Van Nuys Airport EIR Alternative E-3.

No Non-Aviation Growth/Redevelopment of 71 Acres with Aviation Uses.

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

Public Services Fire Protection Police Services Schools Libraries Energy Sewage/Sanitary Solid Waste Communications Human Health Aesthetics Recreation

Cultural Resources Archaeological/Palaeontological Resources Fiscal/Economic

No Non-Aviation Growth/Redevelopment of 71 Acres with Aviation Uses.

A less intense airport development alternative has been defined to include a reduction of 71 acres deducted from the existing 236 non-aviation acres to provide a maximum of 165 non-aviation acres. The alternative would require the 71 acres to be redeveloped with aviation uses. A total of 232 aviation acres would be provided. The 71 acres converted to aviation uses would be equally developed with jet, helicopter and piston. Based aircraft would increase from 740 in 1995 to 1255 by 2015. To accomplish this, approximately 275,000 square feet of new aviation floor area would be added to the existing 1,779,581 square feet of aviation floor area, resulting in 2,707,409 square feet of aviation floor area by 2015.

No new non-aviation development would occur under this alternative. No development on vacant land would occur.

Although it is unlikely that based aircraft and operators will exceed the demand forecast, in order to evaluate a worst case scenario, it is assumed that additional aviation activity will be generated by the additional aviation land available in this alternative.

As shown on Tables 208, 209 and 210, it is estimated that in 2015, the following based aircraft, acreage and operations would occur under a worst-case scenario at Van Nuys airport.

* Base year is 1994.Source: Airport Corporation of America, LA Department of Airports

Non-aviation acreage amounts were equally divided among jet, helicopter and piston aircraft categories. Transient, maintenance and contingency land amounts that were established in the Requirements-Alternatives Report were maintained. The environmental implications of this less intense non-aviation alternative are reviewed generally in comparison with the proposed project and where applicable with the no project alternative. Return to index

Earth/Geology

The alternative does not anticipate a significant amount of upgrading of infrastructure or services to accommodate construction of hangars and aviation facilities. Some excavation and removal of approximately 22,261 cubic yards of dirt and 278,270 cubic yards of concrete would occur. All graded materials would be transported to off-site local landfills located in the San Fernando Valley. The alternative would require demolition of approximately 275,000 square feet of non-aviation floor area. Excavation and hauling of earth materials and concrete will temporarily increase dust levels in the nearby vicinity. No long term earth impacts are anticipated to occur. Return to index

Air Quality

The construction of this alternative would occur during a 2-3 year period and would be similar in duration to each phase of work shown for the proposed project. Based on information provided by the Department of Airports, an estimated 278,270 cubic yards of concrete and 22,261 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 4,969 cubic yards of concrete and 398 cubic yards of dirt would be removed per day. This would result in 248-331 truck loads of concrete and 20-27 truck loads of dirt per 8-hour day (31-41 truck loads of concrete per hour and 3-4 truck loads of dirt per hour).

Mobile emissions and stationary source emissions would be about 100 percent greater than those associated with the proposed project. Aircraft emissions associated with this alternative would be significantly higher than for the proposed project and no project. The substantial increase in aircraft mobile and stationary source emissions will occur based on the worst-case number of aircraft operations. Although this proposal features the same amount of aviation acreage as the proposed project, the proposed project forecasts are based on a worst-case jet, helicopter and piston aircraft demand. As noted elsewhere in this report, the 2015 forecast for piston aircraft represents an overall decline from 1995. Therefore, forecast amounts shown for this alternative are quite unlikely to occur by 2015. Table 211 shows 2015 aircraft emissions for this alternative.

One significant source of aircraft emissions results from the run up of turbine engines to determine operating readiness. It is unlikely that this mode can be eliminated or reduced. Therefore, 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. Aircraft and aircraft ground vehicle emissions associated with the project would be considered less than adverse since 1995 emissions levels will decrease further in 2015 based on project implementation.

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

1.Increase engine speed during idle and taxi operations,

2.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,

3.Reduce idle operation time by controlling departure times, and

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

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

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

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

Total Organic Gas - The alternative will result in a total net change in TOG emissions greater than that of the Proposed Project. While the total emissions from the project is 602 pounds per day, emissions from alternatives E-3 is 10,306 pounds.

Reactive Organic Compounds - The project will result in a total net change of 554 pounds of ROG emissions per day. This is less than emissions from the alternative, which will result in a total net change of daily ROG emissions of 9,482.

Carbon Monoxide - The alternative will result in a total net change in daily carbon monoxide emissions greater than that of the project. The total net change in daily CO emissions from the project will be 1,756 pounds, while the alternative will be 16,294.

Nitrogen Oxides - While the total net change in Nitrogen Oxides emissions from the project will be 364 pounds per day, this alternative will result in greater net changes. The alternative will result in a total net change of 5,455 pounds per day.

Sulphur Dioxide - The alternative will result in a net change of 3 pounds per day SOX, compared to 11 pounds per day for the project.

Particulate 10 Microns - The alternative will result in a total net change of 21 pounds daily PM10 emissions less than the 17 pounds for the project.

Based on full development, stationary source emissions would also increase. Table 210 shows stationary emissions for the alternative.

Source: Natural gas emissions contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Impact Handbook (1987), page I-
1. Electricity emissions are off-site at regional power plants. Emissions based on SCAQMD's Air Quality Impact Handbook, page G-1.
Fireplace emissions rates are based on US EPA AP42.

As shown on Table 213, 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.

Increases in carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons would occur. Even with mitigation measures and restrictions on equipment, hours of operation and types of aircraft uses, significant adverse air emissions impacts would be expected to occur. Return to index

Water

Existing water main and connection lines would be adequate to serve the project. It is unlikely that upgrades to water lines would be required for this alternative. Runoff caused by construction of rooftops, landscaping and pavement would incrementally increase on the site. However, the existing airport contains storm runoff 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 development would not result in significant adverse impacts. This alternative would require 69,588 gpd. Existing water is estimated to be 178,390 gpd. Demolition of approximately 275,000 square feet of non-aviation floor area would reduce existing water consumption to about 158,546 gpd as an increase of 49,744 gpd over existing use.. Total net water consumption in 2015 is estimated to be about 228,134 gpd. Table 214 shows the alternative water consumption amounts.

Return to index

Plant Life

No significant impacts would occur. 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 .99 square miles, including 360 dwelling units and a population of 979 persons. This alternative would result in a noise contour larger than the proposed project by 2015. By 2015, most of the VNY fleet would be expected to be Stage 3 aircraft. The actual noise impact area would decrease from the 1995 impact area but would still be .22 square miles larger in size than the .77 square miles shown for the proposed project. Land use impacts for this alternative would be greater than for project. A total of 115 single family and 245 multiple family residential uses would be impacted. Table 215 shows the land use data for this alternative. Figure 60 shows the noise contour for this alternative.

FIGURE 60 -Alternative "E-3" 2015 Year Noise Contour Map.

The 64 CNEL contour would extend .99 square miles instead of .77 square miles for the proposed project and .62 square miles for the no project alternative. The existing noise contour extends 1.58 square miles and, therefore, this alternative's noise like all others would be considered non-significant. A total of 115 single family and 245 multiple family residential uses would be impacted.

As shown in Table 215, this noise impact area would cover a greater number of residences and persons than the proposed project, and all other alternatives. Adverse aircraft noise impacts would be likely to occur.

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. Table 216 shows typical construction noise levels that would occur during various project development phases. Use of construction equipment noise during specific phases would increase more than 5 decibels. It is only when construction activities are located near the center of development sites, that construction noise levels would fall below the 5 decibel threshold level. Construction activities would cause temporary increases in ambient noise levels near airport boundaries. These activities are short term in duration and, therefore, are not considered long term significantly adverse impacts.

Construction activities would result in intermittent ambient noise 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 increase to intrusive levels for residents located near exterior airport boundaries. However, with use of construction barricades and use restrictions on certain equipment such as pneumatic tools, construction impacts would be significantly reduced.

Table 217 indicates Day-Night Noise levels that would result from traffic associated with the proposed project at representative location within the project vicinity. Noise impact estimates were prepared using the noise impact estimates contained in the Federal Highway Administration (RD-77-108). Existing noise level measurements 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.

Speed assumption was 30 mph for local streets and arterials. Speed on major arterials is assumed to be 40 mph. Automobile distribution is assumed to be 80 percent during the day and 20 percent during the evening and night. Medium and heavy trucks are assumed to be 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 two 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 three decibel increase in noise requires that traffic volumes must increase by 100 percent. Traffic generated by this alternative would increase by less than 6 percent above the 42,869 average vehicle trips generated in 1995. As shown on Table 217, noise levels would not be expected to double 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 non-aviation sites with aeronautical uses would be anticipated to create some additional exterior light, building materials glare and reflection impacts. However, 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. Therefore, the alternative would not be expected to produce adverse 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 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 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 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 would not comply with land use compatibility guidelines established by the City's general plan and adopted district plans. Based on the intensity of building floor area amounts and aircraft operations, this alternative would result in significant land use impacts. This alternative is assumed to consist of a greater intensification of Land Use Proposal C (All Aviation Proposal) amounts shown in the Van Nuys Airport Requirements-Alternatives Report. Short term and long term land use implications of this project would be adverse in terms of preserving current airport land uses and ensuring that existing airport tenants are not forced to unduly compete with new fixed base operators and tenants. The buildup of aviation uses along exterior property lines, near side residential streets, and in airport areas that have traditionally been viewed as non-aviation in nature, make this alternative unsuitable for further land use consideration. Return to index

Compatibility with Surrounding Uses (Physical)

This alternative would be physically incompatible with surrounding land uses since it would generate potentially greater noise, air quality, visual character and traffic impacts than expected airport growth. Nuisance and hazards could occur between existing airport uses and expanded uses. Delicate manufacturing processes undertaken by some industrial uses could be interfered with by the creation of aircraft air pollution, smoke, and related activity. Sensitive residential land uses that suffer from visual glare, aircraft noise, repetitive engine run-ups and aircraft air pollution could be dangerously impacted by designation of aviation on areas more suitably designated as non-aviation. Return to index

Compatibility with Surrounding Uses (Functional)

The location of aviation buildings, aircraft ramps, parking and maintenance facilities in proximity to residential uses, neighborhood friendly commercial uses and delicate industrial uses would not be functionally acceptable for land use planning purposes. The over intensification of aviation uses in areas that traditionally have functioned as light industrial, commercial or open space areas would alter the character of the airport and surrounding neighborhoods. The long term pattern of surrounding land uses, movement of people and goods and services provided could be detrimentally impacted by the over intensification of uses represented by this alternative. Return to index

Natural Resources

Full development of the land use alternative would be expected to allow the following square footage amounts: 927,767 square feet of new aviation floor area, 1,779,581 square feet of existing aviation floor area and 645,000 square feet of remaining non-aviation floor area.

Short term construction equipment uses would result in fossil fuels 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 2-3 years of construction. This number was calculated based on use of the following assumptions:

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

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

Construction equipment operating 8 hours per day, and

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

The alternative's diesel fuel increase would be less than .01 percent of the total 3.3 billion gallons of diesel fuel used annually in California. Construction employee use of automobiles to and from the construction site would also result in additional energy consumption.

It is estimated that approximately 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 mile per day, during the 2-3 years of project construction. Assuming the average gas mileage per vehicle is 17 miles per gallon, the estimated amount of gasoline required would be approximately 45,806 gallons for the entire project construction period. It is estimated 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 consumption during construction are not considered significant.

Use of jet fuel, diesel fuel and gasoline by aircraft and ground vehicles during project operation would be anticipated to increase energy needs based on the projected number of 2015 based aircraft and operations. Calculated data provided by LADOA on jet fuel amounts per operation (593 gallons) were used in conjunction with total daily aircraft operations to determine the total gallons required per day. At the maximum of 44 jet operations per day, it is estimated that 4.94 million gallons of additional jet fuel would be consumed by new development uses. This amount is greater than the 4.62 million gallons shown for the proposed project. However, the alternative fuel amount still represents only a fraction of the 3.14 billion gallons per year consumed in Los Angeles County. The jet fuel requirements would not be significantly adverse. Helicopter fuel usage would increase by 1.26 million gallons of fuel.

The proposed project's vehicle energy analysis estimates that 2.50 million gallons of gasoline would be consumed per year at maximum build out. This amount is based on a travel distance of 10 miles per vehicle and 17 miles per gallons of gasoline. When the same factors are applied to the alternative, an estimated .529 million gallons of additional gasoline per year would be consumed at full build out.

Table 218 shows total airport fuel consumption for Alternative E-3 in 2015. Jet fuel, diesel fuel and gasoline requirements for the alternative are considered nonsignificant.

¹Based on the following assumptions: 10 mile round trip, 17 mpg and 2,509 net daily vehicle trips. Automobile rate per based aircraft extrapolated from FY 1994/1994 actual totals - Ronald J. Kochevar, City of Los Angeles Department of Airports memo to Jerald K. Lee, November 1, 1995. Jets rate based on extrapolation of data from proposed project. Helicopter rate based on extrapolation of data from Ronald J. Kochevar, in 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 alternative development would consume 6.70 million kwh of electricity per year. The alternative would require demolition of about 275,000 square feet of existing non-aviation floor area and thereby reduce existing electrical demand to about 14.39 millions kWh per year. Total airport electricity demand in 2015 is estimated to be 21.09 kwh per year, a .10 kwh increase over the existing amount. The Department of Water and Power would be responsible for providing electricity to the airport and does not anticipate a problem for the area. Table 219 shows estimated electricity use requirements.

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. This alternative would consume 23.82 million additional cf of natural gas. As shown on Table 220, at full build-out, the airport would consume about 79.77 million cf of natural gas per year. The Gas Company does not anticipate problems in serving the area.

In an effort to reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy resources, Title XVIV of the California Administrative Code establishes energy conservation standards for new buildings constructed in the State. This article requires inclusion of energy conservation features relating to efficient lighting, use of natural gas for heating and cooking, installation of ventilation devices, solar orientation, landscaping, weather stripping, caulking, insulation requirements, and double glazed windows in building design and construction. All new construction at VNY 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. However, conformance with Title XVIV to further reduce air quality pollutants from fossils fuel and reduce project energy consumption would be proposed for implementation of this alternative. 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. However, when considered alongside the proposed project and other alternatives, this alternative would have the greatest number of operations, fuel facilities and based aircraft. The potential for an accident would, therefore, be greatest for this alternative.

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, a small fractional amount of aircraft accidents would be predicted. Fuel farm uses could be increased and, therefore, fuel farm explosions, leaks and other safety hazards could increase. However, based on conformance with stringent fuel farm standards adopted by the LAFD, county, state and federal agencies, no significant adverse fuel storage impacts would be expected to occur. Return to index

Population

The alternative includes changes to on-airport aircraft operations. The alternative does not include construction of housing and will not generate new populations. Currently VNY accounts for employment of an estimated 3,480 persons. The alternative would result in a decline of 670 jobs from 1995. About 2,810 jobs would exist on the airport in 2015. Since a decline in daytime population occurs, no growth in the residential population is expected. Significantly adverse impacts are not anticipated. Return to index

Housing

The alternative does not include construction of additional housing and will not result in an direct impacts to the existing housing demand or supply. 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 way safety impacts. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the airport would be provided. Fewer vehicle trips would occur than are proposed for the project. Return to index

Transportation

The 2015 daily vehicle trips would increase less than 6 percent above the 1995 level. Average daily trips would increase by 2,509 to 45,378 average daily trips. Average daily trips associated with this alternative represent one-fifth of the added 11,787 vehicle trips shown for the proposed project. Table 221 shows traffic data for the alternative.

Level of service impacts would remain similar to those shown in 1995. Significant traffic impacts would not occur. Return to index

Public Services

Fire Protection

The Fire Department has preliminarily estimated the alternative would require a fire-flow of approximately 9,000 gpm. Based on this requirement, first due engine company should be located within 1.0 mile of a development site and the first truck company should be within 1.5 miles. 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 the upgrades 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. However the direct airport daytime population is estimated to decrease by 670 persons at full build out. The alternative would, therefore, not contribute to a demand for additional police officers. 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 impacts could, therefore, occur. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, intersection 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

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 15.70 million gallons per year or about 43,014 gallons per day. Combined ground vehicles fossils fuel consumption is projected to be 9.739 million gallons per year.

The alternative would increase electricity consumption by about 6.70 millions kWh 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, all airport uses would consume an estimated 38.27 millions cf per year. The Gas Company does not anticipate problems in serving the area. Return to index

Sewage/Sanitary

As shown in Table 222, the alternative would generate an additional 55,670 gallons per day of sewage. Existing uses generate approximately 142,711 gallons per day. The demolition associated with this alternative would reduce the amount of sewage generated by existing uses to about 126,836 gallons per day. In 2015, total sewage generated by the airport is estimated to be 182,506 gallons per day. The existing sewer lines that run under the airport and beneath perimeter streets have adequate capacity to serve the airport and the alternatives proposed development. In considering 2015, sanitary sewage impacts, the HTP module and primary treatment plant construction projects will be completed prior to 2015 and airport impacts would, therefore, be considered less than significantly adverse.

Return to index

Solid Waste

The airport currently generates approximately 8,087 pounds of solid waste per day. Existing solid waste would be reduced to about 6,914 pounds per day due to demolition of existing uses. Assuming a conservative solid waste generation factor of three pounds per thousand square feet of hangar floor area, six pounds per thousand square feet of office and five pounds per thousand square feet of maintenance area, the alternative development would generate an additional 3,260 pounds of trash per day. As shown in Table 223, total airport solid waste would be 10, 174 pounds in 2015. 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 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. No significant human health impacts would be expected to occur.

Return to index

Aesthetics

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 non-aviation uses and expansion of aviation building 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. Recreational opportunities identified for the proposed project 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 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 include a total of 2,029,145 square feet of aviation related space. Market absorption rates suggest that no more than 1,651,317 square feet or 81 percent of this space will be occupied in 2015. The proposed amounts of office, industrial, and retail space all fall well below market absorption thresholds. Therefore, all of these land uses will be fully occupied in 2015 and the demand for this type of space will outstrip the available supply.

In 2015, this alternative will add only 90 more jobs to the payrolls than the No Project alternative. This amount still represents a decrease of 670 from the 3,480 jobs that existed on the airport in 1995. Although there will potentially be job growth in the aviation sectors, overall job growth will decline due to the loss of non-aviation floor area. The total on airport direct, indirect and induced employment amount under this alternative increases by only 140 jobs over the no-project alternative.

Under the assumptions of Alternative E-3, airport businesses will produce roughly $63 million less in goods and services (in 1996 dollars) than can be produced by land uses under the no-project alternative. This slight reduction from Alternative E-1 in direct output is due to the substitution of Van Nuys Airport businesses that have a high output per square foot ratio (mainly industrial) with aviation firms having slightly less intensive activity. The total output of Los Angeles County will decrease by approximately $66 million under this alternative.

Table 224 shows estimated fiscal impacts associated with this alternative.

This alternative would be expected to generate about $6.4 million dollars less Department of Airports revenue than the proposed project. This alternative would generate $235,296 less in City revenues. Return to index

Airport master plan main page
Van Nuys Airport page