Waste Management of North County Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility

Transcription

1 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Waste Management of North County Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility O C T O B E R L E A D A G E N C Y: City of Oceanside 300 North Coast Highway Oceanside, CA P R E P A R E D B Y : 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024

2

3 DRAFTFINAL Waste Management of North County Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: City of Oceanside 300 North Coast Highway Oceanside, California, Contact: Richard Greenbauer Prepared by: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California Contact: Elizabeth Doalson MARCH OCTOBER 2012

4 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

5 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION Introduction California Environmental Quality Act Compliance Other Agencies That May Use the MND and Initial Study Content and Format of MND Public Review Process PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location Project Description Background Project Characteristics Project Construction Standard Project Design Features Discretionary Actions FINDINGS INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM LIST OF PREPARERS Lead Agency City of Oceanside Project Consultants Technical Report Preparation REFERENCES APPENDICES A B C D Air Quality Impact Calculations Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations Focused Environmental Noise Assessment Waste Management of North County Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Relationship to Revised Final Oceanside Subarea Plan Memorandum TOC-i MarchOctober 2012

6 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page No. LIST OF FIGURES 1 Regional Map Vicinity Map Aerial Map Site Plan Details of Proposed CNG Equipment Area CNG Compressor Details Example CNG Facility Photos Landscape Concept Plan LIST OF TABLES 2-1 Project Summary Summary of Standard Project Design Features and Construction Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions (pounds/day) Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (metric tons CO2E/year) Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (metric tons CO2E/year) One-Hour Average Sound Level Limits TOC-ii March October 2012

7 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Acronym/Abbreviation Definition ATCM Airborne Toxics Control Measure Best Management Practices BMPs CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CNG compressed natural gas CO carbon monoxide CUP conditional use permit DFG Department of Fish and Game DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GHG greenhouse gas I-5 Interstate 5 MHCP Multiple Habitat Conservation Program MND mitigated negative declaration NOx oxides of nitrogen O3 Ozone ppm parts per million RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SDAB San Diego Air Basin SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District SUSMP Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan TAC toxic air contaminant WM Waste Management TOC-iii MarchOctober 2012

8 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TOC-iv March October 2012

9 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration This Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) consists of three sections: 1. Preface. The Preface summarizes the Final MND process and Final MND contents. 2. Responses to Comments. This section, which follows this preface, addresses comments on the Draft MND raised during the public review period. Each comment letter has been scanned and individual comments bracketed. Responses have been prepared for each comment. 3. Revisions to the Draft MND. This section provides a summary of all edits to the Draft MND text that were necessary due to the public review period, as well as project planning refinement efforts by Waste Management. All edits utilize strikeout/underline formatting so the reader can clearly differentiate between original and revised text. PREFACE The City of Oceanside, acting as Lead Agency for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation, released for public review a Draft MND for the Waste Management of North County (WM) Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project. The 30-day public review period started on March 28, 2012 and lasted until April 28, Since the release of the Draft MND for public review, minor revisions to the Site Plan and Landscape Plan were made. The new site plan extends the proposed trenching activities to the eastern edge of the parking lot and will connect to a k-rail line to bring the compressed gas to the southern boundary of the parking lot. This change eliminated the need to trench from the center of the parking lot to the southern boundary of the parking lot. These changes would reduce the amount of construction noise that will occur along the southern project boundary adjacent to Loma Alta Creek; no new impacts would be generated from this revision. The revised landscape plan reflects the change in species from Island gooseberry (Ribes viburnifolium) to Fuchsiaflowered gooseberry (Ribes speciosum). Fuchsia-flowered gooseberry is a California native drought tolerant shrub, proposed to be planted along the eastern property boundary. No new impacts would be created from the change in species used for landscaping the project site. Two new figures were added to the Draft MND to depict the details and positioning of the CNG compressor within the equipment area. A consistency analysis of the proposed project with the 2000 City of Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (Subarea Plan) was included in the Draft MND. The City s revised 2010 Subarea Plan was released in July 2012 (between preparation of the Draft and Final MND). A memorandum addressing the project s consistency 1 October 2012

10 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration with the revised Subarea Plan was prepared by Dudek in October 2012 and is included as Appendix D of this Final MND. The project site is currently developed and would not result in direct impacts to biological resources. The proposed construction activities are scheduled to occur prior to March 15th (outside the bird breeding season). If project delays or other unforeseen factors should result in construction activity between March 15 and July 15, the project would adhere to the noise limitations provided in the revised Subarea Plan. Other changes to this MND were in response to the comment letters received on the Draft MND during the public review comment period. As discussed below, an additional noise measurement was conducted in the residential neighborhood to the north of the project. The noise measurement and modeling results were summarized into the noise analysis provided in this Final MND, which further concluded that noise impacts would be less than significant. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS This section of the Final MND presents copies of comments received on the Draft MND during the public review period. The City of Oceanside s responses to each comment are also included. Each comment letter is lettered and the issues within each comment letter are bracketed and numbered (e.g., A-1, A-2, etc.). Comment letters are followed by responses, which are numbered to correspond with the bracketed comments. The City s responses to comments on the Draft MND represent a good-faith, reasoned effort to address the environmental issues identified by the comments. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City is not required to provide written responses to comments received on the Draft MND. However, the City has opted to prepare written responses. The Final MND, including the environmental impact analysis, includes revisions to the text based on public review comments. These changes are identified in the Final MND in strikeout/underline text. List of Agencies and Individuals that Commented on the Draft MND A draft version of this MND was circulated for public review from March 28, 2012 to April 28, This section contains all written comments received during the public comment period as well as responses to these comments. A total of three comment letters were received by the City. Table 1 provides an index to the comment letters. 2 October 2012

11 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 1 Comment Letters Document Letter No. Agency/Respondent, Date of Comment Letter Response No. Public Agencies A State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, April 27, 2012 A-1 B Department of Toxic Substances Control, April 23, 2012 B-1 through B-12 C Friends of Loma Alta Creek Letter, April 30, 2012 C-1 through C-39 Responses to all comments received during the public review period were prepared and are included in the Final MND. In response to the comments received on the Draft MND, one additional noise measurement was conducted in the residential community located to the north of the project site. With implementation of the proposed project, the future hourly average noise level generated by the proposed project is calculated well below the existing ambient noise level and would comply with the City s noise ordinance criteria. This analysis was added to the Environmental Noise Assessment Report and the Draft MND for clarification or amplification purposes, but the changes did not result in a new significant impact, a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact, no new mitigation measures were added to the Final MND, and the revisions to the MND do not raise important new issues about significant effects on the environment. CEQA Guidelines Regarding Recirculation and Substitution of Mitigation Measure in a Proposed MND Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section , the City is required to recirculate a draft MND when the document is substantially revised after public notice of its availability but prior to its adoption. A substantial revision is identified as 1) a new avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or 2) the City determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significant and new measures or revisions must be required. Under CEQA Guidelines Section (c), recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: 1. Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects. 3 October 2012

12 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 3. Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. 4. New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. Decision The City of Oceanside provides the following explanation of the decision regarding no recirculation. The Draft MND fully discloses significant impacts and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to less than significant. Changes made to the Draft MND were conducted to expand the existing analysis and further document that project related noise impacts will be less than significant. These revisions made to the Draft MND are not considered substantial and do not require recirculation in accordance with (c) of the CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section (b), the scheduled public hearing for the project will satisfy the need to disclose MND changes to the draft document in a public forum. It is further noted that all mitigation measures provided in the Final MND will be made conditions of project approval. 4 October 2012

13 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 October 2012

14 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 October 2012

15 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comment Letter A Governor s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse April 27, 2012 A-1 Comment noted. The Draft MND was circulated to selected state agencies and reviewed accordingly. This comment outlines the State Clearinghouse s MND distribution process and does not relate to the adequacy of the Draft MND. Therefore, no repose is necessary. 7 October 2012

16 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 8 October 2012

17 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 October 2012

18 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 October 2012

19 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 October 2012

20 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 12 October 2012

21 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comment Letter B Department of Toxic Substance Control April 23, 2012 B-1 This comment outlines the author s understanding of the project and does not relate to the adequacy of the Draft MND. Therefore, no response is necessary. B-2 Section Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft MND addresses current and historic materials used in the project area that may have resulted in the release of hazardous waste/substances. While the existing facility regularly uses and stores chemicals for vehicle maintenance; a review of the Department of Toxic Substance Control s Hazardous Waste and Substance List - Site Cleanup indicates that identified hazardous material sites are not located within the project site. Therefore, no known current or historic uses have resulted in hazardous releases that adversely impact the project site. B-3 See response to B-2 above. A review of the Department of Toxic Substance Control s Hazardous Waste and Substance List Site Cleanup indicated that identified hazardous material sites are not located within the project site. Therefore, further investigation and/or remediation are not required. B-4 See response to B-2 above. Section Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft MND addresses current and historic materials used in the project area. The existing uses necessitate the storage of chemicals for vehicle maintenance; however no hazardous material cleanup sites have been identified on the project site or its surrounding area. Therefore, an expedited response plan or a final remedy to reduce threats to the public health or the environment is not warranted. B-5 The project will result in less than 2,500 square feet of ground disturbance. It was determined that current site conditions in regards to hazards and hazardous wastes are not a significant environmental concern. As discussed in Section of the Draft MND, reuse of soils on the site would be conducted in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations. In addition, an environmental health and safety plan will be prepared as part of the project to provide direction regarding the emergency processes that will be followed if soil vapors or other suspicious underground substances are encountered. The plan will be kept on site during all aspects of subterranean disturbance. 13 October 2012

22 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration B-6 See response to item B-5 above. As discussed in Section of the Draft MND, reuse of soils on the site would be conducted in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations. In addition, an environmental health and safety plan will be prepared as part of the project to provide direction regarding the emergency processes that will be followed if soil vapors or other suspicious underground substances are encountered. The plan will be kept on site during all aspects of subterranean disturbance. Furthermore, best management practices will be implemented for the duration of the project construction that will avoid and minimize the release of hazardous materials into the environment. B-7 No hazardous conditions were identified on the project site that could impact the proposed project. As part of the project s compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations, the appropriate government agency would be contacted if unexpected contamination were encountered during construction/demolition activities. Further, because interactions with the groundwater table are not anticipated during project construction, potential issues are not expected. B-8 See response to item B-7. No known weed abatement or other activities have occurred on the project site that would result in pesticide, herbicides, or agricultural chemical residue. B-9 Comment noted. Section Hazards and Hazardous Waste of the Draft MND identifies the need for the project to comply with all federal, state, and local hazardous waste regulations and the need to register with the County Department of Environmental Health, and to prepare an Environmental Business Plan. The San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division (HMD) has been certified by the California Environmental Agency (CalEPA) as the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and thus responsible for implementing these laws and regulations at the local level. Therefore, specific compliance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5) will be achieved through registration with the County s Department of Environmental Health. B-10 See response to item B-9 above. The applicant will register the project with the County Department of Environmental Health; which is the local CUPA responsible for implementing federal and state hazardous waste laws. 14 October 2012

23 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration B-11 The project does not propose the demolition of any existing structures, asphalt or concrete areas. The project s compliance with all federal, state, and local hazardous waste regulations will address the minimal amount of asphalt to be removed for the proposed construction activities. B-12 The City appreciates DTSC s willingness to provide guidance for cleanup oversight however as mentioned in response to item B-2 no hazardous material cleanup sites have been identified on the project site or its surrounding area; therefore guidance for cleanup oversight is not required. B-13 The City appreciates the Department of Toxic Substance Control s comments on the Draft MND and will coordinate with the requested project manager as necessary. 15 October 2012

24 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 16 October 2012

25 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 October 2012

26 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 18 October 2012

27 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 October 2012

28 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 October 2012

29 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 October 2012

30 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 22 October 2012

31 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comment Letter C Friends of Loma Alta Creek April 30, 2012 C-1 Comment noted. Friends of Loma Alta Creek reviewed the Draft MND for the proposed project. This comment recognizes that implementation of the project would result in an environmentally friendly alternative to the existing fueling facility which will result in a reduction in greenhouse gasses. This comment simply notes the author s support for use of compressed natural gas (CNG) fueled waste vehicles and does not relate to the adequacy of the Draft MND, therefore no response is necessary. C-2 Comment implies that project impacts are not reduced to less than significant levels with the mitigation provided in the MND, and that an EIR is required for the project. The Draft MND provided a summary of existing conditions, a thorough discussion of all anticipated impacts that would occur to those existing conditions associated with the project and in the few cases where potentially significant impacts were identified, provided industry/city of Oceanside-standard mitigation measures that fully off-set such impacts to a level of less than significant. Therefore, all impacts are less than significant or less than significant with incorporation of the mitigation measures provided. This comment does not identify any specific reference as to what the significant unmitigable impacts may be and/or which mitigation measures are not adequate in reducing potentially significant impacts; therefore, no further response is provided. C-3 Comment states that the Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts, and therefore, CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared for the project. While the Initial Study identifies potentially significant impacts, mitigation measures were provided that reduced those impacts to less than significant levels. Since all impacts were reduced to less than significant levels, and no significant unmitigable impacts were identified, an MND was determined to be the appropriate documentation for the project. (Refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070; which states: A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when: b) When the Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects, but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. ) 23 October 2012

32 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration C-4 Comment noted. The comment states that legal action on the project will not be pursued if suggested mitigations can be agreed to. This comment does not address a specific inadequacy of the MND and therefore, no further response is provided. C-5 Comment noted. This comment mentions that the project is a modification/revision of a previous Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Development Plan, and does not address the adequacy of the MND. It is further noted that Waste Management of North County (WM) was previously operating at 3 separate sites. In order to allow for a more efficient utilization of available facilities and space, a Development Plan (D-9-95) and Conditional Use Permit (C-24-95) were previously approved for the redistribution and coordination of the operational aspects of WM activities at the 3 sites. The current application is for a revision that affects only the operational aspects at Site 1 (i.e., the proposed project site as identified in the Draft MND), with the conversion to CNG-fueled collection vehicles and improvements needed to install the CNG fueling facility at this site. The Draft MND evaluates the environmental effects associated with these modifications at Site 1. The project does not include modifications or changes at either of the other two sites, and therefore, the scope of the environmental analysis is limited to only the modifications at Site 1, but not to any other aspects of the operation at Site 1. The City disagrees with the Commenter s assertion that this application opens up an evaluation of all other conditions relative to these properties or any other conditions of the CUP unrelated to the conversion to CNG-fueled collection vehicles and improvements needed to install the CNG fueling facility at this site. This exact issue was addressed recently by the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Abatti v Imperial Irrigation District, Case No. D058329, 4/26/12. The court held that the party may challenge only the agency s environmental review with respect to the modification, and not the original project. C-6 Comment states that development in the floodway should be prohibited. The comment does not provide justification as to why the proposed project should not occur within this already developed floodway. Page 4-32 of the Draft MND addresses potential flood impacts. The project would result in the placement of above ground k-rails, fueling stations and subterranean pipelines within the existing facility that is located within the 100-year floodway. However, implementation of these project features would not redirect or impeded flood flows; therefore, impacts within the floodway would be less than significant. In addition, pages 4-29 and 4-30 of the MND address potential impacts to hydrology and water quality and 24 October 2012

33 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration implement mitigation measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts from development within the floodway are considered less than significant. Also, see response to Comment C-5, which addresses the Commenter s assertion that this request for modification re-opens the existing CUP in its entirety. C-7 Comment noted. This comment states that concerns identified in the comment letter were previously discussed in a meeting with Waste Management in April of 2012; and further noise mitigation is required to continue operations at the site. This comment does not state which aspect of the impact analysis is inadequate/inaccurate or what the impact is that would necessitate the need for mitigation. As identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, future noise levels associated with the implementation of the proposed project would comply with the City s noise criteria. C-8 Section of the MND (i.e., pages 4-37 through 4-42) addresses the project s potential noise impacts. As identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment, noise generated from the proposed project would be in compliance with the City s Noise Ordinance at the southern property line, and therefore, future noise with implementation of the project would result in a less than significant noise impact. Noise measurements were conducted at the southern property boundary because the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor (i.e., residential uses) without any impediments of noise (i.e., existing structures that would shield noise generated from the project site) is located to the south (i.e., approximately 300 feet). The closest residence to the north is also located approximately 300 feet from the project site; however, intervening structures are located between the residence and the project site which would reduce the noise at this location. The nearest residence to the north with minimal shielding is located approximately 500 feet away (although there are existing structures located between the project site and this residential community to the north, which would partially reduce the noise levels to this residential community.) In addition, Oceanside Boulevard is located between the project site and the residential community to the north adding to the ambient noise levels. For these reasons, the noise measurements were taken from the south and potential impacts addressed using this data point. C-9 Comment noted. Comment implies that mitigation measures must be installed to reduce noise impacts generated from the existing facility. The existing noise levels at the WM facility currently exceed the City s noise ordinance at the southern property line. However, since the future noise levels (with incorporation of the proposed 25 October 2012

34 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration project) would result in noise levels below the City s noise ordinance threshold at the southern property line no noise impacts are generated by the proposed project; and therefore, no mitigation measures are required. WM is committed to working with the City of Oceanside to address the existing condition noise exceedence that was identified in the noise report. However, this exceedence is associated with the existing conditions of the project site. As identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, future noise levels associated with the implementation of the proposed project would comply with the City s noise criteria. C-10 Comment noted. FOLACs opinion that the new CNG trucks would not reduce noise below the City s noise ordinance is noted. However, this comment does not provide any factual data that demonstrates that the data provided in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment is inaccurate. As discussed on page 11 of the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment, in order to determine the difference between the diesel and CNG truck noise levels, noise measurements were conducted at an existing WM facility located in the City of Santa Ana; which operates both diesel and CNG collection trucks. The noise measurements were conducted of trucks operating within the parking facility and the results of the noise measurements indicated that the engines of the CNG trucks maneuvering within a parking area are on average approximately 5 db quieter than the diesel trucks. In addition, the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment modeled the future noise levels with implementation of the proposed project, and determined that the future noise levels would be below the City s Noise Ordinance threshold, and therefore, it is not necessary to provide mitigation measures to reduce the project s noise levels. C-11 This comment suggests that the operating hours of the facility be shortened from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm to reduce noise impacts. The existing CUP permits operating hours from 3:30 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (midnight) Monday through Friday and 5:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, and no change to this existing requirement has been proposed. See response to comment C-5 regarding the appropriate scope of environmental review per the Abatti decision. As discussed in response to comment C-8, noise levels with implementation of the proposed project would be less than the existing noise generated at the project site. Since the future noise levels would be below the City s noise ordinance threshold, impacts to noise would be less than significant and mitigation measures are not required. WM is committed to working with the City of Oceanside to address the existing condition noise exceedence that was identified in the noise report. However, this code violation is associated with the existing conditions of the project site. As identified in the Focused Environmental 26 October 2012

35 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, future noise levels associated with the implementation of the proposed project would comply with the City s noise criteria. C-12 Comment notes that sound levels travel easily to the north and at higher elevations. The location of the noise measurements were evaluated and quantified by a certified noise acquisition. Noise measurements were conducted at the southern property boundary because the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor (i.e., residential uses) without any impediments of noise (i.e., existing structures that would shield noise generated from the project site) is located to the south (i.e., approximately 300 feet). The closest residence to the north is also located approximately 300 feet from the project site; however, intervening structures are located between the residence and the project site which would reduce the noise at this location. The nearest residence to the north with minimal shielding is located approximately 500 feet away (although there are existing structures located between the project site and this residential community to the north, which would partially reduce the noise levels to this residential community.) In addition, Oceanside Boulevard is located between the project site and the residential community to the north adding to the ambient noise levels. For these reasons, the noise measurements were taken from the south and potential impacts addressed using this data point. In response to this comment, an additional noise measurement was conducted, by a certified noise acquisition, on May 31, 2012 between the hours of 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. along the south side of Hoover Street, just east of the home located at 567 Hoover Street. This time period was selected because the trucks from the facility begin to operate and depart each work day at 5:30 a.m. The noise measurement location is located approximately 500 feet north, and 70 feet in elevation above the WM facility site. This noise measurement site was selected because it is substantially set back from Oceanside Boulevard and has a mostly unobstructed view of the facility site. Thus, this site is representative of residences along Hoover Street that potentially are exposed to a greater level of facility noise and less traffic noise from Oceanside Boulevard, as compared to the closest homes along Oceanside Boulevard, which are exposed to significantly greater traffic noise levels. The measured hourly average noise level was 57 db and primarily resulted from traffic noise along Oceanside Boulevard. The maximum noise levels of the vehicles along Oceanside Boulevard generally ranged from 55 to 65 db. During the noise measurement, audible truck noise at the facility included trucks driving, backup alarms, and operating equipment. However, the average truck noise at the facility was well below the measured average noise level that resulted from Oceanside Boulevard 27 October 2012

36 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (i.e., at least 10 db less). Also, the maximum noise level generated by the trucks within the facility was less than the maximum noise level of the vehicles along Oceanside Boulevard. With implementation of the proposed project, the future hourly average noise level generated by the project is calculated to range up to 42 db at the representative noise measurement site along Hoover Street. This noise level is well below the existing ambient noise level and would comply with the City s noise ordinance criteria, which identifies a 45 db threshold. The portion of this comment raising quality of life concerns does not identify any specific reference as to what the significant unmitigable impacts may be and/or which mitigation measures are not adequate in reducing potentially significant impacts; therefore, no further response is provided. C-13 As stated on page 4-38 of the MND, the maximum noise level allowed at the property line of the project site are one-hour average sound levels of 70 db between 7 a.m. and 9:59 p.m., and 65 db between 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. See response to comment C- 12. In response to FOLACs comment letter, noise measurements were conducted in the residential community located to the north of the project site on May 31, The measured hourly average noise level was 57 db and primarily resulted from traffic noise along Oceanside Boulevard. In addition, the future hourly average noise level generated by the proposed project is calculated to range up to 42 db at the representative noise measurement site along Hoover Street. This noise level is well below the existing ambient noise level and would comply with the City s noise ordinance criteria. The existing noise measurement and future noise modeling conducted north of the project site verified that the Draft MND and Focused Environmental Noise Assessment addressed the project s worst case scenario, that noise levels would be greater to the south of the project site, and future noise levels to the north and south would comply with the City s noise ordinance criteria. C-14 Comment noted. This comment identifies the existing operations and existing noise generated at the facility, and requests that the CUP restrict the facilities operating hours. WM is committed to working with the City of Oceanside to address the existing condition noise exceedence that was identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment. However, this code violation is associated with the existing conditions of the project site. As identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, future noise levels associated with the implementation of the proposed project would comply with the City s noise criteria. 28 October 2012

37 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration See response to comment C-5 regarding the appropriate scope of environmental review per the Abatti decision. C-15 This comment represents the commenter s opinion that the project will result in additional noise to the existing noise that is in exceedance of the City s noise ordinance. While the project site currently exceeds the City s noise ordinance, the data and analysis provided in the Draft MND and Focused Environmental Noise Assessment indicates that implementation of the proposed project would reduce the noise levels generated at the project site. While the project would generate noise during the construction and operational phases, the future noise levels generated at the southern property line and in the residential community to the north would be below the threshold levels established in the City s Noise Ordinance. C-16 As discussed on page 2-9 of the MND, safety and operational training will be provided to the employees of the Waste Management Facility for the CNG vehicles. In addition, trained contractors are used to perform maintenance on the CNG equipment. Maintenance activities on the CNG equipment (i.e., CNG compressor) are not anticipated to occur during the nighttime hours. The analysis in the noise report provided a worst case analysis and assumed that maintenance inside the shop on the fleet vehicles would continue to occur up to midnight since the current CUP allows for this activity. C-17 The Draft MND and the Focused Environmental Noise Analysis do not state that noise will only travel to the south of the project site. However, as discussed in response to comment item C-12, noise measurements were conducted at the southern property boundary because the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor (i.e., residential uses) is located to the south (i.e., approximately 300 feet). In addition, there are no impediments of noise (i.e., existing structures that would shield noise generated from the project site) to the south. The closest residence to the north is located approximately 300 from the project site, however, the intervening structures between the residence and project site would reduce more noise as compared to the residences located farther away to the north and at a higher elevation. The nearest residence to the north with minimal shielding is located approximately 500 feet away (although there are existing structures located between the project site and this residential community to the north, which would partially reduce the noise levels to this residential community.) In addition, Oceanside Boulevard is located between the project site and the residential community to the north adding to the ambient noise levels. For these reasons, the noise measurements were taken from the south and potential impacts addressed using this data point. However, as discussed in detail in 29 October 2012

38 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration response to comment C-12, noise measurements were conducted in the residential community to the north of the project site on May 31, The results of the noise measurements and modeling at this location verified that noise levels generated by the project would comply with the City s noise ordinance criteria. The City disagrees that the applicable noise standard is 50db during the day and 30db at night. A discussion of the applicable noise standards is provided in response to comment C-13. C-18 While the WM property is located near residential uses to the north and south, the WM property abuts the southern limit of the City s Oceanside Boulevard right-ofway to the north and the northern limit of the North County Transit District s right-ofway to the south while the limits of the zones extend to the centerline of both of these public rights-of-way. Therefore, the project site does not share a joint boundary with the residential zones. Further, the industrial zone continues east and west of the property boundary. Therefore, the project site does not share a joint boundary with a residential zone and the arithmetic mean noise threshold of the two zones does not apply to this project. As discussed in the Draft MND the 85 db at 100 feet threshold is in reference to the City s construction noise criterion. The Draft MND states that construction noise generated by the project would range from approximately 72 to 82 db; therefore, the project would comply with the City s construction noise criterion, and construction impacts would be less than significant. C-19 As discussed on page 8 of the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment, noise measurements were taken on December 15, 2011, for a continuous 24-hour time period. The results of the 24-hour measurements were identified in Table 3 of the Noise Assessment; which provides the minimum noise level recorded, maximum noise level recorded, and the one-hour average (which the City s noise criterion is based on). The noise measurements were taken at the southern property line of the project site, since the nearest sensitive receptor is located to the south of the project site and no impediments are located in this direction (refer to response to comment C- 12). According to the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment, the existing noise generated at the project site measured 68 to 69 db between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. and currently exceeds the City s noise ordinance requirements of 65 db during the 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. time period. The Focused Environmental Noise Assessment modeled the future noise levels with implementation of the proposed project, and determined that the future noise levels at the southern property line would be 65 db, which is below the City s Noise Ordinance Threshold 70 db between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:59 p.m. and 65 db between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. In 30 October 2012

39 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration addition, as discussed in response to comment C-12, noise measurements were conducted in the residential community located to the north of the project site on May 31, The measured hourly average noise level was 57 db and primarily resulted from traffic noise along Oceanside Boulevard. In addition, the future hourly average noise level generated by the proposed project is calculated to range up to 42 db at the representative noise measurement site along Hoover Street. This noise level is well below the existing ambient noise level and would comply with the City s noise ordinance criteria. The existing noise measurement and future noise modeling conducted north of the project site verified that the Draft MND and Focused Environmental Noise Assessment addressed the project s worst case scenario that noise levels would be greater to the south of the project site, and future noise levels to the north and south would comply with the City s noise ordinance criteria. Therefore, the project s impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required for the future noise scenario. C-20 Comment noted. Refer to response to comment C-8. As identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment, existing noise levels at the WM facility currently exceed the City s noise threshold. However, according to the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, the hourly noise levels generated from the proposed project, at the southern property line, would be in compliance with the City s Noise Ordinance, and therefore, future noise with implementation of the project would result in a less than significant noise impact. WM is committed to working with the City of Oceanside to address the existing condition noise exceedence that was identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment. However, this exceedence is associated with the existing conditions of the project site. As identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, future noise levels associated with the implementation of the proposed project would comply with the City s noise criteria. C-21 Comment noted. As stated in the Draft MND construction activities will occur within the City s limits (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, or from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays). In addition, preventative measures and action plans for health and safety, hazards, and water quality conditions are provided in Table 2-2 of the Draft MND. C-22 Comment noted. If any emergency work is necessary, it is required to be performed in accordance with the City s Ordinance Section Emergency Work, which states that: The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any emergency work as defined herein, provided that the city has been notified as soon as practical and any 31 October 2012

40 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration vehicle, device, apparatus or equipment used with the emergency work is designed, modified, or equipped to reduce sounds produced to the lowest possible level consistent with effective operation such as vehicle, device, apparatus or equipment. Once the emergency nature of the work has ceased, follow-up construction work will occur during normal construction hours permitted by the City s Noise Ordinance. C-23 Commenter s request to limit the operating hours of the WM facility is noted. Refer to response to comment C-11 and C-20. The existing CUP permits operating hours from 3:30 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (midnight) Monday through Friday and 5:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, and no change to this existing requirement has been proposed. See response to comment C-5 regarding the appropriate scope of environmental review per the Abatti decision. According to the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, the noise levels generated from the proposed project at the southern property line and the residential community to the north would be in compliance with the City s Noise Ordinance, and therefore, future noise with implementation of the project would result in a less than significant noise impact, and no mitigation measures are warranted for the proposed project. WM is committed to working with the City of Oceanside to address the existing condition noise exceedence that was identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment. However, this exceedence is associated with the existing conditions of the project site. As identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, future noise levels associated with the implementation of the proposed project would comply with the City s noise criteria. C-24 Comment noted. This comment is in regards to the existing noise that currently occurs at the WM Facility and requests that changes be made to the existing backup beepers immediately. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft MND. It is further noted that the existing condition noise exceedance is associated with the existing conditions of the project site. WM is committed to working with the City of Oceanside to address the existing condition noise exceedence that was identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment. Since receipt of this comment letter WM has replaced 46 of the 64 existing back-up alarms with the new directional back-up alarms, and plans to install new directional back-up alarms on every collection vehicle where feasible. As identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, future noise levels associated with the implementation of the proposed project would comply with the City s noise criteria. C-25 Comment noted. The commenter feels that the current and proposed start time for the WM facility is unacceptable. The start time is permitted per the existing CUP for the 32 October 2012

41 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration WM Facility. WM is committed to working with the City of Oceanside to address the existing condition noise exceedence that was identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment. However, this code violation is associated with the existing conditions of the project site. As identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, future noise levels associated with the implementation of the proposed project would comply with the City s noise criteria. See response to comment C-11 for further discussion. C-26 As stated in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, the future worst-case noise level is anticipated to occur during the morning departure hours since the trucks would utilize back-up alarms and idle (to perform Department of Transportation required safety checks) for longer periods of time, when compared to the future afternoon arrival hours. Future noise levels would be 65 db at the southern property boundary. Noise in the afternoon would be 2 to 3 db less than the morning hours. These noise levels would comply with the City s sound level limits of 70 db between the hours of 7 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. and 65 db between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. The existing diesel fuel vehicles idle for 15 minutes to warm up and perform Department of Transportation vehicle safety checks in the morning, the proposed CNG vehicles will only require approximately 5 minutes of idling time to warm up and perform vehicle safety checks in the morning hours; this is a 10 minute reduction in idling time from the existing condition. As stated above, idling times will be reduced in the afternoons. Therefore, the project will generate less noise than the existing conditions of the facility. Impacts were modeled to be below the City s noise criterion and no mitigation measures are required. C-27 Refer to response to item C-8. According to the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, the noise levels generated from the proposed project at the southern property line would be in compliance with the City s Noise Ordinance, and therefore, future noise with implementation of the project would result in a less than significant noise impact, and no mitigation measures are warranted for the proposed project. In addition, in response to this comment noise measurements were conducted, by a certified noise acquisition, on May 31, 2012, in the residential community to the north of the project site. The measured hourly average existing noise level was 57 db and primarily resulted from traffic noise along Oceanside Boulevard. The maximum noise levels of the vehicles along Oceanside Boulevard generally ranged from 55 to 65 db. During the noise measurement, audible truck noise at the facility included trucks driving, backup alarms, and operating equipment. However, the average truck noise at the facility was well below the 33 October 2012

42 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration measured average noise level that resulted from Oceanside Boulevard (i.e., at least 10 db less). Also, the maximum noise level generated by the trucks within the facility was less than the maximum noise level of the vehicles along Oceanside Boulevard. With implementation of the proposed project, the future hourly average noise level generated by the project is calculated to range up to 42 db at the representative noise measurement site along Hoover Street. This noise level is well below the existing ambient noise level and would comply with the City s noise ordinance criteria. WM is working with the City of Oceanside to address the existing condition noise exceedance that was identified in the noise report. However, this exceedance is associated with the existing conditions of the project site. As discussed above and identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, future noise levels associated with the implementation of the proposed project would comply with the City s noise criteria. C-28 Comment noted. Refer to response to comment C-16. Page 2-9 of the Draft MND, provides several project design features including employee training. In addition, trained contractors are used to perform maintenance on the CNG equipment. C-29 Comment noted. This comment proposes that WM institute an every other week collection system to reduce fuel use, climate change factors and noise. According to the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section Frequency of Refuse Removal, refuse is not permitted to remain on any premises for more than seven days except when disruptions occur due to strikes, severe weather occurrences, or a legal holiday interrupts the normal seven day collection cycle. Therefore, in order for the City, as well as City residents and businesses (including the Commenter), to comply with this regulation, an every other week collection cycle cannot be permitted. Consistent with this state regulation, the franchise agreement between WM and the City of Oceanside requires weekly collection by WM. As discussed in Section 14.7 of the Draft MND the project would result in a net decrease of 476 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year from the existing baseline conditions, and impacts in this regard are considered less than significant. According to the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, the noise levels generated from the proposed project at the southern property line and the residential community to the north would be in compliance with the City s Noise 34 October 2012

43 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Ordinance, and therefore, future noise with implementation of the project would result in a less than significant noise impact, and no mitigation measures are warranted for the proposed project. WM is committed to working with the City of Oceanside to address the existing condition noise exceedance that was identified in the noise report. However, this code violation is associated with the existing conditions of the project site. As identified in the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment and the Draft MND, future noise levels associated with the implementation of the proposed project would comply with the City s noise criteria. C-30 As discussed on page 14 of the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment, noise generated from the exhaust/ventilation fans would be negligible at the property line. C-31 Comment noted. This comment is in regards to the maintenance of the existing landscaping at the WM Facility. The lack of trimming activities to the existing eucalyptus trees would not result in any changes to the noise levels (i.e., offer noise suppressive qualities). While well-trimmed and maintained trees are more aesthetically pleasing it would not result in a significant change to the aesthetic quality of the existing WM Facility. The species selected for the entry area of the maintenance yard include pineapple guava (feijoa sellowiana) a drought-tolerand shrub that grows to 6-8 feet high, along with daylily (hemerocallis) and kangaroo paw (anigozanthos) for foreground plantings. The pod yard is not a part of the proposed project. C-32 Comment noted. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft MND. The species selected to replace the diseased oleanders should have been noted as Ribes speciosum, rather than Ribes viburnifolium. Ribes speciosum is a California native that is recognized as a good barrier shrub, reaches 6 feet in height, is drought tolerant and found in both coastal scrub and chaparral communities. Unlike some other native species, it is not known to be susceptible to the soil fungus which has affected the oleanders, which was a factor in its selection for this location. C-33 Oleander is a non-native, ornamental species that is not suitable habitat for any specialstatus wildlife species, therefore a focused wildlife study was not necessary. However, as indicated in the Draft MND, birds may nest in the oleander bushes. If removal of the vegetation occurs outside of the bird breeding season, no impacts would occur since this vegetation is not suitable habitat for any special-status species. Because there is a potential for birds to utilize these bushes during the nesting season, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included to ensure that nests or nesting birds are not affected by the vegetation removal activity. 35 October 2012

44 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration C-34 As stated on page 4-25 of the Draft MND, groundwater occurs at feet below the surface (as documented in the Limited Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the project by Geocon Incorporated). Since drilling activities will not exceed approximately 5 feet in depth, the data indicates construction activities will not impact the local groundwater. In addition, a project design feature was added to the project, as indicated in Table 2-2 of the Draft MND, that describes the proper procedures in the unlikely event that groundwater is encountered. C-35 See response to item C-34, Table 2-2 of the Draft MND describes the propose procedures if unexpected contact with groundwater occurs during project construction. C-36 As discussed in Section 14.9 of the Draft MND mitigation measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 will be incorporated to ensure proper best management practices are implemented during construction to reduce potential pollutant exposure. C-37 Comment noted. Refer to response to comment C-34. Data provided in the Draft MND (as documented in the Limited Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the project by Geocon Incorporated) indicates that construction activities will not impact the local groundwater. Sewer lines typically require deeper trenches and shoring for safety than what is required for the proposed natural gas line. The proposed project will require 3 to 5 feet of deep trenching and will comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety regulations. C-38 The stormwater plan has not been updated. Due to the project s minimal area of ground disturbance (i.e., less than 2,500 square feet) the project is exempt from the City s Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan requirement. No changes to the project authorized by the existing CUP related to storm water control are proposed. See response to comment C-5 regarding the appropriate scope of environmental review per the Abatti decision. C-39 Comment noted. This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft MND. The conversion of diesel-fueled collection vehicles to CNG-fueled collection vehicles, and associated site improvements required to install the CNG fueling facility at this site, would not affect road wear. In addition, the project will not result in an increase in traffic to and/or from the project site. See response to comment C-5 regarding the appropriate scope of environmental review per the Abatti decision. 36 October 2012

45 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration REVISIONS TO DRAFT MND The following text changes have been made due to comments received during public review of the Draft MND and final planning efforts. Only substantive changes to the text or figures are detailed below. None of the changes result in a substantial change in the project description or raise important new issues regarding significant effects on the environment. The text that has been removed from the Draft MND is indicated by a strikeout. New text to be added is indicated with underline. Item 1: The following text revisions are hereby added to Section 1, page 1-1 of the Draft MND: Item 2: This draft final MND has been prepared by the City, in conformance with Section 15070, subsection (a), of the state CEQA Guidelines. The following text revisions are hereby added to Section 2, page 2-5 of the Draft MND: Item 3: In addition, the existing oleander bushes outside the fence line and along the eastern site boundary are in poor condition and will be replaced with a native shrub species (Ribes viburnifolium speciosum) (Figure 68, Landscape Concept Plan). Section 2, Figure 4 Site Plan has been updated. Item 4: Section 2, Figure 5 Details of Proposed CNG Equipment Area has been added to the Final MND. Item 5: Section 2, Figure 6 CNG Compressor Details has been added to the Final MND. Item 6: Section 2, Figure 5 has been renumbered to Figure October 2012

46 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Item 7: Section 2, Figure 6 has been renumbered to Figure 8. In addition, this figure was updated to replace the species Heteromeles Arbutifolia with Ribes speciosum. Item 8: The following text revisions are hereby added to Section 4, page 4-12 of the Draft MND: Item 9: The 2010 Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2010) contains the proposed covered species conservation analysis and conditions of coverage for all species covered by the Plan (the 2000 Oceanside Subarea Plan did not include the Proposed Covered Species Conservation Analysis and Conditions of Coverage). The conditions of coverage for both species (least Bell s vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher) were addressed in a memorandum titled Waste Management of North County Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Relationship to Revised Final Oceanside Subarea Plan prepared by Dudek (2012). Since the project would be contained within the existing developed fueling facility site, no native habitat removal would result. In addition, project construction is planned to occur prior to March 15 (outside the breading season for the least Bell s vireo). However, in the case of project delays the project would adhere to the following noise limitations: construction noise levels at the riparian canopy edge will be kept below 60dBA L eq from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00a.m. during the peak nesting period from March 15 to July 15. For the remainder of day/season, the noise levels will not exceed 60 decibels, averaged over a 1-hour period on an A-weighted decibel. Compliance with this regulation will ensure indirect construction noise impacts to least Bell s vireo will be less than significant, if construction is delayed. No new indirect noise guidelines for the coastal California gnatcatcher were identified in the revised Subarea Plan. The following text revisions are hereby added to Section 4, page 4-15 of the Draft MND: Refer to item 14.4(a) above and Appendix D regarding the projects relationship to the revised 2010 Subarea Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with the revised 2010 Oceanside Subarea Plan. 38 October 2012

47 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Item 10: The following text revisions are hereby added to Section 4, page 4-38 of the Draft MND: Item 11: The City limits construction activities to daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. In addition, construction equipment should not exceed a noise level of 85 db at a distance of 100 feet from the source (City of Oceanside 1974). There are no approved noise regulations for biological resources. The City of Oceanside s 2010 Final Subarea Plan, has yet to be finalized and approved by Oceanside City Council. However the draft Final Subarea Plan provides guidelines regarding construction noise levels for least Bell s vireo, limiting the noise levels at the riparian canopy edge to below 60dBA L eq from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00a.m. during the peak nesting period from March 15 to July 15. For the remainder of day/season, the noise levels are not exceed 60 decibels, averaged over a 1-hour period on an A-weighted decibel. The following text revisions are hereby added to Section 4, page 4-39 Item 12: Maximum construction noise levels at 50 feet would typically range from approximately 78 to 88 db for the type of equipment anticipated to be used for construction of the project. Noise levels from equipment decreases with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 db per doubling of distance. Therefore, at a distance of 100 feet the construction equipment maximum noise level would range from approximately 72 to 82 db. Therefore, the construction noise level would comply with the City s 85 db noise criterion, and impacts would be less than significant. Construction activities would occur prior to March 15, therefore temporary indirect construction related noise impacts to the least Bell s vireo would not occur. If unexpected delays occur and construction is not complete prior to March 15, adherence to the noise limitations will occur. The following text revisions are hereby added to Section 4, page 4-40 of the Draft MND: Typical operations at the existing facility consist of administrative staff arriving at the site between 4:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. to perform administrative work. The fleet vehicle drivers arrive onsite in two separate shifts that start at about 5:00 a.m and 5:30a.m.. Department of Transportation pre-trip inspections occur at approximately 5:30a.m. and again at 6:00a.m., which are required to occur prior to the vehicles leaving the site for 39 October 2012

48 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Item 13: their daily collection operations. Limited fleet maintenance activities occur prior to 2:00 p.m., and primary maintenance activities occur between 3:00 p.m. and midnight. Container maintenance and washing occurs from 7:00 a.m. and 5:30p.m. The fleet vehicles refuel upon their return to the facility. These activities will remain unchanged with implementation of the proposed project. The following text revisions are hereby added to Section 4, page 4-40 of the Draft MND: Item 14: The future worst-case noise level is anticipated to occur during the morning departure hours primarily because the trucks would utilize back-up alarms and idle (to perform Department of Transportation required safety checks) for longer periods of time as compared to the future afternoon arrival hours. Based on the results of the noise modeling, the future noise level would be 65 db Leq(h) at the southern property boundary. The noise level during the afternoon arrival hours would be approximately 2 to 3 db less. These noise levels would comply with the City s allowable 70 db Leq(h) sound level limit between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. and 65 db Leq(h) sound level limit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. A second noise measurement was conducted in the residential community to the north of the project site. The results of the noise modeling at this location revealed that the future hourly average noise level at the residential community to the north will be 42 db. This noise level would comply with the City s allowable 45 db sound level limit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. and 50 db between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:59 p.m. The following text revisions are hereby added to Section 4, page 4-42 of the Draft MND: The compressor assembly would be located on a concrete pad at ground level and would be enclosed by a new 7-foot chain-link fence. The location of the equipment is depicted on the site plan as previously shown in Figures 4, and 5. As shown in these figures, the compressor is positioned so that the majority of the sound generated by the compressor would be released through the hot air exhausts which are directed to the east and west. Once the fleet vehicles shifts are over they will park and begin fueling. Once all the vehicles have been refueled the compressor will turn off. The typical time required to refuel, based on the time filled dispenser, is approximately 5 hours. The last shift of fleet vehicles will return to the facility and begin fueling by 5:30 p.m., therefore, the 40 October 2012

49 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Item 15: compressor will typically be done by 10:30p.m. However, maintenance on a vehicle could delay the time in which a vehicle(s) start fueling; therefore, it is assumed that the compressor could run from 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. in accordance with the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which allows for work to occur between 3:30 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, Monday through Friday and 5 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday through Sunday. A Memorandum titled Waste Management of North County Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Relationship to Revised Final Oceanside Subarea Plan (July 2012) was added as Appendix D to the Draft MND. Item 16: The following text revisions are hereby added to Appendix C Focused Environmental Noise Assessment, Section 5.2, page 11: Item 17: The noise measurements were conducted of trucks operating within the parking facility. The results of these noise measurements (provided as Appendix B) indicate that the engines of the CNG trucks maneuvering within a parking area are on average approximately 5 db quieter than the diesel trucks. The following text revisions are hereby added to Section 5.2, page 12 of Appendix C the Draft MND: To determine the future noise level associated with the trucks operating on-site, noise modeling was conducted based on the results of the noise measurements previously discussed, and incorporating various changes to the on-site truck operations and fleet characteristics described below. The future worst-case noise level is anticipated to occur during the morning departure hours primarily because the trucks would utilize back-up alarms and idle (to perform Department of Transportation required safety checks) for longer periods of time as compared to the future afternoon arrival hours. As shown below in Table 5, the greatest reduction in the future noise during the morning hours would result from converting the fleet trucks to CNG fuel and reduction in the idling times. The greatest increase in noise during the morning hours would result from the use of the backup alarms. 41 October 2012

50 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Item 18: Based on the results of the noise modeling, the future noise level would be 65 db Leq(h) at the southern property boundary. The noise level during the afternoon arrival hours would be approximately 2 to 3 db less. These noise levels would comply with the City s allowable 70 db Leq(h) sound level limit between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. and 65 db Leq(h) sound level limit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m.. Future noise levels were also modeled for the residential community to the north of the project site. The results of the noise modeling at this location determined that the future hourly average noise level at the residential community to the north will be 42 db (refer to Appendix C). This noise level will be substantially below the ambient noise in the area resulting from traffic along Oceanside Boulevard, and will also comply with the City s noise ordinance limits. The following text revisions are hereby added to Section 6.0, page 15 of Appendix C the Draft MND: Item 19: With the proposed project, the project would comply with the City s noise ordinance criteria at the southern property line and within the residential community to the north as the truck fleet converts to quieter CNG trucks as compared to the existing diesel trucks. A new table titled Noise Measurements of CNG and Diesel Trucks Pass-byes at Waste Management s Santa Ana Facility, was provided as Appendix B to the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment (which is Appendix C of this MND). Item 20: A new letter titled Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Noise Measurement and Modeling Results to the North of the WM Facility was added as Appendix C to the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment (which is Appendix C of this MND). Item 21: The Specification Sheets for the compressor and associated enclosure have been added as Appendix D to the Focused Environmental Noise Assessment (which is Appendix C of this MND). 42 October 2012

51 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction Waste Management (WM) has made a commitment to transition collection fleets nationwide from diesel-fuel-based operations to compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel-based operations. WM recently finalized a 10-year hauling agreement with the City of Oceanside (City) that includes a commitment to use CNG-fueled vehicles for its hauling facilities. Therefore, WM is proposing to transition an existing facility from a diesel fueling facility to a compressed natural gas fueling facility. 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance The City is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is responsible for analyzing and approving the proposed CNG Vehicle Fueling Facility CEQA document. The City has determined that a mitigated negative declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental document to be prepared in compliance with CEQA. This finding is based on the initial study/environmental checklist (Section 4.0 of this MND). As provided for by CEQA Section , an MND may be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when the project will not result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below significance. This draft final MND has been prepared by the City, in conformance with Section 15070, subsection (a), of the state CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of the MND and the initial study is to determine the potential significant impacts associated with the construction of transitioning the existing WM North County Facility to allow the transition from a diesel fuel facility to a CNG fueling facility, and incorporate mitigation measures into the project design as necessary to reduce or eliminate the significant or potentially significant effects of the project. 1.3 Other Agencies That May Use the MND and Initial Study This MND is intended to be used by responsible and trustee agencies that may have review authority over the project. WM will obtain all permits as required by law. The City is the lead agency for this project. No other agencies have been identified as necessitating the need to review this MND. 1.4 Content and Format of MND This MND includes the following: Section 1.0 Section 2.0 Introduction: Provides an introduction to the MND. Project Description: Provides a detailed description of the proposed project evaluated in this MND. This section also includes project location, project characteristics, and construction. 1-1 March October 2012

52 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Section 3.0 Section 4.0 Section 5.0 Section 6.0 Section 7.0 Findings: Provides findings that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and the rationale supporting this finding. Initial Study Environmental Checklist/Discussion of Environmental Impacts: Provides an analysis of the environmental issues and concerns surrounding the project. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Provides a list of and responsibility assignments for all mitigation measures. This section also describes timing considerations for each mitigation measure. Report Preparers: Provides a list of report preparation personnel. References: Provides bibliographic information related to resources utilized during the document preparation. 1.5 Public Review Process In accordance with CEQA, a good faith effort has been made during the preparation of this MND to contact affected agencies, organizations, and persons who may have an interest in this project. In reviewing the MND and initial study, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects on the project area are proposed to be avoided or mitigated. Comments may be made on the MND in writing before the end of the comment period. Following the close of the public comment period, the City will consider this MND and comments thereto in determining whether to approve the proposed project. Written comments on the MND should be sent to the following address by 5:00 p.m., April 30, Richard Greenbauer, Senior Planner City of Oceanside 300 North Coast Highway Oceanside, California Phone: Fax: Approval and certification of this CEQA document will occur by the Oceanside Planning Commission. Date and time information on the Planning Commission meeting where this document will be considered can be determined by contacting Richard Greenbauer. 1-2 March October 2012

53 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is an upgrade to Waste Management (WM) of North County s Fleet Maintenance and Administration Facility. The proposed facility renovations are to facilitate the transition of WM s existing collection fleet from diesel fueling to compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling and provide a safe environment for vehicle maintenance and repair. 2.1 Project Location The proposed project is located in the City of Oceanside (City) in northern San Diego County, California (Figure 1, Regional Map). The site is located at 2141 Oceanside Boulevard, south of Oceanside Boulevard and east of Crouch Street (Figure 2, Vicinity Map). The project site is bounded by Oceanside Boulevard to the north; Industry Street to the northeast; industrial uses to the north, east, and west; and Loma Alta Creek and the North County Transit District Sprinter Rail Line to the south (Figure 3, Aerial Map). Regional access is provided to the project site via Interstate 5 (I-5) and Oceanside Boulevard. 2.2 Project Description Background CNG is an environmentally clean and economical alternative to diesel fuel. Waste-collection vehicles equipped with CNG engines have cleaner emissions than diesel engines, reducing smogcausing constituents and greenhouse gases. In addition, CNG truck engines generate less noise than standard diesel fleet vehicles. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1193 requires public and private solid waste collections fleets, with 15 or more refuse collection vehicles operating in the District, to acquire less-polluting vehicles when procuring or leasing these vehicles. The project is proposed in support of this regulation. WM of North County s Fleet Maintenance and Administration Facility is an existing facility that supports and maintains collection vehicles serving the City and Camp Pendleton. WM has made a commitment to begin the transition of collection fleets nationwide from diesel-fuel-based operations to CNG-fuel-based operations. Locally, WM has contractually committed to use CNG-fueled vehicles. Site: The project site consists of 3.7 acres of leased land, including parcel (1.8 acres) and a portion of parcel (1.9 acres). The project will entail modifications to the existing maintenance facility building and fleet-vehicle parking areas, as identified on Figure March October 2012

54 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration The site consists of an employee/visitor parking area that is separated from the operations yard. No improvements are proposed in the employee/visitor parking areas or the administration offices/building. The operations yard includes established fleet maneuvering and storage areas, and is paved with a combination of asphalt and concrete. The operations area includes a truck wash and diesel fueling islands. Operations vehicles access the yard from Industry Street and circulate in a counter-clockwise direction (Figure 4, Site Plan). Existing lighting is provided in the yard with pole-mounted and building-mounted yard lighting. All existing lighting is down-shaded to minimize light spillage beyond property lines. This project will not be altering the existing lighting. There is existing-perimeter and parking-lot-island landscaping for the employee/visitor parking lot. Landscaping at the operations yard is primarily perimeter-buffer landscaping including some trees located along the existing fence line to the north and south and oleander along the eastern property line. Existing Operation: Collection trucks typically leave the site in groups of 10 to 12 at a time, between 5:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. and return to the site between 3:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. Vehicle maintenance is typically performed on the trucks between 5:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. midnight. Administration activities typically start with the 5:30 a.m. truck departure and are generally wrapped up by 5:00 p.m. Fleet vehicles returning to base in the afternoon/evening, back into their designated parking stalls to park. This minimizes the activation of Occupational Safety and Health Administration mandated back-up safety alarms during the morning departure. The existing diesel fleet is equipped with back-up alarms that produce approximately 85 decibels at 15 meters. Structures: There are two building structures on site. There is an 18,706-square-foot building that is used for vehicle maintenance, administration, and for ancillary associated operations. The maintenance portion of the building was modified in 1996 and is 35 feet in height and includes three vehicle maintenance bays. There is also a 2,880-square-foot truck wash building on site. The proposed improvements to transition the fleet from diesel-fueled trash-collection vehicle service to CNG-fueled collection vehicles will entail improvements to the maintenance facility and fleet parking area to meet applicable safety requirements and site circulation modifications to accommodate the necessary fueling facilities and equipment. A detailed summary of all proposed improvements is included in Section 2.3, Project Characteristics. 2-2 March October 2012

55 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.3 Project Characteristics The project will entail modifications and renovations to the existing operations facility to allow fueling and maintenance of CNG collection vehicles. Although their use will be reduced, all diesel fueling facilities will remain in place while the transition to CNG is implemented. The proposal includes construction of a CNG fueling facility at the existing site to allow for a phased transition of the existing diesel fleet to CNG (see Table 2-1, Project Summary). The site will continue to support the same number of fleet vehicles (58) and the same number of site-based employees (90). Physical improvements to the existing facility include installation of a new fueling system in the operations yard, and safety-code-mandated upgrades inside the maintenance shop. Site Improvements New Facilities. New gas and electrical service, transformer, a CNG equipment compound, and CNG distribution and dispensing system will be installed under this proposal. As shown on Figure 5, Details of Proposed CNG Equipment Area and Figure 6, CNG Compressor Details, Tthe equipment compound will consist of the following major components: Natural Gas utility meter set assembly. A PSB (or equal) gas dryer. Twin-compressor assembly self-contained in a weatherproof enclosure. The enclosure is equipped with silencers and insulation to provide sound attenuation at 80 decibels at 3 meters (free-field conditions as determined by third party testing provided by the equipment manufacturer). Priority panel consisting of a series of pneumatic-actuated valves to control the distribution of compressed gas. One optional 33.5-cubic-foot storage vessel that act as a buffer tank totaling 67 cubic feet of storage of compressed natural gas. Motor control panel that monitors and controls the compression and distribution system. The motor control panel monitors: operating parameters, safety systems including alarms, and communicates with WM s 24-hour central station security operations center. Electrical utility transformer and switch gear. The CNG equipment area will be located within the existing fleet operations area, enclosed and screened by a new 7-foot chain-link fence. A new structural concrete pad for the CNG equipment will be constructed. The new CNG fueling equipment will be surrounded by bollards to provide vehicle crash protection. Brown vinyl slats matching the existing fence will be installed to screen the CNG equipment area. 2-3 March October 2012

56 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Gas-distribution piping and time-fill dispensers will be mounted on new concrete safety barriers (K-rail or concrete light-pole bases). The concrete bases provide vehicle protection and allow installation of distribution piping with minimal ground disturbance. Gas piping is stainless steel piping or tubing designed for an operating pressure of 5,000 pounds per square inch. The distribution piping is tested and rated at 10% over operating pressure. See example photographs on Figure 57, Example CNG Facility Photos. Internal Site Vehicular Circulation Upgrades. Internal site circulation will be modified to allow fleet vehicles to pull forward into their parking stalls to connect to a time-fill fueling system via an internal fueling port in the front bumper. The existing truck parking area will be restriped to accommodate a modified on-site traffic pattern and to provide the additional space required to accommodate the CNG distribution piping and dispensers. The size of the CNG trucks is equivalent to the existing diesel trucks, so the new striping will accommodate both types of trucks during the transition from diesel to CNG. Infrastructure Improvements. A new natural gas line (to be installed, owned and operated by San Diego Gas & Electric) will be extended from Oceanside Boulevard to the northern portion of the project site where the new CNG equipment compound will be located. The new gas line will extend southward from Oceanside Boulevard beneath Industry Street. The line will then be routed westward from the Industry Street cul-de-sac to the new CNG equipment compound (Figure 4, Site Plan and Figure 5, Details of Proposed CNG Equipment Area). This pipeline will be located up to 5 feet underground between Oceanside Boulevard and the northern portion of the site. Gas-distribution piping will run from the proposed compressors, approximately 30 inches below ground, through truck driving-lane locations. CNG piping and time-fill dispensers will be mounted on concrete safety barriers (K-rail or concrete light-pole bases) protected by concrete wheelstops for safety, maintenance, and protection of gas piping. The location of each new utility line is indicated on Figure 4, Site Plan. New electrical power service (via an underground conduit) will be added from Industry Street to the project site to provide adequate power to the CNG equipment. No changes are proposed to the existing water, wastewater, or storm drain systems. Access The existing access to the project site from Oceanside Boulevard and Industry Street will remain and will not be modified. Personal vehicles are parked in the existing lots located north and west of the existing administrative and maintenance building, which are accessible from the Oceanside Boulevard driveway. Truck access into the fleet yard and maintenance building will 2-4 March October 2012

57 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration remain via Industry Street. Employees access the fleet operations area through the maintenance building. Sidewalk access is available from Oceanside Boulevard onto the site. No change to the existing site access points is proposed. Landscaping The existing landscaped areas adjacent to Industry Street will be enhanced with shrubs and ground planting beneath the existing mature eucalyptus trees and between the site s ingress and egress areas. Plantings in these areas will consist of red kangaroo paw (Anigozanthos), pineapple guava (Feijoa sellowiana), and daylily (Hemerocallis hybrid). In addition, the existing oleander bushes outside the fence line and along the eastern site boundary are in poor condition and will be replaced with a native shrub species (Ribes viburnifoliumspeciosum) (Figure 68, Landscape Concept Plan). An automatic irrigation system will be installed to service new landscape areas. Lighting Existing lighting is currently provided along the perimeter of the maintenance facility and the fleet parking yard. No new lighting or new light fixtures are proposed. Operational Characteristics The CNG fueling facility will convey natural gas from a public utility gas main to an on-site equipment compound where the gas is compressed and then distributed to parked trucks for fueling. The compressed gas is buffered in steel storage vessels and routed via piping systems to fuel the entire CNG fleet. CNG fueling One CNG fueling system is proposed with two fueling options: Time-Fill Fueling. The project will provide time-fill fueling for 58 CNG fleet parking spaces at full build-out (Figure 4). The CNG vehicles will leave the facility between 5:30 a.m. and 7 a.m. and return to the site between 3:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. When trucks return to the yard, they park into their designated parking spot. Each truck will pull forward to each stall, park, then connect to a dispenser hose via the fueling connection on the front bumper of the vehicle and fueled overnight in the assigned parking space. Gas compression is controlled automatically through a Program Logic Control in the electrical control panel. By use of pressure sensors and valving, the Program Logic Control communicates electronically to the compressor, turning it on and off as fueling needs dictate. Compression of the gas and fueling of the fleet begins and continues over 10 to 12 hours. The trucks remain in their parking stalls until approximately 5:30 a.m. or 7 a.m., at which time each driver arrives, detaching the fueling hose, and begins his/her 2-5 March October 2012

58 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration route for the day. When leaving the site in the morning hours (5:30 a.m. to 7 a.m.), the vehicles will back out of their parking stalls and travel in a counter-clockwise direction to the existing egress location. The CNG fuel that accumulates in each truck during the night is sufficient to fuel the truck throughout the normal collection route. Trucks typically do not return to the facility during the day to refuel. Some trucks may receive maintenance during the afternoon/evening hours. Once the maintenance activity has been completed, the truck will be parked into the fueling spot. All maintenance and positioning for fueling will be completed by 12:00 a.m. (midnight). Internal Priority Fill-Fueling. In addition to the 58 time-fill fueling positions, there will also be one internal priority fill post provided at the site. The priority fill post will take priority over the time-fill fueling, therefore stopping time-fill fueling until the priority vehicle has filled. This operation is also controlled by the Program Logic Control. The internal priority fill post will fuel one vehicle at a time. The internal priority fill post provides WM the capability to fuel one vehicle receiving maintenance in the evening hours (which will miss the standard time-fill fueling process) in time for the next day s haul route. This will allow the vehicle to return to service in the morning even if there is not sufficient time for the standard time-fill process. This fueling activity could occur during the day or nighttime hours. Similar to time-fill fueling, a driver would pull forward to the dispenser post and attach the fueling hose to the fueling port on the front of the truck or the dueling port behind the driver side door. In approximately 5 10 minutes, the truck will be filled. The truck will remain parked until at least 5:30 a.m., at which time the driver will arrive and back out the truck to begin the daily haul route. Defueling Post. The site will be equipped with one defueling post. This post will be used to offload any remaining fuel left in a truck before fuel system maintenance is performed on or in the vicinity of the vehicles fuel delivery system. Excess fuel will be returned to the main compressor and will be available for reuse in other CNG vehicles. Defueling will be performed over night during the time fill fueling process of the truck. Maintenance of collection trucks. Consistent with current operations, collection trucks in need of routine repair and maintenance are serviced within the existing maintenance building. CNG vehicle maintenance will be similar to the diesel vehicle maintenance that currently occurs and will continue to occur on site. The conditional use permit (CUP) allows for work to occur between 3:30 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. (midnight). Monday through Friday, and between 5 a.m. and 4 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. WM has maintenance staff on site until midnight, Monday through Friday, and regularly conducts work up to the midnight operations limit to adequately maintain the 2-6 March October 2012

59 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration existing fleet. As a neighborhood courtesy, WM makes its best efforts to work with the community, and avoid using noisy equipment (such as pneumatic wrenches) to the extent possible. No change in the hours of operation or outdoor work practices are proposed with the CNG facility improvements. The project will not result in changes to the fleet service schedules. Maintenance activities on the CNG vehicles will be similar to those performed on the diesel-fueled vehicles. Once vehicles are serviced, they return to the time-fill fuel parking spaces by pulling forward into the parking spot. Table 2-1 Project Summary Existing Future Net Change Administration and Maintenance Building Area 18,706 square feet 18,706 square feet 0 Landscaped Area 20,055 square feet 20,055 square feet 0 Number of Fleet Vehicles Fleet Vehicle Fueling/Parking Spaces Employee Parking Spaces Operational Characteristics Number of Employees Permitted hours of Operations 5:30 a.m. to 12 a.m. (midnight) 5:30 a.m. to 12 a.m. (midnight) 0 Renovation of Existing Maintenance Shop. Minor retrofits to the existing maintenance shop will occur to support indoor CNG vehicle maintenance and repair. Repair garages for CNG vehicles must contain an 18-inch airspace (classified as Class I, Division 2 Area per National Fire Protection Association 70, National Electric Code) below the ceiling in order to ensure that ignition sources (i.e., electrical wiring) do not come into contact with CNG, which is lighter than air gas. A combustible gas detection system, with monitors in the ceiling of the maintenance bays calibrated to detect methane concentration in excess of 25% of the lower explosive limit, will be installed. The detectors will be interlocked to an emergency ventilation system. Electrical wiring in the ceiling of the existing maintenance building will be relocated (lowered) outside of the 18-inch classified zone. The existing ventilation system will be upgraded to provide emergency ventilation with the requisite 1-cubic-foot-per-minute-per-12-cubic-feet-of-room-volume ventilation necessary for a CNG maintenance shop. To meet required safety code requirements, six exhaust/ventilation fans approximately 50 inches by 54 inches will be installed on the roof of the existing maintenance facility. In the event of gas detection, emergency ventilation will be provided in order to exhaust gases to the exterior of the building. Make-up air will be provided by automatically opening of one or more of the overhead doors. 2-7 March October 2012

60 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration A small emergency backup generator of approximately 15 kilowatts will be provided to operate the entire emergency system in the event of a power failure. 2.4 Project Construction Construction is anticipated to commence in the fall of 2012 and will last for approximately 3 months. The maintenance shop upgrades and site improvements will be constructed simultaneously. The construction activity will require the use of a back hoe, excavator, dump truck, bobcat, concrete truck, crane, forklift, boom lift, and portable generators, as well as various pieces of handheld construction equipment. The maintenance shop upgrades will necessitate a construction crew of two to six workers, while the site improvements will necessitate a crew of five workers. The new 2-inch gas pipeline from Oceanside Boulevard will be directionally drilled beneath Industry Street. The entry trench will be approximately 6 feet long and 2 feet wide and will be located within the southernmost travel lane of Oceanside Boulevard. The exit trench will be similar in size as the entry trench and be located near the proposed CNG equipment complex. The drilling activity will take approximately 1 week assuming an 8-hour work day. The drill will consist of a Vermeer D36x50 directional drill or equivalent. The CNG trucks will be phased in at the site and will replace the existing diesel trucks one for one. Initially there will be approximately 15 to 20 new CNG trucks at the site, with an additional 5 to 20 trucks phased in per year. 2.5 Standard Project Design Features The City, through codes and standards, and the applicant, through standard design and construction practices, have incorporated numerous project design and construction features into the project that help to reduce the potential for environmental effects. Construction will be performed by qualified contractors, and contract documents, plans, and specifications will incorporate stipulations regarding standard City requirements and acceptable construction practices, including, but not limited to trenching, safety measures, seismic safety, erosion control, traffic control, public safety, and noise generation. Further, the project will be designed in accordance with State of California Building Code and City of Oceanside Code of Ordinance requirements. These measures are included in Table 2-2, Summary of Standard Project Design Features and Construction, and are referenced throughout the impact discussions in Section 4.0 of this mitigated negative declaration (MND). 2-8 March October 2012

61 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 2-2 Summary of Standard Project Design Features and Construction Geology and Soils Conformance with the 2010 California Building Code and the American Concrete Institute 318 design requirements, and other applicable City ordinances and standards required. The project s conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria will reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking. Conformance with the City s Seismic Hazard Mitigation Ordinance. Conformance with the structural design recommendations from the Limited Geotech Report. Noise In accordance with the City s Noise Ordinance, construction activities will be limited to daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Health and Safety National Fire Protection Association International Fire Code, National Electrical Code, International Mechanical Code, and International Building Code. The following precautionary measures will be incorporated by the project to avoid fire hazards: Gas detection equipment, cameras and flame detecting fire eyes Fire Alarms, employee training, steering wheel covers, and safety signage Automatic shutdown and similar aspects to prevent or contain a fire or explosion. Each fueling dispenser will be provided with breakaways, which are designed to automatically shut down if human errors occurs (i.e., driver backing out with the fuel hose attached to the truck). Hazards The following precautionary steps will be incorporated by the project to avoid subterranean hazards: Prior to digging, a dig alert will be conducted that entails the engineer or contractor contracting with an entity to release an announcement of the proposed digging operation to all local utility providers (water, wastewater, cable, fiber optic, electrical, etc.). All local utility providers will visit the proposed pipeline route and mark the location and depth of any underground utilities to ensure that the new drilling operation will not impact these facilities (Newland, pers. comm. 2012). An environmental health and safety plan will be developed by the engineer and/or contractor to provide direction regarding the emergency response processes that will be followed if soil vapors or other suspicious underground substances are encountered, including notification of all appropriate federal, state, and local agencies of an encountered hazard. This plan will be kept on site during all aspects of subterranean disturbance (Newland, pers. comm. 2012). The bentonite slurry produced during the drilling operations is not considered a hazard given its natural characteristics; however, disposal or reuse for a different purpose will be handled in accordance with County Environmental Health and Safety Department procedures. The contractor will be required to monitor any frac-out conditions during drilling and restore all site and/or street conditions to their pre-drilling condition. Should groundwater be encountered during drilling/trenching activities and suspicious substances or odors of the groundwater noted by the construction crew, the health and safety plan described above will dictate the process by which digging is halted until groundwater can be tested to ensure safety of construction workers, nearby land uses, the public and the environment. Hydrology and Water Quality The project is required to comply with the City Code of Ordinance Chapter 40.2 (Discharge Regulations, Exempt Discharges, and Required Activities); which provides regulations for the storage of materials and waste. Transportation and Traffic In accordance with the California Vehicle Code the project shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan for use during construction. This plan shall outline procedures for notifying the Oceanside Police and Fire Departments of forthcoming lane or roadway closures. This will allow the Police and Fire Departments to modify emergency response plans and notify other public service providers of closures. The traffic control plan shall be approved by the City Engineering Department. 2-9 March October 2012

62 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.6 Discretionary Actions The following discretionary actions are required for the proposed project: Approval of a revised Development Plan by the City Planning Commission Approval of a revised Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the City Planning Commission Certification of the MND by City Planning Commission Approval of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program by the City. Other Agency Approvals None March October 2012

63 San Diego County Imperial County g 1 Dana Point San Juan Capistrano San Clemente 74 Orange County San Diego County Temecula Rainbow 371 Riverside County San Diego County Salton Sea 5 Camp Pendleton North Fallbrook Bonsall Camp Pendleton South Oceanside Vista Hidden Meadows Valley Center Borrego Springs Project Site Carlsbad San Marcos Escondido 78 Encinitas Poway Ramona San Diego Country Estates Julian P a c i f i c O c e a n Miles Coronado San Diego National City Imperial Beach 52 Chula Vista La Mesa Lemon Spring Grove Valley 905 Bonita Santee Lakeside Alpine Pine Harbison Valley Canyon El Cajon Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Rancho San Diego Jamul 8 94 Campo Boulevard MEXICO Jacumba OCTOBER 2012 OCEANSIDE CNG VEHICLE FUELING FACILITY FIGURE 1 Regional Map

64 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2-12 March October 2012

65 76 Project Site ,000 2,000 Feet -01 OCTOBER 2012 SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Quadrangle. San Luis Rey Quad OCEANSIDE CNG VEHICLE FUELING FACILITY FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map

66 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2-14 March October 2012

67 APN APN NCTD Sprinter Line Property Lines Project Boundary Feet No improvements proposed in this area -02 OCTOBER 2012 SOURCE: BING MAPS SERVICES OCEANSIDE CNG VEHICLE FUELING FACILITY FIGURE 3 Aerial Map

68 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2-16 March October 2012

69 NEW GAS LINE DIRECTIONAL DRILLED 320+/- FT TO POINT OF CONNECTION PROPERTY LINES PROJECT BOUNDARY -02 OCTOBER 2012 SOURCE: ET ENVIRONMENTAL 2012 OCEANSIDE CNG VEHICLE FUELING FACILITY FIGURE 4 Site Plan

70 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2-18 March October 2012

71 7'-0" 7'-2" 10'-1" 8'-8" 8'-4" 17'-7" 3" BALL VALVE, FLG'D W/ BLIND FLANGE (CONN. FOR TEMP. TRAILER) 3" SCH 40 CS PIPE (FROM DRYER OUTLET TO COMPR SUCTION., B.O.P. EL. 6'-1 3 4") 4'-0" C-C MAX. (TYP) 6" DIA. GUARD POST (TYP) 3" SCH 40 CS PIPE (FROM MSA TO DRYER INLET B.O.P. EL. 6'-1 3 4") ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AREA (SEE DWG. FE-101) 1'-10" 2,-")+&234 2'-3" 1'-10" 4'-1" 1. (E) CHASSIS WASH 18'-1" 3'-5" 2'-6" 5'-1" 6'-1" 7'-11" 1'-5" DRYER 48" ID - STORAGE SPHERE 5'-8" 6'-10" MSA ( BY GAS UTILITY)!"#$%&"!5%(&16/,#7 COMPRESSOR 1'-11" 2'-11" 1'-6" 8'-6" FUTURE STORAGE VESSEL ( 5'-1" 9'-4" 2'-10" 4'-1" 1 2' BALL VALVE W/ PLUG (FOR CONN. TO FUTURE STORAGE VESSEL) ). (. '(%)%(*+(#,-!./#0"# 1 2" BALL VALVE W/ PLUG (CONN. FOR TEMP. TRAILER) 1 2" SS TUBING (FROM COMPR DISCH. TO VALVE PANEL, B.O.P. EL. 6'-1 3 4") VALVE PANEL T0 PRIORITY FILL POST, (2) - 1 2" SS TUBING IN A 3" PVC SLEEVE (W/ MIN 24" OF COVER). PVC SLEEVE SHALL BE SCH 40, SHALL BE CONTINUOUS AND SEALED BELOW GRADE, AND SHALL HAVE MIN. 6" PROJECTION ABOVE GRADE, WITH HARDENING UV-RESISTANT SILICONE SEALANT AT SLEEVE OPENINGS TIME-FILL SUPPLY - 1 2" SS TUBING IN A 2" PVC SLEEVE (W/ MIN 24" OF COVER). PVC SLEEVE SHALL BE SCH 40, SHALL BE CONTINUOUS AND SEALED BELOW GRADE, AND SHALL HAVE MIN. 6" PROJECTION ABOVE GRADE, WITH HARDENING UV-RESISTANT SILICONE SEALANT AT SLEEVE OPENINGS 2 NORTH CNG PIPING PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" -02 OCTOBER 2012 SOURCE: ET ENVIRONMENTAL 2012 OCEANSIDE CNG VEHICLE FUELING FACILITY FIGURE 5 Details of Proposed CNG Equipment Area

72 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2-20 March October 2012

73 3 5 UNIT 1 8 COMPRESSOR SKID MOUNTED INDEPENDENTLY OF ENCLOSURE 6 UNIT REMOVABLE ALUMINUM ENCLOSURE DOORS AND WALL PANELS FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS REMOVABLE ALUMINUM ENCLOSURE DOORS AND WALL PANELS FOR MAINTENANCE ACCESS MAIN MOTOR WIRING PASSTHROUGHS 2 ISOMETRIC VIEW 7 ISOMETRIC VIEW, ENCLOSURE HIDDEN 1 EXPLOSION PROOF MOTOR AIR INLET WITH ACOUSTIC FOAM 4 GAS INLET: 3" FNPT COUPLING LOOSE INLET PIPING KIT: NPT BALL VALVE FLEX HOSE, 150#ANSI FLANGE MESH STRAINER INTRINSIC JUNCTION BOX LEFT VIEW, LOUVER REMOVED GAS OUTLET: 3/4" TUBE FRONT VIEW, DOORS REMOVED GAS DRYER REGENERATION LINE 1/2" TUBE CONNECTION ITEM QTY. PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION VENT ASSEMBLY - IMW50 & ALPHA3 SKID WELDMENT ENCLOSURE ASM TWIN IMW50 90IN WIDE CONTROL PANEL ATEX C1D2 8SOL 6000PSIG COOLER SUBASSEMBLY 4STG TWIN U COOLER SUBASSEMBLY 4STG TWIN U2 REC TANK SUBASM HORIZ 200GAL 200PSIG CBA SUBASSEMBLY INLET PIPING MTWIN SF MOTOR 445T & SLIDE BASE SOURCE: ET ENVIRONMENTAL 2012 REAR VIEW, DOORS REMOVED 120VAC JUNCTION BOX FIGURE 6 CNG Compressor Details -02 OCTOBER (6 7+( /2&$7,21 2) 7+,6 (48,30(17, (&(66$5,/< $6 '(3,&7(' 7+,6 '5$:,1*,6 127 $1 (;$&7 63(&,),&$7, ( $66(0%/,1* 7+( 3$&.$*( 7+( /2&$7,216 *,9(1 )25 7+( (/(&75,&$/ $1' *$6 &211(&7,216 $5( $3352;,0$7( 21/< &2035( %( /2&$7(' 21 $ )/$7 $1' /(9(/ &21&5(7( )281'$7,21 $6 63(&,),(',1 7+(,167$//$7,21 6(&7,21 2) 7+( 86(5 0$18$/ $1&+25 %5$&.(76 $5( 3529,'(' 72 6(&85( 6.,' 72,76 )281'$7,216,0: 5(&200(1'6 7+$7 $// $1&+256 %( 6(7 :,7+ 7+( (48,30(17,1 3/$&(,0: $/62 5(&200(1'6 7+( 86( 2) +,/7, $1&+256 '(7$,/6 2) :+,&+ :,// %( 3529,'(' (48(67,0: '2(6 127 $&&(37 $1< /,$%,/,7< )25 $/7(51$7,9( )$67(1,1* 0(7+2' ( 7+( 48$/,7< 25 68,7$%,/,7< 2) 7+( )281'$7,21 5(029( /,)7,1* 3,16 %()25( %2/7,1* '2:1 6.,' $1' (1&/2685( $1',167$// 6833/,(' $1&+25 %5$&.(76 72 (1685( $'(48$7( $,5 029(0(17 12 :$// 6+28/' %( &/26(5 7+$1 7(1 )((7 )520 7+( $,5,1/( /(76 6+2:1 (/(&75,&$/ &/$66,),&$7,21,16,'( 7+( (1&/2685(,6 &/$66, ',9 *5283 ' (/(&75,&$/ &/$66,),&$7, ,'( 7+( (1&/2685( )((7,6 &/$66, ',9 *5283 ' 480V JUNCTION BOX OCEANSIDE CNG VEHICLE FUELING FACILITY

74 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2-22 March October 2012

75 CNG Equipment Area Compound CNG Time Fill Dispenser -02 OCTOBER 2012 SOURCE: LIGHTFOOT PLANNING GROUP 2011; ET Environmental 2012 OCEANSIDE CNG VEHICLE FUELING FACILITY FIGURE 7 Example CNG Facility Photos

76 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2-24 March October 2012

77 PROPERTY LINES PROJECT BOUNDARY -02 OCTOBER 2012 SOURCE: LIGHTFOOT PLANNING GROUP 2012 OCEANSIDE CNG VEHICLE FUELING FACILITY FIGURE 8 Landscape Concept Plan

78 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2-26 March October 2012

79 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 FINDINGS The City of Oceanside (City) finds that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment based on the result of the initial study environmental checklist and discussion of environmental impacts (See Section 4.0, Initial Study Environmental Checklist/Discussion of Environmental Impacts). Some potentially significant effects have been identified and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that these effects remain at less-thansignificant levels. A mitigated negative declaration is therefore proposed to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (PRC et seq.; 14 CCR et seq.). This conclusion is supported by the following: 1. Aesthetics: The project will not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista or substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the site. See Section 4, item 14.1, Aesthetics, for additional information. 2. Agricultural Resources: As indicated by the San Diego County Important Farmland Map 2008, impacts to agricultural resources will not occur. See Section 4, item 14.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, for additional information. 3. Air Quality: The emissions calculated for the proposed project were below the significance thresholds for both construction and operational phases of the project. Impacts will be less than significant. See Section 4, item 14.3, Air Quality, for additional information. 4. Biological Resources: The project will not result in impacts to sensitive plant species. Potential indirect impacts to bird species may result during the construction phase of the project. Mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. No impacts to wildlife corridors or habitat conservation plans will occur. See Section 4, item 14.4, Biological Resources, for additional information. 5. Cultural Resources: The project site is developed and paved. Proposed grounddisturbing activities will not intrude into previously undisturbed soils. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources will not result. See Section 4, item 14.5, Cultural Resources, for additional information. 6. Geology and Soils: The proposed project will not expose people or structures to adverse risk associated with geologic or soil conditions. Impacts will be less than significant. See Section 4, item 14.6, Geology and Soils, for additional information. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The project will not result in a conflict with applicable regulations associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project will be less than those associated with the existing diesel vehicle fleet. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. See Section 4, item 14.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for additional information. 3-1 March October 2012

80 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project will not introduce significant hazardous materials to people or the environment, and no previous hazardous reports have been listed for the project site. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. See Section 4, item 14.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for additional information. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality: Existing best management practices will reduce construction-related impacts to less than significant. The project will be in compliance with the City s Erosion Control Ordinance for the facility. Impacts will be less than significant. See Section 4, item 14.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for more information. 10. Land Use and Planning: The project will be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the project vicinity. No change in land use is proposed. See Section 14.10, Land Use and Planning, for more information. 11. Mineral Resources: The project site does not contain important mineral deposits. Implementation of the proposed project will not preclude any plans for mineral recovery. See Section 14.11, Mineral Resources, for more information. 12. Noise: The construction and operational noise generated by the proposed project will comply with the City s noise criteria. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. See Section 14.12, Noise, for more information. 13. Population and Housing: The project will not affect local housing availability or generate additional population. See Section 14.13, Population & Housing, for more information. 14. Public Services: The proposed project will not generate a demand for public services, and no significant impacts will occur. See Section 14.14, Public Services, for more information. 15. Recreation: Implementation of the proposed project will not create additional demand for recreational facilities or increase the use of existing recreational facilities. No impacts to recreation will occur. See Section 14.15, Recreation, for more information. 16. Transportation and Traffic: During construction, traffic will be generated by equipment delivery, material delivery/disposal, and construction worker transport. A traffic control plan will be prepared to reduce impacts during drilling operations. Impacts will be less than significant. See Section 14.16, Transportation/Traffic, for more information. 17. Utilities and Service Systems: Impacts will be less than significant to utilities and service systems. See Section 14.17, Utilities and Service Systems, for more information. 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance: No long-term significant impacts are associated with the project, and impacts will not be cumulatively considerable. See Section 14.18, Mandatory Findings of Significance, for more information. 3-2 March October 2012

81 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0 INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST INITIAL STUDY City of Oceanside California 1. PROJECT: Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Oceanside 3. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: Richard Greenbauer PROJECT LOCATION: 2141 Oceanside Boulevard, Oceanside, California APPLICANT: Waste Management of North County 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Industrial (GI) 7. ZONING: General Industrial (IG) 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See Section 2.0, Project Description. 9. SURROUNDING LAND USE(S) & PROJECT SETTING: The 3.7-acre project site currently consists of an existing Waste Management (WM) Fleet Maintenance and Administration Facility. The project site is bounded by Oceanside Boulevard to the north; Industry Street to the northeast; industrial uses to the east, north, and west of the site; and Loma Alta Creek and the North County Transit District Sprinter Rail Line to the south. Residential uses are located beyond the industrial use to the north and Loma Alta Creek and the North County Transit District Sprinter Rail Line to the south. Regional access is provided to the project site via Interstate 5 (I-5) and Oceanside Boulevard. 10. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS: Not applicable 11. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Oceanside Disposal s Three Expansion Sites: D-9-95, C Mitigated Negative Declaration, CONSULTATION: The following federal, state, and local agencies may need to be consulted during project planning: Oceanside Fire Department Oceanside Police Department Oceanside Public Works Department Oceanside Building Department Oceanside Transportation Department. 4-1 March October 2012

82 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The project will not affect any environmental factors resulting in a Potentially Significant Impact. A summary of the environmental factors potentially affected by this project, consisting of a Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated, include: Aesthetics Agricultural Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geological Hazards Water Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Utility Systems 14. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts which may result from the proposed project. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the project s short-term impacts (constructionrelated), and its operational or day-to-day impacts. For each question, there are four possible responses. They include: 1. No Impact. Future development arising from the project s implementation will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment and no additional analysis is required. 2. Less Than Significant Impact. The development associated with project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment; these impacts, however, will be less than the levels or thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required. 3. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the project s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. 4. Potentially Significant Impact. Future implementation will have impacts that are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. 4-2 March October 2012

83 Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 14.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building along a State-designated scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The City of Oceanside s General Plan (City of Oceanside 2002) does not designate scenic vistas. Therefore, no impacts will result during operation of the future facility or construction. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The project site is not located within a state scenic highway. In addition, no scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings, are situated on site (California Department of Transportation Officially Designated Scenic Highway 2011). Therefore, no impacts will result. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less-than-Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 14.1(a) and 14.1(b) above. The project site is currently developed with a Fleet Maintenance and Administration Facility operated by WM. The project proposes to transition the existing fleet maintenance facility from diesel fuel to a compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling facility. Project improvements include: restriping of the site; installation of the compressor; and installation of a 7-foot-tall chain-link fence around the equipment area, a new structural concrete pad for the CNG equipment, additional ventilation systems on the existing maintenance building, and replacement of ornamental landscaping with natives and like native species (see Figure 6). Restriping of the site will not change the existing character or quality of the site. Brown vinyl slats matching the existing fence will be utilized for screening the CNG equipment area. The proposed CNG fueling equipment will be surrounded by yellow painted bollards (6-inch steel pipes filled with concrete) for safety purposes. This equipment area will be located within the northeastern portion of the project site, behind the existing perimeter 4-3 March October 2012

84 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration fence. The fence screening the equipment area will be similar to the existing perimeter fence currently surrounding the project site. Views of the fence from the residential land uses along the canyon ridge will be distant, and the internal fence and bollards will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the existing facility. Ventilation systems already exist on the roof of the maintenance building; installation of additional ventilation systems will not change the character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The landscape plans will enhance the on-site landscaping. Impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. Lighting is currently provided along the perimeter of the maintenance facility and the fleet parking yard. No new lighting or new light fixtures are being proposed. As such, the proposed project will not create new sources of lighting or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, no impacts will result AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources Agency? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. According to the San Diego County Important Farmland Map (1998) and Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program map prepared by the California Department of Conservation (California Department of Conservation 2008), the project site is designated as 4-4 March October 2012

85 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Urban and Built-Up Land. No land is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the project site or its surrounding area. In addition, the project site is currently developed with a Fleet Maintenance and Administration Facility. Therefore, the project will not convert Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and no impacts will result. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is zoned General Industrial (City of Oceanside 2009a). No agricultural designations occur on site or within the project area. Also, no Williamson Act contracts apply (AB 1265). Therefore, implementation of the project will not result in any conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impacts will result. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The zoning designation for the project site and its surrounding uses is General Industrial (City of Oceanside 2009a). No forest land, timberland, or timberland production areas are located within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project will not conflict with the existing zoning for forestry uses and no impacts will result. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Refer to response to item 14.2.c above (City of Oceanside 2009a). There are no forest lands located within the project vicinity; therefore, the project will not result in the loss of or conversion of forest lands to non-forest uses. No impacts will result. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? No Impact. As previously stated, the proposed project area is not located within an agricultural area (City of Oceanside 2009a). Thus, implementation of the proposed project will not result in changes in the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses. Therefore, no impacts will result. 4-5 March October 2012

86 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 14.3 AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less-than- Significant Impact. The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which is governed by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) outlines SDAPCD s plans and control measures designed to attain the state air quality standards for ozone (O 3 ). The RAQS was initially adopted in 1991, and is updated on a triennial basis (most recently in 2009). It relies on information from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in San Diego County and the cities in county, to project future emissions and then determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by San Diego County and the cities in the county as part of the development of their General Plans. A consistency determination is important in local agency project review because it entails comparing local planning projects to the RAQS in several ways. It fulfills the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) goal of fully informing local agency decision-makers of the environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are addressed. Only new or amended General Plan Elements, Specific Plans, and significantly unique projects need to go under a consistency review since the RAQS is based on projections from local General Plans. Therefore, projects that are consistent with the local General Plan and do not create significant air quality impacts are considered consistent with the air-quality-related regional plan. The proposed project will be consistent with the General Plan designation and will not change the existing use of the project site. 4-6 March October 2012

87 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less-than-Significant Impact. The SDAPCD has recommended screening thresholds to provide guidance to local governments regarding the various types/amounts of land uses that may exceed state or federal air quality standards and will therefore result in potentially significant air quality impacts. Two different screening significance thresholds are provided and include: 1) construction thresholds and 2) operation thresholds. The construction and operations significance thresholds, as applicable to the proposed project, are discussed below. If the use proposes development that results in air pollutant emissions in excess of the screening threshold, a significant air quality impact may occur and additional analysis is warranted to fully assess the significance of impacts. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Construction of the proposed project will result in a temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by combustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment, as well as from off-site trucks hauling construction materials. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity and the specific type of operation. Therefore, such emission levels can only be approximately estimated with a corresponding uncertainty in precise ambient air quality impacts. Oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions will primarily result from the use of construction equipment and motor vehicles. Fugitive dust emissions will be minimal, as ground disturbing activities will be limited to trenching and directional drilling; no mass and fine site grading activities will be required. Emissions from the construction phase of the project were estimated through the use of emission factors from the URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.4, land use and air emissions model (Jones & Stokes 2007). The air district utilized in the model is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) since the SDAPCD is not an option and the SCAQMD is typically used as a conservative surrogate; however, for the purposes of modeling construction emissions, the air district designated in the model does not factor into the emissions calculations. For the purposes of modeling, it was assumed that construction of the proposed project would commence in fall 2012 and would include one primary building construction phase. Total construction is expected to take approximately 3 months. While some equipment would be used only for a week or two during this construction phase, it was conservatively assumed that all equipment would operate for the duration of project construction. A more detailed description of the construction schedule and equipment utilized is included in Appendix A of this report. 4-7 March October 2012

88 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration The equipment mix is meant to represent a reasonably conservative estimate of construction activity. For the analysis, it was generally assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at the site for approximately 8 hours per day, 5 days per week (22 days per month), during project construction. Table 4-1, Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, shows the estimated maximum daily construction emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project. Complete details of the emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A of this document. Table 4-1 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) VOC 1 NO x CO SO x PM 10 2 Proposed Project Emissions PM Emission Threshold Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: URBEMIS 2007, Version See Appendix A for complete results. VOC = Volatile organic compounds NOx = Oxides of nitrogen CO = Carbon monoxide SOx = Sulfur oxides PM10 = Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns PM2.5 = Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns Notes: 1 VOC threshold is based on the significance thresholds recommended by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for the North Central Coast Air Basin, which has similar federal and state attainment status as the SDAB for O3. 2 Although no site grading will occur, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions will be generated from construction equipment exhaust. As shown, daily construction emissions will not exceed the SDAPCD s significance thresholds for VOC, NO x, CO, SO x, PM 10, or PM 2.5. As such, construction of the proposed project will result in an impact to air quality that is less than significant. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Long-term air quality impacts consist of mobile source emissions generated from the truck fleet, as well as stationary source emissions from the operation of a 15-kilowatt on-site emergency generator. Site improvements associated with the proposed project will not result in any additional increase in operational air pollutant emissions. This analysis accounts for the fact that the existing fleet of 58 diesel vehicles will be replaced by 58 CNG vehicles, and therefore the analysis reports the net change in emissions. Annual fuel consumption was obtained from WM for the existing diesel vehicle fleet. To estimate the future fuel consumption, the baseline consumption was adjusted to account for the fact that CNG 4-8 March October 2012

89 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration engines tend to use approximately 10% more fuel (on a diesel-fuel-equivalent basis) than diesel engines. Certified emission values taken from the CARB Executive Orders for diesel and CNG engines were used to calculate total daily mobile source emissions. In addition to mobile source emissions, the proposed project will entail intermittent operation of an emergency generator for maintenance and testing and standby use. It was assumed that the generator will be tested approximately 26 hours per year (0.5 hour per week). Table 4-2, Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions, shows the net change in estimated maximum daily emissions associated with operation of the proposed project. Complete details of the emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A of this document. Table 4-2 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NO x CO SO x PM 10 PM 2.5 Net Change in Emissions Vehicle Fleet Emergency Generator Total Emission Threshold Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: See Appendix A for complete results. As shown, the net change daily operational emissions will not exceed the significance thresholds for VOC, NO x, CO, SO x, PM 10, or PM 2.5. As such, operation of the proposed project will result in an impact to air quality that is less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less-than-Significant Impact. Refer to responses 14.3(a) and 14.3(b). In analyzing cumulative impacts from the proposed project, the analysis must specifically evaluate a project s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the SDAB is designated as nonattainment for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. If the proposed project does not exceed thresholds and is determined to have less-than-significant project-specific impacts, it may still contribute to a significant cumulative impact on air quality if the emissions from the project, in combination with the emissions from other proposed or reasonably foreseeable future projects, are in excess of established thresholds. However, the project would be considered to have a significant cumulative impact only if the project s contribution accounts 4-9 March October 2012

90 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for a significant proportion of the cumulative total emissions (i.e., it represents a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative air quality impact). The SDAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O 3 and a state nonattainment area for O 3, PM 10, and PM 2.5. PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions associated with construction generally result in near-field impacts. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air pollutants and their precursors within the SDAB. As discussed in response 14.3(b) above, the emissions of all criteria pollutants will be below the significance thresholds, and in the case of these nonattainment pollutants, including O 3 precursors (VOC and NO x ), the proposed project will result in emission reductions. Additionally, the proposed project will not require a land use change and will be compatible with existing uses at and around the site. Thus, the proposed project will be consistent at a regional level with the underlying growth forecasts in the RAQS. As a result, the proposed project will not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional O 3, PM 10, and PM 2.5 concentrations. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less-than-Significant Impact. The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions during construction will be diesel particulate emissions from heavy equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks and the associated health impacts to sensitive receptors. The nearest residences are located approximately 300 feet south of the project site. There are also residences located approximately 350 feet north of the project site. Health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of cancer risk. The SDAPCD recommends an incremental cancer risk threshold of 10 in a million. Incremental Cancer Risk is the likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. The project will require minimal use of heavy-duty construction equipment, which is subject to a CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for in-use diesel construction equipment to reduce diesel particulate emissions, and will not involve extensive use of diesel trucks, which are also subject to an ATCM, during construction. Total construction of the proposed project will last for approximately 3 months, after which time project-related TAC emissions will cease. Thus, the proposed project will not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years) source of TAC emissions. Following construction and full conversion of the vehicle fleet, the project will eliminate diesel particulate matter emissions from the collection vehicle fleet, as the project will transition the vehicle fleet to CNG engines that are equipped with three-way catalysts that control toxic VOCs. Additionally, the proposed project will be subject to SDAPCD 4-10 March October 2012

91 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Regulation IV: Prohibitions, Rule 51: Nuisance. This rule prohibits the discharge, from any source, of air contaminants or other materials that may adversely affect people and/or the public, or cause damage to any business or property (SDAPCD 1969). As such, the exposure of project-related TAC emission impacts to sensitive receptors will be less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. During the construction period, the potential odors associated with the proposed project will result from diesel and gas fumes from construction equipment. Due to the temporary nature of construction odors, these impacts are considered adverse but less than significant due to their temporary nature. Furthermore, the vehicle fleet will be transitioned from diesel to CNG engines, which will eliminate the potential odors associated with diesel engine exhaust. The project will not result in odors detectable to sensitive receptors following construction BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy/ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, 4-11 March October 2012

92 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project site consists of an existing Fleet Maintenance and Administration Facility. The entire project area is supported by existing hardscape and structures, with ornamental landscaping scattered along the northern and western boundaries of the project site. Non-native oleander bushes exist along the eastern property line. The project will entail modifications to the main fleet parking area and the maintenance building. The project will also involve removal of the non-native oleander bushes along the eastern property line. Direct impacts to special-status species will not occur as a result of installation of the CNG fueling facility or the modifications to the maintenance building. However, removal of the non-native oleander bushes may result in impacts to nesting birds that are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In order to avoid this potential impact, mitigation is provided. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Removal of the non-native oleander bushes shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31). If it is not feasible to remove this ornamental vegetation outside of the breeding season, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no more than 3 days prior to removal activity. If active nests are detected, removal of the bushes shall be postponed until the young have fledged and the biologist determines that the nest(s) is/are no longer active. The survey results shall be submitted to the Oceanside Planning Department. Natural vegetation associated with Loma Alta Creek is located south of the property line. This vegetation consists of a mixture of freshwater marsh and southern willow scrub and may support special-status birds, including the federally listed endangered least Bell s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Loma Alta Creek and adjacent hillsides south of the creek are also known to support the federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Direct impacts to this vegetation and any species that may be using this habitat for breeding, fledging, or foraging will not occur. Less noise will be associated with the proposed project compared to the existing condition (see Section 14.12, Noise), thereby reducing noise levels that any potential sensitive species is currently being subjected to in off-site areas. Therefore, significant indirect impacts to special-status species located off site, south of the project, will not occur March October 2012

93 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration The 2010 Oceanside Subarea Plan (City of Oceanside 2010) contains the proposed covered species conservation analysis and conditions of coverage for all species covered by the Plan (the 2000 Oceanside Subarea Plan did not include the Proposed Covered Species Conservation Analysis and Conditions of Coverage). The conditions of coverage for both species (least Bell s vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher) were addressed in a memorandum titled Waste Management of North County Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Relationship to Revised Final Oceanside Subarea Plan prepared by Dudek (2012). Since the project would be contained within the existing developed fueling facility site, no native habitat removal would result. In addition, project construction is planned to occur prior to March 15 (outside the breading season for the least Bell s vireo). However, in the case of project delays the project would adhere to the following noise limitations: construction noise levels at the riparian canopy edge will be kept below 60dBA L eq from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00a.m. during the peak nesting period from March 15 to July 15. For the remainder of day/season, the noise levels will not exceed 60 decibels, averaged over a 1-hour period on an A-weighted decibel. Compliance with this regulation will ensure indirect construction noise impacts to least Bell s vireo will be less than significant, if construction is delayed. No new indirect noise guidelines for the coastal California gnatcatcher were identified in the revised Subarea Plan. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less-than-Significant Impact. See response 14.4(a). As noted in response 14.4(a), the project will consist of modifications to the existing fleet yard and maintenance buildings and removal of the non-native oleander bushes along the eastern property line and replacement with suitable natives. There are no wetlands or natural habitat areas within the fleet yard and/or the maintenance facility, therefore no impacts will occur. A concrete-lined drainage ditch is located along the eastern property line. The removal of the non-native oleander bushes and replanting with drought-tolerant species will not alter this drainage; therefore, no direct impact will result. Non-native oleander bushes are not considered a sensitive natural community identified in the Draft Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan or the City s General Plan, and are not regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (except in the context of nesting bird habitat such as discussed above in response 14.4(a)). The existing drainage system of the maintenance facility will not be altered in any way as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the existing best management practices and stormwater quality management devices installed in the on-site stormwater system will continue to filter water to protect water quality prior to discharge into Loma Alta Creek March October 2012

94 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Therefore, no substantial adverse indirect effects to riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural communities known to exist in the Loma Alta Creek corridor, will occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less-than- Significant Impact. See response 14.4(b). d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less-than-Significant Impact. Loma Alta Creek and adjacent uplands located south of the project site are identified as a local coastal California gnatcatcher corridor in the City of Oceanside s Public Review Draft Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (City of Oceanside 2000). Loma Alta Creek is also known to function as a movement corridor for other wildlife species. The project will not directly alter any part of Loma Alta Creek or the upland hillsides to the south of the creek. Therefore, direct impacts will not occur. The project will not entail any new additional lighting within the operation yard. The hours of operation the current facility operates under will remain unchanged. The project site and surrounding properties have been industrial uses for many decades, which, along with the North County Transit District Sprinter train, produce continuous operational noise. As indicated in Section 14.12, Noise, the project will result in a reduction in noise levels compared to the existing condition. Therefore, any indirect impacts associated with human-induced noise on movement-corridor activity in Loma Alta Creek will be less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy/ordinance? Less-than-Significant Impact. See Response 4.14(f) below for discussion regarding the project s relationship to the Public Review Draft Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (City of Oceanside 2000). The City of Oceanside has a street-tree removal policy. However, no street trees are being removed as part of this proposed project. Removal of the oleander bushes along the eastern property boundary will not conflict with any existing ordinance or policy. The bushes are being removed in an effort to improve the quality of the vegetation in light of recent local outbreaks of invasive insects. Removal of the oleander bushes and replacement with a more native, drought-tolerant plant mix will improve the quality of on-site vegetation March October 2012

95 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less-than-Significant Impact. The City of Oceanside is located within the North San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP). The MHCP encompasses the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. The program goals are to conserve approximately 19,000 acres of habitat, of which roughly 8,800 acres (46%) are already in public ownership and contribute toward the habitat preserve system for the protection of more than 80 rare, threatened, or endangered species (SANDAG 2003). The MHCP Subregional Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report were adopted and certified by the SANDAG Board of Directors on March 28, Subarea plans for the cities are being prepared and must be adopted by each city council, and implementing agreements with the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be signed before incidental take permits can be issued. The City of Oceanside released a public review draft of the Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan in 2000 (City of Oceanside 2000). The Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan has yet to be finalized and approved by the city council; incidental take authority has therefore not been transferred to the city from CDFG and USFWS. Although the city and project site are not located within an approved habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area, the project s relationship to the city s draft subarea plan is analyzed to ensure that approval of the project will not preclude adoption or implementation of a regional habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Figure 4-1 of the Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan identifies the areas within the city that are envisioned to provide natural community conservation or require special considerations for habitat modification due to preserve planning parameters (i.e., wildlife corridor establishment) envisioned by the subarea plan. The project site is located within Off-site Mitigation Zone I. Off-site Mitigation Zone I includes the area south of the San Luis Rey River, north of the city s southern boundary, east of I-5, and west of College Boulevard, exclusive of the Wildlife Corridor Planning Zone. Impacts to biological resources within Off-site Mitigation Zone I must be mitigated within the Wildlife Corridor Planning Zone, or within Pre-approved Mitigation Areas within Off-site Mitigation Zone I. Justification for this restriction is as follows: Removal of habitats within Off-site Mitigation Zone I will further decrease opportunities for wildlife movement and habitat connectivity across the city. Consequently, mitigation for such impacts should include a contribution to the conservation of a viable stepping-stone linkage within the Wildlife Corridor Planning Zone March October 2012

96 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration The proposed project will result in modifications to developed land. Developed land lacks habitat value for sensitive wildlife species; therefore, the Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan does not require mitigation for impacts to such land (City of Oceanside 2000, Table 5-2). Therefore, the project will not result in impacts to sensitive habitat within Off-site Mitigation Zone I and will be consistent with the Oceanside Subarea Plan. Impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation measures are warranted or required. The existing drainage system of the maintenance facility will not be altered in any way as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the existing best management practices and stormwater quality management devices installed in the on-site stormwater system will continue to filter water to protect water quality prior to discharge into Loma Alta Creek. Therefore, no substantial adverse indirect effects to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities or wildlife movement known to exist in the Loma Alta Creek corridor will occur. Refer to item 14.4(a) above and Appendix D regarding the projects relationship to the revised 2010 Subarea Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with the revised 2010 Oceanside Subarea Plan CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section of CEQA? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section of CEQA? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section of CEQA? No Impact. The project site currently consists of a Fleet Vehicle Maintenance and Administration Facility. The current facility was constructed in the mid- 1990s, and consists of paved areas for the truck fleet, a maintenance building, and administrative offices. Land uses surrounding the project site consist of industrial and commercial uses to the north, east, and west; and Loma Alta Creek and the North County 4-16 March October 2012

97 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Transit District s Sprinter railroad line to the south. The National Register of Historic Places database does not designate the project site or the surrounding land uses as historical resources (National Park Service 2011). Therefore, because the project is not located on a designated historic property and the current building and property facilities were constructed in the mid-1990s, no impacts will occur. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section of CEQA? No Impact. The project site is developed and paved. Grading activities associated with the project entail minimal trenching to connect new utility lines to the project site and through the site itself. Trenching of the utility line will not occur at depths beyond previous ground disturbance from the original development of the project site. Therefore, due to the lack of movement of virgin soil or previously undeveloped land, impacts to archaeological resources will not occur. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Refer to Response 14.5(b) above. Due to the soil/grading associated with original site development, proposed improvements to the facility will not impact paleontological resources or unique geologic features. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. There are no known human remains or informal cemeteries located within the project site. The project site has been previously developed and paved. Grading activities associated with the project entail minimal trenching to connect new utility lines to the project site and through the site itself. Trenching of the utility line will not occur at depths beyond previous ground disturbance from the original development of the project site. Therefore, due to the lack of movement of virgin soil or previously undeveloped land, impacts to previously unknown human remains will not occur GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving (i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G Pub. 42)?; or, (ii) strong seismic ground shaking?; or, (iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?; or, (iv) landslides? 4-17 March October 2012

98 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1994 UBC, creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is located within seismically active Southern California, an area where several faults and fault zones are considered active by the California Division of Mines and Geology. Alquist- Priolo earthquake fault zones have been established for the majority of these faults and fault zones. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones is to prohibit the location of structures on the traces of active faults, thereby mitigating potential damage due to fault surface rupture. According to the California Department of Conservation Geological Survey, the City of Oceanside is not listed as being affected by an Alquist- Priolo earthquake fault zone (California Geological Survey 2007). The city s General Plan Public Safety Element (City of Oceanside 2002) states that since there are no known active or potentially active faults within the city s planning area, there is considered to be no potential for localized ground rupture. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less-than-Significant Impact. San Diego County is a region of known seismic activity. However, there are no proven active or potentially active faults within the City of Oceanside or its sphere of influence (City of Oceanside 2002). There is one active fault, the Rose Canyon Fault, located in the 4-18 March October 2012

99 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Diego, south of the project site. There are also four major active fault zones within 100 miles of Oceanside: the Elsinore Fault zone, Agua Caliente Fault zone, San Jacinto Fault zone, and the San Andreas Fault zone. An earthquake 7.0 or greater magnitude centered on any of these faults will be attenuated by the time it reached the Oceanside planning area; however, certain portions of the planning area could be subject to damage from secondary seismic effects. The proposed project, specifically the new natural gas pipeline and the CNG compressor and equipment foundations, will be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC), the city s Seismic Hazard Mitigation Ordinance, and other applicable standards. Conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria will reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking to less-thansignificant levels. Mitigation measures will therefore not be required. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less-than-Significant Impact. Refer to responses 14.6(a)(i) and 14.6(a)(ii). Liquefaction is the loss of strength of cohesionless soils when the pore water pressure in the soil becomes equal to the confining pressure. Liquefaction generally occurs as a quicksand type of ground failure caused by strong ground shaking. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater, soil type, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. The project site is located within the Loma Alta Creek Canyon area. This area is susceptible to seismic-induced ground failure, including liquefaction (City of Oceanside 2002). The Geocon Incorporated limited geotechnical investigation (July 12, 2011) notes the presence of alluvium beneath portions of the project site. This report further notes that liquefaction hazards exist beneath the on-site alluvium, below the groundwater table (estimated to be feet in depth, depending on localized water conditions). The project will not result in subsurface activity beyond 5 feet in depth, therefore placement of foundational or pipeline structures beneath the water table in areas that could potentially be susceptible to liquefaction will not occur. Further, because of the seismically active nature of Southern California, the natural gas pipeline and CNG compressor and fueling facilities will all be designed in conformance with the CBC. Finally, the limited geotechnical investigation provided several foundational design recommendations to ensure the stability of proposed project foundation components in case seismic-induced ground movement occurs. These recommendations will be followed during final design. In summary, given the shallow placement of subsurface facilities (located outside of liquefaction hazard areas) and the design parameters that will be followed for all proposed 4-19 March October 2012

100 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration facilities, the potential to expose people or structures to hazards associated with seismic-induced ground failure and/or liquefaction will be less than significant. iv) Landslides? Less-than-Significant Impact. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. The project site is not located within a known or highly suspected landslide area (City of Oceanside 2002). Further, Oceanside General Plan Public Safety Element Figure PS-3, Slope Stability, depicts the project site in an area that is least susceptible to landslides. Further, site stabilization and soil compaction requirements required by the project geotechnical investigation and design parameters established by the most recent CBC and the City s seismic Hazard Mitigation Ordinance will reduce any potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed CNG compressor and fueling facilities and installation of the new natural gas pipeline (via directional drill) will require extremely limited ground disturbance. Stockpiles of soil may be located on site in an effort to create the directional drill rig pad and receiver pit. Given that the directional drilling will last approximately 2 weeks, the potential for substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, due to wind or water erosion, will not occur. Therefore a less-than-significant impact will occur and mitigation is not necessary. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less-than-Significant Impact. The limited geotechnical investigation documented the presence of alluvium and artificial fill on the project site (Geocon Incorporated 2011). Based on data obtained from borings conducted on site during the summer of 2011, Geocon Incorporated estimated that groundwater exists approximately 10 to 12 feet beneath the surface and fluctuates depending on local hydrologic conditions. This investigation noted that materials beneath the groundwater table may be susceptible to movement, specifically liquefaction. The proposed project improvements will not necessitate subterranean work below approximately 5 feet in depth, therefore construction activity will not impact the local groundwater table. Further, the Limited Geotechnical Investigation included several recommendations and design guidelines for the CNG compressor, fueling facility and natural gas line trench to ensure that these facilities foundational elements are designed pursuant to the CBC and address site-specific geotechnical hazards so as to ensure that the surrounding project site will remain stable. Therefore a less-than-significant impact will occur March October 2012

101 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less-than-Significant Impact. According to the limited geotechnical investigation, the project site consists approximately 5 feet of previously placed fill over alluvium, and the near-surface soils have an expansion index of 32 (Geocon Incorporated 2011). An expansion index of 32 has a low expansive probability. Further, adherence to standard engineering practices pursuant to the CBC will reduce any potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, mitigation measures are not necessary. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the implementation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no impacts will result GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less-than-Significant Impact. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be associated with the construction phase of the proposed project through use of construction equipment and vehicle trips. Emissions of CO 2 were estimated using the URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.4, land use and air emissions model (Jones & Stokes 2007). For the purposes of modeling, it was assumed that construction of the proposed project would commence in fall 2012 and would include one primary construction phase. Total construction is expected to take approximately 3 months. While some equipment would only be used for a week or two during this construction phase, it was conservatively assumed that all equipment would operate for the duration of project construction. A more detailed description of the construction schedule and equipment utilized is included in Appendix B of this report March October 2012

102 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration The equipment mix is meant to represent a reasonably conservative estimate of construction activity. For the analysis, it was generally assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at the site for approximately 8 hours per day, 5 days per week (22 days per month), during project construction. Table 4-3, Estimated Construction GHG Emissions, shows the estimated annual GHG construction emissions associated with the proposed project, as well as the amortized annual construction emissions over a 30-year project life. Table 4-3 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (metric tons CO2E/year) Construction Year GHG Emissions Amortized Annual Construction Emissions 4 Source: URBEMIS 2007, Version See Appendix B for complete results. Operation of the proposed project will result in GHG emissions from mobile source emissions generated from the CNG vehicle fleet, as well as emissions associated with electrical generation needed to operate the facility. Importantly, there will be no change in the energy usage for the shop; therefore, electrical generation demand is calculated solely to account for the energy required to operate the CNG compressors. Also, as indicated in Section 14.3, Air Quality, this analysis reports the net change in emissions from the existing condition (diesel trucks and diesel pumps). Table 4-4, Estimated Operational GHG Emissions, shows the estimated annual GHG emissions associated with operation of the proposed project. Table 4-4 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (metric tons CO2E/year) Source Net GHG Emissions Motor Vehicles -567 Electrical Demand 87 Amortized Construction Emissions 4 TOTAL -476 Source: See Appendix B for complete results. GHG emissions associated with the CNG vehicle fleet will be less than those associated with the existing diesel vehicle fleet. While the electrical demand associated with CNG compressors is significantly greater than that associated with pumping diesel fuel, the overall 4-22 March October 2012

103 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration GHG emissions resulting from the proposed project will be lower than the existing GHG emissions, resulting in a net decrease of 476 metric tons CO 2 E per year. As such, impacts resulting from GHG emissions will be less than significant. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less-than-Significant Impact. As mentioned in response 14.7(a) above, project construction and operation will result in less-than-significant GHG emissions, and will not result in a cumulative contribution to global climate change. The City of Oceanside has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. As a result, the proposed project is not likely to result in a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts will be less than significant HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. 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? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 4-23 March October 2012

104 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less-than-Significant Impact. CNG facilities generate two general types of waste products water-based effluent from a gas dryer that is entrained with mercaptan, and compressor-lube oil that may also be entrained with mercaptan. Water-Based Dryer Effluent. A water-based effluent is generated from condensation that results from the periodic regeneration of the dryer. This substance largely consists of water that is evaporated off of the (saturated) desiccant material in the dryer s main vessel, and then circulated to the condenser/cooler where the water falls out and is collected in a closed condensate pot. Since the water has been exposed to natural gas, it is entrained with mercaptan, which is the sulfur/hydrocarbon that gives natural gas its odor. The presence of the mercaptan is what drives the water to be hazardous. The concentration of mercaptan can vary widely; a conservative estimate it in the order of parts per million (ppm) (concentration in natural gas is about 18 ppm). The amount recovered will vary widely, depending on the amount of CNG production and on water moisture content of the incoming gas, which can vary between 2 and 9 pounds of water per million standard cubic feet. It is estimated that this facility will generate approximately gallons per quarter. The water effluent is recovered at 0.5 to 2 gallons at a time in a bucket (Guthrie, pers. Comm. 2011). Oil-based Effluent. An oil-based effluent is mainly derived as recovered waste during scheduled lube-oil changes of the CNG-fueled trucks. This effluent may also be drained from the blowdown-recovery vessels on each compressor skid, and from the CNG-storage vessels that are part of the fast-fill system. Since the oil has been exposed to natural gas, it is also entrained with mercaptan. The presence of the mercaptan is what drives the oil to be hazardous. The concentration of mercaptan can vary widely but it is estimated to be approximately 50 ppm (less than the water-based effluent, since its relative exposure is less than at the dryer level). The amount recovered will vary based on the amount of CNG production and on the total run hours (which drives frequency of oil changes). It is estimated that this facility would generate approximately 5 10 gallons per quarter. The oil-based effluent is recovered at 0.5 to 2 gallons at a time in a bucket (Guthrie, pers. comm. 2011). The recovered effluent (both water and oil types) is taken off-site by a maintenance vender where it is transferred to a waste hauler for proper disposal in accordance with State and Federal Regulations. The barrels will be separately labeled by product type and be kept in a two-wall spill-containment cart or enclosure designed for this purpose. The presence and storage of these effluents/hazardous wastes must be registered with the County Department of Environmental Health. Prior to operation, WM will be required to prepare an update to the on-site Environmental Business Plan, which will entail a description of the two effluents 4-24 March October 2012

105 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration generated at the facility and the storage and disposal procedures proposed to ensure health and safety of on-site workers and the on-site and adjacent natural environment. The updated Environmental Business Plan will be filed with the County Department of Environmental Health. Due to these procedures, the presence of mercaptan-based oil and water effluent will result in a less-than-significant impact on the environment. CNG Fleet Vehicles. The on board CNG tanks are Department of Transportation approved. The tanks are equipped with pressure relief devises to allow blow-off and prevent an explosion. There is a fire hazard if CNG is released, but it will defuse in the air and would not ignite unless an ignition source is present. Usually, any fire would be localized, whereas diesel fuel has a potential to flow from a ruptured fuel tank and impact water quality and public health. Therefore, the transport of CNG within the fleet vehicles will reduce potential fire risks associated with vehicle collisions. Compressor. Gas detection devices, cameras and flame detectors located within the compressor compound and maintenance yard are interlocked to the emergency shutdown system. The Program Logic Control can detect leaks in the distribution piping and activate the emergency shutdown system. The emergency shutdown system shuts the main valve at the meter set assembly and shuts off the compressor. The emergency shutdown system is also interlocked to WM Corporate monitoring which provides 24/7 monitoring. Once the compressor is off, the gas would be localized in the CNG equipment and trucks. System includes one storage vessel for buffering. Implementation of the safety measures provided above would reduce potential fire hazards to less-than-significant levels. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less-than-Significant Impact. Refer to response 14.8(a). The potential to affect previously unknown or undiscovered subterranean hazards during construction may occur. The subterranean natural gas trench that will extend natural gas from Oceanside Boulevard to the eastern end of the project site via Industry Street will be directionally drilled to minimize surface disturbance. This process will entail several precautionary steps to avoid subterranean hazards: 1) Prior to digging, a dig alert will be conducted, which entails the engineer or contractor contracting with an entity that will release an announcement of the proposed digging operation to all local utility providers (water, wastewater, cable, fiber optic, electrical, etc.). All local utility providers will visit the proposed pipeline route and mark the location and depth of any underground utilities to ensure that the new drilling operation will not impact these facilities (Newland, pers. comm. 2012). 2) An environmental health and safety plan will be developed by the engineer and/or contractor to provide direction regarding the emergency processes that will be followed if 4-25 March October 2012

106 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration soil vapors or other suspicious underground substances are encountered. This plan will be kept on site during all aspects of subterranean disturbance (Newland, pers. comm. 2012). 3) The directional drill will utilize a combination of bentonite and water to forge a tunnel beneath the ground surface. Once the tunnel is established, the bentonite slurry is a waste product of the drilling operation. This substance is not considered a hazard given its natural characteristics; however, disposal or reuse for a different purpose will be handled in accordance with County Environmental Health and Safety Department procedures. 4) Directional drilling could result in frac-outs due to minor cracks in the soil encountered during the drilling operation. If the drill hits a crack, the bentonite slurry may escape via the crack and create a surface release of the slurry material or underground soil, or in some cases can cause a bubble to form beneath the street concrete. The contractor will be required to monitor any frac-out conditions during drilling and restore all site and/or street conditions to their pre-drilling condition. 5) Groundwater within the immediate area is known to occur at approximately feet below the surface (Geocon Incorporated 2011). The precise location of the off-site natural gas trench will not be determined until the initial dig alert has been completed. However, preliminary estimates indicate that the 2-inch diameter natural gas pipeline will necessitate a trench of no more than 5 feet in depth, therefore reducing the potential for contact with groundwater. However, should groundwater be encountered and suspicious substances or odors of the groundwater noted by the construction crew, the health and safety plan described above will dictate the process by which digging is halted until groundwater can be tested to ensure safety of construction workers, nearby land uses, the public and the environment. On-site subterranean work will involve excavation for the CNG compressor and facilities foundations (estimated to be approximately 13 inches in depth) and installation of the on-site CNG gas distribution lines (estimated to be approximately 30 inches in depth). During preliminary engineering, WM facility and operation managers were contacted about any known on-site hazards such as previous unauthorized release of hazardous substances or leaking underground storage tanks. On-site facility managers have indicated that on-site underground diesel or other fuel tanks are not located in the areas proposed for establishment of the proposed CNG facilities. Facility managers have also indicated that no known hazards or previously hazardous conditions that may affect soil quality exist on site. Regardless of historic uses/conditions known for this site, the construction health and safety plan described above will be applicable during all on-site construction activity as well as off-site trenching. This health and safety plan will incorporate a proper emergency response process, including notification of all appropriate federal, state, and local agencies of an encountered hazard, to ensure that health and safety for all workers, the site, and nearby environment is maintained March October 2012

107 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration During project construction, there is the possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances, such as spilling of hydraulic fluid or diesel fuel associated with construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of these hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials. The contractor will be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that will avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Furthermore, best management practices will be implemented for the duration of the project construction that will avoid and minimize the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts are considered to be less-thansignificant and no mitigation measures required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. No existing or proposed school facilities are located within 0.25 mile of the project site. No impacts will result. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less-Than-Significant Impact. The project site is located on a list maintained pursuant to Government Code Section as the facility regularly uses and stores chemicals for vehicle maintenance. A review of the Department of Toxic Substance Control s Hazardous Waste and Substances List Site Cleanup (Cortese List) indicates that identified hazardous material sites are not located within the project site (DTSC 2007). Therefore, there is no evidence that a previous environmental hazard exists on site that could potentially expose the surrounding land uses, the environmental or the public during construction or operation of the proposed facility upgrade. Impacts will be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a 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? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 1.3 miles from the Oceanside Municipal Airport. The project site is located within the airport s Federal Aviation Administration Height Notification Boundary, Part 77, Airspace Surfaces, and Airport Influence Area (San Diego Airport Land Use Commission 2010). Although the project site is located within 2 miles of a public airport, there are no changes to the height of the existing buildings on site. The project site use is compatible with the land use airport environs and is not within an airport safety zone. The project site is not within direct airplane flyway path. Therefore, improvements to the site are not considered a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; impacts are considered to be less-than-significant with no mitigation measures required March October 2012

108 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration f) 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? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact will result. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less-than-Significant Impact. The city s emergency plan is designed to assist the city in responding to earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, fires, accidents, civil disturbances, storms, pollution release, and epidemics. The city has also designated evacuation routes in the event of an emergency, which include main through streets and highways within the city as depicted on Figure PS-11 of the city s General Plan Public Safety Element (City of Oceanside 2002). Oceanside Boulevard is designated as one of the main evacuation routes. All new facilities will be limited to the internal areas of the existing facility. Therefore, permanent changes to Oceanside Boulevard or Industry Street that could affect emergency vehicle travel or other emergency evaluations will not result. During construction, the proposed natural gas pipeline will necessitate establishment of a temporary drill pit in Oceanside Boulevard. This operation will necessitate 12 square feet of area and be established for up to 2 weeks. The area will be roped/flagged off so as to appropriately notify the traveling public of this obstruction. When equipment and construction workers are working in the area, flaggers may be present to ensure the safety of the workers, the traveling public and to assist with any emergency vehicle passage. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less-than-Significant Impact. See response 4.8(a).The project site is located within an urban developed area consisting of industrial and commercial uses. Loma Alta Creek and adjacent undeveloped hillsides are located to the south of the project site. While these areas are undeveloped and do constitute urban wildlands, the presence of water systems and wetlands near the southern boundary of the property provides a buffer between the project site and drier upland areas, which are more susceptible to wildland fire. The project will therefore not result in introduction of a significant fire hazard and mitigation is not necessary March October 2012

109 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 14.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k. Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters considering water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash)? l. Result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during or following construction? m. Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? n. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? o. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? p. Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? q. Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? 4-29 March October 2012

110 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 14.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: r. Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters? s. Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? t. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? u. Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? v. Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post construction? w. Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? x. Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? y. Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? z. Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. With the exception of limited perimeter landscaping, the entire project site is covered with impervious surfaces including asphalt and buildings. The project would not increase or decrease the amount of impervious surfaces or change the amount of runoff that could be channeled to the local storm drain system which discharges into Loma Alta Creek. As indicated in the City s SUSMP Determination, existing storm water mitigation practices include source control Best Management Practices (BMPs), to minimize contact and source introduction, site design BMPs to promote containment and direct flows to treatment facilities and a separator type treatment control BMP with a stabilized outfall (Walker, August 25, 2011). The proposed improvements consist of less than 2,500 square feet of disturbance. Once on-site construction is complete, all disturbed areas would be repaved to mirror existing conditions. Due to the minimal area of disturbance associated with the improvements, the project is exempt from the City s Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirement (Walker, August 25, 2011). The existing oleander bushes along the eastern property line will be removed and replaced with native species and supplemental planting of existing landscape area will be with drought-tolerant species to limit irrigation demands. The 4-30 March October 2012

111 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration change in vegetation type will not result in an increase or decrease of impervious surfaces, therefore water quality standards would not be affected. Construction of the proposed project would necessitate directional drilling for the off-site natural gas line and on-site trenching to install the compressed natural gas lines feeding each fueling station. Since the area of on-site disturbance is below the City s threshold of 2,500 square feet of disturbance, the project is exempt from the City s Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and a storm water pollution prevention plan is not required of the project (Walker 2011). However, the directional drilling activity would necessitate temporary exposure of spoil soil associated with the drill pit which, if left uncovered, could result in runoff contamination in the event of wet weather. Similarly, although on-site trenching activities would be minimal and very localized, temporary exposure of stockpiled soils may result in contaminated runoff in the event of wet weather. In order to avoid potential water quality impacts associated with weather events during construction, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measure HYD-1). Mitigation Measure HYD-1. Prior to grading, the applicant will obtain approval of a sitespecific Erosion Control Plan from the City Engineering Department in accordance with the City s ordinance. This plan will include a list of best management practices that the contractor will use to ensure that temporarily exposed soils do not enter the on-site drainage system thereby ensuring existing water quality treatment systems and standards applicable to the site remain intact throughout construction. Fuels, oils, lubricants, and other hazardous substances would be used during construction. If unmanaged or in the event of an accidental spill, these substances could be released and impact surface and/or groundwater. In order to ensure that construction fueling or other chemical use associated with construction would not enter the local drainage system, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measure HYD-2). Mitigation Measure HYD-2. During the construction period, standard BMPs such as proper storage, use and disposal of construction material shall be applied to ensure that all hazardous materials (i.e., construction equipment fuels, oils, etc.) are stored properly and that no hazards occur during this phase of the project. In addition, the project shall provide protection of all storm drain inlets downstream of the construction site to eliminate entry of hazardous substances off site. Continual inspection and maintenance of all BMPs shall occur throughout the duration of the construction phase. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 4-31 March October 2012

112 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less-than-Significant Impact. See item 14.9.a. The majority of the project site consists of impervious surfaces. The project does not propose to change the area or quantity of impervious surface within the facility or its surrounding areas. Given the depth of groundwater on site (10-12 feet) (Geocon Incorporated 2011) and the depth of directional drilling (no more than 5 feet in depth) and on-site trenching (no more than 30 inches in depth), groundwater is not expected to be encountered, therefore construction dewatering would not be necessary. Once operational, no portion of the project would affect groundwater, therefore permanent drawdown or impacts to local groundwater would not result. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No Impact. See item 14.9.a. The proposed improvements would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, nor would it result in the alteration of the course of a stream or river. Therefore, no impacts would result. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? No Impact. Refer to response 14.9.c, above. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to response item 14.9.a. The project site is currently developed with the fleet maintenance and administration facilities, and paved roadways. Since the site is already developed and paved, and the project would entail the same existing uses, the amount of runoff would remain the same. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See item 14.9.a. Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in wind and water erosion if stock piles of excavated soils are left exposed, leading to sediment laden discharges to nearby water resources. Sediment transport to drainages and nearby Loma Alta Creek located to the south of the project area could result in degradation of water quality. In order to reduce this potential impact, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measure HYD-1, above). In addition, the project proposes to cover stock piles of soil March October 2012

113 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration The directional drilling process associated with the off-site natural gas trench would produce a bentonite/soil/water solution. During drilling activity, any excess bentonite slurry will be stored on site in a container rather than an exposed stockpile. Once drilling is finished, the bentonite slurry solution would be disposed of at a licensed disposal site by the contractor. This would eliminate the potential of the bentonite slurry from entering the local stormwater system which discharges to Loma Alta Creek. Fuels, oils, lubricants, and other hazardous substances would be used during construction. If unmanaged or in the event of an accidental spill, these substances could be released and impact surface and/or groundwater. In order to ensure that construction fueling or other chemical use associated with construction would not enter the local stormwater system, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measure HYD-2, above). g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The project does not propose the construction of housing or relocation of housing. Therefore, flooding of housing or relocated housing would not occur. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would result in the placement of new structures within a 100-year floodway. However, the new structures (above k-rial and fueling stations and subterranean pipelines) would not redirect or impeded flood flows. Therefore a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact. There are three flood prone areas within the City San Luis Rey River Valley, Loma Alta Creek, and Buena Vista Creek (City of Oceanside 2002). While the project site is located adjacent to Loma Alta Creek, no improvements are proposed within the off-site creek area. The change in fuel used at the existing facility would not alter the flood patterns of nearby Loma Alta Creek, therefore the existing risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding of Loma Alta Creek would remain unchanged as a result of the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located approximately 1.7 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. According to the 2009 California Emergency Management Agency s Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning the project site is not susceptible to inundation by a tsunami (California Emergency Management Agency 2009). The project area is susceptible to inundation by seiche due to its 4-33 March October 2012

114 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration proximity to Loma Alta Creek; however, due to the shallowness and minimal flows of the Creek, the likelihood of significant impacts from a seiche are extremely low. Impacts are considered less than significant. k) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical stormwater pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Loma Alta Creek is located to the south of the project site. The majority of the project site (except for the landscaped areas) and surrounding industrial corridor area are paved with impervious asphalt and other impervious surfaces. On-site stormwater discharge would remain unchanged compared to existing conditions. However, construction improvements and trenching activities would necessitate soil stockpiling and could, potentially resulting in short-term impacts associated with increased sedimentation of local stormwater However, as discussed in item 14.9.a, mitigation measures have been provided that would reduce these potential impacts to less than significant. l) Result in significant alternation of receiving water quality during or following construction? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See response to 14.9.a, above. m) Could the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See response to 14.9.a, above n) Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? No Impact. See response to item 14.9.a. The project site is currently developed. No additional impervious surfaces are proposed as part of this project and therefore, would not result in an increase in runoff. No Impacts would occur. o) Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? No Impact. The project site is currently developed. The proposed improvements would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, or result in an increase in impervious surfaces which could increase runoff flow rates or volumes. Therefore no impacts would result. p) Tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? Less than Significant Impact. Loma Alta Creek, located south of the project site, is listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list (Regional Water Quality Control Board 2008) for toxicity and selenium. However, it should be noted, as indicated in 4-34 March October 2012

115 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration response 4.9a, above, that the project may result in increased pollutant exposure during construction. In order to mitigate for this potential impact, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2). Incorporation of the mitigation measures would reduce the potential for significant impacts to local water quality. q) Tributary to other environmentally sensitive areas? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project is located adjacent to Loma Alta Creek which is an environmentally sensitive freshwater creek and wetland area. Drainage associated with the existing facility is treated on site through a coalescing plate oil/water separator and then discharged to Loma Alta Creek. No aspect of the proposed project would alter the existing drainage pattern and treatment system. During construction, potential pollutant-laden runoff may occur. In order to avoid this potential increase in pollutant discharge to nearby Loma Alta Creek and the sensitive environmental areas associated with this drainage, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, above). r) Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See response to item 14.9a and 4.9-q, above. s) Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality Less Than Significant Impact. See response to items 14.9.a, b and f. t) Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project site is located in the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit and specifically the Loma Alta Hydrographic Area. The project drains to Loma Alta Creek. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan does not designate water quality objectives for Loma Alta Creek (SDRWQCB 2007). The beneficial uses of the Loma Alta Hydrographic Area are contact water recreation, non-contact water recreation, municipal and domestic supply, warm freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat (SDRWQCB 2007). The project would not result in any operational changes that would change the current storm water drainage system or affect the quality of runoff discharged to Loma Alta Creek. During construction, potential pollutant-laden runoff may occur. In order to avoid this potential increase in pollutant discharge to nearby Loma Alta Creek and the sensitive environmental areas associated with this drainage, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, above) March October 2012

116 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration u) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is developed. Although the project site is within proximity to the Loma Alta Creek riparian corridor, impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community is not expected as the project site and surrounding properties are already developed. During construction, potential pollutant-laden runoff may occur. In order to avoid this potential increase in pollutant discharge to nearby Loma Alta Creek and the sensitive riparian areas associated with this drainage, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, above). Incorporation of these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to the Loma Alta Creek riparian corridor to less than significant. v) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction or post construction? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See items 14.9.a and f. w) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. See response to items 14.9.a and f. x) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Less Than Significant Impact. See response to item 14.9.t and 14.9-w. y) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is currently paved and developed. The project will neither increase the volume nor the velocity of stormwater flows, nor indirectly contribute to such impacts as a result of project implementation. z) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project site and surrounding areas are highly disturbed with predominately industrial uses. Minimal trenching activities during the construction phase of the project would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, above, would reduce the potential for increased erosion-related water quality concerns. Therefore mitigation would reduce the potential impact to less than significant March October 2012

117 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The change in fueling facilities and the associated improvements proposed will not have an impact on the physical arrangement of an established community. Therefore, no impacts will result. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less-Than- Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of General Industrial for the project site and with the City s Zoning Map designation of the property (General Industrial) (City of Oceanside 2009a, 2009b). The City s Municipal Ordinance also regulates noise, as discussed below in Section the project would be consistent with the Noise Ordinance. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less-than-Significant Impact. See responses 14.4(a) and 14.4(f) MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 4-37 March October 2012

118 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The City of Oceanside s General Plan identifies two areas within the City which contain mineral deposits: the San Luis Rey River Basin and the area northeast of El Camino Real and Oceanside Boulevard (City of Oceanside 2002, Figure ERM-5).As depicted on Figure ERM-5, the project site is not located in an area known to contain mineral resources that would be of value to the region. In addition, the project site is currently developed and the change in fueling type/process and other proposed facility improvements will not result in impacts to mineral resources. Therefore, impacts to mineral resources will not occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to response to item 14.11(a), above NOISE. Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 4-38 March October 2012

119 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a 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? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Lessthan-Significant Impact. A Noise Letter Report was prepared for the project by Dudek (see Appendix C). Noise generating activities associated with the project will include short-term construction noise, and long-term operational noise associated with trucks, outdoor mechanical equipment, and the maintenance shop. CONSTRUCTION NOISE The City limits construction activities to daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. In addition, construction equipment should not exceed a noise level of 85 db at a distance of 100 feet from the source (City of Oceanside 1974). Within the City of Oceanside there are no approved noise regulations for biological resources. The City of Oceanside s 2010 Final Subarea Plan has yet to be finalized and approved by Oceanside City Council. However, the draft Final Subarea Plan provides guidelines regarding construction noise levels for least Bell s vireo, limiting the noise levels at the riparian canopy edge to below 60dBA L eq from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00a.m. during the peak nesting period from March 15 to July 15. For the remainder of day/season, the noise levels will not exceed 60 decibels, averaged over a 1-hour period on an A-weighted decibel. The construction activities associated with implementation of the project will require the use of a backhoe, excavator, dump truck, bobcat, concrete truck, crane, forklift, boom lift, and portable generators, as well as various pieces of handheld construction equipment. Connection to the existing utility line in Industry Street will occur during the site improvement phase and will be directionally drilled from Oceanside Boulevard and traverse beneath Industry Street March October 2012

120 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Maximum construction noise levels at 50 feet would typically range from approximately 78 to 88 db for the type of equipment anticipated to be used for construction of the project. Noise levels from equipment decreases with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 db per doubling of distance. Therefore, at a distance of 100 feet the construction equipment maximum noise level would range from approximately 72 to 82 db. Therefore, the construction noise level would comply with the City s 85 db noise criterion, and impacts would be less than significant. Construction activities would occur prior to March 15, therefore temporary indirect construction related noise impacts to the least Bell s vireo would not occur. If unexpected delays occur and construction is not complete prior to March 15, adherence to the noise limitations will occur. OPERATIONAL NOISE Noise-generating sources in the City of Oceanside are regulated in the City s Code of Ordinances (City of Oceanside 2008). The sound levels shall not exceed the applicable onehour average sound level at any point on or beyond the boundaries of the property in the applicable base district zone on which the sound is produced. The exterior noise level limits are depicted in Table 4-5. The sound level limits for an industrial zone are a one-hour average sound level of 70 db between 7:00 a.m. and 9:59 p.m., and 65 db between 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. Table 4-5 One-Hour Average Sound Level Limits Base District Zone 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. RE (Residential Estate) RS (Single-Family) RM (Medium Density) RH (High Density) RT (Residential Tourist) C (Commercial) I (Industrial) D (Downtown) A (Agricultural) OS (Open Space) Source: City of Oceanside 2008, Code of Ordinances Chapter 38 Noise Control 4-40 March October 2012

121 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Typical operations at the existing facility consist of administrative staff arriving at the site between 4:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. to perform administrative work. The fleet vehicle drivers arrive onsite in two separate shifts that start at about 5:00 a.m and 5:30a.m.. Department of Transportation pre-trip inspections occur at approximately 5:30a.m. and again at 6:00a.m., which are required to occur prior to the vehicles leaving the site for their daily collection operations. Limited fleet maintenance activities occur prior to 2:00 p.m, and primary maintenance activities occur between 3:00 p.m. and midnight. Container maintenance and washing occurs from 7:00 a.m. and 5:30p.m. The fleet vehicles refuel upon their return to the facility. These activities will remain unchanged with implementation of the proposed project. On-Site Truck Noise The primary noise associated with the project would result from trucks entering, exiting and maneuvering within the site, including the use of backup alarms. The noise level at the site will vary depending on such factors as truck engine power, idling and use of backup alarms. Overall noise from CNG trucks are less than diesel trucks. CNG trucks maneuvering within a parking area are on average approximately 5 db quieter than the diesel trucks. To determine the future noise level associated with the trucks operating on-site, noise modeling was conducted based on the results of the noise measurements previously discussed, and incorporating various changes to the on-site truck operations and fleet characteristics. Due to CNG fueling being located on the front bumper, trucks need to pull in and park forward to fuel, and back out in the morning. The future worst-case noise level is anticipated to occur during the morning departure hours primarily because the trucks would utilize back-up alarms and idle (to perform Department of Transportation required safety checks) for longer periods of time as compared to the future afternoon arrival hours. Based on the results of the noise modeling, the future noise level would be 65 db Leq(h) at the southern property boundary. The noise level during the afternoon arrival hours would be approximately 2 to 3 db less. These noise levels would comply with the City s allowable 70 db Leq(h) sound level limit between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. and 65 db Leq(h) sound level limit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. A second noise measurement was conducted in the residential community to the north of the project site. The results of the noise modeling at this location revealed that the future hourly average noise level at the residential community to the north will be 42 db. This noise level would comply with the City s allowable 45 db sound level limit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. and 50 db between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:59 p.m March October 2012

122 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration The noise from ancillary equipment such as back-up alarms are similar to the diesel trucks. All trucks would leave the site between approximately 5:30 am and 7:00 am. During this period, the trucks back-up safety alarms would be deployed when each vehicle is backed out of the fueling parking space. The proposed alarms would sound for approximately 5-10 seconds, or as long as it takes the vehicle to back out of the parking space. The alarms will be installed to provide directional noise to the back of the trucks. As shown in Figure 4, the proposed layout of the parking stalls will result in the trucks backing up in multiple directions allowing for the dispersement of the noise from the back-up alarms (i.e. 14 trucks would back up to the north, 20 will back up to the south, 5 to the east, 2 to the west, and 17 to the northwest). In addition, the proposed alarms are designed to constantly measure the existing noise environment at the truck. The alarm sensor would then project the back-up alarm at approximately 5 to 10 db louder than the ambient noise level. This design is intended to reduce unnecessarily loud back-up alarm noise (such as when no other vehicles or other significant noise sources are within close proximity) as well as to ensure that adequate back-up alarm noise can be heard if the truck is in an extremely loud environment (such as on a busy construction site with multiple pieces of heavy equipment operating simultaneously). Therefore, depending on the immediate surrounding noise present at the time the driver backs up the vehicle, the back-up alarm will project an intermittent beeping sound between 5 and 10 db louder than the ambient noise in the vicinity of the truck. Given the proposed side-by-side location of the parked trucks and the simultaneous start-up of multiple trucks during the early morning hours, it is expected that the back-up alarms would range up to approximately 85 db at approximately 50 feet. However, because the duration of these alarms would be very short (5 to 10 seconds) and given that no more than 58 trucks would be sounding the alarms during an hour, the introduction of this new noise source during the early morning hours would not cause the hourly average sound to exceed the City s Industrial Zone noise limit of 65 db at the property line. Therefore, while this intermittent noise would be audible to individuals outside of the facility, it would not result in an exceedance to the City s noise ordinance criteria, and thus, not result in a significant impact requiring mitigation under CEQA. Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Noise The primary outdoor mechanical equipment for the project would consist of a CNG double compressor assembly self-contained in a weather proof enclosure. The enclosure is equipped with silencers and insulation to provide sound attenuation of 80 db at 3 meters (free field conditions as determined by third party testing provided by the equipment manufacturer) March October 2012

123 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration The compressor assembly would be located on a concrete pad at ground level and would be enclosed by a new 7-foot chain-link fence. The location of the equipment is depicted on the site plan as previously shown in Figures 4, and 5. As shown in these figures, the compressor is positioned so that the majority of the sound generated by the compressor would be released through the hot air exhausts which are directed to the east and west. Once the fleet vehicles shifts are over they will park and begin fueling. Once all the vehicles have been refueled the compressor will turn off. The typical time required to refuel, based on the time filled dispenser, is approximately 5 hours. The last shift of fleet vehicles will return to the facility and begin fueling by 5:30 p.m., therefore, the compressor will typically be done by 10:30p.m.. However, maintenance on a vehicle could delay the time in which a vehicle(s) start fueling; therefore, it is assumed that the compressor could run from 4 p.m. to 12 a.m. in accordance with the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which allows for work to occur between 3:30 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, Monday through Friday and 5 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday through Sunday. Assuming the compressor assembly equipment operates continuously for a minimum period of one hour, the one-hour average sound level would be 56 db at the southern property boundary. This noise level would comply with the City s noise criteria. Other outdoor equipment associated with the project consists of six 3/4-HP exhaust/ventilation fans to be installed on the roof of the existing maintenance building. Noise generated from these exhaust/ventilation fans would be negligible at the property line. Maintenance and Repair of Collection Trucks As currently occurs on site, collection trucks in need of routine repair and maintenance are serviced within the existing maintenance building. The servicing area would continue to be located within the existing maintenance building. The CNG vehicle maintenance would be similar to the diesel vehicle maintenance that currently occurs and would continue to occur on site. The fleet vehicles leave the service yard between the hours of 5:30 a.m. and 7 a.m. and return to the yard between 3 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. The existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allows for work to occur between 3:30 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, Monday through Friday and 5 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday through Sunday. Waste Management has maintenance staff on site until midnight, Monday through Friday, and regularly conducts work up to the midnight operations limit to adequately maintain the existing fleet. Waste Management makes best efforts to move any loud operations inside the shop after late night hours, and tries to avoid the use of loud equipment (such as pneumatic wrenches) to the extent possible. No change in the hours of operation or outdoor work practices are proposed with the CNG facility improvements. Service 4-43 March October 2012

124 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration of the CNG equipment would occur during the daytime hours. The project would not result in changes to the fleet service schedules. Maintenance activities on the CNG vehicles would be similar to those performed on the diesel-fueled vehicles. Once vehicles are serviced, they return to the time-fill fuel parking spaces by pulling forward into the parking spot. Noise associated with maintenance of the collection trucks would, therefore, be similar to the existing conditions and would not increase the existing noise level. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less-Than-Significant Impact. Refer to discussion 14.12a, above. The project would employ directional drilling and trenching activities during the construction phase of the project. These activities would occur for no more than two weeks. Due to the temporary nature of drilling activities, excessive exposure to ground-borne vibration will not occur. Therefore, impacts are not considered significant and mitigation is not required. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less-Than-Significant Impact. See response to item a. Noise generating activities associated with the operational phase of the project would not exceed the City s noise threshold. In addition, the project would result in a reduction of noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less-Than-Significant Impact. As noted in 14.12a, the implementation of the proposed project would generate short-term construction noise. However, noise levels within the project vicinity due to construction activities would not exceed 82 db at a distance of 100 feet. Therefore, construction noise levels would comply with the City s 85 db noise criterion and hours of operations. Impacts would be less-than-significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a 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? Less-Than- Significant Impacts. The project site is located approximately 1.3 miles from Oceanside Municipal Airport. Although the project site is located within 2 miles from a public airport, it is outside of the Oceanside Municipal Airport noise exposure range (Oceanside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 2010). Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant with no mitigation measures required March October 2012

125 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed change in type and source of fuel and other proposed facility improvements will not result in an increase in trucks operating out of or employees working at the project site. No additional jobs will be generated as a part of this project; therefore, the project will not induce population growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project will not require the removal existing housing, and therefore will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts will result. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.13(a) and 4.13(b), above. The project will not result in the displacement of people; therefore, no replacement housing will be required or is proposed March October 2012

126 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire Protection? b) Police Protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? a) Fire protection? No Impact. Proposed project implementation will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities. b) Police protection? No Impact. There are no significant impacts related to police protection or service anticipated with implementation of the proposed project. c) Schools? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in an increase in students or affect existing or proposed schools. Therefore, no impacts will occur. d) Parks? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not affect any existing park facilities nor generate an increase in population or demand for additional recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts to parks will result. e) Other public facilities? No Impact. As stated above, the proposed project will not generate an increase in population, and therefore, will not cause an increased demand in public services. Therefore, no impacts to other public facilities will result March October 2012

127 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration RECREATION. Would the project: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not generate an increase in demand on existing public or private parks or other recreational facilities that would either result in or increase physical deterioration of the facility. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project does not include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impacts will result TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass-transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion/management agency for designated roads or highways? 4-47 March October 2012

128 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass-transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less-than-Significant Impact. During the construction phase of the proposed project traffic will be generated by construction crews and equipment/material traveling to and from the project site. Construction traffic will primarily use Oceanside Boulevard, and Industry Street to access the site. During construction, the southern lane of Oceanside Boulevard may be closed for up to two weeks to allow for directional drilling of the natural gas line. In order to avoid potential emergency access issues during construction, a traffic control plan has been included as a project feature. Due to the size of the project, a relatively small number of vehicles will be required and will be staged on site with no required lane closures or substantial impacts to the existing street system during construction. Therefore, increased traffic levels from the construction phase of the proposed project will be short term and less than significant. Operation of the proposed project is expected to result in similar generation trips as no increase in the number of fleet vehicles are proposed. As such, implementation of the project will not conflict with any plans, ordinance, or policies related to the City s circulation system and modes of transportation. Impacts are considered less than significant with no mitigation measures required March October 2012

129 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion/management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. Refer to Response 14.16(a), above. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project does not propose any use which will result in a change in air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impacts will result. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the development or redesign of any roadways that will pose a hazardous threat due to a design feature. No impacts are expected. Impacts related to construction hazards in Oceanside Boulevard are addressed in Response 4.16a. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less-than-Significant Impact. Development will be required to meet City standards for emergency access. During construction, the southern lane of Oceanside Boulevard may be closed for up to two weeks to allow for directional drilling of the natural gas line. In order to avoid potential emergency access issues during construction, a traffic control plan has been included as a project feature. Incorporation of the traffic control plan as identified in Table 2-1, Summary of Standard Project Design Features and Construction, will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. Project implementation will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impacts are not anticipated in this regard UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 4-49 March October 2012

130 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site, and will not introduce new uses or additional structures that would create wastewater. The project does not propose to change the existing wastewater systems. Therefore, improvements associated with the proposed project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). No impacts will occur. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less-than-Significant Impact. See response to item 14.17(a), above. The project will result in the conversion diesel based fuel to CNG based fuel for the fleet vehicles. The construction of the proposed improvements will not create the need for new water or wastewater facilities. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project will not result in any modifications to the existing drainage patterns or volume of stormwater runoff. The nature and scope of the proposed project will not require or 4-50 March October 2012

131 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing storm water drainage facilities as no changes are being proposed. No impacts are anticipated. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less-than-Significant Impact. The applicant is revising both the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to transition the diesel fuel-based operation to CNG fuel-based operation. During construction, water will be required for the minimal directional drilling and trenching activities proposed to bring natural gas lines to the project site. During the operational phase of the project, no changes are proposed to the existing water systems. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? No Impact. Refer to Response 14.17(a), above. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? Less-than-Significant Impact. Solid waste during construction will be minimal and a short-term increase to the local landfill. During the operation phase, no changes are proposed to the existing solid waste disposal needs. Impacts will be less than significant. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. No aspect of the project site s solid waste handling process and/or practices would result. The proposed project will continue to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste upon project completion and operation. No impacts are anticipated MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 4-51 March October 2012

132 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (ACumulatively means the project=s incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past, present, and future effects of other projects)? d. Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Based on the evaluation and discussions contained in this initial study, the proposed project will potentially result in significant impacts to the following unless mitigated: biological resources and water quality. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce potential significant impacts to a level below significance. The proposed project will have less-than-significant impacts or no impacts to the following: aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, mineral resources, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. The project site is currently developed with a WM fleet maintenance and administration facility. The project proposes to transition its current diesel fuel-based operations to CNG fuel-based operations to reduce emissions associated with solid waste collection. Waste-collection vehicles equipped with CNG engines are cleaner than diesel engines thus will reduce smog-causing constituents as well as greenhouse gases. Additionally, CNG truck engines will generate less noise than the diesel fleet vehicles. The project site along with the surrounding properties is developed with industrial uses. Although Loma Alta Creek is located south of the project site, any special-status species utilizing the riparian corridor would be exposed to less noise than the existing site condition. As such, impacts will either be mitigated to less-than-significant impacts or have less-than-significant impacts/no impacts March October 2012

133 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Less-Than-Significant Impact. In order to operate in a more environmentally efficient way, WM has made a commitment to begin the conversion of collection fleets from diesel fuel-based operations to CNG fueled-based operations. The purpose for the conversion of diesel fuel to CNG is that CNG is an environmentally clean and economical alternative to diesel fuel. Over the long term, the use of CNG waste-collection vehicles will reduce emissions associated with solid waste collection. Waste-collection vehicles equipped with CNG engines are cleaner than diesel engines, reducing smog-causing constituents, as well as greenhouse gases. In addition to being cleaner vehicles, the CNG truck engines generate less noise than standard diesel fleet vehicles. Therefore, the proposed project will achieve short-term environmental goals as it transitions from diesel fuel to CNG and gradually achieve long-term environmental goals. Therefore the project would not achieve shortterm goals at the disadvantage of long term environmental improvements. c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (Cumulatively considerable means the project s incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past, present, and future effects of other projects)? Less-Than- Significant Impact. The proposed project will not result in cumulatively considerable impacts because it will improve the quality of fleet operations by reducing most of the existing diesel-fuel fleet-generated impacts related to air quality, GHG, and noise. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly? Less-Than-Significant Impact. Based on the analysis of all the above questions, it has been determined that there will not be adverse effects on human beings. Mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project construction, operation, and maintenance if it poses potentially significant impacts to the environment. The project proposes to reduce the air quality and GHG emissions as well as noise impacts by transitioning the fleets from diesel fuel-based operations to CNG fueledbased operations thereby improving the environmental conditions. 15. PREPARATION. The initial study for the subject project was prepared by: Elizabeth Doalson, Environmental Planner, Dudek 4-53 March October 2012

134 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 16. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency) Based on this initial evaluation: [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described herein have been included in this project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 17. DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION (Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990-AB 3158) [ ] It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and that a Certificate of Fee Exemption shall be prepared for this project. [ ] It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or cumulatively, and therefore fees shall be paid to the County Clerk in accordance with Section 711.4(d) the Fish and Game Code. 18. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the environmental determination, contained in Section V. preceding, is hereby approved: Richard Greenbauer, Environmental Coordinator 19. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT CONCURRENCE: : Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides that Lead Agencies may issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration where the initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but, revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. The property owner/applicant signifies by their signature below their concurrence with all mitigation measures contained within this environmental document. However, the applicant s concurrence with the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is not intended to restrict the legal rights of the applicant to seek potential revisions to the mitigation measures during the public review process. Bill Bixler, Waste Management of North County, District Manager 4-54 March October 2012

135 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Removal of the non-native oleander bushes shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31). If it is not feasible to remove this ornamental vegetation outside of the breeding season, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no more than 3 days prior to removal activity. If active nests are detected, removal of the bushes shall be postponed until the young have fledged and the biologist determines that the nest(s) is/are no longer active. The survey results shall be submitted to the Oceanside Planning Department. Mitigation Measure HYD-1. Prior to grading, the applicant will obtain approval of a site-specific Erosion Control Plan from the City Planning Department. This plan will include a list of best management practices that the contractor will use to ensure that temporarily exposed soils do not enter the on-site drainage system thereby ensuring existing water quality treatment systems and standards applicable to the site remain intact throughout construction. Mitigation Measure HYD-2. During the construction period, standard BMPs such as proper storage, use and disposal of construction material shall be applied to ensure that all hazardous materials (i.e., construction equipment fuels, oils, etc.) are stored properly and that no hazards occur during this phase of the project. In addition, the project shall provide protection of all storm drain inlets downstream of the construction site to eliminate entry of hazardous substances off site. Continual inspection and maintenance of all BMPs shall occur throughout the duration of the construction phase. Time Frame of Mitigation Monitoring Time Frame for Verification Frequency to Planning Pre- Const. During Const. Post Const. Reporting Agency Monitor Report Project Design Features X X City of Oceanside X X City of Oceanside X X X City of Oceanside Date of Completion Date of Verification 5-1 March October 2012

136 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5-2 March October 2012

137 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 6.1 Lead Agency City of Oceanside Planning Jerry Hittleman, City Planner Richard Greenbauer, Senior Planner Geology Jim Knowlton, Geopacifica Stormwater Billy Walker, Storm Water Engineer Transportation John Amberson, Traffic Engineer 6.2 Project Consultants ET Environmental Jeff Lameroux, P.E., Design Manager Sherri Newland, P.E., Design Manager Lightfoot Planning Group Ann Gunter, Vice President Dudek John Westermeier, Senior Project Manager Sarah Lozano, Senior Project Manager Elizabeth Doalson, Environmental Project Manager Mike Howard, Biologist Dave Deckman, Air Quality Specialist Brian Grover, Environmental Planner 6.3 Technical Report Preparation Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Geocon Consultants, Inc. Emilio Alvarado, Registered Professional Civil Engineer Joseph J. Vettel, Registered Professional Geotechnical Engineer Noise Assessment, Dudek Mike Komula, Noise Acoustician 6-1 March October 2012

138 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 6-2 March October 2012

139 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 7.0 REFERENCES AB Topic: Local government: Williamson Act. California Assembly, California Geological Survey Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps. Interim Revision. Special Publication 42. Sacramento, California: California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Accessed August 17, California Department of Conservation San Diego Important Farmland 2008 [map]. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Sacramento, California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Accessed on October 28, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/ dlrp/fmmp/pdf/2008/sdg08_west.pdf. California Department of Transportation California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Accessed on October 28, index.htm. City of Oceanside Final Oceanside Subarea Plan. Prepared for the City of Oceanside by Foothill Associates. Accessed October 19, City of Oceanside Public Review Draft Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Prepared for the City of Oceanside Planning Department. San Diego, California: Ogden Environmental and Conservation Biology Institute. City of Oceanside Oceanside General Plan. Accessed October 31, City of Oceanside. 2009a. City of Oceanside Zoning Map. Accessed February 7, 2012: City of Oceanside. 2009b. City of Oceanside Land Use Map. Accessed February 7, 2012: March October 2012

140 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control) DTSC s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site list Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Accessed on October 30, 2011: Geocon Incorporated Limited Geotechnical Investigation, WM Oceanside CNG, Oceanside, California. Prepared for ET Environmental Corporation LLC. July 12, Livermore, California: Geocon Incorporated. Guthrie, R Water-Based Effluent for the Waste Management Fleet Maintenance and Administration Facility Project Site. from R. Guthrie (Fuel Solutions, Inc.) to S. Newland (ET Environmental). October 24, Jones & Stokes Software User s Guide: URBEMIS2007 for Windows; Emissions Estimation for Land Use Development Projects. Version Prepared for the South Coast Air Quality Management District. November National Park Service National Register of Historic Places. Accessed on October 30, Newland, S Environmental Health and Safety Procedures for the Waste Management Fleet Maintenance and Administration Facility Project Site. from S. Newland (ET Environmental) to S. Lozano (Dudek). February 3, SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments) Final MHCP Plan for the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. San Diego, California: SANDAG. March San Diego Airport Land Use Commission. Oceanside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. January 25, Accessed on October 31, SDAPCD (San Diego Air Pollution Control District) Regulation IV: Prohibitions, Rule 51: Nuisance. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. September 8, 1994 with amendments effective prior to April 25, Available at: basin_plan/ Viewed on February 9, March October 2012

141 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Listed Waters for Reporting Year 2006 California, San Diego Watershed. Accessed October 31, waters10/attains_watershed.control?p_state=ca&p_huc= &p_cycle=2006&p_r eport_type=t Walker, B Stormwater Mitigation Requirements for the Waste Management Fleet Maintenance and Administration Facility Project. August 25, March October 2012

142 Draft Final Mitigated Negative Declaration INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 7-4 March October 2012

143 APPENDIX A Air Quality Impact Calculations

144

145 Page: 1 2/2/2012 5:08:17 PM Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Users\bgrover\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Oside CNG Facility_revised.urb924 Project Name: Oceanside CNG Vehicle Fueling Facility REVISED Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) PM2.5

146 Page: 2 2/2/2012 5:08:17 PM Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Time Slice 9/3/ /30/2012 Active Days: 65 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM Building 09/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Phase Assumptions Phase: Building Construction 9/1/ /30/ Building Construction Off-Road Equipment: 1 Aerial Lifts (60 hp) operating at a 0.46 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Bore/Drill Rigs (291 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Skid Steer Loaders (44 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day

147

148

149

150 CUMMINS INC. Pursuant to the authority vested in the Air Resources Board by Health and Safety Code Division 26, Part 5, Chapter 2; and pursuant to the authority vested in the undersigned by Health and Safety Code Sections and and Executive Order G ; IT IS ORDERED AND RESOLVED: The engine and emission control systems produced by the manufacturer are certified as described below for use in on-road motor vehicles with a manufacturer's GVWR over 14,000 pounds. Production engines shall be in all material respects the same as those for which certification is granted. 1 STANDARDS 1~!~~-~_ED 3 6 MODEL ENGINE FUEL TYPE SERVIC~ ECS & SPECIAL FEATURES DIAGNOSTIC ENGINE FAMILY &TEST YEAR SIZES (L) PROCEDURE CLASS TBI, TC, CAC, ECM, EGR, 1WC, N/A 2012 CCEXH0540LBH 8.9 CNG/LNG Diesel HHDD H02S PRIMARY ENGINE'S ID~ EMISSIONS CONTROL EXEMPT ADDITIONAL IDLE EMISSIONS CONTROL 5 ENGINE(L) ENGINE MODELS I CODES (rated power, in hp) ISL G 280 I 3519;FR93282 (280), ISL G ;FR93284 (260), ISL G 250 I 3519;FR93287 (250) 8.9 ISL G 320 /3519;FR93276 (320), ISL G 300 I 3519;FR93279 (300) =not applicable; GVWR=gross vehicle weight rating; 13 CCR xyz=trtle 13, California Code of Regulations, Section xyz; 40 CFR 86.abc=Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations. Section 86.abc; \-=liter; hp=horsepower; kw=kilowatt; hr=hour; CNG/LNG=compressed/liquefied natural gas; LPG=Iiquefied petroleum gas; E85=85% ethanol fuel; MF=multi fuel a.k.a. BF=bi fuel; DF=dual fuel; FF=fiexible fuel; 2 UMIH HDD=IighVmedium/heavy heavy-duty diesel; UB=urban bus; HDO=heavy duty Otto; 3 ECS=emission control system; TWCIOC=three-wayloxidizing catalyst; NAC=NOx adsorption catalyst; SCR-U I SCR-N=selective catalytic reduction- urea I - ammonia; WU (prefix) =warmup catalyst; DPF=diesel particulate filter, PTOX=periodic trap oxidizer; H02SI02S=heatedloxygen sensor; HAFSIAFS=heatedlair-fuel-ratio sensor (a.k.a., universal or linear oxygen sensor}; TBI=throttle body fuel injection; SFI/MFI=sequentiallmulti port fuel injection; DGI=direct gasoline injection; GCARB=gaseous carburetor, IDIIDDI=indirecVdirect diesel injection; TCISC=turbol super charger, CAC=charge air cooler; EGR I EGR-C=exhaust gas recirculation I cooled EGR; PAIRIAIR=pulsedlsecondary air injection; SPL=smoke puff limiter; ECMIPCM=enginelpowertrain gcntrol module; EM=engine modification; 2 (prefix)=parallel; (2) (suffix)=in series; ESS=engine shutdown system (per 13 CCR (a}(6)(A}(1 }; 30g=30 glhr NOx (per 13 CCR (a}(6)(C}; APS =internal combustion auxiliary power system; AL T=alternative method hper 13 CCR (a}(6)(D}; Exempt=exempted per 13 CCR (a}(6)(B} or for CNGILNG fuel systems; NIA=not applicable (e.g., Otto engines and vehicles); EMD=engine manufacturer diagnostic system (13 CCR 1971 ); OBD=on-board diagnostic system (13 CCR }; Following are: 1) the FTP exhaust emission standards, or family emission limit(s) as applicable, under 13 CCR ; 2) the EURO and NTE limits under the applicable California exhaust emission standards and test procedures for heavyduty diesel engines and vehicles (Test Procedures); and 3) the corresponding certification levels, for this engine family. "Diesel" CO, EURO and NTE certification compliance may have been demonstrated by the manufacturer as provided under the applicable Test Procedures in lieu of testing. (For flexible- and dual-fueled engines, the CERT values in brackets []are those when tested on,fonventional test fuel. For multi-fueled engines, the STD and CERT values for default operation permitted in 13 CCR are in parentheses.). in NMHC NOx NMHC+NOx co PM HCHO g/bhp-hr FTP EURO FTP EURO FTP EURO FTP EURO FTP EURO FTP EURO STD FEL CERT NTE g/bhp-hr=grams per brake horsepower-hour; FTP=Federal Test Procedure; EURO=Euro Ill European Steady-State Cycle, including RMCSET=ram mode cycle supplemental emissions testing; NTE=Not-to-Exceed; STD=standard or emission test cap; FEL=family emission limit; CERT=certification level; NMHCIHC=non methanelhydrocarbon; NOx=oxides of nitrogen; CO=carbon monoxide; PM=particulate matter; HCH0=1ormaldehyde; (Rev.: ) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: Certification to the FEL(s) listed above, as applicable, is subject to the following terms, limitations and conditions. The FEL(s) is the emission level declared by the manufacturer and serves in lieu of an emission standard for certification purposes in any averaging, banking, or trading (ABT) programs. It will be used for determining compliance of any engine in this family and compliance with such ABT programs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: For the listed engine models the manufacturer has submitted the materials to demonstrate certification compliance with 13 CCR 1965 (emission control labels) and 13 CCR 2035 et seq. (emission control warranty). Engines certified under this Executive Order must conform to all applicable California emission regulations. The Bureau of Automotive Repair will be notified by copy of this Executive Order. Executed at El Monte, California on this /8 day of October N/A ~~ Mobile Source Operations Division

151 Oceanside CNG Project Operational Emissions Existing - Diesel No. of Trucks 58 Fuel Type Diesel Fuel Consumption 5,074 gal/truck/yr (per WM) Unit Fuel Consumption 18.5 bhp-hr/gal Emission Rate (lb/yr) = (# trucks)*(annual fuel use, gal)*(18.5 bhp-hr/gal)*(cert. emission values, g/bhp-hr) / g/lb = (58*5,074*18.5)*cert. emission value / VOC NOx CO SOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Certified Emission Value* (g/bhp-hr) Emission Rate (lb/yr) 2, , , Emission Rate (lb/day) Proposed - CNG No. of Trucks 58 Fuel Type CNG Fuel Consumption 5,581 gal/truck/yr (10% extra fuel usage for CNG, per Cummins) Unit Fuel Consumption 18.5 bhp-hr/gal Emission Rate (lb/yr) = (# trucks)*(annual fuel use, gal)*(18.5 bhp-hr/gal)*(cert. emission values, g/bhp-hr) / g/lb = (58*5,581*18.5)*cert. emission value / VOC NOx CO SOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Certified Emission Value* (g/bhp-hr) Emission Rate (lb/yr) 1, , , Emission Rate (lb/day) NET CHANGE VOC NOx CO SOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Emission Rate (lb/yr) -1, , , Emission Rate (lb/day) Sources: 1. SCAQMD Proposed Rule Clean On-Road Residential and Commercial Refuse Vehicles. June. * Certified Emission Values taken from CARB permits for Diesel and CNG Cummins HHDT engines, except SOx. Note that HHDT engine emission certifications are based on the end of an engine's useful life, which for HHDT trucks is 435,000 miles. As such, actual emission values are likely to be lower than this. The use of this factor is therefore conservative. SOx for diesel engine is based on 15 ppm sulfur content. SOx for CNG engines is based on USEPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors for natural gas engines (Chapter 3.2, Table 3.2-2), July 2000.

152 Oceanside CNG Project Operational Emissions Existing - Diesel No. of Trucks 58 Fuel Type Diesel Fuel Consumption 5,074 gal/truck/yr Unit Fuel Consumption 18.5 bhp-hr/gal Emission Rate (lb/yr) = (# trucks)*(annual fuel use, gal)*(18.5 bhp-hr/gal)*(cert. emission values, g/bhp-hr) / g/lb = (58*5,074*18.5)*cert. emission value / VOC NOx CO SOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Certified Emission Value* (g/bhp-hr) Emission Rate (lb/yr) 2, , , Emission Rate (lb/day) Proposed - CNG No. of Trucks 58 Fuel Type CNG Fuel Consumption 5,581 gal/truck/yr (10% extra fuel usage for CNG) Unit Fuel Consumption 18.5 bhp-hr/gal Emission Rate (lb/yr) = (# trucks)*(annual fuel use, gal)*(18.5 bhp-hr/gal)*(cert. emission values, g/bhp-hr) / g/lb = (58*5,581*18.5)*cert. emission value / VOC NOx CO SOx PM 10 PM 2.5 Certified Emission Value* (g/bhp-hr) Emission Rate (lb/yr) , , Emission Rate (lb/day) Sources: 1. SCAQMD Proposed Rule Clean On-Road Residential and Commercial Refuse Vehicles. June. * Certified Emission Values taken from CARB permits for Diesel and CNG Cummins MHDT engines, except SOx. SOx for diesel engine is based on 15 ppm sulfur content. SOx for CNG engines is based on USEPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors for natural gas engines (Chapter 3.2, Table 3.2-2), July 2000.

153 Oceanside CNG Project Diesel Engine-Generator Emissions DUDEK 3-Feb-12 Engine Rating Operating Schedule 15 kw 22 HP 0.5 hr/day 26 hr/year VOC (2) NOx (2) CO SOx (3) PM10 gm/bhp-hr (1) lb/hr lb/day lb/year Notes: (1) All pollutant emission factors, except SOx, based on current CARB/USEPA standards for Tier 4 engines. (2) Fraction of NOx and ROG based on Table B-26 in California Air Resources Board The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines, Part IV of IV (Appendices). April. (3) SOx based on 15 ppm (0.0015%) sulfur by weight

154 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

155 APPENDIX B Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations

156

157 Page: 1 2/2/2012 5:08:40 PM Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Users\bgrover\AppData\Roaming\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Oside CNG Facility_revised.urb924 Project Name: Oceanside CNG Vehicle Fueling Facility REVISED Project Location: South Coast AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES CO TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)

158 Page: 2 2/2/2012 5:08:40 PM Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated CO Building 09/01/ /30/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips 0.00 Building Worker Trips 0.00 Phase Assumptions Phase: Building Construction 9/1/ /30/ Building Construction Off-Road Equipment: 1 Aerial Lifts (60 hp) operating at a 0.46 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Bore/Drill Rigs (291 hp) operating at a 0.75 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Skid Steer Loaders (44 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day

159 Oceanside CNG Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions CO 2 E Source (Mtons/yr) Motor Vehicles (567) Electrical Demand 87 Amortized Const. Emissions 4 Total (476)

160 Oceanside CNG CO 2 -to-co 2 Equivalent Factors Source Units CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O CO 2 E/CO 2 Global Warming Potential Diesel Equipment 1 kg/gal Diesel Trucks - Construction 2 g/mi 1, Passenger Vehicles Serving Utility: SDG&E 1. The Climate Registry General Reporting Protocol. Updated 2011 Emission Factors. Tables 13.1 and The Climate Registry General Reporting Protocol. Updated 2011 Emission Factors. Tables 13.1 and US EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle (EPA420-F ), p. 4. Source Units CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O CO 2 E/CO 2 Global Warming Potential Diesel WM Trucks 1 g/mi 3, CNG WM Trucks* 2 g/mi 3, * 135 scf of natural gas is equivalent to 1 gallon of diesel fuel (Trillium 2011) Unit conversion for CNG also accounts for CNG being 10% less fuel efficient than Diesel 1. The Climate Registry General Reporting Protocol. Updated 2011 Emission Factors. 2. Trillium Gas Equivalent to SCF Therm Converter. Accessed at:

161 Oceanside CNG Construction Emissions CO 2 CO 2 E (tons/yr) (Mtons/yr) 2012 Off-Road Diesel On-Road Diesel - - Worker/Vendor Trips - - Total SUMMARY Total Construction Emissions Amortized Annual Construction Emissions (A 4.15

162 Oceanside CNG Mobile Source Operational Emissions Source Miles Mtons CO 2 Annual CO 2 E per year per year (Mtons CO 2 E/yr) Diesel Vehicle Fleet 763,984 3, , CNG Vehicle Fleet 763,984 2, , NET CHANGE (567.16) Notes: CO 2 E Mtons Carbon dioxide equivalent metric tons (= 1,000,00 grams) CALCULATIONS 58 trucks Mon-Fri 48 mi/day 25 trucks Sat 30 mi/day 1 truck Sun 22 mi/day 14,692 mi/wk 763,984 mi/yr 58 trucks Diesel CNG 5,074 gal/yr/truck 294,292 gal/yr 2.60 mi/gal 5,581 gal/yr/truck 323,698 gal/yr 2.36 mi/gal

163 Oceanside CNG Project Electrical Demand Existing Diesel Pumps Annual Electricity Use Oceanside Blvd: 1,530 kwh/yr -Admin/Maintenance Building 1,454 kwh/yr (95% of total - per WM) -Diesel Pumps 76.5 kwh/yr (5% of total - per WM) ENERGY USE - DIESEL PUMPS 76.5 kwh/yr Source: 1. Electricity purchasing records for existing facility from September 27, 2010 to September 26, 2011 Proposed CNG Pumps (utilizes electricity purchasing records for a 68 truck CNG facility in Santa Ana) Annual Electricity Use (pumps only) S. Grand Ave: 304, kwh/yr Scaling to account for fleet size 259, kwh/yr (scaling facility from 68 to 58 trucks) ENERGY USE - CNG COMPRESSORS 259, kwh/yr Source: 1. Electricity purchasing records for 1800 S. Grand Avenue, Santa Ana, CA from January 11, 2011 to October 11, 2011

164 Oceanside CNG Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Project Electrical Demand CO 2 E Electric Emission Annual CO 2 E Demand Factor 1 Emissions Land Use (kw-hr/yr) (lbs CO 2 E/kW-hr) (Mtons CO 2 E/yr) Proposed Project - Net Change 259, Utility Region: SDG&E Sources: 1. San Diego Gas & Electric Annual Entity Emissions: Electric Power Generation/Electric Utility Sector 26).xls and California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol: Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, Table C.2. Notes: CO 2 E kw-hr MT Carbon dioxide equivalent kilowatt-hour metric tons (= 2, lbs)

165 APPENDIX C Focused Environmental Noise Assessment

166

167 March 5June 21, Ms. Sherri Newland ET Environmental P.O. Box 4967 Ketchum, ID Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment Dear Ms. Newland: This report contains our assessment of the noise environment at the proposed Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility project located within the City of Oceanside. In summary, the proposed project is an upgrade to Waste Management of North County s Administration and Fleet Maintenance Facility. The proposed facility renovations are to facilitate the conversion of Waste Management s existing collection fleet from diesel fueling to compressed natural gas fueling. Noise-generating activities associated with the project would include long-term operational noise such as trucks entering and exiting the site, back-up alarms, idling trucks, maintenance and repair activities. Monitoring of current site operations indicated that the site activity currently exceeds the City s noise ordinance standard along the southern property boundary when trucks depart the site in the early morning hours (i.e., approximately 5:30 to 7:00 a.m.). With the proposed project, the site operations would comply with the City s noise ordinance criteria at the southern property line as the truck fleet transitions to quieter CNG trucks as compared to the existing diesel trucks. Thus, the noise impact would be less than significant and mitigation would not be required under CEQA. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is an upgrade to Waste Management of North County s Administration and Fleet Maintenance Facility. The proposed facility renovations are to facilitate the conversion of Waste Management s existing collection fleet from diesel fueling to compressed natural gas fueling.

168 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment 1.1 Project Location The proposed project is located in the City of Oceanside (City) in northern San Diego County, California (Figure 1). The site is located at 2141 Oceanside Boulevard, south of Oceanside Boulevard and east of Crouch Street (Figure 2). The project site is bounded by Oceanside Boulevard to the north, Industry Street to the northeast, industrial uses to the north, east and west, and Loma Alta Creek and the North County Transit District Sprinter Rail Line to the south. Regional access is provided to the project site via Interstate 5 (I-5) and Oceanside Boulevard. 1.2 Project Description Background Compressed natural gas (CNG) is an environmentally clean and economical alternative to diesel fuel. Waste-collection vehicles equipped with CNG engines have cleaner emissions than diesel engines, reducing smog-causing constituents, as well as greenhouse gases. In addition, the CNG truck engines generate less noise than standard diesel fleet vehicles. Waste Management of North County s Administration and Fleet Maintenance Facility is an existing facility that supports and maintains trash-hauling trucks serving the City and Camp Pendleton. Waste Management (WM) has made a commitment to begin the conversion of collection fleets nationwide from diesel fuel based operations to CNG fuel based operations. Locally, WM has contractually committed to use CNG-fueled vehicles. Site: The project site consists of 3.7 acres of leased land, including parcel (1.8 acres) and a portion of parcel (1.9 acres). The project would entail modifications to the existing maintenance facility building and fleet vehicle parking areas, as identified on Figure 3. The site consists of an employee/visitor parking area which is separated from the operations yard. No improvements are proposed in the employee/visitor parking areas. The operations yard includes established fleet maneuvering and storage areas, and is a combination of asphalt and concrete paving. The operations area includes a truck wash and diesel fueling facility. Operations vehicles access the yard from Industry Street and circulate in a counter clockwise direction Existing Operation: Collection trucks typically leave the site in groups of 10 to 12, between 5:30 am and 7:00 am and return to the site between 3:00 pm and 5:30 pm. Vehicle maintenance is typically performed on the trucks between 5:30 a.m. and midnight. Administration activities typically start with the 5:30 am truck departure and are wrapped up by 5:00 pm March June 2012

169 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment The fleet vehicles returning to base pull forward into their designated parking stalls in the afternoon/evening and park. 1.3 Project Characteristics The project will entail modifications and renovations to the existing operations facility to allow fueling and maintenance of CNG collection vehicles. All diesel fueling facilities will remain in place. The proposal includes construction of a CNG fueling facility at the existing site to allow for a phased conversation of the existing diesel fleet to CNG. The site will continue to support the same number of fleet vehicles (58) and the same number of site-based employees. Physical improvements to the existing facility include installation of a new fueling system in the operations yard, and safety code required upgrades inside the maintenance shop. Internal Site Vehicular Circulation Upgrades. Internal site circulation will be modified to allow fleet vehicles to pull forward into their parking stalls to connect to a time-fill fueling system via a fueling port in the front bumper. The existing truck parking area will be restriped to accommodate a modified on-site traffic pattern and to provide the additional space required to accommodate the CNG distribution piping and dispensers. Operational Characteristics The CNG fueling facility will convey natural gas from a public utility gas main to an on-site equipment compound where the gas is compressed and then distributed to waiting trucks. The compressed gas is buffered in steel storage containers and routed via piping systems to fuel the entire CNG fleet. CNG fueling One CNG fueling system is proposed with two fueling options: Time-Fill Fueling. The project will provide time-fill fueling for 58 CNG fleet parking spaces at full build-out. The CNG vehicles will leave the facility between 5:30 a.m. and 7 a.m. and return to the yard between 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. When trucks are returned to the yard, they are parked into the fueling spot. The fuel fill on CNG trucks is located on the front bumper, so trucks will pull in forward. Each truck will be connected to a dispenser hose and fueled overnight in the assigned parking space. When leaving the site in the morning hours (5:30 a.m. to 7 a.m.), the vehicles will back out of their parking stalls and travel in a counterclockwise direction to the existing egress location. Gas compression is controlled automatically through a Program Logic Control in the electrical control panel. By use of pressure sensors and valving, the March June 2012

170 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment Program Logic Control communicates electronically to the compressor turning it on and off as fueling needs dictate. Compression of the gas and fueling of the fleet begins and continues over the next 10 to 12 hours. This type of fueling is also referred to as a slow-fill system. The trucks remain in their parking stalls until approximately 5:30 a.m. or 7 a.m., at which time each driver arrives and begins his/her route for the day. The CNG fuel that is accumulated into each truck during the night is sufficient to power the truck throughout the normal trash-pickup route. Trucks do not return to the facility during the day to refuel. Some trucks may receive maintenance during the afternoon/evening hours. Once the maintenance activity has been completed, the truck will be parked into the fueling spot. All maintenance and positioning for fueling will be completed by 12:00 a.m. midnight. Internal Priority Fill-Fueling. In addition to the 58 time-fill stations, there will also be one internal priority fill post provided at the site. The fill post will take priority over the time-fill fueling, therefore stopping time-fill fueling until the priority vehicle has filled. This operation is also controlled by the Program Logic Control. The internal priority fill post will fuel one vehicle at a time. The internal priority fill post provides WM the capability to fuel one vehicle that receives maintenance in the evening hours (which will miss the standard time-fill fueling process) in time for the next day s haul route. This will allow the vehicle to return to service in the morning even if there is not sufficient time for the standard time-fill process. Similar to time-fill fueling, a driver would pull forward to the post and attach the dispenser to the front bumper of the truck. In approximately 5 9 minutes, the truck will be filled. The truck will remain parked until at least 5:30 a.m., at which time the driver will arrive and back out the truck to begin the daily haul route. Defueling Post. The site will be equipped with one defueling post. This post will be used to offload any remaining fuel left in a truck before maintenance to fuel system is performed. Excess fuel will be captured and returned to the system for reuse in other CNG vehicles. Defueling usually takes 30 minutes to an hour depending on the level of fuel in the truck. Defueling activity will occur during normal operational hours (5:30 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.). The CNG trucks will be phased in at the site and will replace the existing diesel trucks one for one. Initially there will be approximately 15 to 20 new CNG trucks at the site, with an additional 5 to 20 trucks phased in per year. Minor retrofits to the existing maintenance shop will occur to support indoor CNG vehicle maintenance and repair. A small emergency backup generator of approximately 15 kw will be March June 2012

171 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment provided to operate the entire emergency system (detection and emergency ventilation) in the event of a power failure. 2.0 FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE The following is a brief discussion of fundamental noise concepts. The basic terminology and concepts of noise are described as follows, with technical terms defined in Appendix A. 2.1 Sound, Noise, and Acoustics Sound is actually a process that consists of three components: the sound source, the sound path, and the sound receiver. All three components must be present for sound to exist. Without a source to produce sound, there is no sound. Similarly, without a medium to transmit sound pressure waves, there is no sound. Finally, sound must be received; a hearing organ, sensor, or object must be present to perceive, register, or be affected by sound or noise. In most situations, there are many different sound sources, paths, and receptors rather than just one of each. Acoustics is the field of science that deals with the production, propagation, reception, effects, and control of sound. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired. 2.2 Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels The amplitude of a sound determines its loudness. Loudness of sound increases with increasing amplitude. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in units of micro-newton per square meter, also called micro-pascal. One micro-pascal is approximately one-hundred billionths ( ) of normal atmospheric pressure. The pressure of a very loud sound may be 200,000,000 micro-pascals, or 10,000,000 times the pressure of the weakest audible sound. Because expressing sound levels in terms of micro-pascal would be very cumbersome, sound pressure level in logarithmic units is used instead to describe the ratio of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called Bels, named after Alexander Graham Bell. To provide a finer resolution, a Bel is subdivided into 10 decibels, abbreviated db. 2.3 A-Weighted Sound Level Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness. The frequency, or pitch, of a sound also has a substantial effect on how humans will respond. Although the intensity (energy per unit area) of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response is determined by the characteristics of the human ear. Human hearing is limited not only in the range of audible frequencies but also in the way it perceives the sound in that range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds March June 2012

172 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment between 1,000 Hertz (Hz) and 5,000 Hz, and it perceives a sound within that range as more intense than a sound of higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. To approximate the frequency response of the human ear, a series of sound level adjustments is usually applied to the sound measured by a sound level meter. The adjustments (referred to as a weighting network) are frequency dependent. The A-scale weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary sounds. At the time people make judgments of the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. Other weighting networks have been devised to address high noise levels or other special situations (e.g., B-scale, C-scale, D-scale), but these scales are rarely used in conjunction with most environmental noise. Noise levels are typically reported in terms of A- weighted sound levels. All sound levels discussed in this report are A-weighted. Definitions of acoustical terms used in this report are provided in Appendix A. Examples of typical noise levels for common indoor and outdoor activities are depicted in Table 1. Table 1 Typical Sound Levels in the Environment and Industry Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (db) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock Band Jet flyover at 300 meters (1,000 feet) 100 Gas lawn mower at 1 meter (3 feet) 90 Diesel truck at 15 meters (50 feet), at 80 kilometers/hour (50 miles per hour) 80 Food blender at 1 meter (3 feet) Garbage disposal at 1 meter (3 feet) Noisy urban area, daytime 70 Vacuum cleaner at 3 meters (10 feet) gas lawn mower at 30 meters (100 feet) Commercial area 60 Normal speech at 1 meter (3 feet) Heavy traffic at 90 meters (300 feet) Quiet urban daytime 50 Large business office Dishwasher next room Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime 30 Library Quiet rural nighttime 20 Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) 10 Broadcast/recording studio Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: Caltrans Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels Under controlled conditions in an acoustics laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern changes in sound levels of 1 db when exposed to steady, single-frequency signals in the March June 2012

173 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment mid-frequency range. Outside such controlled conditions, the trained ear can detect changes of 2 db in normal environmental noise. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear, however, can barely perceive noise level changes of 3 db. A change of 5 db is readily perceptible, and a change of 10 db is perceived as twice or half as loud. As discussed previously, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 db increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a road) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level. 2.5 Noise Descriptors Additional units of measure have also been developed to evaluate the long-term characteristics of sound. The equivalent sound level (L eq ), is also referred to as the time-average sound level. It is the equivalent steady state sound level which in a stated period of time would contain the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound level during the same time period. The one-hour A- weighted equivalent sound level, L eq (h), is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a one-hour period and is the basis for the City s noise ordinance criteria. 2.6 Sound Propagation Sound propagation (i.e., the passage of sound from a noise source to a receiver) is influenced by several factors. These factors include geometric spreading, ground absorption, and atmospheric effects, as well as shielding by natural and/or man-made features. Sound levels are attenuated at a rate of approximately 6 db per doubling of distance from an outdoor point source due to the geometric spreading of the sound waves. Additional sound attenuation can result from man-made features such as intervening walls, buildings, as well as natural features such as hills and dense woods. Atmospheric conditions such as humidity, temperature, and wind gradients can temporarily either increase or decrease sound levels. In general, the greater the distance the receiver is from the source, the greater the potential for variation in sound levels due to atmospheric effects. 3.0 CITY OF OCEANSIDE NOISE CRITERIA Noise-generating sources in the City of Oceanside are regulated in the City s Code of Ordinances (City of Oceanside 2008). The noise level limits depend on time of day, duration of the noise and base district zone. The City s noise criteria is that sound levels are not to exceed the applicable one-hour average sound level at any point on or beyond the boundaries of the property in the applicable base district zone on which the sound is produced. The exterior noise level limits are depicted in Table 2. The sound level limits for an industrial zone are a one-hour average sound March June 2012

174 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment level of 70 db between 7:00 a.m. and 9:59 p.m., and 65 db between 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. When the property lines form the joint boundary of two base district zones, the sound level limit is the arithmetic mean of the limit applicable to each of the 2 zones. The City limits construction activities to daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. In addition, construction equipment should not exceed a noise level of 85 db at a distance of 100 feet from the source (City of Oceanside 1974). Table 2 One-Hour Average Sound Level Limits Base District Zone 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. RE (Residential Estate) RS (Single-Family) RM (Medium Density) RH (High Density) RT (Residential Tourist) C (Commercial) I (Industrial) D (Downtown) A (Agricultural) OS (Open Space) Source: City of Oceanside 2008, Code of Ordinances Chapter 38 Noise Control 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The site and surrounding area are primarily subject to traffic noise from Oceanside Boulevard, Industry Street and Skylark Drive, operational noise from various industrial noise sources in the area, and trains along the adjacent rail line. A 24-hour noise measurement was conducted at the site starting at 3:00 p.m. on December 15, The noise measurement was made using a Larson-Davis Laboratories Model 700 integrating sound level meter. The sound level meter meets the current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 2 precision sound level meter. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after the measurement, and the measurement was conducted with the microphone positioned 5 feet above the ground. The sound level meter was positioned along the southern property boundary as depicted in Figure 4. The primary noise sources in the immediate vicinity of the noise measurement site are March June 2012

175 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment operational activities at the project site, trains along the adjacent rail line and intermittent traffic along Skylark Drive. The measured one-hour average noise level ranged between 42 and 69 db. The greatest one-hour average noise level occurred between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. (i.e., 65 to 66 db) and 5 a.m. to 7 a.m. (i.e., 68 to 69 db). During the 5 a.m. to 7 a.m. time period the noise levels exceeded the City s noise ordinance requirements. The one-hour average noise level reached 67 db between midnight and 1:00 a.m. This noise level was attributable to a freight train (and associated horn) that passed by the facility. The morning time period corresponds with the existing collection truck arrivals and departures at the project site. It should be noted that the NCTD Sprinter commuter trains generate a one-hour average noise level of approximately 53 to 54 db at the noise measurement location. Thus, these trains did not noticeably contribute the measured one-hour average noise level during peak collection truck hours. The results of the noise measurement are depicted in Table 3. Table 3 Existing Measured Noise Levels along Southern Project Boundary One-Hour Period Start Time One-Hour Average Sound Level (Leq) Maximum Sound Level (L max) Minimum Sound Level (L min) 3:00 p.m. 65 db 83 db 44 db 4:00 p.m. 66 db 87 db 48 db 5:00 p.m. 60 db 82 db 43 db 6:00 p.m. 59 db 81 db 41 db 7:00 p.m. 56 db 80 db 41 db 8:00 p.m. 58 db 81 db 41 db 9:00 p.m. 55 db 75 db 40 db 10:00 p.m. 49 db 69 db 39 db 11:00 p.m. 48 db 70 db 39 db 12:00 a.m. 67 db 92 db 38 db 1:00 a.m. 42 db 54 db 38 db 2:00 a.m. 48 db 76 db 38 db 3:00 a.m. 57 db 82 db 38 db 4:00 a.m. 56 db 80 db 39 db 5:00 a.m. 68 db 82 db 42 db 6:00 a.m. 69 db 85 db 52 db 7:00 a.m. 64 db 82 db 51 db 8:00 a.m. 61 db 82 db 50 db 9:00 a.m. 65 db 83 db 49 db 10:00 a.m. 58 db 78 db 47 db 11:00 p.m. 60 db 81 db 47 db 12:00 p.m. 57 db 77 db 47 db 1:00 p.m. 59 db 82 db 49 db 2:00 p.m. 61 db 82 db 46 db March June 2012

176 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment 5.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS The noise-generating activities associated with the project would include short-term construction noise, and long-term operational noise associated with trucks, outdoor mechanical equipment, and the maintenance and repair of trucks. 5.1 Short-Term Noise Impacts Construction Noise Construction is anticipated to commence in the fall of 2012 and will last for approximately 3 months. The maintenance shop upgrades and site improvements will be constructed simultaneously. The construction activity will require the use of a backhoe, excavator, dump truck, bobcat, concrete truck, crane, forklift, boom lift, and portable generators, as well as various pieces of handheld construction equipment. The maintenance shop upgrades would necessitate a construction crew of 2 to 6 workers, while the site improvements would necessitate a crew of 3 workers. Connection to the existing utility line in Industry Street will occur during the site improvement phase and will be directionally drilled from Oceanside Boulevard and traverse beneath Industry Street. Total ground-disturbing activities will be less than 2,500 square feet. In accordance with the City s Noise Ordinance, construction activities will be limited to daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction equipment anticipated includes only standard equipment that would be employed for any routine construction project of this scale. Construction noise will vary depending on the equipment used, percentage of time, and number of pieces of equipment that will actually operate at the same time. Maximum construction noise levels at 50 feet would typically range from approximately 78 to 88 db for the type of equipment anticipated to be used for construction of the project. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise-generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment. The typical maximum noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet are presented in Table 4. Noise levels from equipment decreases with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 db per doubling of distance. Therefore, at a distance of 100 feet the construction equipment maximum noise level would range from approximately 72 to 82 db March June 2012

177 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment Table 4 Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Type Typical Equipment dba at 50 feet Quiet 1 Equipment dba at 50 feet Air Compressor Backhoe Concrete Pump Concrete Vibrator Crane Dozer Generator Loader Paver Pneumatic Tools Water Pump Power Hand Saw Shovel Trucks Quieted equipment: with enclosures, mufflers, or other noise-reducing features. The construction noise level would comply with the City's 85 db noise criterion, and hours of operation. 5.2 Long-Term Operational Noise On-site Truck Noise The primary noise associated with the project would result from trucks entering, exiting and maneuvering within the site, including the use of backup alarms. The noise level at the site will vary depending on such factors as truck engine power, idling and use of backup alarms. Also, in the future the truck fleet mix will change from diesel to CNG vehicles. Noise from CNG trucks are less than diesel trucks. To determine the difference between the diesel and CNG truck noise levels, noise measurements were conducted at an existing Waste Management facility located in the City of Santa Ana. This facility operates both diesel and CNG collection trucks. The noise measurements were conducted of trucks operating within the parking facility. The results of these noise measurements (provided as Appendix B) indicate that the engines of the CNG trucks maneuvering within a parking area are on average approximately 5 db quieter than the diesel trucks. However, the noise from ancillary equipment such as back-up alarms is similar to the diesel trucks March June 2012

178 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment To determine the future noise level associated with the trucks operating on-site, noise modeling was conducted based on the results of the noise measurements previously discussed, and incorporating various changes to the on-site truck operations and fleet characteristics described below. The future worst-case noise level is anticipated to occur during the morning departure hours primarily because the trucks would utilize back-up alarms and idle (to perform Department of Transportation required safety checks) for longer periods of time as compared to the future afternoon arrival hours. As shown below in Table 5, the greatest reduction in the future noise during the morning hours would result from converting the fleet trucks to CNG fuel and reduction in the idling times. The greatest increase in noise during the morning hours would result from the use of the back-up alarms. Based on the results of the noise modeling, the future noise level would be 65 db Leq(h) at the southern property boundary. The noise level during the afternoon arrival hours would be approximately 2 to 3 db less. These noise levels would comply with the City s allowable 70 db Leq(h) sound level limit between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. and 65 db Leq(h) sound level limit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m.. Future noise levels were also modeled for the residential community to the north of the project site. The results of the noise modeling at this location determined that the future hourly average noise level at the residential community to the north will be 42 db (refer to Appendix C). This noise level will be substantially below the ambient noise in the area resulting from traffic along Oceanside Boulevard, and will also comply with the City s noise ordinance limits. Table 5 Noise Characteristics During Morning Hours Operation Existing (Diesel Fleet) Future (CNG Fleet) Comments Trucks Per Day out in morning; 58 in afternoon Truck Drive-by Adjustment - 5 db Quieter CNG engines Idling Time 10 to 15 minutes 5 minutes Reduced idling times per applicant Idling Adjustment -9 db -5 db for quieter engine, -4 db for reduced idling time Backup Alarm Adjustment Varies up to feet (relatively minimal use during AM hours) Up to feet Future backup alarm is self-adjusting As indicated in the project description, certain operational aspects of the existing Waste Management facility would change as a result of the introduction of CNG-fueled trash trucks. Given that CNG-fueled vehicle fueling mechanisms are affixed to the front of the trucks and March June 2012

179 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment require an overnight fueling process, the vehicles would be parked in a forward direction when they return to the facility each evening. At approximately 5:30 am each morning, the drivers would arrive, unhook the fueling hose from the front of the vehicles, warm-up the trucks and then back out of the fueling space to exit the facility and begin their daily route. All trucks would leave the site between approximately 5:30 am and 7:00 am. During this period, the trucks back-up safety alarms would be deployed when each vehicle is backed out of the fueling parking space. The proposed alarms would sound for approximately 5-10 seconds, or as long as it takes the vehicle to back out of the parking space. The alarms will be installed to provide directional noise to the back of the trucks. As shown in Figure 4, the proposed layout of the parking stalls will result in the trucks backing up in multiple directions allowing for the dispersement of the noise from the back-up alarms (i.e. 14 trucks would back up to the north, 20 will back up to the south, 5 to the east, 2 to the west, and 17 to the northwest). In addition, the proposed alarms are designed to constantly measure the existing noise environment at the truck. The alarm sensor would then project the back-up alarm at approximately 5 to 10 db louder than the ambient noise level. This design is intended to reduce unnecessarily loud back-up alarm noise (such as when no other vehicles or other significant noise sources are within close proximity) as well as to ensure that adequate back-up alarm noise can be heard if the truck is in an extremely loud environment (such as on a busy construction site with multiple pieces of heavy equipment operating simultaneously). Therefore, depending on the immediate surrounding noise present at the time the driver backs up the vehicle, the back-up alarm will project an intermittent beeping sound between 5 and 10 db louder than the ambient noise in the vicinity of the truck. Given the proposed side-by-side location of the parked trucks and the simultaneous start-up of multiple trucks during the early morning hours, it is expected that the back-up alarms would range up to approximately 85 db at approximately 50 feet. The City s noise ordinance requires that day and nighttime noise limits applicable in the specific zone be maintained. Measurement for compliance with the noise ordinance is reflected in terms of an hourly average sound level. Nearby receptors, including workers/visitors to adjacent industrial operations, residences located south or north of the project site and individuals that may be walking along the rail road tracks or Skylark Drive, Oceanside Boulevard or other nearby roadways would likely hear the truck back-up alarms during the early morning hours. However, because the duration of these alarms would be very short (5 to 10 seconds) and given that no more than 58 trucks would be sounding the alarms during an hour (as a worst case scenario, since trucks typically leave over a two hour period), the introduction of this new noise source during the early morning hours would not cause the hourly average sound to exceed the City s Industrial Zone noise limit of 65 db Leq(h) at the property line. Therefore, while this intermittent March June 2012

180 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment noise would be audible to individuals outside of the facility, it is not anticipated to exceed the City s noise ordinance limits. Thus, the noise impact would be less than significant and mitigation would not be required under CEQA. Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Noise The primary outdoor mechanical equipment for the project would consist of a CNG double compressor assembly self-contained in a weather proof enclosure. The enclosure is equipped with silencers and insulation to provide sound attenuation of 80 db at 3 meters (free field conditions as determined by third party testing provided by the equipment manufacturer). The compressor assembly would be located on a concrete pad at ground level and would be enclosed by a new 7-foot chain-link fence. The location of the equipment is depicted on the site plan as previously shown in Figure 3. Assuming the compressor assembly equipment operates continuously for a minimum period of one hour, the one-hour average sound level would be 56 db at the southern property boundary. This noise level would comply with the City s noise criteria. Other outdoor equipment associated with the project consists of six 3/4-HP exhaust/ventilation fans to be installed on the roof of the existing maintenance building. Noise generated from these exhaust/ventilation fans would be negligible at the property line. Maintenance and Repair of Collection Trucks As currently occurs on site, collection trucks in need of routine repair and maintenance are serviced within the existing maintenance building. The servicing area would continue to be located within the existing maintenance building. The CNG vehicle maintenance would be similar to the diesel vehicle maintenance that currently occurs and would continue to occur on site. The fleet vehicles leave the service yard between the hours of 5:30 a.m. and 7 a.m. and return to the yard between 3 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. The existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) allows for work to occur between 3:30 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. midnight, Monday through Friday and 5 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday through Sunday. Waste Management has maintenance staff on site until midnight, Monday through Friday, and regularly conducts work up to the midnight operations limit to adequately maintain the existing fleet. Waste Management makes best efforts to move any loud operations inside the shop during the late night hours, and for outside operations in the late night hours, they avoid using noisy equipment (such as pneumatic wrenches) to the extent possible. No change in the hours of operation or outdoor work March June 2012

181 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment practices are proposed with the CNG facility improvements. Service of the CNG equipment would occur during the daytime hours. The project would not result in changes to the fleet service schedules. Maintenance activities on the CNG vehicles would be similar to those performed on the diesel-fueled vehicles. Once vehicles are serviced, they return to the time-fill fuel parking spaces by pulling forward into the parking spot. Noise associated with maintenance of the collection trucks would, therefore, be similar to the existing conditions and would not increase the existing noise level. 6.0 CONCLUSION Noise generating activities associated with the project would include long-term operational noise such as trucks entering and exiting the site, back-up alarms, idling trucks, maintenance and repair activities. The project currently exceeds the City s noise ordinance standard along the southern property boundary when trucks depart the site in the early morning hours (i.e., approximately 5:30 to 7:00 a.m.). With the proposed project, the project would comply with the City s noise ordinance criteria at the southern property line and within the residential community to the north as the truck fleet converts to quieter CNG trucks as compared to the existing diesel trucks. Thus, the noise impact would be less than significant and mitigation would not be required under CEQA. This concludes our noise assessment. Please call me at if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mike Komula Senior Acoustician Att: Figures 1 4 Appendix A: Definitions Appendix B: Noise Measurements Conducted at the Existing Santa Ana Waste Management Facility Appendix C: Noise Measurement and Modeling Results to the North of the Oceanside Waste Management Facility Appendix D: CNG Compressor and Enclosure Specification Sheets March June 2012

182 Ms. Sherri Newland Subject: Oceanside Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Facility Project Focused Environmental Noise Assessment REFERENCES Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. October City of Oceanside Oceanside General Plan Noise Element. September 25. City of Oceanside Oceanside Code of Ordinances, Chapter 32 Noise Control March June 2012

183 San Diego County Imperial County g 1 Dana Point San Juan Capistrano San Clemente Orange County San Diego County Temecula Rainbow 371 Riverside County San Diego County Salton Sea 5 Camp Pendleton North Fallbrook Bonsall Camp Pendleton South Oceanside Vista Hidden Meadows Valley Center Borrego Springs Project Site Carlsbad San Marcos Escondido 78 P a c i f i c Encinitas 56 Poway 67 Ramona San Diego Country Estates Julian O c e a n Miles Coronado San Diego National City Imperial Beach 52 Chula Vista La Mesa Lemon Spring Grove Valley 905 Bonita Santee Lakeside Alpine Pine Harbison Valley Canyon El Cajon Casa de Oro-Mount Helix Rancho San Diego Jamul 8 94 Campo Boulevard MEXICO Jacumba OCEANSIDE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS VEHICLE FUELING FACILITY PROJECT - FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT FIGURE 1 Regional Location Map

184 APN APN NCTD Sprinter Line Property Lines Project Boundary Feet No improvements proposed in this area -02 SOURCE: BING MAPS SERVICES OCEANSIDE COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS VEHICLE FUELING FACILITY PROJECT - FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT FIGURE 2 Project Vicinity Map