Van Nuys Airport EIR Alternative B.

Land Use Proposal Recommended by the VNY Master Plan Advisory Committee

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

Alternative B

Land Use Proposal Recommended by the VNY Master Plan Advisory Committee

This alternative is a modification and refinement of uses shown in the project. There are many similarities between the proposed project and this alternative. Basic assumptions made concerning the need to protect adjacent residential properties from intrusive aircraft operations appear to have guided formation of both maps and are reflected in land use designations near residential sites. The identification of existing airport sites that should remain in use as long term aviation and identification of runway, approach and taxiway uses are similar for the project and this alternative. The refinement of the project designation into precise site-specific land use designations that restrict categories of approved uses even further is a focal point of the alternative that is not shown for the proposed project. The proposed project differs from the alternative by specifying a less precise range of categorical uses that should occur during a 20 year Mater Plan.

This alternative will evaluate the impact of designating approximately 200 acres for aviation and aviation related uses, designating 310 acres for non-aviation uses and designating 220 acres for runway and clearance areas. This alternative would designate 30 acres of the 44.5 acre Woodley site for aviation related industrial uses. Approximately 15.5 acres of the Woodley site would be designated for non-aviation public facilities uses such as a police or fire facility. The 7 acre Retlaw site would be planned for use by airport administration and maintenance. The Air National Guard property located east of the Bull Creek Flood Control Channel would contain a 4 acre park/observation area surrounded by 26 acres of land designated as special aviation (air shows, emergency staging, etc.). The Air National Guard property located west of the Flood Control Channel would be designated for light industrial non-aviation uses along the extreme west side of the site (approx. 16 acres). The remaining 20 acres would be designated as special aviation. The former Hart School site would be designated for non-aviation light industrial uses. The approach areas would allow a mixture of uses including commercial uses, golf course, go-cart areas, recreational activities and agriculture. Figure 52 shows the alternative land use areas.

This land use alternative contains more precise airport-specific land use standards than the proposed project and as such would limit the construction of hangars with a door height of 14 feet or more on areas shown on the Land Use Map, limit certain areas to tie down open space or construction of hangars with a maximum door height of 14 feet. Property on the Air National east and west sites would be allocated for providing air shows, emergency staging due to natural disasters and ground leasing for special events. Fixed base operations would be prohibited on certain sites, and specific sites for schools, police, firefighting and other city public facilities. An area near the runway would be designated for a park and observation area. The restrictions or limitations proposed for this alternative may interfere with the Department of Airports ability to reasonably respond to unanticipated growth, technological advancements, socioeconomic changes and regulatory measures that require broad latitude in zoning, land use standards and permitted uses. More importantly, the restrictions and limitations violate FAA restrictions and airport design and planning policies.

The FAA’s Advisory Circular 150/5070-6A for preparation of a Master Plan urges the preparation of a master plan with criteria or standards written with a level of detail that will allow a range of uses. Emphasis should be placed on the ability of a plan to allow a range of uses. A 20 year Master Plan that contains general qualitative goals, objectives and land use standards intended to allow a mixture of aviation uses will eliminate the need to make incremental revisions to reflect the intermediate and long term conditions. A major disadvantage associated with overly detailed and site land use designations specific plan is that the detailed or specific land uses approved may not correspond to intermediate or long term growth and land uses. As

discussed in the Van Nuys Airport Requirements-Alternatives Report and in the Proposed Project Analysis of this EIR, it is difficult to predict with certainty the types of aircraft, aircraft trends and uses that will exist in 20 years. A generalized land use plan affords the airport, aviation tenants and community the ability to approve aircraft changes without requiring City Council adoption of general plan revisions. A specific plan that defines specific types of uses, sizes of hangars doors and location of categories of aircraft cannot easily be amended and would require approval of a general plan amendment to make changes. The proposed project and Master Plan will contain land use designations, guidelines and standards that merge or expand on many of the site specific designations shown for this alternative and as such will allow the Department of Airports to make timely plan adjustments based on technology, socioeconomic conditions and regulatory mandates. Criteria or standards that are presented in a generalized format allow long term use modifications without forcing time consuming major plan revisions.

Site specific land use standards or guidelines can be more effectively implemented through the conditional use permit process, "Q" conditions or overlay zoning standards. Even then, site specific standards should not become a mandatory plan requirement but instead be used as advisory or suggested use standards. Site specific standards that interfere with normal use of the airport by all types of aircraft are considered a violation of the Airport Noise Capacity Act of 1990 and will not meet the litmus test established by the FAA for approval of an airport layout plan.

Based on the above specified acreage amounts and site restrictions, Tables 120 and 121 show based aircraft and operating conditions could be expected to occur under this alternative.

The site specific restrictions that are shown under this alternative would cause piston aircraft to decline at a slower rate than projected by Airport Corporation of America (VNY Requirements-Alternatives Report, 1996). The 14-foot door height restriction proposed by the alternative would restrict helicopter and jet uses to 1995 levels and cause pistons to decline at a slower rate. Based on a previous interpretation of the FAA, the 14-foot door height restriction is a violation of the Airport Noise Capacity Act and cannot be shown on an approved airport layout plan.

Despite the 14-foot door height restriction, it is generally accepted that piston aircraft will continue to decline. Although some short term piston aircraft growth may occur at VNY and in the region, the age of piston aircraft, the cost of new piston aircraft, the cost of piston aircraft maintenance, fuel costs, the trend toward use of more sophisticated jet and helicopter aircraft and anticipated overall decline in aircraft operations will eventually cause a significant drop off in piston aircraft operations. Jet and helicopter aircraft operations will continue to dominate aircraft uses at VNY.

This forecasted decline or slow rate of growth among piston aircraft is predicted by the FAA, Airplane Owners of America, State Division of Aeronautics, National Business Aircraft Owners and several major aircraft manufacturers. The decline in piston shown for this alternative, all the more illustrates the fate of piston aircraft in a general aviation market that is now being dominated by sophisticated jet and helicopter aircraft. Land use restrictions that seek to reinforce piston operations can only be successful if there is a growing demand for piston aircraft operations. In 1995, piston aircraft declined regionally. This regional decline in piston aircraft operations is likely to continue through 2015.

Additionally, the detailed and site specific land use restrictions recommended for use of the approach area, industrial areas, public facility and park/open space areas could potentially result in development activities that exceed the density of uses considered acceptable in an airport environment. For example, the creation of a grade school or senior retirement center on the public facility sites, or construction of commercial offices in approach zones could occur in 2015, based on current Zoning standards. These uses could result in substantial daytime populations on the airport in areas that the FAA has recommended against. FAA Airport Design Standards contained in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 would not allow a commercial building use or designation to be shown in a runway protection zone area. The approach area shown on this plan contains a commercial designation in the runway protection zone. Commercial designations that allow buildings, daytime populations and commercial equipment would present a potential safety risk to pilots and occupants of commercial sites.

Conversely, a development that is deemed incompatible under this plan could prove to be a good airport tenant use. The development of aircraft hangars on sites that indicate no FBO uses (Woodley/Volpar), or on public facility sites that are shown could be considered compatible with adjacent aviation uses. In fact, the previous aviation uses on these areas was never deemed incompatible with surrounding aviation and non-aviation uses. Also aircraft hangars with door heights in excess of 14 feet, developed on areas that are restricted to 14-foot door heights could prove to be an acceptable and compatible use with adjacent piston, jet and helicopter uses.

The creation of tenant use restrictions that restrict the ability of some aviation tenants to occupy certain areas of the airport will violate ANCA and will not respond to forecasted aircraft demands presented in the Van Nuys Airport Requirements-Alternatives Report.

The creation of a generalized plan with criteria and standards that allow the City to reasonably respond to aircraft changes will result in less confusion among tenants and the residential community surrounding Van Nuys Airport.

The restrictions shown on the alternative map do not allow for natural and uninterrupted jet and helicopter growth. The following environmental consequences would be expected to occur in 2015. Return to index

Earth

The alternative would require minimal grading. The alternative would require removal of dirt and concrete amounts similar to the proposed project. Demolition of approximately 716,000 square feet of floor area will occur on the Air National Guard and Woodley/Volpar sites. All proposed development sites are fairly level and consistent in soils condition. The probability of ground ruptures, liquefaction, land slopes and other geologic events is extremely remote 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 deceases 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 that exceed state and local seismic safety design standards and incorporate measures such as equipment tie downs will significantly reduce the likelihood of serious or fatal accidents.

The alternative will require demolition of approximately 317,468 square feet of floor area on the former National Guard Sites and demolition of approximately 400,000 square feet of floor area on the Woodley/Volpar site. 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.

Grading materials would be transported offsite to one of several local landfills in the San Fernando Valley area. During grading activities, noise and dust impacts could result from use of heavy equipment. Dust that occurs during grading would have a short-term impact on local and regional air quality. Excavation and hauling of earth materials will temporarily increase noise levels in the immediate area during project construction.

Based on the nature of geologic materials and subsurface soils described above, the site has been determined to be suitable for future development and significant adverse impacts should not occur. Return to index

Air Quality

This alternative would generate fewer aircraft emissions than the proposed project and other alternatives that allow for natural incremental aircraft growth. The major sources of aircraft air pollution are identified on Table 122. As shown on Table 122, approximately 14,042 pounds of carbon monoxide, 4,626 pound of nitrogen oxides and 8,817 pounds of hydrocarbons (total organic gas), would be created by this alternative’s aircraft operations.

Aircraft emissions shown, are slightly less than amount shown for the proposed project. In terms of substantially reducing aircraft pollution, reductions 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.

One significant source of aircraft emissions results from the run up of turbine engines to determine operating readiness. Since it is unlikely that this mode can be eliminated or reduced, restrictions regarding time of day for ground run ups would further reduce this type of emissions. Also, restricting maintenance mode operations to the afternoon, would reduce emissions since hydrocarbons are not as active in the formation of photochemical smog during later hours.

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

The primary source of ground air pollution would be carbon monoxide created by use of vehicles. The impact of carbon monoxide would be localized and would generally correspond to automobile, bus and taxi cab traffic patterns of use. The impact of hydrocarbons would be more regional, since hydrocarbons created during vehicle idle mode are a precursor to the formation of photochemical smog. This alternative would create greater pollution amounts of nitrogen oxides. Door height and tenant leasehold restrictions shown for this alternative would restrict aircraft operations and building development. These smaller amounts would cause the alternative to produce slammer total organic gas, reactive organic compounds, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide as compared to the proposed project.

Total Organic Gas - This alternative would result in a net increase in TOG emissions greater than that of the Proposed Project. While the total emissions from the project is 602 pounds per day, emissions from this alternative is 524.

Reactive Organic Compounds - The project will result in a total net change of 554 pounds of ROG emissions per day. This is more than emissions from the alternative, which will result in total net change of daily ROG emissions of 482.

Carbon Monoxide -The alternative will result in total net change in daily carbon monoxide missions less 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 1,119.

Nitrogen Oxides - While the total net change in Nitrogen Oxides emissions from the project will be 364 pounds per day, the alternative will result in greater net changes. The alternative will result in a total net change of 310 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 fewer daily total net changes than that of the project. The daily total net change for alternative B will be 7 pounds.

Particulate 10 Microns -The alternative will result in total net change of daily PM₁₀ emissions less than the 17 pounds for the project. The daily PM₁₀ emissions resulting from Alternative B will be 10 pounds.

Aircraft and ground vehicle emissions associated with the alternative would be considered adverse but less than significantly adverse, based on poor regional air quality standards and adoption of mitigation measures.

At full build-out, the alternative development would increase stationary source emissions from the consumption of electricity and gas. It is estimated that approximately 12.54 million kilowatt hours of electricity and 33.32 cf of gas would be consumed by the new development uses. As shown in Table 123, this new development would result in the emission of 8.70 pounds of carbon monoxide, 50.48 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and 4.12 pounds of sulfur oxides daily. Electricity-related emissions are off-site and would take place at a regional power plant.

As shown on Table 124 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.

Some short term air quality impacts would be likely to occur given the level of demolition and construction. However, based on the small amount of demolition required for this alternative and limited amount of new building construction, fewer short term air quality impacts would occur. 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 726,000 cubic yards of concrete and 58,080 cubic yards of dirt would be removed from the airport to allow project development. An 80 truck fleet (15-20 yards capacity per truck) is anticipated. It is estimated that approximately 12,342 cubic yards of concrete and 1,000 cubic yards of dirt would be removed per day. This would result in 617-823 truck loads of concrete and 50-66 truck loads of dirt per 8-hour day (77-103 truck loads of concrete per hour and 6-8 truck loads of dirt per hour). Tables 125 and 126 show the preliminary construction phases, duration and equipment likely to be used during each phase.

Based on the nature of proposed airport uses and implementation of adequate mitigation measures, significant adverse impacts should not occur. Return to index

Water

Fresh water consumption will primarily be used by maintenance, cleaning, industrial, hotel and restaurant uses. Some water will be used to maintain landscaping. The alternative is not expected to consume inordinate amounts of water. As described in the project analysis, under a worst-case scenario daily water usage amount is calculated as 120 percent of the daily sewage amount. Daily sewage for the alternative is shown below under Utilities. The existing uses on the airport consume an estimated 178,390 gallons per day (gpd.) When fully occupied, the alternative development and existing airport uses would consume 251,407 gpd of water. Therefore, the net additional water consumption amount would be 73,017 gallons per day. Based on some extensions of existing water lines, the Department of Water and Power would be able to adequately serve the site. Airport water demand would not interfere with other water demand in the City of Los Angeles, would represent less than .005 percent of the City’s daily water consumption amount and therefore impacts would not be significant. Table 127 shows the water demand of new development for this alternative.

Return to index

Plant Life

This alternative would not result in a change to the ecosystem. No new species of flora will be introduced to the airport. No significant impacts would occur. Return to index

Animal Life

No significant impacts would be expected to occur. Development of the airport under this alternative would not affect existing animals observed on the airport. No rare or endangered animals have been identified within the airport project area. The airports urban character and lack of vegetation prevent native or nonnative animal habitations. Return to index

Noise

This alternative would produce a smaller noise contour and impact area than for the proposed project. As shown on Table 128, the 65 CNEL noise contour impact area associated with this alternative would cover approximately .64 square miles, including 20 dwelling units and a population of 46 persons. Based on noise projections, this alternative would impact 182 fewer residents than the proposed project and cover a 17 % smaller square mile area. Figure 53 shows the projected noise contour range.

Two areas of potential noise concern relate to the public facility and park/observation designations. A portion of the park area would be located in the 65 CNEL contour area throughout the duration of the master plan. The public facilities area that is located on the east side of the airfield is also in close proximity to the 65 CNEL contour impact area. The development of these uses within 10,000 feet of a runway used for turbine aircraft would be viewed by the FAA, State Division of Aeronautics and City of Los Angeles Planning Department, as a violation of advisory guidelines that recommend development of population intensive uses (especially those that attract children) outside of an airport environment. Local criticism and concern has been expressed regarding the presence of single family and multiple family residential dwellers near the airport. The creation of outdoor public uses that attract residential dwellers could subject infants, the elderly and infirm to excessive noise levels aircraft vapors, safety, emissions and related land use impacts.

A related concern is that a park use that contained a toddler play area enclosed by a vertical wall, could cause additional surface noise caused by vertical wall reverberation.

Although studies conducted by the Air Force and the British Civil Authority have not conclusively shown that senior citizens and children are at a greater physical risk from severe noise levels, many medically trained professionals believe that these two groups appear to suffer greater auditory damage when hearing loss does occur. The potential development of schools, public hospitals, public senior retirement centers, public day care centers, community parks with toddler play areas and similar facilities on these two sites could increase noise and reduce safety, air quality and health impacts for children and senior citizens. Return to index

Construction

Construction activities resulting from project development would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels. These activities are unavoidable short term impacts and therefore are not considered to produce long term significant adverse impacts.

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. Table 129 shows typical construction noise levels at various phases of project development.

In the case of this alternative, construction noise levels could increase to intrusive levels for residents located near exterior airport boundaries. However, with use of construction barricades, Building and Safety use restrictions and proposed project use restrictions that would apply to certain types of equipment such as pneumatic tools, construction impacts would be significantly reduced.Table 130 indicates the Day-Night Noise levels that would result from surface traffic noise associated with the proposed project at representative location within the project vicinity.

Existing noise level measurements were conducted on June 24 and 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 Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, RD-77-108, 1978. Speed assumption was estimated to be 30 mph for local streets and arterials. Speed on major arterials was assumed to be 40 mph. Automobile distribution was assumed to be 80 percent during the day and 20 percent during the evening and night. Medium and heavy trucks included 85 percent day and 15 percent evening and night uses. 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 of traffic volume.

Noise level changes 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. This alternative would result in a 16 percent traffic increase and therefore future noise levels with or without the alternative would not differ. These minimal changes in traffic volumes are not great enough to increase surface noise to a significant level.

According to CEQA definitions regarding significant effect on the environment, this alternative would not cause a substantial or potentially substantial, adverse change in the noise environment.

With adequate mitigation measures, significant ground vehicle noise impacts would not occur. Mitigation measures would not be required for aircraft noise. Return to index

Light and Glare

Development of vacant sites in the Master Plan would require demolition of some existing improvements that now buffer or block residential uses from airport light sources. 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 proposed project will 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 proposed project, the type of building materials and degree of lighting has not been determined. However, with implementation of proposed mitigation measures, no significant impacts should occur. Return to index

Land Use

The site specific land use designations proposed for this alternative could potentially affect the long term viability and character of the airport.

The emphasis of a long term master plan is to protect adjacent land uses, prevent incompatible land use development and preserve the utility of airports. Land use regulations that make it difficult for a property owner to implement design, tenant and operational changes without hardship can be easily challenged in the courts. In order that enjoyment or use benefits associated with property are not interfered with and to prevent discriminatory standards, general plan elements, policies, and plans (including the proposed Master Plan) should be written to allow flexibility and minimal regulation. Specific development plans that show tenant building restrictions and allow spot zoning/uses should not be used to apply to a public airport. Specific development plans are most often used to ensure consistency in housing styles or commercial uses. The FAA maintains jurisdiction over the airport based on the 1949 Quit Claim Deed and several federal laws enacted during the previous thirty years. The FAA has indicated an unwillingness to accept door height restrictions, public parks and public facilities on areas that are subject to the 1949 Quit Claim Deed. The City of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code regulations would not prohibit the development of a school, nursery or care facility in the public facilities areas. The City of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code regulations would not prohibit commercial buildings in the commercial area that is shown in the runway protection zone.

As previously noted, the basic intent to protect the economic viability of existing tenants during the 20 year master plan and limit the encroachment of noise generating uses near exterior airport boundaries are consistent with the intent of the proposed master plan. However, the introduction of site specific tenant restrictions exceed the intent of the master plan and the logical planning principles.

Master Plan forecasts predicted that piston aircraft will decline between 1995 and 2015. Any short term growth that may occur among piston aircraft will eventually be reversed. The reasons for the dramatic decline among piston aircraft were discussed in detail in the Van Nuys Airport Requirements-Alternatives Report. Some of the reasons discussed include the increased reliance on no frills economy commercial aircraft, the inflated costs of maintaining piston aircraft, the instability of fuel costs, the changing demographics, overall decline among new pilots, declining number of aircraft training firms at VNY, overall decline among aircraft operations at VNY, and desire of business owners to travel in more sophisticated Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) aircraft.

Based on Master Plan forecasts, airport land that is restricted for small aircraft (like the piston), with maximum 14 foot door heights could remain fallow for most of the master plan period. The unused land area would not generate revenue necessary to provide airport service demands and could be viewed as a misuse of airport land under the 1949 Quit Claim Deed. Thus, the protection, reinforcement and maintenance of piston aircraft cannot be reasonably achieved in the master plan by restricting hangar door heights. Corrective measures and solutions to ensure that 2015 piston aircraft levels are similar to 1995 piston aircraft levels should result from Department of Airports management policy decisions and government decision makers. Artificial land use restrictions that discriminate against other types of aircraft are less likely to ensure that 2015 piston aircraft levels are similar to 1995 piston aircraft levels.

Advisory Circular Part 161 Regulations pertaining to noise control restrictions prevent adoption of aircraft restrictions that are vague and do not specify a purpose. Such restrictions are viewed as arbitrary or capricious. Aircraft hangar door restrictions proposed for this alternative could also violate the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (1990) provisions that prohibit local regulations that unreasonably restrict airport capacity. Since Master Plan forecasts, FAA 1995-1996 general aviation jet and helicopter forecasts, FAA long term general aviation forecasts, Airport Corporation of America forecasts and Division of Aeronautics forecasts all predict growth among jets and helicopters, land use restrictions that prohibit jet storage based on door heights, could be deemed in violation of ANCA.

The direct economic benefits including employment, Department and City of Los Angeles Revenue generated by jet and helicopter operators at Van Nuys Airport would also be impacted by these restrictions. The activities of fixed base operators, air taxi, helicopter operations, and aircraft services would very likely decline based on the implementation of this alternative. Payment of leasehold rents, building rents, building possessory taxes, building utility and license tax fees, sales taxes, employee payrolls and owner investments could decline. Some jet and helicopter owners could voluntarily choose to base aircraft at other airports outside of the region or halt VNY business activities altogether. Many itinerant aircraft owners would very likely stop flying into the region via Van Nuys Airport. The substantial economic revenue spent by pilots and passengers visiting diverse areas of the region via Van Nuys Airport could be adversely impacted.

Ultimately the City could expect to be preempted by the federal government based on the selection of this alternative. The Secretary of Transportation is responsible for assuring that the airport is not imposing any noise or access restriction not in compliance with the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. Therefore, the City could expect to be preempted by the federal government on the above site-specific measures.

The creation of a four acre park in the 65 CNEL contour area, located next to airfield tie down uses could cause physical hearing loss, physical safety impacts and physical lung and respiratory ailments for children and adults using the recreation area. To protect people and property on the ground from the risks of aircraft accidents, noise, land use, health and air emissions impacts, the FAA has established planning guidelines, federal regulations and restrictions. A community park at this airport location could also result in trespassing by children and adults. Bird nesting and habitation could also be expected due to growth of vertical park landscaping, and discarded food items left behind by park visitors. Public parks, elementary schools, secondary schools, college campuses, hospitals, nursing homes, and similar sensitive land uses which require high occupancy levels are considered incompatible on an airport.

Birds and other animals located on parklands create a serious hazard to aircraft in the vicinity of an airport. A previous plan proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers to create a park and bird sanctuary adjacent to the south approach zone was denied partially based on the Department’s strong objections to a plan that would provide parklands, bird habitat and nesting areas in close proximity to runways. Any land use that attracts birds should be avoided near an airport. Uses that are natural or artificial bird attractors are considered by the FAA to be an inappropriate use of airport land and should be separated at least 10,000 feet from any runway used by turbine-powered aircraft.

A right of way issue also exists for this alternative. The 4 acre site designated for a park is landlocked and can only be accessed by 1) crossing an FAA controlled runway/taxiway system, 2) crossing an aviation tenant leasehold area or 3) crossing a privately owned parcel of land located off the airport. The FAA would not permit a controlled runway/taxiway system to be crossed by pedestrians. The FAA and Department of Airports would not allow an aviation tenant leasehold to be crossed by pedestrians. Even if the Department were able to secure an access easement across the privately owned property, it is unlikely that the FAA would permit it’s use based on the growing terrorist threats and the potential liability issues associated with use of private property by a public agency. A poor precedent would be established by approving this access arrangement.

Objectional aircraft noise, odors and visual impacts could interfere with use of park facilities. Finally, the location of a park next to a runway area could be expected to result in aircraft impacts between pilots and park uses that create glare, reflection, lights, etc.

Several Master Plan goals adopted by the Master Plan Advisory Committee pertain to land use compatibility and the need to protect the airport from encroachment of incompatible land uses. This alternative would result in land use conflicts and would not offer a solution to a well defined problem that now exists. No further encroachment of incompatible uses on the airport should be considered.

Areas shown as Special Aviation under this alternative would be restricted to short term aviation and emergency uses. Long term demand for aircraft or non-aviation uses on these sites could conflict with the site specific designation. A more balanced and practical approach for use of these areas would be to allow the shared use of sites by a relocated airport maintenance facility or other less intense airport use while still

allowing intermediate annual Air Show use. Long term development would not be precluded on the site, provided other Air Show sites had been considered.

The emphasis of a master plan is to prevent incompatible land use development and preserve the utility of an airport. The 1993 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook issued by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics recommended that schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and other similar public facility uses that contain high daytime population densities be prohibited on all areas of an airport. During Master Plan Advisory Committee meetings, considerable discussion focused on the development of a police station or satellite facility on the Woodley/Volpar site (shown as Public Facilities). Consequently, Department of Airports staff contacted the Police Department and Fire Department to determine their desire to lease airport property for development of facilities. Both Police Department and Fire Department personnel indicated that there are no proposals or current resources to develop facilities on the Van Nuys Airport. According to Police and Fire Department personnel a major hindrance to use of the Woodley/Volpar Site is the Southern Pacific railroad right-of-way easement located just north of this site. Active use of the rail lines by rail cars could interfere with police and fire response to off airport emergencies located north of the airport. In March 1996, the Police Department released a document titled Police Facilities Study, that evaluated existing conditions of LAPD facilities and provided recommendations regarding location of new facilities in the City of Los Angeles. Based on Police Commission and City Council actions, a new Van Nuys Area police facility will be planned at a location other than Van Nuys Airport. No pending evaluation of Van Nuys Airport is being considered by Police or Fire.

Conceivably, in time the area designated as public facility could accommodate schools and other sensitive public facility uses that could subject children, the elderly and other protected classes of people to aircraft accidents, aircraft noise, aircraft air emissions and related impacts. Additionally, a commercial protection zone or transitional land use that creates a permanent physical separation between intense aviation uses and sensitive land uses would not be provided. The FAA would very likely deny the use of these areas for schools, nursing homes and other sensitive public facility uses.

The area designated as aviation related area extends from Woodley Avenue to the airfield runway. Considerable concern exists regarding industrial and manufacturing uses being developed directly adjacent to the runway area. The potential exists for this site to contain an industrial use that creates smoke, glare and excessive outdoor lighting. The creation of objectional smoke or steam that interferes with aircraft taking off or landing at the airport is a critical planning issue that is difficult to police or prevent once a long term tenant lease has been executed. Preferably, a portion of the site that abuts the airfield should remain designated for long term aviation uses.

The designation of a non-aviation area shown in the north approach area of the airport could conflict with Federal Aviation Administration policies and guidelines regarding placement of commercial uses in sensitive runway protected areas. This specific site is located inside of the official runway designation area that is subject to more stringent and intense standards than any other area of the airport (excluding runway/taxiway areas). The creation of artificial light sources with a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green or amber color associated with airport operations are forbidden in runway protected areas, as are commercial uses that contain buildings materials, colors or features that reflect natural sunlight onto runway and taxiway areas, or toward aircraft engaged in a straight climbout or approach landing mode. Commercial uses that generate smoke, water, vapors or that may attract flocks of birds are discouraged in runway protected areas. Commercial uses that generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to aircraft instrumentation or interfere with aircraft communications with the control tower or that contain expansive landscaping that includes large trees, heavy fences or walls, steep berms and retaining walls are discouraged in these areas. Essentially, the utility of this location of the airport is severely limited based on the need to protect aircraft pilots and persons on the ground. The designation of a small 2 acre area of the runway protected area as non-aviation commercial could subject pilots and persons on the ground to public health, safety and welfare violations.

The encroachment of commercial uses in a runway protected area could establish a poor planning precedent for future use of other areas of the runway protected area. The commercial designation at this location is therefore deemed unreasonable. Return to index

Compatibility with Surrounding Uses (Physical)

The alternative would be physically compatible with surrounding uses since it would not be expected to generate potentially significant cumulative noise, air quality, visual character and traffic impacts. 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 creation of a park, public facility and special aviation uses in close proximity to runways would reduce the physical separation required by the FAA to protect individuals on the ground from ascending and descending aircraft. Intrusive noise, traffic, human health and air quality impacts could be experienced at park and public facility airport locations. Return to index

Natural Resources/Energy

Full development of the land use alternative would be expected to allow the following square footage amounts: 104,544 square feet of new aviation hangar, and aviation office and maintenance floor area and 869,022 square feet of new industrial and public facilities floor area. Energy consumption impacts of this alternative would be associated with short term construction uses 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 516,780 thousand gallons for all phases of construction. This number was calculated based on the following assumptions:

A maximum of 50 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 use would be less than .01 percent of the total 3.3 billion gallons of diesel fuel used 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 50 passenger vehicles would be used by construction workers for commuting to and from the project sites during each phase. Construction workers are estimated to travel approximately 20 miles per day, during the 3 years of project construction. Assuming the average gas mileage per vehicle is 17 miles per gallon, the estimated amount of gasoline required is approximately 45,806 gallons for the 3 years of project construction. It is estimated that the annual consumption of gasoline in Los Angeles County is approximately 3.14 billion gallons (Lusk, T., 1992). Therefore, the alternative would consume less than 0.01 percent of the annual County total. Therefore gasoline and diesel fuel consumption amounts used during construction are 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 aircraft

fuel usage per operation was used in conjunction with total daily aircraft operations to determine daily required amounts. At the maximum of 28 jet operations per day, it is estimated that 8.95 million gallons of jet fuel per year would be required to support existing and new development for this alternative. This is an increase of about .21 million gallons per year of jet fuel over current fuel requirements. This amount represents a minimal increase of jet fuel usage and is substantially smaller than jet fuel requirements for other airports operated by LADOA and in the region. Helicopter fuel usage would remain unchanged at .38 million gallons per year. The increased jet and helicopter fuel requirements would not be significantly adverse.

The proposed project’s energy analysis estimated that 2.50 million gallons of gasoline would be consumed per year at maximum build-out by surface vehicles. 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, an estimated 1.44 million gallons of gasolines per year would be consumed by new development uses at full build-out or 10.64 million gallons for the airport total.

Table 131 shows the total airport fuel consumption in 2015 for Alternative B. Jet fuel, diesel fuel and gasoline requirements for the alternative would be less than for the proposed project and are considered nonsignificant.

The proposed alternative would result in a maximum increase of 104,544 square feet of new aviation floor area and 869,022 square feet of new non-aviation floor area. Existing airport uses require 20.99 millions kwh of electricity per year. As shown below on Table 132, this alternative would require 12.54 millions of kwh electricity per year. Total electricity required to support new and existing development would be 33.53 millions Kwh of electricity per year. 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 site are located beneath the airport. Existing airport uses consume 65.95 million of cubic feet per year as shown on Table 133. At full build-out, the airport would consume an annual total of 99.27 millions cf of natural gas. This represents a net increase of 33.32 millions 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 natural 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 developer and LADWP.

Combined consumption of electricity, gas and fossil fuels would be considered less than significantly adverse according to CEQA. However, based on depletion of non-renewable resources, conservation measures must be adopted. Return to index

Risk of Upset

The creation of a park adjacent to the airfield would potentially increase bird strikes for ascending/descending aircraft. Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, specifies that no use of land or water anywhere within the boundaries encompassed by FAR Part 77 should endanger or interfere with the landing, take off, or maneuvering of an aircraft at an airport (FAA- 1987). Uses that attract birds and create bird strike hazards are considered incompatible within an airport environment.

The FAA considers a use incompatible if it results in a hazardous movement of birds across a runway or aircraft approach and departure paths. Such uses should not be located within 10,000 feet of a runway used by turbine-powered aircraft or within 5,000 feet of other runways. Therefore, the potential for serious or fatal injuries would be expected to be higher than for the proposed project. Although accident rates for VNY are considered extremely low, the development of high occupancy uses near aircraft runways could increase ground accidents by 2015. The total number of fatal or serious accidents associated with this alternative are difficult to predict but must be considered potentially adverse, based on the location of high park and non-aviation uses. Return to index

Population

This alternative includes changes to airport aircraft operations. The alternative does not include construction of housing units and will not directly generate new residential populations. Currently VNY accounts for employment of 3,480 persons. However, the alternative would be expected to reduce daytime population. In 2015, the airport would generate an estimated 3,190 jobs or a net loss of 290 employment positions from 1995 (a gain of 470 positions over no-project in 2015). For the most part, these employment positions would be filled by persons that reside in the Basin and that would be expected to commute to the airport work site. Investment and spending of employee earnings in the surrounding community would be expected to strengthen airport businesses in 2015. Daytime employment associated with this alternative would be considered a beneficial impact. Significant adverse impacts are not anticipated to occur. Return to index

Housing

This alternative does not include construction of additional housing and will not result in a direct impact to the existing housing stock. Most daytime employees would be expected to commute to the airport from other San Fernando Valley and Basin locations. Significant adverse impacts are not anticipated to occur. Return to index

Right of Way

The alternative would not be expected to significantly impact right of way usage. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the airport would be provided. This alternative could potentially cause improper pedestrian uses near the park/observation area. Return to index

Transportation

As shown on Table 134, this alternative would generate 6,807 additional average daily vehicle trips, or about 16% percent more than the 42,869 average daily trips generated in 1995. This alternative would also generate 711 fewer am and 699 fewer pm peak hour trips than the 1,604 am and 1,522 pm trips shown for the proposed project.

Traffic mitigation measures would be required to mitigate significantly adverse intersections that operate at LOS E or F and that increase by .01 percent. However, as with the proposed project, roadway intersection impacts could be reduced to a level of nonsignificance when properly mitigated. Return to index

Public Services

Fire Protection

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 judgement for needs in the area. In general, the required fire flow is closely related to the intended land use. The quantity of water required 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 projects access and internal circulation, as well as the provision and strategic placement of on-site suppression systems.

The alternative would maintain many of the existing airport uses and allow for slow growth. The Fire Department has preliminary estimated that the alternative would require a fire-flow of approximately 9,000 gpm fire-flow. Based on this requirement, the first engine company to reach a fire site should be located within a 1.0 mile radius of a development site and the first fire station with a fully occupied and equipped fire truck should be within a 1.5 mile radius. Several airport sites are located outside of the required radius.

However, given the present land use configuration, airport uses and previous Fire Department services provided to sites that are now vacant, the redevelopment of these vacant sites with similar airport uses should not create a need for service that has not previously existed. The LAFD has noted that intersections with Levels of Service (LOS) E or F will have an adverse impact on fire protection services without mitigation. With or without development, these intersections will operate at LOS E or F in 2015.

With the exception of the Air National Guard sites, the Fire Department considers the existing water lines, and Department capabilities to be adequate to meet fire protection service needs of the alternative. Improvements to the perimeter 8" water line that serves the Air National Guard site may be required to accommodate development of that site. With fire service mitigation measures, impacts should be reduced. Return to index

Police Services

The alternative would not increase the residential population of the area. However, the direct daytime population is estimated to increase by 470 persons at full build out. The alternative would therefore contribute to an increased need for 1 additional officer. The alternative would require fewer new officers than the proposed project. Street intersections in the project area with a Level of Service (LOS) of "E" or "F" may decrease the level of police protection and emergency response. Some adverse impacts would therefore be expected to occur. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced but not eliminated. Return to index

Schools

Presently, there are no schools located in the 65 CNEL noise contour area. The closest schools are the Stagg Street and the Cohasset Street Schools located approximately 1,350 feet and 1,575 feet from the airport. This alternative differs from the proposed project in that it would provide a designation that would potentially allow a new school facility in a 65 CNEL contour area. The alternative would permit schools on areas designated as public facilities. The Woodley/Volpar site would be designated for use of public facilities and as such would allow creation of a school or other sensitive land use. This area of the Master Plan was previously considered by the Master Plan Advisory Committee for development of a police station. However, the alternative as described in a May 30, 1996 correspondence addressed to the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee states:

"...Reserved for school, police, firefighting and other city public facility purposes."

Uses that include schools, nursery facilities and other uses that provide public services would permitted in the 65 CNEL contour area. Development of a pre-school or elementary school facility on the Woodley/Volpar site could be shown. The LAUSD has recommended against such uses in the airport environment because of noise, air quality, right of way, traffic and other concerns. State Department of Education regulations, FAA Planning guidelines and City of Los Angeles Planning regulations discourage development of schools on an airport. Significant impacts would potentially occur in public facility areas. 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. However, the relatively large population of the area results in a demand for a nearby substation for transportation and lighting purposes. The majority of the fuel used at VNY is provided via pipeline directly from the major refineries located within the Basin and supplemented by independent sources trucked to the airport. Total existing and new aircraft fuel consumption associated with this alternative would be about 9.33 million gallons per year or about 25,480 gallons per day. Combined ground vehicles fossils fuel consumption is projected to be 10.64 million gallons per year or about 29,151 gallons per day.

The proposed alternative would result in a maximum increase of 104,544 square feet of new aviation floor area and 869,022 square feet of new non-aviation floor area. The alternative would result in a 12.54 kwh electrical demand added to the 1995 level of 20.99 kwh of electricity per year. 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 site are located beneath the airport. At full build-out, the airport would consume 99.27 millions cf of natural gas per year. This represents 33.32 millions cf of natural gas added to the 65.95 million cf of natural gas consumed in 1995. The Gas Company does not anticipate problems in serving the area.

Combined consumption of electricity, gas and fossil fuels would be considered less than significantly adverse according to CEQA guidelines. Energy conservation compliance measures are proposed. Return to index

Utilities

Sewage/Sanitary

Sewage generated by the airport is treated by the Hyperion Treatment Plant located in Playa Del Rey, located directly southwest of the Los Angeles International Airport. The HTP treats wastewater from almost all of the City of Los Angeles as well as seven 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 the City of Los Angeles to participate in the cost of having their wastewater treated at the City’s facility.

As shown in Table 135, this alternative development would generate about 58,413 gallons of sewage per day. In 2015, the entire airport would generate approximately 201,124 gallons of sewage per day, compared to 142,711 gpd for existing uses and 102,150 gpd shown for the proposed project. This amount represents a very small fraction of City of Angeles daily sewage treated by the HTP sites. The DWP has indicated that the existing sewer lines that run under the airport and beneath perimeter streets have adequate capacity to serve the airport and the alternative development. Although new development and growth in the HTP service areas is constrained by existing sewer capacity limits, construction of additional modules at treatment and reclamation plants will eventually eliminate system constraints. Until construction is completed, any new development would be considered adverse.

The HTP module and primary treatment plant construction projects will be completed between 1998 and 2000, prior to full build out of the alternative in 2015. Airport impacts in 2015 would therefore be considered less than significantly adverse.

Return to index

Solid Waste

Solid waste collection and disposal services are provided by the City of Los Angeles Sanitation Division. Refuse collected from the airport is hauled to one of several landfill sites located in Los Angeles County. The airport currently generates approximately 8,087 pounds of solid waste per day. 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 for industrial and miscellaneous (maintenance) floor area, the new floor area uses would generate approximately 4,713 pounds of trash per day. Table 136 shows solid waste amounts for the alternative uses.

Solid waste generated by the alternative development would contribute to the exhaustion of several local landfills. However, the alternative development would represent a fraction of other pending development and uses that are currently depleting available landfill capacity. State diversion mandates (AB 939) will reduce solid waste landfill disposal by 25-50% during alternative implementation. This incremental addition to existing airport solid waste amounts would represent a nonsignificant 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 utility line installation would be a project requirement. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated to occur. Return to index

Human Health

The alternative pertains to adoption of appropriate mitigation measures and policies for implementation of a long term Master Plan. Human health impacts would result primarily from aircraft operations. Based on the projected decline of aircraft operations, fewer human health impacts would be anticipated. However, based on daytime childhood populations that could occur on public facilities and park/observation sites, potential adverse human health, safety and welfare impacts could occur. Human health impacts are very subjective and precise human health impacts are therefore difficult to quantify. However, based on research findings of studies conducted to test the effects of exposing children and adults to continuously loud noise aircraft events, some children and senior citizens could suffer human health impacts from repeated use of outdoor areas. Return to index

Hazardous Waste

The alternative would be expected to generate hazardous waste amounts similar to the proposed project. 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 sampling of these sites. At full build out, aviation tenants would be expected to generate hazardous materials in excess of 1995 levels discussed under the project. However, with conformance with federal, state and regional hazardous materials collection, handling, and disposal procedures, potential significant impacts should not occur. Return to index

Flood Plains/Storm Water

The alternative would not alter present land forms shown on the airport and would not affect the configuration of existing drainage channels. Runoff from 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 be varied and include office and industrial buildings, park land and public facilities, hangars, the air traffic control tower and related on airport uses. Visually, the alternative will not differ significantly from existing improvements on the airport. The height, mass, texture, style and decor of buildings would be similar to existing airport buildings. The alternative would not be expected to significantly change the character of the site from its existing aeronautical uses. Landscaping, walls and airport public artwork would create a substantial change in ambience and aesthetic emphasis compared to existing improvements on the airport. One potential area of concern relates to the use of a substantial portion of the Air National Guard West site for temporary uses only. Trash, litter and debris from adjacent land uses could clutter the ground area. Based on adoption of mitigation measures, significant adverse impacts would not be anticipated to occur.

The alternative development that would consist of one and two story buildings would not alter views of defined areas located near major intersections. 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

This alternative would provide a greater amount of recreation and open space area than the proposed project. This alternative shows the creation of a new park/open space area. In addition, the existing golf course and open space uses located on the north and south ends of the airport would be maintained. The alternative will not include development of housing or relocation of population groups that would require creation of new recreational opportunities. The alternative would not have an adverse impact on the amount of recreational opportunities located in the surrounding areas. Aircraft training and flight instruction associated with aviation uses would also be expected to occur under this alternative.

Other recreational opportunities for the alternative would be similar to those identified for the proposed project. Some of these opportunities would include bikeways, trails, major landscapes and recreational preserve areas. The Los Angeles City Council encourages private developers and landowners to create open space through fee reductions and other incentives.

The alternative would not result in a residential population that would require new park facilities and would not reduce the amount of existing park or open space areas. City public recreation plan standards of two acres of park per 1,000 residents for neighborhood parks and two acres per 1,000 residents for community parks would be maintained. Return to index

Cultural Resources

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

Archaeological/Cultural 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 have not resulted in the identification of 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 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 lie beneath the ground surface are not destroyed. Return to index

Fiscal/Economic

Based on the smaller amount of aviation floor area, this alternative would result in an absorption rate that is higher than the proposed project and Alternative A. Table 137 shows proposed floor area uses and absorption rates for 2015. The absorption of 1.2 million square feet of aviation floor area under this proposal would occur faster than the absorption of 1.7 million square feet of aviation floor area shown for the proposed project. One hundred percent of the 1.2 million square feet of floor area would occur. However, it must be assumed that any unanticipated aircraft growth or changes in aircraft size, type or regional uses could not be provided in this alternative. The absorption rate of non-aviation office floor space would also be at 100 percent prior to 2015.

Industrial space shown for this alternative would increase by 107 percent. The growing regional demand for industrial space would provide absorption of about 1.06 million square feet of this floor area in 2015. About 13 percent of the non-aviation floor area would remain unoccupied. This alternative would not increase retail space floor space and occupancy would remain the same.

In 2015, this alternative would add 470 more jobs than the no-project scenario. However, since the no-project alternative results in an actual decline of 760 on-airport positions, this alternative would also result in a loss of 290 jobs from 1995. This alternative would provide 840 fewer jobs than the proposed project and 670 fewer jobs than Alternative C. Although this alternative would provide occupancy between 87 and 100% for all land use categories, the demand for additional floor area would greatly exceed the available floor area.

In 2015, this alternative will produce, roughly 1.07 billion in output or $332 million more in goods and services compared to the no project scenario. This direct output will generate an additional $669 million in indirect and induced earnings. Total output for this alternative will be about $1.74 billion in 2015, $489 million more than the no project scenario but $397 million less than the proposed project.

Table 138 shows estimated 2015 Department of Airports and City Municipal Revenues that would be generated by the alternative.

This alternative would generate $2.5 million dollars less in airport revenues than the proposed project. The alternative would generate $2,614 dollars less in City of Los Angeles revenues than the proposed project. The alternative would yield a revenue increase for the Department and City.

Return to index

Airport master plan main page
Van Nuys Airport page