Van Nuys Airport EIR Alternative A.

All Aviation Airport

Earth/Geology
Air Quality
Mobile Source Emissions
Stationary Source Emissions
Water
Plant Life
Animal Life
Noise
Construction
Light and Glare
Shadows
Land Use
Compatibility with Surrounding Uses (Physical)
Compatibility with Surrounding Uses (Functional)
Natural Resources
Risk of Upset
Population
Housing
Right of Way
Transportation

Public Services
Fire Protection
Police Services
Schools
Libraries

Utilities
Energy
Sewage/Sanitary
Solid Waste
Communications
Human Health
Hazardous Waste
Flood Plains/Storm Water
Prime or Unique Farmlands
Coastal Zone Management Program
Aesthetics
Recreation
Cultural Resources
Archaeological/Palaeontological Resources
Fiscal/Economic

A. Alternative A. All Aviation Airport

This alternative exceeds Master Plan Demand Forecasts by planning for a maximum of 185 new jets and 217 new helicopters based at Van Nuys Airport in the year 2015.

The all aviation alternative would assume the retention of approximately 115 acres located in the north and south aircraft approach zones based on observance of safety guidelines established by the FAA. Additionally, the FlyAway Bus Terminal (18 acres) with adjacent parking would be retained as an aviation related use to allow uninterrupted commuter service between Los Angeles International Airport and Van Nuys Airport. North and south approach zones are required by the FAA and therefore no effort would be made to eliminate or reduce the size of these areas. The FlyAway Bus Service is viewed as a quasi-public service and is a direct tie-in to Los Angeles International Airport commercial operations. Direct aviation uses such as aircraft under power, hangars and related uses would be prohibited on these areas.

Under this alternative, existing non-aviation airport tenant uses would be converted to aviation uses referred to by the 1949 Quit Claim Deed (Appendix F). Revenue generating uses that include the Home Depot, Pay Phone Systems, Superior Industries, Balboa Equipment and other existing non-aviation uses located on approximately 103 acres of airport land would be designated for aviation uses and require removal of non-aviation building uses. Airport sites that have previously been declared as unsuitable for aviation uses by the FAA would also be converted to aviation sites. Figure 50 shows the alternative land use areas.

This alternative would assume the demolition of approximately 920,000 square feet of commercial and industrial frame office, wholesale, retail, hotel, and other non-aviation buildings, unless aviation uses could be operated in existing non-aviation buildings. Demolition of buildings would be conducted by prospective aviation tenants desirous of leasing an airport site.

This alternative assumes that the Department of Airports would not provide relocation assistance or compensation to existing tenants for the closure and removal of non-aviation uses.

Development parameters established for the proposed project (.30 FAR, 1-2 story development) were used to determine maximum floor area amounts for the alternative. Approximately 2,822,688 square feet of new aviation floor area could be developed on 216 acres of land. This development acreage amount would consist of the existing 113 vacant acres and the 103 acres that now support non-aviation uses.

This alternative assumes that approximately 1/3 of the 103 acres occupied by existing non-aviation tenants would be designated for exclusive use by each of the three major aircraft categories (jets, helicopters, and pistons). Although it is unlikely that based aircraft operators will exceed the demand forecast, in order to evaluate a worst-case scenario, it is assumed that additional based aircraft and operations will be generated proportional to the aviation land made available. (See Tables 101 and 102). The following tables show worst-case based aircraft and operating conditions that could occur under full-build out.

Figure 50 - Alternative "A" Land Use Areas.

If fully implemented, this alternative would be expected to cause adverse land use and economic impacts for existing non-aviation tenants and off-airport businesses that derive a principal source of their income from Van Nuys Airport. The following environmental consequences would be expected to occur in 2015. Return to index

Earth/Geology

The alternative would anticipate moderate upgrading of infrastructure or services, to accommodate the development of new hangar and aviation buildings. All development sites are fairly level and would not require extensive grading, excavation or earth removal. The probability of ground ruptures, liquefaction, land slopes and other geologic events is extremely low at the airport based on the depth of groundwater. Groundwater in the vicinity of the airport is reported to vary from approximately 200 feet below the ground surface at the north end to approximately 100 feet below the ground surface at the south end. Ground shaking intensity decreases approximately one intensity unit with an increase in depth to groundwater from 0 to 30 feet (Evernden and Thomson, 1985). Soils in the area are too dense and fine-grained for liquefaction to occur in the absence of shallow groundwater. Development of buildings with features that exceed state and local seismic safety design standards such as equipment tie downs, will significantly reduce the likelihood of serious and fatal accidents from ground shaking.

The alternative will require demolition of approximately 920,000 square feet of non-aviation floor area. According to construction estimates provided by the Department of Airports Engineering Bureau and the Los Angeles Building and Safety Department, the construction process will require project grading and removal of earth and concrete to allow construction activities. Earth and soils conditions similar to the proposed project would be anticipated.. Return to index

Air Quality

The major sources of aircraft air pollution are identified on Table 103. As shown on Table 103, approximately 22,127 pounds of carbon monoxide, 7,259 pound of nitrogen oxides and 13,772 pounds of hydrocarbons (total organic gas), would be created by aircraft operations associated with this alternative. As can be expected with a significant increase in airport operations, aircraft emissions would almost double the amounts predicted for the proposed project.

Additional reductions in aircraft pollution can be achieved by modifying ground operations taxiing and idling modes. Several measures recognized by EPA to reduce aircraft emissions include the following:

Increase engine speed during idle and taxi operations,

Increase engine speed and reduce the number of engines operating during idle and taxi. This measure reduces emissions by causing a decrease in the fuel flow rate,

Reduce idle operation time by controlling departure times,

Reduce operating time of aircraft auxiliary power supply by providing ground-based power supply. This measure requires a centralized ground power unit which may allow for more efficient emission control.

Use of various degreasing agents used in aircraft cleanup represent a small emissions source. Alternative materials should be considered to minimize or eliminate this source.

The primary source of ground air emissions would be carbon monoxide. The impact of carbon monoxide would be localized and would generally correspond to automobile, bus and taxi cab traffic patterns. The impact of hydrocarbons would be more regional, since hydrocarbons created during vehicle idle mode are a precursor to the formation of photochemical smog.

When the net change in surface traffic and aircraft operations are taken into account, the alternative would exceed SCAQMD Threshold Criteria and proposed project pollution amounts for total organic gas, reactive organic compounds, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and particulate 10 microns. The following air pollution amounts would occur from alterative development.

Total Organic Gas - The alternative will result in a total net change in TOG emissions greater than that of the Proposed Project. While the total emissions from the project is 602 pounds per day, emissions from Alternative A is 5,343 pounds.

Reactive Organic Compounds - The project will result in a total net change of 554 pounds of ROG emissions per day. This is less than emissions from the alternative, which will result in a total net change of daily ROG emissions of 4,916.

Carbon Monoxide -The alternative will result in a total net change in daily carbon monoxide emissions greater than that of the project. The total net change in daily CO emissions from the project will be 1,756 pounds, while the alternative will be 7,894.

Nitrogen Oxides - While the total net change in Nitrogen Oxides emissions from the project will be 364 pounds per day, this alternative will result in greater net changes. The alternative will result in a total net change of 2,733 pounds per day.

Sulphur Dioxide - The project will result in a total net change of 11 pounds of SOX emissions per day. The alternative will result in lower SOX emissions than that of the project. The daily total net change for Alternative A will be a net reduction of -20 pounds.

Particulate 10 Microns - The alternative will result in a total net change of daily PM₁₀emissions less than the 17 pounds for the project. The daily PM₁₀emissions net change resulting from Alternative A will be a net reduction of -31 pounds.

Some short term air quality impacts would be likely to occur given the level of demolition and construction. Since no actual construction plans have been developed for inclusion in the Master Plan, construction estimates are still very preliminary. Based on information provided by the Department of Airports, an estimated 930,939 cubic yards of concrete and 74,474 cubic yards of dirt would be removed from the airport to allow project development. It is preliminarily estimated that a 100 truck fleet (15-20 yards capacity per truck) would be required for this alternative development. It is estimated that approximately 11,082 cubic yards of concrete and 887 cubic yards of dirt would be removed per day. This would result in 554-739 truck loads of concrete and 44-59 truck loads of dirt per 8-hour day (69-92 truck loads of concrete per hour and 44-59 truck loads of dirt per hour). Tables 104 and 105 show the preliminary construction phases, duration and equipment likely to be used during each phase.

Operation of the alternative development would result in increased stationary source emissions that would include the consumption of natural gas, and the consumption of electricity. An additional 20.37 kwh of electricity would be consumed on site and an additional 72.45 cf of natural gas would be consumed. Table 106 shows stationary source estimates for the alternative uses.

As shown on Table 107 when the net change in surface traffic, aircraft operations and stationary emissions are taken into account, the alternative would provide the following air pollution amounts in relation to SCAQMD Threshold and proposed project amounts.

. Return to index

Water

As described in the project analysis, under a worst-case scenario the daily water usage amount is calculated as 120 percent greater than the daily sewage amount. Daily water amounts for the alternative are shown on Table 108. The existing uses on the airport consume an estimated 178,390 gallons per day (gpd). The alterative would require demolition of approximately 920,000 square feet of non-aviation floor area that consumed approximately 69,000 gallons of water per day of water in 1995. The construction of 2,822,688 square feet of new aviation related floor area would occur. At full build-out in the year 2015, the airport would require approximately 321,091 gallons of water per day. A net increase of 142,701 gallons of water per day would occur. The 2015 water consumption amount represents less than .050 of the daily water consumption amount in the City of Los Angeles. Based on some extensions of existing water lines, the Department of Water and Power should be able to adequately serve the site. Water impacts would not be considered significantly adverse.

. Return to index

Plant Life

This alternative would consist of adoption of a Master Plan with goals, objectives and policies to improve airport compatibility with surrounding land uses. The proposal will not result in a change to the abundance of any plant or flora. No new species of flora would be introduced to the airport. No significant impacts would be expected to occur.

Wetlands that provide valuable wildlife habitat play an important role in the ecosystem of wild vegetation and plants. Since many birds and prey feed on plants and animals that nest in wetlands, the avoidance of such uses is generally a priority of airports. Van Nuys Airport does not contain wetland areas or plant life that are endangered. Only a few native species of plants have survived along areas that do not contain pavement or structures. No adverse impact is anticipated because any future development would occur on areas that now contain pavement or where native species have been removed and replaced with nonnative plants and landscaping. The proposed project would not result in substantial alteration of the present land form as it relates to plant and animal species development. Landscaped open space would vary for each alternative. In general open space would be urban in character, with lawns, shrubs, trees, gardens, and recreational open fields, rather than natural and untended. Open space plant heights would be maintained at a ground level height to prevent birds and other animals from feeding, roosting and breeding in those areas.. Return to index

Animal Life

No significant impacts would be expected to occur. Development of vacant airport areas would not significantly affect the nonnative animals previously noted on areas of the airport, since open space, landscaping and greenbelt areas will be maintained for development on the airport.

No rare or endangered animal species have been identified within the project area. The airport’s urban character and lack of vegetation limit its existing value to wildlife. Nonnative species such as pigeon, European starling, domestic cats and dogs and house sparrows are the most common type of animals found on the airport. Other animals that have been observed on the airport include the black rat, roof rat, house mouse, and pocket gopher, all common to urban open space in the San Fernando Valley. Development of vacant airport areas would not significantly affect the non-native and native animals observed on areas of the airport, since open space, landscaping and greenbelt areas will be maintained for all development on the airport. No rare or endangered fish inhabit the airport.. Return to index

Noise

Projected 65 CNEL noise impacts associated with this alternative would cover approximately .92 square miles, including 187 dwelling units and a population of 451 persons. The fleet mix serving VNY in 2015 would be expected to consist primarily of Stage 3 compliant aircraft. A decrease in the noise affected area is anticipated. This alternative assumes that Stage 2 aircraft that are 30-35 years in age would be retired by 2015 and, therefore, noise contour maps were based on 5-6% Stage 2 aircraft and 94% Stage 3 aircraft. In 1995, Stage 2 aircraft represented about 42% of the based aircraft. Despite a smaller noise contour area shown for 2015, this alternative would still be expected to produce a substantially larger noise contour than that shown for the proposed project. Figure 51 shows the noise contour and location of residential uses in relation to the airport.

As noted, the 65 CNEL contour would extend an area of .92 square miles compared to .77 for the proposed project. Since the alternative would cause a reduction of the existing 1.62 square mile contour, this alternative’s aircraft noise impact would be considered less than significantly adverse.

As shown on Table 109, a total of 59 single family and 128 multiple family residential dwelling units would be expected to be affected by implementation of this alternative.

Figure 51 Alternative "A" 2015 Year Noise Contour.

. Return to index

Construction noise

Construction noise would be subject to the City’s Noise Regulation, Sections 111.04 to 114.07 of the Municipal Code and the Construction and Equipment Standards of the Building and Safety Municipal Code. Building and Safety Code Section 41.4 prohibits construction activities between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and Article 2, Section 112 of the Code further restricts construction equipment noise increases to 5 decibels above the existing noise level. As shown below, use of construction equipment noise during specific phases would increase more than 5 decibels. It is only when construction activities are located near the center of development sites, that construction noise levels would fall below the 5 decibel threshold level. Construction activities would cause temporary increases in ambient noise levels near airport boundaries. These activities are short term in duration and therefore are not considered long term significantly adverse impacts.

Table 110 shows typical construction noise levels that would occur during various project development phases.

Localized noise levels would potentially increase to intrusive levels for residents located near exterior airport boundaries. However, with use of construction barricades and measures that impose use restrictions on certain equipment, such as pneumatic tools, construction impacts would be significantly reduced.

Table 111 indicates the Day-Night Noise levels that would result from traffic associated with the proposed project at representative locations within the project vicinity.

Intersection noise level measurements were conducted by Department of Airports Facilities Planning Bureau staff on June 24, 1996 and again on June 26, 1996. Estimates were then projected based on the amount of proposed development, hours of operation, traffic levels, length of trip, trip origin and destination.

Estimates were based on the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, RD-77-108, 1978. Speed assumption was 30 mph for local streets and arterials. Speed on major arterials is assumed to be 40 mph. Automobile distribution assumed 80 percent during the day and 20 percent during the evening and night. Medium and heavy trucks - 85 percent day and 15 percent evening and night. The percent of automobiles in daily traffic was assumed to be 97 percent, medium trucks were assumed to be 2 percent and heavy trucks 1 percent.

Ground vehicle noise level changes that are less than 3 decibels are not discernible by the human ear. To obtain a 3 decibel increase in noise requires that traffic volumes must increase by 100 percent. Daily traffic volumes for this alternative would decrease by 48 percent. Therefore, as shown on Table 110, no noise level increases would occur when comparing future conditions with and without the alternative. Ground surface noise would be considered less than significant. According to CEQA definitions regarding significant effect on the environment, this alternative would not cause a long term substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.. Return to index

Light and Glare

Development of vacant sites in the Master Plan would require the demolition of some existing improvements that now buffer or block residential uses from light sources. However, the proposed development that would be expected to replace existing improvements would contain similar heights and exterior walls that would also shield adjacent land uses from intrusive light sources. The alternative would not produce new light or glare from street lights or other sources, nor reduce access to sunlight by adjacent properties due to shade and shadow. Exterior lights used in runway, taxiway and approach areas would not be affected by this development.

Since a preliminary building design does not exist for the alternative, the type of building materials and degree of lighting have not been determined. However, with implementation of proposed mitigation measures, no significant impacts should occur.. Return to index

Land Use

This alternative would consist of an all aviation development for the entire 730 acre airport, including 113 vacant acres. The proposal would consist of approximately 2.8 million square feet of new aviation floor space constructed on areas adjacent to runway, taxiway, open space and perimeter airport streets.

Although the alternative would reinforce aviation uses located on the airport, competition and conflict with existing FBOs and nearby residential, commercial and industrial uses could occur, depending on the number of based aircraft, types of aircraft flown, location of aircraft maintenance, etc. The land use proposal would include enough acreage to support 8-10 new Fixed Base Operators (FBOs),185 new jets and 217 new helicopters. Fuel costs, maintenance repair costs and other services typically provided by existing fixed based operators could decline based on competition and availability of services provided by the additional number of FBOs. Annual revenue amounts generated by other airport related firms would very likely decline. Unstable employment conditions could occur due to the need for FBO’s and other tenants to reduce overhead and personnel costs in order to remain competitive. The expansion of aircraft operations in excess of the forecasted aircraft demand could eventually lead to higher tenant vacancy turnover and under a worst case scenario could force the closure or relocation of many long term aviation operators.

Financial revenues that translate into increased payrolls, state and local taxes, new jobs and other expenditures would be indefinitely delayed or jeopardized by uncertainty about long term existence of FBOs. The airport’s ability to generate revenues needed to fund runway, taxiway and other airfield improvements would be adversely impacted.

This alternative would not comply with community plans that show non-aviation development on certain areas of the airport. This plan would comply with M2 zoning code provisions. This proposal would conflict with the City’s Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Noise.

This proposal would also conflict with the City’s land use compatibility guidelines by potentially decreasing safety and nonintrusive uses for adjacent residential dwelling units and businesses. The development of aviation uses and aircraft under power on all 730 acres (with the exception of the north and south approach areas, and the FlyAway) would eliminate or reduce to an unacceptable level the physical separation between aviation hangars and land use sensitive residential uses. Generally, community planning encourages a physical separation between more intense uses and less intense uses. This can be accomplished by creating commercial or less intense industrial buffer development zones between intense and less intense land uses. This alternative would eliminate commercial and industrial airport uses and therefore would not provide a physical buffer or separation between intense aviation uses and less intense residential uses.

The proximity of aircraft to exterior airport boundaries could result in noise, safety and air quality impacts for adjacent land uses.

Public health, welfare and safety of persons near the airport could be jeopardized by operation of aircraft under power near residential dwelling units. Exposure of residents to increased localized aviation hazards, noise, air emissions and accidents could occur.. Return to index

Compatibility with Surrounding Uses (Physical)

The alternative would not ensure airport physical compatibility with surrounding uses since it would be expected to generate potentially significant localized single event noise impacts, ambient air quality impacts and increased aviation aesthetic impacts near side residential streets. The project could alter the long term use and viability of existing commercial, industrial and residential uses located near the airport.. Return to index

Compatibility with Surrounding Uses (Functional)

The alternative would result in the significant alteration of present and planned land uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The reduced physical separation between the airport and surrounding land uses could force many residents and commercial tenants to relocate or abandon existing uses. Intrusive noise, traffic and air quality would potentially affect turnover and long term use of surrounding properties.. Return to index

Natural Resources

This alternative would be expected to consume less energy resources than the proposed project. Full development of the land use alternative would be expected to allow the following square footage of new cost use amounts; 2,238,391 square feet of aviation hangar floor area, 282,269 square feet of aviation office floor area and 302,028 square feet of aviation maintenance floor area. Energy consumption impacts of this alternative would be associated with short term construction and the long term operational uses.

Short term construction equipment uses would result in fossils fuel consumption. The total amount of diesel fuel used by construction equipment is estimated to be approximately 826,848 thousand gallons for all phases of construction. This number was calculated based on use of the following assumptions:

A maximum of 80 pieces of construction equipment used during all phases of construction

Construction occurring over a 2-3 year period (261 days per year)

Construction equipment operating 8 hours per day, and

Construction equipment using an average of 1.65 gallons of diesel fuel per hour

The alternative’s diesel fuel usage would represent less than 0.01 percent of the 3.3 billion gallons of diesel fuel consumed annually in California (Excise Tax Board 1993).

Construction employees use of automobiles to and from the construction site would also result in additional energy consumption. It is estimated that approximately up to 100 passenger vehicles would be used by construction workers for commuting to and from airport sites during each phase. Construction workers are estimated to travel approximately 20 miles per day, during the 2-3 years of construction. Assuming the average gas mileage per vehicle is 17 miles per gallon, the estimated amount of gasoline required is approximately 91,611 gallons for the maximum 3 years of construction. It is estimated that the annual amount of gasoline consumed in Los Angeles County is approximately 3.14 billion gallons (Lusk, T., 1992). The alternative would therefore consume less than 0.01 percent of the annual total. Gasoline and diesel fuel consumption impacts during construction would be adverse but not considered significant.

Use of jet fuel, diesel fuel and gasoline by aircraft and ground vehicles during project operation would increase energy needs associated with increased aircraft operations. Calculated data provided by LADOA on jet, helicopter and other aircraft fuel amounts per month was used in conjunction with total annual aircraft operations to determine the total gallons required per day.

At the maximum build out, it is estimated that 21.41 million gallons of jet fuel would be required per year. This represents an increase of 14.75 million gallons per year of jet fuel over 1995 jet operations. Although this is a fairly significant increase of aircraft fuel usage, it is substantially smaller than aircraft fuel requirements for other airports operated by LADOA and in the region. Total helicopter fuel use would increase from about .38 million gallons per year to about 2.27 million gallons per year. The increased aircraft fuel requirements would represent a small percentage of regional fuel consumption and therefore would not be significantly adverse.

The proposed project’s energy analysis estimated that 2.50 million gallons of ground vehicle gasoline would be consumed per year at maximum build out. This amount is based on a travel distance of 10 miles per vehicle and 17 miles per gallon of gasoline. When the same factors are applied to the alternative, the existing automobile fuel usage would decrease by 4.42 million gallons per the existing year. At full buildout, vehicle associated fuel use for new and existing development would consume 4.77 million gallons per year of fuel.

Table 112 shows the airport total consumption for 2015 for Alternative A. Jet fuel, diesel fuel and gasoline requirements for the alternative are considered nonsignificant.

The alternative would result in a maximum increase of 2,229,924 square feet of new aviation hangar floor area, 282,269 square feet of new aviation office floor area and 302,028 square feet of new aviation maintenance floor area. The existing airport uses consume approximately 20.99 millions of kwh of electricity per year. As shown on Table 113, the alternative would consume about 20.37 millions of kwh of electricity per year. At full build-out following demolition of non-aviation building uses and completion of new aviation development, the entire airport would consume about 27.36 millions of kwh per year. A net increase of 6.99 kwh per year would occur. The Department of Water and Power would be responsible for providing electricity to the airport and does not anticipate a problem for the area.

The Southern California Gas Company maintains extensive gas distribution stations throughout Van Nuys. Gas supply systems to the proposed development sites are located beneath the airport. The existing airport uses consume 65.95 million cf per year. The development proposed under this alternative would consume 72.45 million cf of gas per year. (See Table 114). This alternative would require demolition of about 920,000 sq. ft. of non-aviation floor area uses that now consume about 39.61 million cf of gas. At full build out (and following demolition of the 920,000 square feet of non-aviation floor area), the airport would consume approximately 98.79 million cf of gas per year. The Gas Company does not anticipate problems in serving the area.

In an effort to reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy resources, Title XVIV of the California Administrative Code establishes energy conservation standards for new buildings constructed in the State. This article requires inclusion of energy conservation features relating to efficient lighting, use of natural gas for heating and cooking, installation of ventilation devices, solar orientation, landscaping, weather stripping, caulking, insulation requirements, and double glazed windows in building design and construction. All new construction at VNY should exceed these standards when determined feasible by the Department and LADWP.

Combined consumption of electricity, gas and fossil fuels would be considered less than significant adverse impacts according to CEQA Section 21068.. Return to index

Risk of Upset

Aircraft related accidents associated with all alternatives is considered extremely low. This alternative would be anticipated to result in a nonsignificant adverse level of serious or fatal aircraft accidents. However, based on the number of new jets and helicopters projected for this alternative, and the location of aviation uses in close proximity to residential, commercial and industrial uses, this alternative would be more likely to result in an aircraft accident than the proposed project and other alternatives that contain fewer aircraft operations.

Based on historical and current accident information obtained from NTSB and the FAA, the percentage or probability of accidents at VNY is considered extremely low. Between 1986 and 1995, there were no fatal on airport accidents. The emergence of more sophisticated aircraft with computerized flight tracking capabilities will continue to reduce the potential for accidents to occur. When historical and current accident rates are applied to this alternative, no serious to fatal accidents per 100,000 aircraft operations would be projected to occur at VNY in 2015. Although aircraft accidents cannot be completely avoided at the airport, based on historical accident rates, significant adverse aircraft impacts can be reasonably reduced through implementation of mitigation measures.. Return to index

Population

The alternative includes changes to on-airport aircraft operations and would not include the construction of housing and will not directly generate new residential populations. Currently VNY accounts for direct employment of an estimated 3,480 persons. At full build-out, the alternative would generate an estimated 1,680 on airport jobs a net loss of 1,800 from 1995 employment positions. This daytime transient population would primarily reside in areas of the San Fernando Valley. Many of these employment positions would be filled by persons that are now employed and residing in the area and have previously been accounted for in population and housing growth projections. Significant adverse impacts are not anticipated to occur from the daytime transient population.. Return to index

Housing

The alternative does not include construction of additional housing and will not result in a direct impact to the existing housing stock. The additional aircraft at Van Nuys Airport would not be expected to cause a demand for new housing units. Aircraft owners, employees and other airport tenants have already been accounted for in regional population and housing growth projections. Significant adverse impacts are not anticipated to occur.. Return to index

Right of Way

This alternative would generate fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project and other alternatives that show commercial and industrial uses. The reduced number of daily vehicle trips would lessen potential intersection and right of way impacts. The alternative would not be expected to significantly increase right of way impacts for other vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. Vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access to the airport would be provided.. Return to index

Transportation

This alternative would generate 20,961 fewer average daily vehicle trips than the existing uses. As shown on Table 115, AM and PM peak hour trips in and out of the site would decline based on traditionally non-peak hour aircraft daily operations.

The Department of Transportation considers a project to have a significant impact when a Level of Service (LOS) increase of .01 occurs at an intersection. A LOS reduction will occur for all intersections and significant traffic impacts will therefore not occur.. Return to index

Public Services

The adequacy of fire protection for a given area is based on required fire-flow, response distance from existing fire stations and the Fire Department’s judgment for needs in the area. In general, the required fire flow is closely related to land use. The quantity of water necessary for fire protection varies with the type of development, life hazard, occupancy and the degree of fire hazard. In addition to these factors, the adequacy of on-site fire suppression is based on the ability of the Fire Department to successfully navigate the project’s access and internal circulation, as well as the provision and strategic placement of on-site suppression systems.

An all aviation alternative would be expected to generate a low daytime population density. As previously noted, 1,034 jobs would be added by 2015. Typically, use of aircraft hangars, storage and maintenance areas result in fewer jobs than commercial and industrial uses. Fire Department protection of the airport would primarily relate to fire incidents originating from storage of aircraft, storage of fuel, storage of cleaning and maintenance materials, etc. Aircraft employees are often certified in fire suppression and handling of flammable materials.

The Fire Department has estimated that an all aviation alternative would require a fire-flow of approximately 9,000 gpm fire-flow. Based on this requirement, the first due engine company should be located within a 1.0 mile radius of a development site and the first truck company should be within a 1.5 mile radius.

Several airport sites are located outside of the station radius. However, given the present configuration, use of the airport and previous fire protection services provided to uses that occupied vacant airport sites, the alternative development of these sites should not create a significant demand for services that exceeds previous fire department capabilities. The LAFD has noted that intersections with Levels of Service (LOS) E or F will likely cause an adverse impact on fire protection services.

With the exception of the Air National Guard sites, the Fire Department considers the existing water lines, and Department capabilities to be adequate for providing fire protection services under this alternative. Some improvements to one perimeter 8" water line that now serves the Air National Guard site may be required to permit fire protection of buildings and daytime employees on that site.

With mitigation, Fire Department impacts would be reduced but not completely eliminated.. Return to index

Police Services

The alternative would not increase the residential population of the area. The daytime population is estimated to decline by 1,800 persons at full build-out to 1,680 persons. The demand for police services would not be expected to increase based on primary use of sites for aircraft hangars, aircraft storage, aircraft maintenance and aircraft fuel facilities. Theft, destruction or damage to aircraft facilities and employee vehicles and property seldom occurs and, therefore, this all aviation alternative would be expected to result in fewer police service requests than the proposed project that includes some office and industrial uses.

Based on the City of Los Angeles EIR Manual for Private Projects (1978) formula for determining police level of service requirements (1 officer per 300 persons), the loss of 1,800 new jobs shown for the alternative would not require employment of additional full-time police officers. Many of the existing street intersections located within 2 miles of the airport currently operate at E or F levels. Since the alternative produces fewer daily vehicle trips than the existing airport uses, the flow of traffic at all intersections would improve.. Return to index

Schools

This alternative like the proposed project and many other alternatives would not include construction or operation of school facilities on the airport. A review of noise exposure maps prepared for the alternative, indicated that there would be no existing or planned public schools located in the 65 CNEL noise impact area. The closest schools are the Stagg Street and the Cohasset Street Schools located approximately 1,350 feet and 1,575 feet respectively from the airport. The noise contour created by operation of aircraft under this alternative would not extend over an identified school site. Air quality and traffic impacts would not interfere with the normal use of schools. The alternative would not result in significant adverse aircraft noise, air quality or accident impacts to existing school facilities or school age children.. Return to index

Libraries

The alternative development will not directly increase the residential population of the project area. Any additional demand for library facilities or uses could be served by the existing system of libraries. The environmental impact is anticipated to be less than significant.. Return to index

Energy

Climatic conditions in the South Coast Air Basin in which the airport is located are characterized by moderate winters and warm, dry summers. These conditions result in a low energy demand for structural heating and air conditioning. Energy uses would be expected to increase based on fossil fuels used for transportation needs and facility lighting.

The alternative would result in a maximum increase of 2,238,391 square feet of new aviation hangar floor area, 282,269 square feet of new aviation office floor area and 302,028 square feet of new aviation maintenance floor area. At full build-out, 27.36 million kwh of electricity per year would be consumed. New development would require about 20.37 million kwh per year and existing uses would require about 6.99 million kwh per year. The Department of Water and Power would be responsible for providing electricity to the airport and does not anticipate a problem in serving the area.

The Southern California Gas Company maintains extensive gas distribution stations throughout Van Nuys. Gas supply systems to the proposed development sites are located beneath the airport. At full build-out, the airport would consume 110.40 millions cf of natural gas per year. The new development uses would require 72.45 million cf per year and existing uses would require about 37.95 million cf.

The relatively large population of the area results in a need to maintain a substation nearby for transportation and lighting purposes. (Stationary source impacts are discussed under Air Quality). The majority of the fuels used at VNY are provided via pipeline directly from the major refineries located within the Basin and supplemented by independent sources trucked to the airport. Total aircraft fuel consumption associated with this alternative would be about 45,589 gallons per day or 16.64 millions of gallons per year. Ground vehicles fuel consumption is projected to decline from 9.20 million gallons per year to 4.77 million gallons per year in 2015.. Return to index

Utilities

Sewage/Sanitary

This alternative would generate less sewage and solid waste than the proposed project. Sewage generated by the airport is treated by the Hyperion Treatment Plant located in Playa Del Rey, directly southwest of the Los Angeles International Airport. The HTP treats wastewater from almost all of the City of Los Angeles as well as several contract cities including Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, El Segundo, Glendale, San Fernando and portions of Los Angeles County. These neighboring cities are under contract to Los Angeles to participate in the cost of having their wastewater treated at the City’s facility.

As shown in Table 116, the alternative is estimated to generate 169,361 gallons of sewage per day. Existing development on the site is estimated to generate 142,711 gallons per day. Total sewage (that excludes sewage generated by demolished uses) would be about 248,024 gallons per day in 2015. The existing sewer lines that run under the airport and beneath perimeter streets have adequate capacity to serve the airport and all alternatives. However, new development and growth in the HTP service areas could constrict existing sewer capacity limits until HTP upgrades are completed.

Eventually, capacity for future City and contract city growth will be provided through construction of additional modules at treatment and reclamation plants. Until construction is completed around 1998, any new development would be considered adverse. The HTP module and primary treatment plant construction projects will be completed in 1-2 years and airport uses could thereafter be adequately serviced and considered less than significant. Long term significant adverse impacts are not anticipated to occur.

. Return to index

Solid Waste

Solid waste collection and disposal services are provided by the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Sanitation Division. Refuse collected from the airport is hauled to one of several landfills located in Los Angeles County. The airport currently generates approximately 8,087 pounds of solid waste per day. This alternative includes the demolition of 920,000 square feet of existing non-aviation floor area and therefore solid waste amounts would be reduced to 4,693 pounds per day, as shown on Table 117. Assuming a conservative solid waste generation factor of 6 pounds per thousand square feet of office floor area, 3 pounds per thousand square feet for hangar floor area and 5 pounds per thousand square feet of miscellaneous (maintenance) floor area, the alternative development and existing airport uses would generate an estimated 14,612 pounds of solid waste per day. The net increase would be 6,525 pounds of trash per day.

Solid waste generated by the alternative development would contribute to the exhaustion of several local landfills. However, the alternative development would represent only a fraction of other development and uses that are currently depleting available landfill capacity. Conformance with state mandated solid waste programs (AB 939) will ensure diversion of 25-50% of the sites solid waste. This incremental impact would represent an unavoidable adverse impact.. Return to index

Communications

Telephone communication systems for the City of Los Angeles are provided by Pacific Bell Corporation. Pacific Bell maintains an extensive aerial and underground distribution system located near the project site. Pacific Bell has indicated that the alternative development could be adequately served by the existing communications system. Underground installation of utility lines would be a Building and Safety Code requirement for new development. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated to occur.

. Return to index

Human Health

Human response to aircraft noise is extremely subjective. Although this alternative would potentially contribute to annoyance and intrusive single event noise near perimeter airport streets, the noise contour exposure size and number of exposed the number of dwelling units would decrease. Fewer residents would be exposed to severe aircraft noise. Based on CEQA definitions and EPA findings relative to significant health impacts, no significant human health impacts would be expected to occur.. Return to index

Hazardous Waste

The alternative would be expected to generate higher amounts of hazardous waste than the proposed project. Aviation uses that include storage of jet fuel and other materials above ground and underground would be expected to generate new amounts of hazardous waste. The estimated amounts of hazardous waste cannot be determined until the alternative is refined further to identify actual tenants and number of tenant aircraft.

However, development of the California Air National Guard sites, and Woodley/Volpar site would require depth testing to determine the extent of soils contamination identified during previous sampling of these sites. Based on historical patterns of use, in the year 2015, aviation tenants would be expected to generate hazardous materials in excess of 1995 levels shown for the project. However, with conformance with federal, state and regional hazardous materials collection, handling, and disposal procedures, potential significant adverse impacts should be reduced to a level of nonsignificance.. Return to index

Flood Plains/Storm Water

The alternative would be expected to generate about the same amount of water runoff as the proposed project. The all aviation alternative would not alter present land forms shown on the airport and would not affect the configuration of existing drainage areas. Runoff channels for the site would be similar to existing development and at full build out runoff as a result of a 50 year storm would be approximately 0.97 cubic feet per second. There would be no significant impacts associated with this alternative. . Return to index

Wild and Scenic Rivers

There would be no impacts.. Return to index

Prime or Unique Farmlands

There would be no impacts.. Return to index

Coastal Zone Management Program

There would be no impacts.. Return to index

Aesthetics

The view from the alternative would include foreground views of hangars, the air traffic control tower, industrial and commercial buildings and some residential apartments located further away. Visually, the alternative would not differ significantly from existing improvements on the airport. The height, mass, texture, style and decor of buildings will be similar to existing airport buildings. The alternative is not expected to significantly change the character of the site from its existing aeronautical uses. Landscaping, walls and airport artwork measures would create a substantial change in ambience and aesthetic emphasis compared to existing improvements on the airport. Aesthetic appearance is often very subjective based on personal preference. As such, some residents could view the construction of additional hangars in close proximity to residential and commercial buildings as aesthetically offensive. However, with implementation of design measures and building articulation, hangar facilities should contain an appearance similar to non-aviation uses located on the airport. Based on adoption of aesthetic design measures, significant adverse impacts would not occur.

The alternative development that would consist of one and two story buildings would not alter views of defined areas located near major intersection. In general, the low-scale development that is assumed to occur under this alternative would limit obstruction of long-range views and prevent shade and shadow impacts. The effect of Van Nuys Airport on open space would be limited by one and two story low-scale development. Because a detailed building design is not available during this portion of the Master Plan process, the maximum shadows possible from each type of land use were evaluated, based on maximum zoning code building height and lot coverage amounts. Building shadows vary in length and location throughout the day and year. Shadows were examined for 10:00 a.m., noon, and 3:00 p.m., representing the primary period of open space use, for the solstices and equinoxes, which represent the seasonal range of shadows. Two and three story buildings in Van Nuys Airport would not shade adjacent uses under this alternative.. Return to index

Recreation

The alternative would include demolition of existing non-aviation uses and expansion of aviation building uses that include aircraft training, pilot certification and other aircraft recreational programs. The existing golf course and open space uses located on the north and south ends of the airport would be maintained. The alternative would not include development of housing or relocation of population groups that would require creation of new recreational opportunities. Daytime employment population recreation needs could be satisfied on existing airport open space areas, golf course, observation area and off airport parks, open space, trail and viewing areas. The alternative will not have an adverse impact on recreational opportunities located in the surrounding areas. Even with the additional daytime population, Open Space and Park standards established for the City of Los Angeles would be complied with.. Return to index

Cultural Resources

The alternative will require demolition of older hangar facilities that have not been found to be culturally significant. There are no known cultural impacts that will occur as a result of alternative development.

Archaeological/Paleontological Resources

The urban character and extensive development of the airport since 1928 have over time eliminated or destroyed any potential evidence of archaeological conditions. Likely locations for archaeological sites are developed with hangars, aircraft parking and related structures. Excavation that has occurred on the airport has not resulted in the discovery of archaeological deposits or artifacts. Excavation and grading on commercial and industrial sites located within the one mile radius surrounding the airport from 1990-1995, did not result in the identification of any noteworthy archaeological deposits. On this basis, it is unlikely that excavation on the airport would yield any relevant intact series of archaeological deposits. The proposed Van Nuys Airport Master Plan does not involve runway extensions, taxiway expansions or significant development of undeveloped land. There will be no impact on current sites of actual or potential archaeological or cultural significance. Coordination with the California State Historic Preservation Officer and deposit testing by a qualified excavator prior to any new construction will ensure that potential deposits that might lie beneath the ground surface are not destroyed. Based on the previous airport uses and previous excavations that have not yielded archaeological or palaeontological artifacts, significant adverse impacts would not be expected to occur.. Return to index

Fiscal/Economic

In this alternative, 2.8 million additional square feet of aviation floor area, above 1996 aviation land uses, will be made available for aviation by 2015. However, the market will absorb only 42 percent total floor area available for the alternative. For the purpose of estimating output, only 1.65 million square feet of building space would actually generate revenue. Another 2.3 million square feet of unoccupied space would not generate additional employment or revenue.

Alternative A would conserve 7,736 square feet of incidental retail space, which would be fully occupied in 2015. Table 118 shows land absorbtion for this alternative. Only about 42% of the available development will be occupied by 2015.

Alternative A will produce roughly $358 million in goods and services or about $382 million less than the estimated $740 million that would occur without project development. Total output would be about $663 million (direct + indirect + induced) in the year 2015, $584 million less than the no project alternative and $1.48 billion less than the proposed project. Table 118 shows absorption and aviation development amounts. for this alternative.

In the year 2015, 1,680 airport jobs would exist. This means 1,800 direct jobs would be lost between 1995 and 2015. The alternative would stimulate creation of 2,320 other jobs throughout the entire Los Angeles region. This alternative will provide a total of 4,000 jobs. However, total employment would still produce 2,430 fewer jobs than the 6,430 total jobs that would occur without any development.

Table 119, shows the 2015 Department of Airports and City of Los Angeles Municipal revenue amounts estimated to be generated by Alternative A.

This alternative would generate Department of Airports revenue of $2.3 million dollars more than the proposed project, but $2.2 million dollars less in City of Los Angeles revenue. The elimination of transient guest hotel uses, retail and other sales uses would significantly impact revenue generated for the City of Los Angeles. This alternative would cause a City of Los Angeles revenue deficit of $2,236,522 in 2015.

.Return to index

Airport master plan main page
Van Nuys Airport page