''I,SOO ---- CONTROl.- ZONE: (WHEN I FI\) I I - - - - - ~I-- I " 1-- VICTOR AIRWAY ~ I I I I I ,.. I '" ( I - 12-00 J-.--- - HOl\T't - JOUT" AI RSPACé &ovRCE.' UNDe,,'iòTANoIHc:. FI..'YINc:. Before the government will provide a control zone, thereby assuming separation responsibility, a communications link between the airport and Air Traffic Control (ATC) must be established for the many air- ports tra t qualify fer a pL1b 1 i shed instrument approach procedure but lack enough air traffic to justify a communications facility, a transition area is designated. A transition area protects instrument pilots moving from controlled to uncontrolled airspace during an approach, and uncontrolled to controlled airspace during an instrument departure. The l200-foot floor of controlled airspace is lowered to 700 feet above the ground in a transition area. In effect, it is a control zone that does not quite reach the ground.5 5T ay lor, I bid. -109- B) Holding Procedure: "Holding" an aircraft is a predetermined maneuver which keeps aircraft within a specified airspace while awaiting further clearance from air traffic control. This is accomplished through the use of a holding fix -- a specified point fix identifiable to a pilot by navigational aids or visual reference to the ground used as a reference point in establishing and maintaining the position of an aircraft while holding.6 Of concern in this report is the use of the Meadows Field outer marker as a fix for aircraft waiting to land at Meadows Field. This holding pattern is a one minute left hand pattern (see Figure B) which overlays Bakersfield Airpark. The lowest pattern is executed at 2100 MSL.7 OILDAlI '-... " r'I ","'" MUDO"'~~" 'I[LO '..... .; ~~~-......... rlI ..,. 1'1' ...---........ ~q...'" :.- ............" ..u("S~'t1.D r" _ .Þ ~ ........... (' r{1.," /~' ----- ". ;.,..........,(1.. r'I r" ." r"I..... -... -r ,: ""rI\ ~" I-...c.. "'1.....-........... ". ~//' r11 ~...... 1 ............ :............... 1)0 IIhOl""w, "UD 1'J r'1t <1' 1.....1 ....... ....... 2100 MSL HOLOING I :'........... .......~~...... PATTERN 11 1'\ ":rø7~~../,."""'.......... ............... 1'Ir.I/R~ 8 i> .'~;;<;~?'?(;~""" ...1"', IIU"'''!lO \ ,- - I ............... AIIt,.....& '" ---------...... !!Q.,LOING PATTERN OvER BA~£Mf!ELO AIRPARK 6Airman's Information Manual, 1980; Aero Publishing, Inc., 1980; Fallbrook, California; Page 7Henry M. Van Sant, Facility Chief, FAA. Airport Traffic Control Tower, Meadows Field, Bakersfield (see correspondence, Appendix B-1) -110- C) The Instrument Landing System (ILS): System is designed to provide an approach path descent for an aircraft on final approach to a An Instrument Landing for exact alignment and 8 runway. The ground equipment consists of two highly directional transmitting , systems and, along the approach, three (or fewer) marker beacons. The directional transmitters are known as the localizer and glide slope transmitters. The system may be divided functionally into three parts: 1. Guidance location localizer, glide slope 2. Range information marker· beacons 3. Visual information -- approach lights, t§uchdown and centerline lights, and runway lights The heart of the ILS System is the localizer, an electronic extension of the runway centerline. This very narrow beam of radio energy is pro- cessed and displayed as steering commands on the very high frequency omni- directional range Station (VOR) indicator in the airp1ane.10 Vertical guidance comes from a glide-slope signal, which affects another pointer on the face of the VOR display, and provides for a smooth, shallow electronic glide path to the runway. Two or more marker beacons are installed along the centerline of the ~pproach path, ar.d trigger audiovisual signals for distance information. These marker beacons are referred to as the outer marker, middle marker, and inner marker where insta 11 ed. 11 8Richard L. Taylor, Understanding Flying, (New York; Delacorte Press/ E. Friede, 1977); Page 249. 9Airmans Information Manual, 1980; Page 16. lOTaylor, Op. Cit., Page 243 11Taylor, Pages 243 and 244 - 1 1 1 - When this three-dimensional guidance thus available, an instrument pilot can descend to a point very close to the landing area -- typically 200 feet above the runway, on the extended centerline.12 Meadows Fieìd has ILS capability. If ILS weather is present in the area, Bakersfield Tower (Meadows Field) is able to bring a pilot, wishing to land at Bakersfield Airpark, safely through the clouds to a point where the pilot can proceed visually. The pilot then cancels IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) and continues under VFR (Visual Flight Rules) to touch- down at the airpark. Airspace Interaction: Investigation of Bakersfield Airpark airspace has revealed there is an interaction between Meadows Field and Bakersfield Airspace during VFR weather conditions; however, the interaction is not of a magnitude to restrict arrivals and/or departures at either airport. Therefore, the VFR airfield capacity of neither airport will be reduced. During IFR weather conditions, the airspace reserved for arrivals and departures at both airports enlarges because pilots can no longer use the IISee and Avoidll Rule. These enlarged airspace areas will sufficiently inter- act such that Meadows Field and airpark operations will be dependent; thRt is, arrivals and/or departures cannot bp. conrlucted at both airports simultaneously. This is not an uncommon occurrence in a non-radar environment. Furthermore, Meadows Field is scheduled to receive Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) in the near future that would substantially re- duce IFR delays.13 12Ibid., Page 244 13R. Dixon Speas, Bakersfield Airpark Site Evaluation Study (R. Dixon Speas, Inc., 1980) Pages 5-9, 5-11 -112- APPENDIX J NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO: Ms. Margaret Leach FROM: Dennis Pisila Kern County Counei 1 of Governments (Responsible Agency) City of ~~kersfield (Lead Agency) Planning Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 1106 - 26th Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD will be the Lead Agency and ,.;ill prepare' an environmental impact report for the project identified b¿low. We need to know the views of your agency as ~o the scope and content of the environmental infor- mation which is germaine to your agency's statutory responsi- bilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the probable ep,viron- mental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study [IJ is, LJ is no't, attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 45 ð~ys ~ft~r rec~ip~ ~f th~s n~tj,ce. Please send your response to DENNIS PISILA at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. PROJECT TITLE: Bakersfield Airpark Expansion PROJECT APPLICANT~ IF ANY: . DATE February 26, 1980 SIGNATURE TITLE TELEPHONE ~~f~ Principal- Planner (805) 861-2777 Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14, Sections 15035.7, 15054.3, 15066 -264- 'or'" Ms..-:.Margaret Leach ~ern County Council of Governments February 27» 1980 Page 2 (see Airpark Concept Plan). This will require the closure of 900' of , Planz Road and the establishment of clear zones on both Watts Drive and J White Lane. This may require easement purchase and the removal of one ,~,":h.ousing unit on land intended for purchase assuming the project is approved and negotiations are completed. The runway reorientation will create more distance and open space from existing residential develop- ment to the Southeast. Under the Airpark concept it is intended that additional land is acquired (total approximately 65 acres added tcrCth~ present 133 acres) for airport oriented activities primarily of an industrial or commercial nature and necessaryoperi spac'e. The Draft EIR is intended for completion and submission to State and local agency review by May 5. Therefore» early input is most desirable for incorporation no later than April 17. If additional information is needed please contact either myself or Mr. Ron Ahlfeldt of R. Dixon Speas Associates on detailed master plan items prior to March 25. Thank you for your assistance in providing early guidance to the analysis of potential adverse effects (primarily noise and traffic generation see Appendix I comments) of the proposed airpark expansion. V~R' trul~ yours» ~f~ DENNIS PISILA Principal Planner Enclosures: Notice ot Preparation» Appendix I and Comments» Site Plan and Existing Zoning CC: Mr. Ron Ahlfeldt -263- STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY ~ ft "".. r.ftUArft' r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS 1120 .. N" STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 322-3090 CITY MGR. ¡...,.,.. CITY Affiy. /., ..-. CITY CLERK /". tUU.f)~r.~r; \r; ,P;1~ CUI:..\1 0",,/. ,~, ~;ricc: -:~-- {~;;;~~:~c, -- ~ J:~ :~;~ RE'[)t:~T-:---" --- ~._.._- . - ---- March 11, 1980 FILE -.-. ,- D I i? - .' 'IU & DEV:.J,.r: I. ....;, IC~ MAR 171980 Mr. Dennis Pisila Principal Planner, Planning Department City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue BaKersfield, CA 93301 Dear Væ. Pisila: The Department of Transp:Jrtation, Division of Aeronautlcs, has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed expansion of Bakersfield Airpark. The notice and accompanying Initial study are, at this stage, general rather than specific. For example, new runway alignment is not indicated. To enable an adequate evaluation and meaningful comment, the DEIR should address each of the concerns with which we are involved. Such c~ncerns :nv~lve those issues germane to our statutory responsibilities, i.e., noise impact resulting from airport operations; safety of those individuals residing in the airport env:r~ns, and of a~rport users themselves; encroachment of incom- pa t ible ian(; use;:; on tile a. j.l'port W'itll sub Lequen ~ t)Jb: i c pressure to curtail operations :)r close the airp0rt; and the impact of the development on the surface transportation complex serving the area. Additionally we evaluate measures proposed to mitigate the effects or impact of the project on the environment. We would examine the means proposed to ensure compatible land uses in the vicinity of the airport, such as height limit zoning; the provision of adequate -clear zones for approach and departures, as well as clear transition surfaces; the degree to which the proposed development will adhere to the FAA's standards (FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-4B); lighting; VASI or similar navigational aids; provision of aircraft parking facilities; precise runway and taxiway alignment. ._-/ The proposed changes would require an An:!~nd.ed Airport Permit , and this places us in the role of a Responsible Agenèy. The Lead Agency will be required to file the Environmental Impact Report and/or "c.o March 4, 1980 Di~tribution List f '. Notice of Preparation City of Bakersfield Bakersfield Airpa~k Expansion SCH #80030515 Environmental Protection Coordinator Department of Conservation 1416 9th Street, Room 1354 Sacramento, CA 95814 r~ert Parl i er Department of Transportation District 6 1352 West Olive Avenue Fresno, CA 93778 Burd Mi 11 er CalTrans - Division of Aeronautics 1120 N Street Saëràmento, CA 95814 ,-..;.... " -267- PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY of BAKERSFIELD DEWEY SCEALE:S PI..ANNING OIRECTOR April 2, 1980 Mr. Dale Brogan, District Conservationist U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Room 231, 800 Truxt~n Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Mr. Brogan: The City staff is now in the process of preparing an ErR (Environmental Impact Report) on a proposed expansion to the Bakersfield Airpark. The ErR will constitute a part of a development grant application to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). One of the environmental issues to be addressed is concerning the loss of prime agriculture land and soils important to farming. In order to meet both State (California Environmental Quality Act) and Federal (National Environmental Policy Act) requirements on environmental.·, documents, it is necessary for the City (lead agency) to notify all respons;-2): ble agencies about the proposed project and to solicit their comments and in- puts at the planning stage of an ErR preparation. A master plan of the Bakers- field Airpark delineating its future boundaries accompanies our letter. In the Sdme map, soil types which occur in the area are also identified. According to the consultant (R. Dixon Speas Associates, Inc., Site Evaluation Study) the pr0Dosed expansion wnul~ require t~~ ~C~U~3it~0r of approximately ~6 ~cres of prime agriculture land which are mostly used for mini-ranch operation (Parcel A is vacant). Your confirmation on soil types and land use and land classifica- tion of the project will be greatly appreciated. The environrnent,:¡l impact of expanding the airpark into that 36 acres of prime agriculture land is ccnsidered ~o be minimal because, (1) the amount of land intended is insignificant and, (2) is reflected by the present lack of interest in developing the vacant parcel or· t'anch area for agri culture use. I" , The DEIR (Draft EIR) is intended for completion and submission to State and local agency review as soon as possible. Therefore early response from your agency is most desirable for incorporation no later th,:¡n April 25. If you need additional information, please contact me at 861-2777. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, DICK CHEUNG Associate Planner ( 1 kf Enc1 osures - 2 ISOI TRUXTUN AVENU¡¡; , ElAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 . 181)5) 881-2733 ( -272- STATE OF CALIFORNIA-TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR.. Gov.rnor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 12616. FRESNO 93778 r" r- --, ----- March 24 ~ 1980 6-Ker-204 SCH No. 80030515 NOP for Bakersfield Airpark Expansion "'0:-:-' L. "_ I-¡. . ··.i-- - 1._____ ~'L.¡;. '. -~-_. - .. i -__ ~. -'~, PU' \,','. - " 'I \,..,.~..-,....~,," - -1- '., . :'I~~"j'-~~~,~-!~'=~~"i: - T~:= --,-~_.- - D J:!::.. ~ i...; :: FIll & D'-"e, , ' "v ".,,¡.o;,\:;. If s.:av IC6$ MAR ~ö 1986 Mr. Dennis Pisi1a Principal Planner City of Bakersfield Planning Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93201 Dear Mr. Pisila: We have reviewed the City of Bakersfield's NOP of a draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bakersfield Airpark Expansion. "Although we have no comment at this time, we may express our concerns at the DEIR stage when more information are available to assess the impact of the added or changed vehicular traffic pattern on State High- way 204. Yours very truly, RUSSELL O. LIGHTCAr District 6 Director of Transportation ~~r, District Transportation Planner RMN:ms cc:RMN OP&R, State Clearinghouse -271 - PLANNING D£f'ARTMENT CITY of BAKERSFIELD DEWEY SC!!ALES PLANNING DIRECTOR February 27, 1980 Ms. Margaret Leach Kern County Council of Governments 1106 - 26th Street Bakersfield, California 93301 Deë:.r Ms. Leach: Enclosed is a Notice of Preparation (Appendix I) and related information (comments and site plan) indicating the intent by the City of Bakersfield to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on a proposed expansion to the Bakersfield Airpark. The City staff intends to prepare the docu- ment for public hearing in June in order to include it as part of a develop- ment grant application to the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). FAA has indicated they will process the Final ErR through for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements since it involves Federal funding. It is further intended that the ETR/ErS address any environmental analysis re- quired in future General Plan Amendment and Annexation proceedings necessary to the specific project. Project Description Bakersfield Airpark is located within the City of .:.akl:rsfield ir.lm€C:iately ta~'.; c.,f ~tate Hiyhwaj :C4 (Gûsines~ 9£), ájJ~rO;()- mately three miles South-Southeast of the Central Business District and Civic Center. A site evaluation performed by R. Dixon Speas Associates, Inc., of Los Angeles (June 1978) indicated that the site offers a distinct advantage to users over ten other sites for expanded General Aviation purposes in the South Bakersfield area. That firm is currently preparing a detailed master Plan for the City to include the project's financial feasibility and refined current and projected noise contours. It is expected that the Draft Master Plan will be available to staff for evaluation by t1arch 25. '-, The airpark is privately owned and operated. Current estimates indicate the airport supports approximately 100 based aircraft with 60,000 annual movements. Existing facilities are constrained by surrounding roadways and encroaching development. The project includes the rec~nstruction and realignment of the present 30'x3,200' runway to a 75'x~,900' facility 11101 TRUXTUN AVENUE , ÐAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 113301 . flO!!,1 111-2733 -262- ( KERN COuNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL L,..$TRICT 1601 "H" Street. Suite 250 ':ersfield. California·93301 .Jephone (805) 861·3682 LEON M HEBERTSON. M.D. Direc:tor of Public Health Air Pollution Control Officer SIGN ACT I~'I:O April 14, 1980 CITY MGR. ClTYATrNY. "'UTY 'c L [R;( ~.~ I COM/;, Di:V. ~:.':'- -.~.~ ~:;',I"::" .~= PLA:iG:10 I .__ puT\\;· .~.j ¡ I V;Aï:--;- I - --'-I F:EDE{""¡~GY, ~ - r ~~ ':::. ;;~;~~~~~~-":'-I --1- Mr. Dennis Pisila, Principal Planner City of Bakersfield Planning Department Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Mr. Pisila: Subject: Proposed expansion of the Bakersfield Airpark As stated in your letter of March 24, 1980, it appears that the Kern County Air Quality Maintenance Plan/Nonattainment Plan (AQMP/NAP) does not provide a specific consideration for the project described above. During the development of the AQMP/NAP consideration of general land use/land development activities in Kern County were considered. It was the conclusion of the task force that land use tactics per se would not result in significant reductions in air contaminant levels or at least the levels necessary to effect compliance with ambient air quality standards by 1982. The emphasis of the plan was in the area of station- ary source control in oil field production, refining, and marketing areas. In short, tactics were not developed to implement the findings of the Land Use Committee because of the minor impact implementation would have on attainment or maintenance of the standards by 1982. The preparation of a Draft ErR should include the expected emissions which may result from full implementation of the project. Further, mitigation measures should also be discussed with emphasis placed upon ,the expected reductions which may occur as a result of implementation of these measures. The air quality discussion should be so structured such that it is obvious to the reader what air contaminant levels will be realized as a result of the project. Should you or your staff have any questions, please telephone our office at (805) 861-3682. Sincerely, Leon M Hebertson, M. D. Air .,pollution Cont-fol, Officer tl¡/t71it /tdtÚ1U/U'w! clifton Calderwood AssIst Chief Air Sanitation Officer CC:cjg -261- Mr. Cliff Calderwood March 24, 1980 Page 2 ..~ 'J' One point with reference to the enclosed copies is that the vastly increased operations shown for 1978 over 1976 assumed that the Airpark expansion was completed in 1978. It is estimated that currently 120 air- craft are based at the facility. Also please note that the project is predicted to create a 10% shift of Meadows Field General Aviation (See P. 4-2) activity to the Bakersfield Airpark. Therefore, the air quality aspects of such a shift may be beneficial since it would move the point of emission (primarily takeoff exhaust and fuel loading) from Meadows Field where prevailing winds could disperse it over the Bakersfield urban area to th~ Southeast edge of the urban area where it would become dis- persed over agricultural lands. Our schedule for preparing the Draft EIR/Environmental Assessment (NEPA) includes text preparation to begin by April 15 for a completed Draft by June 1. Your review and response to us within those constraints would be most helpful. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours truly, o DENNIS PISILA Principal Pianner ."...1 Enclosures: Selected pages from Airpark Study (6) -260- PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ ;A~0- ~ q~.._ ;r~,\ 'J:: ~) tJ 0' - \., C ~'''')o, ~ ., -f~!FO"\4~';:/ CITY of BAKERSFIELD DEWEY SCEALES PLANNING DIRECTOR March 24, 1980 Mr. Clif~ Calderwood Kern County Air Pollution Control District 1601 "W Street Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Mr. Calderwood: Enclosed is a concept plan describing the proposed expansion of the Bakersfield Airpark. The City of Bakersfield intends to submit a grant application to the Federal Aeronautics Administration (FAA) in June for funding assistance to undertake the project. The Planning Department is preparing a Draft EIR to accompany the application. Your appraisal of the air quality impacts of the project would be greatly appreciated. In order to meet both State (California Environmental Quality Act) and Federal (National Environmental Policy Act) requirements on environ- mental documents, it is necessary to determine if the project is consistent with the local Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP). As you know, the AQMP dues not exp1idt1y address the k';nds of potentÏé.l adverse air qJz.1ity emissions characteristic of general aviation airports. However, I am en- closing "Xerox" copies of certain pages excerpted from the Bakersfield Air- park Site Evaluation Study which describe current (1976) and projected activities at an improved Airpark facility. These may be helpful in estimating future emission levels characteristic of aircraft full loading and operations and induced automobile activity resulting from the expansion project itself. At this point, a land use plan for on-site anci1liary uses .(e.g., industrial activities) and the potential expanded noise impact area beyond the Airpark boundaries (incl., lands to be acquired) has not been prepared. We will forward these items to you as we receive them from our consultant (R. Dixon Speas, Los Angeles) if you desire them. not TRUXTUN AVENUE , BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 9nOl . (105' 111I-27n -259- ~ ACT INFÕ CIT'( M~~. 1_ ~~?,~:I~::{~:~~--=t= ~;).l. t-;:'---- ~ -.- - .'-, - ~~~-;C~:'~lI ~~~:~~~~~:E~~~~_}~=_, _ ¡ DIRECTOR I FIRE & DEVHO?M~;-¡T S~RVCES KE:AN COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMb-.lT 1103 Golden State Avenue BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA-93301 TelephoneI8OSI861·2615 April 8, 1980 File: EIR sc. APR 9 1980 City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Attn: Dennis Pisila Re: Notice of Preparation - Bakersfield Airpark Expansion Gentlemen: This office has reviewed the project submitted on ~~rch 27, 1980. We believe the following points should be addressed in the environmental document: 1. As noted in the cover letter, the document should cover all phases of the project, annexation, land acquisition, etc. 2. vIill the 900 foot closure of Planz Road landlock any parcels? '·fuy was 900 feet chosen? Can Watts Drive and Wnite Lane handle increased traffic? Wlat will traffic increase be? 3. Map attached to the R0aù ":0 vill L..e Lé¿ne. structed? Will any closed? initial study shows a road running from Planz '.:'hi& r.Jad úoes nc.c E;XÜ,t. -;,Jill it ÌJe c;un- portion of Planz, east of the airpark be 4. Will increase of runway length allow small jets to use airpark? If so, noise impacts should be discussed. 5. Possibility of accidents should be discussed. Runway extension will bring aircraft over populated areas at lower altitudes. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Very truly yours, EDWARD ROUS, Interim Planning Director /. ,.....--)/ /' YéÞ~~~ By DAVID B. RICKELS, Senior Planner mh -258- 1700 Flower Street ;N COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTi,._1 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT Bakersfield. California 93305 Telephone (805) 861-2231 LEON M HEBERTSON. M.D. Director of Public Health . . SIGN AC ~rtõ CITY MGR. CiTT.~T~'NY. ~--'.I"':::'K·'- ----------- I u:~ ,,' ,.'. I L(;r...~::_~.--6~_,_~-·-·P--.- --- - - IIÑ7\·,-~·.:~: - ..--._~-_.- : ~',~i~-=D:;~: ¡-~' ~-Tf=--; ---.--- ----'. ~- ---- ~.-:~~~~~::~--~~ ~--_. ---. E:,T~~",_-L-_l_.[, _; RCD?'" I,C,,'.' I I ------'----~----i-... n'__' FILE ¡---, ---I -- DIRECTO;: May 6, 1980 FIRE & DEVElOPMCNT S~RVCeS t., MAY _6 1980 Mr. Dennis Pisila Principal Planner City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Dennis: RE: PRC Speas Draft Noise Analysis for Bakersfield Airpark Thank you for providing me with a copy of the draft report for my review. As I mentioned to you a couple days ago, I plan to replicate some of my noise measurements taken on the property north of the Airpark within a week or two. I'll be sure to let you know when that happens so you can observe if you wish. Until I make these measure- ments, I would rather not comment on the consultant's assumptions which are, of course, the building blocks of his noise contour projections. It is not premature, however, to comment on the last sections of the draft report en- titlec1 "Implicatirms for Land URe" anrJ IIHit:i_r;ation of Aircraft Noise." It is dis- appointing to note the lack of discussion related to obviously compatible land uses within the noise-affected areas--namely, commercial and industrial enterprises. To be viewed with caution is the option of acoustical treatment of homes. It is im- portant to note that this strategy will not relieve the airport proprietor of his ob- ligation under state law (Section 5014(h), CAC, Title 21) for new residential de- velopment in noise-affected areas. Also because the efficacy of acoustical treatment depends on homeowners keeping their windows closed, this method is often foiled in the more temperate months when occupants choose to open their windows and benefit from natural ventilation. Let me know if you have questions. Very truly yours, Leon M Hebertson, M. D., Health Officer Vernon S. Reichard, Director Environmental Health Division ~ BCT:ms Bill C. Thiessen, R. S. -257- Senior Sanitarian -3- NC Equivalent number of s:!.ngle event intrusions for CNEL Nd + 3 Ne + 10 Nn NL = Equivalent number of single event intrusions for Ldn '" Nd + 10 Nn where Nd. Ne. Nn number of events occurring during day. evening. and night Approximate Relationship to other Composite Metrics: CNEL ~ Ld = NEF + 35 = CNR - 35 n -256- ,Ellt~ .) ß-J and L max tlo -2- maximum A-\.Jclt~hted source level during pass-by 10 dB dOlm duration (time in sec that source level is within 10 dB of Lmax) R = Perpendicular distance from source to observer; feet v - Source velocity; feet/second Energy Equivalent Level, L eq L eq '" f -Tl jT 10 Log l o L(t) 10 ,dB dt 1 10 where T is normally taken as 60 minutes and ~, LE, LN Average Energy Equivalent Levels (Leq) for Day, Evening, Night: "" Day (CNEL) 0700 - 1900 Day (Ldn) 0700 - 2200 Evening 1900 - 2200 Night 2200 - 0700 -255- £xlt~1 ß-f COMPOSITE COHMUNITY NOISE METRICS Connnunity t;oise Equivalent Level SENEL + 10 Log NC - 49.4. dB CNEL := '"' 1CLog { LD 12 10 _'10 24 LE+5 3 + _ . 10 10 24 L~10 9 + _ . 10 10 24 } .dB Day-Night Average Level SENEL + 10 Log NL - 49.4, dB Ldn ::: 24 9 + -" . 24 L~10 10 10 ¡'dB 10 Log { LD 15 . 1010 -- Average Single Event Noise Exposure Level Where SENEL ::: 10 Log { ( . 0 L(t) 1 10 10 dt ,dB .. Lmax + 10 Log tea where t .. tlO (triangular wave form - moving ea 2 "point" source) and t .. t10 (rectangular wave form - moving ea "line" source) R .. L + 10 Log n - max V (moving point source) -254- ~ 'J/¡ltl ð r--3 ANALYSIS ~S AND AIRCRAFT TYPE 1'1. '{ ORIENTA TI ON AIRCRAFT NOISE AVERAGE DAILY TAKf EXISTING RUN., 1978 Cl\'EL (1998) 34.8 (37.6) 64.8 (68.4) 4Q.3 ( 51.9) 6~,.5 (:',5.8) 68.3 (70.4) 1978 CNEL (1998) 37.8 (40.6) 68.1 (71.7) 59.7 (62.3) 73.4 (73.7) - 74.7 (75.9 1978 ldn (1998) SENEL 1998 1978 erations 34.8 <37.6) 71 assumed Night Eve Day 21/40 60.0 (62.9) 96.0 22/4, 48.0 (50.5 74.6 9/15 34/64 68/125 65.5 (65.8) 66.7 (67.6) PROPOSED RUNWAY ORIENTATION 1978/1998 1978 ldn (1998) 37.8 (40.6) 63.3 (66.2) 99.3 22/43 58.4 (60.9) 73.4 (73.7) TOTAL 92.6 17/18 Operations SENEL 74 assumed 85.0 100.5 Night Eve Day 21/40 9/15 17/18 34/64 68/125 Site #2 Cessna 152 Cessna 185 Cessna 210 & 310 Cropduster I N ()1 w Site #2 I Cessna 152 Cessna 185 Cessna 210 & 310 Cropduster 73.9 (74.6) TOTAL EXHIBIT B-2 1978 CNEl (1998) 40.8 (43.6) 69.6 (73.2) 59.7 (62.3) 72.4 (72.7) 74.3 ( 76. 2 ) 1978 CI\EL (1998) 43.8 (46.6) 72.8 (75.7) r r:. ~ 0..). c.. (68.8) 78.6 (78.9) 79.7 (80.9) AIRCHAFT NCISE ANALYSIS AVERAGE DAILY TAKEOFFS AND AIRCRAFT TYPE EXISTING RUN'''¡AY ORIENTATION Operations 19';,8/1998 SENEL 1978 Ldn (1998) Day Eve Night - 21/40 - - 77 40.8 assumed (43.6) - 22/43 - 100.8 64.8 (67.7) 68/125 34/64 9/15 85 58.4 (60.9) - - 17/18 99.5 72.4 (72.7) TOTAL 73.3 (74.2) PROPOSED RUNWAY ORIENTATION Operations 19','8 / 199§. SENEL 1978 Ldn (1998) Day Eve Night 21/40 - - 80 lJ3.8 assumed (46.6) - 22/43 - 104 68.0 (70.9) 68/125 34/64 9/15 91.5 64.9 (67.4) 17/18 105.7 78.6 (78.9) - TOTAL 79.0 (79.8) EXHIBI'1 -1 Site #1 Cessna 152 Cessna 185 Cessna 210 & 310 Cropduster I N (J1 N I Site #1 Cessna 152 Cessna 185 Cessna 210 & 310 Cropdt:ster -- -_..!:"~"'-- -- -- _. ...-. ELDA i , , I I I , 1 I I :~', t - -- ---- ~ ~ "'- --~ :~ ~. I ...- L(') N I "'ADISO~ :._= ,~~_",_:~,_ ~J <,~ (",- / / / ..AND OPTION WATERWAYS I " U /"- r i - -- -- ;;. -;;."þ ~ ..- ;., ~ :: ~~:I~~....=..=.:;.:.;.:..:.:.:.:.:-:..:..:.:..:... 1 ,.. ,,- ,....¿:. - - I,.; ~H't...!L ~ _...¿- . I , ' ,-',.-- ~// ,..--- - - - :1 I, I' -:..' / I ,.//:/ : : I I { ,.., : I/': : '.: ". I r .I ø¢-J: ~ LAND OPTlON I : , ~.. .' 1,./,./ /" r: a; I , ...... I II/""/ : : " ~/ Ii - V1 /" : : ,.... : "'-í'·v :..... ." ~ /' "/" I .. ... V· I'~ :11/ II . .',-' ! Lb¡1 . / 'I' I I .>" 8 II':¡ Ii . I I , , . I J, I ' . - ~_ 0 ~ I W' 'I J ,..."'" \ ZI :-~ L.., : I I I <t: , .' : _ 0 n ~: I I ~i o...--J " " "11, _~ O)L -..JU ..~J]~:LJ ---- r -.-- ~I . >. . <t ~ ä: >- CJ ~[J L...-" RK .... -- -- - - - - :: - --, ...-- -.".. -----: _..--- ."...... -- ,,,,,....,...-' I ,- 1\ \ \ \ \ BAKERSFIELD AIRPA '~ ~ ..~ .... ~-=< I ~ ~ "- ~ .r'? ~\Ji- \}~ ~K / ---- - I <~ / " UNION S - 4 - optiolJ wOllld reduce but cer-tuinly not (·l.iminate noise im- pw:t.;; or; t.h~· property. 'l'he airport management could alGo prevent or curtaÎ.l tlw u~,;e of certain kinds of particularly noisy aircraft. 'Phis option would greatly reduce the pro- blem. Whether thiA option is practical or even desirable is beyond till! scope of this report. . . . . . . . . The findings in this report should not be interpreted as final; they are, however, strollgly indicative of the noise impacts on the subject property caused by Bakersfield Airpark. We hope that our findings will be useful to the City's decision makers. If we can be of further assistance, please call upon us. Very truly yours, Leon H Hebertson, M. D., Health Officer Vernon S. Reichard, Director Environmental Health Division j)/c< ~ Bill C. Thiessen, R. S. Senior Sanitarian BC'I1: ms cc: Mr. Bill Lewis -250- - 3 - ity's planninl~ guidèlillcs with respect to noise impacb-;. Regardinp; the rf:tJpom¡ibi lity of the ,drporL proprit'to''', we refer the reader to the airport noise .stand.ards contained in Title 21, Subchapter 6, of the Cali- fornia Administrative Code. The noise limitation for airports affecting resi- dential areas set forth in this law is 70 CNEL until 1986, and 65 CNEL thereafter. As pointed out, a sivn~fjcant part of the property presently does not even meet the present standard, Wllich will become more stringent in 1986. Realignment of the runway will aggravate the situation. If houses are erected on the subject property, it appears that the airport proprietor would not be in compliance with this law. Lastly, in human terms, the literature describing the effects of noise on people suggests that future residents of the tract may experience the following consequences: 1. Annoyance and Community Reaction - With existing runway alignment, 20 to 50% of the rE:sidents will be annoyed by aircraft noise; re- alignment increases the figures from 30 to 65%. Widespread com- plaints to threats of legal action accompanied by stron,g appeals to local officials to stop the noise can be expected.11 2. Sleep Disturbance - Maximum noise levels within many homes will range from 65 to 85 dB(A). These levels can be expected to awaken 75 to 85;'-6 of the rE:sidents when there are aircraft noise intrusions during the ni~ht and early morning hours. 2/ Recommendations 'fhe followinl::~ representG measures which could be taken to eliminate the noise impact or mitigate it to some degree: 1. ¡¡¿zon..nt~ ~f thE property to an ins"ns:i.tive land use clÜegory, such as manufacturing, would eliminate any noise impacts on the property. 2. Special accoustical design and treatment of homes on the property would reduce interior noise levels and help prevent sleep awakening. Whether this would be practical or even effective for homes nearest the flight path is an open question. Reduction of interior noise levels does not, of course, lessen the impact in the exterior parts of the property. 3. The Bakersfield Airpark ~ould relocate to an area insen- sitive to aircraft noise, or, staying in the same location, it could abandon plans to reorient the runway. The latter 1/ BPA, Impact Characterization of Noise, Including Implications of Identifying and Ach:ieving Levels of Cumulative Noise Exposure, pp. 31-33. 2/ EPA, Effects or Noise on People, p. 68. - ;-' - h r:d j nv,s On friday, h:hr'uéH',y 1~), ·h,~Ü, t hI: Healt.h JJt~partln~nt ¡¡taff placed two lmtJ Nodel 61/t por·'tlblt· Iloi.:;e [IIunitor'¡¡ 011 thE' property at the loc<.Jt;ons indicatt::d on the attachuj fIIap rné.lrked "xhibit IIA." 'J'hÜ, type of noise ¡,1(,¡.i.tor is ex- pressly desi¡:;ned to m{,ii:jUI'f: aircraft noise. During tbat mor:.ing, the t.nke- off noise from four d-ifferent type::> of aircraft common to Ha;'¡t!rf>fielrJ Airpark (Cesf:;na 185, Cessna ?10, Ce:;:.'r.a )10, and a crop-duster-'l'hru.sh Commanùer SR-?) were measured on both the exÜ¡ting runway orientation aud on the proposed run- way orientation. Thl"~je uurn},er[; were then combined with the relative distz°i- bution of operatiof\f¡ ét1 the Airpark for 1978 and for projected 1998 operations. Total operation number::; were obtained from the H. Dixon Speas report, and the relative distribution of operations was acquired from Mr. Bill Lewis. The following represents our conclusions as to the noise levels at· the tested sites ~ the subject property for 1978 and 1998, for the existing run- way alignment and for the proposed alignment. The levels were computed for both Ldn (Day-Night Sound Level) and CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level), but for the purpose of simplicity and because Ldn and CNEL are very similar measurement term~;, only Ldn results are given in this report. (The reader is rererred to the more technical summary, exhibit liB," for CNEL results and a more detailed derivaiion of the findings): Bxisting Runway Orientation Sound Level, Ldn Proposed Runway Orientation Sound Level, Ldn Site #1 1978 197~, , ..~f& Site #2 10~'3 1993 '75 74 79 80 6~' 68 7'\ 75 Discussion and ConcJusions The results of our findings indicate that noise levels resulting from ôircraft operations at both tested sites for 1978 and for 1998 are well in excess of the City's noise standard for sensitive land 1J~es. The Noise Ele- ment' of the City's General Plan, on page 14, sets a ffiuximum desired noise level of 60 Ldn for sensitive land use categories, which includes ,single- family dwellinfÇs. If the runway is realigned as proposed, noise levels will be even more severe. At thi~ time, new noise contours have not been prepared showing the effect over aU of the property; however, it is safe to say that a large part., if not &11 of the property, is not in conformance with the -248- 1700 Flower Strllfll KERN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT lEON M HEBERTSON. M.D. Director of Public Health Air Pollution Control OfflCllr ,field. Californi. Telephone IB051 861·2231 february 25, 1980 Mr. Dewey Sceales, Djrector Planning Department City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Sir: He: Noise Investigation of the Property Identified as Tentative Tract No. 4312, North of Bakersfield Airpark The Kern County Health Department ha5 been requested by your staff and Mr. Bill Lewis of the Bakersfield Airpark to evaluate possible noise impacts on the subject property which is located north of the Bakersfield Airpark. Prior noise evaluations of land surrounding the Airpark we:ce dÚ~le by the Health Department in 1974 in connection with preparation of the City's Noise Element, and by R. Dixon Speas and Associates, Inc. in 1978 as a part of the document entitled "Site Evaluation Study for Bakersfield Airpark." The Health Department's previous study was based on operations at the Airpark during 1973. The contours resulting from the study indicated no adverse impact on the sub- ject property. R. Dixon Speas evaluated the 1978 and projected 1998 noise im- pact9 if the Airpark runway were rotated in a more northerly direction, that is, toward the property in question. The consultant's study for 1978 operations suggested no real impacts; for 1998, however, about 1/4 of the property would be slightly affected. It is important. to realize that the prior studies were accomplished without any actual noise measurement of aircraft in flight. Rather, methodologies were used that estimated the degree of aircraft noise and made certain assumptions concerning the numher and distribution of aircraft operations at the airport. These methodologies are useful, but should be judged as generalizations or as first approximations of noise impacts at airports. -247- RICHARD C. BAILEY. Director KERN COUNTY MUSEUM -cff:. .~.:::~ _~ -- (,¡i; .,r :' ~:,;~'~ ,. ~ -C:'.' If-IL:"',::: , T~"-:'\ 'T"'-:, " ' 3801 Chester Avenue Bakersfield, California-93301 Telephone a 1-2132 -~~~:fi-_~~:~ . -.--" I . ~ -1-- \.-.. -1..--'. .." - \ I _.......- \ '--.. '. ~_._- -.~ '. r:_:~ April 18, 1980 \ - Î _ ._ ~ It--' ~~~,~L·--'~. ' -- . ..I, -- ~---~'---_: _.-.--~----- -'" D I r. E c T û R T ·al/IW FIRE & D¡¡VELOPM¡;;-4 ".. þ.PR ~2 \900 Dick Che~~g, Associate Planner City of &L~ersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Eakersfield, Ca 93301 .. Dear Mr.. Cheung: I have examined the Master Plan of the Bakersfield Airpark as well as the map, which you recently sent to this office for comment from a historical and archeological standpoint, and it is my opinion there is no reason why this project should not proceed. -:.~..... "! Very truly yours, ~ r!~··,7- .. 7' /' £.£2 . ¡. ..,.¿d-J' ( '";,-. '--~/ ,. Richard C. Bailey Museum Director J..:_._ ; . ' RCB:el .. , ' "! . -246- STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR.. Gov.rnor JUN H1 \9&0 \- -".-, :.. _._.1,~~~~ 1".~Tl"'-"'\~ ""'-1-- ~ \f~;('; : .. ····;-_:\-:1 f'~~,~~"'C",.. . ~.' ~;."'_::____,_,.\\_.,,=~-~\ fd:.'fS ~~J - _ .----.--. -- ':~:, :i~~:~;;~:~;'CEsl ~PARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. BOX 2390 SACRAMENTO 95811 (916) 445-8006 Mr. Dick Cheung City Planning Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Cheung: EIR Preparation on Proposed Expansion to the Bakersfield Air Park, Kern County My staff has conducted a review of our cultural resource records for the project area referenced above. According to these records, no California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or sites on the National Register of Historic Places are currently listed for the undertaking's area of potential environmental impact. This does not, however, preclude the possibility that significant resources may exist there. We would appreciate rece1v1ng additional information on the type of staff s~rv~y and thorough records search you have conducted for 90ssible cultural resources in the impact area. If you have not already done so, you may wish to contact the Archeological Regional Officer for a site survey records check. He has the most up-to-date records on which to base a determination of the archeological sensitivity of the project area. If you should have any questions or concerns in this matter, please feel free to contact Jeffery Bingham at (916) 322-8701. Sincerely yours, IC-M~ Dr. Knox Mellon State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Historic Preservation F-3291D cc: Dr. Robert Schiffman Bakersfield College 1801 Panorama Drive Bakersfield, CA 93305 -245- March Fong Eu Secretary of State Hr. Dick Cheung Associate Planner Planning Department City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxton Ave. Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear t-!r. Cheung: 1020 0 Street, Room 130 Sacramento, California 95814 12 May, 1980 . ¿ ARCHIVFS Information Document Restoration Exhibit Hall Legislative Bill Service (Prior years) (916) 445-4293 (916) 445-4293 (916) 445-0748 (916) 445-2832 d""" ^'~I '"" CiTŸ"¡Ar;-~ '--F """ëTRi'j":lIY. -- --.-. - --. ---.L CII) t r t'{~I": 1-- --- ~~~::~>\C~:,; =.~~~~ t. -=~ - ;:g(:'t: -:~~i - . -~~·~'.>f· '. -,' - -- --~--~---~ ~ -- II: Pi', ; ;,',' r,'-- .~.,-- -~ '==','" ~'_-, ~.~ 1:.:-"" """'i'-- j) ; ."";.... , I í'lliii,. ;¡""--:"¡""¡~;'i j';;,V¡CES I MAY 14 ¡9CO In reply to your letter of 7 May the California Heritage Preservation Commission does not concern itself with the State Archeological/ Historic Preservation Act of 1974. The State Office which administers this program is the Department of Parks and Recreation. DLS :ld Respectfully, ~j ~L -~-v\h" David L. Snyder Archivist II -244- oEIÞo ,. PLANNING DEPARTM£NT ~ 0;/?':'Y ,:,.,~(>......... . /.. ";0'---."" \ /1/'/ A';t'. ".. \ \ ~C¡ ~}..~ 1'~1 \.1. -c-:~:;1'.1 \ \ "".It :j/I. '\~~~:/. ~~ CITY ot BAl(ERSFi EJ_D DEWEY SCC=:A"'ES PL.I\.NNIN~ DIRì:.CTOR May 7, i 980 Chairman California Heritage Preservation Commission State Archives 1020 "0" Street Sacramento, CaJifornia 95814 Oea}' Sir: The City staff is now in the process of preparing an EIR (Environmental Im- pact Report) on a proposed expansion to the Bakersfield Airpark. The EiR wi1l constHute a part of a development grant application to the F;J\ (Federal Aviation Administration). Some of the environmental issues to ~e ~ddressed are concerning historic/architectural/archeological site or cu'ttural reSOUîces that might occur within the Airpark boundaries. In order to conform with the National Historic Preservation ~ct of 1966 and the State Archeological/His- toric Preservation Act of 1974, we are requesting your com~ent and response rn this proj2ct. A Master Plan of the Bake~sfip1~ Airpark'delineati~g its future boundaries accompanies our letter. According to our staff survey and a thorough record search of possible his- torical/archaeological sites in the area, no known sites of historical/archae- ological/cultural significance are located close or within the area for the proposed expansion of the Bakersfield Airpark. However, in order to fully explore such possibility, we would like to have your input and verification. Early input from your agency is most desirable for incorporation in our DEIR no later than June 6. If yo~ need additional information, please contact me at 861-2777. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, '\IÍ(' I Ç/ !;\ \ ,I ('I" C~ i, t. t (., "- ~~..___ I .'. _.. _, '- _ ..... - - DICK CHEUNG Associate Planner 1 kf IS01 TRUXTUN AVENUE . BAKERSFIELD, C"'LIFCRNI,II\ 91301 . (105) 161-Z733 Appendix B-1 (continued) Comments Received During Notice of Preparation Period Included with and þreceeding each comment is a copy of the correspondence sent to that agency or organization. Correspondence Page State Archives, David L.Snyder, Archivist II State Department of Parks and Recreation, Dr. Knox Mellon, State Historic Preservation Officer 244 Kern County Museum, Richard C. Bailey, Director 245 246 Kern County Health Department, Bill Thiessen, Senior Sanitari an 247-257 Kern County Planning Department, David B. Rickels, Senior Planner 258 Kern County A~r Pollution Control District, Assistant Chief Air Sanitation Officer 261 Kern County Council of Governments, Brad Williams, Assistant Director 265&266 Sta~e Department of Tr~nspurtdtiún, Division of Aaronautics, Burd Miller, Environmental Planner 268&269 270 State Office of Planning and Research, Kathryn J. Tobias State Department of Transportation, District 06, M. B. Parlier, Transportation Planner u. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, William T. Neikirk, District Conservationist 271 273&274 California Water Service Company, Earl R. (Ray) Johnson, Assistant Manager u. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Bakersfield Control Tower, Henry M. Van Sant, Chief Kern County Department of Airports, Stephen P. Schmitt, Aviation Director 277 278 279 -242- Appendix B-1 (continued) Persons and Organizations Consulted and Correspondence Received R. Dixon Speas Associates, Los Angeles Ron Ahlfeldt, Vice President John E. Parnell Dan Wasbin California Water Service Company, Bakersfield Robert Lewis, Manager Earl R. (Ray) Johnson, Assistant Manager Pacific Gas and Electric Company Bob Lyke, Senior Land Recordman Lou Mc Reed, Bakersfield Western Photoair Inc., Bakersfield Denny Mc Glothlen C & B Flying Service, Bakersfield Airpark Bi 11 Lewi s -241- Appendix B-1 (continued) Persons and Organ~zations Consulted and Correspond2nce Received Kern County Health Department Bill C. Thiessen, Senior Sanitarian, Bakersfield Kern County Council of Governments Margaret Leach, Executive Director, Bakersfield Brad Williams, Assistant Director, Bakersfield Kern County Historical Society and Museum Richard C. Bailey, Director, Bakersfield Kern County Department of Airports Setphen Schmidt, Director, Bakersfield Kern County Joint Union High School District Ann Boldman, Bakersfield Kern COljnty Offi ce of Emergency Servi ces Ray Jdc~son, Bakersfield Kern County Water Agency Florin Core, Bakersfield City of Torrance, Department of Transportation Bill Critchfield, Manager, Torrance Municipal Airport City of Bakersfield, Public Works uepartment Dale Hawley, Director Jerry Hahs, Traffic Engineer Robert Hart, Sanitation Superintendent Don Hoggatt, Park and Landscape Designer City of ßakersfield Community Development Department James Gilchrist, Coordinator City of Bakersfield, Fire Department Dennis S. Needham, Director of Fire and Development Services Joe D. Stotts, Deputy Fire Chief City of Bakersfield, Police Department Bob Price, Police Chief Shirley Lucas, Administrative Aide City of ßakersf¡'~ld, Domestic ~~ater John Hansen, Superintendent Bakersfield City School District Janice Blanton ,., '''' ) ) APPENDIX B-1 Persons and Organizations Consulted and Correspondence Received Federal Aviation Administration Robert C. Bloom, Chief, Southern Airports Field Office, Los Angeles Gerald Dallas, Southern Airports Field Office, Los Angeles Henry M. Van Sant, Meadows Field Traffic Control Tower, Bakersfield Corps of Engineers George C. Wedell, Chief, Engineering Division, Sacramento u. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service William T. Neikirk, District Conservationist, Bakersfield State Department of Transportation Mert Parlier, Transportation Planner, District 6, Fresno Burd Miller, Environmental Planner, Division of Aeronautics, Sacramento Richard Housepian, Fresno State Historic Preservation Officer, Department of Parks and Recreation Dr. Knox Mellon, Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento State Heritage Preservation Commission David L. Snyder, Archivist II State Office of Planning and Research Kathryn J. Tobias, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento Kern County Agricultural Commissioner's Office Kern County Public Works and Road Commissioner's Office L. Dale Mills, Director and Road Commissioner, Bakersfield John Forestelle, Bakersfield Barry Hayslett, Bakersfield Kern County Community Development Program Department Matthew L. Grant, Bakersfield Kern County Planning Department Ed Rous, Interim Planning Director, Bakersfield Fred Simon, Principal Planner, Bakersfield David B. Rickels, Senior Planner, Bakersfield John Folpmers, Assistant Planner, Bakersfield Kern County Building Inspection Lyle Timberlake, Geologist, Bakersfield Kern County Air Pollution Control District Leon M. Herbertson, M.D., Air Pollution Control Officer, Bakersfield Clifton Calderwood, Assistant Chief Air Sanitation Officer, Bakersfield -239- Appendix A-6 (continued) 1980 and Year 2000 Estimated Traffic Generated Noise,a Bakersfield Airpark Study 2000 Segment (see Map 15) Location Distance (as measured from nearest lane) at 50' 70Ldn 65Ldn 60Ldn South Union Avenue Casa Lorna & Watts Watts & Planz Planz & White Whi te & Pacheco r~adi son Avenue Casa Lorna & Watts Hatts & Planz Pl anz & vJhi te Cottonwood Road Casa Lorna & Watts Watts & Planz P1anz & White White & Pacheco Pacheco Road South Union & Madison Madison & Cottonwood White Lane South Union & Madison ~'..i':': i SJn & CJttor.\'/ood Planz Road South Union & Madison Madison & Cottonwood vJatts Dri ve South Union & Madison Madison & Cottonwood Casa Lorna Drive South Union & Madison Madison & Cottonwood 74dBA 74dBA 74dBA 74dBA 68dBA 69dBA 68dBA 70dBA 68dBA 68dBA 67dBA 69dBA 66dBA 69dBA fj6dBA 64dBA 66dBA 69dBA 66dBA 67dBA 64dBA 90' 90' 901 90' 200' 200' 2001 200' 430' 430' 430' 4301 170' 200' 170' 230' 170' 170' 145' 200' 125' 200' 125' 90' 125' 200' 125' 145' 90' ain decibels (dBA) based on daily traffic, 87% - 13% day-night use; and 45 m.p.h. on major arterials and 40 m.p.h. on major collectors b less than 50 feet cnot currently existing -238- b b b 80' 90' 80' 50' b b b 110 ' 80' 80' 70' b b 90' 60' b b 90' 60' b b b 60' b b 90' 60' b b 70' b APPENDIX A-6 1980 and Year 2000 Estimated Traffic Generated Noise,a Bakersfield Airpark Study Segment (see Map 15) Location 1980 Distance (as measured from nearest lane) at 50' 70Ldn 65Ldn 60Ldn South Union Avenue Casa Lorna & Watts Watts & Planz Planz & White White & Pacheco 70dBA 72dBA 72dBA 72 d BA Madison Street Casa Lorna & Watts Watts & Planz Pl anz & White 62dBA c NA Cottonwood Road Casa Lorna & Watts Watts & Planz Planz & White White & Pacheco 66dBA 66dBA 65dBA 63dBA Pacheco Road South Union & Madison M'ldi son /~ Co:tC':l','/ood 63dBA 63dPA White Lane South Union & Madison Madison & Cottonwood 60dBA 59dBA Planz Road South Union & Madison , Madi son & Cottonwood 63dBA 63dBA Watts Drive South Union & Madison Madison & Cottonwood 60dBA 59dBA Casa Lorna Drive South Union & Madison Madison & Cottonwood 63dBA 61dBA -237- 70' 70' 701 70' 1451 145' 1451 145' b c b b c b b b b b 60' 60' 501 b b b b n b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b 315' 3151 315' 315' 70' c b 125' 1251 11 O' 801 80' 80' 50' b 801 80' 50' b 80' 60' APPENDIX A-5 (con't) 5014. CO"¡PA'J.'IBLr.: Ll~tIº- USF~__ ~£rJLTN_ TilE NOI!';¡': .1,...!UC'J' BOVND.A,,?X. 'l'ha criteri:'l~ tor the n.::Jise impact: bI)Un,~ê:.rY \o'las esta.bli.shed fer r~sideiìt.ial US'~3 inGl1.:tdj.!'.g single-[ruc.:ly ar:d mUltiple-family aw,~llings, trailer parks I and sd::)als of st.fl!:dard construction. Certain other land uses may occur wi 'thin t::~ b::.w\da:::-y but be' compatible with the ccaUT\!.'¡1Í ty n:::>isp. equivdh,nt lcv01 and hence be eXclud~d in the calculation of noise impact ~rea. For t..his pur.prJS ~ ,the following land uses ëu:e deemed c0mpatihli::. (a) Agricultur.al; (D) AÜ'port property; (c) IncìustI:ial property; (d) Commercial property; (e) Propert;.' s\~bject to an avigation ee.serosat for noise; (fi Zoned open space; (g} High--rise apartments in \'1hich adequate protection against ex- terior noise has been included in the desiql1 and cor.st,ruction, tog~tbe:r: \lith a central air cor.ditioning SJ'3t€:!n. Aò.2qUã.te pro'· tcction illeacs the noise reduction (exteriar to intErior) shall be sufficient. to assure that i'.1tel:ior community noise equivéiÜmt lûvel in all ~ ,:ibi table reams doe::: not exceed 45 dB during air- craft 02E:;Xatians. Acoustical per£ormdnc<2 ~"i: the buildings sh.:Ül be verified by calculation or measured by ':';:1ùlified officials of th~ building inspection ager.c}' of the city or county 1.n which the buildings are situated. (h) In the case of existing airports and existing homes only I resi- dential areas in which existing homes have been acoustically treateà. Heed not be subject to exterior noise limits quite é.S strict as those for normal residential construcLion. For this purpose, the community noise equivùlent level on the boundary of such a residential area may be increased by as mu:::h as 15 dB over the comm\mity noise equivalent level criterion for non- acoustically treated homes. The amount of the increase allowed on the boundary is the difference between the noise level re- duction of the treated hOT.e and the value 20 decibels \o':hich is asslli~ed to be the noise level reduction of an average normal residence. The noise level reàuction of a home is defined as the average difference becween aircraft noise levels in free space outside of the home 2nd the corresponding noise levels in rooms on the e~)osed sides of the home. ( -236- APPENDIX A-5 (con't) FIGUlŒ 1 T AREA IMPAC . AND NOISE BOUNDARY OF vorSE IMPACT . hed areas, ' TCF - f all the cross-hate C()r-YCEP'l'UAL SKC - . m 0 . th- Sill 'les t are~ is ç statute rn1 . '" impac .; n square . The: no~s", ... --- Agricultural IncL.l,ial Aa,icvltu·ol -235- APPENDIX A-5 (can't) (b) Givj ng duo ccnsiderãtio~ \:) e{;i.Jr"J,:t1'~ èmd t:echnc:.lug:i.cal bili ty, the cr.i te.d.on C'o:,:,;uni ty n()j f;ot: cqui-.,,- õllr.:m t lE;vel for existing civili.::.", ;Ü:q::Ol:t.S {ê:;:C,'P'c iÅ:3 follow3) is W1t:,il DÐ~~u.b?r 31, 1~8S, and (,5 <:D tb'.?.1:"eaftêr. fcasi- (CNZT,) ;0 cì.~ (c) 'i'ha cdterioIl CìŒL fC'.r airporti': ~'}1Í(:h h~ve 4-engir.fl turbojet or turbofan air car:::-ier aircr.;ji~"C (jp'e.~.:ltion.s and at l€ast 25,000 ønmml air carrier oper<:.tioTls tt,Ùe0.ffz plus limdlngs) is as follows: Date CUEL in t'~cib~ls .--- Effective date of regulations to 12-31-75 ..........................&...... 12.... 31- 8 5 .... Q . &. . . . . . . . .. . . . <. .. . 80 75 70 65 1-1-'16 1-1-81 1-1-86 to to and 12-31-80 .........~.....~..... th~reafter .~.......~......... 50).3. !'JOrGE J.MP !1ç'r BOmml~RY. T}¡c noise impact buundm:y Ð. t .3Ü·PO¡:'.:s wh~ch h~v~ ct ~ois8 problem as de~ermincd in accordance with Section SOSJ :;Ì1i.Ü.l b~ {',ct,w"!.ished ëmcì validated Ly me".:mrerno?-nt in accordance F~U. \:h~ p~o.::edu:8s given in Article 3 of this subcha?ter. F·;,r propos~è. ì~~\'1 ¡,irpoxts. or for: èi.nt:icipa.t.ed changes of existi:1g airports, the noÜ,i,~ impa.ct bou:1dary shall b~ estimated by applicable acoustical calculation ':':Ccf:"15.queg. '1';;'E~ ë<r~a of land which is within f:h.:! noise impact bOL1ndary and which has incow?atible land use is utilized as a measure cf the magnituCe of tb~ noise problem at an airport. The con.-::eptr.; of noise inpact !x..'Ul1dGry and .,')i~e 'Î.F.oact ?":ea are illu'5t,,=,at.~d it') :':'ignr"! 1. -234- \' APPENDIX A-5 Article 2. Airport nc·Ü;e Limitsl ".. .._-,-- 5010. PU~OSE. The purpose of t..'1ese reg1.l1.3.tions:i.s to proilide é1 !->O$- :ì.ti'fü b,lsis to .-.ccolllplish resolution of exiûting poise proLlerw in commmÜ- tie5 SUi.1.-ot'jldit~g aÍl-po::ts a....ld to prevent t...'1e devGlçp:¡~s:1';; of new noizc prob-· 1e,0\£. To a."::Gompl.i.~h this pm:pose, these regr.lùtir:r:s ~3f:::>..blish a (luantitat.ive fraÍl\ewr~':-:-k Hithir. \·'hich thè v¡;¡rious interested pD.'rties (i .e., airport pro'- pi.'1eto:t:s, åircr<:l~t operatm:s, local comm\:mities, COUl1't.iêS iJ.r.d the ßtatG) can waLk together Gffective ty to :r:educe and pre,rent airport t~c>i6e proble~3. 5011. !'.E'.rliODOLOGY FOR CQ}~TROL.LING .l\ND 'R!"~li(~.}10l2l'; PBOBr....~~lS. The Jj\ethc¿o wher.el;y the impact, or aÌ1.-port noi::;e sh311 ba contx.:Jllt;ù and reducûJ include but i.l.re not limited to the following: (a) Encouraging use of the airport by aÜ:craft classes \Ü th }owe.L" noise level c~aracteristic::1 anð. liiscouraging use b:¡' higher noi2'~ leval aircraft classes; (b) En.::("~uragil1g a~proach and departure :flight pa tlw Ðnd p:,:o(,;ec1·.lÚ~5 t,o minimize tJ1e noise in rc:sidential areaß; (c) Planning runway utilization schedules to take into éJCCOt:'Jì.t ad- jacent residential areas, noisacharacteristics of £ircraft and noise ~ensitive time perioès; (d) Reduction of the flight frequency, particularly in the n;ost E~n- sitive time periods and by tha noisier aircraft; (e) Employing shielding for advantage using natural terrain, build- ings, et cetera; and (f) Developxr.ent of a compatible land Cfiß wi thin the hoise impact boundary. Preference shall h2 given to actions wb!.::;a Yl~duce the i~pact of £d:::port I)Oi5e on existing communities. Land use conversi,::>n ìnvolv:i1l9 existing resi- dential communities shall normally be considered t..~e least desirable action for ð,chi~vlng cO!:\Fliancc with these regulations. 5012. AIHP0RT NOISE CRITERIA. l.Ü'li tation.:> on airp\.ìrt noise in x'esi- d2ntial communities are hereby establishf'd. (a) 'l'he criterion community noise ec.:.uivalcr.t levcl (CNEL) is 65 dB for proposed new airports and for vacated 1.Ülitary airports be- ing converted to civiliill1 use. 1 From Airport Noise Regulations, Title 21, California Administrative Code, Division of Aeronautics, Subchapter 6, Noise Standards. -233- , ~'2"2!. ,. , .. ; ')1' ~ ......_'*"-.. l..::v 03-58 APPENDIX A-3 20S/~~£- 8/1J.. . . REPOK. ON CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 0:= '.Iv ATeK 'f." '-.....~. ..~.~~': C~lifo~~!~ !J~tcr S~Tvi~~ LA::30RA,O;:;:Y San 1("">·~ ?L"\~T Bakersfield D;" T;;:: COLLZC-r::::O 3-14-73 , SOURce 0;::- SAY.?L:=- W~ll 85-02 CA,;;:: ~E:CZIVZO 3,,1 ')-73 T¡;:ST ~ù. , 15::;05 CA,:;: OF ANAL.YSIS 3-l9-7~ ~E:POR';;:O TO , DJ~-! j DATE: OF REPO~T. 3-21-75 REASO;-'¿ FO~ A~ALYSI5 RO!lti~c I SICAR::10;-;...TE (HCO,) ¡ 1..21 I ¡ 27 C.5Ó 1--:-- CHLe"", ""' -1 û 0.76 ..1 t';17~;'T=: (/'.;.:>,) i 15 I~ .-..... \J.- ~"--' / ~~ 1. 9G MAGNESIU;14 (Me) - .........T. ....It" I ...~..OR..~ I ,.....~.o.. £.',,"'.a ..¡;""Ta ':l? 1.60 I HAROSESS (CACO:;) .J_ 4 0.32 ALKAUN!TY ( CACO:I) , I po.....,.::. þ' "'10."'''' ì I 0' : .' ::> I -:00 i .......,. 'c. ...,,,..14,. I MIIo.I"."'" t c.""..,....C..T. CAR¡;ON;'TE (CO.3) 0.6 0.02 CAI..CIUM (C,,) . - POTASSIUM (K) ~A:-O;CA:\:Z$:';; (MN) 120 ------ I C. c:: í· i ~ C·- I u. ._ 5Ut...~HA'rë: ($0.;.) SODIUM (101") 34___11.';.3 _: _~~L·08 i I SIL.¡CA (~'o'") IRON (F::) --- I PHOS?H;'õÖ: (PO,-) FLUOTIDZ (?) -ï I CAR:30N DIOX!:J1: (CC..) TOTAl. PISSOL.V¡¡::J SOI..I:J5 1---1 13.43 I 70° I HYDROGë:N 10:; (Pri) C3 I 0.15 I ! 12 -- I , I I i I SP¡¡;CIFIC CO~PUC7"':-IC~. MICROMHOS. Aõ ZS· C TOTA~I- ~-:56-r---·--- I 358 I J 22!¡. _.- TOTAL WATER TEMPERATURE I /s "'''' .lJU ANAL. YST R. Ie. Sextro REMARKS: 1o¿ide (I) = 10 ppb Bari~ill (Ba) g 0.0 pp~ Lithiu~ (Li) = 0.003 PF~ Stro~tiu~ (S~) g 0.29 pr~ :)( -231- APPENDIX A-4 Land Use Categories appropriate po1itan Area Gener~l Plan, Land LAND USE CATEGORY (Page 14) Insensitive Uses Moderately Sensitive Uses Sensitive Uses Highly Sensitive Uses to ambient noise levels - Bakersfield Metro- Use Element (1975) L50 NOISE LEVEL (dB (A)) Ldn EQUIVALENT DAY NIGHT 60 55 70 55 50 65 50 45 60 45 40 55 Examples of Land Uses with above categories INSENSITIVE LAND USES Agriculture Horticulture Livestock Farms Forestry Mining and Extraction Undeveloped Land Railways and Terminals Transit Systems and Terminals Auto Parking Raceways and Drag Strips Motorcycle Parks Rif1 e Ranges Liquid and Solid Waste Facilities Industrial Manufacturing Warehousing Utilities Wrecking and Salvage Yards Construction Yards MODERATELY SENSITIVE LAND USES Cour.try Clu:'s Athletic Clubs Tennis Clubs Golf Courses and Driving Ranges Equestrain Clubs Scientific Testing ~1verrm2nt Ser~ice Lodges, Community Associations Restaurants and Bars General Merchandising Professional Offices Recreational Vehicle Parks '. , SENSITIVE LAND USES Cemeteries Single Family Dwellings Multi-Family Dwellings Dormitories Resort Hotels Out Patient C1imics Preschools Motor Inns Hotels Professional Research Mobi1ehome Parks ( HIGHLY SENSITIVE LAND USES Educational Facilities Hospita 1 s Convalescent Homes Wildlife Sanctuaries Churches Auditoriums, Concert Halls € ( . /' -. c \ o , ....- .t:('. " '\ '- ." ~1.PPENDIX A-3 CALIFORNIA WAlEK SERVICE COMPANY MINERAL ANALYSIS # 16H74 BA¡.ŒRSF 1 ELD R5-0?' SAMPLED 4 20 76 t-';G/L CAr.~Ø~ATE 0.4 AICA~p,aNAïE 114 SULFA1E 35 CHLORIDE 28 NI1RA1E 9 ANIØNS HARDNESS (CAC03) DISS0LVED SOLIDS t'A~GANESE cr-iN) ?H'JSPHATt: (P04) CARBON DIOXIDE (C02> 30S/28E-8H2 ... .. ......-.... RFPØRTFù 4 28 ,6 ì'i ~ 0/ L r'iG/L MEQ/L 0.01 CALC Ill,'" 3~ I.RO J .R? tv) A(: NE S I l'M 4' 0.3'::> 0.,3 S0DIUM 31 1.35 0.79 P0TASSIUM 3.2 0.08 0.14 3.5L. C~TIØNS 3.55 MG/L 10ó 21 I 0.00 0.03 3 CONDUC1IVITY 3A9 MICROMH8S/CM r" . " "'. r.' 1r~i'-',~~~r,:;\TlJ:~f. -/0 DEGRE.E..S F , r· ( I \. U\~G~LIE~ CORROSION INDEX -0·19 COPPF.R S1 RØNl I u¡·t ZINC LI1HIU¡'1 o. 00 M(~/L o . 3 ó Ì"', (, / L 0.0:-, 'o':I,:/L o . 0 1 0 (f¡ (: I L COLOi< 0.0 l'~LS A~KALINI1Y <CAC03) SILICA (5102> IRON (FE) FLLORIDF (F) IODIDF (1) ~YDRØGF.N ION 7.70 (PH) IONIC SlRfNC1H 0.0055 M0LiL SODIUM ARSO~?IION RATIO 1.31 TURPIDITY 0.17 FTlI ION R A L é.- tÜH.H< 0 þ ? reA Lee 0 N 0 [ R K ø ~ 0 . ? Z · ~~ERATED CONTINUOuSLY J HGURS PRIOH 10 SAMPLING -230- ....,,... '.r-..,. .......~ rr-v"T";":;f'1!I MG/L 94 19 0.00 0·16 0.015 .. " ì.PPENDIX A-3 r' CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY f " MINERAL ANALYSIS # 16791 BAKER$F I ELO 125-01 305/25E-R8J_ SM1PL ED 3 9 76 REPORTED 3 22 76 l"iG/L ME"O/L t-lG/L MEQ/L CARBONATE 0.7 0·02 C,c,LC I Uì1 51 2.56 BICARB0NATE 138 2.26 ~I¡AGr-!E SlUM 7 0.56 SULFATE 69 1 .43 SODIUM 39 1.69 CHLCRIDE 34 0.96 P0TASSIUM 3.6 0.09 NITRATE 10 0.17 ) ANIONS 4.84 CATIONS 4.90 MG/L MG/L HARDNESS (CAC03) DISSOLVED SOLIDS r'j A N G A N ESE C i1 N ) PH0SPHA TE (PO 4) CARSON DIOXIDE <C02) 156 302 0.00 0.02 3 ALKALINITY (CAC03) S I L1 CA (S 1(2) IR0N (FE) FLU0RIDE (F) IODIDE (I) 1 1 LI 20 0.00 0.1 1 0.014 ~ØNDUCTIVITY 498 MICROMHOS/CM HYDR0GEN IØN 7.90 (PH) - !::i'1PERATURE 69 DEGREES F ''-- IGNIC STRENGTH 0.0019 M0L/L LANGELIER CØRRØSION INDEX +0.23 SODIU;V¡ ABSORPTION RATIO 1·35 COPPER S1ROrJT 1m: < ZINC LITHIUM 0.00 MG/L O.L:.' MG/L 0.00 MG/L 0.012 t-iG/L ~ ( COLOR 1.5 UNITS TllRBIDITY 0.19 FTU ION BAL ERROR 1.2 % CALC CØND ERROR 1.0 7 ØPERATED CONTINUOUSLY 5.5 HOURS PRIOR TO SAMPLING APPENDIX A-3 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER IN STUDY AREA Well-~umbering System W~lls are n~bered ~ccording to their location in the rectangular system for subdi"dsio'1 01' puiJ1L:. land. For example) in the well number lS/l'í~-2Pl, that part of the nQ~ber preceding the slash ináicates th~ t~n1shi? (T. IS.); the number and letter fcllo~ing the slash indicate the range (R. 1 W.); the num'ber follo·,dng the hyphen indicates the section (sec. 2) j the letter fQllowing the section number indicates the 40-acre (l6-ha) subdivision of the section according tc the lett~red diagram below. The final digit is a serial number for T.¡ells in each 40-acre (l6-ha) subdivision. The area lies ~ntire.ly in the southeast quadrant of the ~10Ullt Diablo base line and meridian. OY¡£ l/fa A Co L J ..$9. tv! 1- ;:;t: Ó S e(;'--ri~ c:= 40 Ae, '- "" ...... ...... ...... / / I I I I I ...... I ...... I ......" E ~ 3è ~ ~ ;!: W LI"I ::r CO') ~.... ~ ~ ~ .,,¿ oX ~ T.q H. T.3 H. T.2 H. T.I H. T.I S. T.2 S. :z: c: c:::> n: ,.u u N O -r I 36Sa.fv1L n e ¡?1V11SIII,P = I \ \ , . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ '-- , ........ 6 5 q 3 :2 J,.. ~ 7 8 9 10 II 12 18 17 16 15 Iq 13 . 23 21J 19 20 21 22 30 29 28 27 26 25 , 31 32 33 3lt 35 36 .. Table 1 is a cross index of the well numbers used by the u.s. Navy, the Indian Wells Valley County Water District, and the State well number used by the Geological Survey. \ I ! I -228- 20:1 NCN-PR£CISlON II<STlM/ENT CI..EAR ZON£ " ) ~o LEGEND --- AIRPORT eouNOARY - LAND oICQU'SlTION ......@·&UCM' MU(!)'''''ACIII:S '-"'::"'>·:','4 AVlG4T1ON EAS£MENT "AC c .... AVE AVE AVE '" AVE '"' [LDA. WAOI$GN .... l.AAO OPT'1C:IN 2 (·...I"tI"&t.~S¡ --~ 1..AN00P"n0H1 : ..:~:~~~...J L - BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK ~- ~:_:::.~::::::~~:~:: , \ - - ''- ~ ".:::----- II (, II II ....-.t! 1_..........- ,/ ",rt--'" ~/ /",1"1 r " II ql' II ( II II II ~ dJi L II I I;" :: , I ___u.~--Jj!Jt! ~[S - _. .------ r ~~ Ç>f'C ~O. TilliS CIMcUd ' Oat, A.D""~"'..ooI~.. "lA,IUOC1t !! cJ ~~ r- ~' ~ AVE o n WAClSON I N N '-J f 20 DRAWING NO BA-4 AIRPARK CONCEPT PLAN BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK SITE EVALUATION STUDY ~=- ;- _-c~ ~ _ .. -T--r-- By ~ . __d. ·~~.tO;i~. Oat. Environmental Impacts (continued) Page 5 14. PUBLIC SERVICES ANSWERS e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? YES MAYBE f. Other governmental services? The project may induce increased activities directly at the project and in the vicinity requiring public services. The project also extends into unincorporated area. In order to maintain management/services under a single governmental agency an annexation may be appropriate. 15. ENERGY Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? MAYBE Energy will be required in the airport and related facilities expansion and operation. Additional activities will require energy appropriation; however, a significant amount will be redistri- buted from Meadows Field activities. (Meadows Field is located in Oildale, approximately seven (7) miles to the North-Northwest). 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. . . ? MAYBE Under present zoning in an around the proposed airpark facility, there is a potential for severe noise impacts on residential development. Areas where residential development could occur adjacent to or near the airpark should be devoted to noise insensitive land uses. -226- Environmental Impacts (continued) Page 4 13. TRANSPORTATION movement generation of substantial additional vehicular Airpark expansion would require the abandonment of approxi- mately 900 feet of Planz Road, eliminating its present connection with Madison Avenue East of Planz Road. This would induce residents East of the proposed airpark to use either White Lane or Watts Drive to get to Union Avenue from their homes, thus increasing traffic on these two roads. Airpark expansion would require more parking for auto- mobiles and airplanes. A large amount of vacant land within the airpark boundary is expected to meet these requirements. c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Abandonment of a portion of Planz Road, provisions for increased traffic on roads bordering the airpark are requirements and impacts that would likely result from expansion of airpark facilities. Road schemes will be considered for airpark related vehicle movement. d. Alternatives to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Abanjonment of P~a:1z Read WJu:d fJrc~ t~affic to utilize White Lane and Watts Drive to the South and North respectively. New access roads would be pro- vided for airpark facilities. e. Alternatives to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Expansion of Airpark wou)d provide accommodations for expected future increases in air traffic demand in South Bakersfield. Approximately 10% of Meadows Field GAA activity could relocate to the project causing a temporary reduction in such activities at Meadows Field. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas? a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? -225- ANSWERS MAYBE YES YES YES YES Environmental Impacts (continued) Page 3 10. RISK OF UP~ET Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Increased aviation activities will probably increase the possibility of aircraft and aircraft ground-related accidents (e.g." fuel loading tanks or aircraft; pesticide loading for crop dusting aircraft). 11. POPULATION Will the proposal alter the location, distribu- tion, density or growth rate of the human popu- lation of an area? Depending on the extent of the noise problem (to be identified), ultimate residential development may be altered (density and distribution) to the North and South. Twenty (20) acres of R-l (Residential) Zoned land in the project area will be displaced. 12. HOUSING Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Existing residents to the East and Southeast may be affected by increased noise levels from the proposed èXpcüls;on. ThE. c1er;lór.d fùr a¿ditiür..:tl ~.í.l';.5'ir:g ir. tr.e vicinity may decrease if increased noise levels are experienced or predicted (NOTE: a proposed sub- division at Watts Drive and Madison Avenue allowing four housing units per gross acre. The proponent has indicated a demand for larger lots permitting the keeping of animals, however.) . 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Will the proposal result in: d. Generation of substantial additional vehicular move- ment? The projected increase of aircraft movements to 239,000 by 1998 plus associated airpark compatible uses generating higher density employment will produce significant increased traffic. The present entry into the Airpark does not allow adequate access from the North along Highway 204 for the intended increased activity (i.e., a median prevents access). Additional access will need to be planned. r¡r¡JI ANSWERS MAYBE YES MAYBE YES Environmental Impacts (continued) Page 2 6. NOISE Wi1l the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? An increase in the number of takeoffs and land- ings from an expanded airpark could greatly increase noise levels in the area. Recent Kern County Health Department Noise Monitoring indicates excessive noise levels experienced in a proposed subdivision in the vicinity of Watts Drive and Madison Avenue. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE Will the proposal produce new light or glare? New lighting would be required for runway expansion; however, its impact could be minimized with shield- ing and open space acquisition as well as land use control. Airpark related industrial uses could also add further lighting and glare; however, it could also be mitigated both through design (placement) and land use control (i.e., the possible industrial- commercial development is located within presently designated industrial use areas). 8. LAND USE Will the proposal result in a substantial ~lteration of the pres~rt or rlarned land use of an area? Expansion of the airpark would likely decrease avail- ability and demand for residential land uses in the vicinity of the airpark. An increase in noise- insensitive uses would probably occur. Structures may have to be removed to provide clear zones at both ends of the expanded runway. Uses within clear zone would be very limited. Some land adjacent to the airpark would have to be acquired in order to expand the runway. Uses other than runway on this land would likely be those re- lating to the functioning of the airpark, including roads, open space and industrial-commercial activities. -223- ANSWERS YES MAYBE YES YES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Project: Baketsfie1d Airpark Expansion, including runway expansion and reorientation, additional open space and land for airpark com- patible development. The following represent comments to all "YES" and "MAYBE" answers listed in the Project Initial Study, Appendix I. 1. EARTH Will the proposal result in: ANSWERS b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? YES A new runway would require grading and com- paction followed by paving to FAA standards. 3. WATER Will the proposal result in: b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? MAYBE Development may cause minor changes over ground- water conditions experienced with currently less development than that anticipated with the pro- ject. However, the General Plan Land Use Element indicated urban development for the area. Any potential adverse effects associated with 3ir~?~k ~~ransir.n I i~c1uct;ng re1aterl industri~l development in terms of the quality of runoff percolation into the groundwater table should be mitigated at the time development permits are issued. 4. PLANT LIFE Will the proposal result in: d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Some agricultural land exists (approximately 20 acres) in the area designated for runway expansion and the 20:1 Visual Clear Zone (see Airpark Concept Plan -- South, Southeast ~:~a) Areas which may be used for airpark activities or industry (including Land Option 2) could be used for agriculture but are currently vacant. Agriculture may be retained in the clear zone reducing the amount of displacement. YES -222- IV DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: CJ I find the proposed project COULO NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. CJ I find that altrough the proposed proj~ct could not have a 'significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 'HILL BE PREPARED. fKl I find the proposed project N\A Y have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Fe"illltJ~"'1 2/", 19be --1.~~~kJ ,~ (Signature) For' Þ/P. J>tW¿y SCl!.Ate.5_../.._..__ fllrA)AJI/J1r þ/~£("TeR... -221- 21. Mandatory Findings of SignifiCance. (a) Does'the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popuiation to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California , .. history or prehistory? (b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvant- age of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) (c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or rnor'3 ~epa, 'at~ r:..scurces whëre ~he impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) (d) Does the project have environmental effects which wi 11 cause substantial ad- verse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION -220- MAYBE NO -1L.. '-1L --JC- -X- 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following ~tilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septi.c tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal resu lt in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? . 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? -219- YES MAYBE NO -Ä... -Å-' --L -X.... --X..... --K... .1... -L -L -Ã- 2L b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail ·or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to, motor vehicles, bicyclists or I I pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or resu It in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. F "'e protection? b. Po tiCG prctectior.? c. Schoo Is? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon .existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? ",,, YES - ---1L -Ã.... -L -1L -X-- -Å. JL MAYBE NO --L - ...1L '-L -1L -1L --L 10. 11. 12. 6. Noise. Win the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or:"' glare? 8. Land Use. Win the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Wi 11 the Proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pestiç:ides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Population. Win the proposal alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human popu- .1ation of an area? Housing. Win the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will ~e proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial addi- tional vehicular movement? -217- YES -.lL J- -1L -K- -L MAYBE NO -X.... -Ã- -Ã- -A_ ....L h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 1. Exposure of people or property tD water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Win the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Win the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land anim~ls including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, i.nsects or microfauna)? . b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c·. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d.. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? -216- YES --Ã... - MAYBE NO -1L -L -K- -L --X- ...Ä.... --L ...L JL g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes" landslides" mudslides" gl~und failure" or similar hazards? 2. Air. Win the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature" or any change in climate" either locally or regionally? I / 3. Water. Win the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents" or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality" including but not limited to temperab..Jre" dissolved oxygen or turbidity'? f. Alteration of the direction or , rate of flow of ground waters? g,. Change in the quantity of ground waters" either through direct additions or wi thdrawals" or through interception of an' aquifer by cuts or excavations? ~ -215- YES fVIA YBE NO ~ -L -1L -Ã- JL --Ã- -L -Á-, -L -X- :...1L. APPENDIX Ä-2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To be completed by Lead Agency) 1. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent (.,.''1\f /)~ ~F/eLl:) 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: r>e.)~J t'pMê.ÞJt- "EJZ\lI("~ D~IZT?At!AJr 1'St), 'T)¡'¡JX'7VM A\,Jf:.~ I ~AIiUl~F'e.l,D I c..4 '33/)1 3. Date of Checklist Submitted Ftt:'¡W,ffR..V 2.J, I J4sÞ 4.. Agency Requiring Checklist tAT'! OF &~(e.fl..+FIIU,P 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable ~Þ<~1FIu.p tit/~~~K l:Jt~/i>H II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (EXplanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. ) . \ YES MAYBE NO 1 . Earth. Wi II the proposal resu 1 tin: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .JL b. Disruptions~ displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? -1L c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? -K d. The destruction" covering or modification of a.ny unique geologic or physical features? .JL e. Any increase in wind or. water erosion of soils" either on or off the site? ..lL f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands" or changes in siltation" deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? . . JL. APPENDIX A-2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To be completed by Lead Agency) 1. BACKGROUND ' 1. Name of Proponent (;.'1'( ()(: ~FIEJ..t:) 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: r>t.V,.J ",MW1- "l:JZ\I"~ p~/l~l!AJr J'Sð' T12';X'71h.J AtJt:=.UJ.E I ~AIttU2~F'e.J,/} I c..4 ...!f33DI 3. Date of Checklist Submitted F'tt:¡,~V '1.b I J4sÞ 4. Agency Requiring Checklist '" r-J H &~(t:.fL+FIUP 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable P.MÞ<u,.1r=,UP 1It1~I1~K J::Jt~IÞN II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (EXplanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. ) .. YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: d. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? i b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or over-covering of the soil? .K- c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? --K d. The destruction, covering or modification of any uniqua geologic or physical features? -1L e. Any increase in wind or. water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? JL f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? . . .lL IMPROVEMENTS t) SCHEDULE OF ACQUISITIONS AND CAPITAL CURRENT DOLLARS (con APPENDIX A-I LOCAL SHARE (l0%} FEDERAL SHARE ADAP (90%) TOTAL COST FISCAL YEAR 2nd PARKING APRON (46,670 SY @ $20. PROJECT DESCRIPTION NON-AIRFIELD PAVING Second Parking Apron 2.6 216.000 16.200 750.000 145.800 ,000 ,000 966 162 1987 1988 1988 1988 70/SY) ACCESS FACILITIES PAVING - Final Portion of Vehicle Parking (10,525 SY @ $15.40/SY) NON-AIRFIELD PAVING: 3rd PARKING APRON Initiate Paving 3rd parking apron (35,066 @ $22.50/SY) 7 2. 184,800 201,000 200 000 ! , 604 750 789,000 951,000 1988 1988 2.8 85,300 38,100 1,100 13 , 200 137,700 8,700 --º 8.700 277 . 700 ,400 ,900 000 000 343 9 119 750 363.000 ,500 11.000 132,200 887.700 381 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 Complete Paving 3rd parking (14,934 SY @ $24.30/SY) NON-AIRFIELD PAVING: EXTENDED PARKING APRON - Extended parking apron (15,700 SY @ $74.30/SY at a 90% ADAP participation rate) BUILDING REMOVAL/RELOCATION - Hanger (Bill Lewis) (9000 SF) ACCESS FACILITIES: ROADS - N-S ACCESS ROAD INITIATION (5,942 SY @ $22.10/SY) apron Demolition 2.9 3.0 3 .1 ! , 78,500 671,500 750,000 87,200 671,500 758,700 1990 1990 1990 FUNDED) ~ (100% Road Completion @ $24.10/SY) CONSTRUCTION N-S Access (3,618 SY CONTROL TOWER 3.2 (can't) A-1 ACQUISITION DIX 1\PP EN SCHEDULE OF LOCAL SHARE {10%) FEDERAL SHARE ADAP (90%) HIPROVENENTS TOTAL COST AND CAPITAL DOLLA..RS FISCAL YEAR s C URREN'f 900 ~f)O 900 , , , 37 I) 1 500 100 600 . . , 344 58 16 ,400 .600 .500 382 64 18 000 300 600 400 . , , , 8 1 1 2 500 300 200 400 , , , , 72 11 14 21 80.500 12,600 15,800 23.800 800 500 100 200 400 700 , , , 2, 25.600 9 2 5 300 500 700 300 500 , , , , , 4 1 82 21 51 28.400 ,800 ,600 ,900 ,700 ,200 4 1 91 23 57 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1935 acres @ $22.l0/acre) acres @ $22.l0/acre) @ $22.10/acre) PROJECT DESCRIPTION - Complete Parallel @ $20. 64·/LF) Segmented Circle Wind Rotating Beacon Apron Flood Lighting - Approach Aids VA5I-2 - Miscellaneous Runway Marking Taxiway Marking Perimeter Fencing Vault $4.50/LF) 00) @ Electrical Walls (concrete block) (1450 LF @ $25 NON-AIRFIELD PAVING: 1st PARKING APRON - Initiate Parking Apronl (1,565 5Y @ $17.38 1st Apron) (12.930 LF 2.3 I N ..... N I 2,700 83,000 24,500 750.000 27,200 833.000 166.700 5,200 900 900 1.700 542.700 400 700 700 500 400 800 14 189 000 000 , , , , !. , 130 750 46 7 7 15 Airfield paving Taxiway (17,334 Taxiway Extension (2.923 Holding Aprons (833 acres - Lighting Mirl (3,900 LF Cone and '709.400 600 600 600 200 , , , . 51 8 8 17 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 Complete 1st Parking (37.335 SY @ $19/5Y) BUILDING RELOCATION/REMOVAL - 3 T-hanger Rows2 (43,125 SF) Demolition - Hex-hanger (7,800 SF) Demolition - Industrial Building (6.375 SF) Den.0lition - Miscellaneous Building Demolition (3) FIRST PORTION OF VEHICLE Apron 2.4 144,400 939,800 1986 1986 1986 $12.89/SY) (11. 200 SY @ ACCESS FACILITIES PARKING Vehicle Parking 2.5 !. , ADAP Funds Thus ADAP Fu nd ing $40.000 qual ify for be will will no t costs 1986 enclosed Q Apron construction OJ in 1986 ~ in by T-Hangers be Parkino $741 to of cost Parking aprons, the area be applied to 90% of 85% relocate would T-hangers For may 2 LOCAL SHARE (10%} 83.000 40~000 60~000 83~000 52~000 2~00C 320~000 74.500 8~500 83.000 83.000 8~700 1. 300 1.500 56~300 15~200 83,000 ..., '-, '-' '-" - ...., - - APPENDIX A-I SCHEDULE OF ACQ~JIS ITIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CURRENT DOLLARS FEDERAL FISCAL TOTAL SHARE PROJECT DESCRIPTION YEAR COST ADAP (90%) I PHASE 1: PROPERTY ACQUISITION 1.1 BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK (93 acres) 1981 833~000 750>000 - Airpark Land (51 Acres @ $16~300/acre) 1981 - Capital Improvements currently on Airpark site (FMV) 1981 3 T-hanger rows 1981 40~00O 0 Industrial Building 1981 60~OOO 0 Conventional Hanger (Bill Lewis FBO) 1981 83~000 0 Hex-hanger 1981 52~OOO 0 7 mini-covers~ 6 Porta hangers 1981 2~000 0 I 1981 1~O70~OOO 750~OOO N ..... ..... - Remaining portion of Airpark Land I (42 acres @ $17,800/acre) 1982 747~600 673~100 1.2 ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED (63 acres) 1982 - additional acreage (6 acres @ $14~200/acre) 1982 85~400 76,900 1982 833,000 750,000 - additional acreage (52 acres @ $16~00O/acre) 1983 833,000 750~000 - Remaining additional acreage (5 acres @ $17,500/acre) 1984 87~500 78~800 1.3 EASEMENT ACQUISITION (9 acres @ $1~390/ccre) 1984 12 ~ 5 00 11 ~ 200 II PHASE 2: AIRPARK SITE PREPARATION & CON~TRUCTION 2.1 SITE PREPARATION 1984 - Clearing and Grubbing 1984 14,500 13,000 2.2 AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION 1984 - Paving 1984 Runway (32~500 SY @ $17.44/SY) 1984 566~700 510,400 Connecting Taxiway 1984 151 ~ 800 136 ~ 600 1984 833,000 750~000 APPENDICES 3. The abilities of land developers outside the stuQY area to create subdivisions and housing for a proportion of workers in the Study Area as well as the availability of vacant land within the area and the abilities of its owners to respond to project/plan needs (the develop- ment competition business). These lIabilities" whether inside or outside the Study Area, are largely influenced by local governmental develop- ment policy including the provision of urban services at the time and place when needed. Since most of the potential future housing in the Study Area is currently administered under County agencies, the ability to respond to urban development pressure is questionable. These factors, or assumptions, if accurate, would tend to slightly in- crease the growth-inducing possibilities of the project/plan outside the Study Area. Since ample vacant, undeveloped and currently agri- cultural land exists in several locations, primarily to the South, Southwest, and East of the Study Area and the full industrial po- tential and employment would not be realized for 40 years (see Table 44 ), the growth-inducing effects of the project and the Land Use Plan will be minimal. -210- The project,may have the potential to foster some growth beyond the study area over an extended time period. In effect, it could become an agent toward fulfillment of the current Land Use Plan -- or any amendment allowing for reasonable residential growth. The current Land Use Plan recommends an additional 787 acres of residential development over the present 119 acres in existing Low Density Resi- dential use (4.7 housing units per net acre). The proposed Land Use Plan, in removing considerable Low Density Residential for Industrial designations (see Table 16 ), creates the potential for only an ad- ditional 360 acres of residential development. This includes not only 90 acres of Medium Density Residential proposed between White Lane and Pacheco Road, but also approximately 270 acres of undeveloped currently designated residential land. It is estimated that the proposed Land Use Plan has the potential to permit approximately 2,600 housing units under full buildout conditions or an additional 2,040 units. Since the total industrial employment potential represented by the project and the Land Use Plan is 1,278 there would appear to be adequate residential capacity to provide homes for all future workers. However, there are factors beyond the scope of this study which may work against such an assumption. These include: 1. The project will very likely produce employment at more intensive scales than the 2.7 to 3 employees per acre within Southeast Bakersfield (see Table 40) thereby increasing total po- tential industrial employment. 2. Industrial employment will generate secondary and tertiary revenues used in the development of ancilliary and service employment, traditional basic/non-basic employment multipliers, however, may not be as appropriate here since it assumes the production of an export commodity. ) Increased industrial development and an expected change to more labor intensive activities~ may require more residential development in order to hous€ families related to increased employment opportunity. A range of residential types and intensities should be encouraged for more diversification of income groups. Plans and programs should be expanded to improve existing housing. Any agency or district created for the purpose of redevelopment (such as small business or Economic Development Administration) funding should also relate to improvement of existing housing and neighborhood conditions. The Specific P1an2 procedure may be the best formalized planning procedure available that would integrate the improvement of , existing conditions with the objectives of the General Plan for future development. Since it would serve to provide a planning document and policy involving both residents and business interests, it would also require the full coordination and commitment by City, County, and Special Districts (sewage, lighting, and other services). 2Section 65450, Government Code, Specific Plans include regulations, conditions and programs including specific standards for land uses, streets, population density, and conservation and the development of natural re- sources. According to the Draft General Plan Guidelines (State Office of Planning and Research), January, 1980, "Specific plans are most commonly used in areas of transition, such as on the developing periphery of urban areas and in central City areas designated for rehabilitation or redevelop- ment. Their main advantages are that they particularize the policies and programs of the General Plan and coordinate public and private efforts in the development of an area." Such a document can also be used to speed up local permit processing and environmental review. -208- (e) THE GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ) The project hàs considerable potential for inducing further industrial and airport related activity. A three-fold increase of based aircraft and total operations will occur over a 20-year period as a result of new construction and operational investment (aircraft and component services, sales, rental, flight training, charter services, and the availability of more diversified commercial services and uses basic to general aviation facilities). The project should foster increased use of the airport by businessmen and executivesl to the extent that large companies may develop hangars and maintenance for fleet operations (e.g., oil companies, corporate agriculture, construction, engineering, and investment firms). With the stimulus provided by an initial government investment to expand the airpark, including basic access and airside facilities, it is expected that private firms will develop additional hangars, park- ing and internal access allowing further opportunities for both large and smaller firms to lease or rent airpark sites and to acquire and develop off-site properties. With the increased private investment, as forecast, there is the potential for office development for those preferring airport accessibility and for non-airport related industrial and commercial use. Over time some of the larger land consuming industrial activities, primarily truck related, may relocate to more peripheral locations at the urban fringe (as it grows outward along Highways 99 and 58) for less expensive sites thereby allowing more labor intensive industrial, commercial, and professional office uses to develop along South Union Avenue. lThe potential exists for the introduction of business jet aircraft which are capable of maintaining noise to the projected levels within daytime operations. -207- As indicated in the Noise analysis, current and future residents will be affected 'by higher noise levels. The extent of population (future) influenced relates to either the adoption of the proposed plan (31,690) or the existing plan (39,365). However, the proposed plan, as a noise mitigation tool if implemented in its present form, would also add urban traffic noise and congestion to the areas along White Lane, Cotton- wood Road, and Pacheco Road. The present daytime ambient noise levels in the Southeast portion of the study area could be raised as high as 10 dB(A) depending on the type and intensity of industrial development while those other areas currently in various phases of urban development could be raised 5 to 10 dB(A). Because of the increased air and surface traffic proposed by the project and plan, the potential exists for more accidents despite the imple- mentation of additional surface road capacity and control and the employ- ment of additional navigational aids and increased runway capability. -206- (d) ANY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED The project will probably commit the community to an airport facility at the present location for an extended period into the future (beyond Year 2000). According to the proposed Airpark Layout Plan, two im- portant roads will be either redirected and extended (Planz Road and Madison Street) which will be funded by both public and private sources (Madison Street) may be paid entirely by developers) for the purpose of mitigating disrupted traffic patterns and providing direct access to land not currently served. The access improvement provided by a Madison Avenue extension will provide important benefits to future Air- park FBO's, Executive Hangars, and airport operations which will signifi- cantly change the environment from a rural (open field) condition to vigorous urban (traffic) activity. Its adverse effect will be received primarily by residents East of Madison Street in the form of noise, traffic conflict and visual change. The residents, however, will also receive a benefit in terms of improved access by the road project. Such access would not only improve private property value but would also contribute to the acceleration of change to urban residential intensities. The Planz Road closure and redirection South to White Lane will provide better access to one or two proposed aviation industrial sites (see Airport Layout Plan) on the Airpark Expansion Site and to existing and proposed additional industrial designated land uses. The road improve- ment should become an important catalyst for the industrial development of the area between Planz Road and White Lane. Future generations will be committed to the uses and activities resulting directly from these two road improvements. -205- 3. Loss of visual or aesthetic open space en- joyed by residents and visitors to the area as well as a more favorable landing environ- ment for aircraft operations from the safety perspective (visual identification, space for emergency landing sites and less urban inter- ferences such as glare, lighting, instrumenta- tion conflicts and local weather aberrations created by urban development on landing or approach activities). 4. Degradation of air quality potential. The extent of such degradation to the Southern San Joaquin Air Basin depends on the types and extent of industrial activities developed. Since the plan proposes only Light Manu- facturing uses, in order to provide the least interference with aircraft operations, the amount of increased air quality degradation potential inherent in the proposed plan should be minimal compared to the existing plan. 5. Microclimatic change in the form of higher and lower temperature extremes requiring more energy expenditure (air conditioning and ~eat;ng). -204- 2. Greater employment opportunity and increased family incomes for present and future residents of Southeast Bakersfield. Applying the present low 3 industrial jobs per acre to proposed full industrial development would create a minimum of ì,278 basic employment which should, in turn, stimulate secondary employment impacts in non- industrial jobs in other areas of Southeast Bakersfield. The current basic (industrial) employment proportion of total employment in the study area (84 percent) would be expected to decrease as the area is improved thereby pro- viding more secondary employment benefits in the form of suppliers, services and offices. 3. Tertiary benefits may be possible in the form of upgraded existing businesses (including in- creased employment and efficiency on existing lands not considered in previous calculations. The above net long-term benefits presented by the gation are seen as advantages over implementation Use Plan. Obviously both plans present some loss ductivity associated with maintaining the current butes and resources now enjoyed in the study area. described below, and are represented in the present percent) of the area. project and its miti- of the existing Land of long-term pro- base of physical attri- These losses are open space (72.6 1. Loss of both intensive and extensive (grazing) agricultural land producing both food and fiber and recreational, horticultural and educational (4-H, FFA projects) values -- a quantitative loss of 517 to 631 acres depending upon the final dis- position of proposed open space along White Lane. 2. The loss of the above (nearly 50 percent of the land area) for recharge potential for the ground- water aquifer used by farmers South of the site for water supply to supplement surface (irri- gation) as well as for domestic use for new residential development as indicated in the Land Use Element to the Arvin-Edison Canal (BMAGP). ~n~ (c) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The project will displace nearly 60 acres for the new reoriented and , extended runway. Of this, nearly 20 acres are used for permanent pasture for horses and the remainder is temporary pasture, also used currently for grazing horses and the existing residence and associated improvements. Since the land is not used for Intensive Agriculture (the production of food or fiber), the long-term productivity aspects of the land displacement for the project are insignificant. Other land elsewhere, could be used for pasture; however, depending upon topography, water supply, available capital for comparable improvements and other factors the present intensity of grazing may not be possible (i.e., more land may be needed to pasture the same number of animals elsewhere). The most important relationship is the proposed Land Use Plan prepared as a partial mitigationl to the increased noise exposure to existing and future residents in the event the project is developed. The net effort of the proposed plan; if compared to the present Land Use Plan, if implemented, would accomplish the following long-term physical and r.co~or.i~ berefits: 1. Provide permanent Open Space in the form of either agriculture or recreational use (golf course, athletic field, golf driving range, tennis or equestrian facilities, etc.) South of the airport along White Lane and Pacheco Road (approximately 190 acres, including 60 acres South of Pacheco Road). lFrom Table 20, comparison of Conditions 1 (a) and 2(c) shows that 7,438 potential residents of a total potential 15,113 persons subject to 60 dB(A) noise or greater (50.7 percent) would not become subjected to the noise. -202- 3. Other Alternative Land Uses: While the discussion generally in this part (d) is intended to center on alternative projects in terms of location or intensity, the proposed mitigation for the project (the Land Use Plan) could recom~end alternative land uses.6 The actual changes proposed in the plan include 279 acres to Industrial and 148 acres to Open Space from Low Density Residential. Because of the considerable amount of currently vacant industrial land in the study area (approximately 100 acres) and the slow rate of industrial development (4.1 acres annually) it would take nearly 25 years for it to become absorbed. Therefore, the 260 acres7 pro- posed for additional industrial development may appear excessive to some if it is assumed that the types of future industries and the development characteristics exhibited in the past will remain constant into the future and that the introduction of the expanded airpark will not effectively change those patterns. Under this s:enario it would be best to recommend the continuation of Low Density Residential (2-5 dwelling units per acre) within the 60-65 dB(A) noise range with noise attenuation. Those areas subject to 65-70 dB (A) could be considered for several uses including Open Space (golf courses and driving ranges, tennis clubs, athletic clubs similar to that presently recommended) or professional offices. The area subject to noise above 70 dB(A) near the South runway should be a careful blend of InduJtri&l uses (~recking, salvage and ware~ousin;) and Ope)) Space Easement in the Clear Zone. 6The proposed Land Use Pl an may be characteri zed as a "1¡¡orst case" situ- ation in order to address the maximum extent of environmental effect. If the project is approved, the proposed Land Use Plan may be amended to less intensive use depending on the decision of City and County Planning Com- missions, Council, and Board of Supervisors. 7The difference between the 279 acres of proposed land use change from residential to industrial and the 260 stated here is 19 acres of currently industrial zoned land in the City identified as an inconsistency between the plan and zoning. -201 - The one aspect of the evaluation which has changed since 1978 is the deter- mination of added noise impact. The 1976 study did not account for night time operations which are p¡'imari1y agricultural based take-offs occurring before 7 a.m. These early morning departures are technically included within "night operations" and are therefore weighted by a factor of 10 to emphasize the sensitivity of the activity when compared to the much lower ambient or environmental noise levels produced by other sources in the early morning. 2. No Project Alternative: The "no project" alternative, in this case, assumes continuation of the present airpark activities to its maximum safe operating capacity on the same 3,200 foot runway. It is estimated that the present activities could be increased up to 25 percent without significantly in- creasing the possibility of an accident. At present the 120 based aircraft produce approximately 73,400 annual aircraft movements.3 This represents a 27 percent increase over estimated 1976 activities.3 The safe operating maximum annual movements is therefore estimated at 91,750 or 150 actively based aircraft. Under this condition, the noise impact in terms of estimated noise contours would not be significantly increased4 over the present 11 square mile noise impact boundary. However, since new noise information is available it will r.eed to J':; a~¡:l:ed to the prf~sent runW:1Y ronfiguration in orit~r to identify areas for Land Use Element amendment in accord with compatible activities for various noise levels contained in the Noise Element.5 30ne movement or operation is either a take-off or landing. The Site Evalu- ation Study (P. 4-3) estimated 57,000 aircraft movements from 94 based aircraft in 1976 and the Consultant (PRC Speas) Noise Analysis (Appendix B, Page 3) estimated 179 average daily departures or arrivals in 1978 (or 65,335 annual). 4An examination of projected 1998 aircraft noise (attributed to 239,000 annual movements) shows only an additional 267 current housing units would be added to the noise impact boundary. Since the operations projected the greater than three times the present annual movement, the impact of 25% increased operations may affect only an estimated additional 23 homes (8 1/2% of 267). 50n April 2, 1980 the City Council directed the Planning Commission to undertake a study for the purpose of amending land uses from Residential to Industrial or Commercial within 2,000 feet of the airpark. -200- (7) Site No. 7 is located one mile East of Site No.6, be- tween South Union Avenue and Cottonwood Road (Section 29, Township 30, Range 28). No compelling negative factors were given for the dismissal of this site other than its less favorable location compared to Sites 4 and 8 and the Bakersfield Airpark and the necessity to acquire smaller parcels. (8) Site No. 8 is located within property owned and used by the Mt. Vernon Sanitation District for the discharge of sewer effluent (Section 27, Township 30, Range 28). Its single ownership, lack of both obstructions and conflict- ing land uses placed it among the top three candidate sites; however, it was not selected because of the more favorable financial, accessibility and proximity aspects of the present Airpark to the center of population and business activity. (9) Site No.9 (Section 26, Township 30, Range 28) is located one mile East of Site No.8, West of Fairfax Road. It was rejected because of the existence of a substantial dairy operation. (10) Site No. 10 (Section 22, Township 30, Range 28) is in- dicated South of Pacheco Road and North of the Arvin- Edison Canal within the City Municipal Farm area for discharge of treated effluent. The site was dismissed because of the recent installation of underground piping for the application of effluent for farming and a notice- able odor problem. (11) Site No. 11 (Sect~ons l~ and 15, Township 30, Range 28) is located less than one mile West of Fairfax Road and East of the Municipal Farm. The site was dropped from consideration primarily because of its proximity of nearby (4,500 and 1,500 feet) overhead major transmission lines. As indicated, Sites 4 and 8 and the present Bakersfield Airpark were selected for further and more detailed analysis including their financial implications over a twenty year period. The Bakersfield Airpark was selected as the best site since it appeared to be the only one capable of recovering sufficient revenue to meet all costs. Itls excellent location and high potential for industrial development, including proximity to available labor resources and urban services, led to the decision to proceed in the preparation of a Master Plan including a Financial and Management Plan/Program. -199- 1. Alternative Site Locations: The eleven candidate site studied by the con- sultant are shown on Map 3. (1) Site No. 1 is located North of the Kern River, West of HighwaY,99 and Gosford Road (Section 32, Township 29, Range 27). Site eliminated from detailed consideration because of close distance to Meadows Field traffic pattern (safety concern), overlapping market areas, in- compatible surface traffic flows with Meadows Field and the East-West runway configuration providing less than desirable wind coverage. (2) Site No. 2 (Sections 8 and 9, Township 30, Range 27) is located South of Stockdale Highway and the California State College Campus. Site rejected since it is within an approved general plan area and scheduled for develop- ment by the Tenneco Realty Development Company in the early 1980's. Site No.3 (Section 16, Township 30, Range 27) is also located on Tenneco-owned land intended for residential and industrial use. Major transmission lines along White Lane (bisecting the site) eliminated the site from consideration. (3) (4) Site No.4 (Section 22, Township 30, Range 27) is located North of Panama Lane and West of Stine Road. The sparse development on and around the site (now used for intensive agriculture) combined with proposed industrial land use nearby and good access pointed towards further consideration of this site. However, in the further analysis of this site ~corr,µaJ'ed to Site No.8 élnd the exLti;"Ç¡ ilir¡Ja\'k), it \JJ':' eliminated principally on the projected financial advantages that the airpark enjoyed over the other two sites on the basis of industrial park development and supporting revenue generation. Currently, a development plan is being prepared for the site by a consultant to the property owner for a combined residential, industrial and commercial project. An annexation request is currently being processed by the Local Agency Formation Commission. (5) Site No. 5 is located South of Panama Lane, between Wible Road and Stine Road (Section 26, Township 30, Range 27). While having excellent access potential, this site was dropped from consideration because of parcelling activity and the necessity to close Akers Road. Site No. 6 (Section 30, Township 30, Range 28) is located between South IIW Street and South Union Avenue (Business 99), South of Panama Lane. Development pressure and emerging residential subdivisions were felt to be in- compatible with an airport facility. (6) -198- (b) ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION No practical alternative to the project exists which would allow present opera- tions to triple by 1998 at the same general site location. Locating an ex- tended runway further to the north, in order to prevent the closure of Planz Road, would require the closure of Watts Drive. No advantage would be gained since both roads are classified as collectors on the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Circulation Element (as amended by the City of Bakersfield). The area one-half mile East of Cottonwood Road is used for treated sewage effluent disposal (Municipal Farm, City of Bakersfield Treatment Plants 1 and 2) and not projected for urban development. Because of the diminished need for East-West arterial routings, due to less planned urban development to the southeast, the spacing of arterials between the Ming Avenue/Casa Loma Drive and Panama Lane arterials has been increased to 1-1/2 miles rather than the usual one mile (usually on section lines). A slightly Northern location would not appreciably reduce the projected airpark noise to the study area or to Rexland Acres; however, it could produce more noise over the Bakersfield Central Business District and increase potential aircraft hazard within the Meadows Field traffic area. The only other alternatives available that would allow significantly increased operations would be alternative new sites farther from the urban or metro- politan area. Eleven alternate sites were examined by the City Consultantl pnor to the selection of the Bakersfield Airpark as an expansion project. These are summarized below. The final alternative for consideration, as re- quired by California Environmental Quality Act evaluation, is the "no projectll alternative, which is interpreted to be continued use of the present airpark to its safe operating capacity. Following the evaluation of site alternatives (1 and 2) are brief examinations into alternative land use proposals (3) which may be considered if mitigation is applied in the form of operational controls applied to noise effects and/or if the amount of industrial land proposed is excessive to the expectations of the community. lR. Dixon Speas Associates, Inc. (Los Angeles), Bakersfield Airpark Site Evaluation Study, June 1978, P. 6-2-49. -197- Potentia Significant Effects and Proposed Findings The project has the potential to foster growth induce- ment to the area. The proposed Land Use Plan is ident fied as an overall control mechanism providing econo- mic opportunity and reducing future land use, circu- lation, noise, safety and social problems which will occur under the present plan, if the,project is approved. Generally the response appears to remain accurate. The relocation of one residence may have adverse effects on that particular household. If noise levels exceeding 70 dB(A) have the potential to cause adverse effects on humans, the project could increase this risk by exposing 105 additional per- sons over the present 180 persons to 70 dB(A) or greater, on the basis of the existing Land Use Plan. The proposed Land Use Plan, however, reduces this exrosure by 50 percent for a net decrease of 40 persons (to 140) exposed when compared to the present exposure (180), on the current runway align- ment. Planz Road closure and its inconvenience to present residents is not considered a substantial adverse effect, although alternative miti~Jtion (Madison Avenue improvement) could respond to this social effect Response No No Mandator nifi cance - - c Does the project have impacts which are individuaìly limited but cumulatively considerable? d Does the project have environ- mental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? I ...... ~ 0'\ I nqs Aesthetlcs Physical appearances of both the Airpark and surrounding area is expected to change. Airpark uses will become more inten- sive and the rate of urban development surround- ing the project will accelerate with the open agricultural (pastoral) scene changing to an urban (industrial, commercial) añd suburban (residential) character. During the next 20 years, the extent of open space will decrease from the present 70 percent to minimum of 30 percent within the study on and Housin The project will create for more housing which may be accommo- as part of an upgrading economic influ- to the area. The extent of permanent bene will be influenced by the amount of planning coordination between governmental agencies and capital improvements placed into the overall as well as individual project development i Populat demands dated ence fit The project does not appear to contain either short-term or 'ong~term environmental goals. Some benefit may occur from redistribution of trips and mobile source emissions. The project will, however, accelerate urban development in the area, thereby increasing the potential for adverse effects which must be addressed on an individual project basis Mandator, n ifi ca nce Response a Continued Continued I ...... \0 (J1 I b Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals7 No i nd and Proposed Fi a area cant Effects i f i n Si al Potenti 10 11 s Noise The proposed Land Use Plan, as mitigation, ~reduce this future (Year 2000) increased ad- verse noise exposure to 446 persons by replacing future residential development with proposed in- dustrial and open space uses. However, control measures (preferential runway, pilot training) in the short-term and aircraft engine modjfication in the future are more significant in actually re- ducing the present and future adverse noise ex- posure to an insignificant level (current 4984 persons exposed would be reduced to 524 persons, and future 7815 exposed would be reduced to 75 or fewer n i nd i Proposed F and Effects persons persons) cant i f i n Si Potenti a 1 7 Response Co~tinued cance i f i n Mandator - - a Continued Health and Safet Realignment will create potential interference with Meadows Field activities and proposed 34:1 instrument approach conflicts with major transmission lines south of proposed runway. Mitigation recommended in form of adherence to hold- ing pattern altitudes and take-off patterns for former and either additional controls, lighting and markings or adoption of 20:1 visual approach only in latter 8 I I-' \.0 .þ. I 9.Public Services Project effects minimal; however, the proposed plan, in addition to road i~provements cited~ will require improved water supply and storm drainage system Potential Significant Effects nd Pr 1. Air Qual ity Limited net deterioration resulting from secondary impacts associated with Land Use Plan. Probably not signifi- cant in view of present AQMP/NAP strategies, EPA im- posed restrictions on mobile sources and relocation of 10 percent of Meadows Field users. 2. Hydrology Not a significant"effect. 3. Geology / Seismology Not a significant effect provided that hazardous substances are addressed in permit review pro- cess. 4. Flora and Project will accelerate urban Fauna conversion process; hence, loss of remaining limited native habi- tat. 5. Land Use Acceleration of urban development and increased incentives for in- dustrial and commercial activities. 6. Circulation Project will have limited effect on existing system except for closure of Planz Road. Mitigation for existing residents appears inade- quate; suggest early construction of Madison Avenue improvement. Proposed plan will require system improvements including upgraded Wilson-Watts connection. 7 Noise Currently 4,984 persons are ex- posed to adverse (65 DBA +) air- park generated noise. Project will increase exposure by 176 persons immediately and by 2821 persons in the future (current Land Use Plan). (Cont.) Mª-ndalQ..!: nifjcance Response a Does the project have the potential Maybe to degrade the quality of the environ- ment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal communi- ty, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California his- tory or pre-history? (The analysis leading to the initial study response related primarily to lithe potential to degrade the qual ity of the environment II I - ~ W I 10. Aesthetics: (III) (b) 7.) The physical appearance: of . the airpark will change to more intensive structural development (hangars) industrial uses) offices) services) and other airside facilities) with a control tower after 1990. Ancilliary off-site development will be encouraged both on existing vacant and underutilized present in- dustrial land and any future industrial areas according to the proposed Land Use Plan. The increased industrial and related commercial development scenario will foster residential projects also changing the present rural en- vironment in the southern part of the two-square-mile study area as well as contributing growth incentives to a lesser degree. Again) the project will be the catalytic agent in changing the rural aesthetic character of the area at a rate faster than would be expected without the project. 11. Population and Housing: (III) (c) 1.) The population and houc~~g units affected by higher and adverse noise values has been summarized in the Noise Section (No.7). It is also indicated in various other areas) including the growth-inducing impacts (Chapter IV e). -192- 9. Public Services: (III, (b) 5.) The project itself is not expected to create significant effects upon exist- ing public services. However, the proposed land Use Plan intended to reduce adverse noise effects will pro- duce effects on some public services. Upgraded road, water, and storm drainage systems would be necessary to address the effects of either the existing or proposed Land Use Plans. The project will have a significant effect in that it will create an acceleration to the conversion of land to urban uses and thereby an effective fiscal impact upon developers for con- struction and development and to a lesser extent local government in allocating funds for maintenance and operation. It is estimated that an upgraded water system con- sisting of 10 wells, new mains and hydrants would cost $7.5 million today to produce the additional 4.349 milllon gal)ons per day (mgd) required to serve and protect the proposed land uses. An additional 38.13 acre-feet of storm water will need to be collected, contained and disposed. -191- With the use of these mitigation or strategies, the current or short term population to be exposed to 60 decibels (CNEL) or greater is reduced from 25,750 to 5,956 of which only 700 persons (or 300 housing units) are subject to adverse noise of 65 decibels or greater. Future anticipated noise (60 dB(A) or greater) is reduced from an exposure of 39,365 persons to approxi- mately 1,450 persons (or 609 housing units) located primarily within the existing urban area to the North and West of the airpark as a result of applying Quiet Future Aircraft combined with the proposed Land Use Plan. Only 12 homes (or 30 persons) would become sub- ject to adverse noise (65 dB(A) or greater). The 12 future units (9 current plus 3 vacant lots) are within the unincorporated County and sound miti- gation should be applied with insulation to existing units as part of possible housing rehabilitation (many units within this "Crystal Heights" subdivision are in substandard condition and occupied by low and moderate income families who may qualify for home improvement loans). The three future homes should include noise insulation and design in their construction. 8. Health and Safety: (III, (b) 4.) The proposed re- alignment of the runway will create potential opera- tional interference with Meadows Field activities which should be properly mitigated through adherence to holding pattern altitudes (Meadows Field arrivals) and proper take-off patterns (at the airpark). Additional operational controls (glide path attitudes or displaced touchdown points) are needed to avoid major transmission lines South of the proposed runway along with additional lighting and markings. -190- 7. Noise: (See Chapter III, (b) 3.) Noise impacts of the proposed project are not significantly greater than the noise effect of present operations on the existing runway alignment (an increased exposure of approximately 1,500 persons, see Table 20). The project has the potential to increase the noise exposure area by 1.66 square miles affecting an additional 15,113 population under buildout conditions as proposed by the current Land Use Element of the General Plan. The noise exposure for both present and future (1998) operations, however, can be reduced to insignificant levels, when compared to current effects, with the imposition of various control measures in the form of limiting or eliminating agricultural based operations (crop dusting) or requiring conversion or modification to quieter aircraft operations. It is also possible to institute pilot instruction and/or alternate take-off patterns as an interim measure to full con- version/modification to quiet aircraft. The latter is suggested for consideration because of the economic necessity of maintaining agricultural based activities under present early morning conditions at the airpark. Therefore, from the practical prespective, the short range (or interim) projection is for a sig- nificant reduction (19,794 persons) of noise effect from the use of interim measures, including preferential runway use, to a long range (to 1998) ultimate reduction of approximately 37,915 persons with the use of the Quiet Future Aircraft and the proposed Land Use Plan. -189- 6. Circulation: (See Chapter III, (b) 2.) Runway expansion will re- quire the closure of 900 feet of Planz Road, a major collector serving 1800 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) represented primarily by residential development to the East of the project. Analysis shows the proposed mitigation (development of access from Planz Road terminus to White Lane) will not respond as directly to residential access needs to South Union Avenue and Northerly destination as the full development of Madison Street. While the project proposes Madison Street improvement, it is intended to be funded by private development at the Airpark (FBO's, executive hangars) and future residential subdividers East of Madison Street expected to occur later and in piece-meal fashion. The project is expected to generate 6500 ADT for a 27.7 percent increase over the present estimated 17,000 ADT generated by current project area development. However, the proposed Land Use Plan may produce an additional 30,500 ADT by the year 2000 or a 217.6 percent increase over current land use. In order to maintain present service levels the entire study area road system will need upgrading. The attractiveness of the area for Airpark and related activities will also require an amendment to the Circulation Element for the upgrading of the Wilson Road - Watts Drive Route as a major East/West collector. South Union Avenue should also be expanded to six lanes (36,000 ADT) al- though much of its projected increased volume includes regional or areawide users. It is important to understand that the present Land Use Element, which is strongly oriented to sub- urban residential expansion, would produce approximately the same ADT as the proposed plan. The significance of the project is that it would accelerate the urbanizing process and the pro- vision of appropriate street improvements in order to maintain acceptable service levels. The noise produced from the increased traffic is not expected to produce significant adverse effects on existing and proposed residents. -188- 4. Flora and Fauna: (III, (a) 7.) Loss of habitat for natu- ral flora and fauna will occur largely as a result of second- ary effects of the proposed Land Use Plan; however, this would also be an unavoidable consequence of the urbanization process jnherent in the present Land Use Plan. The acceler- ation of urban development and the resulting loss of native habitat may be increased by project approval. 5. Land Use: (See Chapter III, (b) 1.) Fifty-nine acres will be added to the airpark property changing its current large- ly vacant and temporary pasture usage to the extension of the runway and related safety facilities and Open Space Clear Zones (an additional nine acres of avigation ease- ments), relocated roads and airpark industrial uses. In response to updated noise data on existing and projected airpark activities, a proposed Land Use Plan was prepared in order to guide future development acceptable to both City and County Noise Element requirements for noise com- patible land use. The proposed plan respects existing land use commitments and recommends other mitigation for noise effects (e.g., insulation to reduce interior noise in resi- dences). It also has been prepared from the "worst case" perspective where chcicES are possible in order ta provide a full evaluation of the secondary or indirect environ- mental effects of the plan. An example of choice lies within those areas affected by 60 to 65 dB(A) noise where- by residential development may be permitted if projected market demands for additional industrial land are not practical in the planning period (20 years). The pro- posed Land Use Plan designates 279 acres of additional industrial use (to the 148 acres of present vacant in- dustrial areas) and 148 acres of Open Space from 427 acres of Low Density Residential use on the current BMAGP Land Use Element. The project, if approved, has the potential to accelerate the current development (land use change) rate in the Study Area and may tend to beneficially in!luence the present stagnation of growth both within and outside the Study Area. -187- 1. Air Quality: (See Chapter III, (a) 4.) Limited net deteri- oration of local, project area, air quality will occur as a result of the secondary impact of the proposed Land Use Plan in reco~mending industrial land uses to replace Low Density Residential uses as currently proposed on the BMAGP Land Use Element. The three-fold increase of projected aircraft activities and their potential to produce additional emissions (as a direct effect of the project) should be offset by re- duced commuting by airpark users including relocated air- craft from Meadows Field at the Southeast edge of the urban community where pollutants would not be dispersed over urban residential concentrations according to prevailing North- west wind patterns. Air Pollution Control District regu- lations will limit the potential air emissions of future industrial activities to acceptable levels. 2. Hydrology: (III, (a) 5.) Project and proposed Land Use Plan generated sewage will be contained and treated by the City of Bakersfield. All new industrial and resi- dential effluent will be disposed within existing or pro- posed sewer facilities. County Health Department will pr~vide control r~l~ase of hùzardrus s'lbst~nr8S and in- dustrial wastes not acceptable to conventional treatment. The nature of airpark related industrial uses and zoning limitations to M-l (Light Industrial) activities should limit the extent of special mitigation. 3. Geology/Seismology: (III, (a) 6.) Flooding could result from the rupture of Lake Isabella Dam in a severe seismic event. Most of the Bakersfield urban area, including the entire Study Area and project, could become flooded. Future industrial development in the area, including the storage and use of hazardous substances, could be affected. However, in the permit process for such activity, it is recommended that conditions are required to ensure that hazardous substances are secured in the event of an emergency. -186- CHAPTER IV CONSEQUENCES OF PROJECT APPROVAL (a) ANY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED . The phrase "significant effect on the environmentll occupies a critical role in the preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Report. Much is left to the judgement of the reviewer as to what constitutes significance, particularly when dealing with the secondary effects of a proposed Land Use Plan. Without specific industrial projects many effects cannot be quantified. Also many of the effects discussed~ such as traffic generation, are not unique to the proposed plan since the current Land Use Plan, when implemented, is capable of producing "signi- ficant effects". Significant effects are further defined in the State EIR Guidelines as adverse in nature: [Section 15040J "Significant Effect on the Environment. Significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially sutstantia1, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the activity including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. II Further wording has been added (Section 15002, effective May 10, 1980) to the CEQA Guidelines requiring the government agency approving the project to "make findings on whether there are feasible ways available to avoid or reduce the adverse environmental effeçts." Reference may also be made to the Initial Study (Appendix A-2) to the Mandatory Findings of Significance leading to the preparation of this Draft EIR. The following findings, excerpted from Chapter III analysis, and briefly stated here are compared at the end of this section (a) to the four Mandatory Findings of Significance. It is important to note that the listing of Significant effects includes those which can be re- duced to an insignificant level but not entirely eliminated through either design or another form of mitigation. -185- 1 ' Two-square-mile study area excluding existing Airpark property. 2Same definition as used in Table 43, Footnote 1 ~ but excluding the 2- square-mile Bakersfield Airpark Study area and the Bakersfield Airpark. 3The 260.2 additional acres. 4 Data not available or not applicable. 5When area becomes fully developed, the area growth rate of nine acres per year will be maintained exclusively in Area (2) and then (1) which will shorten the times needed for full development in Areas {l) and (2). 6If industrial development is concentrated first into Area (1), then Area (2) and finally Area (3). -1R3- , ..... :0 '.J I A rea (1) Area (2) Area (3) (1 )+(2)+(3) Industrial Land or Existirg AirP1rk Study Southeast Southeast Bakersfield Metropol itan Uses in Bakersfield Area Exclu~- Study Area Study Area Area Airpark ing Airpark Excl~ding Areas 1 & 2 1 Employment Ratio (employees 3 3 3 3 3 per gross acre) 2 Industrial employment in- crease per year (employ- 1.3 11. 1 14.6 27 224 ment per year) 3 Industrial Land Con- sumption Rate increase 0.4 3.7 5 9 75 (acres per year), by area 4 Vacant Industrial Land 65 3613 427 853 N/A4 5 Industrial Employment N/A4 under full development 195 1083 1281 2559 of Vacant Industrial Land 6 Applying Area Growth Rate: Time Needed for Full 955 95 85 N/A4 N/A4 Development (years) of the area 7 Directing the trend of Development: Time needed 7 40 48 95 N/A4 for full development (year) (9 AC/yr) TABLE 44 Industrial Land Absorption Applying Current Employee/Acre Ratio Bakersfield Airpark Study Area and Southeast Bakersfield These ratios are comparatively lower than those of most urban cities. The type of industrial activities as proposed for the airpark study area may result a ratio of 3 to 4 times higher than the existing ratio. For a conservative analysis~ the present ratio is used. Table 44 provides a summary of the projected industrial employment increase and the time span necessary for the development of present available industrial land resources. Applying the current industrial land absorption rates (see Table 44) without the proposed project~ it could take up to 95 years before industrial land in the Southeast study area becomes fully developed. This general conclusion also applies to the Bakersfield Airpark area. However~ if the area growth rate of 9 acres per year is concentrated in the Bakersfield Airpark and the Airpark Study area~ it would take only 7 years for the Bakersfield Airpark to become fully developed~ but another 40 years for the remaining two square miles of the Airpark Study area to be developed. The total industrial employment anticipated from full development of the Airpark and Airpark Study Area is 1~278~ which also represents approxi- mately 50% of the total industrial employment in the Southeast Study Area. Therefore, it is essentially important for the City to encourage and stimu- late the industrial growth in the area in order to improve the existing economy, especially where abandoned land is available. The proposed pro- ject (airpark expansion) is seen as an effective way to introduce growth into the area and assist to achieve the above objectives. Housing demand and population increase due to the increase of industrial employment opportunity could be accommodated by new residential development pro- posed in the area South of White Lane and East of the Kern Island Canal. No adverse economic or social impact in the area is forseen from this industrial growth. -181- Using the industrial employment data presented in ïable 42, the Southeast area would have an industrial employee ratio of approximately 2.7 employees per acre in 1979 (i.e., 1,845 employees divided by 694 acres). This ratio is relatively low due to vast land consumers such as oil field, refineries, railroad depots, and numerous warehouse and outdoor storage in the area. Applying this ratio to the industrial employment figures for the Southeast area from 1971 to 1975, indicates an industrial land consumption rate of approximately 90.6 acresl per year. Metropolitan Bakersfield has a similar rate of 83 acres per year2 for the 1975-1979 period. However, for the 1971- 1975 period, the Metropolitan area has a much higher rate3 of 302 acres per year. Because of a large discrepency existing between the two extremes, a mid-range ratio of 195 acres per year is selected for the present analysis. As depicted in Table 42, recent industrial employment growth rate in the Bakersfield Metropolitan area (1975-1979) was about 224 workers per year.4 Assuming an upward employment trend would occur in the Southeast area after 1980 and that a proportionate share of the employment market would be cap- tured within the Southeast area, an estimated increase of 275 industrial employees a year would occur in the Southeast. If the ratio is rounded to 3 employees per acre, it is projected that 9 acres of additional land will be consumed each year for industrial activity in the Southeast area. 1(2,196 -1,218) employment 2.7 employments per acre 4 years = 90.6 acres per year. 2(16,003 - 15,108) 2.7 315,108 - 11,850 2.7 f 4 years = 83 acres per year. . 4 = 302 acres per year, see Table 416,003 - 15,108 = 4 224 industrial employments per year, see Table 5For 1971, 1,218 11 ,850 Average = 12%; then 12 2 196 1,845 = 10.3%; 1975, 15:108 = 14.5%; 1979, 16,003 of 224 employments = 27 employments. = 11.5%; -180- TABLE 43 Industrial Land Use. Southeast Bakersfielda by City and County Areas and Zone District October 1978 Withi n City Area Within County Area . Grand ~1-1 b M_2b Other City M_lb M_2b M_3b Other County Tota 1 I Zoning Total Zoning Total I I Land Zoned 273.87 47.83 321 .7 118 560.98 371.2 1050.18 1371 .88 Industrial Uses 43.87 37.8 6.7 I 88.37 56.8 213.54 259 76.15 605.49 693.86 Other Uses 10.6 3.6 14.2 33.1 37.8 83.2 154.1 I 168.3 Developed Total 54.47 41.4 95.87 89.9 251.34 342 . 2 683.44 779.31 Vacant 219.4 6.43 225.83 28.1 309.64 29 366.74 592.57 I ..... '-.J 1.0 I aComprising Census Tracts 21 22 23.01 23.02 24 25 26 30 31.02 and 31 .03 bSee City or County Industrial Zoning. In the City, M-l is Light Manufacturing Zone, M-2 is General Manu- facturing. In the County, M-l represents Limited Manufacturing Zone, M-2 represents Light Manufacturing, and M-3 represents General Manufacturing. SOURCE City of Bakersfield Land Use Inventory, 1978. The inventory comprised all Bakersfield urban land use South of the Kern River under both City and County jurisdiction - ---y ( 93308 ) OILDALE BRANCH s: c c: 2 ..... STATION < rn A :0 2 c MAIN 2 C 93301 ) C 93305 ) :> < !'" c: 2 0 2 n CALlFORrJlA :I: AVE. m :þ E. CALIF. AVr:. en SOUTH ..... < m m :0 2 MAIN :> c: < m !'" BELLE TERRACE STATION B STOCKDALE C 93309 ) c: ~ :I: C') :I: :E :> -< ID ID CD -< ." :> en en HILLCREST CENTER BRANCH C 93306) C 93304 ) ( 93307 ) ..... STUDY ""'ARE.A WHITE LN. en C c: ..... :I: ::c en ;-4 PANAMA IN. BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK EXPANSION E I R POSTAL ZIP CODE BOUNDARIES SOURC£:PACIFIC TELEPHONE fD/SON II/CHIA. rl'.q ... A MAP 26 NO SCALE As previously noted, all employment within the airpark study area (two square miles) is estimated at 846 permanent jobs. More than 84 percent or 700 persons are industrial (primarily transportation) employed. If one dis- regards the ~inor discrepancy (in percentage) existing between all employ- ment and industrial employment for the moment and assuming that they are virtually equal, the airpark study area would have captured 46 percent of the 1979 total industrial employment in Southeast Bakersfield (see Table 42 Zip Code area 93307). This indicates how important industrial employment is to the project area, and the economy of Southeast Bakersfield. As would be expected, 82 percent of the employment at the airpark is related to aviation and nearly all activities (except the indoor golf) are dependent upon the existence of the Bakersfield Airpark. The total employment at the Airpark represents 12.5 percent of that of the Airpark study area (see Table 41). In studying the economic potential of the Bakersfield Airpark, it is appropriate to examine its potential land use for industry. The amount of land available for industrial development would serve as an indicator of its potential and industrial employment opportunity. With the present trend of industrial development in the area, capturing 46 percent of the industrial employment in Southeast Bakersfield, the expansion of the Bakersfield Airpark would provide additional jobs and encourage the use of vacant industrial zoned land. The proposed project would have a significant impact (beneficial) to the economy of Southeast Bakersfield. A more detailed analysis of the impact of industrial land use to the future economy or anticipating employment in the area is discussed below. Impact: From the land use data collected for the Southeast study area (an area nearly consistent with Zip Code 93307), there are 1,372 acres zoned for industrial uses (see Table 43). Nearly 45 percent (or 611 acres) are developed in industrial uses. Nonconforming industrial uses consumed another 83 acres in the area under other zoning. Therefore, the total acreage of land developed for industrial use in the area is estimated at 694 acres. Vacant land available for industrial use in the area is estimated at about 593 acres but not including approximately 260 acres proposed in the project plan. Developed industrial land use by categories (i.e., M-l, M-2, and M-3) is also included in Table 43 TABLE 42 Industria Empl llent Trends ~etropolitan Bakersfield and Southeast Areas 971-1979 - b Metro Bakersfield Areaa Southeast Study Areaa Ind. Classification - Group 1971 1975 1979 1971 1975 1979 - 20 Food & Kindred 5643 6343 6045 378 433 149 22 Textile Mill 389 235 304 8 142 207 23 Apparel & Fabrics 342 345 251 130 205 101 24 Lumber & Wood 119 251 415 6 0 19 25 Furniture & Fixture 75 84 137 7 8 12 27 Printing & Publishing 438 425 374 7 8 4 28 Chemicals & Allied 300 318 357 10 5 22 29 Pertoleum Refining 879 2690 3470 0 716 620 30 Rubber & Plastics Z15 388 236 23 57 48 I 31 Leather 344 9 5 0 0 0 --' 32 Stone, Clay & Glass 522 575 362 4 29 33 -.....J ~ 33 Primary Metal Products 12 18 3 0 0 0 I 34 Fabricated Metal Products 1412 1956 2297 219 267 268 35 Machinery ~4l 475 593 148 87 286 36 Electrical Machinery 194 148 120 7 18 28 37 Transportation 234 178 200 164 125 37 38 Professional 19 59 49 0 0 0 39 Miscellaneous 472 611 785 107 96 11 - TOTAL 11 ,850 1 5 , 1 08 16,003 1 ,218 2, 196 1,845 - aThe Bakersfield Metropolitan Area, as Jefined for the present analysis, consists of the zip code areas 93301 93302, 93303, 93302, 93305, 93306, 93308, and 93309, while the Southeast area is defined as zip code area 93307, in this instance (see Map 26). bAccording to the Standard Industrial Cìassification developed by the Technical Committee on Standard Industrial Classification, Office of Statistical Standards of the Bureau of the Budget Executive Office of the President. SOURCES The Crossroads of California Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce 1971 975 and 1979 TABLE 41 Employment Data for the Bakersfield Airpark and Airpark Study Area June 1980 , Airpark Study Area Tota 1 Bakersfield Airpark Airpark (excluding airpark) Study Area Employment by Land Use Type No. % No. % of No. % Total Industriala 633 89.4 75b 10.6 708 84 Commercial 65 67.7 31 32.3 96 11 Public Education 36 100 0 0 36 4 Recreational 6 100 0 0 6 1 Total 740 87.5 106 12.5 846 100 I I-' '-I U1 1 aprimarily transportation blncludes Garriott Crop Dusters whose operations require the Airpark although the firm's improve- ments are not physically located on the Airpark property (c) 3. SOCIOECONOMICS , ECONOMIC FACTORS Setting: The economic base of the Bakersfield Airpark and the airpark study area substantially rely on transportation, or more specifically, the trucking business along Union Avenue and general aviation at the airpark. To everyone's knowledge, most truck traffic in and out of the Rosedale and Oildale oil refineries and the Bakersfield Metropolitan area have been concentrated at Union Avenue and Rosedale Highway. Con- sequently, most business developed along Union Avenue or Rosedale Highway are oriented toward truck service and maintenance, and related activity such as truck stops, motels, restaurants, etc. Subsequent employment created in these areas are also of the same nature. From a telephone survey of employment within a two square mile area covering the Bakersfield Airpark, it was found that 84 percent of the employment pertains to transportation, 11 percent to commercial, and the remaining 5 percent to recreation and public education (see Table 41). The same survey indicates employment at the Bakersfield Airpark to be prímnrily related to aircraft maintenance and service and flying in- struction and air taxi services. One major employer based adjacent to the airpark is the Garriott Crop Dusting Company which employs, at a seasonal high, as many as 50 people in their dusting operations. In conjunction with the telephone survey, a review of the industrial employment data published by the local Chamber of Commerce (see Table 42) indicated that while the Bakersfield Metropolitan area was experiencing a slow growth of 6 percent in industrial employment from 1975 to 1979, the Southeast study area lost 16 percent within the same period. -174- The foreseeable social impact of the proposed project would be the re- location of àffected residents and their homes. As the project is federally assisted, it is required to follow the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970;1 (1) to insure that uniform, fair, and equitable treatment be afforded persons displaced as a result of federally assisted projects in order that such persons shall not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of pro- grams designed for the benefit of the public as a whole, and (2) in the acquisition of real property for a federally assisted project, to encourage and expedite acquisition by agreements with owners of such property to avoid litigation and relieve congestion in courts, to assure consistent treatment for owners of real property to be so ac- quired, and to promote public confidence in Federal land acquisition. Mitigation: In order to reduce the social impact on affected residents relocation should occur in the general area where residents originally lived. Property exchange between Airpark and property owners within the same general area is another measure which may help to minimize the social-economic impact that might be brought about by the acqui- sition of land for airport expansion. Both measures are applicable to the present project without creating any significant social impact on residents and/or property owners. 142 U.S.C., 4601, 84 Stat., 1899; Pub. L. 91-646. Also Part 42 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations. -173- (c) SOCIOECONOMICS 2. SOCIAL FACTORS Setting: As indicated previously (Land Use) the Bakersfield Airpark is located in a mixed land use situation shared by the City and County. A considerable amount of land within the study area is either in vacant land or is used for pasture and agriculture. The residents are largely minority with low to moderate household incomes. Neighborhood conditions, aside from some evidence of deteriorating housing conditions, is rela- tively stable. Few homes appear to be for sale and some new construction is occurring. Eight churches and several neighborhood grocery stores and other businesses provide substance and opportunity for social contact and service to the neighborhood. Impact: Noise, Land Use, Circulation, Economic Growth anJ other changes forecast by the project are discussed under other sections. The closure of Planz Road can be disruptive to present travel patterns although several alternatives, including mitigation through new road construction can eventually minimize adverse impacts. The projPct will reQuire the acquisition of approximately 59 acres of vacant and pasture land for the expansion of the runway. It will also require the relocation of one residence from the proposed clear zone South of White Lane and the relocation of one vacant industrial workshop in order to clear the area for the North clear zone (North of Watts Drive). / -172- 998 to ties i TABLE 40 ts Needing Rehabilitation Influenced by Generated by Bakersfield Airpark Activ City and County Jurisdiction, 1974 Estimated Housing Uni mated Higher Noise (60 dB(A) +) by Various Areas, i Est ts i Estimated Distribution Units County % Ún % ty i C Estimated Units Withi n 60 dB(A) on i % Units Rehabil itgt Needed Area A) + County ( 65 dB City 69 69 o o 155 65 340 52 138 90 00 45 o o 00 25 95 90 00 00 1 1 1 1 o 84 318 311 o 195 18 6 o o o 55 100 100 o 75 5 10 o o + 69 153 318 311 155 260 358 58 138 70 38 5 38 38 25 21 21 5 21 15 Study Areab Metro Area c Census Tract 18 19.01 19.02 25 26 27 28.02 30 South d Area 31 o o o 51 36 113 o 21 6 o 11 45 o 146 12 o o o I ...... ~ ...... I 978 7 . 50 932 3 . 49 890 , 1 1 18 se Area ; No Total 258 214 3-55-62 rpark pp A; . Element Metropolitan Bakersfield EDAW developed urban 1rea North/Northwest of n Housi argely aDraft bThe the cation located South of the Study Area i f dent; ; Tract for Census c See Map 25 dThe area As Table 20 shows, the proposed Land Use Plan (Condition 2 c.) would re- duce the total potential population subject to project noise from 39,365 to 31,690, a 24% reduction. This reduction could be greater if it is deter- mined that agricultural or other Open Space or additional industrial uses should be applied in order to not allow any future units to be constructed within the 60-65 dB(A) noise contour South of Pacheco Road. For those reasons cited in the Land Use Analysis (Impacts Section, Page 76 ), it was determined to not recommend such changes at this time. With the extent of changes indicated the plan would allow only approximately 4,700 additional persons (rather than 12,393) to experience higher noise generated by the airpark expansion project. Those potential new units that would be con- structed in the noise impact boundary should become subject at the build- ing permission stage to noisé soundproofing techniques and mitigation to assure acceptable interior noise levels (45 dB(A)). Existing units may also be upgraded through basic sound insulation as out- lined earlier in this Section. This might be more readily applied, in practical terms, to areas identified fOi housing rehabilitation assistance normally through community development funding.l Since a high proportion of homes in need of repair work (50.7%) are in the unincorporated County, the application of noise mitigation in rehabilitation programs should also be approved by the County of Kern. The estimated number (1,890) and d¡stri~u~io~ ~~ h~w~s i~ ~~rd of ~inor and m~jor -eh~bilitation witþin the noise impact area by City and County Census Tracts is shO\'/n in Table 40 As the Table shows, all units within the study area in need of minor and major rehabilitation are within the unincorporated County. In the ap- plication of priority areas for rehabilitation funding assistance, it is recommended that those substandard units subject to higher noise (65 dB(A) or greater) be served first. lBoth the City and County operate several home improvement and rehabilita- tion loan and grant programs. The County Community Development Program Depart- ment currently has identified one target area for these programs (Cottonwood Road, Madison Street, Bradshaw Street, and Hacienda Street). The basic source of funding used to date in this area is through the Community Development Block Grant Program and Deferred Payment Rehabilitation Loans administered with a local lending institution. The City also uses the same basic programs relying heavily on low interest rates arranged through a lending institution with block grant funds applied to the writedown (difference between market rate and interest rate affordable by low to moderate income recipients). -170- Impacts: The project impacts are evaluated from the perspective of the existing BMAGP Land Use Element (see Map 12). As Table 20 indicates, ap- proximately 2,720 additional current population would be affected by 60 dB(A) or greater noise values if the project were approved and activities were increased to 1998.' This is a net figure since the runway reorienta- tion would remove some areas and add others affected by the noise of current airpark operations. For example, 32 homes in the Crystal Heights subdivision would no longer be subject to 60 dB(A) noise while over 300 homes in Rexland Acres would become affected by higher noise impact. With the area to the North and West of the Airpark nearly fully developed, and therefore not affected by any runway reorientation, the area to the South of the project and study area is subject to the greatest measurable impact in terms of its effect on present population levels. Another aspect of project impact is its potential in placing future resi- dents, as represented by the land use designation5 for areas not yet developed, subject to higher noise impacts. As Table 20 indicates (Condition 2 b.) over 39,000 persons could reside in over 15,000 homes (a 46% increase) within the projected noise impact boundary under con- ditions of full development. The final and most significant impact presented by the project on popu- lation and housing is the potential for increased residential development for the Study Area. Employment opportunities stimulated by the project should encourage subdivision and housing for varying needs.l Mitigation: The proposed Land Use Plan is intended to mitigate the ad- verse noise potential of the project by recommending land use amendments on undeveloped areas. Additional mitigation is also possible for present residents in the form of soundproofing and design alteration to homes inci- dental to rehabilitation work responding to other basic shelter needs (i.e., energy efficiency, solar adaptation, remodeling and additions) as well as the implementation of control measures and aircraft modification as discussed in the Noise Section (see Pages 93-94). lFor further discission on planning for residential growth, see Page 208. -169- I 5T !, I' " -4~o--=c~l,,=-~~ ;r="=-~~-~~~' 'I: ~ 62.00 :! " ,I It ~ .. ~I .' ~ . . : I ; ~. t ~;~=-.~.~ ==4; -'="4¡ . --~~ :: II " ,I ~ II . --~--'- ----- ._~, - --- --, w,". --.,,......,-----< " I i: i I I, I: 09.01 6~)00 ¡! y - '~ i . _ -~~ ~~~---~ I I ~ I I I I r I -= i , I , r--.J '.. j -1.. ,rSTUDY AREA 24,00 --I I I I , __.~. ','" J . """ - -"' ~.~; t' ,:-...".- , - , 1"'1 M ¡. M :- ;i... ""t._..". 7: . -r~' 7 'f:" ~µ,\ , i / .J ,I - J,J,,"J..._- t ~ ~--.--=:-- r \ 'Ç "= ",. - - 'r-~--- II _.~ § ". I' !, '.:;., I 11 J a c-'_.~~= :If-'-~'T.. \, [jW ! .' \ I; I .... i: II .. , ! I, I' ; II ¡ :1 \, , ~ I ¡I¡--:;-\,._.... 'II I >,11 ,I i : "I -i ' jr~T ;1 J \\ F O=-'jÞ-=-'-='¡~- , II II i ~ .I , ,~ ~,~. . ~'-'~l -3I.E1Þ , ... ,i r ~ :1 :: . 'I 'i.' ~ , 'I, ;1 . -i" : ,., -4; ,.. t32'.OI I :1 , I t "::':-. _~. _w = 38.00 ,-- ---- -)l¡;a-" - - "28.01 A MAP 25 o 2 MILES ~~ ,,~~ IIIEISFI£LD III PAil (IPANSIOII £ I CENSUS TRACTS, BAKERSFIELD AREA 1.~Z"~~'~~~·-OO-~·"~""'7.;:'~7""''''·'''~-''P,~c'''·''.~·-- In addition to the data available allowing direct comparisons~ above, several othe~ indicators may be helpful from census tract totals in order to make inferences on families below the poverty level, unemployment and educational background. Although the study area covers one-half of the area contained in Census Tracts 25 and 31.03 (see Map 21) only 22% of the population is located in it. TABLE 39 Poverty Households, Unemployment and Educational Attainment By Percentage, Representative Census Tracts and Kern County~ 1975 Census Tracts 25 31.03 Kern County Households with Income 34.2 22.1 16.0 Below Poverty Level (%) Unemployment (%) r~a 1 e 14.3 14.0 6.0 Female 15.2 24.0 8.0 Median School Year Completed (%) 8.8 10.2 12.1 SOURCE: Kerr r.OUYlty Planning Commission~ PQ.Pulë!.!:ion.9DQ Housing Report~ 1975. The data shows the considerably lower family income received by residents in the study area, the higher proportion of minority families and the generally larger family size contributing to overcrowding and poorer housing conditions compared to the entire Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. Inferences also may be drawn from Census Tract Totals that there are more families living below established poverty levels which is influenced by higher unemployment which in turn can be affected by lower educational backgrounds. -167- Table 38 compares population and housing characteristics of the Metro- politan (urban) area, Southeast Bakersfield and the study area. Because of the limited size of the study area, it was necessary to apply additional sources and methodology to estimate conditions for comparison purposes. TABLE 38 Population and Housing Characteristics for the Metropolitan Area, Southeast Bakersfield and the Airpark Study Area (1977) Population Persons per household Ethnicity (%) White Black Spanish Surname Other Median Household2Income Low and Moderate Income Families (%) Housing Units Vacant Units Percent Vacancy Occupancy (%) O\'ner Renter Overcrowding3 (%) H0using CQndition (%) Standard In Need of Minor Rehabilitation In Need of Major Rehabilitation Should be Demolished Metro Area 199,383 2.56 75 7 15 3 $14,400 37 33,743 1 ,522 4.5 61.5 34.9 7. 1 75 19 5 1 Southeast Airpark Bakersfield Study Area 24,763 3.27 30 28 40 2 $9,000 70 7,888 446 5.6 62.3 37.7 19.0 G3 33 10 4 1,757 3.34 131 69 17 $7 ,21 51 63 526 48 9. 1 N/A N/A N/A G94 29 9 3 SOURCE: Special Census, Kern County (July 1977) augmented by data from State Department of Finance and other sources as presented in Draft Housing Element (1980) by EDAW in addition to other sources/method- ology cited below. lKern County Community Development Program Department based on 72% sample of study area. 280% of Countywide Median Income 31.01 or more persons per room 4Estimated by City staff from Draft Housing Element, Metropolitan Area Housing Conditions Map (Kern County Community Development), Page 3-65. -166- TABLE 35 Population Trends, 1970-1980 Area 19701 1980 Change , Kern County 3 330,234 2 53,066 378,8004 Bakersfield Urban Area 183,545 209,3002 25,755 City of Bakersfield 69,515 95,201 25,686 Southeast Bakersfield5 27,616 24,050 -3,566 Percent 14.7 14.0 37.0 -12.9 lU. S. Bureau of the Census, April 1, 1970. 2City of Bakersfield projections, prepared March 31,1978. 3Defined as the urban or urbanizing area by Kern County Planning Depart- ment as Census Tracts 1.01 to 31.03,32.02, and portions of 38 and 51.02 (see Map 25). 4projected by EDAW, Inc. Consultants to the Draft Housing Element to the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. 5c . t' f C T t 21 22 23 01 23 02 24 25 31 03 d onS1S lng 0 ensus rac s , , . , . , , , . , an a small portion of 15 (see Map 25). The data shows an estimated reduction of population growth between 1970 and 1980 in the Southeast Bakersfield Area compare¿ to a steady increase for Kern County and the Bakersfield urban area. The vigorous annexation and growth in the Southwest area is reflected in the dramatic increase of City population. The population decline in the Southeast area is attri- buted to a lack of significant new development, including employment opportunity, combined with lowered household size, the demolition or removal of older, single-family units for the construction of State Highway 58 Freeway and some emigration either to other parts of the urban area or elsewhere. It is estimated that the 1,757 population enumerated in the study area in 1977 has increased very little. Aside from the fact that few, if any, housing units have been removed in the study area, it is assumed that the factors attributed to the lack of growth in Southeast Bakersfield are also applicable to this planning area. -165- (c) SOCIOECONOMICS The following presents data describing the existing and projected popula- tion and housing characteristics of the study area compared to the entire Bakersfield urban area and a summation of the economic implications of the project and plan over the next twenty years. 1. POPULATION AND HOUSING The data presented is intended to provide as estimate of the population, its characteristics (household size, income and ethnicity) and the con- dition of the housing within the two-square-mile study area. The data has been provided from the Special Kern County Census in 1977. Since less than one percent of the housing units and households are located within the City portion of the study area, information on population characteristic represents County residents only. The census data in- cludes the population and housing (seven units) of a recent annexation to the City South of White Lane as part of the unincorporated County. Setting: The City staff estimated the current (1980) population of the City of Bakersfield at 95,201 or a significant increase (37%) over the 69)515 po~ulatlun rep0rteJ ill th~ :970 ~. s. Census. While no data is available for the study area from 1970, it is estimated that the present population is approximately 1)800 residing in 560 housing units. The following table provides a brief comparison of growth rate differences for the County) the Bakersfield urban area) and the Southeast Bakersfield area containing the study area. -164- 4) Include pilotless range and furnace. 5) Install pilotless clothes dryer. 6) Install tight-fitting dampers in fireplaces. d. Conservation of electrical energy will result in the increase of gas comfort heating, water heating and cooking facilities. For water heating, consider the use of: 1) Solar plate collectors 2) Heat recovery for pre-heating from process water and from air conditioning. In addition, the following features should be in- cluded whenever possible. 3) Use of high efficient f1oure- scent fixtures wherever possible. 4) Use of fluorescent, mercury vapor, metal halide, quartziodine or other high energy efficient lamps in lieu of incandescent, especially in street lighting and parking lots. 5) Use of interior and exterior public lighting controlled to minimum time and wattage consistent with public safety. 6) Use of task-orient lighting. 7) Inclusion of high efficiency ex- haust fan and furnace blower motors. 8) Use of high efficiency electrical systems. -163- TABLE 36 Energy Demand of the Proposed Project Energy Consumptionl Natura 1 Proposed Acreage El ectri city Gas Land Use or Units Rate KWH/yr Therms/yr Open Space 114 AC N/A N/A N/A Industrial 426 AC 64,000 KvJH/ yr 3 3 27,264xlO 3,408xlO 8,000 Therms/AC/yr Commercial 4 AC 64,000 KWH/AC/yr 256xl03 32xl03 8,000 Therms/AC/yr Residential 980 Units 7,000 KWH/yr 3 784xl03 6,860xlO 800 Therms/yr (fer R-2 develop- ment) TOTAL 3 3 34,380xlO 4,224xlO lAccording to d telephone conversation with Lou McReed of P.G.&E. (business and marketing), single family dwellings in the Bakersfield area consume 8,000 KWH of electricity and 800 to 1,000 Therms of natural gas per year. Industrial uses as proposed (not large energy consumers with modest space heating and cooling need) would probably consume twice as much as residential use, 6/9/80. For single family residential development, it is estimated about four dwelling units per gross acre, therefore the industrial use is estimated at about 64,000 KWH/AC/yr and 8,000 Therm/AC/yr. Commercial use would be similar to industrial use (1 Therm equals 100 cubic feet of natural gas). -161- ( Impact: Because of the low energy requirements identified with present airport oper~tions and related uses, projected future airpark activities (project) are considered to be minimal and no quantification is attempted. However, as the plan area developes to residential and industrial uses, there will be added demands for electrical energy and natural gas. As estimated, the proposed Land Use Plan when fully developed will demand a total of 34,380,000 Kilowat Hours of electrical energy and 4,224,000 therms of natural gas a year (see Table 36). The kind of industrial uses recommended in addition to residential use in the area will not have any significant impact upon the energy reserves of the utility company serving the area,l especially when urban development in the area will occur gradually through a long-time span. However, extension of electric and gas services to areas not presently served would require the installation of new pipelines, substations, etc., in or near the project area. The environmental impact that may be brought about by these kinds of installations will be minimal. Approval of the proposed project will not cause a direct (or immediate) increase in energy demand upon the utility company. As the area gradually developes then:; will be an int:rease in fuel consumption exrerienced by the utility company and project-related automobile and truck traffic. The increase in demand is regarded as minor as compared to the total in- crease expected in the urban area. At a time when the nation is faced with an energy crisis, energy con- servation measures should be considered by everyone. lTelephone conversation with Mr. Lou McReed of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, June 9, 1980. -160- (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 8. ENERGY SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION Setting: Electricity for the City of Bakersfield is provided by the Southern California Edison Company and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (P.G.&E.). Natural gas service within the City is provided by P.G.&E. and the Southern California Gas Company. For the project area, it is presently served by P.G.&E. for gas and electricity. ) The City of Bakersfield is experiencing a continued steady expansion in business activity and population increase. Energy demand in the Bakers- field area has been the result of increased residential construction and commercial usage. It is expected that energy consumption within the City will continue to increase, and the rate of increase will depend more on the population increase and residential construction activity than in- dustrial uses. Total energy consumed by existing use in project area is estimated to be low because of the following reasons: 1. Over 50 percent of the land is not yet developed for any urban use. Existing agricultural use consumes very little energy for their farming activities (energy used for pumping underground water f0r farm- ing is not significant because most irrigation water comes from the canal). 2. The kind of Industrial uses existing ulong South Union Avenue and within the airpark are not large energy consumers. It is estimated that very limited amounts of energy would be used for space cooling and heating (aircraft maintenance, aircraft hangars, etc.). 3. Except for some residential uses and some scattered commercial use; office, motels and restaurants in the area which would damand some energy for space cooling, and heating, and other similar usage is estimated to be minimal. As indicated from field survey, not many residential units in the area have central cooling and heating systems because of construction years ago. -159- The indirect or secondary impact, as a result of the implementation of proposed land use plan, would be the change of appearance in the area surrounding the airport. The most noticeable change would be the loss of the rural image in the Southern area and area immediately ~lest of the runway. Industrial parks, warehouses, and aircraft maintenance facilities and sale offices would replace present agricultural uses. Residential development will occur in the Southwestern region presently vacant. A golf course, recreational park or permanent agricultural use in the area West of the Kern Island Canal would provide a buffer zone between the residential area and the proposed industrial uses West of Cottonwood Road. This designated Open Space would preserve some of the present open character of the area. Mitigation: The proposed project will directly or indirectly improve the image of the area. Design review by the City and/or the Planning Commission could be implemented when needed to insure that quality design is the basic criteria of urban development in the area. Further mitigation is unnecessary. -158- (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 7. AESTHETICS Setting: Thè project site is relatively flat with slopes of no more than one-half of one percent. As evidenced by several field trips, there is no natural or prominent geographical feature existing in the study area other than the man-made Central Branch Kern Island Canal flowing through the Southwestern portion of the area. The P.G.&E. transmission towers, located in the Southern border region,l are the tallest man-made, visible structures in the area. The Southern portion of the area2 displays a rural image with the presence of alfalfa fields, ranches and pasture land along White Lane. Vacant land occurs at various locations of the study area. Weeds and annual grasses are common vegetation seen on vacant land. The area along the East side of South Union Avenue presents a picture of mixed land use - vacant lots with areas for outdoor storage mingled with shops, industrial sites and motels. Impact: Direct or primary impact of the proposed project would be a change of the physical appearance of the airpark. According to the Airport Layout Plan (see Page 15 ), three existing aircraft hangars at the North end of the present runway would be relocated in order to make room for the future runway. More aircraft hangars and mainte- nance facilities (FBO) will be located in the area East of the runway. A site is designated for an air traffic control tower. It would be constructed as demand occurs (after 1990), adding to the airpark horizon another prominent structure. The rural atmosphere in the Southern area is expected to continue for some years before changing to an urban image. lNorth of Pacheco Road, between South Union Avenue and Cottonwood Road. 2All undeveloped land existing South of Planz Road. _1~7_ Contacts have also been made with the Kern County Museum and Historical Society, The State Department of Parks and Recreation, The State Historical Resources Commission, and The California Heritage Preserva- tion Commission2 in order to fully explore the possibliity that sites of historical/archaeological significance may occur in project site. Again, no such sites have been identified within the airpark bound- aries. Based upon information available, it is concluded that the possibility of any historical/archaeological site existing in the pro- ject area would be very remote. Mitigation: If excavation and construction of the proposed project expose any undiscovered archaeological/historical resources, work will be stopped and the State Archaeologist will be notified and given the opportunity to investigate. 2See Appendix B-1. -156- (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 6. HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES Setting: Aviàtion activities at Bakersfield Airpark first began in the late 1940's when Elenore Rudnick, the airport's original owner, began a helicopter enterprise. Shortly after World War II, a runway and three hangars were constructed. In 1962, the airport was acquired by the current owner, Mr. A. E. Bender, who expanded the airpark property from the original 20 acres to the current area of approximately 103 acres. Improvements included an asphalt surfaced runway 30 feet wide by 3200 feet long, accommodating 100 to 120 based aircraft. It is pri- vately owned and operated but open to the public. The site has long been used for aviation activities and no known historical/archaeological site has been reported on the Airpark property since its development in the 1940·s. Impact: The Planning staff has performed a field survey and a record searchl of possible historical/archaeological sites that may be revealed in the proposed project area. However, study indicates no known sites of historical/archaeological/cultural significance are located close to or within the airpark property. 1Three documents have been reviewed including; (a) The National Register of Historic Places; U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 1976; (b) California Inventory of Historic Resources; State of California, the Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, March 1976, Appendix Sites by County Pages 234-235; and (c) California Historical Landmarks; State of California, the Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation. The table indicates the potential generation of over 1,200 school age children less as a result of the proposed project. The esti- mated ß20 fewer elementary students would remove the need to con- struct an entire elementary school. The plan will, however, generate 167 elementary school students, 55 junior high school students and 106 high school students con- tributing to the enrollment at the existing public schools in the area (see Table 33). As the table indicates, none of the affected schools will reach enrollment capacity should the proposed plan be implemented. However, if the proposal is not implemented the com- bined capacity of Casa Loma and Pauly Elementary Schools (1,170) will be exceeded by 234 students under conditions of full develop- ment. This would require some form of mitigation, either in the development of temporary classrooms, double sessions, bussing or additional classroom construction. The existing Land Use Plan imple- mentation by itself would not result in Curran Junior High exceeding its present 660 enrollment capacity; however, the additional 390 high school students would overtax the present 2,000 enrollment capacity of South High School by 35 students. Mitigation: Since approval of the project and compatible land use plan amendment would not adversely impact existing area school enrollment capacities, no mitigation is recommended. -154- 5. 148.3 acres located both North of White lane to Brook Street and South of White lane to Pacheco Road from low Density Resi- dential to Open Space to provide adequate . clear area at the runway approach and community Open Space. 6. 184 acres located in two areas North of White lane from low Density Residential to Industrial. The following table (Table 35) provides a review of the changes in terms of housing unit and resultant school age children generation factors (see footnote in Table 35 ) varying by the density and type of residential development: TABLE 35 Housing Unit and Student Generation Change, Current land Use Element and Proposed land Use Plan by Area Area Map Est. Housing (Zone) Est. Number of Students by Grade location Units K-6 7-8 9-12 1 lOa current 80 (A-l ) 30 10 19 proposed 230 (R-2) 39 13 25 2 10, 11 current 750 (~1H ) 131 42 81 proposed 750 (R-2) 128 42 81 3 3, 4 current 305 ( R-l) 116 38 73 proposed 0 (M-l) 0 0 0 4 7 current 16 (A-l ) 6 2 4 proposed 0 (C-l) 0 0 0 5 5a, 6b, current 593 (A-l ) 225 73 142 6c, 9 proposed 0 (OS) 0 0 0 6 5, 6, current 736 (A, A-l) 279 91 177 6a, 8 proposed 0 (M-l ) 0 0 0 NET CHANGE -1500 -620 -201 -390 -153- TABLE 34 Locati0n of Project Affected Schools Map locationl . Name Address Grade Span Distance and General Location - - - a Cas a Lorna 525 East Casa Lorna Drive K-6 Within study area. Southwest corner of Casa Lorna Drive and Madison Street. One-half mile North of existing Bakersfield Airpark. b Pauly 313 Planz Road K-6 Outside study area. Southeast corner of Planz Road and South I Chester Avenue. One-quarter -' J1 mile West of existing Bakers- " I field Airpark. c Curran 1116 Lymri c Way 7-8 Outside study area. No rthwes t corner of Laverne Avenue and Rea 1 Road. Approximately two and one-half miles West of study area. d South Bakersfield 1101 Planz Roðd 9-12 Outside study area. Southwest High corner of Planz Road and Sandra Drive. Approximately one-half mile West of study area - - 1 Page 147 See map 24 TABLE 33 Enrollment and Capacity of Affected Schools (Unit = Number of Students) 1 Excess Est. Students Capacity of Grade Enrollment School Span Capacity Capacity Genera ted Affected School 1980 % of Cap ( i n no.) from Project with Project Map Location of Students Developed - a Casa Loma K-6 570 275 67 386 167 81 % full b Pauly K-6 600 509 c Curran 7-8 660 460 70 200 55 78% full d South Bakers- 9-12 2,000 1,645 82 355 106 88% full field High - lTelephone conversation with Janice Blanton (Bakersfield City School District and Ann Boldman (Kern County Joint Union High School District) 6/3/80. 2Student generation factors used in the study are based on a study conducted in July 977 by the Bakersfield Planning Department. - - - Housing Type K-6 7-8 9-12 - - - S (Single Family) 0.379 0.123 0.240 2-4 (Med. Density 0.171 0.C56 0.108 ~1H (Mobil ehome) 0.174 0.056 0.109 I ..... (j ..... I (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 5. PUBLIC SERVICES g. Other Governmental Services - Education Setti~g: The study area is located within the Kern County Joint Union High School District and the Bakersfield City School District (Elementary). Students from the area would attend the Casa Loma and Pauly Elementary Schools and the Curran Junior High School. High school students from the area attend South Bakersfield High School. School enrollment and capacity of schools is shown in Table 33. Location and distance of schools affected from the pro- ject area is presented in Table 34. Impact: The impact of the project is confined to the secondary effects inherent in the proposed compatible land use plan. Since the proposed plan envisions a considerable increase in industrial land use at the expense of future residential use in those areas not yet developed to urban use, it is concluded that the school impacts are considerably lessened. The specific areas proposed for residential change are: 1. T\'/enty acres on Pa'checo Road from Low Density Resident'ial to Medium Density Res i dent"i a 1 (cJrre¡¡t h..l Zor,~, County). 2. Sixty-six acres between White Lane and Pacheco Road from Low Density Residential (MH zoning, City) to Medium Density Resi- dential specifically to provide units adaptable to noise mitigation rather than mobilehomes. 3. 76.2 acres comprising two locations -- one (57 acres) located at the Northwest corner of Watts Drive and Madison Avenue, and the second located South of Planz Road, West of Madison Avenue -- from Low Density Residential to Industrial. 4. Four acres located on White Lane and Cottonwood Road from Low Density Resi- dential to Commercial. -150- TABLE 32 Estimated Park Land Needed for Residential Development Estimated Total Estimated Total Acreage of . 1 Number of Sites Number of Housing Population Neighborhood Needed Development Approach Units at Full Park1 Site Development Required Develop according to current zoning and 2,480 6,773 13.5 2 City Land Use Element Develop According to Proposed Land Use 980 2, 156 4.3 1 P1 an Change -1,500 -4,617 -9.2 -1 I ..... Þ .D I Ideal teria i on. n Cr 2 acres per 1000 Source Planni 1Neighborhood Park Standard adopted for this study is size of site is 10 acres with 5 acres re~uired as a minimum Joseph De Chiara and Lee Koppelman 1969 The full development of the current land use plan, however, would require·13.5 acres of additional land for park sites (see Table 32). The proposed plan would require less amount of land to be set aside for parks. The proposed project would not have any direct signifi- cant impact to the utilization of existing parks and Open Space in the area. However, at full implementation of the proposed plan, more park land and Open Space, is needed for both residents of the study area and the surrounding area. Therefore, no adverse effect is forseen with a balanced development. Mitigation: None required other than the provision of adequate recreation areas and Open Space as future residential development occurs. According to Table 32, an additional 4.3-acre site will be needed for neighborhood park purposes according to the proposed plan. -14R- ---, t r ¡ :. .- ~. -*_.'t\ -... .., . .....- i . AREA ¡ !1 L--'i I ~ .' V ''j / '. .f"' '1 ,/ ,¡f'- / I ..' Q 6) SCHOOLS I A PARKS AND OPEN .-- , .. -- Q.""" t. \ ~ I·· :;;:' \~ ~.:~ ~ +\þ , t 1 ¡ i .-J ~ .,- r 1 I' It !! H if _ '0 ~ ~ ~ ,:.. .' , r I ¡ SPACE BAKERSFIELD AIRPARK EXPANSION E I R ~. MAP 24 o SCHOOLS, PARKS and PUBLIC OPEN SPACE MILE _..4 TABLE 31 continued Nature of Park and . on Name Size Estimate Location Control and Maintenance Under Plantation Elementary neighborhood park 1/2 mi. W of project site Bakersfield City School School Park 2 AC on White Ln. NE corner of District Sandra Dr. & White Ln. Pl anz Park neighborhood park one mile W of project site City 8 AC at SE corner of S IIW St. and Planz Road. Greenfield Junior Neighborhood park at SW corner of project Bakersfield City School High School Park 9 AC site of approximately District 3/4 mi. away Rexland Acres Park neighborhood Dark 1/2 mi. S of project site County Public Works and and Fairview School 4.5 AC on Fairview Rd. Greenfield School District Park Wayside Park and Wayside neighborhood park Same as Item 4 City and Bakersfield City School Park 22 AC School District Map Locati 6 7 8 9 10 I ~ .þ> '" I TABLE 31 Parks and Open Space Located in the Vicinity of Project Area Name Nature of Park and Location Control and Maintenance Under on Size Estimate . Casa Lorna Park and neighborhood park In the Northern portion of County Public Works and Casa Lorna Elementary 4 AC project site, approximately Bakersfield City Sanita- School 1/4 mi. from N end of exist- tation District ing runway. Generally on SE corner of So. Union Ave. and Casa Lorna Dr. . ~ Valle Grande Golf 9-hole golf course Adjacent to E boundary of Course 80 AC project site at SE corner of Casa Lorna Dr. & Cotton- I wood Rd. One mi 1 e E 0 f existing airpark. Belle Terrace Park neighborhood pärk 1/4 mi. N of project site County Public Works 6 AC at SW corner of Cottonwood Rd. & E Belle Terrace St. Kern County Fairgrounds regional recreJtional At NW corner of both the County faci1 ities 90 AC project site and S Union Avenue and Casa Lorna Dr. South Bakersfield High Community facility 1/4 mi. W of project site Kern County Joint Union High School Park 8 AC and at SE corner of Planz School District Rd. and Sandra Dr. Map Locati 1 2 3 4 5 I ...... .þ U1 I (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 5. PUBLIC SERVICES g. Other Governmental Services - Parks and Open Space Setting: It is proposed in the Bakersfield Airpark land Use Plan that 114 acres located South of White lane be designated for perma- nent Open Space or Exclusive Agricultural use and another 34.3 acres at the South end of the extended runway is intended for runway clear zone and runway development (20 acres to be acquired by airport authority). The combined total represents a substantial amount or 24 percent of the land not yet developed to urban use to be devoted to Open Space usage. It is also recommended an 86-acre parcel at the Southwest corner of the project site be designated for Medium Density Residential use. This parcel is separated by the Central Branch Kern Island Canal from the 114-acre parcel proposed for park and Open Space to the East. In view of a large amount of Open Space available to future project residents and its accessibility to potential nearby users the need for additional park and Open Space for project residents seem very low. However, if a need for ad- ditional recreation becomes evident, it would likely be for neigh- borhood parks within the 86-acre Medium Density Residential. An inventory of parks (including schuo~ playground~) anJ Open Sµacc in the vicinity of the project and plan area is presented in Tab 1 e 31. There are a total of ten pa rks and Open Space areas, a 11 within a one-mile radius of the project site (see Map24), which have various recreational facilities available to residents (present and future) in the area. Impact: Full development of the proposed plan would result in a net decrease of 1,500 housing units in the area, (from 2,480 to 980 housing units). If neighborhood parks are considered in the design criteria for residential development, the proposed plan would re- quire to set aside 4.3 acres of additional land for park sites (see Table 32 ). -144- TABLE 30 Solid Waste Production Based on Proposed Land Use Plan ) Designated Uses Acreage available for Generation Total Solid in Proposed Land Development or Users Factors Waste Produced Use Plan Resulting from Plan Used lb/day tons/day (2000 lb/ton) Light Industrial 8 lbs/day/ (M- 1) ( low em- 426 AC employee 13.6 ployee density) 8 employee/AC Commercial (neigh- 6 lbs/day/ borhood shopping) 4 AC employee 0.07 6 employee/AC Open Space (golf 100 users/day course) 144 AC 1/4. 1 b/user/ 0.01 day Residential (Med. 2 lbs/person/ Density) Apart- 980 Units day 2.2 pers/ 2.6 ments unit TOTAL 15.84 Mitigation: No adverse environmental impact is forseen from the pro- posed project and its secondary effect. Therefore, no mitigation measure is required. _1111_ The number of times for refuse pickup inside the City ranges from two to six times peì week. For residential areas, limited business areas, and some light industrial use areas, pickup averages about two times per week. For large shopping centers and intensive industrial use areas where large amounts of solid waste will be generated, pickup time may be as many as six times per week. In short, there is no strict rule on service frequency; it depends on the amount of waste produced and the demand for service. Impact: Based upon the proposed Land Use Plan and standards for present estimates, full development of the area will generate an addition of 15.6 tons of solid waste per day (see Table 30). The amount of solid waste generated would represent about 9% of the City total in 1979. The secondary (indirect) effect of the proposed project would not bring about a substantial increase of solid waste in the area.l All solid waste generated will be adequately disposed in existing landfill sites without creating any significant impact upon the existing City and County collection systems or to the present and future environment of the sites. lIn 1979 the City of Bakersfield disposed 64,092 tons of solid waste or 178 tons per day. -14?- (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 5. PUBLIC SERVICES , f. Solid Waste Setting: Solid waste collection service in the City area is assumed either by the Bakersfield City Sanitation Service or by a private company contract with the City. No service charge is imposed upon City residents. Collection service in the County area within the study boundaries is provided by a private sanitation company since a service district was established in the area to provide such service. A service fee is applied to County residents in the area. Currently, over one-half of the area is undeveloped which requires very little or no refuse collection service (see Existing Land Use Map, Page 13 and Table, Page 66). Whenever any of the County areas are annexed to the City, the re- sponsibility of solid waste collection will be assumed by the City without charge. According to the City Public Works Department, the airpark area normally produces three cubic yards of solid waste on a three-day pickup period. There are two sanitary landfills in operation in the Bakersfield Metropolitan area. Both are administered by the County. One is located near the intersection of Panorama Drive and Columbus Street on both City and County owned property. As estimated the site has a solid waste landfill capacity of approximately 50 years based upon the present fill rate. The other sanitary landfill site is located at Wheeler Ridge near Arvin. The City portion of the Panorama Drive landfill site would have a landfill capacity of approximately 7-10 years. _ldl_ TABLE 28 Projected Storm Drainage Costs and Other Data by Dralnage Area Airpark Study Area Drainage Areas 1 12, 13 and 14 15 16 Size of Area Served 304 acres 35.6 acres 72.2 acres Generally the area S of Generally the area S of Generally the area S of Cãsa Lorna Dr. anr N of P1anz Rd, N of Brook St. Planz Rd. and ~ of Brook Bounda ry P1anz Rd., between Madi- between Madison Ave. and St., between Meeks Ave. son Ave. and Cotto~wood Mreks Ave. (see Exhibit and Cotto~wood Rd. (see Rd. (see Exhibit 0 ). o ). Exhibit 0 ). Sump Location SW corner of Hacienda NW corner of Brook St. SE corner of Lotus Ln. Dr. and Lotus Ln. St. and Madison Ave. and Brook St. (existing sump) Volume 12.9 acre-feet 1 .2 acre-feet 4.5 acre-feet Size 3301 x 330· Sump Site Purchase FY 1980-81 not required FY 1981-82 Construction of 1981-82 for (1) not inclu~ed in the five- not included in3the ~lain Lines FY 1982-83 for (() and (3) year plan five-year plan (1) in Lotus Ln., between In Brook St., between (1) 3611 concrete pipe Watts Dr. and Hacienda Madison Ave. and Meeks in Brook St., between Dr. 4211; (2) in Hacienda Ave. 2411 C.P. Meeks Ave. and Cotton- Main Lines Location Dr., between Lotus Ln. and wood Rd.; (2) 2411 con- and Size Cottonwood Rd. 3611 C.P. crete pipe in Cotton- (3) in Cottonwooc Rd., be- wood Rd, between P1anz tween Watts Dr. vnd Rd. and Brook St. Hacienda Dr. 3011 - Total Project Cost $643,000 $19,000 $136,000 lSee Exhibits Band 0, Southeast Ba~ersfield Drainage Study 2County Standards: 1 AC-ft/28 AC (R-S), 1 AC-ft/20 AC (R-l), 1 AC-ft/13 AC (R-2, R-3), and 1 AC-ft/8 AC of industrial or commercial use of land (C-l, C-2, M-l) 3F· lan/Drainage and Flood Control, December 1979 Kern County Public Works Department 1 ve- (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 5. PUBLIC SE~VICES e. Storm Drainage Setting: The topography of the study area is relatively flat with slopes of less than one-half of one percent at the North boundarYt immediately South of Casa Loma Drive is approximately 390 feet above sea level. The area generally falls from North toward South. Approximately 62 percent of the area is in the County and 38 percent in the CitYt including the Bakersfield Airpark and its contiguous areas to its North and South. PresentlYt no storm drainage system exists in the area. One sump site exists in the area West of the existing runway to catch surface runoff from the Bakersfield Air- park and runway and another existing sump is located at the North- west corner of Madison Avenue and Brook Street to catch surface run- off from existing residential development to the East in the County. The County Community Development Program has been allocating funds to improve the drainage systeml in the developed County area which is in primarily residential use. Since the area is flat and there are no natural drainage courses within the areat the most economical disposal method is the use of sumps. The following table presents some important information about the County drainage plan as related to the present project. lSoutheast Bakersfield Drainage Study by Mason~ Vancuren & Wachobt Civil Engineering Surveyingt Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1978. Drainage and Flood Control, Five-Year Plan, Kern County Public Works Department, December 1979. TABLE 27 Anaìysis of the Capacity of Bakersfield City Wastewater Treatment Plants 1 and 2 Designed Primary Treatment Capacity of Plants 1 and 2 19.4 mgd (maximum monthly flow) Peak Dry-Weather Flow 35 mgd Use and Acreage vJastewater Average Dry- 1 Peak Dry Percent at Peak or Unit Production Rate Weather Flow Capacity Weather Peak Dry- gal/ac/day or geD (MGD) Factor Flow (MGD) Weather Flow Capacity Existing Use --- 15 2.0 30 85.7 Proposed Land Use Open Space (114 ac) --- --- --- --- --- Industrial (426 ac) 6000 g/a/day 1. 28 2.0 2.56 7.31 Commercial (4 ac) 3000 g/a/day 0.005 2.0 0.01 --- Residential 52 g/pers/day2 0.02 2.0 0.04 (750 units) --- TOTAL 16.13 1. 99 32.61 93.0 I ...... w '" I lpeak Capacity Factor is the ratio of daily peak flow to daily average flow Public Works Department, City of Bakersfield 2Estimated at 65 percent daily water usage for miltiple family units The ~ombined capacity of Plants 1 and 2 after modification is estimated at 19.4 mgd for primary treatment. Present combined flow (average dry-weather flow) at the Plants is estimated at about 15 mgdl or about 77 percent of the total capacity (see Table 27). The proposed project and its secondary effects re- sulting from the potential land use (at full development) is expected to discharge an estimated 1.31 mgd (average dry-weather flow). This would use approximately 6.8 percent of the combined capacity of Plants 1 and 2. The peak dry weather flows for residential, commercial, and industrial sources, as shown in Table 27, have a very low proba- bility of occurring at the same time. However, for the present analysis the worst situation is taken into consideration in order to assess the maximum impact on Plant 2. The amount of effluent generated from the existing uses plus that allocated to the pro- posed project and ancillary land uses proposed both on the Air- park site and the study area would represent approximately 84 percent of Hoe comLinE::d capacity of pïants 1 and 2 (dverage dry- weather flow rate) or to a maximum 93 percent of the peak dry- weather flow. Mitigation: Mitigation measures are not necessary since the combined capacity of Plants 1 and 2 is not exceeded. 'u'_. __ ___-.-J I ..í""-:..,·;,........--=.;?:'·_·--lC--'-·l r,¡-·-n';"l! }, .. ¡ " : ..:. :..it:...._': l.._..:. ,JL'" ':':Œ..J 1:::..._ ~, /1" ! ~'---'--,r-"---'-lr--'u ---ì¡-·_:::J ~:',' /,"j ~ "i,~.!ï,}Q~J \.n_,'__ L-----..: ._~~".:.. :111 ¡I . u, '-I :"" . - 't~--" -- ì I., " ---.., II \S.~,~~)J____, .R,r.~_.,- 11=- .,// j ¡ \\" - 1 -, ..11-- , 'I'~ / / I t4~~~!r}S;,~f.~.J l___. __, \ ~~.:!:_~_.J ,-~-L--- I r-·-·--·\-l r'---.-.~ ¡ /y----- I ~~,;:.. ~.'t" tt '<..1 //.( ...... ",,.,. ~.¡ à' --=- - -- ., ~ r /// rr~---:-~ r _1 .\. ,:-1 ,:;',!~.1 J ; ~ r ! r l:J ! . 1'1 '\>-, :; ~'~;(:~'~I! j" " '-"-.' . ~," ;- I 0. ~, ./" 'I' .. I r-} , I '"';, .'/r--:..J I --.,? - '--';':J_j . \//.-"1 r~~:;';-'-'i1 r~ --õ' '" '. ~ , :,'~ !: I .;! I~ '~ï! ~, - - . \..==.I r- ,.._ ,. ~:"~.:--' ~.~ ::..:':~__J_' ~L'J :';,-:-r '\ ~~ / r-.... - . __I :\....J /'" "--" [? à~\ )~;.' / /,,' ._ '..';.v ...¿ / / .. . .....(-. ¡ r..¡ '--::- \ """..~ ( " I --'" ,., - - ----.......... /'" -,.. '," - -,'''' \.,<.. l".·..:.a \ . ; j ¡-'~;Å \. - \\ ;:: ), ..>.-' ,I //,. ';{' .\'" .--, "','\ / ' . / ,; . ,v __ _ __- \ ".;:., / ..,~). ; ,',\~, ,'. ..... / / ~,,--j\...~.C.."....\ , / "-,/ - \:\ --- -. --' .,.. , J'7 '; ,.::\ (,..í..\. ----;--:-' ,~:-' ,'?/,/,; .', :(\d; \\ .. -"'._;::"./I,.:::_-.\'~' / ._. <.~.:A ,-. \ -~\ /< ...._-~ \ TII;"'''; ~\I~\\ - "'-1 \ .---- \ ~'"' J,i I \ ~t· .\ ,,- FI~ \\ ---. --'--11·. ,."1 Lll ~'." /, ;.~~- -----¡ ~' \ \ S ~ - I ',-.. )" 1.1 r2·D \ \ :z(j :/rll' ~:f~~-=~ -::J 1':1 '\\ ¡£ 11 ~Ü;~ I . ;'::.. --- ___.-1 L-I_._____ ._. \ r:__ ~ '-~.:~7:::::-~~::-::1 ~~\ \- '. : >~l?:~:H8~J.aa:n ;;¡~~\{)~, ~ ·2·D !:£,,;,j::::~;lf::i "' ',,~ ", r:.::';":::'~:;K&~i~4:{ r~..1 "\ .:.~.:..~~~.~ . ~ ~f- ':! 'l~ In'] ~L ~ ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ :; ,I:' ~ j 2: r .. ' L -.J1LJ _ ~~ ~ J! !·;·~~~~~~~'I:': ¡ ~ ~ [' ~ " ;.ElD4W-:>Q<;.-: ~~ t ,I<:J '...'... - J .:: . ':-:" '..::::,::: --, .J L;:~:,.·;:.:::..:,,:··:-:· C··, . lC.. ~R" ~.~ ."" ¡ ~ I·~ .L;; ~ Ii 1 ~ I ! J È! "1) ii, , I ' : Jl~~'1 ~ ~~lJl ~i~j ~' " ,'" ,.,' 0"' ,., . !, ~ , :i~ ~ I .. cJ cr ~~ il lliJ- -Ii I Uu. ..., í ~~ ~ ~äci~2-J ~~r' I' "1 ç~~ jj.'1 I ~I I FI·3-0 r f ~, " I . ,~ ~J ~ ¡ -L 11 _ _ - "',..' '---. ;:ì .-:~~:.~: ~ t ~ Æ~:;i~t'~:~~: L..__.~~c '. ._._.__, R·' R-I ~ ~ ~-z.c, _ ..: ~ i B A K E R S FIE L D AIR PAR K EX PAN,S I 0 H SEWERS AND DRAINAGE 8" 10' . . ~ 8" =, 8" 8" 12" Dr.., vt. 1.1'0 " ~I o...r '" o ., - 8 ìi 12." , ' .\ : 5"- . , , " 8 2."· ...: - ft00J ß" __ _.. [___--=~I '0" C-;--~';-;-~;;L - -: L__ wit" '5 "',',0 l I I I R(j",~ ')'t" ¡ w :> . 1 w :> .. ~ , lOll ~ It J " 8~1 B ,¡ I 8" Š: "j I . .. o .J W !I '" ... z ... .J 8' ...._J ~_~.. ~): AAo í ! . A......:: -, {" ~~! r " ¡ I !~...... ,'.~"", Æ! .' j' ~.(IE. ~~... 8" J tl ..u ¡ Sl' s· : ; \\ ' \\ .~\ . \\ ,\ ---- ~\\ \ ,\ I v\ "" .,t~ \\ \ \\\ 5"" \ \). , \ \ "'.I,D __\ R, I I , , ! II ..¡: 't 2.,11 à' .) , ~ < J 8~j 8' z ; ~.t ~ " z ~ . C·2·0 I I I-r I I -;;J. _ ~'oo..':-__=__.-':" .~.__ I PROPOSED ---~ I AIRPARK BOUNDARY l.-J I ""'f. C-2 -0 loCH R'~'O ,--~..!':I~~ ~~ :-- -·-----·1 r E I R LINES SHOWN ARE SEWER LINES WITH PIPE SIZE AND ACCESS PTS. SOURCE:CITY AND COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS ! 8 '" :7 It o T 1110"0 MAP 23 o . FEET I I· , . .- ~' --, -- , 1200 . Three major sewer mains presently exist in the area adjacent to the Bakersfield Airpark (see Map 22). . 1. An eight-inch main located 11.5 feet West of the West Airpark property line in South Union Avenue provides adequate capacity for activities on the airport. This line is extended South to join the concrete trunk. 2. A 54-inch concrete trunk traverses Planz Road at a location five feet South of the centerline of the road transporting sewage East to City Plant No . 2 . 3. A ten-inch vitrified clay pipe main is located 20 feet West of the extended centerline of Madison Avenue. It carries sewage South and flows into the 54-inch concrete trunk which goes Easterly to City Plant No.2. Sewer lines serving existing developed County and City areas are mostly eight inches in size. Approximately one-half mile East of the Airpark, a 24-inch trunk line exists in Cottonwood Road which also goes South and is connected to the 54-inch concrete trunk. Impac.t: The pres?~t sewage system can ad~quately serv~ existinq development and future Airpark expansion. However, urban develop- ment occurring South of Brook Street and North of Pacheco Road would require new sewer mains in White Lane, Pacheco Road, and Cottonwood Road. 3Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Supplement to Project Report - Bakersfield Sub- Regional Wastewater Management Plan, Chapter 4, February 1976. -133- (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 5. PUBLIC SERVICES d. Sewer Service Setting: Sewage generated from both County and City portions within the Airpark study boundary flow to the East by means of the City 54" concrete trunk line in Planz Road. It is treated at the City Sewage Treatment Plant No. 2 located North of Planz Road and one-half mile East of Cottonwood Road. City Plants 1 and 2 are primary treatment plants receiving combined industrial and domestic flows from the City of Bakersfield, the Alta Verde County Sanitation District, and the Union Avenue County Sanita- tion District. The Airpark Study area is located entirely in the Union Avenue County Sanitation District. Plants 1 and 2 were constructed in 1939 and 1952 respectively. After modifica- tion and combination completed recently, the plants accommodate an average flow of 35 mgd (million gallons per day). Effluent from the plants is disposed by irrigation to fields North and South of the two plants. The major treatment units at City Plant 2 have been well maintained and, with the exception of the primary clarifiers, are suitable for continued use through the end of 1996.1 The clarifiers and grit chambers would require replacement if the plant were to be, expanded and retained in operation. Plant ~ achIeves suiflcient suspended so~i~s re- moval to meet discharge requirements. However, it is ~till re- quired to meet the BOD52 limit in a complete secondary treat- ment requirement. lSupplement to Project Report - Bakersfield Sub-Regional Wastewater Management Plan, February 1976 by Metcalf & Eddy Engineers 2Five day 220C Biochemical Oxygen Demand -132- .--.-.,.-.-- . -_. _..'---- w' _ ._.._...._..-...... ______~___.. __., r~ _.. .......-.... ._...-,...............~ ...-.......-..-....- Mitigation: The proposed project would not have any significant impact pn existing water service systems. No mitigation measures are required. However, the secondary impact on water supply re- sulting from the proposed land use plan will require new water systems to be installed in the area. A public improvement pro- gram coordinated with road improvements will be needed to provide adequate water and fire protection services for the area. Most of the capital improvement costs could be absorbed by developers and, as indicated, adequate water service should be provided by the California Water Service Company as development occurs. None will require mitigation. As an alternative to provide the needed number of water storage tanks, more wells may be drilled in order to produce the amount of water necessary for fire protection and potential new developments in the area. -131- TABLE 26 Water Needs Based on Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments Designated Uses Acreage Available in Proposed Land for Development or Estimated Tota 1 Use Plan Users Resulted Water Usage gal. From Plan Light Industrial 426 AC 9,000 g/AC/ 3843xl03 (t1-1 ) day Commercial 4 AC 4,500 g/AC/ 18xl03 day Open Space (Golf 114 AC 2,767 g/AC/ 315.4xl03 Course) day Residential 980 Units 80 gal/person/ 172 . 5x 1 03 (Med. Density) day 2.2 persons/unit TOTAL 4348.9xl03 Full development of the area would create an additional water demand equivalent to 4,348,400 gallons per day. If the average outp;,;t ~f new \'ieli;, is estimated at 10(10 ~allf)ns per minute each, it would require a continuous pumping for almost 18 hours a day in order to supply the needed amount of water. For adequate fire protection for commercial and industrial use it would re- quire a minimum flow of 2500 gallons per minute for at least 2 hours duration. Because output of new wells is projected at about the same as existing wells in the area (1000 gallons per minute) it would require a storage tank of approximately 180,000 gallons at each well site in order to supplement the continuous flow of water at 2500 gallons per minute) for fire protection. The fiscal impact of new water systems is discussed in the Fire Protection Section. -129- 1 __ "' . .. - - ~L ~ . ..~ :t: -- - ;:. - ~ ~ . : Z .-...- . ··.·,n i. e ST) ./25 1, ~ t . ~ I -- ,. ~ He ~ " .~. I .¡ ¡ : I ~ s~ ~ 85 , 4 .. . " , ....n. ¡ .. gill .'...'..,...........,.,..'.........'.' . ..". I ,'1.. ....,............... ,. ...........'.....'......,................ ,'., II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. ...................... .. :;:;:;:;:;:;:;::;::;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:;:;::: ;, i . ,....,............... i .................... :\!\j¡:¡¡:¡\¡:¡:¡\:¡j¡\¡¡¡j¡\:¡¡¡¡:¡¡¡¡:¡ 4 I ! ........................................ I :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ',- .~i .. ì I I IlsTA.I; ., ¿ L-,: .......,.. ... ( . ,'" ~ ." aD. ~til\ tt ¡¡ .... F'llON T ~ . I; ". II H .... 'J.1 .t-'IItVII C ... .. ~ ~! "¡ "~" ~ '0' 5 Ii ~ ~ 6 ", '" F~II I ' " , < , r=ik~ . II -<"', l = ==J ".H "M:.U..Tt O"IVC. ':IitL.=í'~";;"''''1'!F:!~~~~ ~~~~_~""'\~ III ,... £1'.. StOll - WATER MAINS I---@ DRANTS 4c·ASBESTOS - GATE VALVES ~ PUMPING STATION CEMENT - FLUSHVALVES = = SERVICE BOUNDARY - - - CJ.TY I"JMrt~. -.-.- --- '\ '1 I I L -- --. 6 ~A MAP ,22 0 1000 -= FEET ~- r =- 'r· .-. ¡ ,¡ -... ..=-..:.:: .. " ¡: ~i ¡L II' ~ ~ -J- II ! .-"..0 ~ -~,~ 01 " ~ v ~ .u. -'.·4~è: -: ~ ...~ ----. ~/'1'4 ~ '. ,. . ~j;'.-':-~' COMPANY-ZONE MAP ~ ,~,,-,~., t¡' n'~ WATER SERVICE SOURCEI CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE ~"'':"T'''''~ I.... (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 5. PUBLIC SERVICES c. Water Supply Setting: Except for a portion of the agricultural land located South of White Lane, most of the area within the two-square-mile Airpark Study Area is within the Service boundary of the California Water Service Company. Four wells and pumping stationsl currently exist in the area. Well production is estimated at 500 gallons per minute to 1,200 gallons per minute which provide adequate water service to the Bakersfield Airpark and to the existing residential and industrial development in the area. Water service to the Air- park area is provided in 2-inch mains along South Union Avenue and metered with 1-1/2-inch service lines to various users within the Airpark. Water consumption of the Airpark is reported at approxi- mately 360 gallons per minute. Agricultural water is conveyed into the area from the Kern River by the Central Branch Canal which would have no effect on water supply to urban areas. Map 17 depicts existing water service systems in the area. Impacts: Expansion of the Bakersfield Airpark and prospective in- dustrial/commercial development on vacant land will create a new demand tor water service systems in the stuuy al'eá. As discusseJ in the Fire Protection section, an adequate water and fire pro- tection system serving new development according to the proposed land use plan would require ten new wells, additional mains, service lines, hydrants, storage and improvement to the existing water distribution systems. The potential impact on water supply is presented in the following table. lCalifornia Water Service Company Pumping Stations No. 85, 125, 160 and 161. -128- Some areas in the vicinity of the Airpark are proposed for light industrial use or for recreational purposes. These changes would increase the area's total average daily traffic (Total ADT). However, most of it would be limited to home- to-work and/or business-related travels. Most industrial establishments (e.g., industrial parks, research and labo- ratories and maunfacturing plants) would have their own security guards and night-watchmen. Therefore, an increase in industrial activities in the area would not substantially affect the existing City law enforcement service in the area. No significant impact to the personnel of the City Police is expected. As a matter of fact an improved communication system (such as the City's new communication center) and better cooperation between City Police and private security would enhance the quality of public safety services in the area. Secondary effect of the project would be the generation of employment for private security guards and the demand for watch dog service and training. However, the proposed plan will foster population growth primarily to the Study Area. It is estimated that the plan could accommodate 7,440 persons under buildout con- ditions allowing for 5 percent normal unit vacancy. Accord- ing to City of Los Angeles standards, this additional growth (5,640 persons) would require 17 additional officers.l Currently, this burden would be borne primarily by the County of Kern since only 1,720 population is projected within current City bounddries (or a need for 5 additional officers). Mitigation Measures: None for the project; however, since the project will stimulate study area residential growth, there will be an eventual need to expand police staff to the extent indicated. lThe Current Land Use Plan, if achieved, would require up to 31 new positions for an acceptable level of enforcement according to City of Los Angeles standards. -127- (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 5. PUBLIC SERVICES b. Police Protection: The Bakersfield City Police Department pro- vides law enforcement services for the Bakersfield Airpark and , the industrial areas North of Watts Drive. Other adjacent developed areas within one-half mile distance from the Airpark are patrolled by the Kern County Sheriff's Department. The area South of White Lane and East of the Central Branch Canal is entirely uninhabited agricultural land including the City Municipal Farm. Air patrol is more often used by the Sheriff's Department than ground patrol in providing security for the agricultural area. If any of these areas are annexed to the City, the Police Department will carry the responsibility of providing public safety services for the area. Presently, the Police Department employs 183 full-time police officers, 65 full-time civilians, and 12 temporary employees. The Department has no Deputy assigned to duty at the Airpark and no alarm system directly connects the Airpark with the Police Department. The Police Communication Center will disseminate calls for assistance to allan-duty patrolmen and to facili- tate their immediate response to possible crimes in these ar2f5. T~S Police De~ar~ment indi~at~s they ar~ understaffedl which is compounded by the rapid urban expansion of the City.2 Impacts: Expansion of the Bakersfield Airpark will not re- quire additional law enforcement officers than what is presently serving the area. The function of the airpark will remain the same - a basic utility airport with no cargo or carrier services. lThe City of Los Angeles' standard is three officers per 1,000 popu- lation. Applying this to the currently estimated 97,000 City population shows Bakersfield reaching 63 percent of this particular criterion. 2 See Table 37. _1?h_ A detailed analysis of the cost involved in providing adequate water service and fire protection system for the areas would re- quire numerous flow tests, surveys (for new well drilling and location of tank) and generation of detail engineering design data f.or new systems needed (such as pipe size, length of pipe, materials of pipe, pressure requirement of pipe, storage tank requirement, pumping requirement, metering of water, control of distribution system elements such as gate valves, flush valves, pumping stations, fire hydrantst manhole, etc.) and cost and specifications from the manufacturers. It would be impractical and unrealistic to perform detailed cost estimates without this data. Within the Airpark Study area approximately 400 acres of land will be available for new developments. According to an "extremely" rough cost estimate prepared by the California Water Service CompanYt it would require 7.5 million dollars to provide adequate water service and fire protection for a full development of the area. Mitigation: Improvements on existing water distribution system in order to obtain adequate fire protection can be summarized in the following: 1) Replace inadequate mains with larger diameters to in- crease capacity and pressure, i.e. in Union Avenue. 2) Upgrade distribution system with complete loop sub- systems and reduce the number of dead-end lines to improve water pressure. 3) Extend system to areas presently now served by any water system to meet development needs. 4) Frequent Fire Flow Tests at major locations by City and County Fire Departments to insure that adequate flow and pressure is always maintained for fire pro- tection. 5) Construct new water systems to meet new development needs. 6) Recovering costs of new systems from developers to avoid fiscal impact to City and County Fire Depart- ment budgets. -125- TABLE 25 Fire Protection Improvements Needed According to Proposed Land Use Plan Area # ( see ~la p 5) Change'of Land Use Acreage Location and Fire Protection Evaluation 1 2 3 4 4a 5 7 9 R-S (County) to R-l 28 N of Watts Dr., and W of Lotus Ln. Adequate fire protection could be provided with 811 mains in Lotus Ln., 611 mains in Nina St., and 611 mains in Wingstone St. However, several new fire hydrants, complete loops and new lines are needed. W of Lotus Ln., between Watts Dr., and Planz Road. Adequate fire protection could be pro- vided with 811 and 6" mains in Lotus Ln., 611 mains in Watts Dr. and Roland St. Additional fire hydrants, complete loops and new links are needed. NW corner of Madison Ave. and Watts Dr. Light Industrial uses (City M-l uses) are permitted. A new well at the NW corner of Madison Ave. and Watts Dr., new mains and new fire hydrants are needed to provide adequate fire pro- tection. Presently existing in the area are 6" mains in Madison Ave. This well will also serve the industrial use (aircraft mainte- nance) S of Watts Dr. and within the Bakers- field Airpark. SW corner of Madison Ave. and Planz Rd. Land to be t.1cqu i red by t,',e rd rpa rk for Clear Zone. No demand for fire protection here. W of Area 4. No zone change. Area re- served for aviation industrial uses. A new well and new mains are needed in the area to serve the area and its surrounding in- dustrial use and to provide adequate fire protection. No water system exists in the area presently. W of Cottonwood Rd., between Brook St. and Pacheco Road. No water system is serving the area. A new well at the SW corner of White Ln. and Cottonwood Rd is needed. New mains and fire hydrants are needed to pro- vide adequate fire protection for industrial and commercial use in the area. R-S (County) to R-l 38 R-l (City) to M 57.2 R-l (City) to t'1 19 M-l- D 19 A - 1 to t'1 A-l to Comm. A-l to M 66 4 79 -123- Table 25 (continued) Area # Change of Acreage (see Map 5) Land Use 5a A-1 to Open 5.8 Space 6c A-1 to Open 20 Space 6b A-l 'to Open 8.5 Space 6a A- 1 to M 19 6 A to M 20 10 MH to R-2-D 61 11 A to R-2-D 5 9 A-1 to Open Space 114 Location and Fire Protection Evaluation Area 6c is to be acquired by the Airpark for runway extension and Clear Zone. Open Space is to be maintained in Areas 5a and 6b. All three areas located N of White Ln. and E of Central Branch Canal. No water system pre- sently exists in the area. No demand for fire protection. No water system exists in the area. A new well on S side of White Ln. and W of the Central Branch Canal is needed to provide adequate water for fire protection. New mains and fire hydrants are needed in the area. In Area 10, portion N of Pacheco Rd. can be served with 6" mains in Pacheco Rd. S of White Ln. and E of the Central Branch Canal. This area is located within the Airpark flight pattern. For safety reasons, the whole area should be kept open or for other public or recreational uses (i .e., golf, soccer field or cemetery, P.tc.). No demand for fire protection. TABLE 25 Fire Protection Improvements Needed According to Proposed Land Use Plan Area # (see Map 5) Change 'of Land Use Acreage Location and Fire Protection Evaluation 1 2 3 4 4a 5 7 9 R-S (County) to R-l 28 N of Watts Dr., and W of Lotus Ln. Adequate fire protection could be provided with 811 ma ins in Lotus Ln., 6" ma ins in Ni na St., and 6" mains in Wingstone St. However, several new fire hydrants, complete loops and new lines are needed. W of Lotus Ln., between Watts Dr., and Planz Road. Adequate fire protection could be pro- vided with 8" and 6" mains in Lotus Ln., 6" mains in Watts Dr. and Roland St. Additional fire hydrants, complete loops and new links are needed. NW corner of Madison Ave. and Watts Dr. Light Industrial uses (City M-l uses) are permitted. A new well at the NW corner of Madison Ave. and Watts Dr., new mains and new fire hydrants are needed to provide adequate fire pro- tection. Presently existing in the area are 6" mains in Madison Ave. This well will also serve the industrial use (aircraft mainte- nance) S of Watts Dr. and within the Bakers- field Airpark. SW corner of Madison Ave. and Planz Rd. La'nd to be ùe;qu i red by t,',e fd rpa rk for Clear Zone. No demand for fire protection here. W of Area 4. No zone change. Area re- served for aviation industrial uses. A new well and new mains are needed in the area to serve the area and its surrounding in- dustrial use and to provide adequate fire protection. No water system exists in the area presently. W of Cottonwood Rd., between Brook St. and Pacheco Road. No water system is serving the area. A new well at the SW corner of White Ln. and Cottonwood Rd is needed. New mains and fire hydrants are needed to pro- vide adequate fire protection for industrial and commercial use in the area. R-S (County) to R-l 38 R-l (City) to r1 57.2 R-l (City) to r" 19 M-l-D 19 A- 1 to ~1 A-l to Comm. A-l to M 66 4 79 -123- Impacts: The expansion of Bakersfield Airpark would require certain vacant properties (whether in the City or not) in the immediate area of the Airpark be zoned and utilized for airport compatible uses. The following Table 25describes the changes resulting from the pro- posed lànd use plan for Bakersfield Airpark and its vicinity (see Map 5) and provides an evaluation of the adequacy of fire pro- tection in the affected areas. Final judgment will depend upon ob- taining the following data: (1) the output of the well (water source, gpm); (2) actual test of water flows (gpm) in the mains; (3) storage capacity of tank; (4) water pressure and duration at which flow at a certain level of pressure can be maintained. The proposed plan would require four new wells, new mains, fire hydrants and improvement on existing water distribution systems pre- sently provided by California Water Service Company in the area in order to have adequate water service and fire protection for af- fected areas (see Table 25). Most of the demands are created by the future residential, industrial and commercial use in the area as recommended in the Airpark Land Use Plan. Fiscal Impact: Most of the project-affected areas are undeveloped and not ~erveè hy ~ny water system, Any new development which occurs in the areas would require a new water service system in- cluding new well, new mains, new fire hydrants, etc. On the other hand, the cost to provide adequate water service and fire protection for residential, industrial and commercial use would not have substantial differences since industrial use requires larger mains, but lower numbers of fire hydrants, and less linear foot of piping than residential and/or commercial uses. Because of the above two reasons the fiscal impact of the pro- posed project as developed according to the proposed Land Use Plan or the existing Land Use Designations would not be much different. They are treated the same in the present fiscal im- pact study. -122- The City Fire Department continues to provide the area a high level of fire protection. According to the I.S.O. (Insurance Services Office of California) rating, the City of Bakersfield is classified as a Class 3.2' Water mains of eight inches in diameter are located on the East side of Union Avenue just North of Watts Drive. Water mains of six inches in diameter are located in Madison Street North of Watts Drive and in Watts Drive East of Madison Street (see California Water Service Company Water Distribution System Map). As indicated by the City Fire Department, adequate fire protection for industrial, commercial, or any other similar intensive use is maintained by water flows of 2500 gallons per minute and at least 20 P.S.I. (pounds per square inch) pressure. However, present water flow at Union Avenue is not adequate for the recommended land uses on vacant properties in the area (detailed analysis is shown in Table 25). Water supply to the Bakersfield Airpark is from a nearby well located North of Casa Lorna Drive, near South Union Avenue. Service is provided by the California Water Service Company. The supply and demand of water in the Airpark itself does not seem a problem. According to the City Fire Dep~r~n~nt, the expansion of the Bakersfield Airpark would not require additional staff or a rescue station to be physically located in the Airpark. Although there is no alarm system directly connected to the Airpark and City Fire Stations, adequate fire protection for the Airpark can be provided by the three City fire stations located nearby. 2There are no Class 1 cities in the U.S., and Class 2 is the highest rating being obtained by any City. -121- City Fire Station Planned City Fire Station Còunty Fire StatIon - - MAP 21 0 I 1 MILE "'\ -.- ::,.....:.."1:::."::'".. ~:.:::- !i:"7"'- ::...':'::.'":...... :~:::: Éë:,f,l';-' t lOUD or TUDE OF OLlTAIt SFIELD . . -- ':"'- .r'· ./ ~/. -L.____ Station:{}l 2101 ''R" Street, 93301 Station ~2 716 E. 21st Street, 93305 Station ~3 1301 4th Street, 93304 Station v4130 Bc~rd, 93305 Sta::ion:¡i5 700 Uest Pl~z Rd., 93304 St~tion ~6 790 East Brundage, 93307 Station #7 4030 Soranno, 93309 Station va 2213 University, 93305 ,/ R E £I'AISION ElD 111'.11 STATIONS I.IE.SF FIRE (b) CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 5. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Fi re Protect ion Setting: Fire protection for the Bakersfield Airpark area is pro- vided by the Bakersfield Fire Department. Three City Fire stations (Numbers 5, 6 and 7)1 will respond to calls in the area. As in- dicated, the response time would range from one and one-half minutes (for Statio~ 5) to no more than five minutes (for Station 7). An inventory of personnel and equipment at each station is presented in Table 24. TABLE 24 Inventory of Personnel and Equipment of City Fire Stations 5, 6 and 7 Personnel and Equipment Station 24 Hour Operation 5 6 7 Personnel: Fire Captain 1 1 1 Engineer 1 1 1 Firemen 1 1 4 Equipment: Fire Engine (or pumper) with 1500 g&;10n5 per w.inutf 1 1 1 pump and 500-600 gallon tank Aerial ladder truck 0 0 1 750 gallons per minute squad- pumper with 200 gallon tank 0 0 1 Tanker carries 1000 gallons or more tank with 1000-1500 0 0 0 gallons per minufe pump 10 gal. 10 ga 1 . 1 0 ga 1 . Engine carries AFFF lAqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). Also known as light water. lCity Fire Station 5, 700 West Planz Road is located about one-half mile Southwest of the Bakersfield Airpark; Station 6, 790 East Brundage Lane, about one and one-half miles North; and Station 7, 4030 Soranno Street, about two and one-half miles West (see Map 21). -119- In order t~ mitigate the hazard of Pacific Gas and Electric tower lines South of the proposed runway, the following measures may be taken. For 20:1 approach surface: 1. Lights may be installed on top of the support towers to indicate their position. Reflectors or reflective paint may also aid in the pilots ability to distinguish the tower line. ' 2. The power lines should continue to be listed in the airport directory as a hazard. For 34:1 approach surface: 1. Move the landing threshold 580 feet to the North thereby placing the towers below the 34:1 approach surface. This would reduce the runway length to approximately 3,300 feet. 2. The airpark owners could negotiate with Pacific Gas and Electric to either - Lower the tower(s) that affect the approach surface Acquire right-of-way elsewhere to the South and move the towers(s) Place power lines underground if feasible. With respect to fire/crash/rescue support, FAA recommends that the air- port have available for emergency use 200 gallons of AFFF water for foam protection, 300 pounds of dry chemical powder and one vehicle. -llR- DOWNWIND LEG, _c::s__...c:I.....c::::s. ~ ENTER ~ 4>' ... """';:: c:a. - .. .. _.... c::a _ c::::»... ."......,..... ~ <::..". ~ ~c::. ~D£PART ~ ~ ~V _4' <> """' "·"TH NOIHH oN ... FIGtURE D STANDARP TRAFFIC. PATTERN SOURCE' UNOI!RSTANOIHCÞ FLYIN Go -117- Regarding the North end of the runway, a shift to the East will place the proposed Clear Zone East of the Griffith Company structure (shop/ warehouse). This will reduce the approach and departure hazards at the North end of the runway because the structure will no longer be located in the C1èar Zone. Mitigation: Airspace Interaction: Mitigation for the concerns about overlapping airspace expressed by Bakersfield Tower is as follows: 1. For landings and departures from Runway 33, a left hand traffic pattern and 90 degree left hand turn should be executed on the takeoff leg (see Figure D). 2. For landing and takeoff from Runway 15, a right hand traffic pattern and 90 degree right hand turn should be executed on the takeoff leg. 3. Airpark traffic should be instructed to stay below 1400 feet MSL to allow a separation of approximately 700 feet from traffic holding for Meadows Field at 2,100 MSL. Obstruction Clearance: Land uses within proposed airpark environs will largely determine the safety of airpark operations. Land uses within this area should be carefully considered to provide maximum protection to the non-user from the danger of aviation accidents. Accident potential beyond the runway surface is most likely to occur during takeoffs and landings. Land uses and activities adjacent to either end of airport runways are subject to a higher risk of accident. Land below the departure and final approach paths of aircraft also have a higher accident potential than land outside of the flight paths. Land uses in these high risk areas should not generate population con- centration, cause pilot disorientation due to reflected or eminating light sources or produce mental or physical hazard. Land uses within these areas should be low intensity such as Open Space, limited in- tensive recreational uses and/or certain industrial classifications (e.g., storage, warehouses). -116- Extension of the realigned runway will place the South end of the runway approximately 3050 feet (0.58 mile) North of the Pacific Gas and Electric tower line easement. This easement consists of 115 KV power lines sup- ported by steel towers. The towers of greatest concern lie East of the Central Brànch of the Kern Island Canal, West of Cottonwood Road and North of Pacheco Road. There are three towers in this area, one of which is in or below the approach surface for Runway 33 (see Figure C). This tower is located near the extended centerline of the runway approximately 3050 feet from the end of the runway. Surveyors for Pacific Gas and Electric Company determined the highest point of this tower to be at an elevation of 475 feet, this indicates that the tower is 101 feet greater in height than a point 200 feet South of the end of the runway which is at an elevation of about 374 feet. The proposed 20:1 approach slope surface will clear the tower by approxi- mately 41 feet, however, a projected 34:1 approach surface after instal- lation of a MALSR (Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicators) would be affected by the P.G.&E. towers. An approach surface with a 34:1 slope would be pierced by the uppermost 18 feet of the support tower (see Figure C, below). 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.0 3,8 Õ 0 3.6 ... 3.4 ItJ ItJ ... 3.2 ----- ------ ------ .......-1 ./ V ./ ~ ELE~ 475 --- .,oJ d þ,,,-r-, _____ ~I '.\ ---- / s~ ./~...,~ PG, a E. TOWER_ ~ j 3 . tWHITE LANE ELEV. 374-l I 3.0 -I o 2 3 4 FEET (000) RUNWAY 33 APPROACH PROFILE flGoURE C -115- Crash History: Bakersfield Airpark crash history appears limited to a single fatal crash occurring in February, 1978. The Golden State Junior High School, approx- imately 5400 feet Northwest of the end of the existing runway, was the crash si~e. The accident occurred during non-school hours. Six persons aboard the Cessna 210 aircraft were killed; no other injuries were re- ported. Apparently the pilot became disoriented under obscure weather conditions. Heavily developed areas under the commonly used departure flight paths of the existing and proposed runways create a high potential for public injury in the event of an accident (see Map 6). However, the proposed realignment will reduce the amount of currently developed areas both under the landing and flight path. Impact: With the proposed runway realignment, the 10ca1izers for Meadows Field and the airpark will no longer be parallel to each other. The outer marker would be 3-1/4 miles Northwest of the runway and two miles from the localizers closest point to the runway. Because the holding pattern that uses the outer marker of Meadows Field for a fix overlays operations at Bakersfield Airpark (see Figure B), operation of depart- ing aircraft above 2100 MSL would interfere with flight procedures at Meadows Field.16 While the Bakersfield Airpark will continue operations without a tower, contact with aircraft operators wishing to land will be made through a Unicorn located at one of the fixed base operators. An aircraft control tower may be required to improve flight safety according to the FAA when activities reach 200,000 annual aircraft movements. The financial plan schedule (Appendix A-1) indicates 100 percent Federal (ADAP) funding for a tower in Fiscal Year 1990.17 l6Letter from Henry M. Van Sant, Facility Chief, FAA, Airport Traffic Control Tower, Meadows Field. 17Conversation with Mr. Gerald Dallas, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles. Generally a FAA facility reaching 200,000 annual movements will require tower controls. -114- Air navigation aids directly affecting airport operations can be classi- fied as either transition or approach aids. Transition aids provide guidance to pilots during the period of transition from departure to enroute, a~d enroute to approach phases of flight. Approach aids pro- vide guidance during the approach to landing, and are often used for departure guidance. Transition aid requirements of pilots operating into an out of South Bakersfield will be satisfied by existing transi- tion, electronic guidance will be provided by a VOR supplemented by instructions issued by the Meadows Field Air Traffic Control Tower and approach and departure contro1.14 The existing outer marker for Meadows Field, which is part of the instru- ment Landing System (ILS), is located 5.4 miles Southeast of Meadows Field Airport. When instrument weather occurs, aircraft making an ILS approach to Meadows Field cross the outer marker at 2000 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level) and if required to hold aircraft at the Duter marker, the lowest useab1e altitude for holding is 2100 feet ~tSl (see Figure 3). This holding pattern overlays Bakersfield Airpark. With the existing runway configuration the outer marker is 3.5 miles Northwest of the airpark. The localizer's closest point is 2-1/4 miles from the runway.15 Obstruction Clearance: Obstructions affecting pilots at the existing airpark include a Griffith Steel Warehouse structure across from the North end of the runway and 115 KV Pacific Gas and Electric tower lines, approximately 0.75 mile South of the runway. The power lines are noticed as an obstruction in Volume 1 of the Flight Guide Airport and Frequency Manual. 14R. Dixon Speas, Inc., 1978, Pages 5-9, 5-11. Ibid., Page 5-7. 15Letter from Henry M. Van Sant, Facility Chief; FAA; Airport Traffic Control Tower, Meadows Field. -113- - ~ ~,