The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMITIGATION 1987 -----...-- /~ 'jIþ _Peat Marwick . Airport Consulting Services Draft Environmental Impact Report Supplement for the Master Plan Update Bakersfield Municipal Airport (Bakersfield Airpark) Prepared for City of Bakersfield, California February 1988 SCH No. 87062208 THE PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS FINANCED IN PART THROUGH AN AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GRANT FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 505 OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1982. THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PEAT MARWICK, WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FACTS AND ACCURACY OF THE DATA PRESENTED HEREIN. THE CONTENTS DO NOT NECES· SARIL Y REFLECT THE OFFICIAL VIEWS OR POLICY OF THE FAA. ACCEPTANCE OF THIS REPORT BY THE FAA DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE A COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DEVELOPMENT DEPICTED THEREIN NOR DOES IT INDICATE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC LAWS 91·190. 91·258. 94-353. AND/OR ~95. Peat Marwick Main & Co.. Airport Consulting Services Post Office Box 8007 · San Francisco International Airport · San Francisco. California 94128,8007 · 415-571-7722 It . CONTENTS Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND SUMMARy......... Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................... Location of the Airpark....................... Proposed Action............................... Stage 1 (FY 1989-FY 1993)................... Stage 2 (FY 1994-FY 1998)................... Stage 3 (FY 1999-FY 2010)................... Environmental Setting......................... 3 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES..... Natural Environment........................... Topography and Soils........................ Air Quality................................. Hydrology and Water Quality................. Biotic Communi ties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Human Environment............................. Archaeological and Cultural Resources....... Aircraft Noise Exposure an~ Land Use........ Traffic and Circulation..................... Socioeconomics.............................. Public Services............................. 4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES.......................... 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.................... Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Product i v it y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments i Page 1 1 2 2 6 6 6 8 11 12 12 17 17 17 18 20 23 25 25 25 33 33 34 36 39 39 of Resources................................. 39 Growth-Inducing Impacts....................... 39 Effects Found Not to be Significant........... 39 Cumulative Impacts............................ 40 6 P~~I?~~~E;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, NOTICE OF PREPARATION, AND RESPONSES Appendix B PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED Appendix C METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS 41 8 A B C D E F e e TABLES 1 Environmental Impact Summary.................. 2 Forecast of Based Aircraft.................... 3 Forecast of Aircraft Operations............... Existing Generalized Land Uses................ Violations of State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards......................... 4 5 6 7 Estimated Daily Aircraft Emissions............ Projected Total Emissions in the Case Lorna Specific Plan Area............................ Suggested Land Use Compatibility Standards in Areas Exposed to Aircraft Noise............ EXHIBITS Location Map.................................. Airport Land Use Plan......................... Existing Airport Facilities................... 1987 CNEL Contours and Generalized Land Use...................................... 1995 CNEL Contours and Generalized Land Use...................................... 2010 CNEL Contours and Generalized Land Use...................................... ii Page 4 9 10 16 19 21 22 30 7 13 15 26 27 28 e - 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This report is a supplement to the "Final Environmental Impact Report, Bakersfield Airpark Expansion," dated May 1983 prepared by the City of Bakersfield, Economic Development/Redevelopment Division and certified by the City Council on July 13, 1983. It documents the additions and changes to the 1983 Final Envi- ronmental Impact Report (FEIR) SCH No. 80030515 that were required to address the recommendations in an update of an earlier master plan for Bakersfield Airpark. The recommenda- tions are documented in Peat Marwick's "Master Plan Update for Bakersfield Municipal Airport,"* dated February 1988. This EIR Supplement was prepared to satisfy the substantive and procedural requirements of both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the National Envi- ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. The potential environmental impacts of development at Bakersfield Airpark, given the implementation of the Master Plan Update recommenda- tions, are analyzed herein. Relevant alternatives and mitigation measures were also exam- ined as part of this EIR Supplement. In accordance with the requirements of both CEQA and NEPA, this document provides: · A description of the proposed project. · A description of the existing environmental setting. · Potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures. · Project alternatives. · Environmental consequences, including: (1) the rela- tionship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, (2) any significant irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, (3) the *The official Airport name is Bakersfield Municipal Airport. However, in this report the Airport is referred to by its popular name--Bakersfield Airpark. - e e 2 growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project, (4) effects found not to be significant, and (5) the cumulative impacts. Appendix A includes the Initial Environmental Study, and the Notice of Preparation submitted to the City by Peat Marwick on April 28, 1987, along with the responses received to 'that Notice. This EIR Supplement responds to specific issues reviewed and comments received. Appendix B lists the persons and organizations contacted. Appendix C describes the methodology used for developing the noise exposure maps. BACKGROUND The City of Bakersfield purchased Bakersfield Airpark in 1985 from a private owner with financial assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Prior to the public acquisition of the Airpark, an FEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA regulations by the City of Bakersfield Economic Development/ Redevelopment Division and certified by the City Council on July 13, 1983. The FEIR assessed the potential environmental impacts associated with owning, operating, and improving the Airpark. Following .the CEQA action taken by the City of Bakersfield, the- FAA prepared an Environmental Assessment Summary and Finding of No Significant Impact on February 25, 1985. The Finding of No Significant Impact included environmental findings in accordance with NEPA for (1) the acquisition of approximately 156 acres of land in fee simple and 9 additional acres in ease- ment; (2) site preparation and construction of the realigned runway and associated taxiway development; and (3) other Airpark development, including holding aprons, aircraft parking aprons, ground access, and parking. The Master Plan Update includes recommendations for some modifications to the previous layout and development plan for Bakersfield Airpark. Before these modifications can be made, it is necessary to prepare supplemental environmental documen- tation. This EIR Supplement addresses the potential environ- mental effects of developing the recommendations in the Master Plan Update for Bakersfield Airpark. SUMMARY The proposed action is for the City of Bakersfield to adopt the Bakersfield Airpark'Master Plan Update as a guide to overall development and improvement of the Airpark. The primary ,- e e 3 objective of the Master Plan Update is to accommodate long-term aviation demand while providing a program to meet the more immediate needs for facility modification and repair. The Master Plan Update recommends the following primary development items. · Construction of a replacement Runway 16-34, 4,000 feet long by 75 feet wide · Continued use and expansion of the existing fixed base operator and aircraft storage areas · Acquisition of approximately 25 acres of land for clear zone and building restriction line setbacks · provision for improvements to realign Madison Avenue Environmental effects anticipated as a result of implementing the Airpark Master Plan Update are identified in this EIR Supplement. Table 1 is a summary of the potential environ- mental impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and unavoid- able adverse impacts. These general impacts and measures are the same as those given in the 1983 FEIR. Certain specific changes to the current Airport Layout and Development Plan are recommended. These changes and their probable environmental effects are as follows: Improvement Shift proposed new Runway 16-34 slightly toward a north-south orientation. Relocate parallel taxiway from east side to west side of proposed Runway 16-34; relocate general avia- tion commercial land area from east portion to west portion of Airpark. Acquire 7.2 acres of land adjacent to White Lane and east boundary of currently planned Airpark expan- sion, 8 acres north of Watts Drive, and 9 acres south of East White Lane. Effect on environment Shifts north clear zone away from existing buildings on Watts Drive. Minimizes over-flights of buildings on approach to Runway 16. Reduces noise impact on development near southeast portion of Airpark. Shifts runway away from area with contaminated soil. Minimizes need to demolish and relocate existing aircraft basing and servicing facilities. No environmental impact. Allows for proper separation between runway- taxiway system, Airpark property lines, and adjacent road (Madison Avenue). Erw i ronmen ta 1 impact category Topogt'aphy and soils Air quality Hydrology and water quality Biotic communities Archaeological and cultural resources Table 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY Bakersfield Airpark 1987-2010 Potential adverse impact Site preparation may require some soil displacement. Compaction will be necessary prior to paving surfaces. The area on the south side of the Airpark, known to have soil contamination, may be needed for expansion of air- craft parking facilities. Forecast increases in air- craft operations will add to the emissions levels in the Casa Loma area. Impervious surfaces will be increased as a result of Airpark development. Some Airpark property will be removed as potential habi- tat for some plant and animal species. None anticipated. Recommended mitigation measures Earthwork will be conducted in accordance with applicable building codes. No expansion into this area will be permitted until a contamination management plan satisfactory to both the City of Bakersfield and the Kern County Health Department has been completed. No specific mitigation mea- sures are identified for the Airpark. The recommended Airpark layout provides for the most efficient ground operation of aircraft. Construction of retention basins and sumps will control groundwater recharge and accommodate increases in water runoff. Undeveloped lands on the Airpark can provide habitat for some plant and animal species of the area. If resources are uncovered during development, construc- tion will be stopped and the State Historic Preservation Officer will be notified. Unavoidable adverse effect None. e Existing vacant land will be developed. Air quality may continue to deteriorate in the Casa Loma area as a result of anti~ipated growth in the area. Impervious areas will increase. e Some vacant land will be developed. None. .ÞO ,Table 1 (page 2 of 2) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY Bakersfield Airpark 1987-2010 Environmental impact category Aircraft noise expo- sure émd land use Traffic and circulation Socioeconomics Public services Potential adverse impact Increases in aircraft opera- tions will increase noise levels at and adjacent to the Airpark. Closure of East Planz Road between South Union and Madison avenues could limit access to the neighbor- hood east of the Airpark. Development of the Airpark will require substantial financial resources. No significant changes are expected. Source: Peat Marwick, November 1987. Recommended mitigation measures Recommended land uses around the Airpark, as identified in the Cas a Loma Specific Plan, are compatible with projected aircraft noise levels. If noise complaints increase and noise measurements show significant noise levels in relation to planned compati- ble land use, a detailed noise compatibility study should be conducted. Madison Avenue will be improved and extended from from Watts Drive on the north to White Lane on the south. Unavoidable adverse effect Noise levels at the Airpark will increase with increased aircraft operations. e None. Funding for capital improve- None. ments eligible for FAA grants-in-aid is proposed. Other improvements should be accomplished through the cooperation of developers and builders. Economic incentives of the Enterprise Zone should be used. None. e None. U1 e e 6 Chapter 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION LOCATION OF THE AIRPARK Bakersfield Airpark is located in the southeast portion of the 'City of Bakersfield, approximately 1.5 miles south of State Highway 58 and about 2 miles east of State Highway 99. The City of Bakersfield is located in the southern San Joaquin Valley in Kern County, approximately 100 miles north of Los Angeles and about 300 miles southeast of San Francisco. Exhibit A shows the location of the Airpark in relation to the surrounding community. When purchased by the City in 1985, the Airpark property consisted of 95 acres. The City also has acquired, or is acquiring, 49 additional acres of land required for planned improvements, based on the recommendations in the 1983 FEIR. Including the 25 acres of land recommended in the Master Plan Update (and described below), the Airpark area will total 169 acres. PROPOSED ACTION .The City of Bakersfield proposes to adopt the Bakersfield Airpark Master Plan Update prepared by Peat Marwick under the direction of the Economic/Redevelopment Division of the Development Services Department. The Master Plan Update includes a review and update of the aviation demand forecasts, airport facility requirements, a staged development plan for new and improved facilities, and recommended airport management goals and policies over a 20-year planning period. Airpark facilities identified in the Master Plan Update include (1) the airfield (runway and taxiway systems), (2) the terminal complex (airport administration building and aircraft parking apron), (3) ground access and automobile parking, (4) airport support facilities (fuel facilities and fixed base operator areas), and (5) other aviation and aviation-related activities. A range of forecasts was prepared for the Airpark because of (1) uncertainties regarding potential changes in the share of Kern County's aviation activity to be accommodated at the Airpark, and (2) the future attractiveness of the Airpark to transient flyers. Bakersfield Airpark is well-located to serve a major portion of the Bakersfield urbanized area--particularly the central business district and the southern half of the area. The share of total general aviation activity to be -- e e I I ...&.. Meadows Field- T Kem Co. Airport Notri6 Rd. ___.. èš Oi!~!!te__ -_1:: Q .~ of( Round Mourtsin Rd. A¡I¡¡¡~¡¡¡Jti:t :!.:~.. .................. IIJIII Niles St. ~ Brundage Ln. ..a, .- ~ '< .. ~ L.:; Muller Rd. HermosB St. \I II N l' 0.5 0 1 2 Graphic Scale in Miles þ~t:~:~:~:~:::::~f:j City of Bakersfield lflii Airpark _ Other public facilities exhibit A Environmental Impact Report Supplement for the Master Plan .Update Bakersfield Municipal Airport (Bakersfield Airpark) LOCATION MAP ~Peat Marwiclc February 1988 e e 8 "captured" by Bakersfield Airpark will depend, at least in part, on the quality of facilities and services offered there in the future. Table 2 presents the current and forecast number of general aviation aircraft based at the Airpark. In the forecast of based aircraft for 1995, it is assumed that Bakersfield Airpark will be expanded and that a new, longer runway will be built as planned. Therefore, it is expected that the number of multi- engine aircraft based at the Airpark will increase sharply. Such an increase would bring the share of multiengine aircraft based at the Airpark in line with the County-wide average. Table 3 presents current and forecast aircraft operations at Bakersfield Airpark from 1987 through 2010. Because there is no airport traffic control tower at the Airpark, no, official historical records of aircraft operations are available. Therefore, the estimate of 50,000 aircraft operations in 1987 is based on estimates from the FAA's Airport Master Record for the Airpark, estimates contained in the "Regional Airport System Plan" for the Kern County Council of Governments, and discussions with Airpark personnel. The range of operations presentèd in Table 3 is related to the range o~ based aircraft presented in Table 2. In the low fore- cast, operations increase about 50%, to 75,000 operations in 2010. In the high forecast, operations more than double, to 115,000 operations i~ 2010. Local operations are expected to account for at least 50~ of total operations throughout the forecast period. Local operations are also described as touch-and-go or practice operations. The recommended improvements for Bakersfield Airpark would be implemented in three stages by fiscal year ending June 30:' Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 FY 1989-FY 1993 FY 1994-FY 1998 FY 1999-FY 2010 Stage 1 (FY 1989-FY 1993) Airfield . Construct new Runway 16-34, 4,000 feet long x 75 feet wide, with parallel taxiway system (full length on e e 9 Table 2 FORECAST OF BASED AIRCRAFT Bakersfield Airpark 1987-2010 These forecasts have been prepared on the basis of the infor- mation and assumptions given in the text. The achievement of any forecast is dependent upon the occurrence of future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results may vary from the forecasts. Sinqle-enqine Multienqine Total Low High Low High Low High 1987 116 116 3 3 119 119 1995 116 124 14 16 130 140 2000 131 148 19 22 150 170 2005 142 "168 23 27 165 195 2010 153 187 27 33 180 220 Source: Peat Marwick, June 1987. e e 10 Table 3 FORECAST OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS Bakersfield Airpark 1987-2010 These forecasts have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions given in the text. The achievement of any forecast is dependent upon the occurrence of future events which cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results may vary from the forecasts. Aircraft operations Low Hiqh 1987 50,000 50,000 1995 60,000 70,000 2000 65,000 85,000 2005 70,000 100,000 2010 75,000 115,000 Note: Local operations (touch-and-go or practice operations) are expected to account for 50%-60% of the total throughout the forecast period. Source: Peat Marwick, June 1987. e e 11 west side and partial length on east side), runway and taxiway lighting, and landing and navigation aids. · Remove Runway 13-31. General Aviation Area · Construct two aircraft parking aprons (177,000 square feet total) for transient and based aircraft: (1) adjacent to temporary administration building, and (2) adjacent to Stage 1 hangar development (see next item) . · Construct two new 16-bay T-hangar (or shade hangar) buildings 350 feet long with access taxi1anes. Airport Support · Construct fuel farm, and remove existing fueling station and underground tank. · Construct temporary Airport administration, maintenance and safety complex in the former industrial building (adjacent to East Planz Road). · Construct on-Airport access road to serve temporary administration building, new aircraft parking/storage area (entry from East Planz Road), and fuel farm. Land Acquisition · Acquire additional land required for construction of new runway-taxiway system; at south end of expanded Airport (7.2 acres). · Acquire land for clear zones, north of Watts Drive (8 acres), and south of East White Lane (9 acres). Stage 2 (FY 1994-FY 1998) General Aviation Area · Construct addition to aircraft parking apron, north of temporary administration building (107,000 square feet) . . Construct two T-hangar (or shade hangar) buildings, one 16-bay and one 18-bay, with access taxi1anes. ..- e e 12 Airport Support · Extend the on-Airport access road to the south for access to Stage 2 and Stage 3 hangar development. Stage 3 (FY 1999-FY 2010) General Aviation Area · Construct addition to aircraft parking apron south of temporary administration building to connect with Stage 1 southerly aircraft apron. · Construct two 18-20 bay T-hangar (or shade hangar) buildings with access taxilanes. Airport Support · Construct new Airport administration, maintenance, and safety complex. The primary recommendations for Airpark development, as shown on Exhibit B, include a slight realignment of the planned new runway to a 16-34 orientation (the runway recommended in the 1983 FEIR had a 15-33 orientation). The 16-34 orientation will provide wind coverage that exceeds the 95% required by the FAA for general aviation runways, and the need to purchase existing homes and businesses will be avoided. This new runway align- ment will also minimize the necessity to close and relocate adjacent streets and roads. The new runway is planned to be 4,000 feet long and 75 feet wide, and a full parallel taxiway is planned to be 25 feet wide. This runway would accommodate all general aviation aircraft up to 12,500 pounds having a wingspan of less than 49 feet. The runway development will require the closure ·of a portion of East Planz Road west of Madison Avenue. Improvements to and the extension of Madison Avenue south to East White Lane are recommended. Improvements to Madison Avenue could provide uninterrupted access to the neighborhoods east of the Airpark. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Bakersfield Airpark is located about four miles south of down- town Bakersfield (see Exhibit A). Access to the Airpark from downtown is via South Union Avenue. General access from the Bakersfield area is via State Highways 99, 178, and 58. \ \ \ \ REIL \ I i \ \ \ \ L\~-Î\ \ r \ \ \ I \ \ \\ «',-:'»: \ I I \ ~::::::::: \1 L \ -\\=--=-~f~~t~~~~\~:=:===--= L__+t~~J VI o c :i! c z ë5 z 'Þ, - ~ z C fTI L,L_'- L_LL LL_I_ L L-'_I LuLLI LLLI ............... ............... ¡;:¥[\. ................. ................ . ......-r'l.......................-..... ~~i-i:~rii1\:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~....-._-~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [tl¥It}\\ . ~~ ...... ............ ,..... ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \\\ ß?:%}}}, ..................... ...... ..................... ...... I ............................. ;:~~~'~:':'~:~:':':'7~~?-:-::: :',.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... ......................... ..... ::::':':':':':~:::::::::::::::::::::::::~~:.:.:":':.:.,' li-s?-;.ï . ..... .... ....+... I .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. aI\ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. r .. .. .. .. t .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. + .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. f .. .. .. .. .. .. .. + .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. + .~~~~~~~ + ~ + + + + + .. + .. + + .. .. .. .. N ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. , .. , + .. .. , .. , .. , + + .. .. + .. +- .. .. , .. , .. + .. .. + .. .. .. .. + .. .. .. + .. .. .. + .. ~ .. ~ .. .. + + .. + .. + .. .. .. .. + .. .. .. .. .. + .. + .. .. .. .. .. , J~ ~ ~ 1____ ""-"',,,-"",----- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. + .. .. .. .. + .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . + .. .. + .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. + .. . + .. .. .. 200 -- o 500 200 CRAPHIC SCALE IN rEEf t- '" a ----------- e ------.--.---------- LEGEND I STRUCTURE ,~.___ ROADWA Y , ~~. ~ -_.~--- -~Ã'-RFlETõìÀPR6Ñ PAVEMENT o ~ - - - - BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE ~ - - - - AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE c fTI LAND USE ~ ~ ~ ~ m AIRPORT SUPPORT GENERAL A VIA TlON COMMERCIAL e GENERAL A VIA TlON NONCOMMERCIAL A VIA TlON RELATED Ittt~ RESERVED FOR FUTURE A VIA nON REQUIREMENTS POTENilAL ACQUISIiION \ \ \ \ \ ' I \ I \ , \' --~---~._-- - --.------.--- ..~-'"--------- -- e e ExhIbIt B Environmental Impact Report Supplement for the Master Plan Update Bakersfield Municipal Airport (Bakersfield Airpark) AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN· YEAR 2010 KÞÁfGlpeat Marwic1< February 1988 e e 14 The Airpark is bounded by South Union Avenue to the west, Watts Drive to the north, Madison Avenue to the east, and Planz Road to the south. When the Airpark is expanded, White Lane will become the southern boundary. The City of Bakersfield currently owns, or is acquiring, approximately 144 acres of land for the Airpark. Additional land acquisition is being planned. The existing Airpark facilities are situated south- east of the Watts Drive-South Union Avenue intersection on City-owned property. These facilities are shown on Exhibit C. (The property shown is the 95-acre Bakersfield Airpark purchased by the City in 1985.) The surrounding area can be characterized as urban with some rural (agricultural) and undeveloped land. Generally, commer- cial and industrial uses occupy most of the area adjacent to the Airpark, except the area east of Madison Avenue, which is residential. The residential development is generally on small subdivision lots and on some larger rural residential lots. The Airpark is included in the Casa Lorna Specific Plan adopted by the City Council on February 11, 1987. Expansion of the Airpark is included in and considered to be a major feature of the Casa Lorna Enterprise Zone. An "Enterprise Zone," as defined by the Employment and Economic Incentive Act, AB-5l4, is recognized as a specific geographical area where incentives are provided, State and local taxes are lowered, and regulatory burdens are reduted to help create jobs, stimulate development, and encourage private investment. The Casa Lorna area has been designated as an "Enterprise Zone." The Airpark has the poten- tial for attracting commercial and industrial activities, thus creating jobs and stimulating the economy in the Casa Lorna area. Table 4 presents the generalized land uses within the Casa Lorna Enterprise Zone, the acreage of each land use, and the percent of total area for each land use. ~L ----..... ,....-.:=_,~-==-,~,~..,=..~.~. ~ I, I, II I, ' II ., I, ;: III I, ~ -'~'-I Iii ~ I ' . I, ~ ~ L ~ I, L_~~~ Ii ~ ~ ~\ II ~. I, ~. \: I' \~. .:,;; - ,-j -~ ( "- "- " "- "- "- "- "- "- ~ ./ ./ \ ./ V I, ./\ ./ \ ././ \ ( \ "- c\ " (~ \ , .....-<>~:p \ , ú(, '% 0. 'Ô " 'f'",tJ,.? ~ \ "'~q.. e I ,'~ . ~ r .~: ~:r~¡:r-~~,;E" ~:,:, ~ 'I RESTAURAN :\ I. 0 V AND OrnCE :\ T HANGAR I B GAS R A ®pUMP \: . E.~ I OFFICES [( ~ 'HANGAR/. , ~ ,. OFFICE ~ .H I ~ HANGARS L _ G , ~ STORAGE . I "'J '. SHED SHAOf, K Þ POR T . þM I ~ HANGARS I SUMP \ l__ HANGAR "~ . "-,,- - - I ,- .... I I S (J g ~ c: :z ~ ~ m :z c: m GAT CROP I OtlSTING OPERATION L_____ AIRPORT BEACON AND WINDSOCK (NOTE: A SECOND WINDSOCK IS \ f'>CA 1r(l ON HAt1GAR'iI") ~ \!h-~T~2R~D INDUSTRIAL( I COMMERCIA ì f - LEGEND STRUCTURE - - - - ROADWAY AIRFIELD/APRON PAVEMENT BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE FENCE AIKPOR f PHOPERTY LINE N l' -- o - 200 200 CRAPH'C SCALE 'H rEET -----..----.-- -~. ---- (1. \ \ \ C( \ ~ "'", ,'fI \ -J'v. ,%'0 'à ~O?~ \ "'<!C'-S- \ \ \ \ 500 -"---',~ --:-~- --- -- -~- -...-:.--=~ ,,-,~--~-- -~ -.-::.--<---=~-- ~"'" - -.,.---," ~----- '<- ~=--,",,- ---==--~-",",---=-=-------"""- --,~---,--~ - ExhIbit C Environmental Impact Report Supplement for the Master Plan Update Bakersfield Municipal Airport (Bakersfield Airpark) EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES KÞMGlpeat Marwiek February 1988 e Table 4 e 16 EXISTING GENERALIZED LAND USES Casa Lorna Enterprise Zone Bakersfield and Kern County, California 1986 Generalized land use Vacant land Residential Agricultural Open space and public facilities (buildings, streets, etc.) Industriala Commercial Total a. Includes the Airpark. Percent of Acres total area - 1,412 41% 690 20 418 12 499 14 280 8 162 5 - 3,461 100% Source: County of Kern and City of Bakersfield, "Casa Lorna Specific Plan," August 25, 1986. e e 17 Chapter 3 SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES As required by "Environmental Impact Report Guidelines" for CEQA and FAA Order 5050.4A, "Airport Environmental Handbook," the potential significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Master Plan Update recommendations are analyzed herein. Possible mitigation measures were identified to reduce, and in some caseSj eliminate, the potential environ- mental impact:s. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The elements of the natural environment identified in the Initial Envir()nmental Study that may be significantly impacted if the recommended Master Plan Update is implemented include: topography and soils, air quality, hydrology and water quality, and biotic communities including flora and fauna. Each of these is analyzed and discussed below. Topography and Soils The elevation of the Airpark ranges from 373 feet to 380 feet above mean seél level. Elevations for the surrounding Casa Loma Enterprise Zone range from 365 feet to 390 feet above mean sea level. The land slopes gradually (less thari 1%) to the south. The 1986 FEIR for the Casa Loma Specific Plan and Final Enter- prise Zone Application described the soil characteristics of the Airpark. The soils are classified as being in the Kimber- lina Series with saline-alkali characteristics. These soils are not suited for most agricultural crop production, but are normally acceptable for urban use. Crop dusting activities have caused a soil contamination problem on the south side of the Airpark. The City of Bakersfield, in cooperation with the Kern County Department of Health and the State Department of Health Services, will develop a management plan to identify the extent of the soil contamination and to determine the appropriate method for con- tamination cleanup or, at a minimum, mitigation and control of the contamination to prevent further environmental harm. e e 18 Impacts. Because of the relatively flat topography of the Airpark property, a minimum amount of earthwork will be required for Airpark development. Some soil displacement and compaction will be required to prepare the site for airfield pavement. No agriculturally suited land will be needed for Airpark development. Aircraft parking may be expanded on the south side of the Airpark where some soil is known to be contaminated because of previous disposal of agricultural crop dusting materials. During site preparation for paving, some contaminated soil may be removed and the area compacted. Mitigation Measures. If the contaminated area is needed for Airpark development, all earthwork would be conducted in conformance with an approved soil contamination management plan. Such a plan would be developed by the City of Bakersfield. The Airpark would not be expanded into this area until the contamination management plan is completed and a means to handle the contaminated soil is determined. Air Quality The Airpark is within the Kern County Air Pollution Control District and is part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The California Air Resources Board has determined that the Kern County portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is not attaining the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and carbon monoxide. Ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed by the reaction of sunlight on the combination of reactive hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Stationary sources such as oil refineries contribute the majority of the compounds that generate smog. Mobile sources such as automobiles and trucks are the largest contributors to the carbon monoxide levels. The Kern County Air Pollution Cantrol District also reports that Kern County exceeds the State air quality standards for ozone and particulates. Particulates are solid particles small enough to remain suspended in the air before settling to the ground. Industrial, heating, and transportation sources contribute to the concentration of particulates. Table 5 presents the violations of the State and national ambient air quality standards within the Kern County Air Pollution Control District for 1980 through 1983, the most recent years for which data are available. Violations are becoming less frequent. Table 5 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Kern County Air Pollution Control District 1980-1983 Violation of California standards Ozone Carbon monoxide Particulates e Year Standarda (ppm) Days Standarda (ppm) Days Standardb (ppm) Days 1980 0.10 61 20 0 50 47 1981 0.10 47 20 0 50 46 1982 0.10 45 20 0 50 31 1983 0.10 50 20 0 50 32 Violation of national standards Ozone Carbon monoxide Particulates Year Standarda ( ppm) Days Standardc (ppm) Days Standardb (ppm) Days 1980 0.12 7 9.3 5 260 1981 0.12 7 9.3 1 260 1982 0.12 7 9.3 0 260 0 1983 0.12 7 9.3 1 260 0 e ppm = parts per million. a. 1-hour average. b. 24-hour average. c. 8-hour average. Source: County of Kern and City of Bakersfield, Final Environmental Impact Report, Casa Lorna Specific Plan and Final Enterprise Zone Application, January 15, 1986. ~ 1.0 e e 20 Impacts. The direct impacts of aircraft operations at the Airpark on air quality were determined using the Environ- mental Protection Agency's "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors." Emission levels were developed using average daily aircraft operations for the types of aircraft using and expected to use the Airpark. Total projected daily aircraft emissions were calculated and are presented in Table 6. Indirect air quality impacts would result from related stationary and mobile sources associated with use of the Airpark and the general land uses associated with the Casa Lorna Specific Plan development. Total emissions projected to be generated in the Casa Loma Specific Plan area by the year 2000 are provided in Table 7. Mitigation Measures. As the Casa Loma area grows, local and regional air quality may deteriorate if appropriate miti- gation measures, such as reducing motor vehicle use, are not implemented. Mitigation measures identified in the Casa Loma Specific Plan and Final Enterprise Zone Application FEIR will help reduce the impacts on air quality in the local area and in the Air Pollution Control District. Because of the insig- nificant contribution of emissions generated by aircraft operations at the Airpark to the total emissions projected for the Casa Lorna area, no specific mitigation measures for opera- tions at the Airpark were identified. Hydrology and Water Quality There are two sources of water in the Casa Lorna area. First, there is the groundwater in the unconfined subsurface aquifer, which is extracted by wells owned by the Casa Loma Water Company. Water depth varies from 600 feet to 700 feet, as stated in~the FEIR for the Casa Lorna Specific Plan and Final Enterprise Zone Application. Because of the poor qual- ity of the groundwater in the southeastern portion of the Casa Lorna area, no active wells are located on the Airpark. The California Water Service Company supplies water to the Airpark. The second source of water in the Casa Lorna area is a form of surface water. Used mostly for agricultural purposes, this surface water is obtained from the Central Branch of the Kern Island Canal. The Airpark does not use water from this source. - Table 6 ESTIMATED DAILY AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS Bakersfield Airpark 1987-2010 Carbon monoxide Nitrogen Total Sulfur emission oxide emis- hydrocarbon oxide emis- factor per Carbon sion factor Ni trogen emission sion factor Sulfur engine land- monoxide per engi ne oxide factor oer Total hydro- per enqi ne oxide Number of Operations ing/takeoff (pounds landing/take- (pounds engine landing/ carbons (pounds lanðinq/take- (pounds Type ()f Aircraft engines per day cycle per day) off cycle per day) takeoff cycle per day) off cycle per day) e 1987 General aviation turboprop (Beech 99) 2 0 7.16 0.00 0.82 0.00 5.08 0.00 0.18 0.00 General aviation piston (Cessna 150) 124 8.32 1,031.68 0.02 2.48 0.23 28.52 0.00 0.00 General aviation piston (Piper Navajo) 2 14 96.24 2,694.72 0.02 0.56 1.76 49.28 0.00 0.00 Total emissions 3,726.40 3:õ4 77:ãõ õ:õõ 1995 General aviation turboprop 2 8 7.16 114.56 0.82 13.12 5.08 81.28 0.18 2.88 General aviation piston 154 8.32 ',28'.28 0.02 3.08 0.23 35.42 0.00 0.00 General aviation e piston 2 30 96.24 5,774.40 0.02 1.20 1.76 105.60 0.00 0.00 Total emissions 7,'70.24 17:4õ -m:3õ 2:ãã ~ General aviation turboprop 2 19 7.16 272.08 0.82 31.16 5.08 193.04 0.18 6.84 General aviation piston 237 8.32 ',971.84 0.02 4.74 0.23 54.51 0.00 0.00 General aviation pis ton 2 50 96.24 9,624.00 0.02 2.00 1.76 176.00 0.00 0.00 Total emissions 1',867.92 . 37:9õ rn:ss '6.ã4 I\J Sources: Peat Harwick estimates I October 1987. Environmental Protection Aqency, ·Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume II: Mobile Sources,· ...... AP-42, Fourth Edi tion, September 1985. e e 22 Table 7 PROJECTED TOTAL EMISSIONS IN THE CASA LOMA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 2000 (tons/day) Carbon Nitrogen Sulfur Ozone Pollutant monoxide oxides oxides Particulates (hydrocarbons) Casa Lorna Specific Plan area Stationary 82.6 451. 5 __a 0.7 33.0 Mobile 59.4 3.8 0.7 0.9 7.8 142.0 455.3 0.7 1.6 40.8 "Enterprise Zone" (as part of the Casa Lorna Specific Plan) Stationary 65.8 394.6 __a 0.9 26.3 Mobile 25.8 40.0 0.8 0.9 8.3 - 91.6 434.6 0.8 1.8 34.6 a. Negligible. Source: County of Kern and City of Bakersfield, Final Environmental Impact Report, Casa Lorna Specific Plan and Final Enterprise Zone Applica- tion, January 15, 1986. e e 23 Impacts. Expansion and development of the Airpark will increase the impervious surfaces on the Airpark. The ability to recharge the groundwater supply will be reduced as a result. Runoff f'rom additional paved surfaces will be collected by new retention basins and sumps. These new facilities can provide controlled release of the runoff into the groundwater supply. Additional sewer and water lines will be needed to accommodate growth at the Airpark. Mitigation Measures. Development of the Airpark will be consistent with adopted water quality and drainage plans. A soil contamination management plan is being prepared by the City of Bakersfield for those contaminated areas on the Air- park. Appropriate measures for treating and/or removing the contaminated soil will be identified in the plan. Implemen- tation of such a plan should prevent contamination of surface and ground water. Biotic Communities Areas east and south of the Airpark are predominantly in agricultural use or in pasture. Agricultural uses and agriculturally zoned lands make up approximately 18% of the Casa Lorna Specific Plan area. Agricultural and pastural lands attract many small species of birds, animals, and plants. Site visits identified existing plant life as mostly annual grasses and weeds. No rare, threatened, or endangered plant species were discovered on the project site. The project site is within the range of the San Joaquin Valley Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). The Kit Fox is listed on the federal list of rare, endangered, or threat- ened species. Visual inspection of the site did not reveal any active dens. The Burrowing Owl, Athene cunicularia, has been sighted in the past on portions of the project site. Burrowing Owls are listed as a sensitive species on the State of California sensitive species list. Impacts. Airpark development will eliminate some land that is now potential habitat for the Kit Fox and Burrowing Owl. Although some potential habitat of the Burrowing Owl will be used for Airpark expansion, there will be some por- tions of the project site which would not be developed. These areas could be used for habitat by the Burrowing Owl. The proposed project would displace some biotic species, but will not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species. e e 24 Mitigation Measures. The Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation elements of the Casa Lorna Specific Plan contain policies and programs designed to protect and preserve wild- life species and agricultural resources. Undeveloped areas can be used as natural habitat. Currently, the City of Bakersfield, in association with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California State Depart- ment of Fish and Game, and other local agencies, is preparing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP is a comprehensive resource protection program which addresses protection of endangered species, property development interests, and miti- gation measures. The plan is an essential component of an application for a Federal Endangered Species Act Section lO(a) permit from the U.S. Department of the Interior. In cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, the City of Bakersfield has adopted an interim mitigation fee (Ordinance No. 3122; City Council Resolution No. l83~87) for mitigating environmental impacts resulting from property development. The ordinance also provides a source for funding the HCP. This interim fee is expected to be in effect for two years. If the HCP is approved and a Section lO(a) permit is issued to the City of Bakersfield prior to construction of the proj~ ect, mitigations identified in the HCP will be sufficient. However, if construction proceeds prior to HCP approval, the following mitigation is proposed. Thirty days prior to ground disturbance, a qualified biologist would conduct a field survey of the project area to locate any active dens of the Kit Fox. Should an active den be located on the project site, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be notified. Hand excavation of the den would be accomplished under the direction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, during the "nesting season" of the Burrowing Owl (from the middle to the end of March), construction would be monitored in the areas where active nests have been identi- fied. If active nests are discovered in the construction area, construction would be delayed until after the nesting season. Should it be determined that the project may affect a federally listed endangered and threatened species, the lead federal agency involved in funding or permitting the Airpark development must initiate consultation under Sec- tion 7 of the Endangered Species Act as amended. e e 25 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT The elements of the human environment identified in the Initial Environmental Study that may be significantly impacted by the development of Bakersfield Airpark include: archaeological and cultural resources, aircraft noise expo- sure and land use, traffic and circulation, socioeconomics, and public services. Each of these elements is analyzed and discussed below. Archaeological and Cultural Resources A field survey and a records search were performed as part of the May 1983 FEIR for Bakersfield Airpark. No known archaeo- logical, historical, or cultural resources were identified in the surveyor records search. Impacts. No known archaeological, historical, or cultural resources will be impacted by the proposed Airpark development. Mitigation Measures. If, during construction of the Airpark, any archaeological, historical, or cultural resources are discovered, work will be stopped and the State Historic Preservation Officer will be notified and given the opportunity to determine the significance of the find. Aircraft Noise Exposure and Land Use Aircraft noise exposure was determined by developing aircraft noise exposure contours and overlaying these contours onto a generalized land use map of the area. The noise exposure contours were developed using the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 3.9. Appendix C describes the INM and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL)--the metric used in California to describe average aircraft noise exposure in terms of human response. Estimates of total noise exposure resulting from aircraft operations at Bakersfield Airpark, expressed in CNEL values, were interpreted and the potential effects on land uses were assessed. Noise exposure levels and generalized land uses for 1987, 1995, and 2010 are depicted on Exhibits D, E, and F, respectively. e e ,.' ,.' -) ...~e~ N l' 2000 1000 0 Graphic ScaJe in Feet 2000 Land Use H:::::;::::{ Suburban residential 1);:Jr)!!1 Low-density residential .. Medium-density residential E:3 Airpark .. Churches I Schools E22a Commercial ~ Industrial . ~~::J Agricultural ~,2';:;J Parks/recreation D Vacant Exhibit D Environmental Impact Report Supplement for the Master Plan Update Bakersfield Municipal Airport (Bakersfield Airpark) 1987 CNEL CONTOURS AND GENERALIZED EXISTING LAND USE ~Peat Marwiclc Februarv 1988 e e N l' 2000 1000 0 2000 Grapnlc Scale ,n Feet Land Use EEZI Suburban reslcentlal ¡~:':' "':1 Low-density reSicentlal ~;~w~r~ Medlum-censlty reSICentlal ~ Airpark . Churches ,¡ Schools ; I Commercial ~~\~'~I !ndustrlal f :. -.SJ Parks/recreation Exhibit E Environmental Impact Report Supplement for the Master Plan Update Bakersfield Municipal Airport (Bakersfield Airpark) 1995 CNEL CONTOURS AND GENERALIZED PLANNED LAND USE kPM(;JPeat Marwick February 1988 e e N l' 2000 00 O. 10 "ScàJe in Feet GraphiC: 2000 Land Use ....... ban residential ('=':::::::::::::::1 Subur .dentl"al :.:........... . resl :; ~~:~~;~~:Sity residential l3 Airpark .. Churches .. Schools [///I.Í Commercial ~ Industrial ~ t"n c:z¡ Parkstrecrea 10 Exhibit F rt Supplement tal Impact Repo Plan Update Environmen for the Master 'cipal Airport Bakersfi(~~~~~ied Airpark) NTOURS AND 2010 CNEL ~~ED LAND USE GENERALIZED PLA 1988 . II February . KÞiWGJPest Msl'Wlc... e e 29 The CNEL values shown on the exhibits do not dictate certain consequences or responses; rather, they are intended as a guide in land use planning and development. Suggested land use compatibility standards in areas exposed to aircraft noise, as derived from Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, ¡'Airport Noise Compatibility Planning," are pre- sented in Table 8. These standards should be used as a guide in determining land use compatibility based upon specified noise exposure levels. Generally, land uses exposed to less than CNEL 65 are considered compatible uses. The compati- bility standards for the areas exposed to CNEL 60 to 65 are shown for planning purposes only. Impacts. Exhibit D shows the 1987 CNEL 60, 65, 70, and 75 contours for aircraft operations at the Airpark. The land area currently within each noise exposure range is as follows: Range 1987 land area (acres) CNEL 75+ CNEL 70-75 CNEL 65-70 CNEL 60-65 CNEL 60+ 5 5 18 60 88 The area exposed to CNEL 65+ is exclusively on Airpark property. South of the Airpark, the CNEL 60 contour peaks about 400 feet southeast of Madison Avenue. The land uses exposed to CNEL 60-65 include manufacturing (light indus- trial), which is compatible with Airpark operations. The area exposed to CNEL 60-65 extends northwest approximately 2,200 feet from the vicinity of the intersection of Watts Drive and South Union Avenue toward the intersection of South Union Avenue and Casa Lorna Drive (Ming Avenue). This area is a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. All land uses are generally compatible with noise levels less than CNEL 65, as shown in Table 8. The area exposed to CNEL 60-65 also extends south of the Airpark to Cottonwood Road and east to Madison Avenue. e Table 8 e SUGGESTED LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS IN AREAS EXPOSED TO AIRCRAFT NOISE 30 The designations contained in this table do not constitute a federal determination that Any use of the land covered by the FAR Part 150 proqram is acceptable or unacceptable under federal, State or locAl law. The responsibility for determining the acceptable ~nd permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties and specific noise contours rests with the local authori- ties. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute federally determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses. Land use Residential: Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings Mobile homes Transient lodgings Public use: Schools, hospitals, and nursing homes Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls Governmental services Transportation Parki ng Commercial use: Offices, business, and professional Wholesale and retail--building materials, hardware, and farm equipment Retail trade--general Utili ties Communication Ma~ufacturing and production: Manufacturing, general Photographic and optical Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry Livestock farming and breeding Mining and fishing resources production and extracti on Recrea tional: Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters Nature exhibits and zoos Amusements, parks, resorts, and camps Golf courses, riding stables, and water recrea ti on CNEL 60 to 65 Compatiblea Compatiblea Compatiblea Compatiblea Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compa tible Compa tible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible ~EL 65 to' 70 NLR requiredb I ncompa ti b 1 e NLR requiredb NLR requiredb NLR requiredb Compatible Compatible Compatible NLR required Compatible NLR requi red Compa ti b le NLR required Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Incompatible Compatible Compatible Compatible CNEL 70 to 75 NLR requiredb Incompatible NLR requiredb Incompatible NLR requi red NLR requi red Compa ti blec Compatiblec NLR required Compatiblec NLR required Compatiblec NLR requi red Compatiblec NLR required Compatible Compa ti b le Compatible Compatible Incompatible Incompatible Compatible Compatible CNEL 75+ Incompatible Incomp~tihle IncomPa tible IncomP~tible I ncompa ti b le NLR requirer'l CpmPatiblec Comp~tihlec NLR requi rer'l Compatiblec NLR re'1ui red Compatiblec NLR required Comoatiblec NLR required Compatihle Incom,,~tible COmPatiblp. Incompatihle Incompatible Incompatible Incompatible Incompatible CNEL = Community noise equivalent level. Compatible = Generally, no special noise attenuating materials are required to achieve an interior noise level of CNEL 45 in habitable spaces, or the activity (whether indoors or outdoors) would not be sub- jp.ct to a significant adverse effect by the outdoor noise level. NLR Noise Level Reduction. NLR is used to denote the total amount of noisp. tr~nsmission 10"" in decib"',, re~uired to reduce an exterior noise level in habitable interior spaces to CNEL 45. In mo"t pl~ce", typical building construction autom~tic~lly provir'les an NLR of 20 decibels. ThF!refore, if a "tructure is located in an area exposed to aircraft noise of CNEL 65, the interior level of noi"e would he ahout CNEL 45. If the structure is located in an area exposed to ~ircraft noise of CNP.L 70, the interior level of noise would be about CNEL 50, so ~n additional NLR of 5 decibels would be required if not afforded by the normal construction. This NLR can be achieved throuqh the use of noise attenuatinq materials in the construction of the structure. Incompatible = Generally, the land use, whether in a structure or an outdoor activity, is considered to he incompatible with the outdoor noise exposure, even if special attenuatinq materials were to be used in the construction of the buildinq. a. In climates where existing structures have thin, single-wall construction with minimal insulation, the CNEL 60 to 65 area may not be compatible without additional noise level reduction incorporated into the de,,1gn and construction. ffowevet', it should be noted that in many urhan arells, the amhient noi"e level may be above cnEL 65, so structures in the CNEL 60 to 65 area must be evaluated on a case-by-c~se hasi". b. The land use is gener~lly incompatible and should only be permitted in areas of infill 1n p.xistinq neiqh- borhoods or where the community determines that the use must be allowed. c. NLR required in offices or othp.t' areas with noise-sensitive activities. Source: Peat Marwick, as derived from the U.S. Dep~rtment of Transportlltion, Federal Aviation Avi~tion Administration, Federal Aviation Rp.<Jutations (FAR) Part 150, -Airport Noise Comn~tihi llty Pl~nninq,- Code of Federal Regul~tions, Title 14, Chapter 1, Subchapter Y, PlIrt 150, Tahle 1, January IB, 19B5. e e 31 Exhibit E shows the noise exposure contours for 1995 based on the following assumptions: · A new Runway 16-34 will be operational by 1995, and existing Runway 13-31 will be decommissioned. . Aircraft operations at the Airpark consist of 30% itinerant and 70% local (40% training and 30% other local). In 1995, the land area inside each noise exposure range would be as follows: Range 1995 land area (acres) CNEL 75+ CNEL 70-75 CNEL 65-70 CNEL 60-65 CNEL 60+ 7 10 29 55 101 The CNEL 65, 70, and 75 contours would be on Airpark property in 1995. The CNEL 60 contour would extend approximately 1,500 feet north of Watts Drive, south of the Casa Lorna School· anç Park. The CNEL 60 contour would extend just east of Madison Avenue between Brook Street and East White Lane. Table 8 suggests that the land uses between the CNEL 60 and 65 contours, as specified in the Casa Lorna Specific Plan, are generally compatible with the noise levels projected for 1995. Exhibit F shows the noise exposure contours for 2010 based on the following assumptions: . Aircraft operations at the Airpark consist of 35% itinerant and 65% local (40% training and 25% other local). · Two percent of the total operations are by Class C aircraft.* *Class C aircraft include large aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds and up to 300,000 pounds. Examples of Class C aircraft are the BAe 146, DH-7, SHD-3 and -6, and the FK-27. This aircraft class is representative of any crop duster activity and an occasional unscheduled air taxi operation. e e 32 In 2010, the land area inside each noise exposure range would be as follows: Range 2010 land area (acres) CNEL 75+ CNEL 70-75 CNEL 65-70 CNEL 60-65 CNEL 60+ 9 20 41 117 187 The area within the CNEL 70 and CNEL 75 contours would be on . Airpark property in 2010. A small area extending approximately 600 feet south of East White Lane would- be within the area bounded by the CNEL 65 and 70 contours. This area south of the Airpark is designated for industrial uses that are compatible with aircraft operations. The CNEL 60 contour would extend south of East White Lane almost to Pacheco Road. The southwest section of the Crystal Heights area, near Madison and Brook Streets, is a residential area that would be exposed to outdoor noise levels between CNEL 60 and 65. The CNEL 60 contour would extend approximately 1,500 feet north of Watts Drive, south of the Casa Lorna School and Park. Mitigation Measures. The City of Bakersfield recognizes the need to develop plans to mitigate the effects of aircraft noise in the communities around the Airpark. It is recognized in the Casa Lorna Specific Plan that the proposed realignment and lengthening of the runway will result in more noise south of the Airpark where current land uses are generally compatible. If noise complaints increase and periodic noise measurements show significant noise levels in relation to compatible land use, a detailed noise compatibility study should be conducted and an impact analysis performed. Strict adherence to the Casa Lorna Specific Plan recommendations should provide adequate protection against incompatible land uses in areas exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. e e 33 Traffic and Circulation As mentioned previously, general access to the Airpark from the Bakersfield area is via State Highway 58, a major east-west freeway, and South Union Avenue, which is Business Route 99 connecting the north and south sides of the metropolitan area. The Airpark is bounded on the north by Watts Drive, on the east by Madison Avenue, on the south by Planz Road, and on the west by South Union Avenue. The Airpark entrance is from South Union Avenue. Impacts. Expansion of Bakersfield Airpark will require the closure of about 900 feet of East Planz Road, a two-lane collector street that provides east-west access to the Casa Lorna area and access to the neighborhoods southeast and south- west of the Airpark. The Master Plan Update includes a recom- mendation to extend Madison Avenue between Watts Drive and East White Lane, south of the proposed runway development. These improvements will provide access to the neighborhoods east of Madison Avenue. Mitigation Measures. The proposed extension of Madison Avenue from Watts Drive to East White Lane will provide users of the Airpark and residents of the neighborhoods east of Madison Avenue with uninterrupted access in both the north- south and east-west directions. No mitigation measures other than the Madison Avenue extension are necessary to provide access and circulation in the vicinity of the Airpark, cur- rently provided by East Planz Road. Socioeconomics The County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Casa Lorna Specific Plan and Final Enterprise Zone Application on January 15, 1986. It is acknowledged in the Specific Plan and the Enterprise Zone Application that the Casa Lorna area is in need of economic revitalization. According to the Casa Lorna Specific Plan, residents of the area are low income. The poverty rate in the area is 2.5 times that in the City of Bakersfield and twice that in the County of Kern. Plans and policies adopted by the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield identify potential growth of the Casa Lorna e e 34 area, including the addition of about 4,542 dwellings, 3.8 million square feet of commercial development, and 33 million square feet of industrial space.* This growth, including major development and expansion of the infrastructure and circulation systems, is to be funded through cooperative activities of developers, builders, land owners, and government sources that provide grants-in-aid to eligible applicants. A significant revenue source for improve- ments of the Airpark portion of the Casa Lorna Specific Plan is the FAA. The FAA previously provided the City of Bakersfield with funds to "acquire the privately owned Airpark. FAA funds may be available for future improvements at the Airpark that would upgrade the facility to meet federal standards for general aviation airports. Impacts. The improvements recommended for the Airpark are identified as key elements in the economic development of the Casa Lorna area. The goals and policies in the Casa Lorna Specific Plan recognize that Airpark development will attract commercial and industrial activity to the Casa Lorna area. More jobs will be created and the economy can be improved with development of the Airpark. Mitigation Measures. The City of Bakersfield, as owner and operator of the Airpark, should seek out revenue sources other than the FAA for Airpark development. The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has programs to assist operators of general aviation airports in providing services to the flying public. Certain Enterprise Zone incentives are also available through the Employment and Economic Incentive Act. The FEIR for the Casa Lorna Specific Plan should be referenced for further information on economic incentives for the Casa Lorna area. Public Services The City of Bakersfield provides emergency services, law enforcement, and fire protection at the Airpark. The County of Kern provides the adjacent areas in the County with such services. The California Water Service Company provides the *County of Kern and City of Bakersfield, Final Environmental Impact Report, Casa Lorna Specific Plan and Final Enterprise Zone Application, January 15, 1986. e e 35 water in the area. Water is obtained from wells in the Casa Lorna area. Several wells are located in the area around the Airpark, but are not used for drinking water (refer to earlier discussions of water quality). The City of Bakersfield provides sewer service for the Airpark. A trunk sewer is located along East Planz Road. The wastewater generated at the Airpark is treated at the City's Sewage Treatment Plant No.2. Impacts. No significant changes in public services at the Airpark are expected. Mitigation Measures. The various mitigation measures identified in the May 1983 FEIR for the Bakersfield Airpark Expansion and the January 15, 1986, FEIR for the Casa Lorna Specific Plan could minimize any potential impacts on public services caused by the growth and development of the Airpark. During runway construction, the trunk sewer should be inspected and, if necessary, repaired prior to completion of the new runway. e e 36 Chapter 4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES As part of the master planning process, a series of alterna- tives was examined for the general airfield layout, along with land use plans for general aviation commercial facilities and executive or noncommercial facilities. A summary of the eval- uation of these alternatives is presented in this chapter. The companion report entitled "Master Plan Update for Bakersfield Airpark" provides additional detail on the development alternatives. It was determined in the master planning analyses that a General Utility Stage I runway is required to accommodate potential aviation demand at the Airpark. A general aviation runway 4,000 feet long by 75 feet wide was chosen as appropri- ate for the Airpark site. The runway orientation was analyzed and several alternatives were evaluated. These alternatives were also evaluated to determine: . The potential for a less constrained airfield and an improved arrangement of the land uses on the Airpark. · The amQunt of land that would have to be acquired in excess of that required for the currently recommended Airpark expansion. · Changes in the potential environmental impacts compared with those previously determined in relation to Airpark development. Six alternative airfield configurations were evaluated to determine the best runway alignment. A seventh alternative, showing a runway orientation directly north-south (18-36), was also evaluated. Such an orientation could provide for an efficient airfield layout and arrangement of on-airport land uses, and could minimize the requirement for additional land acquisition. However, aircraft approaching from or departing to the north on a straight-out flight track would fly directly over the Casa Lorna School and Park, which are located approxi- mately 1/2-mile north of the Airpark on Casa Lorna Drive between South Union Avenue and Cottonwood Road. This alterna- tive was eliminated from further consideration because of such overflights. The six remaining alternatives are described below. e . 37 Alternative A would retain the Runway 16-34 orientation incorporated in the current Airport Layout Plan, but shift the runway 100 feet to the west. . This shift would provide for additional safety clearances between the end of the parallel taxiway at the south end of the runway and Madison Avenue. The 100-foot shift to the west could also minimize or elimi- nate the need for construction of a curve in the Madison Avenue extension. This curve is currently shown as being required to meet the minimum clearance over the runway as it is positioned in the current plan. Shifting the runway 100 feet to the west would provide for somewhat greater flexibility in the general aviation area bounded by Watts Drive on the north, Madison Avenue on the east, and the parallel taxiway. The shift in the alignment would be minimal. This alternative essentially would cause no change in the environmental impact as assessed herein for the preferred alternative; some residents southeast of the Airpark would experience aircraft overflights as they do today. Alternative B would also retain the Runway 16-34 orientation, but shift the runway 650 feet to the west. This layout would provide one large general aviation terminal/basing area. Furthermore, it would avoid the need to construct the curve in the Madison Avenue extension at the southeast end of the Air- park. ·In this alignment, the airfield would be directly over the site currently occupied by a crop dusting firm located off Airpark property. This site, as well as other adjacent Airpark property, is known to contain soil that is contaminated with toxic materials generated from previous crop dusting activi- ties. Treatment, disposal, or some other type of soil sterili- zation would be required before the land could be used for Airpark expansion. This alternative would require acquisition of a large amount of land not identified on previous plans. Alternative C would rotate the runway to a 14-32 orientation and shift the southern threshold of the runway 250 feet to the west. This shift would achieve greater protection for the north clear zone because the clear zone would be located almost entirely on Airpark property or over Watts Drive. In addition, the distance to the power lines south of the Airpark would be increased, thus increasing aviation safety. However, Alterna- tive C has the same drawbacks as Alternative B. Alternative C would require increased land acquisition and development of the airfield over an area currently contaminated with toxic wastes. e e 38 Alternative D is the preferred alternative, and the one that is' evaluated in previous chapters of this Environmental Impact Report. This alternative would shift the runway as far north- south as possible within a 16-34 orientation. Such an orienta- tion would require the acquisition of about 25 acres of land, slightly more than currently planned. The general aviation terminal/basing area could be expanded in phases from the existing location, retaining the ability for existing buildings to be used for aviation purposes. Furthermore, this alterna- tive would provide for all commercial aviation development required through the year 2010 to occur on the west side of the Airpark, with available land on the east side to be reserved for noncommercial corporate and executive aviation uses. Alternative E is essentially the "no change" alternative in that it is the same as the currently planned Airpark expansion that was environmentally assessed in the May 1983 FEIR. This alternative is workable, but it provides for a less than opti- mum arrangement of Airpark land uses, impacts on neighborhoods to the southeast, and would require acquisition of several businesses along Watts Drive between South Union Avenue and Madison Avenue. The buildings housing these businesses would be within the clear zone associated with Runway 16. Alternative F, the "do nothing" alternative, would maintain the operation of the Airpark as it is today. Residences southeast of the Airpark would continue to experience aircraft over- flights. Runway length and separation would not meet minimum FAA standards. Airpark growth would be limited to what the existing facilities could accommodate. - e e 39 Chapter 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The airfield improvements proposed for the Airpark would be implemented over a 20-year period as funds become available and aviation demand requires airport development. Because of the long-term life of airports, the recommended improvements are not considered to be short-term uses of the environment. Development of the Airpark can ensure its productive and long- term use. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Because the proposed Airpark improvements will not occur in areas of sensitive or unique environmental activity, no major irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources will be made in implementing the Master Plan Update recommendations. The only resources that would be lost are the materials (cement, gravel, asphalt, steel, etc.) needed for construction projects. All of those materials are available locally and are in plen- tiful supply. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS None of the proposed Master Plan Update recommendations would increase airfield capacity or change the nature and character of this general aviation airport. The Casa Lorna Specific Plan identifies the Airpark as a unique form of transportation in the Casa Lorna area. Airpark expansion is provided for in the Casa Loma Specific Plan and is considered a significant fea- ture of the plan. ·The development of Bakersfield Airpark will encourage aviation-related light industrial and commercial uses in the Casa Lorna area. With this potential development, the neighborhoods can realize land use improvements, jobs can be created for residents, and economic revitalization can be achieved. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The potential for other environmental effects associated with such elements as agricultural lands, natural resources, human health, or aesthetics (including light and glare) is negligi- ble. Safety is the foremost consideration at any airport. e e 40 Safety will be further enhanced by implementing the Master Plan Update recommendations for the Airpark, especially the construction of a replacement runway that meets all FAA standards. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Implementation of the Master Plan Update will enhance the safe and efficient use of Bakersfield Airpark. Upgrading the facil- ity to meet federal standards will make the facility more attractive to specific general aviation-related industries such as freight and package delivery services, flight training, aircraft leasing and rental, manufacturing, and agricultural- related industries. All Airpark improvements proposed for the next 20 years are included in this evaluation. Development of the Airpark will not cause a significant impact on land use, access and circulation, public services, air quality, or noise. - e e Chapter 6 PREPARERS Overall preparation of this EIR Supplement was by L. Yvonne Gibson, Peat Marwick Main & Co., San Francisco, California. The aviation forecasts and Master Plan Update recommendations were prepared by John L. Gerken, Peat Marwick Main & Co. 41 e e Appendix A INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, NOTICE OF PREPARATION, AND RESPONSES e e INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY e e A-I --., Initial Environmental Study Airport Master Plan Update Bakersfield Airpark Description The City of Bakersfield Economic Development Department is in the process of developing an Airport Master Plan Update for the Bakersfield Airpark. The project will consist of updating aviation demand forecasts, airport facility requirements, staged development plans for new or improved facilities and recommended airport management goals and policies over a 20-year planning period. Facilities to be covered in the staged plans include (1) airfield [runway and taxiway systems], (2) terminal complex [airport administration facilities and aircraft parking apron], (3) ground access and automobile parking, (4) airport support, and (5) other aviation and aviation-related activities. Location Bakersfield Airpark is located in the southeast portion of the City of Bakersfield. The Airpark property is situated south- east of the Watts Drive-SQuth Union Avenue intersection on city-owned property. Access to the Airpark is from South Union Avenue. The attached drawing shows the project location and existing airport layout. Environmental Setting The Airpark is located in an area known as Casa Lorna, an "Enterprise Zone."* There are approximately 3,461 acres in the Casa Lorna Enterprise Zone, of which 660 acres are within the City of Bakersfield and 2,801 acres are located in Kern County. The Bakersfield Airpark currently contains about 144 acres of City-owned land, soon to be increased to 179 acres. The Airport facilities include a 3,150 foot by 50 foot Runway 13-31 with low intensity runway lights, an *An "Enterprise Zone" recognized by the California Department of Commerce is a specific geographical area where incentives are provided, state and local taxes are lowered, and regular- tory burdens are reduced to help create jobs, stimulate development, and encourage private investment. e e A-2 airport beacon, fixed base operator services, aircraft tiedown spaces, aircraft shelters and hangars accommodating approximately 119 aircraft, and a restaurant. Vacant land comprises 1,412 acres, or 41% of the Casa Lorna Enterprise Zone. This is the largest single land use in the area. Residential uses, which are almost entirely single family, make up 690 acres, or 20% of the area. Agricultural uses total 418 acres, about 12% of the Casa Lorna Enterprise Zone. Commercial land uses account for 4% and manufacturing uses account for 8% of the area. This includes the Airpark land because of the aviation-associated industrial uses that exist around the Airpark. Public buildings and open space comprise between 1% and 2% of the area.* Streets, State Route 58, canals, and the Southern Pacific Railroad constitute the remainder of the Casa Lorna Enterprise Zone which cover some 375 acres. The City of Bakersfield prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bakersfield Airpark Expansion in May 1983. This Final EIR was for the public acquisition of the Airpark and initial improvements of the facilities. This Initial Environmental Study has been prepared as a result of the City's continued effort in planning for the orderly and effective development of the Airpark. A Final Environmental Impact Report f~r the Casa Lorna Specific Plan and Enterprise Zone was prepared in January 1986. The Land Use Plan for Casa Lorna Specific Plan identifies major expansion of the Bakersfield Airpark. The Specific Plan also identifies the Airpark as a "significant feature of the Plan. II The Airpark expansion will use grants-in-aid from the Federal Aviation Administration. The Airpark will attract aviation-related businesses and light industry may find it convenient to be located near an aviation facility. In order to satisfy the substantive and procedural require- ments of both the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, a single environmental process is being initiated which will satisfy both state and federal regulations. *County of Kern and City of Bakersfield, "Casa Loma Specific Plan," August 25, 1986. e APPENDIX I e ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To be completed by Lead Agency) I 8ACKGROUND , ... Name of Proponent: City of Raker~fip1n ? .. , Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield. California 93301 (805) 326-3733 3. Date of Checklist Submittal: June 19, 1987 City of BakE:rsfield 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Air1Jort Ma~ter Pl;:¡T1 TTpn;:¡rp. Bakersfield Airp;:¡rk II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES 1. Earth Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in cnanges in geologic substructures? b. Disrupt~ons, displacements, compac- tion, or overcovering of the soilr -X._ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The des~ruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or phys;caì features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? '. Changes in deposition or erosion or beach sands, or changes in siltation, de~osition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? r-'IÄ Y S E NO ---X.._ -- x x x x e - L ~_:"~:: (continued)' g. Exposure of people or property to aeologic hazards such as earthquakes, i~ndslides, mudsliàes, ground failure, or similar hazards ·2. ~ ',.. ,-, , , Will 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? 3. Water Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direc~ion 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 fiood waters? c. Change in the amount of surface water 1n any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alter'a:ion of surface water qualHy, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? í. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g., Change in the quantity of ground waters, either tnrough direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for puolic water supplies? - e y~S MAYBE x x 1-2 NO x y x x }: x x x x x e 3. Water (continued) i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? j. Will the proposal result in water service from any public or private entity? 4. Plant Life Will 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 Wil.l the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of soecies or numüers of any sùecies of animals (birds, 1and animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic orga~isms, insects or microfauna)? b. R€d~:!icn of ~he numbers or any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new s~ecies of animals into an are~, or result in a barrier to tne migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wild- 1 ife habitat? 6. Noise ~ill the proposal result in: ã. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure or peopie to severe noise leveìs? e YES MAYBE -~ x x x: x x x x 1-3 NO X' X' x x e 7. Licht and Glare Will the proposal produce ne; llgnt or (;¡are? Land Use Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources Will the proposal result in: 8. a. Increases in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of .Upset Does the proposal involve a risk or an expJoslon or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticiàes, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population Will the proposal alter the location, aistrioution, density or growth rate of the human population or an area? :2. Housing Will the proposal affect existing houslng, or create a demand for additional housing? . ~ , --- ïransDo~tatior./Cir:ulatiGn Will the prODosal result lr.: a. G¿ne~ation of sUDstantial additional vehicular mcvement? b. Effects on existing parKlng facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Suostantial impact upon existing trans- portation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns or circu- lation or movement of people and/or goods? _. Alterations to wateroorne, rail or air traffic? " Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyc1ists or peaestrains? e YES x x· MAYBE x x x x x x x x 1-4 NO x x x e e 1-5 YES rr'.A Y BE NO 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? x b. Police protection? x -- c. Schoo 1 s? x -.- c. Parks or other recreational facilities? x e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? x x b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? x 16. utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or subs~àntial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or nat:.Jral gas? X b. Communications systems? X c. Water? X d. Sewer or sEc:ic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid v/aste and disposal? X Ii. Human Health Wi 11 the proposal result in: a. Creation or any health nazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental healtn)? . X b. Exposure of peop1e to potential heal~h hazaras? X e e YES MA Y BE 1-6 NO 18. A~sthetics Will the proposal result in the ocstruct1on of any scenic vista or view ope'.l to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offerysive sité open to public view? X 19. Recreation Will the proposal result in an lmpact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeoloaical/Historical Will the proposal result 1n an ¡¡teration of a significant arch- eological or historical site, struc~ure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the Quality of the environment, sub- star.:ially 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 community, reduce the number or re- strict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or Calirornia history )r pre- history? (b) Does the project have the potential to achieve snort-term, to the disadvantage of long-te~m, environmental goals? (A short-term imüact en the environment is ene of which occurs in a relativeìy brief, aerinitive period or time ~nile lon9-~erm impacts will encure well into tne future). (c) Does the project have impacts which are in- dividually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A ~roje:t may impact on two or more separate re- sources where the impact on each resource is. relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) (d) üoes the project have environmental effects wnicn wiìl cause sUDstantial aoverse effects on h~man beings, either dire::1y or indirectly? --' . X x X X X X e e 1-7 III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) D c:I CD Date (See attached sheet for explanation of environmental impacts) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, t~ere will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review (or conditions of project approval) would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and there is no substantial evidence before the city that the project as revised (or conditioned) may have a significant effect on the environment and that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REP. ?- / ;/':7 / . effect on the environ- (ÿí gna¡ure) Jc9-ck HafrdiSty, AC.tï.Clg Planning Director '~tv 0 Bakersf~e-Id e e Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Item Discussion l.b. Additional facilities, in particular the construction of a relocated runway, will require site grading and compaction. 2.a. Increased aircraft operations may increase air pollutant emissions in a "nonattainment" area. 3.b. Additional facilities requiring new pavement, such as the proposed relocated runway, may increase the amount of surface water runoff and reduce the ground absorption rates. 4.a. Development at the Airpark will require the clearing, grubbing, and grading of land for runway, taxiway, aircraft parking and other airport development. Grading will require the removal of plant species. Some plant species can be rejuvenated once construction has been completed. Some land area will be lost to plant species due to construction. 4.b. A review of the area's unique, rare, and endangered plant species will be accomplished to determine if any of these species could be affected by implementation of the Master Plan Update. 4.c. Some new species of domestic plants may be introduced at the Airpark. Landscaping plans will be prepared. S.d. Additional facilities, if located in areas not already used for airport purposes, may reduce wildlife habitat. 6.a. Increased aircraft operations may increase aircraft noise exposure levels. The change in aircraft operating patterns due to the proposed runway relocation may increase land areas not previously exposed to aircraft noise. 6.b. An increase in aircraft noise exposure (if it occurs) may expose residents surrounding Bakersfield Airpark to high noise levels. 7. Expansion and improvements to the Airpark will include additional exterior lighting. 8. Some land uses in the immediate area of the Airpark may change as a direct or indirect result of airport operations and development. 10. While in private ownership, the Airpark was exposed to activities relating to crop dusting and aircraft maintenance which has resulted in hazardous waste contamination of the soil at the Airpark. Policies and procedures are currently being discussed as to how to adequately define the problem, what the extent of the problem is, and how to design a program to manage the situation. e e Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Concluded) 2 Item Discussion 11. The development and increased use of the Airpark may cause aircraft noise exposure levels which are incompatible with existing land uses in some areas directly adjacent to the Airpark. 12. Existing housing may be located within areas impacted by aircraft noise. 13.a. Additional vehicular traffic may be attracted to the Airpark with the enhanced facilities and the development of aviation and aviation-related business. 13.b. Adequate automobile parking currently exists. However, any plans to develop or relocate facilities will require new automobile parking. l3.c A new runway is recommended for construction to meet minimum Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards for airports such as the Airpark. This new runway will necessitate the closure of a section of East Planz Road. l3.d. The proposed relocation of the runway will require the closure or rerouting of roads south of the Airpark. 13.e. Flight paths into and out of the Airpark will be altered as a result of the runway relocation. 14.e. Road work south of the Airpark may require new roadways to be maintained. l6.e. New facilities including the relocated runway may require an expansion to the storm water drainage system. 17.b. Because of the concern for the hazardous waste soil contamination at the Airpark, appropriate containment of the soil must be exercised. Any soil removal must be accomplished in accordance with appropriate regulations. 20. No known historical or archaeological sites have been identified close to or within the Airpark (Final Environmental Impact Report, Bakersfield Airpark Expansion, May 1983, with letters from the State Historic Preservation Officer, June 19, 1980, and Archaeological Regional Officer, Kern County Museum, April 18, 1980). 21. Cumulative impacts resulting from full implementation of the Master Plan Update recommendations will be analyzed to determine the effect of the total impacts on the environment. BAKiRSfl ~~Ü:Aï"<PAHK MASTER PLAN UPDATE .~ r~ T~! l ~ I T ~ u .;J·E~t' j1l.r8JDÁ ~ . ,-' "" ¿o ;:) 1- (1.oJ 0 i } ~ ~ - - \ I a:: I CI I . I ~ I ¡ ¡ I I : i I ! ! I J :to ~ M+D ¿ ~:. r- ~; 1 q.. .v -, - ~ . C ~ ··.,·C ~1 cil j' ~ ¡r .;") 1 ,- ~ r- I :... . - b ..., :> .. o ...J I R-I ~! I ... <I .... ~ .... j' j A WHITE C-Z-D ~I_ I,. All 52 z :) nn LANE A I I \ 1 . \ t. t \ \ . I \ ~ \. '- _.~ , ,l.'--" -- FI/P.7 ~,;. r··'·' '.:>" ,'. .., ':.... :,;, ....~. ,1.'J- ('~, J~:q,-:. :~~ ;;\ :.': r:·.·r &-l<~(f%I:!t~t\1~f~~J,fi~: '!Ji.'~ f ¡ 7!-: ,I.·~·' ..,I, '. ,~. ~i.'~., t·,",:,..,;,.'·7. i _.1""" ". .1 I ~ , ._IIIID~~ ~. n! MO""T .... .....~ ¡¡~ilûì= -+ I ~. I - 1=1 I II . ns"M ''',.. \. túññiéi iõ' , t "'\ . lI~~1II _ '_ I ... tIt I, ., r . f4Ø' , ~ 'r'CO'i ..\ " A"· r.. A",. ~ 'ß:n f - ~ ~ -.......,-.-. I -... I 1iIo._ __ 41 I 2' I":lff '1'..",lIr.I\,:.Lv'" · . '. '\ .G~' ," ,,,~,,. _ AOt11H 1)1(1(> " ., _.R A- ""r.ArM" __ 1 ' . "¡f(~" \ .!\ 1" Mil ~ V~ ~ ~ ",.,""', \ :~X:~?~,~::;,;I' \~~~~' ~' ", · "\ . \¡(\lv-/.,t jJ I '\ "".. ..~~'I', ,.... "'14,," ,~~ \ '4n~~ r ~._...m, I "tll ~ . (~\" \ , '~.s,!'~ "('V'L _ _ .. _ -- _I -~~'~ \,\ \\ I I ~'" r.",. r,.-· . ''''ftr I l....w,t~ '\ ~_ \ , 1 ; ( ..\,~\ ' \':'\ ! I -"--.. -- ' I'" , J ' 'A..."·,,. ~'~P~--'- ~~. :_~<~~:"~~~3 I." riÃ" ~ . .. h~ 11- AIIII'II/lI lUl:^IIIIN ---- ~ L ~I.''''''' "n~ I -lW\t~1I1D ~ ~f-M(~5'nO ^,R""'I\~ U~ lltif ,,<OUJ) t = ~ ~<.^Llllt ,",Ilt· ,.' NlfO 100 e ....1 " r )6$' 'iI~f I e Amron lAYUUt ~, e NOTICE OF PREPARATION e .' e PROPOSED EIR SUPPLEMENT TO: Property Owner From: City of Bakersfield (Lead Agency) Planning Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue (Address) Bakersfield, Ca. 93301 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of an EIR Supplement for the Bakersfield Airpark Master Plan Update. City of Bakersfield will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an EIR Supplement for the project identified below. Pursuant to Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), you are notified of the opportunity to comment on the scope and content of the environmental infor- mation relative to the proposed project. The project description, location and the probable environmental effects are described below. A copy of the Initial Study is not attached. A copy is on file in the Planning Department at the address listed below. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Jennie Eng, at the address shown above. For more information, please call 326-3733. PROJECT TITLE: Bakersfield Airpark Master Plan Update PROJECT APPLICANT, if any: City of Bakersfield DATE: June 19, 1987 Si9nature 9"""~Á; ¿$- Title Assistant Planner Telephone 326-3733 p/nopap e e Peat MalWl;;k Mitcl1JII APP:N::J:X J - NOTICE OF PP.EI'ARA::IOIi IU" í) ,- '0";' J I~.;..;..; 1...0, TO: (ReSponsible Agency) FROH: SanM",,,,, City of Bakersfield n~"fO' (\pmø,.,+- ~ø"'~Ti (""'øc:: T""\t:¡rt t (Leaå Agencyi 1 _c:; n 1 'r;)"v-rnT'l A. 'U~ (Aaaress Bakersfield, CA 93301 (Aaaress) SUBJE:T: No~ice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental ImDac~ Report. City of Bakersfield ,will.be ~he'Lead Agency and ~ill prepare an env~ronmen~~l ~rnpact report for the project identified belo\". We need to knciW the views of your agency as to the scope and content of ~e environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the ErR prepared by our agency when consiàering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy at the Initial Study -K- is, ___ is not, attached. >1 Due to the time limits mandated by State law, vour response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not iater th~n 30 days af~er receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Jennie shown above. We will need the name DePt. Enq/P'~nninq a~ the address fer a con~ac~ person ~n your agency. ?=ojec~ ~itle:Baker5field Airpark MasterPlan update Da~e T"~Q 1 s:1 , 198ï ?=c;ect AP?~i=ant, if any: City of Bakersfield Reference: California Administrative Code, ~itle 14, Section :. 5062 ( a) an¿ (b). E1STORY: , New Appen¿ix J :iled 2-2-78; effective ~~i=tie~h day the=eafter (Register 78, No.5). ~ taa It:ata Q-" _. lAOl.a Itn&, .... Ul. .. JDf1CI or CDØLI::r:IIII MID .vn- . ,0. t5Iü - t~ a. I«7JZ ÞWIw ...... ~ ~ Ia. sæ . l. P:D)act fttl.: M;:t~1-pr P.1 Jln TTpr1~~A F",.... 'R.o1r,a"-'i-Fi 91d Ai '1'~"'k 1. IQd~ICitV' of Bakf'!r'!'!f;p1d, Pl~t'lning: t)ppt.. Q:nUœ"_1 h,.Jt. ~"'...rH"'f-.. Al"t"íng 3&. ftn«, ~! 1501 Truxtun Avenue 3b. C1CYI Bakersfield . , 3c. 0XIIq'1 ¡{pm J4. up: Q,Jf11 Je. PlzlnRI fRO") 1?/;-1711 ~ ,~...... 4. Q:un:y: ~ ~'. __ MD. Planning Director 4a. C1cy/a-.u.cy,Ba.kpr'!'!f;p1ci-r.~!':~ Tnm~ ATP~ ftIr JIUt&l. ,..n.c ~ aaa suwœa50uth Union Avenue & Watts Dr .Sb. o.-.u.cy: AU- Bakersfield 1IaU- b. ¡:lira A; rt' a r' k c:. w.ys 5 (JRJJ__ Stace Ii. IUtbiA 2 1111_1 &. IIooy . 99 & 58 7. .........- '!'!lIE .am Ql..!.Ja. 0:4. -1AùY 0:IIa 06.-1ÐE 07.-10: OS.-JÐI) 03. --IIa9 ¡-.c 04. ~ Em ~-=.t OS. "'Ø'CIum: œ (pc.ar SCI NO.: 113. Intt U.-W U.--.JA 09. -Rn 1D.~ == 13. -oJ= ~ 14.~~ lS. _oer-~ 10. ~ .~: 'f(' ø ,.." 6C. a.ct1Q1'1 a. T JY"'III.t ~ I!!ftIK Ia. _~c&l p.wn upàaca Q;¡. ~ £1._ OJ. _Gomu&l p.wn ~ 04. ..Ã..Ju-ur p.wn Update os. ~GQ 06. ~c P.lan 07. _o-zu.:y Plan os.~ 09. -_ 10. ~ DlvWcn (SllXhvWø¡. PtU'œ1 *p. ::rill: Np, etI:.) 11. _0. Pa:lllit u. "'-e MIõ1= PUn 13. _QIDcal Jtq P~rve 1.. _0t2Jer' lJ.. ~ ~c:: r-I7~ u. ~"'~ø:''"''"~~'III~...,...I. 01. ~c;,IV1G&l. 02. ~aù=raJ. ~ 03.. ~ QuWt)' 04. ~~o;1c:a.11l1J.SU1r:i.caJ. as. _~ ~ 06.~c a7. -J"j,re IIc&rd 13. zœcœ:o lçrœ) l'ItGecal $ 14. ~ T...ssm t1I!m ~ 2:n:"nIr:; os. ..L..n~c:- 09. _CiCløI;1c.'Sc.s=J.c 10. -oJaa/iICUIW19 BiIlanc:e 11. ...;.....)UœraJ.s u.~ 13. J:C-P\1:Il1C: s.v:i.~ 14. ~I~ State $ 'nip. AmIJII w.cer- ci..-yI\ s.~~ al. ~1ci11nùAll Ulút8 Q¡. ~1œl Iq. ~ Ñ:__ ~- ~~ 03. ~cd&l: Iq. ~ ~ ~ 04. ~w: Iq. P'L ~ !'.aIpLcJy- os. WIII;u l'IIdlib._1 JC 06. ~naCQIU ~ Ai Tpnrt" 07.~: IUneral os.~: Type 09. ~ TrMa.m:: Typo! 10. _cx:s MlA:èd 11. _Ot2Jer: Wet:¡ 15. ~c Syst_ 16. --s-r CZI¡:IIId.:Y Z3. _Wc:er 0\.III.U:y Z4. --.er ~y 2S. _\OeÞ...1.IndI1U.¡::QAn 2£. _W1J.ètife 17. r:to.-"·l la. ~ E::DII1C1n 1.9. ~d WIRe 22:1. _~~~ 21. JL."':ZIffic;lQzculA::i.cn 42. J,CVe;leœcan II. ..L.GtDOtUI ~ 28. ~t1.ble ~ 29. _Q.m./U.cve !:ffec:& 30. ~F '.raCAl $ 15. ~l'_w - -I The Master Plan Update for the Bakersfield Airpark will consist of existing facilities inventory, aviation demand forecasts, facility requirements, staged development plans, and airport management goals and policies. u. -~=-=_~~. ~//~~~~ -- . - -', ./ ,/ x:::: o.Mrt~ vU¡ ua1ç:: iÓllnd~:iCl:\ ~ra1ìWß!.Wprc,c-~/ · /I sœ IUIIÞeJ: . e:Aat:II tar II PftI,ec: le.~. t:œa II NØtJ.c. at Prepuat:,GQ or .eVlgua ~=~ di::Ic:I::::2m) P"-- t~ 11: 11'.. .,/ ,/ --- -..... IIARJ: ~ CH IIZ'IZaSE - ----~----~----- e e REVIEWINJ AGE.NCI~ Resources Agency __X_ Caltrans District h Boating/Waterways -L Dept. of 'l'ransporta. tion Pl3llIling -L Conservation -L Fish and Game Forestry X Aeronautics California Highway Patrol Housing & Camnmity Devlt. Colorado River Board _ Statewide Health Planning X Health Dept. Water R.esources Reclamation Food & Agriculture -!- Parks and Recrea.tion X Office of Historic Preservation Public Utilities Commission Public Works Nati ve American Fieri tage Camlission Corrections S. F. Bay Cons. & 1)ev It. Ccmnission General Services Coastal Cnmmission OLA Energy Ccm:nission Santa Monica. Mountains State Lands Coomission TRPA OPR - 0.I..GA x Ai: Resources Board Solid Waste M.a.D:3.genent Bœ.-d CPR - Coastal SWP.cB: Sacrænem:o Bureau of Land Managemen-c X RWQCB: Region;: 5 Forest Se!"Vice Wa-cer Rights x Other: Health Services Department Water Qua.li1:Y Other: Da. te Recei ved at SOl Da. -ce Review St:a.r;s Da:te to Agencies Da. te to sæ Cle'2_-allce Da:te Notes: FOR SCB USE CNLY Ca.1:alog Number Appli!'"aDt Consul tan't Con1:ac't Address Phone e e RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION - OëORGë OEUICMEJ.AN. 00... ,-i: OF b.UFORNI......oF!lIC: OF ~e oova . ;'rrtCE OF PLANNING ANÖ~ESEARC1-i ¡Q) 1ëNTH STReT .I.. AMENTO. CA 9'814 s.n~ U- 'C)) '5 ,~ :s :; \:.: '.= fu l.:I '~ .= .. \ \ I L 0 E' ~987 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ ,~ \~:~ "'= LQ) PwI....-ca MItCMII ' DATE: June 25, 1987 AUG 1 Q 'S87 1'0: Reviewi=g Agencies RE: The City of Bakersfield's NOP for Master Plan Update for Bakersfield Airpark SCH# 87062208 Attached fro your comment is the City of Bakersfield's Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Master Plan Update for Bakersfield Ai rpa-r{. Responsible agencies tmlSt ~".~ t thei: c:::ncern.s a.ad ccmnen1:S on the scope a.D.d con~eIl-: of t1:e E:IE., focusirlg on specific i.c.:fOrma.1:iOIl rgla.œá 'to thei: own ,S-~'t'.ItoI7 r-es;::onsibili ty, wi t:WJ. 30 days of r~ei;J~ of tbis notice. We encourage cormnen.~illg agencies to respond -:0 t1li.s aotice and ~ss their c:::ncsrns es.r 11 ~ 'èle env-L.-ocnea"t.:3.l revieW' process. Plea..se di=~~ your COImen~s to: Jack Hardisty Acting Planning Director City. of Bakersfi e.] d- , 1501 Tr~x~oh"Av~~ue . Bakersfeild, CA 93301 , . '., ~... t:l a. CO?"! -:0 ':...":e Office of P' ,':In"oi "lg ~d ëìesear-=h. ?lee.se rsfer ro ~e SŒ c'U""uber oo'tad. a.Cove :i.¡J, a.l.l correspondence =oIlcernoi~::; 1""'oi oS proj ec~. Ii you ba.ve a.c.y questi.oc.s about '!"hQ :-sview process, c3.ll Peggy Osborn a~ 91Sí445-0613. Si:lcers11 ~~/- ~ '. Ca. vtd C. Nunea.iam'p CJief Gt=ics- oÎ Pe..~ -= ..;ss~ance A~~ct:men'ts cc: Jack Hardisty o o o o o ~ ~~~ D'1.~::'t ~a.1::I.C'tS ';e~ :;ayt!8S ï:e~'t ot ~r""...1.::'On. 01~=-: ~ LS5ô UaJ,cQ.. 3tt~~ ~!Q.. c.\ 95501 707/445-õ320 ~~.lle ~~l~Ar ~'t o:¡: ~Q.QQ 01S't:"'!.::-: 2 1.6.'Sï ?.J.verstde Crt 7e ~,~ sw;oOL 916/~9 ar+..:m J. SD1::1 ~ ot ~r"".öI,::.oa. O:!.~~ 3 íO: a ~t:"!'!e1: I,~. ~' 93001 316/7 <U....-zrT :".1:1. aa,.llt De12~'e œ ~~~ ~c~ .. P'.O. 3œ. ï:110 .$&a. ~~~. ~ 94l:C 41S/S57 -J4œ J er::-¡ t..mDar ~~~ ot ~c.cn O1S'e:'ic-: 5 P.O. :ex 8U4 $&A UJ:.s etn.s;c. Q. 9340:3-ul4 .. ~~ 9IrZ.Q , ~--=em: ot ~!'O~c.on 01~.... ~=-: ~ ?o. ;:Ox !.2Slô ~s=. Q. 9~ ~, '" ,',', , . ì(&yœ3&lléa~ '. , , , ~~~o!~~n= O O:!.~:-= i' !..2C ~ua S¡Jr".-'1~ S~1: :..;s ~ I !!5. c:.. 90012 2l.:3/15:C-13~ o o r, o n Guy 7!,sl:a.l. Ce~t oJ: ~r"".öI,~a. ai~==:; 247 'i'!S1: ~-:'å St:'M1: S:m ~.a..-.:1~, Q. ~~~3 "!!.';/:3~~t :'on :a yak Oe~ ::t ~~::'=n Q1~=~ 3 500 SOuc. ~,'.Un St:"!!e1: 3~. c.:. 945L4 5l9/Sï.3~U 1'e-""=",:,, r.. 3a.r:':.e, ~ar-=en't. or '!'.:'3.a.s~r-:::L t:.:ln ~~c-: tD ? . J. :Ox :048 S I:a:.~:a. Q 93201 Z09/948-~ .ji:1 ~ocPt;""9 :e~ ot ~t.on ~... ~~~ !.1 ? . o. :ox a5<t05 ð I <..x..o oJ 01. U á ~.stt am:1 a o {\ \-I . n u ~ o o o " ' o o o k:1 - ?.ec.oa&l ~-::!.c~ J,. ~la.yl.or. :1.eo.p.ona.l \tan.~'!r Cepa.r::en't at :'!.sn U1á ~1Ie .;a¡ l.Qc:~~ ?.ecUUm;. c.\ :SC01. 91Õ/22:5-~CO Jl:: 'Jlessersm. '=. ~J.Caa.l '.~.' ':e~'t ot :1..stt a.aá .:.a.cœ !. 701. ~1mcus ~~. Sw. r:e ;\. ?.aac:a ~rjO".ra.. a 95670 9tS/3~q~ 3. !:w:tur. ~1.oaa.l'~er ~~'t or :~ ~ G.ime ~ ill 71!!"!!dC :':':ul :;a.~ . :.;, 34553 7O'7/9<W-;:Ql.l a. ~iœs. ~:.cl~r Ce~&~·'~~_n: 0: :~ 3.m1 ~ 1.Z:. z...¡1: ~'M .:".eo.ua ~,C\ 9371.0 2C9/222-J7ëI. :'!'eá A. ~~ey J:.. ~ . ',Ia:w;er i:e~-:::eft1: ot ?1..st1 3.m1 Game 24:5 ·w~ 3roa4..y. Sw. œ J50 L,g~ 2esc::. Q. 90802 2lJ/500-51.1J ?cl! ~ .~ "Iar...::e ?.eso~ ~on 2~ ;¡'I!S: ~":II8.'f, 3u:.:a 3:0 L,gn:; 3e&c::.. Q. 90802 ~œ 7(a.2r ::I.eS:\Jr:!!S :'::1~1. ~~ .J'os=. J~' Sta.ta ìla.œr ?.escu..-::'eS C:n't:"01 :oar: Q1'r-ncn ot Cee.l1 ','a.'ta:' G-~'t:5 ?o. aox 1.::0 Sa.c..-=en~. ~ 95801 916¡~-J4:J .." '. .' '~ , !.d .u:. "COn S:a.:a '/{&t:er ?esour:es G=iC1~1 Soa..-:i J1.vi.rtcn ot i7&œr ~ ~ ? . 0 . tJox W, ~~~~;~~C4 s:aOl g~cfa..¡;'·~::4 Cave 3er"~r S::I.ta é'fa.œr ?.escur:es C::n:=ol 2oar= t::el::L Ca1 't ?::J. :ex 2COO Sac::-o..mento. ~ 95BtO =15/322-;870 Al !~ 3-:a.u 7.'&'ter ?.2~SS C::n~l. 3c~~ :1-r-Aon ot Ja.tar ?" ¡"--;';¡ 201 ? S ;:"'!e1: ~A<""":!mea~. c:.. 95BU 916i~~'ilS ~n&l :Va.'tar ~:7 c:n~l 30&.-: I. IŒVIElII[j NìfJlCICJ __~ Calt~ns District 6 Resources Agency Boatlng/'aterways -1L- Conservation -1- Fish I.nd Game Forestry Colondo nt ver IIcxlrd Dept. later "esources Recla.:lRtion -I- Parks and Recreation -I- Ofl1ce 01 IUstoric Preservation Native American Heritage Oomro1ssion s.r. Bar Coos. . Dev't. Caøuission Coastal Cmmlssloø Energy Oarnmisslon State Lands CornnissioD X Air f1esources Board SoHd Waste IoI:UI:lCErnent ßoar:I SWR::O: Sacra:Dento X R1t~: Regioo It S litter Rl¡;bts later Quallty - ~ Aeronautics 0\11Iorola IIllthWIIV Patrol nousloC , Camrnunlt, Dev't. Statewide Real th Planning JI 'Health Food L Agriculture Public Utilities Commlssloo Public lorks Corrections CeDcn.1 Services w -----,.)3aota 'Ionica J.lountalos TRPA OF'R ... :LGA om - Coas ta I B·.lreau of L:uld ,\anagerœnt Forest Service ... -, '{\ . .~ ~ " ~~ Other: Date Received at SCR Date lIevle.. St3rts Date to Agencies Date to sat Cle:!.:<1nce Date 'iotes: ~i~ Iœ sœ Ds[ au Ca ta Iõi:ßm¡ber AppllC:lDt Consul tun Contact A:J1ress 7/:Pt , 1011</ Phone lty]Wl~VcJ Oì)I:J~¿H>tt(] ÐN/NN\I1 9 :10 ;(11:) cJ rtJJ ¿86/ go 9nv ·:5fligp \If? 31 JJ ,~ ??fl --- ~ï9 ...u ... 1 .iiõo";" 0_1."..........."""-. 'jAltD...._ ...._. \. ___ ,.__.1 1__. . - '11 ~'___ d_,__,_ ___ ¡ . .Ift. ... , VQ (n;lilQ! WJDCIør~"""~~~~ 1. ....,.. I1U_. Ha:lI:t~r PUn lirA..... f~.EÚk.1.cl.-.1..1.rP...¡, I. a-.....-.,Clty of tlAkl!uUL1d, Plannlnc I\,op... _ "'-._hr!. H..rdl.t,~Artln. .!Je. k...._ ....._,1501 trWltun AVl!aue .. ..... tlel<eufhU I'll Ie. _, brn. w. .... Q)101 k. _, tIlO~) 126-1111 -..,,~ fllI"n..... c. o..-w,. I,.rn ... atrJO-Nty'1 Jtllk..ra 'f~Jd-l"..JI«1I Inma .Ar._ ..... a--c.. IMaJ .. k. -...cu.... .... - .. ....... ......-. 0--.1"'1 k. c:.- ..._,south Dnton "nnue , U.U..Ilk.... ..... I. ..tNa I ..u_Î _.. &1.-. Baker.1 hId .....- .. .., lÏUJL- L ..,.. Afrank .. ..... ~"~A- ..~ 1. .,.---... ftØ Pm AI..!J.,. _ .. __ OJ. _____If..... OJ.__ ..-"'" ... -Þ't ... ... -----.r' aa ·wI....., II. ~_ I:D atu... JCI liiio-, .. '0 JLftJ-.......... ftB ... _o-..d. ,1.-- ~_ '1. _ta- Cl-.c. to. _o...a1 '¡In ............. ... ...l.J.-.. .... Updetl! a. ___......,,&1. ...~ ......_ az. --DJtI... ... n... ... .. 15.~_ti_ II. -.-JIJad.IIC ..... OJ. _a-.nJIy ,..... -- ... ~.LA1. ... ...... IS. ~ Þd1IU_. ".~U..., DO. ----.._ - ..--- ...It n. --">I U. __ II. -JMooI"''- 1_1&1", ....001 II. __ 11- ____ ..... .._ .... O<.C., ...... U. ___- I"~- lS._Oit:DIIr. '". :c::o:JOIII' u. ~t.llR1.ft'~ft~ AI. ---""".........a a. ~..~twaJ ....--. OJ.. Lu. o-u" ... -.!....--J....~ ,... .. -..,.....¡ ... .. -----..c II. ---"-" ~. U. ~ 1.....-1 -... I Ie. ~ J.-:I ~ .I.ÆI 1OfDC. 11. ~I au.. ..~. u. _.... ......, U. _____ _ ,... u....:.-c:.r.c..1...t~.... 1..~1f ... ~ rr-~, .1, _CD ~ 11.__, u.~~~ 11. ~c......_ %I. _....... Þ-J'I')' )I. ___.- ~r .. ..L..I1~'t:......,. u. __ DopcI'Y n.__"'¡ II. -.a 0.-- X. _'h.!ðU. ". ..1....-......,.... )I.~UW.LM..a- 01. _c.-..JOIpc.'ia..u.c B. _"'«..1.....'lU.J-..~ 11. ~/.....1.nt 1-aJ..- U. ---IW'- .... 11. .!--.. U. .~~Jc .......,_ II. -.a.-.. JD. _IJod__ Da J...,ultu/Q,..a.&1a....-" 22. _~_""""~u_ JJ. _a-M..u" Ittfecu IA. --" ~'-==-e-- 11»" . u. ~~, The Master PlAn Updete for the lakerlfield Airperk viii consls ·exl.tlna fecilltil!. Inventory, Iviatlon deman~ forecl.tl, facility requlremen ataled developmeat plans, end airport ..nelement loal. And polteies. .. -.--~á:z-:: '.h/n --'/-;firl.' 'I oIJ tv" /' / / a=: <C_r:~ -:..11 ...afl'\ '.....ul:,....-¡::G":·~l'r. ,;rr... '.rv'I.'C:~et'U...,·:t; . to ......., ûr_I\' ...a.ftA lac . P'O,~ ,..t· 111-:. . kJr..ac. cf t..,...acøn t"t P!"'I~ a..~t ~"~J fJ- i~j'" ,t.. ./' .!'- rt'ft\ ....,- "N - III"T.~ ''-U. ....... Œ~~~.. (). "."'Ðf'1' e e United States Department" of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SACRAMENTO ENDANGERED SPECIES OFFICE 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1823 Sacramento, California 9582~-1846 JUN 2 6 1987 In Reply Refer To: \ 1-1-87-TA-479 lni ~©rnuwg lQ) Ms. Jennie Eng Planning Department City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxton Avenue Bakersfield, California JUN 2 ; 4 ",-... ,':;Ól CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 93301 Subject: Bakersfield Airpark Master Plan Update Dear Ms. Eng: We have received your request for comments transmitted by your letter of June 18, 1987. Unfortunately, due to constraints on our funds and staff within our Endangered Species Program, we are unable to take action on your request at tbis time. However, other programs in our Service may wish to provide a response to you apart from endangered species issues. :.~_ IRi.:" ,,; c::h t-o . C9-~"" oil:. LL,= ~U(";d..L ~t::'::j';',""..~l -.¡:.¡:i....~ ~.¡: ,.\-."" (",,1 i'¡:"'''-1"'Lia ~ilJ?"""':D"~""+- "'.¡: 1<'; c::h ::1M" ("..,~~ ..,...."/1"'1,.. t-h~;,.. C::"'/'"''''<HPpnrn Offire N~~n-"'1.. ba-i-,,¡aJia.il.1 I)cn;;átJcr;:,,= l::rJ:ðr"'~ 2'.~~ i&,.....,~l~ðJlÏ¡~..,t.\l"'Ig 1"'I~_rJ;¡e r0-",,,,;1..,líii ie-fie......"",,'-"" "'[ f...J<:õ"J..a} v... &ta.a..- 1 ig.~~a~..ç;j,fis. You should also review your responsibilities under the California Endangered Spec i es Act. Our inability to review your request does not relieve you of your obligation to ensure compliance with Section 9 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, which prohibits the taking (hunt, shoot, kill, harass, harm, collect, etc.) of any federally-listed species. Should you determine that your project may affect a listed species, and should there be a Federal agency involved with permitting or funding this project, initiation of formal Section 7 consultation with this office pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, will be required. Such consultation would result in a Biological Opinion rendered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that addresses effects to listed and candidate species. e e Ms. En g Should a Federal agency not be involved with this project, and federally-listed species may be taken as part of the project, tnen a permlt to "take" such individuals must be obtained pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act. Such a permit authorizes take of threatened or endangered species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Development of a conservation plan, a necessary component of a permit application, must detail the impacts of such taking to the species involved. Moreover, the conservation plan should specify the mitigation measures the permi t appl icant w.ill undertake and funding mechanisms made available to implement such mitigation, and alternatives to the proposed project that were considered and the reasons why these alternatives were not employed by the project proponent. Should federally-listed species possibly be taken by the subject project, please contact this office for additional guidance on compliance requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Thank you for your concern for endangered species and compliance with the Act. Sincerely, Gail C. Kobetich Field Supervisor cc: Chief, Endangered Species, Portland, Oregon (FWE-SE; Attn: Ralph Swanson) Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, Sacramento, Cal i forni a (ES-S) Dr. Larry Eng, Environmental ServiGes, California Department of Fish and Game, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814 e DEPARTMENT O¡:tt PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ANDALL L. ABBOTI DIRECTOR STEVEN G. LADD Assistant Director 00 æ © & U '0/ ion u.. ! CJ ) iJ.¿; Mailing: 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield. CA 93301 Location: 1356 Norris Road Bakersfield. CA 93308 (805) 861-2615 July 6, 1987 JUL 07 1Q." '., " ( CITy OF PLANNING86~ËRSFIELO ....PARTMEtrr FILE: Agency BAK-1987 City of Bakersfield Planning Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, Ca 93301 Re: Notice of Preparation, Bakersfield Air Park Master Plan Update. Ladies and Gentlemen: Thank you for the Your evaluation characteristics to ( EIR) . opportunity to review the above noted project. appears to aådress those environmenta~ be discussed in the Environmental Impact Report We look forward to reviewing the Draft EIR. Very truly yours, RANDALL L. ABBOTT, Director p~ng and Dev~lopment Services Planner FS:cms Office Memoran'um · e KERN COUNTY FROM: City of Bakersfield DATE: July 6, 1987 Planning Department Attn: Jennie Eng Public Works Department Telephonp No. Skip Tullock NOTICE OF PREPARATION - BAKERSFIELD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE TO SUBJECT : We have reviewed the subject project submitted to this office on June 22, 1987, and have no comments. ST: KC : s 9 [D) & Uì.J @ fi !J Uí' ,',. . ~; Ill/ 0 ~ f L.Qj CI"'\~ .oq? PI.q r Of: ... ^,tvl^'G~k~I:¡S¡: €'P.qö I~'-D , 'TìM~ "tvì REV. ISHMAF.I. KIMRROUCH, JR.., Pastor PHONE. 633·9323 I I I' I ,tJ ..~ .' -.,1,),_ ._ !,j I ~~! ~bt ;JtOplt'~ ßIí~5íonarp jßaptíst ~burc~'n"'lc'"~ e e ?e.:~ \~arw':;1\ ~.~¡:ct'.Jn I ¡ i 1 1451 SO. MADISON STREET P. O. BOX 4072 BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA ! 93307 TELEPHONE (SOS) 834.4830 r~;, j ¡;; (;; ~ ~ "! :! r r~ u'""'ù I U JUL 1 6 œ7 Jennie Eng Title Assistant Planner City of Bakersfield CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT Re: Notice of Preparation of an EIR supplement for the Bakersfield Airpark Master Plan Update. Dear Ms Eng: - We the members of The People's Missionary Baptist Church believe it is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all time is healthful and pleasing, not only to the senses of man, but also in the sight of God. This thought forms the basis of our decision to provide comments orr the Update Plan, and we therefor hope and pray that your staff will give serious consideration to the concerns we have outlined below. In a recent article published by the Bakersfield Californian, it was reported that the Bakersfield metropolitan area is listed among a number of counties and cities which fail to meet air quality standards prescribed by federal law. This report suggested that the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) may impose certain restrictions on these local governments in order to bring them into compliance. . But, for' the most part, ,this EPA ruling indicates air quality in the Bakersfield metropolitan area is in poor condition and may present a health risk to its residents. We are therefor oposed to activities in the proposed Airpark Expansion Plan which may contribute further to the deterioration of our air quality. It is our contention that increased air pollutant emissions may create short and lon~ term health Droblems for our members e e and neighbors in the surrounding residential area. In a study prepared by the 2nvicom Corporation for the city of Bakersfiel and the County of Ke~n,in October of 1985, it was reported that the airport expansion project is located in an area of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin which has not attained National Ambient Air Quality standards for ozone and carbon monoxide. The study goes on to report that pollutant concentrations in the basin has created very poor air quality. The Bakersfield Airpark presently records approximately 179 flig~t operations per âay, or 65,335 flight operations per year. It is projected that major expansion at the airpark will increase daily flight operations to 2~8, or 83,220 flights per year. In all liklihood, this major expansion project will include flights of larger and louder aircraft. It is our contention that increases in flight operations and the projected relocation of the existing airpark runway, in a more North/South direction, will significantly effect the Community Noise Exposure Level(CNEL) of our Church and the surrounâing residential area to an increased sound level over and above the requirements prescribed in the Noise Elements of the city of Bakersfield and the county of Kern. Ve urge the leading agency to inclu~e in its environmental imDact report feasible alternatives o~ feasible mitigation measures which woul~ substantially lessen the increase in the noise levels. ~n response to a state report which concludes that the Bakersfield AirDark is contaminated with hazardous chemicals, we urse the l~ad agency to incluâe in its environmental impact report a thorough and complete plan outlining the procedures it will follow to ensure the clean-up of contaminated soils. The EIR should also include a study which will determine whether or not hazardous chemicals have leaked into ground water wells. We need to be assured that our drinking water is safe and free of hazardous chemicals. The closure of East Planz Road :,.ay have a significant effect on the Community Noise Exposure Level of our Church and the surrounding residential area. - 2- e e In the October 1985 study prepared by Envicom corporation, it ~as Dointed out that c20sure of Sast Planz Road would increase the noise level on Watts Drive: due to increases from industrial related vehicle trips. The study also indicates that Madison Street would be extended to White Lane. It is our contention that Madison Street will also experience an increase in the noise level with increases from industrial related vehicle trips, i.e., diesel trucks. The closure of East Planz Road deprives low-income residents and espec~ally young people, in and around the Airpark Expansion project, of a viable and economical route to and from schools, retail centers, recreational facilities, etc,. In all liklihood, this closure may increase the response time of police, fire, and other emergency units responding to this area. In closing, we embrace the principles of the Califronia Environmental Quality Act which seek to develop and maintain a high-quality environment and take all actions necessary to protect, rehabilitate and enhance the environmental quality of the state in order to prov~de people with clean air, water and freedom from excess~ve noise. - - 3- e e ~~e ?eocle's ~issionarv 3a~t~:: . Church U SUMMARY 1. We are opposed to activities in the proposed Airpark Expansion Plan which may contribute further to the deterioration of our air quality. 2. ~he Airpark Expansion Project will significantly effect the Community ]ois8 Expoiure Level of our Church and the surrounding residential area. 3. ~e urge the leading agency to include in its Environmental Impact Report a thorough and complete plan outlining the Drocedur~s it will follow to ensure clean-up of airpark contamination. L. The lead agency should include in its Environmental ImDact Report a study which will determine whether or not hazardous chemicals have leaked into ground water wells. 5. We are opposed to the closure of East Planz Road because it will increase the noise level of our Church and the surroundina ~ residential area with increases from industrial related vehicle trips, i.e., -diesel trucks·. 6. ~he closure of Zast Planz Road will deDrive low-income residents of a viable and economical route to and from schools, retail cen~ers,recreational facili~ies, etc. 7. ~':e urge the leading agency to include in its ~nvironme~tal T,.,,""'~'"'';' ~"'co"'';' feas~ble aìJ..e"'natives 0'1" f''''~S~~l~ m~"';"'a';'ion _ ~~. :! Co .......:.., .I. I. ...." ... .;. l.I _ ~ ~ _:..., _ _ .- _...." C. _ ~ _ -:; u..;., v..:..:;:) L,¡ _ .. ~easures which would substantially lessen the increases in noise levels and air pollution. July 15, 1987 e e ; ~ Citv of Bakersfield Planning Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield. CA. 93301 i....II...o --.,--/ JUL 2 0 î987 CITY OF 8AK[R~;~ ¡ELl": PLANNING DëP,c.,R·;i",1E~n Attention: Jennie Eng Re: Bakersfield Airpark EIR and comments The EIR gives very light treatment to the "toxic waste" problem at the Airpark, when in fact, a very thorough investigation should have been conducted on this problem. It was apparently known to one member of City government, according to the attached letter, that there was a toxic waste problem on the prop- erty. The letter is dated two years before the Airpark was purchased by the City. I have polled all of the Councilmen who voted to purchase the property. None of them had knowledge of the letter or the problem, prior to voting to purchase the property. An investigation should be made to find out who, besides Mr. Kennon, had knowledge of this problem before the purchase was made. Noise factor: An escalation of the activities of the Airpark, and the lengthening of the runway, will have a debilitating effect on nearby residential property. We stand a good chance of future lawsuits. such as have been successful in other areas when airports have ex~anded. Property owners face the possibility of decreasing land values and limited use of their property, due to the extension of the runway. Please note that a recent Supreme Court ruling made it clear that gov- ernment does not have the right to devaluate private property without just compensation to the owner of said property. Planz Road: The plan to close this road is poorly conceived and will serve to àevaluate property in that area. tinancing: The fallacy that the Feàeral Government will, or even that it should, finance 907. of this project and its improvements, is just that, fallacy. Time and the national debt will erode the funds. It is taxpayer funds, no matter what level of government it comes. from, and it would be poorly spent on this project. Annexation: The suggestion of annexation is another poorly thought out idea. It will require added City services, including Police and Fire protection. This, at a time when the City has had to make cuts in ser- vices and add fees to tax bills, in order to balance the budget. ~ The plan to subsidize private enterprise (industry), to entice them to the Airpark, is not what the free enterprise system is all about. It only encourages a bidding contest between our City and others, to see who is going to offer the most incen~ives to come to their area. It is highly possible that businesses ~ill move from Meado~s Field to the Airpark, if the price is right. Basically, it's blackmail, albeit legal blackmail. :'a¡:.e " e e Summary: It is unfortunate that the City of Bakersfield chose to invest tax funds in the Airpark. It hasn't made previous owners any monev for 20 years or more. Our tax monev can be utilized for much better purposes. It is my opinion that the taxpayers of the City would be manv, many doll- ars ahead, if the Airpark were sold to private enterprise, even if we had to take a loss on our current investment. We do not have the right to mortgage the futures of our children and grandchildren with any unnecess- ary spending. ð / ¿:b\~L ~ Ed Char~n;iJ - - 4401 Columbus Street #11 Bakersfield, CA. 93306 805-872-4446 - C.l·.~;:C:::h:~. í.Ú~!J~~~.C-\¡'KTi.J~~iñ: CÕi~TRQ~ BäAR:-=-=W= CEI~ïR~.L Vt.:"LEY REG!Q~~ --~~--=--~'~_.....:..- -- --- - S"". ;:i':"::·.J!r.: 1\'..-:": Þ.~~ED e;'A'~:H O~FI:: :i:r:~ rL.:~ S~!:..¡"O:' "'VE!I;~:" R::JO': 1£ ~ FES'.:C, c:.;.r F O""~It. g::>nc PHor,E (2~",4"~S"6 /~.. 'êf ~. , : ~¡::. ~-.- 9 June 1983 Mr. J. D~vid Kennon City cf Bakersfield 15~1 lruxtun Avenue Ba~ersfield. Ch 52301 SSH ;~J, £DO:::a515. ê,;¡:ERSFIELD AIRP'!"RI~ £XPAI\SJOI~. I~EF~I; COi.H:TY ~e have revie~ed the Draft EIR on the subject proje:: and have . oevelopec cOr.:!/ents. Attached Gre copies of our C011'r.P-nts. We find that the EIR inadequately addressed hazardous w:ste disposal fro~ a:tivities at tne airpark and that such a=ti\'i-;ie.~ pose a 'tnreat to ground and surface water quality. Jf s~=h activities can~ot be ~itiº2ted within the scope of the D~rp.. !.he fin:l EIP. should be rewritten to addr-ess the po~entië: 1 threats to ground .and surrace wate,r~ from ......ast£: cispcs51 ët ~he zirpor~. If you have any q~estions~ please call Tim Sou:her ë.t this -,& . or ) ceo . , - .. SJ..:;GEA~;r J. GREEN -00 Senior Land and ~ë.ter Use 'hnalyst : TGS: h;.:¡¡ A tt.a :.hm:nt cc: ~:-. ¡'lah inder Sa ndhu. DepariJI1e.nt {)f Hea i th Serv; ces Er. Perry Coy~ Departænt of Food anè Agriculture }~¡. Vern Reichard, I~rn County Heëlth Department ~r.· BOD Ed~~rds. Kern County Ag Co~issioner J-:r. .Eric Davis~ Kern .county Water Agency .. . ,....., 1~" " ..,.... c;:- ò ~~.;.t..-: ~ ~ I,/Jh~ ,/ I /h'0J- /.. I e e CEraRAL VALLEY REGlor~AL \o.';"TEP. QUALITY cor~jROL BOARD M D'iO RAr; our·: ro: JJ, /Ú/JA-- Sargeant J. Green ~j/OVV--- 7 June 1983 FROM: Timothy G. Souther SUBJ ECT: SCH NO. 80030515, BAI~ERSFI ELD AI RPARI~ EXPANS I ON, KERN COU1~TY Í have reviewed the subject Draft Environmental Impact Report and have developed the follovling comments: 1. On Page 53, the report indicates the Industrial and Com~er;cal uses that may gene ra te i ndws tr; a 1 or haza rcous waste wi 11 p robab 1 y conti nue. "The County Health Depar~ent will have the full responsibility and strict control over the release of hazardous substances or industrial wastes ... Therefore the aegradation of existing underground water quality due to sewage and surface runoff from industrial areas is not expected." 2. The most recent information in our files indicates that a cropduster based at the airport disposes of rinse water from his aircraft into an earthen ditch. Generally, such wastewaters are considered hazardous wastes. The cropduster indicated that the system had been approved by the Kern County Health Department. 3. The Regional Board has adopted a policy relating to the disposal of pesticide rinse waters (copy attached). This policy requires containment of pest,'icide rinse waters and ultimate disposal at a Class I Disposual Site because uncontrolled discharges of such wastes poses a threat to surface and ground wëter quality. '4. If it is the intent of this project to allow continued disposal of crODcuster rinse waters or other hazardous and industrial ~astes on the airport, the City should be required to rewrite the ErR addressing the potential threat to ground and surface waters from such activities. 5. The waste discharges o~ this site should probably be ~ecuested to apply for waste discharge requirements, inasmuch as the general public has easy àccess to this location. sur·::·:ARY; Should the City allow continued agricultural and/or industrial discharges on- si~e. mi~;gation measures should be proposed for preventing water quality degradation or the EIR should be rewritten.. One potential mitigation Treasure is that our agency requests "reports of waste discharge" from the dischargers and develop appropriate requirements for our Board1s consideration. ~;1 _¿t'U/! <-.:H'í·¡uiHr G. šOul..~R, "Stad Engineer TGS : hm.i1 Attachment COM'1Þ1TY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DWRTMENT C.D. Program Department Great Western Savings Building 141S-18th Stl"eet. Second Floor Bakersfield. California 93301 Telephone (805) 861-2041 WILLIAM J. MUNGARY Director Lrû JUl20 1987 , \ J I .-' J - July 17, 1987 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. Jack Hardisty Acting Planning Director City of Bakersfield Planning Department 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 ATTENTION: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planner RE: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bakersfield Airpark Master Plan Update Dear Mr. Hardisty: This department,has reviewed the Notice of Preparation and Initia.l Environmental Study for the above referenced activity, and we hereby submit the following comments: 1. Since the environmental document to be prepared will attempt to satisfy both CEQA and NEPA as a combined EIR/EIS (as indicated in the last paragraph of the Environmental Setting section), the process must conform with NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), as well as CEQA Guidelines (Sections 1500 et. seq.). 2. NEPA regulations (Section 1501.5 {b}) require that at least one federal agency act as a joint lead agency should a local agency assume the role as a lead agency. Since the airpark expansion will use grants-in-aid from the Federal Aviation Administration we are assuming they would act as the federal joint lead agency in preparation of the DEIR/DEIS. 3. Per NEPA regulations (NEPA Section 1501.7 and CEQA Section 15083) a scoping process must be initiated which in,cludes a Notice of Intent {Notice of Preparation) published in the Federal Register and the legal section of the local newspaper. Since this is a combined document, both the Notice of Intent and the Notice of Preparation can be published at the same time (CEQA section 15226 and NEPA Section 1506.2). 0- e, e Mr. Jack Hardisty, Acting Planning Director Page 2 July 17, 1987 4. The Notice of Preparation should indicate whether the proposed environmental document is a subsequent ErR or supplement to an ErR previously prepared for the project (CEQA sections 15162 and 15163) and if the later, the title and availability of the previous environmental document should be noted. 5. The attached State Notice of Completion and Environmental Document Transmittal Form should indicate the document type as also a NEPA NOr (item 9). rtem 13 should show the approximate amounts of federal, state, and local funding expected toward implementation of the proposed airpark development. 6. The attached list of reviewing agencies should indicate which federal agencies are to review the NOP/NOr (i.e. 'FAA, EPA, etc.). 7. Since the project description indicates the Master Plan Update includes staged development plans it may be advisable to explore the benefits of either doing a staged ErR (CEQA Section 15167) or a Program ElR (CEQA Section 15168) per CEQA should they be deemed more efficient and practical. 8. This department strongly emphasizes the importance qf items 2.a. and 17.b. and in the preparation of the DEIR/DErS that these issues receive adequate coverage. These isues have raised considerable concern by reviewing agencies with respect to the County's preparation of a DEIS for the Casa Lama Specific Plan. Since the airpark is located within the Casa Lama Specific Plan boundaries, impacts imposed by development of the airpark must be considered. We recommend the Notice of Preparation/Notice of Intent be re-circu1ated and distributed per consideration of our comments. It appears that the notice has not met the provisions of the NEPA process. We also recommend cooperation between your agency and the FAA in the preparation of the DEIR/DEIS to insure that the environmental document is valid per NEPA for future use by a federal agency (NEPA Part 1506 and CEQA Section 15222). Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Notice of Preparation. Should you have any questions, please contact me, Bill Larsen, or Pierre Rivas at this office. Please send us a copy of the draft ErR/ElS. Very truly yours, ./ .ft~~-~ ¿:.- " -------:-:, " ,...- Guy Greenlee Principal Planner - GG:PR:ayb xc: Paul Shillcock. Citv of Bakersfield ;TATE OF CAlIFOIINIA-IWSINESS, TRANSPORTAeAND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS __ "30 K STREET - 4TH FLOOR MAIL; PO. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO. CA 94274-0001 ,9'6) 322-3090 TOD (916) 323-7665 July 23, 1987 Mr. Jack Hardisty Acting Planning Director City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Hardisty: The City of Bakersfield's NOP for Bakersfield Airpark Master Plan Update; SCH #87062208 The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the above-referenced document with respect to those areas germane to its statutory responsibilities pursuant to CEQA. The following comments are offered for your consideration. The DEIR should address the project's potential noise and safet~ impacts on the surrounding community as well as potential impacts to airport operations. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. The Division looks forward to reviewing the DElR. Sincerely, JACK D. KEMMERLY, Chief Division of Aeronautics _"i:1 rtdV'J !-kLJ (\O'\,J Sandy ª--elsnard Environmantal Planner U· ; " U ~ ~::.I ~ . ; .~) , ) ;!...,., '-- .IUL 2 7 1987 cc: Bakersfield Airpark Kern County ALUC State Clearinghouse CITY OF ßAKERSFIEL D PLANNING DEPARTMENT e KERN COUNTY MUSEUM e CAROLA G. RUPERT Director, Curator JEFF COOMBER .,..t. Director, Curator 3801 Cheater Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 (805) 861-2132 July 28, 1987 "'!~~ C~\ ø ~~ <1. a "Q:\ Q ~ ;) .~~~\~~ ~.~ I'-~~ ~~ O~ ~ 'Q~~ Ô,\:.~\~0 "?~ Jennie Eng Planning Department City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Ms. Eng: We have Bakersfield historical or at Cal State opinion on any reviewed the Initial Environmental Study for the Airpark Master Plan Upåate and can identify no cultural impacts. The Regional Archaeology Center Bakersfield should be contacteå, however, for their archa~blogical materials iri the Airpark·are~. Sincerely, ~ Ú; C1.l1~Á<.-~ Carola G. Rupert Director CGR/ja 31 "! OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENI.... e JR [C~P¡[ID AUG 04 ~87 GEORGE DEUKMf,JIAN, Go-.- D~PARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ~ gion 4 [¿34 East Shaw Avenue 2resno, CA 93710 ( 09) 222-3761 ¡o.. toI.,...ø toIltcnei& CITY OF BAKERSfIELD PtANNING DEPAR.TMENT ~w G t U 'Sa7 s...~ August 3, 1987 Mr. Jack Hardisty Acting Planning Director City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxton Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 subject: City of Bakersfieldlg NOP for Master plan Update for Bakersfield Airpark SCH# 87062208 Dear Mr. Hardisty: We have reviewed the City of Bakersfieldls Notice of preparation and Initial Study for the Bakersfield Airpark Master Plan Update. It appears the revised Master Plan could result in a significant change in land use on the 3,400-acre Bakersfield Airpark, which could have adverse effect upon wildlife resources, as follows. The environmental checklist indicates that unique, rare or endangered species of plants and animals may be affected by the pro j ect. We concur wi th this a,ssessment and recommend that a biota survey be prepared for the project. The EIR/EIS should include appropriate measures to reduce impacts to threatened and endangered species below significant levels. Inclusion of this area into the Habitat Conservation plan area, as is being developed by the City of Bakersfield may expedite the development of appropriate mitigation measures. Since federal funding will be involved in this project, we recommend that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species, in Sacramento be contacted regarding their concerns with this project. If you have' any questions à~ need further assistance, please contact Ron Rempel at the above address or telephone number. ~q:;;w~ George D. Nokes Regional Manager ,- cc: Office of Planning and Research Jim Bartel, USFW5-Sacto 1700~ Sare.t ¡.......... c.üfamta 93305 TaieOftOt.. (805) 881-3838 _~N COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMel ENVlAONMEtrnU. HEALTH alVISlON HEALTH OFFICER Leon M ...,.,.... M.D. DIRECTOR OF ENVlAONMemu.. HEALTH Vernon So RetCftøá ~ "erwtck "itcNIf I-\U.lj 1 U 1987 August 4, 1981 , 'n]' . .,.., - Sa~.... Lo ". ,., ~ ~ ~~:~I ok: . - I ,. , 1 ; A I ¡f; 0 6 198i L!::::.,.- PlC/iY OF 8A¡...-r:,.... ANNING 0 '~¡..·:)r:Ir;LD Ë. ARì/',¡fë!'rr City of Bakersfiel~ Engineering/Planning Department Attention: Jennie 1501 Trux1:Un Avenue Bakersfiel~, CA 93301 SUBJ'ECT: Bakersfield Airpark Master Plan Update Comments Dear .] enni e : We are pleased to respond to your request for comments on the proposed plan by Bakersfield City. This Master Plan Update should address new businesses at the Airport that generate, store, or recycle hazaråous materials to conform to all sections of the Health and Safety Codes or County ord.inances; namely, the Bakersfield City's AS 2185 Business Plan Program, and the County.' s Underground Tank Program, and the general provisions of the Health and Safety Code relating to hazaråous waste generators. The Master Plan sho~d also be aware of known contamination from prior businesses, such as Garriot Cropdusters, and address any continuing site characterizations ord.ered by the State Department of Health Services~ . , If areas that are to be cleared or graded are in suspected of being contaminated, they should characterized and sampled to ~etermine threats to receptors or workers in the area. locations first be ~ownwind Again, thank you for allowing us to comment. Sincerely, ÚÛ7IJlv! l2~tv!it Vernon S. Reichard~ Director Environmental Health Division VSR: D'RW ~ ;rT e e ~ us DepartmenT of TransportaTIon Federa' Aviation Administration Western·Paci fic Region po, Sox 92007 Worldwav Postal Center Los Angeles. CA 90009 August 6, 1987 " i 0) Œ ~ B n iì: .7: L'l) .... " ~. ~ AI{f"' 1 í' .",,- """ I' ; \.1 '......... I . . '!I r---. { 1-; ~' Ms. Jenni e Eng Planning'Department City of Bakersfield Development Services Department 1501 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 , CITY OF ~A '<'¡::-~C'- plAA.r'I,¡..,....- ""r,_. ,..;¡-/E' 0 .r'4f.. Î\flJ r-'t!:'o1R - 1..)...., r.. ¡MENT Dear Ms. Eng: We have reviewed the Notice of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Master Plan Update for Bakersfield Airport and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments. We are currently funding an update of the Master Plan and EIR under AI? No. 3-06-0323-02 FAA Responsibility, paragraph 13, Chapter 2 of Order S050.4A outlines respDnsibilities in these types of matters. We will continue to operate under that order for Airport Division matters. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to advise you in our areas of interest. Sincere ly , 'p¡1J.i.l~ þvtJ r Ock-Ju Noh .' e . Appendix B PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED · - B-1 Appendix B Persons and organizations contacted and mailed a copy of Draft EIR Supplement: City of Bakersfield Airpark Attorney City Council (each member)/Mayor City Manager City Clerk (media file) Community Development Community Services Economic Development Fire Department Planning Commissioners (each member) Planning Department Police Department Public Works Department County of Kern Agriculture Commissioner Air Pollution Control District Airports Community Development Office of Emergency Services Fire Health - Environmental Heath Kern Council of Governments (COG) LAFCO Library - Beale and Law Planning & Development Services Public Works State of California State Clearinghouse (12) Air Resources Board Caltrans - District 6 Caltrans - Division of Aeronautics Department of Conservation Fish and Game - Nokes Office of Historic Preservation Native American Heritage Commission Public Utilities Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board, Ce~tral Valley Region e e B-2 Federal Department of Agriculture, Bakersfield Federal Aviation Administration Meadows Field - Air Traffic Control Tower Los Angeles - Western-Pacific Region, Airports Division Environmental Protection Agency Region IX San Francisco Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Services Other Agencies/Groups Golden Empire Transit (GET) Bakersfield City Schools Bakersfield Airpark Advisory Committee (each member) Friendship House The People's Missionary Baptist Church Private Person/Group sent notices with information regarding availability of DSEIR for public review Kern County Superintendent of Schools Sierra Club - Kern-Kaweah Chapter Nature Conservancy, Tejon Subchapter American Indian Counsel of Central California Kern Historical Society Historic Preservation Commission Kern Audubon Society Property owners within 300 feet of project site (list on file in Planning Department e e Appendix C METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS e e C-l Appendix C METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL The unit of noise measurement required by the State of California and used in this assessment is the community noise equivalent level (CNEL)*. CNEL represents the daily A-weighted average sound level in decibels (dBA) during a 24-hour period, adjusted to an equivalent level to account for the lower toler- ance of people to noise during evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) hours compared with daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). According to the California Airport Noise Standards, the level of noise acceptable to a "reasonable" person residing in the vicinity of an airport is CNEL 65 and below. That criterion was chosen for urban residential areas where houses are of typical California construction, and where windows may be partially open. CNEL 65 was selected as an acceptable level with speech, sleep, and community reaction considered. The CNEL metric is used in noise elements of community general plans and in the delineation of noise levels around airports for the California Airport Noise Standards. CNEL may also be used for measuring noise from sources other than aircraft, such as automobile traffic, to determine combined impacts. CNEL values used in this analysis are based on several factors that contribute to aircraft noise exposure, such as: · Types of aircraft · Mix of aircraft types in daily operations and their noise characteristics · Number of aircraft operations and the time of day they occur *Although the FAA normally requires aircraft noise to be described in units of the day-night average sound level (Ldn), CNEL is acceptable for projects in the State of California. CNEL is similar to Ldn except that it includes an evening penalty weighting not used in Ldn. e e C-2 . Use of runways . Flight tracks used by arriving and departing aircraft The CNEL method is used to calculate the noise exposure levels from each aircraft operation (takeoff or landing) at ground level around an airport, and to accumulate these noise exposure levels for a typical 24-hour period. Evening and nighttime noise exposure levels are weighted more heavily than daytime noise exposure levels because noise events during quieter night- time hours create greater annoyance as a result of the lower ambient base levels and variation of activities. Contour lines are drawn on a map of the subject airport and its environs to indicate areas of equal noise exposure. The areas within the contours and the people who reside within these areas can then be used as general indices of comparative noise exposure. INTEGRATED NOISE MODEL Version 3.9 of the Integrated Noise Model, developed by the FAA, was used for the CNEL calculations in this analysis. The model accounts for separate aircraft flight tracks defined as straight-line or curved segments. Those flight tracks are coupled with separate tables showing the noise, slant range, and engine thrust for each distinctive aircraft type. On predetermined locations at ground level around Bakersfield Airpark, the shortest s~ant range to each flight track is selected, and the associated'noise exposure level is retained for the specific aircraft type and engine thrust level used at that point in the flight track. Additional corrections are applied for excess air-to-ground acoustical attenuation, acoustical shielding of the aircraft engines by other portions of the aircraft itself, and speed variations. The individual aircraft noise exposures are then summed for each location. An evening penalty (equivalent to a 4.77-decibel weighting) or a nighttime penalty (equivalent to a 10-decibel weighting) for increased annoyance is added to flights occurring between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., respec- tively. The cumulative values of noise exposure at each location are then used to interpolate equal noise exposure contours for selected CNEL values. e e C-3 Limitations of the CNEL Method The validity and accuracy of CNEL calculations depend on the basic information used. The noise descriptors used in the CNEL method represent average human response (and reaction) to air- craft noise. Because people vary in their responses to noise and because the physical measure of noise accounts for only a portion of an individual's reaction to that noise, the CNEL scale can show only an average response to aircraft noise that might be expected from a community. In view of those limitations, CNEL mapping was developed as a tool to assist in land use planning around airports. The mapping is best used for comparative purposes rather than for providing absolute values. That is, CNEL calculations provide valid comparisons between different conditions only if consis- tent assumptions and basic data are used for all calculations. Thus, sets of CNEL calculations can show areas experiencing relatively different levels of noise exposure. However, a noise exposure contour line drawn on a map by a computer does not imply that a particular noise condition exists on one side of that line and not on the other. CNEL calculations are merely a means for comparing noise exposures, not precisely defining them relative to specific parcels of land. Nevertheless, CNEL contours can be used to (I), highlight an existing or potential aircraft noise problem that requi~es attention; (2) assist in the preparation of airport environs land use plans; and (3) provide guidance in the development of land use controls, such as zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and building codes. Interpretation of CNEL Values Estimates of total noise exposure from aircraft operations, as expressed i~ CNEL values, can be interpreted in terms of the probable effect on land uses, using the guidelines summarized in Table 8 of this EIR Supplement. However, the CNEL values in the table should be interpreted only as indications of the effect aircraft noise has on people living and working in areas surrounding an airport. Although specific CNEL values were obtained in this study, they do not dictate certain conse- quences; they are merely intended to guide a community in land use development. ----- .~- e e C-4 For a specific location on the ground, some adjustments to or interpretations of CNEL values may be desirable. Typical influences used to interpret CNEL values include the following: 1. Previous community experience and previous complaint history in the immediate vicinity of the airport. 2. Local building construction, particularly as influ- enced by climatic considerations. In the coastal areas of California or areas of higher elevation where temperatures are normally cooler, wall and roof construction may be slightly heavier, and houses are likely to be more tightly constructed, thus reducing the extent of noise leakage paths. In addition, win- dows are typically kept closed for a larger portion of the year, and less use is made of outdoor areas. On that basis, one might select a higher CNEL value as the boundary for noise compatibility interpre- tation, rather than a lower CNEL value that might be suitable for a warmer climate. 3. Areas where air conditioning is extensively used in homes, schools, offices, and public buildings. Doors and windows are normally kept closed for major por- tions of the year, thus reducing exterior-to-interior sound transmission. Air cqnditioning use should be taken into consideration when selecting an appropriate CNEL value for noise compatibility interpretation. 4. Effect of industrial or surface transportation noise sources on the existing noise environment. For example, introducing aircraft noise in a rural area, where existing background noise levels are very low, produces a much more apparent change in noise envi- ronment than initiating aircraft operations in a dense urban area long exposed to surface traffic noise. 5. Time of aircraft operations. In basic CNEL values, daytime, evening, and nighttime aircraft operations are considered, and a heavier weighting factor is applied for evening and nighttime operations. ----- , .,. . C-5 Ranges of Noise Exposure Four ranges of noise exposure are considered in this EIR Sup- plement: (1) CNEL 75 or greater; (2) CNEL 70 to 75; (3) CNEL 65 to 70; and (4) CNEL 60 to 65. Those four ranges were selected on the basis of both State and federal laws and guidelines, as well as the degree of average human response and annoyance to different levels of noise exposure. The CNEL 75 or greater cutoff point in California is a federal guideline used in the Aviation Noise Abatement Policy by the FAA, and most recently in FAR Part 150, "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning." In both documents, the CNEL 75 exposure is considered to be severe and not suitable for most types of urban development. The CNEL 70 to 75 range represents a noise level that can disturb the functioning of many urban land uses unless buildings are acoustically treated to reduce interior noise levels. At present, the California Airport Noise Standards require that all land uses within the CNEL 65 contour be compatible with this level of aircraft noise exposure. The CNEL 65 to 70 range is based on both State and federal requirements. The California Airport Noise Standards require land use compatibility in the CNEL 65 area by January 1, 1986, and FAR Part 150 specifically refers to CNEL 65 as a "signifi- cant aircraft noise level." The CNEL 60 to 65 range is based on the California Noise Insulation Standards and Section 65302(g) of the California Government Code, which requires a noise element to be part of a community's general plan. All areas exposed to noise levels of CNEL 60 or greater must be considered in the noise element. In accordance with federal guidelines, all land uses exposed to noise levels of CNEL 65 or below are considered to be compatible. -