Van Nuys Airport EIR Alternative E-2.

No Aviation Growth/Redevelopment of 53 Aviation Acres with Non-Aviation Uses

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 E-2.

No Aviation Growth/Redevelopment of 53 Aviation Acres with Non-Aviation Uses

This alternative variant development was crafted from information and suggestions submitted by citizens during the NOP process. This alternative, like the all non-aviation Alternative (E-1), would be costly in terms of actual implementation. This alternative was derived from Alternative E-1, the no project alternate, and like that alternative would maintain the existing 113 vacant acres. This alternative would differs from the no project alternative by requiring that a specific amount of acreage now used for aviation purposes would be redeveloped with long term non-aviation uses. The intent of this alternative is to generate fewer aircraft operations in 2015 than predicted by Master Plan demand forecasts. The severity of this alternative on most fixed base operators, sub-tenants and surrounding airport uses might be construed as a discriminatory measure imposed by the Department of Airports. Cooperation of the FAA and aircraft owners would be required for successful implementation of this alternative.

Development parameters for this alternative have been defined to include a maximum of 108 acres of aviation land, equivalent to a 33% reduction of the existing 161 aviation acres. This alternative considers the discontinued use of 53 aviation acres and the redevelopment of those 53 acres for non-aviation uses. As shown on Table 188, the existing aviation tenants require only about 116.26 acres of land. Approximately 45 acres of aviation land do not directly support the tie down, parking or maintenance of aircraft. About 50 percent of the aviation growth projected in demand forecasts would be carried out on those 45 acres.

The alternative would have a greater impact on new FBO or tenant uses, since existing tenant uses can be maintained on the 116 acres. The elimination of the 45 acres could occur without affecting current operations. Generally, impacts would affect new FBO uses or expansion uses by existing tenants.

Many VNY hangar and maintenance facilities are substandard in size and require expansion in order to accommodate aircraft with larger wingspans and nose to tail end lengths. Expansions would not be able to occur.

The 113 aviation acres identified as vacant in the Van Nuys Airport Requirements-Alternatives Report would remain vacant in 2015. Aviation land identified as essential for aircraft growth and operations would not occur.

The alternative assumes that the 53 acres would be developed with non-aviation uses. Non-aviation acreage would increase from 236 acres to 289 acres. The alternative assumes that an equal amount of acreage would be transferred from existing jet, helicopter and piston aircraft tenants to non-aviation tenants. Since 45 acres of the existing 161 aviation acres are underutilized, these acres and another 8 acres would be redeveloped with non-aviation uses.

The short term implications of this alternative would be very similar to the no-growth alternative. The long term implications could be more severe for aviation tenants.

Non-aviation floor area would potentially increase by an additional 692,604 square feet from about 920,000 square feet in 1996 to 1,735,417 square feet in 2015. Approximately 200,000 square feet of retail floor area, 200,000 square feet of office floor area and 292,604 square feet of industrial floor area would be constructed on airport property previously designated as aviation. To reduce over intensification of non-aviation uses and prevent a daytime population in excess of density standards shown for the proposed project, the 113 vacant acres would need to remain vacant throughout the 20 year master plan. Some short term transient uses (like the annual Air Show) or passive open space uses would be permitted to occur on vacant areas. Tables 189, 190 and 191 show worst-case scenario acreage amounts, based aircraft and operations that would be associated with the alternative.

The reduced aviation acreage would cause based aircraft and annual operations to decline. Based aircraft would decline from 740 in 1995 to 542 in 2015. Aircraft operations would decline from 521,439 in 1995 to 406,220 in 2015. However, the no project would still have fewer based aircraft and operations.

The expansion of commercial and industrial uses on 53 acres of land now designated for aviation uses, would potentially increase the level of non-aviation impacts discussed for the no project alternative. This alternative would create fewer aircraft noise and air quality impacts than the proposed project and slightly more than the no project. Return to index

Earth/Geology

The alternative could potentially require moderate upgrading of infrastructure or services to accommodate construction of subterranean parking garages in connection with commercial and industrial uses. Grading of approximately 235,000 cubic yards of earth and 150,000 cubic yards of concrete would be required for the creation of the garages and underground storage areas. All graded materials would be transported to off-site local landfills located in the San Fernando Valley. The alternative would not require demolition of floor space on any vacant site. Excavation and hauling of earth materials would temporarily increase dust levels in the nearby vicinity.

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 that exceed state and local seismic safety design standards and require measures such as equipment tie downs, will significantly reduce the likelihood of serious and fatal incidents.

No long term earth/geology impacts are anticipated for this alternative. Return to index

Air Quality

Air emissions would be generated by aircraft, ground vehicles and at stationary source locations.

Fugitive dust from short term construction activities would be likely to occur. The construction process for the alternative would occur during a 2-3 year period. The duration and equipment used during each phase of work are shown in Tables 192 and 193.

Construction air emissions levels would be similar to the proposed project but greater than the no project. Construction air quality impacts would be viewed as a temporary outcome of project selection that would dissipate after a 2-3 year period. Based on information provided by the Department of Airports, an estimated 150,000 cubic yards of concrete and 235,000 cubic yards of dirt would be removed from the airport to allow project development. A 50 truck fleet (15-20 yards capacity per truck) is anticipated. It is estimated that approximately 2,679 cubic yards of concrete and 4,196 cubic yards of dirt would be removed per day. This would result in 134-179 truck loads of concrete and 210-280 truck loads of dirt per 8-hour day (17-22 truck loads of concrete per hour and 26-35 truck loads of dirt per hour). Return to index

Mobile Source Emissions

Emissions from motor vehicles associated with non-aviation uses would be the primary generator of mobile source emissions. Mobile source emissions would be less than for the proposed project. Daily emissions estimates were developed using the CAL3QHC computer dispersion model developed for use by the USEPA. As indicated in the traffic impact report, the alternative would generate approximately 6,163 additional daily vehicle trips, or about 5,624 daily vehicle trips fewer than the proposed project. Mobile emissions from vehicles would be less than emission amounts shown for the proposed project in all six pollution impact categories (total organic gas, reactive organic compounds, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, particulate 10 microns).

The following air pollution amounts would occur from alternative development.

Total Organic Gas - The alternative will result in a total net change of 82 pounds of TOG compared to 602 pounds for the proposed project.

Reactive Organic Compounds- The alternative will result in a net change of 75 pounds of ROG compared to 554 pounds per day for the proposed project.

Carbon Monoxide- The alternative will result in a net change of 410 pounds of CO compared to 1,176 pounds shown for the proposed project.

Nitrogen Oxides- The alternative will result in a net change of 73 pounds of NOX compared to 364 pounds for the proposed project.

Sulphur Dioxide- The alternative will result in a total net change of 6 pounds of SOX compared to 11 pounds for the proposed project.

Particulate 10 Microns- The alternative will result in a total net change of 9 pounds of PM10 compared to 17 pounds for the proposed project.

Aircraft emissions associated with the alternative would be less than the proposed project and similar to the no-project alternative. As shown on Table 194 aircraft emissions would be predicted to decline during the master plan.

Aircraft emissions would decline due to the reduction in based aircraft and itinerant aircraft operations and the increased use of Stage 3 aircraft. It was assumed that in 2015 approximately 94-95% of VNY aircraft will comply with Stage 3 certification regulations. Stage 3 aircraft operate with more efficient engine components and are more fuel efficient than Stage 2 aircraft. Significant aircraft air emissions would not be anticipated to occur. Return to index

Stationary Source Emissions

The alternative would result in increased emissions generated by stationary sources such as the consumption of natural gas, and the consumption of electricity. It is estimated that approximately 23.35 million cubic feet of natural gas and 10.05 million kilowatt hours of electricity would be consumed by new development annually on site. As shown on Table 195, this would result in the emission of 6.79 pounds of carbon monoxide and 39.35 pounds of nitrogen oxides and 3.30 pounds of sulphur dioxides daily.

As shown on Table 196 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

Existing water main and connecting lines would be adequate to serve the project. No upgrades of water lines would be required for implementation of this alternative. Runoff caused by construction of rooftops, landscaping and pavement would incrementally increase on the site; however, the existing airport contains a sufficient number of storm drains and collectors that would be able to accommodate the additional water flow. Since the alternative does not propose alteration of the existing landform in such a manner as to change the direction of runoff, the additional non-aviation development would not result in significant adverse impacts. As shown on Table 197, fresh water demand for this project would increase from 178,390 gallons per day (gpd) in 1995 to an estimated 224,335 gpd in 2015. This would be 19 percent lower than the 306,040 gpd estimated for the proposed project and existing uses. When mitigated, significant adverse water impacts would not occur.

Return to index

Plant Life

No significant impacts would occur. Some additional landscaping would be developed with new commercial and industrial development. No adverse impact is anticipated because any future development would occur on areas that contain pavement or where native species have been removed and replaced with nonnative plants and landscaping 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 limit its existing value to wildlife Return to index

Noise

Projected 65 CNEL noise contour impacts associated with this alternative would cover approximately .63 square miles, including 19 dwelling units and a population of 44 persons. The primarily Stage 3 fleet mix serving VNY in 2015 would cause a decrease in the 1995 noise impact area. By 2015, 94-95 percent of the VNY fleet would be expected to be Stage 3 aircraft. The noise contour area would measure .63 square miles and cover .14 square miles less than the .77 square mile area shown for the proposed project. A total of 10 single family and 9 multiple family residential uses would be impacted. Figure 59 shows the noise contour anticipated for the alternative. Table 198 shows the land use impact data for this alternative.

Figure 63 -Alternative "E-2" 2015 Year Noise Contour Map.

Source: LA Dept. Of Airports Noise Management Bureau.Return to index

Construction

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. As shown on Table 199, 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.

Construction activities would result in intermittent ambient noise increases near the airport. Construction activities pose a temporary annoyance to many sensitive individuals but represent noise impacts that are a necessary condition for development.

In the case of this alternative, construction noise levels could potentially increase to intrusive levels for residents located near exterior airport boundaries. However, with use of construction barricades and use restrictions imposed for use of certain types of equipment such as pneumatic tools, construction impacts would be significantly reduced.

Table 200 indicates the Day-Night noise levels that would result from surface traffic associated with operation at alternate build out at representative locations within the project vicinity.

Source: LA Dept. Of Airports.

Existing noise level measures were conducted 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 calculated at 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 truck uses were calculated as 85 percent during the day and 15 percent during the 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.

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. The alternative would generate 6,163 vehicle trips above the 42,869 average vehicle trips generated in 1995. Ground vehicle noise levels would not be expected to increase when future conditions with and without the alternative are compared. These minimal changes in traffic volumes are not great enough to increase levels 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 environment. Return to index

Light and Glare

There would be no development on vacant sites. Development of existing aviation sites with commercial and industrial uses would not be anticipated to create significant exterior light, building materials glare and reflection impacts. The alternative 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 lighting sources. The proposed project would not be expected to 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

Shadows

Van Nuys Airport reflecting its history as an airport, is a relatively flat and level area where visual landmarks are primarily low-rise hangars, industrial buildings, an elevated control tower and other low rise structures. Van Nuys Airport contrasts with higher features located near freeways and major arterial intersections. High or mid-rise structures located approximately two miles from the airport are not visually defined by the project or viewed from most airport locations.

The proposed development that consists 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 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 building height and lot coverage. 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.

Buildings in Van Nuys Airport would not shade public parks outside the airport, or open space proposed under each alternative. Return to index

Land Use

This alternative, and the no project alternative, would be expected to violate the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 which prohibits a local airport proprietor from implementing programs that unreasonably interfere with an airports forecasted capacity demand. Forecasts prepared for the master plan and forecasts prepared by the FAA and other industry sources indicate a need for additional acreage to accommodate long term jet and helicopter growth. The alternative would restrict aviation growth to existing areas and could force overcrowding, over intensification and land use conflicts to occur. This could eventually lead to safety impacts, adverse economic conditions for tenants and lost revenues for the airport proprietor and City of Los Angeles.

The regional growth rate of jets and helicopters would probably not be significantly affected by this alternative. In terms of significant impact, this alternative would very likely pose a greater threat to piston aircraft. Since FBOs and others historically are able to generate more income from maintenance, repair, servicing and flight use of jets and helicopters than piston aircraft, and since the trend is toward use of more sophisticated jets and helicopters, some FBOs would probably reduce or limit piston aircraft activities in order to increase profits. Aircraft training and aircraft repair firms that derive significant income from piston aircraft activities could be adversely impacted by this business decision.

This alternative does not comply with the master plan objective to provide adequate acreage for forecasted jet, piston and helicopter operations. Return to index

Compatibility with Surrounding Uses (Physical)

The alternative would provide physical compatibility with surrounding residential land uses located in the 65 CNEL, by restricting aviation uses to fewer airport areas. The alternative would also allow for greater growth and expansion among airport industrial and office uses. However, the alternative would prevent aviation growth predicted to occur in the Van Nuys Airport Requirements-Alternatives Report.

This alternative also has the potential to force overcrowding and greater intensity conflicts among remaining aviation uses. Land use conflicts between aviation tenants and adjacent industrial, commercial and residential tenants could increase. This alternative would not comply with the applicable District plans objective to designate land at appropriate locations for the various uses and at densities required to accommodate population and activities projected to the year 2015. Return to index

Compatibility with Surrounding Uses (Functional)

The land use alternative would be functionally inadequate. The alternative does not provide adequate acreage to meet the predicted demand for aviation growth at Van Nuys Airport. Aviation tenants would experience delays, land use conflicts and overcrowding. Hazards and nuisance impacts between airport uses and surrounding industry, traffic and residences could occur. The overcrowding could result in abandonment of leaseholds or development of uses not covered by LADOA lease agreements. This plan has the potential to interfere with normal aviation growth and operations and could adversely impact the viability of general aviation operations at Van Nuys Airport. Return to index

Natural Resources

Full development of the land use alternative would be expected to allow the following square footage amounts: 692,604 square feet of new non-aviation floor area, 1,043,813 existing non-aviation floor area and 1,101,317 aviation (existing) floor area.

Short term construction equipment uses would result in fossils fuel consumption. Construction employee use of automobiles to and from the construction site would also result in additional energy consumption. The alternative would consume an estimated 172,260 gallons of diesel fuel per year during construction or a total of 516,780 gallons of diesel fuel during the 3 years of construction. The alternative's diesel fuel in 2015 would be less than .01 percent of the 3.3 billion gallons of diesel fuel used in California (Excise Tax Board, 1993).

It is estimated that approximately 50 passenger vehicles would be used by construction workers for commuting to and from the project site 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 or approximately 46,058 gallons for the entire project construction period. It is estimated that the annual consumption of gasoline in Los Angeles County is approximately 3.14 billion gallons (Lusk, T., 1992). The alternative would consume less than 0.01 percent of the annual total. Therefore, gasoline and diesel fuel consumed during construction are not considered significant.

Use of jet fuel, diesel fuel and gasoline by aircraft and ground vehicles during project operation would not be anticipated to increase energy needs based on 2015 based aircraft and operations. As shown in Table 201, at the maximum of 28 jet operations per day, it is estimated that jet fuel requirements would decline by .21 million gallons per year. The alternative would not consume significant amounts of jet fuel. Helicopter fuel would remain unchanged from the 1995 amount of .38 million gallons.

¹ Based on the following assumptions: ten mile round trip, 17 mpg and 6,613 trips generated daily.

² Rate per based aircraft extrapolated from FY 1994/1995 actual totals - Ronald J. Kochevar, City of Los Angeles Department of Airports memo to Jerald K. Lee, November 1,1995

³ Ronald J. Kochevar, City of Los Angeles Department of Airports memo to Jerald K. Lee, November 1,1995

⁴ Rate per based aircraft based on fuel consumption results of phone survey of four VNY helicopter operators by Planning Associates, Inc. On April 16 and 17, 1996.

⁵ Extrapolated from - Ronald J. Kochevar, City of Los Angeles Department of Airports memo to Jerald K. Lee, November 1, 1995 and fuel consumption results of phone survey of four VNY helicopter operators by Planning associates, Inc. on April 16 and 17, 1996.

The proposed project's energy analysis estimated that at maximum build out, 2.50 million gallons of gasoline per year would be consumed by the proposed project development. This amount is based on a travel distance of 10 miles per vehicle and 17 miles per gallons of gasoline. When the same factors are applied to the alternative, an estimated 1.30 million gallons of gasoline per year would be consumed by the alternative development at full build out.

Jet fuel, diesel fuel and gasoline requirements for the alternative are not considered significant in terms of depletion of fossil fuels but adverse in terms of FBO income derived from fuel sales.

The Southern California Gas Company maintains extensive gas distribution stations throughout Van Nuys. Gas supply systems to the proposed site are located underneath of the airport. As shown on Table 203, at full build-out, this alternative would consume 23.35 million cf of natural gas in addition to the existing 65.95 million cf of gas consumed in a 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 shall exceed these standards when determined feasible by the developer and LADWP.

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

Risk of Upset

The alternative would be anticipated to result in a nonsignificant adverse risk of upset impact for aircraft uses and non-aviation uses. 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. By applying historical and current accident rate amounts to this alternative, no aircraft accidents would be expected to occur. Above ground and underground fuel farm uses would not increase and therefore, potential leaks, fires or explosions would not be expected to increase over 1995 levels. In the event that additional fuel facilities were installed, conformance with federal, state and regional hazardous materials regulations would be a development requirement. Return to index

Population

Although the alternative does not include construction of housing and will not directly generate new populations, this alternative would generate a new daytime population. Most of the commercial and industrial daytime population would occur as a result of employees transferring from other job sites in the San Fernando Valley. Currently VNY accounts for employment of an estimated 3,480 persons. The alternative would cause 1995 employment to decline by 100 to 3380 in 2015. This alternative would generate 660 more jobs than the no project development. Since a decline in employment is projected, population growth would not occur. Therefore, significant adverse impacts are not anticipated to occur. 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 demand or supply. Since population growth will not occur, a demand for new housing will not occur. Significant adverse impacts are not anticipated to occur Return to index

Right of Way

The alternative would not be expected to significantly increase right of safety impacts. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the airport would be provided. Return to index

Transportation

This alternative would generate an additional 6,163 average daily trips, compared to 6,807 trips generated by Alternative B and 11,787 vehicle trips generated by the proposed project. This alternative would generate about 52 percent fewer trips than the proposed project and about 14 percent more trips than the 42,869 average trips generated in 1995. Table 204 shows average daily trip information for the alternative.

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 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 projects access and internal circulation, as well as the provision and strategic placement of on-site suppression systems.

The Fire Department has estimated that the alternative would require a fire-flow of approximately 9,000 gpm. Based on this requirement, 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. The LAFD has noted that intersections with unmitigated Levels of Service (LOS) of E or F will have an adverse impact on fire protection services.

The Fire Department considers the existing water lines, and Department capabilities to be adequate fire protection services for the alternative project sites. Since vacant sites would not be developed, upgrades required for the proposed project to water lines located on the Air National Guard site would not be required. Return to index

Police Services

The alternative would not increase the residential population of the area. The daytime population is estimated to decrease by 100 persons at full build out. The alternative would therefore, not establish an additional demand for police officers. Street intersection 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 intersection impacts could, therefore, occur. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced but not eliminated. Return to index

Schools

There are no 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 alternative would not result in significant adverse impacts to existing schools and does not include development of schools on airport property 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

Utilities

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 result in a substation nearby demand 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 aircraft fuel consumption associated with this alternative would be about 8.91 million gallons per year or about 24,411 gallons per day. Combined ground vehicles fossils fuel consumption is projected to be 10.50 million gallons per year.

The alternative would increase electricity consumption by an estimated 10.05 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 underneath of the airport. At full build-out, the airport would consume 89.30 million cf natural gas. The Gas Company does not anticipate problems in serving the area. Return to index

Sewage/Sanitary

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 on Table 205, the alternative is estimated to generate an additional 36,556 gallons per day (gpd) of sewage. Existing development on the site is estimated to generate 178,390 gallons per day. Therefore, the combined total in 2015 is estimated to be 214,946 gpd. The existing sewer lines that run under the airport and beneath perimeter streets have adequate capacity to serve the airport and the alternative development. New development and growth in the HTP service areas constrained by existing sewer capacity limits. Eventually, capacity for future growth will be provided through construction of additional modules at treatment and reclamation plants. Until construction is completed, any new development would be considered adverse. In considering long term sanitary sewage impacts, the HTP module and primary treatment plant construction projects will be completed prior to 2015 and airport impacts would there be considered less than significantly adverse.

Return to index

Solid Waste

Solid waste collection and disposal services are provide 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. Assuming a conservative solid waste generation factor of 6 pounds per thousand square feet of office floor area, five pounds per thousand square feet of industrial floor area, and 5 pounds per thousand square feet of retail floor area the alternative development would generate an additional 3,663 pounds of trash per day thereby resulting in a total of 11,750 gallons per day of solid waste. Table 206 shows solid waste amounts for the alternative. 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 development and uses that are currently depleting available landfill capacity. This incremental impact 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. 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. Aircraft operations would decline and, therefore, aircraft accidents would be expected to proportionately decline. No significant human health impacts would be expected to occur. Return to index

Hazardous Waste

The alternative would be expected to generate smaller amounts of hazardous waste than the proposed project. At full build out aviation tenants would be expected to generate hazardous materials similar to 1995 levels. Conformance with federal, state and regional hazardous materials collection, handling, and disposal procedures, should prevent adverse impacts. Return to index

Flood Plains/Storm Water

The alternative would not alter land forms shown on the airport and would not affect the configuration of existing drainage areas. Runoff 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. Visually, the alternative will 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 would create a substantial change in ambience and aesthetic emphasis compared to existing improvements on the airport. Significant adverse impacts are not 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 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 will include demolition of existing aviation uses and expansion of non-aviation building uses that include office and industrial uses. 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. The alternative would not have an adverse impact on recreational opportunities located in the surrounding areas. Parks and recreational opportunities identified for the proposed project include bikeways, trails, major landscapes and recreational preserve areas would occur for this alternative. 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 population gain or development of park land with other uses that would reduce the park area to an amount below 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. Return to index

Cultural Resources

The alternative will not require substantial demolition of buildings 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/Palaeontological 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

This alternative would increase the total amount of space available for all types of development by 32 percent. Market absorption rates suggest greater demand for aviation space than what is proposed for this alternative. The proposed increase in office space exceeds market potential for absorption and would likely have some unoccupied space. Only 166,980 square feet or 55 percent of the proposed 301,200 square feet of office space would be occupied by 2015. The demand for industrial space, however, would be expected to absorb all of the proposed increase in industrial space, resulting in full occupancy. Approximately 90 percent of the proposed retail space would likely be occupied in 2015.

In 2015, this alternative would create 660 more jobs than a no project development scenario, but 100 fewer jobs than what existed in 1995. This increase in direct employment will in turn generate another 880 more jobs through indirect and induced effects than will be the case for the No Project Alternative. In total, this alternative will generate 7,970 jobs across all of Los Angeles County, or 1,540 more jobs than the no project alternate.

This alternative would produce less Department and City revenue than the proposed project. The fiscal impacts of the alternative are shown on Table 207.

The alternative would yield airport revenues of $6.6 million dollars less than the proposed project and city municipal revenues of $18,590 dollars more than the proposed project. The alternative would yield a positive revenue amount for both the Department and City. Return to index

Airport master plan main page
Van Nuys Airport page