Draft Reponses to Comments April 2012 6281 Wind Energy Ordinance – Draft Environmental Impact Report N-1 Draft Reponses to Comments April 2012 6281 Wind Energy Ordinance – Draft Environmental Impact Report N-2 Draft Reponses to Comments April 2012 6281 Wind Energy Ordinance – Draft Environmental Impact Report N-3 Draft Reponses to Comments April 2012 6281 Wind Energy Ordinance – Draft Environmental Impact Report N-4 Draft Reponses to Comments April 2012 6281 Wind Energy Ordinance – Draft Environmental Impact Report N-5 Draft Reponses to Comments April 2012 6281 Wind Energy Ordinance – Draft Environmental Impact Report N-6 Draft Reponses to Comments April 2012 6281 Wind Energy Ordinance – Draft Environmental Impact Report N-7 Draft Reponses to Comments April 2012 6281 Wind Energy Ordinance – Draft Environmental Impact Report N-8 Draft Reponses to Comments April 2012 6281 Wind Energy Ordinance – Draft Environmental Impact Report N-9 Draft Reponses to Comments INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK April 2012 6281 Wind Energy Ordinance – Draft Environmental Impact Report N-10 Draft Reponses to Comments Response to Comment Letter N Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. Jeffrey B. Durocher December 22, 2011 N-1 This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a significant environmental issue for which a response is required. N -2 The County of San Diego acknowledges and appreciates this comment. However the suggested amendment to Section 1.1 of the Project Description to include State renewable targets is already addressed is Section 1.1, Project Objectives #1: "Facilitate the use of renewable wind energy within the County pursuant to existing and future statewide goals." N-3 The County acknowledges and appreciates this comment. Please refer to response to comment N2 above. N-4 This comment does not raise a significant environmental issue for which a response is required. N-5 This comment does not raise a significant environmental issue for which a response is required. N-6 This comment does not raise a significant environmental issue for which a response is required. N-7 The County acknowledges and appreciates this comment. Please refer to response to comment H14. N-8 The County of San Diego acknowledges and appreciates this comment. As also noted in response to comment H14, an applicant may specify multiple turbine models in the application in order for a range of turbine models to be analyzed. The ordinance has been revised to clarify that multiple turbine models may be specified at the application stage of a project. N-9 This comment does not raise a significant environmental issue for which a response is required. N-10 The County acknowledges and appreciates this comment. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors must determine how the County can best meet its objectives. The information in this comment will be in the Final EIR for review and consideration by the County Board of Supervisors. April 2012 6281 Wind Energy Ordinance – Draft Environmental Impact Report N-11 Draft Reponses to Comments N-11 The County acknowledges and appreciates this comment. Wind turbines generate both aerodynamic and mechanical noise containing both high and low frequency components (20- 3,600 Hz.). Noise or unwanted sound from wind turbines are known to create an annoyance. The noise provisions in the proposed ordinance amendment are intended to prevent wind turbines from creating an annoyance and are based on review of scientific studies as well as methodology of other jurisdictions. The County is not required to analyze low frequency sound from any other source since other types of low frequency noise generation would not be part of this project. N-12 County staff has thoroughly reviewed the critique provided in Attachment D of the comment. However, staff does not agree with this comment. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate (CEQA Guidelines Section 15151). Moreover, the County has chosen a more conservative approach that will better protect sensitive receptors from adverse effects. There are no restrictions under CEQA or relevant court cases indicating that this conservative approach is erroneous. N-13 The County of San Diego acknowledges and appreciates this comment. Ocean waves breaking on the beach is compared to low frequency noise generated by wind turbines in this comment. Yet, the County is not required to analyze the noise output of ocean waves or its potential effect on sensitive receptors. The County’s focus for analysis is on the potential effects of large wind turbines on sensitive receptors in rural parts of the unincorporated county. The County has determined that such effects can be adverse unless certain limits are applied. N-14 Staff agrees that the ocean and beach waves are natural noise sources which are comprised of elements of steady and uninterrupting constant fluctuating rhythm with a low frequency component. However, wind turbines are a type of manmade mechanical noise source that generates a different noise characteristic that differs in comparison to natural ocean noise sources. N-15 The County acknowledges and appreciates this comment. The County concurs that there is not a direct causal relationship between low frequency noise and human health effects. However low frequency noise can create an annoyance. As such, the County has the right to establish regulations to minimize or eliminate noise impacts. The commenter’s opposition to the proposed c-weighted regulations will be included in the final EIR and provided to the Board of Supervisors for their review and consideration. N-16 The County acknowledges and appreciates this comment. Staff agrees that the use of Leq would be consistent with noise regulations in other Counties outside the County of San Diego's jurisdiction. However, based on Proposed Criteria In Residential Communities for Low-Frequency Noise Emissions From Industrial Sources (Revised April 2012 6281 Wind Energy Ordinance – Draft Environmental Impact Report N-12 Draft Reponses to Comments 2004 June 11;accepted 2004 June 15) by George F. Hessler Jr., an exceedance of a 20 decibel difference between the long-term background levels (dBA) and the Leq C- weighted would result in low frequency impacts to be excessive. N-17 Based on Proposed Criteria In Residential Communities for Low-Frequency Noise Emissions From Industrial Sources (Revised 2004 June 11;accepted 2004 June 15) by George F. Hessler Jr., this document states that an exceedance of a 20 decibel difference between the long-term background levels (dBA) and the Leq C-weighted would result in low frequency impacts to be excessive. N-18 This comment references two examples of low frequency criteria for Illinois and Oregon and does not raise a significant environmental issue for which a response is required. N-19 The County acknowledges and appreciates the proposed alternative approach to low frequency noise compliance. As stated in this comment, the baseline conditions should be comprised of the cumulative noise level dBA (sound attributable to the project Leq plus the ambient Leq). Although this alternative is appreciated, no recommendations were provided to address the low frequency noise associated with wind turbines. N-20 This comment states that several states have regulations that regulate low frequency noise (typically 65 dBC). However, it does not raise a significant environmental issue for which a response is required. N-21 The County acknowledges and appreciates the referenced requirement CCR 802(d) which uses the dBC as an indicator for potential additional studies. N-22 County staff has thoroughly reviewed Attachment A to the comment letter and appreciates this information. However, the County disagrees with this comment. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate (CEQA Guidelines Section 15151). See also response to comment N12 above. N-23 The County does not agree with this comment. Wind turbines create noise. There is a significant community concern that noise from large wind projects may create an annoyance. Post construction noise monitoring ensures that large turbine projects are constructed within the applicable noise regulations. Ongoing monitoring ensures turbines, which have a life span of approximately 25-30 years are maintained and kept in compliance with all applicable noise regulations. N-24 This comment does not raise a significant environmental issue for which a response is required. April 2012 6281 Wind Energy Ordinance – Draft Environmental Impact Report N-13 Draft Reponses to Comments N-25 This comment does not raise a significant environmental issue for which a response is required. However, it should be noted that the draft ordinance and project objectives do not propose approving all MET facilities without a discretionary permit. The draft ordinance and project objectives propose only allowing MET facilities that meet the height designator of the zone to be permitted without a discretionary permit. N-26 The County does not concur with this comment. Section 6123(a) does not apply to MET facilities that are proposed for ministerial approval under the proposed ordinance. Section 6123 (i) of the proposed ordinance details the requirements for ministerial approval. N-27 The County does not agree with this comment. First, it should be noted that the DEIR is meant to cover the proposed ordinance amendments. Its purpose is not to cover future discretionary projects. The County considered conducting the type of analysis that would be required to cover future discretionary wind turbine projects; however, it was determined that a detailed master plan for future wind projects would be required in addition to very detailed studies and permitting requirements. This type of project would extend far beyond the County Board of Supervisor's direction and funding allocation. Second, the cumulative impact analysis for this project considers the recent General Plan Update as well as projects within other jurisdictions. This is the appropriate scope of analysis for a county-wide project. Future Major Use Permits for large wind turbines may incorporate that analysis by reference.