The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRCC AGENDA PK 2000/07/17 ,- - PG&£ Dispersed Generation 1 Peak road Power Plant Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: PEAK LOAD POWER PLA..l'\fT PROJECT LOCATION: 3497 Main Street, Chula Vista, CA ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 629-06-204 PROJECT APPLICANT: PG&E Dispersed Generation, LLC CASE NO,: IS-OO-OO DA TE: June 23, 2000 A. PROJECT SETTING The project site is located at 3497 Main Street in the City of Chula Vista, CA. The property consists of one legal parcel (APN 629-062-04-00) that has no frontage on Main Street. The property is approximately 835 feet south of Main Street. A 20'± private easement road provides access to the site. The road is partially paved. On-Site Land Use The site is currently used as an operation and storage site by three small businesses - a house moving equipment company, a sandblasting equipment company, and an auto towing company. Structures on-site include (I) a high-bay steel garage 43' x 14' x 18' high, (2) a 10' x 10' office/toilet building, and (3) a small 10' x 15' x 9 high portable, wooden office building on the southern portion of the property. A security fence surrounds the property. The entire site has been graded and some areas improved with pea gravel or coarse sand. The southern portion of the site has been filled with imported soils. The site drains to the south into the Otay River, and to the west into a drainage swale that empties into the Gtay River. A 20'± sewer easement crosses the northern end of the site. A covered manhole is located near the western property line. Water from the Sweetwater Authority is available in the access road a few feet south of Main Street. A north-south 69 kV power line is located along the eastern property line. Surrounding Land Uses The properties to the north and east are occupied by auto storage and wrecking yards. The property to the west is vacant, but was previously used as a trailer storage yard. The surrounding area south of Main Street is characterized by similar auto storage and dismantling activities. . A single-family home residential area is located across the vacant lot to the west. The Otay River is located along the property's southern boundary. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The planned facility would consist of one natural gas twinpak combustion turbine, gas compressor, electrical generator, and associated equipment. An underground gas pipeline in the access road would connect to the existing gas pipeline in Main Street. No fuel would be stored on site. The site is not proposed to be paved. The air-cooled gas turbine (approximately 70 feet in length, 15 feet wide and 11 feet high) would be within an enclosure 100 feet in width, 80 feet long and 25 feet high, Water use would be limited to on-site domestic use, inlet chilling and combustor water injection (if utilized). Small cooling towers would be required for the inlet chilling system. The turbine would be fitted with air pollution control equipment, noise suppression devices and exhaust stack. The Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) air pollution control equipment would use ammonia injection and be approximately 70 feet in length, 35 feet wide and 40 feet high. The exhaust stack would be 15 wide, 20 long and 45 feet high. A nuisance fluid (turbine and gear box seepage) collection system 1 06/23/00 - - PG&E Dispersed Genera/inn LL Peak Load Po"'er Pia'¡! and storage vault would be located within the turbine enclosure. The fluids would be removed by a licensed disposal finn on an as-needed basis. An on-site elecmcal substation would transfonn the electric output to 69,000 volts. The facility would tap into the existing 69,000-volt line along the eastern edge of the site. This overhead 69,000-volt transmission line may require upgrading with larger, higher capacity, wires. If required, San Diego Gas and Electric would be responsible for the re-wiring. The facility would be unmanned and remotely operated by PG&E Dispersed Generating Company control center personnel. PG&E DG personnel or a local subcontractor would routinely inspect, service and maintain the facility. It is anticipated that operating and maintenance personnel would visit the facility 2 to 3 times per week. Vehicu]ar traffic would be limited to operating and maintenance vehicles. Major overhauls of the turbine generators and pollution control equipment would occur every two years and require 2 to 3 weeks to complete by a crew of]O to 15 technicians, Grading and Drainage The project site is a graded pad adjacent to the Otay River. Finish grading required for the project involves 2.578 cu.yds of earthwork. The maximum cut slope height would be four feet at the project site entrance. Existing on-site drainage pattern flows southerly to the property line and westerly into a drainage swale that empties into the Otay River. The existing drainage swale is part of the City of Chula Vista stonn drain system that conveys runoff from north of Main Street to the Otay River. This stonn drain system would remain in its current condition with no alterations. The proposed grading would direct surface runoff to a catch basin with a built-in filtration system in the southwest corner of the site. An IS-inch RCP stonn drain would convey surface runoff to a headwall and energy dissipator located in an existing drainage swale immediately southwest of the project site. Development of the site would result in a negligible increase in the rate of surface runoff. The site would not be paved with impervious surfaces. Stonnwater Management The facility would have two containment areas and a containment pond to minimize the potential release of non-stann water materials (transfonner oil, aqueous ammonia) into the Otay River. The switchyard facility, containing transfonners filled with non-PCB oil, would be surrounded by a containment dike. In the event that an oil leak occurs, all oil would be contained within the diked area. The l2,000-gallon aqueous ammonia tank would also be enclosed within a containment dike. In the event of an ammonia tank leak, all ammonia would be contained within the diked area. The plant operator/maintenance personnel would inspect the containment areas during their nonnal plant inspections. In the event of an oil or ammonia leak, the containment basins would be pumped out and disposed of as required County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations. The switchyard and ammonia tank containment areas would be connected to a containment pond designed to prevent the release of non-stonn water materials into the stonn water drain system. The plant operator/maintenance personnel would inspect the switchyard and aqueous ammonia containment areas during and after rainstorms. If oil or ammonia are not present, the stonn water in the containment areas would be released into the containment pond. Stonn water collected in the diked containment areas would be pumped into a tank truck for removal from the site as required by City, DEH, and RWQCB regulations. After stonn water is transferred to the containment pond it would be inspected a second time for oil, ammonia or other contaminants. Ifnone are present, the operator/maintenance personnel would open the valves releasing the stonn water into the stonn drain system. If contaminants are present, the containment pond would be pumped out and the materials disposed of as required by' City, DEH, and RWQCB regulations TIle facility will be required to obtain a State lndustria] Activities Stonn Water General Pennit as required by Federal Regu]ations (40CFR, Parts 122,123, and 124) that implement the Clean Water Act of 1987. TIle goaJ of the pennit is to reduce or eliminate stonnwater pollution and other impacts to surface waters from industrial 2 06/23/00 - - PG&£ DisDcrsed Gencration L Peak Load Powcr Plant sites. 111e stom1\Vater penn it requires operators of industrial facilities to develop a Stormwater Pollution Preven¡jon (SWPP) Plan. The Plan would identify existing and potential sources of stollTIwater polJution. and describe how the tàcility would reduce or eliminate the potential for stornnvater polJurion. "llle S\VWPP Plan would outline the facilities stollTIwater contaminant assessment (high quantities of suspended solids). The plan would display a stOTIllwater site map identitying drainage patterns, discharge structures and points, paved areas and buildings, areas of pollutant contact, and areas with soil erosion potential. The plan would include Best :Vlanagement Practices (BMP's) to reduce the potential for stormwater poJlution that include good housekeeping. preventive maintenance, spilJ clean-up procedures. storml,vater tlow control features, and employee training. 111e plan would identify practices and facility features designed to control pollution at its source, Another requirement is the development and implementation of a stom1water-monitoring plan in conjunction with the SWPP plan. PG&E Dispersed Generating Company would work closely with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to detelIDine BMP's and identify the most effective way 10 design features to control potential stOlID water contamination. C. COMPLL~'\'CE WITH ZONING A."'D PLANS The facility is designed to be consistent with all governmental codes and regulations, including the Chula Vista IL industrial zone, conditions that may be included in the Conditional Use Pennit, the conditions of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate, and San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Permit for the ammonia storage tanle D. IDENTIFICA nON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist fonn) detennined that the proposed project will have significant environmental biological resources and noise effects that can be mitigated to a less than significant level, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report wiJ] not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Biological Resources The project site was surveyed by Vincent N. Scheidt, biological consultant, on March 21 and April 29,2000. The site and adjacent areas were surveyed each day, with particular attention given to areas where riparian birds were most likely to be found. The site is devoid of vegetation except for exotic plant material located in the drainage swale along the western property boundary. No animal species are present on-site. The site has not served as a wildlife dispersal corridor because the property has been fenced for several years. The area immediately south of the project site is a heavily vegetated riparian habitat associated with the Otay River. The Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan and the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan identifies the adjacent area as "open space/preserve area." Riparian woodland vegetation is present immediately beyond the southern fence line of the property. Indicators in this habitat include Black and Arroyo Willow (Salix gooddingii, S. lasiolepis), Mule Fat (Baccharis glutinosa), San Diego Marsh Elder (Iva hayesiana), American Bulrush (Scirpus olneyi), and Cattails (Typha latifolia). Also present in and along the periphery of the riparian area are noxious and weedy species, including Castor Bean (Ricinus communis), Tamarisk (Tamarix), Giant Wild Reed (Arundo donax), Indian Rice Grass (Qryzopsis miliacea), and others. These have degraded the riparian habitat to a degree, although this wetland is still of regional significance to area wildlife. The only animals associated with the project site itself are locally common species, such as Housefmch (Carpodacus mexicanus), English Sparrows (Passer domesticus), House Mouse (Mus musculus), Western Fence Lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) and other vertebrates that are tolerant of or dependent upon development. The riparian area, however, supports a diversity of native species, including Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia), Yellow Warblers (Dendroica petechia), Least Bell's Vireos (Vireo bellii pusillus), and others. Utilization of the site will have no direct, adverse impacts to area wildlife or sensItive species. Only insignificant impacts, as defmed by CEQA, to locally common species and weeds will result from site 3 06/23/00 ,- -- PC;&F Disf'lcrscd C;cneralic>r1, L Peak Load Power Plan! devclopment. Ho\\'ever, indirect impacts are considered potentially adverse and significant, as defined by CEQA. A number of obligate riparian songbirds were detected during the surveys for this report. including several sensitive species, and others are anticipated to occur in this area. These species could be adversely affected by noise created by the construction of the proposed power generating facility. Mitigation measures listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. Noise Noise sources associated with the proposed project can be identified within three categories: (1) constructIOn noise; (2) mobile noise sources, generally consisting of noise from cars and trucks; and (3) stationary mechanical equipment operation. The Chula Vista Municipal Code exempts construction and demolition activities from its exterior noise level limitations. However, most municipalities consider construction activities on Sunday or l\ighttime as intrusive, Construction noise will usually exceed typical background noise levels but \\'ill generally be for a short term and will generally occur during daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays, \lobile noise sources after construction is completed will consist of operations and maintenance vehicles that \ViII contribute negligible overall noise to the area and will not further be considered. Noise from the stationary mecharucal equipment will come from five dominant sources: · The two separate engine air intakes and single turbine exhaust. Full acoustic data is not currently available for these engines; however, initial engineering estimates are for each of these three openings generate about 140 dB(A) directly at the opening. · Direct noise radiation from the equipment, a currently unknown sound level, is estimated to be a maximum of 105 to 115 dB(A). · The high pressure reciprocating natural gas compressor is estimated to operate at 100 dB(A) at a distance of 10 feet from the unit. This is based on data taken at other natural gas compressors. The manufacturer will supply actual data at the time of unit specification. · The high volume air blower for generator cooling is estimated it to operate at 100 dB(A) at intake and exhaust openings. Full acoustic data is not currently available for the blower. . Noise data for the absorption chillers and pumps, to be located inside the turbine enclosure, is not currently available. The manufacturer will supply sound data at the time of unit specification. The stationary mechanical equipment could produce noise levels as high as 130 dB(A) at the property line if noise control measures are not included in the plant design. Precise noise data for each component in the plant is not available at this time because specific pieces of equipment to be installed have not been selected. Consequently, it is not possible to provide a fmal noise control system design at this time. A variety of conventional noise reduction techniquês would be included in the plant design. Noise reduction techniques would be installed, as needed, to reduce noise levels to 60 dB at the property line. Noise reduction techniques that would be utilized have noise reduction characteristic as follows: Technique Noise Reduction In Line Silencer 2 to 5 dB per foot Louvers 10 to 20 dB per unit Lined Right Angle Turns in Ducts 4 to 8 dB per turn Lined Covers at InletlExhaust 4 to 8 dB (one per unit) Noise Containment Walls 6 to 18 dB per unit Note: The actual values of sound reduction are frequency and unit dependent. These values are intended only as an oven'iew of capabilities. 4 06/23/00 - - PG&E Disoersed Generation L Peak Load Power Plant As can be seen from the above list, 20 feet of silencer at 3 dB per foot (60 dB) plus two right angle turns (6 dB / turn), a louver (15 dB), and a cover (6 dB), provide approximately 93 dB reduction in noise. Therefore, noise from each oftwo combustion engine inlets at 140 dB(A) should be reduced to 47 dB(A). While this is relatively quiet, it should be noted that if all of the individual noise generating components are summed after reduction to an equivalent level for the five known listed noise generating components listed above, the sum of the noise would equal almost 57 dB{A). This analysis is not intended as a [mal description of techniques for this project. The [mal analysis would include specific details including full frequency analysis for each system component. Portions of the project require special consideration for the noise mitigation systems. These include: . The 900-degree (Fahrenheit) system exhaust. This will require silencing systems designed to ensure ongoing system functionality. . The high-pressure natural gas compressor. The State of California mandates open-air ventilation requirements; these must be maintained by the noise quieting system. A [mal set of mitigation measures cannot be defined at this time because precise noise data for each component of the plant is not currently available because specific pieces of equipment to be installed have not been selected. Consequently, it is not possible at this time to defme a [mal noise control system design that will reduce noise levels to 60 dB(A) at the property line. However, a six-step mitigation program has been prepared that assures compliance with the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance standards and the 60 dB{A) guideline contained in the City of Chula Vista draft MSCP Subarea Plan. The six-step mitigation program is contained in the attached Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Implementation of this mitigation program would reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level. E. MITIGATION NECESSARY TO A VOID SIGNIFICANT IMP ACTS Project-specific mitigation measures are required to reduce potential environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures will be made a condition of approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment "A"). I agree to implement the mitigation measures required as stated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Mitigated Negative Declaration. Name, Title Date 5 06/23/00 ,- - PG&E Dispersed Ceneration l Peak Load POH'cr Plallt F. CONSl7L T A nON 1. City of ChuJa Vista: Bryon Estes, Redevelopment Coordinator Miguel Tapia, Senior Community Development Specialist Benjamin Guerrero, Environmental Projects Manager Captain Edward Thomas, Fire Marshall Samir Nuhaily, Engineering Department Beverly Blessent, Planning Division Ralph Leyva, Engineering Department M.J. Donnelly, Engirieering Depar1ment Scott Harris, Plans Examiner Elizabeth W, Hull, Deputy City Attorney Applicant's Agent: Dale Mesplé, Biological Consultant Vincent N. Scheidt (Douglas Eilar and Associates) Acoustician Charles Terry (Douglas Eilar and Associates) 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Biological Survey Report, (May 2000) Vincent N. Scheidt, Biological Consultant Noise Impact Analysis, (May 24,2000) Douglas Eiler & Associates, Env'l & Acoustical Consultants G. INITIAL STUDY This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this negative declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further infonnation regarding the environmental review of this project is available frem the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA¡9194 Date: 6'L3.cD ~.~ ~fus B' Hunter Planning & Environmental Manager, CD 6 - 06/23/00 - ...... Case No.IS-OO-39 ENVIRO~T}\IENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: PG&E Dispersed Generation, LLC 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 100 Pine S1., Ste. 2860 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 675-6472 4. Name of Proposal: Peak Load Electrical Power Plant 5. Date of Checklist: June 23, 2000 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 0 0 0 181 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 0 0 181 policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., 0 0 0 181 impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 0 0 181 established community (including a low-jncome or minority community)? Comments: The project site is located at 3497 Main Street in the City of Chula Vista, CA. The property consists of one legal parcel (APN 629-062-04-00) that has no rrontage on Main Street. The property is approximately 835 feet south of Main Street. A 20'± private easement road provides access to the site. The road is partially paved. On-Site Land Use The site is currently used as an operation and storage site by three small businesses - a house moving equipment company, a sandblasting equipment company, and an auto towing company. Structures on-site include (I) a high-bay steel garage 43' x 14' x 18' high, (2) a 10' x 10' office/toilet building, and (3) a small 10' x 15' x 9 high portable, wooden office building on the southern portion of the property. A security fence surrounds the property. The entire site has been graded and some areas improved with pea gravel or coarse sand. The southeI1). I 6/26/00 - .-, Porl'ntiall~' p(lll'ntid.U~ Sí~nificant Les~ than Si~nificant t'nless Si::::nificJnt .\, Imp:Jc! !\Iiti~alt'd Impact Impa~'1 po:-tlon of lhe site has been fi11ed \\'i:h irnporteci sol1s. The site drains to the south Into the C)t~:' J{~ \'t'i". ZCL..l to the \VeSI into '-1 d:-a1nage s\\'ale that empties InlO the Otay River. A 20'± sewer easement crosses the northern end of the site. A manhole is located near the weste;-;; property line, \Vater from the Sweetwater Authority is available in the access road a few feet south or Main Street. A north south 69 kV power line is located along the eastern property line. Surrounding Land Uses The properties to the north and east are occupied by auto storage and wrecking yards. The property to tne west is vacant. but was previously used as a trailer storage yard. The surrounding area south of M<:in Street is characterized by similar auto storage and dismantìing activities. A single-family home residential area is located across the vacant lot to the west. The Olay River is (\cated along the propert)'·s soulhe:-:, boundary. Proiect Description The facility is designed to be consistent with all governmental codes and regulations, including the Chula Vista IL industrial zone, conditions that may be included in the Conditional Use Permit, the conditions of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate, and San Diego County Department of Environmental Health Permit for the ammonia storage tank. The pJanned facility would consist of one natural gas twinpak combustion turbine, gas compressor. eJectrical ge:1erator. and associated equipment. .An underb'TOund gas pipeìine in the access road wouici connect to the existing gas pipeline in Main Street. No fuel would be stored on site. The site is not proposed to be paved. The air-cooled gas turbine (approximately 70 feet in length, 15 feet wide and II feet high) would be within an enclosure 100 feet in width. 80 feet long and 25 feet high. Water use would be limited to on-site domestic use, inlet chilling and combustor water injection (if utilized). Small cooling towers would b::: required for the inlet chilling system. The turbine would be fitted with air pollution control equipment, noise suppression devices and exhaust stack. The Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) air pollution control equipment would use ammonia injection and be approximately 70 feet in length, 35 feet ,"vide and 40 feet high. Tne exhaust stack would be 15 wide, 20 long and 45 feet high. An on-site electrical substation would transform the electric output to 69,000 volts. The facility would tap into the existing 69,000-volt line along the eastern edge of the site. This overhead 69,000-volt transmission line may require upgrading with larger, higher capacity, wires. Ifrequired, San Diego Gas and Electric would be responsible for the re-wiring. The facility would be unmanned and remotely operated by PG&E Dispersed Generating Company (pG&E DG) control center personnel. PG&E DG personnel or a local subcontractor would routinely inspect, service and maintain the facility. It is anticipated that operating and maintenance personnel would visit the facility 2 to 3 times per week. Vehicular traffic would be limited to operating and maintenance vehicles. Major overhauls of the turbine generators and pollution control equipment would occur every two years and require 2 to 3 weeks to complete by a crew of 10 to 15 technicians. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 ¡g¡ popul<Kion projections? 2 6/26/00 - .-, Potentiall)' Pote-ntiaUJ SignifICant Less than Si¡:nificant Unless Si~nifjcant !\òo Impact MitiJ:3ted Impact Impac[ b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 0 directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure) ? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 0 housing? Comments: Implementation of the project would not create any additional employment opportunities or housing units in the area. The facility would be unmanned and remotely operated by PG&E DG control center personnel. There are no housing units located on the property. No significant population or housing impacts would result from construction and operation of the facility. III. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic 0 0 0 0 substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 0 0 0 0 overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 0 0 181 0 features? d) The destruction. covering or modification of any 0 0 0 181 unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, 0 0 181 0 either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, 0 0 181 0 or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of ? rIver or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic 0 0 0 181 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The site is underlain with stream-terrace deposits (QT) that occur locally as a thin veneer along larger drainage courses. The deposits include unconsolidated sand and gravel derived locally from the sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks of the area. The southern portion of the site has been filled with material from an unknown source. The site has been graded to a level pad. The soils on the site consist of Huerhuero loam (HrC) with a 2-9% slope. These soils are noted as having a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted, consisting chiefly of (1) clay soils with a high swelling potential, (2) soils with a high permanent water table, (3) soils with claypan or clay layer at or- 3 6/26/00 - -, Püu:'nfÎ<.llI! Porl'mioiJl: Signifacant Les." than Significant linll's~ Signific;mt ~p Imµ;lCt "ririg¡ltt>u Impact Impac! n~'":.I:-- the ~u:-face. 3nd (4) sh~.dl()\\' soll~ 0\"(::- :-le~:r1y lTi1P~;\'ious rn~terÜtÌs. -rhese 50115 2.re 2150 r~të(: as h2\"1:1g a nlod~T:lle erosion hazard. Grading and Drainage The project site is a graded pad adjacent to the Otay River. Finish grading required for the pro.Jeet involves 2.578 cu.yds of earthwork. The maximum cut slope height would be four feet at the project Silt' entrance. The existing on-SJte drainage pattern is to the southern property line and the Otay River and to the \\'esi \\nere nmoff±1o\\'s from the property into the Ota)' River, The existing drainage swaie is part of the C:y of Chula Vista storm drain system that conveys runoff rrom north of Main Street to the Otay River. The existing storm drain system would remain in its current condition with no alterations. The proposed grading would direct surface runoff to a catch basin with a built-in filtration system in the southwest corner of the site. An 18-inch RCP storm drain would convey surface runoff to a headwall and energy dissipator located in an existing drainage swale immediately southwest of the project site. Development of the site would result in a negligible increase in the rate of surface runoff. The site would not be paved with impervious surfaces. No significant impacts to water resources have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. No significant geophysical impacts would result from the construction and operation of the plant. The Engineering Department as a standard requirement of grading permit approval would require a soils report and compliance with the applicable recommendations. Source: Michael P. Kennedy and Siang S. Tan, Geology of National City. Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa Quadrangles. Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area. California, 1977 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survev. San Diego Area. California, December 1973. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage p.atterns, 0 0 t8i 0 or the rate and amount of surface ruI1J)ff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 0 0 181 hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters Or other alteration 0 0 181 0 of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 t8i water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of 0 0 0 181 water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 0 1'81 4 6/26/00 - ..... PU(l'"ntiaU,· PotentiaU)' Si~nificant uss than Significant linles.."i Significant ~o Imp3ct 1\lhiJ:cul?d Impact Imp.acr through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 0 0 ~ h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 [81 i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? 0 0 0 ø j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water 0 0 0 ß otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: The only portions ofthe site that would be paved are the turbine and equipment enclosure and the electrical substation. The paved area would include approximately 14,000 sq.ft. (8-percent of the 3.8-acre site). A negligible increase in the rate and volume of runoff would occur as a result of the proposed development. The existing drainage pattern would be maintained (see Section I above). Development of the project would result in a less than significant increase in the rate and volume of surface runoff. The containment system described in Section I above would reduce the potential for contaminants in the storm water runoff to a less than significant level. The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) floodplain maps show the site as being within a 100-year floodplain. However, the FEMA maps were prepared prior to the filling of the site that occurred several years ago. The FEMA maps indicate the 100-year floodplain level at the site is 44 feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). However, the site has been filled to a minimum elevation of 55 feet AMSL. Thus, the site is 10 to 11 feet above the 100-year floodplain level. The project would result in a less than significant impact to the Otay River valley floodplain and downstream waters. No groundwater extraction is proposed. The containment system described in Section I above would reduce the potential for groundwater contamination to a less than significant level. Stormwater Management The facility would have two containment areas and a containment pond to minimize the potential release of non-storm water materials (transformer oil, aqueous ammonia) into the Otay River. The switchyard facility, containing transformers filled with non-PCB oil, would be surrounded bya containment dike. In the event that an oil leak occurs, all oil would ~e contained within the diked area. The 12,000-gallon aqueous ammonia tank would also be enclosed within a containment dike. In the event of an ammonia tank leak, all ammonia would be contained within the diked area. The plant operator/maintenance personnel would inspect the containment areas during their normal plant inspections. In the event of an oil or ammonia leak, the containment basins would be pumped out and disposed of as required County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations. The switchyard and ammonia tank containment areas would be connected to a containment pond designed to prevent the release of non-storm water materials into the storm water drain system. The plant operator/maintenance personnel would inspect the switchyard and aqueous ammonia containment areas during and after rainstorms. Storm water collected in the diked containment areas would be pumped into a tank truck for removal from the site as required by City, DEH, and RWQCB regulations. If oil or ammonia are not present, the storm water in the containment areas would be released into the containment pond. S 6/26/00 - - .PolcntLaIl~ I'otl·n[jall~ Significant Ll'S:~ than Signific;mt l;nlcss Si;-niflc:Jnt "'c· Imp;t('t .\litig¡lu·d Imp<J{'"! Imn<1C: .-\Ùer storm water is transferred to tDe comammerlt pOrld it \\-ouid be mspected a second time for 0;), ammonia or other comaminams, If rlone are present, the operator/maimenance personnel would ope~ ::-Jt' valves releasing the storm water into the storm drain system. If contaminants are present the comammem pond \vould be pumped out and the materials disposed of as required by City, DEH, and RWQCB regulations. Back up warning devices on the valves wiJl warn operators if the valves are inadvCJ1edy left open. The facility will be required to obtain a State Industrial Activities Storm \Vater General Permit as rcqu:red by F edera] Reguìations (40CFR. Parts 122,123. and 124) that implement the Clean Water Act 01 1 (;~, -, The goal of the pem1i¡ is to íCduce or eliminate storm water polhnion and other impacts to surf'::;c:: \',~:tc:'~ frO:ll industrial siTes. The stom1\\'::ner permi; !'èquires operators ()f industr12! facilities to dc',c;c':' :- Stonnwater Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Plan. The Plan would identify existing and potennal sources of stormwater pollution. and describe how the Ú\cility would reduce or eliminate the potential for stormwater pollution. The SV.lWPP Plan \vould outline the facilities storm water contaminant assessment (high quantities of suspended solids), The plan would display a stormV','ater site map identifYing drainage patterns, discharge structures and points, paved areas and buildings, areas of pollutant contact, and areas with soil erosion potential. The plan would include Best Management Practices (BMP's) to reduce the potential for stormwater pollution that include good housekeeping, preventive maintenance. spill dean-up procedures, sron11\vater flow comTol features, and employee training. The plan \\-ould identify practices and facility features designed to control pollution at its source. Another requirement is the dcvelopment aIld implementation of a stomnvater-monitoring plan in conj unction with the S\\'PP plan. PCì&E Dispersed Generating Company would work closely with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to determine BMP's and identifY the most effective way to design features to control potentia] storm \vater contamination. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to D D D ø an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? D D D ø c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or D D D ø cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? D D D ø e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or non- 0 0 0 ~ stationary sources of air emISSIons or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The power plant consists of a simple cycle, natural gas-fired turbine operating at not more than 15,600 Btu/kW-hr with a net output not greater than 49.5 MW and heat input of 764.4 MMBtuIhr. The turbine would operate not more than 15.75 hours/day and not more than 4,980 hours/year. Startup and shutdown of the units would be limited to ensure operation would not exceed Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) threshold levels. A Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) unit with an ammonia injection grid would be installed for control of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions. A high temperature SCR system would be used to control NOx emissions to not more that 5 ppm @ 15% 02. Ammonia slip would be limited to 10 ppm @ 15% 02. Natural gas firing and good, efficient combustion practices would be used to minimize particulate matter (PMIO), oxides of sulfur (SOx), and volatile organic compounds 6 6/26/00 - - Poren(i;,III~ P<Hl'nÜall:" Si~nirlrant Ll"s~ tÍ1ar. Significant unlcs!oi Significam "\"1' lmµact .'titj~;l1eù 1m P'¡J rt ¡mu;lc~ (\-c¡C¡ e:mSSlO:".S, (¡C.S tU:-Dme (\De:-3t!OnS W(\Uld CO:T1ply with Rule 69,3.1. 3S well as \\'E~i otn~':- .'.::- Pc\;lutlon Contw; DisIrlct C.u>CD) rules associated with fossil fuel ÌÌred operatIOns. A Best Available Control Technology (BACT) evaluation was prepared in fulfillment of the current San Diego i\PCD Regulation II. Rules 20.1 through 20.9. ~ew Source Review (NSR). The BACT evaluat10n addressed control of NO x, VOc. PM 10, S02 and 1'H-I3 emissions from the proposed turbine. Annual :\lOx emissions from the site would be below major stationary source and AQIA thresholds. Tne BACT Evaluation submitted to the ..u>CD demonstrated that the proposed turbine installation would De 111 compJiance would all applicable emissiol1 rules, and that the emissions would be below the standards established by the APCD. No significant air quality impacts \vould result from the operation 0: the proposed turbine facility, Source: PG&E Dispersed Generating Com;x:ny, LLC, Appiication for Amhont" to C ()n:;tTdc~; Chula Vista Power Plam Submitted to San Diego Air QuaJitv Pollution Control District, January 6, 2000. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 [) tz b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 c ¡;; sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or i11compatible uses (e,g.. farm equipment:? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 0 0 0 ~ uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-sire or off-site? 0 [) 0 [8:1 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 [8:1 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 ø alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 [8:1 h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 [8:1 Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The facility would be unmanned and remotely operated by PG&E DG control center personnel. PG&E DG personnel or a local subcontractor would routinely inspect, service and maintain the facility. It is anticipated that operating and maintenance personnel would visit the facility 2 to 3 times per week. Vehicular traffic would be limited to operating and maintenance vehicles. Aqueous ammonia would be delivered by tanker truck as needed. During the peak operating period of May through October one to two tanker trucks per week would be required. In the winter season few. if any, deliveries would be required. Major overhauls ofthe turbine generators and pollution control equipment would occur every two years and require 2 to 3 weeks to complete by a crew of 10 to 15 technicians. Access to the site would be from Main Street via an existing access road located within a private easement. The access road would be improved as per City of Chula Vista requirements. No hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists would be created. The proposed electrical plant facility would be consistent with 7 6/26/00 - ~ Pot.nliaUy PotentiaUy SignifICant Less than Significant Unless SIgnIftcanl No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact all local transportation policies, including parking, and would not result in impacts to rail. water, or air traffic. No significant transportation/circulation impacts would occur. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of concern 0 181 0 0 or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? 0 0 0 tg c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 0 tg oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 0 181 pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 181 t) Affect regional habitat preservation planning 0 0 0 181 efforts? Comments: The site is devoid of vegetation except for exotic plant material located in the drainage swale along the western property boundary. No animal species are present on-site. The site has not served as a wildlife dispersal corridor because the property has been fenced for several years. The area immediately south of the project site is a heavily vegetated riparian habitat associated with the Otay River. The Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan and the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan identifies the adjacent area as "open space/preserve area." Vincent N. Scheidt conducted a focused biological survey of the adjacent area to the south in March and April 2000. Riparian woodland vegetation is present immediately beyond the southern fence line of the property. Indicators in this habitat include Black and Arroyo Willow (Salix gooddingii, S. lasiolepis), Mule Fat (Baccharis glutinosa), San Diego Marsh Elder (Iva hayesiana), American Bulrush (Scirpus> olneyi), and Cattails (Typha latifolia). Also present in and along the periphery of the riparian area are noxious and weedy species, including Castor Bean (Ricinus communis), Tamarisk (Tamarix), Giant Wild Reed (Arundo donax), Indian Rice Grass (Oryzopsis miliacea), and others. These have degraded the riparian habitat to a degree, although this wetland is still of regional significance to area wildlife. The only animal species associated with the project site itself are locally common species, such as Housefinch (Carpodacus mexicanus), English Sparrows (Passer domesticus), House Mouse (Mus musculus), Western Fence Lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) and other vertebrates that are tolerant of or dependent upon development. The riparian area, however, supports a diversity of native species, including Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia), Yellow Warblers (Dendroica petechia), Least Bell's Vireos (Vireo bellii pusillus), and others. Utilization of the site will have no direct, adverse impacts to area wildlife or sensitive species. Only insignificant impacts, as defined by CEQA, to locally common species and weeds will result from site development. However, indirect impacts are considered potentially adverse and significant, as defined by CEQA. A number of obligate riparian songbirds were detected during the surveys for this report, including several sensitive species, and others are anticipated to occur in this area. These species could be adversely affected by noise created by the construction of the proposed power generating facility. Mitigation measures listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would reduce the potential .'" 8 6/26/00 - ....... Potentially Potentially Significant Less tban SigniflCanl Unless SignifICant ~o Impact Mitigated Impact Impact impacts to a less than significant level. Noise produced by the operation of the plant could result in adverse impacts to sensitive species occupying the riparian habitat south of the project site. An analysis of plant operation noise is contained in Section X ofthis Initial Study. Sources: City ofChula Vista, Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan February 21, 1997, p. 37. City of Chula Vista, Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, January 4, 2000 (Administrative Draft). Scheidt, Vincent N. A Biological Resources Survey Report for the Proposed PG&E Dispersed Generating Company Power Generating Plant, May 2000. VIll. ENERGY AND :MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 0 0 181 b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 181 inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource 0 0 0 181 protection, would this project impact this protection? Comments: The proposed facility is an electrical power generation plant designed to meet the local and regional electrical requirements as well as providing for regional transmission system and local distribution grid support. Providing transmission and distribution grid support as well as additional electrical capacity would enhance the reliability of electrical service to the San Diego region. The project site does not contain any !mown mineral resources. No significant energy or mineral resource impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: . a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 181 0 hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 181 0 health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 181 0 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 181 brush, grass, or trees? 9 6/26/00 - --. POIeDtiaUy Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Comments: Main Street is identified as an Evacuation Route in the City's General Plan (p. 8-6). The unmanned power plant, located south of Main Street, would not result in a significant impact to the City's emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because the plant would not require evacuation. Traffic congestion would not occur as a result of the plant's operation and maintenance. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan would be prepared in accord with the requirements of the County Department of Environmental Health requirements. The Business Plan would identify emergency response coordination with the City's emergency responders, emergency drills, and associated training. Hazardous materials that would be used at the proposed plant include transfonner oil, lubrication oil, cleaning fluids, and aqueous ammonia used in the control of NOx turbine emissions. The aqueous ammonia is the primary hazardous material of concern for accidental release. The aqueous ammonia would be in a 19% concentration, and would be stored in a single 12,000-gallon tank. A Risk Management Plan (RMP) that identifies safety procedures, accident prevention, analysis of external events, and emergency response procedures would be submitted to the County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division for approval as required by the California Accidental Release Program (CalARP). The RMP would identify the potential effects of accidental releases and design features to minimize risk. The design features would include containment benns and secondary containment as shown on the project site plan, emergency shutdown procedures, ammonia sensors, training procedures, emergency response, and other safety procedures required by CalARP. Preliminary modeling prepared for the project indicates no adverse health affects would be experienced under reasonable accident scenarios utilizing on-site control features required by the RMP. Final . modeling results would be submitted to the County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). The DEH would issue the RMP for public review and comment; public review is anticipated to occur in July 2000. Natural gas used to fuel the turbine would be delivered to the site by an extension of the existing underground natural gas line in Main Street. Natural gas from the underground line would be injected directly into the turbine and would not be stored on-site. Automatic shutoff valves would close the gas line in the event of a plant malfunction or ground shaking activity that could allow natural gas to escape to the atmosphere. An automatically operated fire suppression system would be installed at the facility to extinguish gas or electrical fires. . Flammable brush, grass, and trees are not present on-site or on the adjacent properties. The project would not result in a significant fire hazard x. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 181 0 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 181 0 0 Comments: The project site is surrounded by industrial land uses to the north, east, and west. The adjacent area to the south, within the City of San Diego, is designated as "open space/habitat preserve." The nearest residential property line is 360 feet west of the project site. The City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan requires that excessively noisy uses or activities adjacent to breeding areas, including temporary grading activities, must incorporate noise reduction measures or be curtailed during the .- 10 6/26/00 -'~"._---~----- - --. Po.enliall~· Potentially Significant Less than Si~nificaDt Unless Si¡:nilicant !lio Impact Miti~ated Impact Impact breeding season of sensitive bird species. The applicable noise standards are: · The City of ChuIa Vista Municipal. Code (§ 19,68.030) noise standard for light industrial land use areas is 70 dB during the hours of7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. on weekdays (8:00 AM. to 10:00 P.M. on weekends) and 70 dB during the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 AM. on weekdays (10:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. on weekends). · The City of Chula Vista Municipal. Code (§ 19.68.030) noise standard for residentia11and use areas is 55 dB during the hours of7:00 AM. and 10:00 P.M. on weekdays (8:00 AM. to 10:00 P.M. on weekends) and 45 dB during the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 AM. on weekdays (10:00 P.M. to 8:00 AM. on weekends). · The City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan (p.64) states that, "Construction noise within 500 feet of an occupied nest for the coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo and rap tors should not exceed 60 dB during the following periods: February 15 through August 15 for the coastal California gnatcatcher, March I through September 15 for the least Bell's vireo, and December 1 through June 31 for raptors. If grading activities are proposed within 500 feet of an occupied nest identified in a pre-construction survey during the applicable breeding season(s), noise reduction techniques, such as temporary noise walls or berms, shall be incorporated into the construction plans to reduce noise levels below 60 dB Leq. Outside the bird breeding season(s), no restrictions shall be placed on temporary construction noise. Noise sources associated with the proposed project can be identified within three categories: (1) construction noise; (2) mobile noise sources, generally consisting of noise from cars and trucks; and (3) stationary mechanical equipment operation. The Chula Vista Municipal Code exempts construction and demolition activities from its exterior noise level limitations. However, most municipalities consider construction activities on Sunday or Nighttime as intrusive. Construction noise will usually exceed typical background noise levels but will generally be for a short term and will generally occur during daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays. Mobile noise sources after construction is completed will consist of operations and maintenance vehicles that will contribute negligible overall noise to the area and will not further be considered. Noise from the stationary mechanical equipment will come from five dominant sources: · The two separate engine air intakes and single turbine exhaust. Full acoustic data is not currently available for these engines; however, initial engine'ering estimates are for each of these three openings generate about 140 dB(A) directly at the opening. · Direct noise radiation from the equipment, a currently unlrnown sound level, is estimated to be a maximum of 105 to 115 dB(A). · The high pressure reciprocating natural gas compressor is estimated to operate at 100 dB(A) at a distance of 10 feet from the unit. This is based on data taken at other natural gas compressors. The manufacturer will supply actual data at the time of unit specification. · The high volume air blower for generator cooling is estimated it to operate at 100 dB(A) at intake and exhaust openings. Full acoustic data is not currently available for the blower. · Noise data for the absorption chillers and pumps, to be located inside the turbine enclosure, is not currently available. The manufacturer will supply sound data at the time of unit specification. . 11 6/26/00 - --. Potentially Potentially SignifiCant Less than Si~njficant Unless Significant l'iu Impact ;Iliti~ated Impact Impact The stationary mechanical equipment could produce noise levels as high as 130 dB(A) at the property line if noise control measures are not included in the plant design. Precise noise data for each component in the plant is not available at this time because specific pieces of equipment to be insta1led have not been selected. Consequently, it is not possible to provide a final noise control system design at this time. A variety of conventional noise reduction techniques would be included in the plant design. Noise reduction techniques would be insta1led, as needed, to reduce noise levels to 60 dB at the property line. Noise reduction techniques that would be utilized have noise reduction characteristic as fo1lows: Technique Noise Reduction In Line Silencer 2 to 5 dB per foot Louvers 10 to 20 dB per unit Lined Right Angle Turns in Ducts 4 to 8 dB per turn Lined Covers at Inlet/Exhaust 4 to 8 dB (one per unit) Noise Containment Wa1ls 6 to 18 dB per unit Note: TIle actual values of sound reduction are frequency and unit dependent. These values are intended only as an overview of capabilities. As can be seen from the above list, 20 feet of silencer at 3 dB per foot (60 dB) plus two right angle turns (6 dB / turn), a louver (15 dB), and a cover (6 dB), provide approximately 93 dB reduction in noise. Therefore, noise from each of two combustion engine inlets at 140 dB(A) should be reduced to 47 dB(A). While this is relatively quiet, it should be noted that if a1l of the individual noise generating components are summed after reduction to an equivalent level for the five known listed noise generating components listed above, the sum of the noise would equal almost 57 dB(A). This analysis is not intended as a final description of techniques for this project. The final analysis would include specific details including fu1l frequency analysis for each system component. Portions of the project require special consideration for the noise mitigation systems. These include: . The 900-degree (Fahrenheit) system exhaust. This will require silencing systems designed to ensure ongoing system functionality. . The high-pressure natural gas compressor. The State of California mandates open-air ventilation requirements; these must be maintained by the noise quieting system. A final set of mitigation measures cannot be defined at this time because precise noise data for each component of the plant is not currently available because specific pieces of equipment to be installed have not been selected. Consequently, it is not possible at this time to define a final noise control system design that will reduce noise levels to 60 dB(A) at the property line. However, a six-step mitigation program has been prepared that assures compliance with the City of Chula Vista Noise Ordinance standards and the 60 dB(A) guideline contained in the City of Chula Vista draft MSCP Subarea Plan. The six-step mitigation program is contained in the attached Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Implementation of this mitigation program would reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 . ."" 0 0 181 12 6/26/00 - ..... Potenlially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Vnless Significant :-;0 Impact f\.titi~atcd Impact Impact b) Police protection? 0 0 0 ø c) Schools? 0 0 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 r81 e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 r81 Comments: No new or altered governmental services would be required to serve the project. The Fire Department has specified that the existing access road be improved to a minimum 20-foot wide all weather driving surface between Main Street and the project site. No impact to schools would occur because the project would not generate any students. School fees would be paid as required by the school districts. Development impact fees and traffic signal fees would be paid as required by the City of Chula Vista fee schedule. Fire and police protection can be adequately provided to the site. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the 0 0 0 r81 City's 171reshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the Threshold Standards. a) FirelEMS 0 0 0 r81 The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard would be met, since the nearest fire station is three miles away and would be associated with a six-minute response time. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The fire/EMS threshold would be met as reported by the Fire Department. b) Police 0 0 0 r81 The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average respons,e time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project would comply. with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The police threshold would be met as reported by the Police Department. c) Traffic 0 0 0 181 The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: As indicated by the Traffic Section of the City's Engineering Division comments, the traffic threshold would be met because the project would result in only two or three trips per week. . 13 6/26/00 - - Potentially Potentially SigoiflCant Less than Significant Unless Significant 1\0 Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Parks/Recreation 0 0 0 ø The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3-acres/l ,000 population. The proposed project would not result in additional population. Comments: No additional park and recreation facilities would be required because the project would not increase the population of the City of Chula Vista. e) Drainage 0 0 0 ø The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects would provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The project is designed to comply with all of the City Engineering Standards, Drainage Master Plan requirements, and RWQCD regulations. Section I above describes the proposed on-site drainage facilities. The project design would be consistent with the drainage threshold standard. t) Sewer 0 0 0 ø The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects would provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: No sewer facilities are proposed to be installed at the power plant facility. g) Water 0 0 0 ø The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and those water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: Potable water would be extended to the·site from the existing water main in Main Street. Potable water would be used only for the dririking needs of operating personnel and equipment maintenance. The natural gas turbine and other equipment would be air-cooled and would not require water for cooling purposes or operation. However, the plant may choose to use water injection for a more efficient pollution control. Inlet chilling may be used to minimize power output degradation due to high ambient temperature. These uses, if utilized, would range fi-om 3,000 gallonslhr to 6,000 gallonslhr. The operation of the power plant facility would not result in a significant impact to the City of Chula Vista water system. xm. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 ø b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 ø p 14 6/26/00 - ......, PotentiaUy Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant :-\0 Impact Mitigated Impact Impact C) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 [8i facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 0 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 Ií':I í) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 Ií':I Comments: Electrical service would be obtained from circuits located on the existing 69 kVelectrical transmission line along the eastern property line. An underground natural gas line would be extended to the site from the existing natural gas line in Main Street. An underground telephone line would be extended to the site from the nearest available service. Water service would be extended to the site from the existing water main in Main Street. Sewer service is not proposed to be installed at the facility; however, it should be noted that an existing sewer line crosses the property in and east-west direction along the northern property line. The project site would be graded to drain to a new catch basin at the southwest corner of the site. This catch basin would discharge into an existing drainage swaJe that is part of the City of Chula Vista stonn drain system. A negligible quantity of solid waste would be generated by the unmanned power plant. New services systems, or substantial alteration of existing systems, would not be required for the operation and maintenance of the power plant. XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the 0 0 0 Ií':I public or would the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a scenic 0 0 0 Ií':I route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 181 0 d) Create added light or glare sources that could 0 0 0 181 increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? 0 0 0 181 Comments: The project site is not located in the viewshed of an identified scenic route, vista, or view; The site is located in an industrially zoned area and is surrounded on the north and east by existing industrial development. The currently vacant property to the west was previously used for an industrial activity, and is planned for reuse as an industrial activity. An existing single-family residential area is located westerly of the vacant property. The project site is screened from westerly views by mature vegetation along the drainage swale that parallels the western property line and by fencing along the drainage swale. Single-family residences are located 1,350 feet to the south across the Otay River valley. These residences are elevated approximately 40 feet above the project site, and have a distant downwar? . h 15 6/26/00 .._-.... - --. Potentially Potentially SignifK:ant Less thaD Signifocant Unless SignifocaDt No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact view across the project site. The distant southerly views of the site are partly obscured by mature trees along the southern property line. The proposed power plant project would not result in a significant impact to views from the north, east, west, or from the distant southerly views. The Otay Valley Regional Park is located immediately south of the project site. The dense riparian vegetation along the river channel extends to the southern boundary of the site. This vegetation completely screens the site from view to hikers using the existing trails along the river channel. Consequently, the proposed power plant would not result in a significant visual impact to trail users. The Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan shows a conceptual tTail along both sides of the river channel. However, the alignment of the trails is at a concept stage and an exact alignment has not been identified. Given the location of the existing trail along the north side of the channel, and the configuration of properties abutting the park, the future trail alignment is likely to be located near the existing trail. Thus, it is anticipated that the power plant would not have a demonstTable negative aesthetic effect on future trail or park users. No night lighting of the facility is proposed except for required safety lighting. Implementation of City Code standards would reduce light and glare produced by the installation of safety lights to a less than significant level. The project landscape plan proposes a ten-foot high chain-link fence with opaque screening slats around the perimeter of the site. Tristania conferta and Pinus canariensis tTees in 15-gallen and 24-inch boxes are proposed to be planted along both sides of the fence with grouping of trees in selected locations. The existing slopes along the eastern property boundary would be planted with one-gallon Cotoneaster dammeri, four-feet on center. The proposed fencing and landscaping would further screen the power plant from off-site views. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the 0 0 0 181 destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or 0 0 0 181 aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential-to cause a 0 0 0 181 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or 0 0 0 181 sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan 0 0 0 181 EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: There are no known cultural resources on the project site, or in the immediate surrounding area. The site has been previously filled with imported material from an unknown source. Consequently, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to cultural resources. XVI. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the 0 0 0 181 ."" 16 6/26/00 - -, Potentially Potentially SignifICant Less than Signiracant Unless Significanl No 1m pact Mitigaled Impact Impacl proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: The site has been graded and imported fill material placed on-site. Adjacent areas to the east and west have been similarly graded and filled. There are no known paleontological resources on the site or in the adjacent area. The extent of proposed grading is limited; therefore no potential impacts to paleontological resources are anticipated. XVII. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 t8I regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 t8I c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation plans 0 0 0 t8I or programs? Comments: There are no recreational facilities in the vicinity of the site other than the 0tay Valley Regional Park located to the south. The proposed power plant would not result in significant impacts to the park as discussed in Section XIV (Aesthetics) above. Existing and/or future uses of the park would not be significantly impacted by the power plant. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 t8I 0 0 quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop 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 the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: A number of obligate riparian songbirds were detected, including several sensitive species, and others are anticipated to occur in this area. All of these could be adversely affected by noise created by the proposed power generating facility. Such effects can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures included in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 t8I short-term, to, the disadvantage of long-term, environ43Xenvironmental goals? Comments: The construction and operation of Peak Load Power Plant at this location would not result in a significant impact to adopted long-term environmental goals of the City ofChula Vista as stated in the General Plan and other adopted planning documents. c) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 t8I individually limited, but cumulatively . ... 17 6/26/00 - -, PotentiaUy PotentiaUy Significant Less than SignifICant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact considerable? (" Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: There are no recently completed projects, current applications, or reasonably foreseeable applications in the vicinity of the project site. d) Does the project have environmental effects 0 0 t2I 0 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: No substantial adverse effects on human beings would result from installing a gas turbine Peak Load Power Plant at the proposed project site. Please see Section IX for a discussion of potential hazards associated with the project. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: The following project revisions have been incorporated into the project and would be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: None. The mitigation measures listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been incorporated into the project and would be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: . 18 6/26/00 - -, XX. AGREEMENT 1,-, IMPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASù.riliS By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company=s authority to and do agree to the mitigation measures contained herein, and would implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental & Planning Manager for the Community Development Department. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this [Mitigated] Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicants= and/or Operator=s desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of [Property Owner's Name] Signature of Authorized Representative of Date [Property Owner's Name] Printed Name and Title of [Operator if different from Property Owner] Signature of Authorized Representative of Date [Operator if different from Property Owner] . . 0"" 19 6/26/00 - -... XXI. ENVIRONMENT AL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potential1y affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. OLand Use and Planning o Transportation/Circulation o Public Services o Population and Housing . Biological Resources o Utilities and Service Systems o Geophysical o Energy and Mineral Resources o Aesthetics o Water o Hazards o Cultural Resources o Air Quality . Noise o Recreation o Paleontology l~ Mandatory Findings of Significance XXII. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, 0 and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fmd 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 on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA TION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 0 at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 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 all potentially significant effects 0 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been ~~rd :ili~deœ~riOn. 0'~S-ÔO Signature r Date Brian Hunter Planning & Environmental Manager . .'" City of Chula Vista 20 6/26/00 ë ..!!! a... ..... Q) ~ 0 a... "tJ CO 0 ..J ~ CO Q) a... >- c CO a. E 0 (,) C> C :¡:;¡ CO .... Q) c Q) lig (9 "tJ ¡t~ Q) . (/'J ¡¡W1!' .... Q) w::iEw a. ~~.'~ (/'J ::, ? i5 ,~ ..:£ ë ë ë ~~'r '·¡ø: .~ .~ ro LU fO" .~ oð ã. ã. ã. (9 10:::: a. a. a. <I: <I: <I: a... a. C> z ~ 0::: 0 a.' x 'w '0::: .¡ C Z x x ..... <C ø Q) OJ Z··· C1J æ 0... 0 cð C c:.9 c: Z· 0 0 0 +=1:: Ü u 0 ::iE' ()a. () a.() a. ¡go:: <J) Z; c: - .... - ~ WO': :!2~~ -0 ëi) ir¡1 ~jë3 ü: ë .<C. o Q) ê5 . 0"'0 Q) 'ø" - U _ Q) ra» .c:.z:.Q) E .~ è:' <J) c: ra è:' ro .c Q) iií ~ Q) a..-.... mø ~-~ro>=ø ~~5 ~Q ø~ ..c ::iEf o 25~ ~~25~~E æõra~=ü~>8 u ~ Ë~~~~ =E~E~0rn ~c3~~~ro~O~ :;:¡: -o¡~Q)- £~~Q)o~Q)~Q)~B~<J)oQ)ro§<J) B0~E~ ~~Q);E'~5ro~~~~~ê5=;~ ~~~§~ U~D~~~~~5So.~am.5~g~ o.cE~~ Q)-o~~.9-Q)rac:~bO~~-<J)~<I: C) ~=eo< 5~~ ·~~u~·-~G~<~~t~~ ... Oro~ªID ~wø~~.5c~~oo .2 UDOc~ :J g~-oQ)"'" o<J)o>~'Q)EQ)C)o.croQ)ra~8o <J) -<J)~""E roR£oS£~Q)i£üraQ)~~....»~ ra C) !~~~o ðegE~~.º;~o~¿~~~ø~ro :¡¡ .~ o..-..t:: 0.<1)~""C U-J::. C'IJ- Q) 0 CI_·c::.c.,- ~ c: =~øo E _ Q)_u__~o'-crom~'-~ ra ra ~ c: ,-0 Q) Q) c: Q) E c: 2 ~ <J) .- ra ü .- - a. ". -0 .c .2 ~D-C.Q -50DEQ)--Q)ac~u~.c::cQ)Q) ñí :Q)~~~ ~ø~B·-~~E~~~~§EQ)~~~ g _00_00. -~~Q)""CEo_ - coc.c.O ~~~2Q) øc~u~_OO~D$O~e=~~~ :¡¡ _~""C-£ ~~øc~Q)Q)c.c.rouo~.-ooowE 2 . 1!1 ê 0 'S t= § oS! iií ~ £,g <J) ~.~ Õ -0 ê: c: 8 == e 0~8C cr~uQ)CQ)Q)m0 _ cwo 0~ ~æu'C: Q)<J)è:'..c::·-uuuQ)oa..§raQ)~ ~-o --uo~ ....» -Q)c:raouc: -()..c::-OO~O go.oz"'C §~~~~~~~~~Ej~-C~~~ I c:c: -0 ~Q)oc:roo~..c::-==c:a.<J)o8==.ca. è:'00~Q) u....a.o ~- Q)E-- 0 ~ ~ <J).!::' .... E ,- ~ .!: 0 c: c: E U -0 Q) = Q) Q) ~uu~~~2~ -~-- ·ø·- Oøø~O~~ ~~~~g~~~~~g·~i.~~i§~·~E~;~~ E¡gê<l:....~§~ra.9~Q)ü~E5~£a.E£i~E ~oo~~øu~~~cØ~UIDØC_Ø~Õ ro~ ~uo~ro~~~rn£~£wg~>w<=~cB=ü 0 0 -- ..... N M (") N - ~ -- CD 0 ë .!!1 a. L- "". OJ ~ 0 a. "tJ ro 0 -I ~ ro OJ a. >- c: ro a. E 0 ü C) c: :;:; ro L- OJ c: OJ C> "tJ OJ . If) L- OJ a. .~ ë 0 ro W .~ oð 0.. C> a. a. <t: C) :z ¡:: c::: 0 D. x W c::: c :z C\I <C , C) OJ 0) :z Ct1 æ a.. 0 t:: c :z ,2 0 Ü :E. w a. '" :z E 0 " ~ ¡:: Q) ü: ë <C w C) w OJ .~£:æ -æ rñ <1> C ê . u (; ~ 0 cQ.) E I- iB..c Q) Q; ~ 8- 0 .Q,-'-~ -æ "C 0'- ~Q) ro.c ..... .r::. :E -"C(f)oc = __ {/)co <0 .'" .s 0 ~ ¡ß E ãJ ': ~ 2 ïñ '" .J::. :;: C t) 8 '" c·- ",.- Q).c c: Q) .. ~Q)§OO c:~ ro'" Q)~ ~§ ~~ ~ ß ro"*'~'~ g§¡-5¡:: ~ ~~;;~ ~ '-:Eo-:=- oS ,-c c -co. ::U)--- ~ co..roQ)~_C: = "O"'C~o.Q e:.-~oo -§.c gg O>Q) ~ ¡ß "'Oë ¡ß E ro E C:.S '" ~g-,-.~ 2"" XO _~Q)z 08 roro c:~ ~~ .swæ w. c"o ro C)a.>.a e-õ- ~~.æ m- Q)Q.)~5 .~~ u~ ~- ~~ æEID ~~ o 0 Q) c: e ro 0:::: ro a." c: Q) ~ a....J"'Q)cnEo :Q'(3 0)"'0 wOO Q)Q)C - :.= Q).s::::. ~ ~ c: (I) .~ .£ E 0 Q) ª ~~2-- -~~~ ~c E< ~~Q) ~~ Q) g.cl-ogQ).c"'O", o";::E>-~ Crn22~~c~Q ~~ ~ =~£ -.~ ~ ~=. ,-roroQ) OQ)Q)'tro CO::J-;::QJ'-OOQ,)(/) I~ Q)() '-rn- UJE :::I Q)0Q)"'~.s.c=.c", <t: .c.J::. ~Q)E " '" 1;) co g ~ C) ~ L..- '- '- CD 0.0.. Q) (I) ~oo£E_Q)~~"'O~ Q)~ :;:- ¡ßEe ~~ III c{¡¡.!!1ro:§",Q)~2 .cC:Ea.e CI) o >"ro~~'_ro =.Q·-e~ ~(i)o"C~E-c~~"" £:: ~-g c:'O..... OJ..... :E ~ 5~ -~ Q; 0..2 g :: ~ 0 ~ 0."C ~'" æQ)Q)Q)o02 Q)O~"'ro oc>- 0.0 c: O"(ñ:J Q) CJ:;:..o....... u . (/j 2_ Q) ~ =O$"'O...J~~Q).J::.o '" Q)Q)~ .J::.roro -E .~ a. c: c: W" 't a. '" ro ~ wI;:::'" ~ a.. ~ c: .2 ë ~ B ~ ~.Q>'~ @ .~ ~ ë êñ ro:5 e :s Q) ro -g - Q.) U) fJ) 'S _ ~ 'ü "0 0 . E æ co ø::J -:a Q)__t5Q)~Q)Ee=~§~roo. ë~E~~~o¡ßëc 'joQ)C:~~~Q)~ ~~ CI E c: 0'!!!.!!1<:;; E.Q-a.~a.o '" '" 0> rn-Q> 0 ..c_ØcoQ) C.C.-m-E'-a.> ,-c ==~,~roU)Õ~~EE~"'gJ"'~cQ) g- ·~·Ë :E B-å.z-. ~ 0 ::J :J ::J"E Q) Q) Q) Q) ã3's ªQ)~§~",~ü~Q)O)ë~~a.o>Eë"'O~8~ c_u ro :.ê0 gQ) 0.££:S > 0 c~Q);£u~~~~Cø~"-Ec~m£0ro~ro Q)ro Eox>_Ee-o>"'~~ 00~roCQ)o~"'--E ~-=>E~-tEW E C Q) .~ w .c 0 ~ a. 0 C ro C o Q)zo--cEo~Q)O '-.J::.Q)w "'~ .c E <;:: ;; Q) E Q) .21 ~ 0 Q) £J .;:: ~ ~ ~ _-~ ._~roro_-O~~øoo-_œ~~~- 8 Q)......£ c.c:o.g~ ~::J ::J ~N-c:~.cßEroo>=~oo;;Q)·~"'O~ro- >ro £Oc:C5:ë..: ==.s:?~o0Q) -Q)O>~ =- UcO'" o>~c",-_Q)Q).c _ - -'--rom ::Jro-ro> Q).... c: 0.... ~ 0 "0 .- ro ~ '- en VJ en c."S.~~ ~ ~~êi.i"E"'O Q)..c (/)1Q 10 CD g- =- en :5 0 g "'0 ~ .3 ~ æ 3: _ ~"_ ë ~ "0 ~>-~Q)O -~ocE-"'~ü"'E~cOQ)Q) .9.~ ~ ~ro cñ~ cñ·~~;õ 8::;~ 8tQ)E&~~~8~ro=~~a.Q)w_a.~~~~ '- ~"êñ ro E ~ a. a. ~CD ~ ~ Q) en :?' <t:oE<t:U)~roa.<t:rog<t:ro~É££~~ß~zg .2 ro :; .c:; ro E E ro "'0 0 a..!!1 ro ~ ~c:roQ)"'-o~c:oo",oQ)cc ~ ro "'.0 w,S 0 a.ro<D<t: ro c E" . . . . . . . c: c:i 0 oZ :WCD 0 C'CI'- -- CI~ N C') - f) N :::111 ._, ~I :ECD :E ë ro ã: ~ () 3 .. 0 a.. -c ro 0 ....J ~ ro () a.. >. c ro a. E 0 <.:> C) .£ ro ~ () c () <D "E -c .~ () "E f/) "E ~ c. ~ 0. () .~ c. « a. f/) C. 0. is 0. « « w oð x <D x a.. C') , CD X CJ ro a.. c 0 'õ c Õ cD 0. .2 c U) 13 0 .£ cD -¡¡; "C 0. U) Qj U) 'Ë 15 .£ ü: "C .Do. => cD cD en.... e iL ro -g"E ~ c -;¡; 08 o cD:: .- 0> · ~ ~ ->. > cffi - 8 · 'I..c.s _~ c ·5 ~ ~~~~. £È. ~c () n --. ~ D.... 8Ul S~ E · -·c~ .-CO. . o ~-- B ~.o-B ~~c _. ..c:. ~. c. ~ c>~~ .. S. u c~.ac ~ 0.... -.~ '2 $ ·ÕC.E ~ Uffi''':5 EO>- E¡¡ ~ ¡~~.. u 1~lls .!ci~ I~ C~"Õ.. ~C~E¿~~U".. ~o Q) aB··~ - ~·,.O"_ .jj. C .~ ... ·~~~8 ~ ~~~~~~~~_~ c~g ~~ I :J ·e... I c--"'I..u g., ~. en O.E~~. s¿5~~~.C'E oEg i.. ro z·.ou § ~.mC".t'8_ U"_ DES Q) :!: I..£.~..~ IU~mm"8.~'1 3¡¡iJ ~"'''' c -. ·E·->~ -'O··-..n..~. "0 .2 ~8···.0 ~I-·g~æu£t c.1 olD c ~ ~ · c.;;, . c ~ ~ - · m%~ 0 '.:>. u c. (¡j oC_.o·c -8.co·C" ~ .-- ~o c¡ ·-a·~-o_ · ~'_·..-a.c. EOc; _._£ ·.·~gc~m .~ ~~.~_g~ _c~~ :D. :!: E.o_"~_c - x .'-'oc >-0 _. . . -uc.~cc. ~c·l-cc~~. ..2~.EbC. ."~ C.O. -..-~'O·EE .."-....gE ·Õ.~ooE" ···~.jj:>E . ..~OZZ8~. ·...u~.~ '~-c3 .ca. 00_ c~ £...c~.. aE?·~_.o . -O~ c.~al~l§ 'o·m'~ls§~ ...~u. ~OEcD::.D ~uo.rocD8 co.E ... ~c .... £~~~5ro«W:> LL_ . . LO ...... ~ ~ (") "E 0 ~ 'V J ----r- J .~, .1 . !ì /'~ ~ ~ r:. r- \ ' D V\ .1J4'D 0 \ ! ! I \ ~ i \ .¡/\~ : U ~ ~ ~ \ )trOOf'tvr, ' Y \ 1,,'-" of' <) - \ l Wet>- ~a~ l, ~~CL 52.2 Future Power Plant Development New Generation to Replace the Hunters Point Power Plant and Meet Increased Electricity Demand In its July 9,1998 agreement with the City and County of San Francisco, PG&E agreed to cease using and decommission its Hunters Point Power Plant within San Francisco once replacement generation and/or transmission facilities are in place. The City and PG&E have agreed to "advocate the expeditious development of capacity (generation and/or transmission) to replace the Hunters Point Power Plant in order to ensure continued electric reliability in San Francisco in a manner which minimizes adverse community and environmental impacts." In light of this agreement, it appears reasonably foreseeable that, by 2005, generation and/or i transmission facilities to serve the City of San Francisco will have been approved and Ä/ constructed, and the Hunters Point Power Plant will no longer be operating. (1) ~ -, By 2005, demand for electricity within the City of San Francisco is expected to increase (this is known as "load growth"). Peak electricity demands in the City are expected to increase by roughly 10 megawatts (MW) per year between 1998 and 2005. The forecasted increase in demand is not a result ot: or directly related to, divestitme~ it is expected to occur whether or not PG&E's plants are sold In order to sati.sty this projected increase in demand and to maintain the system reliability criteria of the Bay Area Reliability Requirements and the San Francisco Operating Criteria (see Section 4.12.1), new generation and transmission facilities added to the San Francisco electrical system to replace the Hunters Point Power Plant would need to be of sufficient capacity to also meet load growth. The precise manner in which the electricity needs currently satisfied by the Hunters Point Power Plant, in conjunction with the City of San Francisco's load growth, will be accommodated in the future is not known. Indeed, it would be speculative at this time to presume that any particular generation or transmission iIDprovement(s) will ultimately be constructed. Such facility improvements will likely occur only following extensive system planning studies and with coordination among generating plant owners (including the new owner of the Potrero Power Plant). the City of San Francisco, PG&E (which will continue to own transmission lines, and to own and operate the Hunters Point Power Plant until it is replaced) and the Independent System Operator (ISO) (which is responsible for system reliability). A new electricity generating facility would require project-specific environmental review, and approval of a certification to construct úom the California Energy Commission (CEC), as well as local building permits. Any new or upgraded tr:m!l:1t1i~on facilities would require project-specific environmental review, and approval úom the CPUC. The exact size, mix and location of facilities that willultimafely be proposed and approved to replace the Hunters Point Power Plant is speculative. However, in order to portray and evaluate (in at least a generalized nature given the piucity of definitive data and plans) the maximum potential for change in the conte>."t of the cumulative impact analysis for this project, it is assumed for purposes of this EIR that new generation facilities would be constructed by 2005 to serve the City's electricity needs. This cumulative analysis assumes that the new facilities would consist of two new combined<ycle electric generating units sized at 240 MW each (totaling 480 MW). These units could comprise a wholly new power plant located somewhere on the San Francisco peninsula north of the Martin Substation in San Mateo County, including anywhere \\ithin the City and County of San Francisco. Alternatively, these units could be located on the same site as, or adjacent to. the Potrero Power Plant and could thus be considered an expansion of that plant As discussed below, this cumulative impact analysis also considers as a variant the construction of a new 240 MW generating plant (as opposed to 480 MW), in combination with a new transmission line into the City along the San Francisco Peninsula transmission corridor (see Section 5.3.3, Cumulative Effects Under Variant 1). - - Plants with Awroved, Pending or Expected Applications Information provided by the CEC indicates one power plant with the necessary certification to construct pending final siting and issuance of local building permits. It is described below: . The San Francisco Energy Facility is proposed to be built by the San Francisco Energy Company (a joint venture between AES Pacific, Inc. and Southern Natural Gas). It is intended to be a combined-cycle cogeneration plant capable of generating up to 240 MW. The facility would generate electricity and steam using natural gas or other process gas. San Francisco Energy Company has evaluated two sites in the Mission BaylPotrerolBayview-Hunters Point area of San Francisco. Final site plans and agreements have not been ~mpleted.. There is no announced date for construction to commence, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors issued a Resolution in 1996 opposing the siting of this power plant However, San Francisco Energy Company is still attempting to locate a site where the proposed power plant could be built. The EIR does not factor the San Francisco Energy Facility into the cumulative impacts analysis in Section 5.3.2. Instead, as discussed above, the cumulative analysis assumes that electricity demand and load growth within San Francisco would be satisfied by a new 480 MW power plant. If such a new plant were constructed, it does not appear that the San Francisco Energy Facility would be needed to meet demands in 2005. However, the construction of a new 240 MW power pJant somewhere north of the Martin Substation (which could be at or near the Potrero Power Plant site) is examined, in conjunction with new tram:mi~on facilities, as a cumulative variant in Section 5.3.3. Such a new 240 MW power plant could be the proposed 240 MW San Francisco Energy Facility, or it could be an entirely new proposed 240 MW geneIating plant. Information ¡xovided by the CEC lists seven other potential power plant siting cases in California. They are: Pittsburg District Energy Facility, Pittsburg, Contra Costa County (500 MW); Otay Mesa Power Plant, San Diego County (660-700 MW); High Desert Power Plant, Victorville, San Bernardino County (680-830 MW); Sutter Power, Yuba 'City, Sutter County (500 MW); Pioneer Power, Livingston, Merced County (113 MW); Sunlaw Cogeneration Partners I Power Plant, Vernon. Los Angeles County (800 MW); and La Paloma Generating Plant, McKittrick, Kern County (1,000 MW). These power plants are in the early stages of application development and review. On average. permitting takes from 2-3 years before construction may start It is unknown at this time which of these power plants, if any, will ultimately be fully permitted and built. However, it is reasonably foreseeable that one or more will eventually be constructed The following provides a brief description of each of these potential power plants (Haussler, 1998): . The Pitßtmg District Energy Facility (PDEF) is proposed by Pittsburg District Energy, liC (a joint venture between the City ofPittsburg, Enron, and USS-Posco Industries). The power plant would include a combined-cyc1e combustion tmbine generator with a nominal capacity of 500 MW. The plant would be located on a 12~cre site on East 3rd Street, west of the intersection of East 3rd Street and Columbia Street in the City ofPittsburg in Contra Costa County. The site is located on the northwest comer of the property owned by USS-Posco Industries. The project would require construction of ancillary facilities, including a new electric transmission line, natwal gas pipeline, sewer line and a reclaimed water line. Reclaimed water for turbine cooling would be supplied by the Delta Diablo Wastewater Treatment Facility located in the City of Antioch. The combined-cycle unit would be fueled by natural gas. It is expected that 10 percent of the generating capacity of the plant would be dedicated to USS-Posco Industries, while the remaining 90 percent would go to - - the power grid for distribution. The AFC was filed on June 15, 1998. From that date, the CEC has one year to reject or approve the application. The project sponsor hopes to begin plant operations as early as January I, 2001. . The Otay Mesa Power Plant is proposed by US Generating, Inc., an unregulated affiliate of PG&E. The plant would be a merchant power plant with a generating range of 660 to 700 MW to be located in southern San Diego County near the California-Mexico border. The facility is proposed to be a four unit natural gas-fired peaking plant The project proponent may convert the plant in the future to a combined-cycle plant :md is planning the electric transmission line size and circuitry to be able to handle either peaking loads or a combined-cycle's more continuous operating profile. The project would require the construction of ancillary facilities, including 69 kilovolt (kV) and 230 kV electrit; transmission lines, a natural gas pipeline, water and wastewater pipelines and access roads. US Generating, Inc. plans to file its AFC with the CEC in December of 1998. T E R)3..Y THOMAS CHULA YISTA 619 ~5 4564 P 03 !,"I:IIr',j'I"'~III~""111".I~.'I,!!,,~.(,.r;yø;JI:"'(;I/f'I.N.\t..detlu,lt. html Ittlp:/rwww.gCl1_pse.ç(~!n1 J:lOV 1·,"Mr1l~_ "'""I......" "'"""" )II ~"~H:!.\ '" ~~""';!lf ds.tHP .';..r"~~'~'" '~~tl !plo"JI:'~~nt. '" ~~~~~~!!!ß!!!l..~,\i 0", ",.. ._,~~, ) QX) N tJ r--- "~S -TZ) :;;;L-.( -- ~cc_, Rf.,\gi<U1S. f--H+Nt) 0 lJ-r C-HO) {-~ ()~·o M l~taM!~p., c¿:~r) rJ&- q6 J - J 1--ð{) ~\ ~'._:n ¡:~í1''''ª- M~!:~ ~~J §QY[!1!1,¡'!~ M~:;6!.~~;. ,~:!!:!~:¡j!!:t AU S.lb:~s ~~ln~~ ~j[.~,:~~,~¡.!tnn ªß!t~l?n_.e,~1.i.~!t ~ìtffi~!i!~n !;~II~:n'ij'~1 e~Il1t ÇI~!I!r.!}ªï !:I:~!\¡\ofi\)~W ,li:):\@I..!i1!1~~m .!...!.r,\!'1i:Uii'bJ r:~.¡:i:"I!r.~~~m! L¡~:IIq~lJJ..bø.l¡ !:J!¡t~:t!!!ëkm J.D:I:ì.~:~!n!Q'!1II} "~"¡!.PI~Ioo:~ª L,fj~:~!&li(j L9!!:¡}n NERC Region Key MII!)~;mt!H, wscc . Western Systéms Coordinating Council J~~~ìm!m~ St~:i!!!ŒJ ,M!¡~~jlJW"!:11;t MAPP " Mid-Continent Area þ~( POJOI !~!!il!I,¡mI\.J!n 5PP - Southwest Power Pool ti<~t~1!:~;!n ERCOT " Electric Reliability Counoll of TQJŒlS t{Q~1t@.m!;1!!!.!J. J::~,!!!I~~p!y < I MAIN - Mid-Amer'IGa Int"rconnectéd Net.work !;Ui1!J(J~!~~~i!~ WÐ\'L N ~ ECAR - East Central Area Retlabllity Coordination Agreement f~'!!.mtl(¡¡[ J:.\!= MAAC - Mkt-At1antic Anla Council F~¡:~Jì!!fJ. --1~O ¥\ 6~) ~ NPCC - Northeast Po~r Coordinating Council ~1"!~InJ:i~!J.ð!t SERC - Southea5tem Electrio RellablUty Council §,Jl!jgn 6'Y-lVi spp - Sootl1we$t Power Pool ~:gJ,l)t¡¡n!{i,!\! g',llklil5 FL - Florida ReUabllity Cooro:linating Counçil PG8'LE GEmerating (PG&E Gen) and any other company referenced herein that uses the PG&E rlam~} or logo are not the same company as Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the regulated California utility. Neither PG&E Gen nor these other referenced companies are regulat~~d by the California Public Utílities Commjssk">n. Customers of Pacific Gas and Electric Company do not have to buy products from these companies in order to continue to receive quality regu'atedS~i~~~omlh~iit;') / WWW4 ~Y~NÞ lP g~ . COW\J/ -PLLC.-L / Pll)Jrit- - ~e-f ~. ~t~ Q. I nf 1 7/17/00 S.O~, :1':,;, TER~ THOMAS CHULA VISTA 619 4~ 4564 P.01 ;ost;:l;¡X ~~~~72 i<J M i>4f~ (i) :~NL~~~~\ ',,"'III,)ar,! ('~. ~ A \f l;TI\- ~ LA-N tJ J 1J 6·9ompany i'r1lì 110 :{L ¡? '\ ¿ \/ l,,""" R'f {(7 "~. r-t/ 1,161 ,-" "' fJO . " :.: t1 0 -t ~ß ~ \ ,-.. --. Cðj4' L -2 7·,,~ \2 ¡ ., "00" ",." r """' [ ] "'"'" I J C. ''''''''0 ~-\Q~ ~~~~ f\~-~ ~ - ",./ ,-. ~jv, . y \ " ~þ \ . . ~('\t} tD'f() ß \'f. YJ et~\Yìø . ~ ~ øl w~ (J.\"I:':'!"'lli,'¡:¡'v:· N¡¡ji'[)u·Inl17.m~I'ßY (j{oup http://www.p,gecorp,COjIJfO'\l'l'>J'\i';m'I1!'"'II.!!tQI.1 I~ PG&E COI'PtJ1'1ItíOl1' I¡, .""""""""""."."_"_..... ...........----"... -..-- ,....-.-.--.. .....-.-.-. ."....~__......-"".".""...-_",."'_......,,.,...........,-.--- M_ ...___..____.....__._.-0........ ..-..--..---..........-...............,......... lIome fI..dcal IIda National Energy Group With regJonal offices from coast to coast, PG&E Corporation's Natíonal Energy Group Is one of the nation's leading competitive power producers. has natural gas facilities that connec.1 major pro<tucing regions to some of the fastest-growing markets În North America I and operates on8 of the top energy trading businesses in the country. · 30 power plants in 10 states It More than 10,000 megawatts In new power plant development and construction · Generation portfolio of 7,000 megawatts · Ability to transport 2.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day from CO$t~competitive. abundant supplies in Western Canada · Interconnects to 6 natural gas pîpelines · Trading volume in 1999: 224."' million megawatt-hours of power 8.43 billion clIbic feet per day of natural gas , ~~~.~"t;.-ºs:!;LIntll~1\l!}10l1 ~ \··,,0)1- tJ k~ ~~r'--o . ;~G~E G~oerating ~ ....-----....- f.Ç~¡; EnolJ!'LTLadir rib C;-eJ<l etÅ>h f\{\ (1 ~J;J.!t:im.~. The PG&E Natianol Em;~rgy GmufJ including PG&E Gas 'rransmissi~)rlr PG&f? Get'll~rafillg. PG&E Energy Trading. and PG&E Energy Services, is nat the sanm company a,s Pacific Gas arid Electric Company, the utility. and is not regulated by t/16 GaJifomia Public utifities COIl/mission. Cvstorru·)(s of Paçífiç Gas and EJQctric Comp,wy (i!~ not htMJ to buy products or services from thf) National Energy Graup in Ord(~f to contilJuf:J to teæiVf~ quality røgl.ll<':iled servíces from Pacinc Gas anä E{fJctric COllìpmw 0,\\ l', hl1(3 ~JJWWWð 6~~ (0("6), c,O\[{\ / ove'('\/I'fJ.-d / Y1 ag~ htm~ N~-~-~+:~~~~~-fVA-1;;~Ac S\,)~Y'õð- ~