DOCSLIB.ORG

Ridgecrest Transportation Development Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ridgecrest Transportation Development Plan Ridgecrest,Ridgecrest, CACA TTransportationransportation DevelopmentDevelopment PlanPlan FINAL REPORT Prepared for TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Ridgecrest Transportation Development Plan Final Report Prepared for: Kern Council of Governments 1401 19th Street, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 861-2191 Prepared by: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 516 North Tejon Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (719) 633-2868 LSC #064150 June 12, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Title Page I INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... I-1 II PREVIOUS TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND STUDIES ................................. II-1 Introduction ............................................................................................... II-1 Study Area Location .............................................................................. II-1 Regional Rural Transit Strategy (2003)................................................... II-1 Economic and Growth Strategy 2005-2010, A Five-Year Analysis ........... II-2 Eastern Sierra Public Transportation Plan (2004)................................... II-3 Triennial Performance Audits (2000, 2003) ............................................ II-4 City of Ridgecrest Transit Development Plan (1998)................................ II-5 III EXISTING TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES .............................................. III-1 Introduction .............................................................................................. III-1 City Transit Services.................................................................................. III-1 Description of Transportation Services.................................................. III-1 Scheduling and Dispatching............................................................ III-3 Fares .............................................................................................. III-4 Ridership Patterns................................................................................ III-5 Ridership Trends............................................................................. III-5 Ridership by Market Segment.......................................................... III-6 Staff .................................................................................................. III-6 Vehicle Fleet......................................................................................... III-6 Facilities .............................................................................................. III-7 Financial Status................................................................................... III-7 Revenues ........................................................................................ III-7 Expenses ........................................................................................ III-8 Cost Allocation Model ...................................................................... III-9 Performance Measures ....................................................................... III-10 Other Transportation Providers and Resources ........................................ III-11 Homemaker Services of Indian Wells Valley ........................................ III-11 Desert Area Rehabilitation and Training (DART).................................. III-11 CREST ............................................................................................... III-12 Community Resource Center .............................................................. III-12 Community Connection for Child Care................................................ III-13 Kern Regional Transit (KRT)................................................................ III-13 Salvation Army................................................................................... III-13 Sage Medical Center ........................................................................... III-13 IV COMMUNITY CONDITIONS ....................................................................... IV-1 Community Description............................................................................. IV-1 Study Area Location ............................................................................. IV-1 Transportation System Overview........................................................... IV-3 Highways ........................................................................................ IV-3 Airports........................................................................................... IV-3 Major Transit Destinations ................................................................... IV-3 Major Employers .................................................................................. IV-5 Study Area Demographics ......................................................................... IV-7 - ii - 1990-2006 Population .......................................................................... IV-7 Population Density ........................................................................ IV-10 Population Projections ........................................................................ IV-12 Transit-Dependent Population Characteristics .................................... IV-15 Elderly Population......................................................................... IV-17 Mobility-Limited Population........................................................... IV-19 Low-Income Population ................................................................. IV-21 Zero-Vehicle Households ............................................................... IV-23 Youth............................................................................................ IV-25 Economy ................................................................................................ IV-27 Travel Patterns ........................................................................................ IV-28 Work Transportation Mode ................................................................. IV-28 Summary ................................................................................................ IV-29 V TRANSIT NEEDS ASSESSMENT ................................................................. V-1 Introduction ............................................................................................... V-1 Rural Transit Demand Methodology............................................................ V-1 Rural Transit Model – Non-Program Demand ......................................... V-2 2006 Existing Need Estimates .......................................................... V-4 2006 Calibrated Demand Model........................................................ V-6 2010 Demand Estimates .................................................................. V-8 2020 Demand Estimates ................................................................ V-10 Program Demand ................................................................................ V-12 Summary of TCRP Methodology ........................................................... V-12 Estimated Fixed-Route Model .............................................................. V-13 Greatest Transit Need Analysis ................................................................. V-17 Methodology........................................................................................ V-17 Results................................................................................................ V-19 Ridership Trend........................................................................................ V-21 Summary .................................................................................................V-22 VI ONBOARD SURVEY RESULTS................................................................... VI-1 Introduction .............................................................................................. VI-1 Methodology.............................................................................................. VI-1 Survey Findings ........................................................................................ VI-1 Demographic Characteristics................................................................ VI-1 Age and Gender.................................................................................... VI-2 Vehicle Availability ............................................................................... VI-2 Annual Household Income.................................................................... VI-4 Occupation........................................................................................... VI-5 Ethnicity.............................................................................................. VI-7 Source of Information........................................................................... VI-7 Trip Characteristics.............................................................................. VI-8 Blocks Willing to Walk.......................................................................... VI-9 Perceptions about Ridgecrest Transit .................................................... VI-9 Ridership Frequency........................................................................... VI-10 Reason for Riding ............................................................................... VI-11 Scheduled Service .............................................................................. VI-12 Additional Comments ........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inyokern Airport
    67269_GGCaseStdy_InyokernAirpt.qxd 6/19/07 2:42 PM Page 1 REINFORCED ASPHALT OVERLAY GG09 INYOKERN AIRPORT Site Conditions: The runway was becoming INYOKERN, CA extremely oxidized and brittle because of the harsh climate. The surface layer included thermal, alligator, transverse and longitudinal cracks with Application: The Indian Wells Valley District many of the transverse cracks up to 1 in. wide. airport authority operates Inyokern Airport The airport authority was concerned that these in a remote corner of the Mojave High Desert. defects might affect aircraft movement and safety. STUDY This airport is designed to land almost any class of aircraft. In 1995 the airport authority needed Alternative Solution: The airport authority to rehabilitate one of its runways in order to considered adding a thicker overlay to the runway, maintain this capability. however, this approach would have been very expensive. Experience also suggested that this The Challenge: The Mojave High Desert climate approach would provide only a temporary solution experiences sudden and extreme temperature since thermal stresses were likely to cause the shifts. Inyokern’s highest recorded monthly thermal cracks to reflect back through to the average temperature is 103°F in July and the surface at an approximate rate of 1 in. per year. lowest monthly average temperature is 30°F in January. The high thermal stresses resulted in The Solution: The GlasGrid® Pavement CASE serious cracking and degradation in the surface Reinforcement System was recommended as of Runway 15-33. a lower cost, longer lasting alternative to the installation of a thicker overlay. Reinforcing the runway with GlasGrid® 8501 would produce a strong interlayer solution capable of resisting the migration of reflective cracking.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release Granite Awarded Two Airport
    PRESS RELEASE GRANITE AWARDED TWO AIRPORT PROJECTS IN ALASKA AND CALIFORNIA TOTALING $15 MILLION Oct 26, 2020 WATSONVILLE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Granite (NYSE:GVA) announced that it has been awarded two airport projects totaling $15 million, one in Inyokern, California, and one in Anchorage, Alaska. The $9 million Inyokern Airport Reconstruct Runway 2-20 project has been awarded by the Indian Wells Valley Airport District. Granite is responsible for the removal and reconstruction of runway 2-20. The existing runway will be recycled onsite and used for 12,700 cubic yards of recycled base under the new runway. Granite’s new Solari and Big Rock construction materials facilities will supply hot mix asphalt and aggregate base for the project. This contract will be included in Granite’s fourth quarter 2020 backlog. “Granite looks forward to partnering with the Indian Wells Valley Airport District to revitalize Inyokern’s runway,” said Granite Regional Vice President Larry Camilleri. “This project is a significant win for our Solari and Big Rock facilities which will supply 30,000 tons of hot mix asphalt and 43,000 tons of aggregate base for this important project.” Construction is scheduled to begin in November 2020 and expected be complete in June 2021. In Alaska, construction for the Municipality of Anchorage’s $6 million 2020 Merrill Field Airport Improvements Rehabilitate Primary Access Road project is scheduled to begin in May 2021 and expected to be complete in October 2021. Granite will be responsible for the rehabilitation of 8,800 feet of Merrill Field Drive including the demolition and removal of existing pavement, unclassified excavation, dynamic compaction of soil and landfill waste, furnishing and installing 50,000 tons of classified fill, paving, sidewalk and curb ramp improvements, street lighting, apron lighting, fiber optic cable, and signage.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-19-172, Small Community Air Service Development
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters March 2019 SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT Process for Awarding Grants Could Be Improved GAO-19-172 March 2019 SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT Process for Awarding Grants Could Be Improved Highlights of GAO-19-172, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found Since fiscal year 2002, DOT has Some aspects of the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) process for awarded 401 SCASDP grants totaling evaluating fiscal year 2014–2016 grant applications for the Small Community Air approximately $188 million to improve Service Development Program (SCASDP) were inconsistent with its published air service to small airports. GAO was grant notices, which communicate the process for potential applicants, and with asked to review DOT’s award process its internal evaluation plan, which is used by reviewers to rate applications. In and the effectiveness of recent grants. addition, DOT followed or partially followed recommended practices for awarding This report, among other things, (1) discretionary grants. examines the extent to which DOT’s • Grant notice and evaluation plan: DOT’s process for evaluating process for awarding fiscal year 2014– application eligibility and merit differed from the process described in its 2016 grants (the most recent award cycles when GAO began its review) grant notices. For example, DOT’s notice stated that it would use the was consistent with its grant notices criteria that airports have either insufficient air service or unreasonably and recommended practices for high airfares to determine whether an application is eligible for a grant, awarding discretionary grants, and (2) but in practice, DOT used these criteria to evaluate an application’s examines the extent to which fiscal merit.
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life
    Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life JUNE 2003 PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS BY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Commercial/Primary (29) Metropolitan (20) Regional (66) Community (102) Limited Use (33) Joint Use — Military/Commercial (2) The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. This report was prepared with funds from a grant provided by the United States Government (80%) and funds from the State of California (20%). Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life FINAL REPORT Prepared for BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS Submitted by Economics Research Associates JUNE 2003 ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Nancy Benjamin Alan R. Tubbs Study Project Manager District Field Services Manager California Department of Transportation Airborne Express, Mather Field Division of Aeronautics Chuck Oldham R. Austin Wiswell Robert Chung Chief California Transportation Commission California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics Carl Williams Senior Policy Director Michael Armstrong California Space Authority, Inc. (CSA) Senior Lead Planner Southern California Association of Governments Bonnie Cornwall (SCAG) Program Manager Division
    [Show full text]
  • September, 1965
    SEPTEMBER, 1965 IlinetijUinu 71ms Jlfinety - (JJine <j\feu;s s c i u m i l TV I may retract my statement at a later California, for the charter of the new date, but as of now, I would like to Monterrey Bay Chapter of Ninety- thank all of you for the honor of being Nines. They had 18 charter members your president. Never dreamed, when with only two transfers, which means I became a Ninety-Nine twelve years we have 16 NEW 99s. Isn’t that great? SEPTEMBER, 1935 ago, I would be in this po:ition. How­ They also have two prospective mem­ ever, I am looking forward with enthu­ bers. They are such an enthusiastic Official Publication of siasm and great expectations to the group of women, I am sure they will be THE NINETY - NINES, Inc. coming year. a most successful chapter. Headquarters, Terminal Bldg. I am also pleased with the Executive RUTH DEERMAN presented the Will Rogers World Airport Board and the officers you chose to charter, PAT LAMBERT, governor of P. O. Box 99 serve with me and am sure, with your the Southwest Section, presented each Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 cooperation, our flight through 1935-66 member with her 99 pin, and I commis­ Headquarters Secretary will be a successful one. sioned the officers. Their new chapter CAROL CRAIG Several have asked me what my chairman is HELEN SHROPSHIRE. main proJect or goal will be and I have September is a busy, busy month . chosen COMMUNICATION. An organiz­ Editor hope all of you plan to attend your sec­ ation such as ours needs to be able to DOROTHY L.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Relationships
    2013 gavea E C O N O M I C GREATER ANTELOPE VALLEY R O U N D TA B L E ECONOMIC ALLIANCE R EPO RT BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH ECONOMICAL GROWTH Table of Contents Introduction The Greater Antelope Valley ■ INTR ODUCTION We are proud to support to the Greater Antelope Valley Economic Alliance and its mission – providing strong Area Profile 1 leadership in developing a business-friendly environment where businesses are encouraged to locate or expand in Map 1 the Antelope Valley. In our public-private partnerships, and with the cooperation of our residents, community groups and business ■ DEMOGRAPHICS organizations in our cities and unincorporated areas, the Alliance is leading the charge for new economic growth. Population Detail 2 Michael D. Antonovich Comparisons 3 LA County Supervisor Antelope Valley Cities 4-9 5th District Rural Areas 9 With 2012 over and 2013 ahead of us the Antelope Valley is seeing a positive change. We appear to finally be EC■ ONOMY coming out of The Great Recession with an increase in employment, retail sales, home values and a lower cost of Major Employers/Industries 10 living, a reduction in crime and low cost of doing business. These positive factors place the Antelope Valley in a Labor Market Study 10 prime position to be the answer to doing business in California. Average Wage by Sector 11 Employers are looking for a well educated and ready workforce and the Antelope Valley has great educational Cost of Doing Business 12 opportunities such as Antelope Valley College, CSU Bakersfield, and CSU Long Beach. The Antelope Valley is Enterprise Zone 13 already a world leader in Aerospace with companies like Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing Foreign Trade Zone 13 being located at Air Force Plant 42 and with Edwards Air Force Base as the home of NASA Dryden Flight Area Business Loans 14 Research Center and the 412th Test Wing.
    [Show full text]
  • President Salutes China Lake Four Vampires Pick Top Sailor
    - December 19, 1991 Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, california 93555-6001 Vol. XLVI, No. 51, December 19, 1991 President salutes China Lake four Commendations recognize contributions to the HARM low cost seeker development program By Barry McDonald awarded the Presidential Quality and Manage­ improved productivity and quality of Ser- Rocketeer Staff Writer ment Improvement Award for 1990. Estab­ vice." Good-natured fmger-pointing ranged from lished by President George Bush in 1989, the Hughes and Nalley were on-hand for the the President to the Director of Navy Labs, program provides recognition for outstanding presentation, Kyser was on leave and will Gerry Schiefer, and from SPAWAR to OPM, improvements in government operations, cost receive his award when he returns and Wal­ last Monday at the Commander's Meeting, for savings and services to the public. lace, who now worlc:s for private industry, will the time it took to acquire presidential award The commendation letters state, in part, "I receive his award by mail. plaques and letters of commendation for four am pleased to commend you for your dedica­ The award recognized the significant pr0- • Center employees. tion and exemplary service... for your cost-sav­ jected cost savings, $37 million, of the scien­ Richard Smith Hughes (Code 35205), J. ing work on the HARM (Low Cost Seeker tists' and engineers' efforts in designing three Patrick Nalley (Code 3649), Dr. David S. (LCS» missile system ... which contributed to analog integrated circuits (ICs), originally , Kyser (Code 3941) and Dean A. Wallace were the Federal Government's objectives of (Continued on Page 5) NWC seeking conservation • data in homes by Peggy Shoar 1 Rocketeer Staff Writer Water conservation is an important issue in California today, and the Naval Weapons Center wants to do its part.
    [Show full text]
  • Rehabilitation of Distressed Airport Pavements Using the Glasgrid® Pavement Reinforcement System to Mitigate Refl Ective Cracking
    Rehabilitation of Distressed Airport Pavements Using the GlasGrid® Pavement Reinforcement System to Mitigate Refl ective Cracking REFLECTIVE CRACKING Refl ective cracking in composite or asphalt pavements is typically caused by traffi c loading, age hardening, thermal cycling or Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) joint movement. The onset of such cracking generally signals the start of rapid pavement deterioration and an urgent need for rehabilitation. Failure to act on refl ective surface cracking in a timely The GlasGrid® System becomes the hidden strength in airport pavement structures. manner will result in permanent damage to the lower layers within the pavement and in time, the need for a The principal benefi ts of using the GlasGrid Pavement more costly replacement of the entire pavement Reinforcement System are as follows: structure. This problem is particularly troublesome in airport runways, taxiways and aprons where loadings Extension of Pavement Design Life – Field and from the aircraft can be extremely high. laboratory tests have demonstrated that the GlasGrid System can delay refl ective cracking in When refl ective cracking is present, the traditional overlays by three to fi ve times. remedy has been to apply thicker asphalt overlays. Less Disturbance – Extended pavement life equals However, this solution can be both disruptive and decreased maintenance in the future. expensive in the long-term; it is generally accepted that for every one (1) inch of overlay applied, existing Cost Effi cient Pavements – When overall life cycle refl ective cracks will be deterred from reaching the costs are considered, the GlasGrid System can surface for a period of one year.
    [Show full text]
  • Governance Structure Analysis — Humboldt County Aviation Division
    GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS HUMBOLDT COUNTY AIRPORTS DIVISION July 2017 Humboldt County Airports Division Governance Structure Analysis REPORT CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OVERVIEW 10 EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT GOVERNANCE 13 SUB-DIVISION OF PUBLIC WORKS 14 TIMELINES FOR PROJECT COMPLETION 16 CURRENT STAFFING LEVELS 18 BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY 21 AVIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE 22 AIRPORT GOVERNANCE IN CALIFORNIA 24 SUB-DEPARTMENTS OF COUNTIES/CITIES 26 DEPARTMENTS OF COUNTIES/CITIES 27 AIRPORT/PORT AUTHORITIES 29 AIRPORT/PORT DISTRICTS 30 DETAIL OF COUNTY DEPARTMENT GOVERNANCE 32 EXAMPLES: SAN LUIS OBISPO AND STOCKTON 33 DETAIL OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY GOVERNANCE 39 EXAMPLES: CRESCENT CITY AND BURBANK 41 DETAIL OF AIRPORT DISTRICT GOVERNANCE 47 EXAMPLES: MONTEREY AND SANTA MARIA 48 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE GOVERNANCE 55 GOAL ONE: CREATE AN AIRPORTS DEPARTMENT 57 GOAL TWO: HIRE A PROFESSIONAL AIRPORTS DIRECTOR 60 GOAL THREE: RE-EVALUATE AIRPORT STAFFING LEVELS 61 GOAL FOUR: RE-STRUCTURE THE AVIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE 63 GOAL FIVE: BETTER TENANT COMMUNICATION 64 APPENDIX ONE: MATRIX OF CALIFORNIA AIRPORTS AND GOVERNANCE 66 APPENDIX TWO: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT, BORDER COAST AIRPORT AUTHORITY 67 2 Humboldt County Airports Division Governance Structure Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Humboldt County commissioned Volaire Aviation Consulting to, “research, report and provide recommendations on the organizational and governance structures for the airports operated by the County.” The scope of work included a detailed analysis of several types of airport “VOLAIRE CONSULTANTS governance in California, including county departments and RESEARCHED THE GOVERNANCE sub-departments, airport authorities, and airport districts. OF ALL AIRPORTS AND AIRPORT SYSTEMS IN CALIFORNIA WITH Volaire consultants researched the governance of all airports CURRENT SCHEDULED AIRLINE SERVICE.” and airport systems in California with current scheduled airline service.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Department Operational and Administrative Analysis: Kern County
    CENTER OPERATIONALFOR PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT, AND LLC ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYSIS KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FINAL REPORT CENTER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGEMENT, LLC 475 K STREET NW, STE 702 • WASHINGTON, DC 20001 WWW.CPSM.US • 716-969-1360 Exclusive Provider of Public Safety Technical Services for 0 International City/County Management Association THE ASSOCIATION & THE COMPANY The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) is a 100-year-old, nonprofit professional association of local government administrators and managers, with approximately 9,000 members spanning thirty-two countries. Since its inception in 1914, ICMA has been dedicated to assisting local governments in providing services to their citizens in an efficient and effective manner. Our work spans all of the activities of local government — parks, libraries, recreation, public works, economic development, code enforcement, Brownfields, public safety, etc. ICMA advances the knowledge of local government best practices across a wide range of platforms including publications, research, training, and technical assistance. Its work includes both domestic and international activities in partnership with local, state, and federal governments as well as private foundations. For example, it is involved in a major library research project funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and is providing community policing training in Panama working with the U.S. State Department. It has personnel in Afghanistan assisting with building wastewater treatment plants and has had teams in Central America providing training in disaster relief working with SOUTHCOM. The ICMA Center for Public Safety Management (ICMA/CPSM) was one of four Centers within the Information and Assistance Division of ICMA providing support to local governments in the areas of police, fire, EMS, emergency management, and homeland security.
    [Show full text]
  • Revenue and Operational Impacts of Depeaking Flights at Hub Airports
    REVENUE AND OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF DEPEAKING FLIGHTS AT HUB AIRPORTS A Dissertation Presented to The Academic Faculty By Donald Samuel Katz In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology December, 2012 REVENUE AND OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF DEPEAKING FLIGHTS AT HUB AIRPORTS Approved by: Dr. Laurie A. Garrow, Advisor Dr. Jorge A. Laval School of Civil and Environmental School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Michael O. Rodgers Dr. Jeffrey P. Newman School of Civil and Environmental School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. Matthew J. Higgins Date Approved: November 6, 2012 Ernest Scheller Jr. School of Business Georgia Institute of Technology ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to show my gratitude to the professors at Georgia Tech who have helped me along the way in preparing my thesis work. My advisor Dr. Laurie Garrow has helped steer me in the right direction as I progressed through my project, aiding in getting me feedback from inside and outside the department, and scoping my project based on my interest. I would also like to thank Dr. Jorge Laval, Dr. Michael Rodgers, Dr. Jeffrey Newman, and Dr. Matthew Higgins for serving on my committee and providing helpful feedback to help make this project stronger. I am grateful to my Airport Cooperative Research Program Graduate Award panel members who graciously gave their time to review my work and meet to discuss my progress. Dr. Irina Ioachim, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
    4.9.3.2 Avigation Easement Dedication The owner of any property proposed for development (general plan amendments, zone changes, land division activities, new and modifications to existing use permits, site plan reviews, planned development reviews) within all Compatibility Zones (refer to Figure 4-4 IA), will be required to dedicate an avigation easement to the East Kern Airport District. 4.9.3.3 Other Flight Hazards New land uses (or the expansion of existing land uses) with activities which may produce hazards to aircraft in flight shall not be permitted within the Mojave Airport's influence area, as depicted on Figure 4-41. Specific characteristics to be avoided include: (1) Glare, distracting lights, or light patterns which could be mistaken for airport lights; (2) Sources of dust, steam, or smoke which may impair pilot visibility; (3) Sources of electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation; (4) Any use, especially landfills and certain agricultural uses, which may attract large flocks of birds, except in the Zone E; and (5) Any light or series of lights which may cause visual discomfort or loss of orientation during critical phases of flight. (6) Any future project with the capability of generating extended periods of airborne dust and particulate matter which may become a hazard within the Mojave Airport area of influence shall reviewed by the East Kern Airport District. Applications should include construction and operational information in sufficient detail to allow an impact analysis to be completed. Mitigation measures may be required as part of project review. (7) Commercial and/or industrial development at the new SR-58/Business 58 interchange and SR-58/SR- 14 interchange in the Mojave Specific plan shall specifically be reviewed for the following concerns: a) glare and distracting lights, b) sources of dust, steam, or smoke which may impact pilot visibility, and c) height and location of signs and structures.
    [Show full text]