5c Aircraft Hazards - Welcome to City of Camarillo, CA Dev/Projects...site to signiﬁcant aircraft...

AIRCRAFT HAZARDS

SUMMARY

Implementation of the proposed project would not expose guests and employees of the project site to significant aircraft safety hazards.

Implementation of the proposed project would not expose guests and employees of the project site to significant excessive noise levels.

INTRODUCTION

The following analysis is based upon the Aircraft Impact Analysis for Camarillo Hotel and Conference Center (Aircraft Impact Analysis) prepared by ACTA Inc, June 2017 [June 2017(a)] and the Aircraft Noise Analysis for Camarillo Hotel and Conference Center (Aircraft Noise Analysis) also prepared by ACTA Inc, June 2017 [June 2017(b)]. The Aircraft Impact Analysis was conducted to analyze the potential risk to the proposed project from aircraft operating at the Camarillo Airport. The Aircraft Impact Analysis predicts risks to individuals located in buildings at the project site that could potentially be impacted as a result of an aircraft accident. All Camarillo Airport arrivals, departures and touch-and-go operations of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters were considered in the Aircraft Impact Analysis.

The Aircraft Noise Analysis was conducted to determine the potential single noise event impacts to the proposed project. The Aircraft Noise Analysis predicts the single event noise equivalent level (SENEL) at 6 locations at the site as a result of fixed wing and helicopter operations. Arrivals and departures of fixed wing aircraft and helicopters were selected to correspond to those that operate either over or close to the site as they would create the greatest potential for noise impact.

The City of Camarillo has independently reviewed and approved the information presented in the Aircraft Impact Analysis and the Aircraft Noise Analysis. The Aircraft Impact Analysis is provided as Appendix F to this EIR while the Aircraft Noise Analysis is provided as Appendix G.

This section also incorporates information from the Airport Master Plan for Camarillo Airport and the 1

Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Ventura County.2

Coffman Associates, Inc., 2011.1

Coffman Associates, Inc., 2000.2

Draft Environmental Impact Report !77

Traffic and Circulation

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Camarillo Airport and Project Site Location

The proposed project site is located to the northeast across both Las Posas Road and Ventura Boulevard from Camarillo Airport, which is a general aviation airport owned and operated by the County of Ventura in partnership with the City of Camarillo through a Joint Powers Authority. The airport was established in the early 1950s as Oxnard Air Force Base and operated with a variety of military aircraft until it was deactivated in 1969. The airport officially opened as a general aviation airport in 1976 after a lengthy surplus process and now occupies approximately 650 acres of land. The project site location in relation to Camarillo Airport is illustrated in Figure 13.

Camarillo Airport is currently the home for over 600 general aviation aircraft and there are between 150,000 and 200,000 take offs and landings per year. The airport community includes several aviation businesses providing flight instruction (fixed wing and helicopter), aircraft maintenance, and aircraft charter and storage. Camarillo Airport is also the home to the Experimental Aircraft Association, the Commemorative Air Force, the Ventura County 99s, and an ultralight airpark. There is also an airport business park that includes several County agencies, a variety of businesses, and several educational institutions.

According to the Camarillo Airport Master Plan, the westernmost portion of the project site is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) for Camarillo Airport, the eastern portion is located within the Extended Traffic Pattern Zone (ETPZ), and the southernmost portion of the site is within the Height Restriction Zone (HRZ). The standards for each of these zones is described as follows.

The TPZ is an area commonly traversed by low altitude aircraft overflights and touch-and-go traffic in the pattern. Most land uses are compatible within the TPZ, including residential, commercial, and industrial

FIGURE 13 - PROJECT SITE LOCATION RELATIVE TO CAMARILLO AIRPORT

! Camarillo Hotel and Conference Center78


uses; whereas, some uses are fully acceptable including transportation terminals, utilities, automobile parking, and most outdoor recreational/open space uses with the exception of those creating large gatherings of the public (sports arenas, amphitheaters, etc.). Public/institutional uses are unacceptable in the TPZ. Conditionally acceptable uses such as residences, commercial uses (including hotels and retail) should have avigation easements and fair disclosure agreements.

The ETPZ is an area beyond the TPZ which is beneath the extended traffic pattern on a “typical or average” busy day. All land uses are acceptable in the ETPZ; however, some uses such as residences, hotels, and institutional uses should have avigation easements and fair disclosure agreements.

The HRZ is an airspace protection area that extends upward at a slope of 7:1 until it reaches the horizontal surface at an elevation of 150 feet above the airport elevation. Any structures proposed within the HRZ must remain below the approach and transitional surface. Buildings in the southern portion of the project site may not exceed 228 feet above mean sea level.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Thresholds Addressed in the Initial Study

The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (included as Appendix A to this EIR) and circulated with the NOP, evaluated impacts associated with aircraft hazards and concludes that implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts for the threshold of significance listed below. Further analysis of these thresholds is not required in this EIR (a summary of the analysis presented in the Initial Study is provided in the Effects Found Not to be Significant section of this EIR.

• For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

• For a project within the vicinity of a private air strip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Thresholds Addressed in this EIR

The Initial Study concludes that additional project-level analysis of the following thresholds of significance is required in this EIR. In accordance with Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a potentially significant traffic or circulation impact if any of the following were to occur:

• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such as plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?



• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such as plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Aircraft Safety Hazards

Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such as plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would not expose guests and employees of the project site to significant aircraft safety hazards.

Impact Analysis

Camarillo Airport Operations

Two sets of operations data are required for evaluation of aircraft safety hazards. The first is the historical number of operations that occurred over the corresponding period for which accident data are available. The second is an estimate for use in determining the annual impact probability to specific site locations. This second estimate is usually based on a prediction of operations for a future year.

Number of Annual Operations by Aircraft Type

The historical record of operations for Camarillo Airport was provided by airport personnel for the calendar years 1991 through 2016. In order to compute the accident rate per operation as used in the impact probability analysis, it is common to define the numbers of annual operations for the years that cover the accident records. If the operations data that is available does not match the years of the accident record for the airport, the accident rate per operation can be computed using only that part of the accident record that matches the operational record. The accident records for the airport, which were obtained from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and cover the period beginning September 1965 through May 2017, are provided later in this section. The operations data are included in Table 15.

In order to estimate the accident rate by aircraft type or size, specific to Camarillo Airport, it is necessary to determine the number of accidents and the number of operations by aircraft type. The number of accidents by aircraft type is specified later in this section. The number of operations by aircraft type must be estimated. Table 16 shows the breakdown of airport based aircraft by type based on data provided by AirNav. This information was used as a basis to estimate operations by aircraft type. This data is found to be consistent with the projections from the Camarillo Airport Master Plan.



For this analysis, the various aircraft types are binned into weight categories. The weight categories are used to infer debris field size, which will be discussed later in this section. The four weight categories include: very small (< 500 lb), small (> 500 lb and < 3,500 lb), medium (> 3,500 lb and < 7,500 lb), and large (> 7,500 lb). The aircraft types from Table 16 can generally be associated with the following gross takeoff weights: ultralights (< 500 lbs), single engine (< 3,500 lb), multi-engine (> 3,500 lb up to 7,500 lb), jet aircraft (between 7,500 lb and 12,500 lb), helicopters (50% < 3,500 lbs and 50% > 3,500), and air taxi (12,500 to 15,000 lb). Table 17 re-establishes the breakdown of aircraft by weight category.

What is now required is a determination of the expected number of operations at some time in the future to use in the determination of the annual potential for site impact. Various sources could be studied to

TABLE 15 - ANNUAL OPERATIONS FOR CAMARILLO AIRPORT - 1991-2016

YearTota l

Annual Operat ions

YearTota l

Annual Operat ions

YearTota l

Annual Operat ions

YearTota l

Annual Operat ions

1990 213,100 1997 179,398 2004 162,889 2011 133,403

1991 215,122 1998 173,078 2005 153,501 2012 132,679

1992 185,483 1999 187,572 2006 149,825 2013 136,510

1993 179,025 2000 186,476 2007 148,518 2014 144,637

1994 190,850 2001 179,460 2008 158,245 2015 147,020

1995 167,114 2002 203,941 2009 162,170 2016 135,517

1996 172,905 2003 185,887 2010 146,863 Total 4,531,188

Source of table data: ACTA Inc, June 2017(a).

TABLE 16 - CAMARILLO AIRPORT BASED AIRCRAFT TYPE BREAKDOWN

Type Percentage

Ultralight 5.7%

Single Engine 72.1%

Multi-Engine 9.8%

Jet 6.6%

Helicopter 3.8%

Air taxi 2.0%




determine the expected growth in population and aircraft traffic for the Camarillo area and airport. The 2010 Master Plan cites an estimated 162,100 operations for the year 2018 with slightly lower projections than that of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) at 157,266. As noted elsewhere, these projections are generally high. The FAA TAF has since updated these projections based on lower operational counts for the years following the 2010 estimates. The updated operational counts for Camarillo Airport are shown in Table 18 as provided by the TAF.

This analysis will use the year 2020 as the basis for reporting potential risk. The numbers of operations for the year 2020 by aircraft weight category and type are provided in Table 19. This information will be combined with the accident information discussed later in this section to determine an accident rate by weight category.

TABLE 17 - CAMARILLO AIRCRAFT WEIGHT CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION

Weight Category Aircra f t TypeAircra f t Type

PercentageCategory

Percentage

Very Small (< 500 lb) Ultralights 5.7% 5.7%

Small (> 500 lb and < 3,500 lb)

Small Fixed Wing (Single Engine) 72.1%74%

Small Helicopters 1.9%

Medium (> 3,500 lb and < 7,500 lb)

Medium Fixed Wing (Multi-Engine) 9.8%11.7%

Large Helicopters 1.9%

large (> 7,500 lb)Large Fixed Wing (Jet) 6.6%

6.6%Air Taxi 2%


TABLE 18 - TAF PROJECTIONS FOR NUMBERS OF OPERATIONS

Year Tota l Operat ions

2017 132,686

2018 133,064

2019 133,444

2020 133,825




Camarillo Airport Flight Tracks

Figure 14 and Figure 15, from the Ventura County Airport Land Use Plan, are graphic portrayals of the arrival and departure tracks for fixed wing aircraft. Figure 16, also reproduced from the Camarillo Airport Land Use Plan, is a graphic portrayal of the helicopter and touch-and-go tracks. From the Airport Master Plan, it is expected that 70% of the arrivals are from the east and 70% of the departures are to the west, on Runway 26. The remaining 10% of operations are on Runway 8. This is reflected in Table 20, by aircraft maximum takeoff weight, which is based on the estimate of annual operations for the year 2020. This table of operations will be used in this section to compute annual aircraft impact probabilities to various locations at the project site.

Camarillo Accident History

The accident history for Camarillo Airport, from 1982 through 2016, is presented in Table 4-1 of the Aircraft Impact Analysis. This data was obtained from the NTSB. All the relevant accidents were in the general aviation category.

From January 1982 through July 2007, there were a total of 65 accidents/incidents involving aircraft in the vicinity of Camarillo Airport. Of these 65 events, 60 involved fixed winged aircraft, 3 involved helicopters, and two involved ultralights. The largest aircraft accident in the fixed wing group occurred on July 15, 2007. The aircraft involved was a North American F-51D, with a maximum takeoff weight of 12,100 lbs. Of the 65 accidents, 8 involved fatalities, 22 involved some type of injury less than fatal, and 35 had no injuries or were unreported.

TABLE 19 - OPERATIONS FOR 2020 BY AIRCRAFT WEIGHT CATEGORY

Category Aircra f t TypeNumber o f Arr iva ls No. o f Depar tures Tota l Operat ions

AC Type Category AC Type Category AC Type Category

Very Small Ultralights 3,814 3,814 3,814 3,814 7,628 7,628

SmallSmall FW 48,244

49,51648,244

49,51696,488

99,031Small Helicopters 1,272 1,272 2,543

MediumMedium FW 6,558

7,8306,558

7,83013,115

15,658Large Helicopters 1,272 1,272 2,543

LargeLarge FW 4,416

5,7554,416

5,7558,832

11,509Air Taxi 1,339 1,339 2,677

Totals 66,915 66,915 66,915 66,915 133,826 133,826

FW = fixed wing.




FIGURE 14 - CAMARILLO AIRPORT ARRIVAL TRACKS

FIGURE 15 - CAMARILLO AIRPORT DEPARTURE TRACKS



During the period coinciding with the available operations data - January 1990 through December 2016 - there were a total of 44 accidents. Two of the accidents involved helicopters, two were ultralights, and 40 were fixed wing. Three of the accidents within this period are considered immaterial to the risk posed to the surrounding public. One of the accidents, involving an ultralight, occurred when a bystander was struck on the head when approaching a moving propeller. Another irrelevant entry was a simple damage report with no incident cited. The third event was due to improper use of brakes during taxi. Therefore, the accidents pertinent to calculated the accident rate included 38 fixed wing scenarios, one ultralight, and two helicopters.

Aircraft Accident Rates

The relevant accidents can be used along with the operations data and the accident history identified above to compute accident rates per operation, for each aircraft category. These rates are computed by dividing the number of accidents in a given time period by the number of operations in the same time period. Providing sufficient data is available, accident rates can be provided for arrivals and departures and are specified here as P(A)A and P(A)D, respectively.

Table 21 provides the accident rates for each aircraft category for the period 1990 through 2016. This time span was used as it coincides with the availability of operations data, shown in Table 15. The accident rate

FIGURE 16 - CAMARILLO AIRPORT HELICOPTER AND TOUCH-AND-GO TRACKS



is computed for each aircraft weight category for both arrival and departure combined. Low numbers of accidents attributed to departures in some categories create negligible accidents rates. Additionally, some accidents could not clearly be classified as an arrival or departure accident. Therefore, a general, combined accident rate was chosen to better represent the accident potential.

Distribution of Accidents

The distribution of accidents in the vicinity of an airfield can be described according to a downrange distance impact distribution and a cross-range distance impact distribution. Downrange distance is measured along the runway centerline from a specific location on the runway and cross-range distance is measured from, and perpendicular to, the runway centerline. From a downrange perspective, the distribution of accidents is highest at locations near to the end of the runway. From a cross-range perspective, the highest concentration of accidents occurs close to the extended runway centerline.

Probability of Impact Given and Accident Occurs

Data specific to Camarillo Airport is not available to determine the locations of impacts with reasonable accuracy. For this reason, it was necessary to rely on data contained in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. This handbook provided analyses of the distribution of general aviation accidents, based on research conducted by the Institute of Transportation Studies of the University of California,

TABLE 20 - CAMARILLO AIRPORT OPERATIONS BY RUNWAY DESIGNATION - 2020 ESTIMATES

Aircra f t Gross Takeoff Weight ( lbs )

Number o f Operat ions

Arr iva ls Depar tures

Tota l Percent Tota l Percent

Runway 26 46,839 35.00% 46,839 35.00%

Very Small (< 500 lb) 2,670 2.00% 2,670 2.00%

Small (> 500 and < 3,500 lb) 34,661 25.90% 34,661 25.90%

Medium (> 3,500 and <7,500 lb) 5,480 4.10% 5,480 4.10%

Large (> 7,500 lb) 4,028 3.01% 4,028 3.01%

Runway 8 2,074 15.00% 2,074 15.00%

Very Small (< 500 lb) 1,144 0.86% 1,144 0.86%

Small (> 500 and < 3,500 lb) 14,855 11.10% 14,855 11.10%

Medium (> 3,500 and <7,500 lb) 2,349 1.76% 2,349 1.76%

Large (> 7,500 lb) 1,726 1.29% 1,726 1.29%

Totals 133,862 133,862




Berkeley, in 2002. The work defined a database that encompasses accidents that occurred in all 50 states and covered the time period from 1983 into 1992. The database contains a total of 873 accidents, arrivals and departures; it excludes helicopters, airline aircraft, blimps, military aircraft and ultralights.

Figures 17 and 18 are reproduced here form this handbook, which shows the location of accidents with respect to the landing and departure ends of runways, respectively, for runways of length greater than 6,000 feet. This data is considered to be relevant for Camarillo Airport, which is 6,010 feet long. In order to be useable in calculating the probability of impact, given an accident occurs, it was necessary to prepare a model from this data. The approach to preparing this model is described in the following paragraphs.

TABLE 21 - AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT RATES PER OPERATION, CAMARILLO AIRPORT, 1990-2016

Histor ica l In format ionTota l

Acc identsTota l

Operat ionsTota l

Acc ident Rate

Very Small < 500 lb Ultralights 1 258,278 3.87X10-6

Small 500 - 3,500 lb

Small FW 34 3,266,987 1.04X10-5

Small Helicopters 2 86,093 2.32X10-5

Total Small 36 3,353,079 1.07X10-5

Medium 3,500 - 7,500 lb

Medium FW 3 444,056 6.76X10-6

Large Helicopters 0 86,093 0

Total Medium 3 530,149 5.66X10-6

Large 7,500 - 20,000 lb

Large FW 1 299,058 3.34X10-6

Air Taxi 0 90,624 0

Total Large 1 389,682 2.57X10-6

All 41 4,531,188 9.05X10-6

FW = fixed wing.




FIGURE 17 - GENERAL AVIATION ACCIDENT DISTRIBUTION CONTOURS OF ARRIVAL ACCIDENTS ON RUNWAYS OF 6,000 FEET OR GREATER



The pooled accident data for each category of runway, for arrivals or departures, was used to develop stochastic (probabilistic) models. The data are referred to as pooled because they are aggregated over

FIGURE 18 - GENERAL AVIATION ACCIDENT DISTRIBUTION CONTOURS OF DEPARTURE ACCIDENTS ON RUNWAYS OF 6,000 FEET OR GREATER



different airports and accumulated over a period of time. The stochastic models were used to, in effect, estimate empirical confidence limits. These confidence limits provide the basis for estimating the probability of future accidents in an arbitrarily-shaped area in the vicinity of the existing accident data. The probability estimates are conditioned on the data and assume it was perfectly observed. The stochastic model produced in each case is non-parametric. This means that regardless of the spatial distribution of the accident data, the probabilities that are calculated from the stochastic model will be greatest in the vicinity of accident “clusters.” The stochastic model is based on a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique, which is described in greater detail in the Aircraft Impact Analysis.

Property Impact Probabilities

Impact probabilities can be computed based on several variables, e.g. per operation, unit of time, etc. Here, they a computed as the probability of impact per year. The reciprocal is the return period, which is the number of years expected, on average, between impacts. The probability of impact per year in computed for each part of the site as follows:

P(I) = P(A)*P(IL/A)*P(C/A)*N

where,

P(A) = probability of an accident per operation P(IL/A) = probability of impact to a specific location given an accident N = number of operations per year

P(IL|A) is computed using the stochastic model described above.

Property Impact Probabilities

Different aircraft sizes will yield different debris footprints on impact and so it is necessary to compute impact probabilities for each type of aircraft that uses the airport. Debris will generally be scattered over a larger area for heavier aircraft and so the potential for building impact will be greater. In determining the impact footprint area, therefore, the potential for impact from non-direct hits must be included. The size of the impact footprints for different aircraft sizes was determined from US Air Force data for fixed-wing aircraft.

An impact area of one acre was used as the size of the possible impact footprint for small fixed wing aircraft, those with maximum takeoff weights of less than 3,500 lbs. It is assumed too that the impact footprint for helicopters of maximum takeoff weight up to 3,500 lbs will also be about one acre. The impact footprint for aircraft, including helicopters, with weights ranging from 3,500 lbs to 7,500 lbs is assumed to be two acres and the impact footprint for aircraft with maximum takeoff weight between 7,500 lbs and 15,000 lbs is assumed to be three acres. The impact footprint for ultralights is assumed to be about 1⁄2 an acre.



Figure 13 shows the location of the proposed project site in relation to the airport runway. A scaled map of this figure was used to determine the coordinate distances from the runway arrival and departure locations for 1/2 acre, one acre, two acre and three acre locations on the project site. These areas are likely to encompass any debris resulting from an accident involving the types of aircraft that use the airport. The airport runway is 6,010 feet long and 150 feet wide. Assuming the momentum of an aircraft on impact carries the debris three times further in the direction of the travel of the aircraft than in a cross-wise direction will result in the debris field dimensions as shown in Table 22.

In order to compute the probabilities of impacting a given location, given an accident, the code prepared to determine these results requires input of the downrange and crossrange coordinate locations of the impact locations with reference to the runway 8-26.

Figure 19 shows the proposed project site plan in which each building serves as the potential impact locations considered in the analysis. The impact probabilities were computed based on the nearest point of each building to the end of the runway. The analysis considered overlap of the nearest point of each building with a debris field corresponding to aircraft category debris field sizes. Measurements were taken to the debris field edges closest to the runway end. Due to the different debris field sizes, measurements differ for each aircraft category.

The results of the impact probability for the areas potentially affecting a building are provided in Table 23 which yields the annual impact probabilities for each category for all locations, Building 1 – Building 6. Due to the nature of limited accident data by category and undistinguishable accident types, probabilities are calculated for all operations rather than by arrival/departure. Therefore, total accident rate was used for each category combined with the conditional probability of all operations.

Risk to Building Occupants

In order to determine the risk of a casualty inside one or more of the site properties, the potential for penetration of a structure and impact to one-or-more people inside needs to be determined. Building

TABLE 22 - DEBRIS FIELD DIMENSIONS CORRESPONDING TO MAXIMUM AIRCRAFT TAKEOFF WEIGHT

Maximum Aircra f t Takeoff Weight ( lbs )

Debr is F ie ld S ize (acres )

Downrange Dimens ion ( f t )

Crossrange Dimens ion ( f t )

< 500 0.5 255 85

< 3.500 1.0 360 120

> 35,00 to < 7,500 2.0 510 170

7,500 to 15,000 3.0 630 210




impact is defined as anything from a minor impact of a part of an aircraft, which does not penetrate the structure to full structural penetration. The probability of structural penetration and impact to one or more individuals inside the structure can only be provided with wide ranges of uncertainty, given all of the variables associated with the calculation.

Casualty Potential

Table 24 is a suggested severity classification for building occupants and property of the proposed project site. It is typical of that used by various jurisdictions in California, and elsewhere, to classify the severity of accidents for various hazardous industrial activities.

Table 25 provides estimates of the potential for building damage, penetration and casualties, given an aircraft impacts on or close to a building. These estimates are affected by the location of impact, a direct hit versus an impact of debris, and the velocity and size of debris. The likelihood of structural penetration increases as aircraft size and impact velocity increases. For small fixed wing aircraft, the size of the impact area is considered to be one acre, which was used to compute the impact probabilities discussed above. The potential for penetration by impacting debris from a small aircraft if it lands near to a property, but

FIGURE 19 - PROJECT SITE BUILDING LOCATION FOR WHICH IMPACT PROBABILITIES WERE COMPUTED



within a one acre area that includes a structure is therefore less than 100%, and so these estimates are considered reasonable.

TABLE 23 - ANNUAL SITE IMPACT PROBABILITIES FOR YEAR 2020

Aircra f t Category (F ie ld S ize )

Bui ld ing Al l Operat ions

Very Small (0.5 acre)

Building 1 4.33E-06

Building 2 4.91E-06

Building 3 3.48E-06

Building 4 3.95E-06

Building 5 2.51E-06

Building 6 2.28E-06

Small Aircraft (one acre)

Building 1 3.52E-04

Building 2 3.05E-04

Building 3 2.68E-04

Building 4 2.73E-04

Building 5 1.86E-04

Building 6 1.44E-04

Medium Aircraft (two acres)

Building 1 4.96E-05

Building 2 5.53E-05

Building 3 4.73E-05

Building 4 4.08E-05

Building 5 3.20E-05

Building 6 2.49E-05

Large Aircraft (3 acres)

Building 1 2.51E-05

Building 2 2.70E-05

Building 3 2.46E-05

Building 4 2.02E-05

Building 5 1.52E-05

Building 6 1.38E-05




The results of Table 23, the annual impact probabilities, were multiplied by the percentages (probabilities) of Table 25 to determine the probability of various levels of effect to persons located at the proposed project site. Table 26 presents the total annual risk by severity level. Building 1 shows the highest risk for each severity level, followed by Building 2. This corresponds to proximity to the airport runway.

Conclusion

The risk results for the six buildings at the project site have been calculated for various severity levels, as shown in Table 26. The Severe consequence level corresponds to a significant injury and the Catastrophic

TABLE 24 - SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROJECT SITE

Descr ipt ion Def in i t ion

Catastrophic Death or damage and other losses > $1,000,000

Severe Multiple injuries or losses between $100,000 and $1,000,000

Moderate A single injury or losses between $25,000 and $100,000

Negligible No casualties or losses < $25,000


TABLE 25 - PERCENT OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD SUFFER SPECIFIED EFFECT GIVEN AN AIRCRAFT IMPACT

Ultra l ights Smal l F ixed Wing Medium Fixed Wing Large F ixed Wing

Neg Mod Sev Cat Neg Mod Sev Cat Neg Mod Sev Cat Neg Mod Sev Cat

60% 30% 8% 2% 30% 50% 15% 5% 25% 45% 20% 10% 20% 40% 25% 15%


TABLE 26 - TOTAL ANNUAL RISK BY BUILDING AT THE PROJECT SITE

Bui ld ing Moderate Severe Catas t rophic

Building 1 2.10E-04 6.94E-05 2.64E-05

Building 2 1.90E-04 6.40E-05 2.49E-05

Building 3 1.66E-04 5.61E-05 2.19E-05

Building 4 1.64E-04 5.44E-05 2.08E-05

Building 5 1.14E-04 3.83E-05 1.48E-05

Building 6 8.96E-05 3.03E-05 1.18E-05




consequence level corresponds to a fatality. Table 27 provides the sum of these two consequence levels to represent the risk of a significant injury or worse. It was found that Building 1, the closest building to the end of Runway 26, has the highest risk of consequence at the project site. Therefore, the project site shows a highest individual risk corresponding to the risk reported for Building 1. The risk of a Severe or worse consequence at the project site was found to be 9.58x10-5, or almost 10 in 100,000 per year. There are no adopted thresholds to determine whether a risk is significant. However, the calculated risk for the project site is no greater than theirs for the other existing buildings in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the impact of the project would be less than significant.

Aircraft Noise Impacts

Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such as plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would not expose guests and employees of the project site to significant excessive noise levels.

Impact Analysis

Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.

TABLE 27 - TOTAL RISK DUE TO AIRCRAFT IMPACT AT THE PROJECT SITE

Bui ld ing Severe or Worse

Building 1 9.58E-05

Building 2 8.89E-05

Building 3 7.80E-05

Building 4 7.52E-05

Building 5 5.31E-05

Building 6 4.21E-05




Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:

Maximum A-Weighted Sound Level, Lmax: The maximum instantaneous A-Weighted sound level generated by a noise event. It does not provide any information as to the variability with time to a recipient of a noise event.

Single Event Noise Exposure Level, SENEL: The summation of the sound energy level over the duration of an event, where duration is defined as the period from when A-weighted sound level exceeds a threshold level until that level drops below the threshold. In order to account for the different durations that occur with different noise occurrences, the noise dose is normalized to a one-second duration, which dose is defined as the SENEL.

Community Noise Exposure Level, CNEL: The CNEL noise standard was developed by the State of California, which specified noise standards in 1070. The CNEL defines a noise dose that accumulates over a period of 24 hours. This is best illustrated by an example as shown in Figure 20, the first frame of which shows that the sound level increases as an aircraft approaches and then decreases as it passes over a recipient. The area under the curve represents the noise dose received by a recipient during the 1-minute period of the sample. The center frame includes the 1-minute time period within a 1-hour period, during which 16 aircraft pass the receiver (16 peak noise events shown). Each aircraft passage produces a single event dose represented by an SENEL value. The bottom frame shows the noise dose over the period of 1-day. CNEL treats evening (7 pm to 10 pm) and nighttime noise differently from daytime noise (7 am to 7 pm) to take account of the increased sensitivity of people to evening and nighttime noise. This is accomplished by multiplying the number of evening operations by 3 and the number of nighttime operations by 10. Also, evening and nighttime noises are perceived as more intrusive as the ambient levels at these times are usually lower than those encountered during the daytime.

24-Hour Noise Impacts

Figure 2 of the City of Camarillo General Plan Noise Element 2015 provides the State of California matrix on recommended land use compatibility with community noise environments. These suggested noise standards are utilized by the City of Camarillo for community planning purposes. The standards suggest that exterior noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL are acceptable for transient lodging and commercial uses provided that they are developed with conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning.

Exhibit C1 of the Airport Master Plan for Camarillo Airport shows that the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour line for ultimate airport operations does not extend beyond Las Posas Road. Therefore, guests and



employees of the proposed project would not be exposed to 24-hour noise levels that exceed City standards. The impact of them project would be less than significant.

Single Event Noise Impacts

Methodology

ACTA used the latest version of the Integrated Noise Model (INM) to compute the single event noise levels at 6 selected locations at the proposed project site. Three of these locations were chosen as they could potentially be located directly under a small fixed winged aircraft arrival track from the north. A further three locations were chosen because they could potentially be located almost directly under a helicopter departure track to the north.

FIGURE 20 - EXAMPLE OF 24-HOUR CNEL NOISE LEVEL



Figures 14, 15, and 16 show the Camarillo Airport flight tracks for fixed wing arrivals, fixed wing departures, and the arrival and departure tracks for helicopters, respectively. Figure 21 shows the flight tracks considered in this analysis. These tracks were chosen based on their proximity to the project site and include tracks used by large, medium and small fixed wing aircraft as well as small and medium/large helicopters. They are labeled D(number) for a fixed wing departure track and A(number) for a fixed wing arrival track. Four fixed wing departure tracks and four fixed wing arrival tracks were chosen as those that would produce the highest fixed wing aircraft noise impacts to the site. In addition, one helicopter departure track, SH4D, and one helicopter arrival track, SH4A, was chosen, as these would produce the highest helicopter noise impacts to the site. Figure 21 also shows the six locations at the project site for which single event noise levels were calculated and which are labeled N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, and N6. Figure 22 is a screen capture of the INM input file used to calculate the single event noise levels at Locations N1 through N6. The latitude/longitude locations for which single event noise levels were calculated are POC1 through POC6, which correspond to N1 through N6 of Figure 21.

Table 28 specifies the aircraft used to generate the noise impacts on each of the flight track shown in Figure 20.

FIGURE 21 - ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE TRACKS SELECTED FOR SINGLE EVENT NOISE ANALYSIS



Results

The results of the single event noise analysis are provided in Tables 29, 30, and 31.

The results presented here are SENEL levels that could potentially be encountered by employees and guests of the project site due to aircraft operations at Camarillo Airport. It is important to note that these results are for exterior noise and so actual interior noise levels, especially during nighttime hours when

FIGURE 22 - INM INPUT FILE SHOWING SINGLE EVENT NOISE LEVEL LOCATIONS AND FLIGHT TRACKS

TABLE 28 - AIRCRAFT USED TO GENERATE NOISE IMPACTS

Fl ight Track Aircra f tMax Gross Takeoff Weight

( lbs )

A2, A13, D6 Dash 6, Lear 36 15,000, 18,000

A11, D14 Cessna 206H 3,800

A16, D32 Baron 58P 6,750

D11 Dash 6, Lear 36 15,000, 18,000

SH4A Bell 206L, Bell 212 3,000, 11,200

SH4D Bell 206L, Bell 212 3,000, 11,200

Source of table data: ACTA Inc, June 2017(b).



widows are likely to be closed and less operations occur, will be up to 10 dBA or more less than those provided in Tables 29, 30, and 31.

The Aircraft Noise Analysis references measured SENEL levels at various locations around the Mather Airport in Sacramento County that are of the same order as those presented here. Various large commercial aircraft presented single event noise levels of 80 to 85 and sometimes as much as 90 dB at distances of 3,000 to over 4,000 feet from the noise source. The City of Santa Monica, in an agreement with the FAA, established an Airport Ordinance that set a maximum SENEL of 95 dBA. The highest computed SENEL is 93.1 dBA for a relatively large Dash 6/Lear 36, turboprop/jet, considered to fly directly south of the project site.

TABLE 29 - SINGLE EVEN NOISE LEVELS - ARRIVAL TRACKS

TrackAircra f t S ingle Event Noise Leve l

S ize Weight ( lbs ) Des ignat ion N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6

A11 Small 3,800 Cessna 206H 77.1 77.7 76.4 76.9 76.8 77.3

A16 Medium 6,750 Baron 58P 76.8 77.8 74.3 74.6 72.3 72.3

A13 Large1 15,000 - 18,000 Dash 6/Lear 36 74.3 75.6 71.2 72.0 69.2 69.3

A02 Large1 15,000 - 18,001 Dash 6/Lear 36 47.2 47.4 46.5 45.9 45.5 45.1

1 The largest value from the turbo-prop Dash 6 and the Lear 36 jet.

Weight is the maximum gross takeoff weight.


TABLE 30 - SINGLE EVEN NOISE LEVELS - DEPARTURE TRACKS



D14 Small 3,800 Cessna 206H 87.9 88.1 86.9 85.5 84.9 83.8

D32 Medium 6,750 Baron 58P 64.7 64.7 64.8 64.1 64.3 63.9

D11 Large1 15,000 - 18,000 Dash 6/Lear 36 64.0 64.0 63.5 62.6 62.5 61.9

D08 Large1 15,000 - 18,001 Dash 6/Lear 36 92.5 93.1 90.8 91.0 89.2 88.9

1 The largest value from the turbo-prop Dash 6 and the Lear 36 jet.





Because no sensitive uses would be exposed to excessive noise levels on a continuous basis, and because the proposed uses would be exposed to similar aircraft noise levels as the other existing commercial uses in the vicinity of the project site, implementation of the proposed project would not expose guests and employees of the project site to significant excessive noise levels. As part of the building plan review of the project, the building plans and supporting materials for the hotel building would be reviewed by the Department of Building and Safety to ensure that interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources will meet 45 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the impact of the project would be less than significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Impacts associated with aircraft hazards are generally specific to an individual project site. The analysis presented above also accounts for growth in aircraft operations at Camarillo Airport. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to any aircraft hazards in other parts of camarillo.

UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

The proposed project would not create any unavoidable significant impacts associated with aircraft hazards.

TABLE 31 - SINGLE EVEN NOISE LEVELS - HELICOPTER TRACKS



SH4A Small 3,000 Bell 206L 64.3 64.4 63.8 63.3 63.1 62.6

SH4A Large 11,200 Bell 212 Huey 71.1 71.2 70.7 70.1 69.9 69.5

SH4D Small 3,000 Bell 206L 60.3 60.5 59.6 59.1 58.7 58.3

SH4D Large 11,200 Bell 212 Huey 69.3 69.4 68.7 68.3 67.9 67.6





This page intentionally left bank.


5c Aircraft Hazards - Welcome to City of Camarillo, CA Dev/Projects...site to signiﬁcant aircraft...

Documents

Transcript of 5c Aircraft Hazards - Welcome to City of Camarillo, CA Dev/Projects...site to signiﬁcant aircraft...