The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 03/10/2015 Item # 9A 3/10/2015 9.A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve an ordinance amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter 1 — General Provisions, including section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter Five— Supplemental Standards, including section 5.05.05 Automobile Service Stations, more specifically, to allow Automobile Service Stations with more than 8 fuel pumps within 300 feet of residential property to seek approval through a public hearing and to allow new residential property within 300 feet of an Automobile Service Station with more than 8 fuel pumps to seek approval through a public hearing; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. OBJECTIVE: To amend the provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) to serve the best interest of the public. CONSIDERATIONS: On Tuesday, July 8th, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to develop an amendment pertaining to the regulation of automobile service stations, including gas stations, that have more than eight fuel pumps or provide for fueling of more than eight cars at any point in time. The amendment was presented to the Board on Tuesday, October 28th recommending that automobile service stations shall be limited to eight fuel pumps when located within 300 feet of residential property; however, a greater number of fuel pumps may be sought through the conditional use process or as part of a Planned Unit Development. During the October 28th meeting, the Board discussed several concerns and issues relating to the proposed amendment. Please see the Attachment 1, the Land Development Code Amendments, for further information regarding the Board's discussion. The following paraphrases several of their comments, including but not limited to: • Ensure that the required separation between gas stations and residential property is clear, including existing setbacks, walls, and buffers. • To be as restrictive as possible regarding this type of development. • Ensure that property rights of all parties are protected. • Commercial properties have, by right, the ability to develop uses that are less desirable than a gas station. Examine compatibility and health concerns, in particular fuel vapors. • Require the maximum distance possible from residential zoning and address fuel vapors o Board consensus was that this distance should be at least 300 feet from any gas station, regardless of the number of fuel pumps. The County Attorney noted it was unclear whether this standard could be accomplished. • Motion by Board included addressing fuels vapors and a re-review by the Planning Commission. Packet Page-17- 3/10/2015 9.A. Additional Research Performed by staff Prior to the Planning Commission's re-review, additional research was conducted in order to establish a maximum distance between residential property and automobile service stations and a nexus for the separation. This additional research included several areas of analysis. Please see Attachment 1, the Land Development Code Amendment, for all research sources and related materials. 1. Collier County's existing automobile service station standards; 2. Historical automobile service station development patterns in Collier County; 3. Automobile service station standards from around the state and country; 4. Vapor Recovery technology; and 5. Compatibility with sensitive land uses. The research established that due to advances in vapor recovery technology implemented in the 1990's, the health impacts of gasoline vapors has been drastically reduced. However, the research conducted by the California Environmental Protection Agency in 2005, after vapor recovery had been introduced to the mainstream, identified that large gas stations should be sited 300 feet from sensitive land uses, such as residential property. The basis for the proposed amendment includes information from several sources: Vapor recovery implementation estimates, the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry's Toxicological Profile for Gasoline, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association's Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines,the U.S. EPA's Potential to Emit Guidance Memo, the California EPA's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, and the U.S. EPA's School Siting Guidelines. Please see Attachment 1, the Land Development Code Amendment, for all research sources and related materials. Modifications Prior to Planning Commission Re-review Based on the additional research and case law findings, modifications were made to the proposed amendment, noted below. All research and related materials were provided to the Planning Commission and the proposed changes were discussed at the hearings in January and February. 1. Redefining "Automobile Service Stations" as "Facilities with Fuel Pumps"to capture the variety of uses associated with fuel pumps; 2. A table of standards to improve formatting; 3. Allowing for more types of public hearings to streamline the review of facilities with more than eight fuel pumps; 4. The application of the 300-foot measurement to the underground storage tank vent riser opening as well as to the fuel pumps to capture all potential pollution sources; 5. Adding an additional criterion to review whether a gas station is within an activity center to recognize potential mitigation of gas station impacts; and 6. Establishing an inverse restriction on residential property locating within 300 feet of a gas station as a result of previous case law which has required this inverse restriction. Additional Standards Presented to the Planning Commission In addition, several standards supported by research were presented to the Planning Commission for their consideration, noted below. One of the additional considerations, an increase to the side Packet Page-18- 3/10/2015 9.A. and rear setback, is recommended by Planning Commission for consideration by the Board. Please see the Planning Commission's recommendation section. Please see Attachment 1, the Land Development Code Amendment, for all research sources and related materials. 1. Measure the 300-foot distance from the property line of the facility with fuel pumps rather than from the fuel pump or underground storage tank vent riser opening. The 300-foot distance requirement is based on the recommendations found in the California EPA's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook which bases its recommendation on health risk models that do not specify whether distances were measured from the property line, from the fuel pumps, or some other location. Other studies which have examined health risks associated with automobile service stations and found similar results, like the Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines, measured distances from the station center. Given that the 300-foot recommendation from the Handbook does not specify how this measurement is taken, the addition of this potential standard would ensure unacceptable health risks are not inadvertently allowed. 2. Increase the side and rear yard setbacks for all facilities with fuel pumps. This potential standard is based on the California Environmental Protection Agency's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook which recommends that gas stations (with throughputs less than 3.6 million gallons per year) are located at least 50 feet from sensitive land uses, such as residential property. 3. Change gas stations to a conditional use in the Commercial Convenience (C-2) zoning district. This potential standard was based on staff research of standards in other communities. Staff found it was common for other communities to make automobile service stations a conditional use in the least intense zoning district in which automobile service stations, gas station, etc. are permitted use. This potential standard would ensure a public hearing in areas where low intensity commercial zoning districts are in close proximity to residential property. Schedule LDC Amendments are scheduled for consideration at two Board hearings. The second Board hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 24, 2015. As the amendment seeks to change the list of permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses of land, the amendment is subject to LDC section 10.03.06 K. This section requires that the amendment is considered at two Board hearing dates, with one hearing scheduled after 5:00 p.m., unless this requirement is waived by the Board. On Tuesday,February 24, 2015,the Board voted to waive the after 5:00 p.m. requirement. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment on Thursday, January 15th and Thursday, February 5th. Please see Attachment 10 for the Planning Commission's discussions and public comments provided at the hearings. On February 5th, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposed amendment, with recommendations, with a 6-0 vote. The Planning Commission's recommendations are noted Packet Page-19- 3/10/2015 9.A. below. Please see Attachment 1, the Land Development Code Amendment, for all research sources and related materials. The following recommendations have not been included in the amendment and are for Board consideration: 1. Reduce the number of fuel pumps requiring a public hearing when located within 300 feet of residential property from more than 8 fuel pumps to 7 or more fuel pumps. The California EPA's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook specifies that "large gas stations" (stations with at least 3.6 million gallons throughput per year) should be located at least 300 feet from residential property. The U.S. EPA estimated in their Potential to Emit Guidance Memo that an individual fueling position has the ability to dispense 518,400 gallons per year. This means that a gas station with 7 fuel pumps could dispense up to 3,628,800 million gallons throughput per year which is in excess of the California EPA recommendation. As a result, the Planning Commission recommended adjusting the number of fuel pumps to be consistent with the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook recommendation. 2. Exempt existing PUDs which have identified automobile service stations as an allowable use from requiring a public hearing. The Planning Commission discussed that the proposed amendment could invalidate existing PUD zoning approvals. To avoid requiring existing PUDs to amend their uses to allow for gas stations, the Planning Commission recommended only applying the proposed amendment to new PUDs. 3. Consider creating administrative criteria so that Facilities with Fuel Pumps could be approved without a public hearing in specific situations. The Planning Commission recommended that if there are already mitigating factors in place (i.e. the existence of a 6-lane road, or buildings between the fuel pumps and residential property), the applicant should be able to obtain administrative approval. This recommendation would require additional staff research to determine criteria for mitigating factors. 4. Increase the side and rear yard setbacks to 50 feet when adjacent to residential properties. This potential standard was recommended by staff and was based on the California Environmental Protection Agency's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook which recommends that gas stations (with throughputs less than 3.6 million gallons per year) are located at least 50 feet from sensitive land uses, such as residential property. This change would result in a 10-foot increase to rear and side yard setbacks when Facilities with Fuel Pumps are adjacent to residential property. The following recommendations have been included in the amendment: 1. Correct a scrivener's error in Table C.2. This recommendation corrects a typo in the amendment. Packet Page-20- 3/10/2015 9.A. 2. Clarify that residential property includes Estates zoning districts, but does not include Agricultural zoning districts. The Planning Commission recommended clarifying that the Estates zoning district is considered residential property for the purposes of this proposed amendment, but that other agriculturally zoned properties are not. 3. Accept staff proposed changes to "fuel pump" definition. This change was recommended by staff and removes a conflict in the proposed definition of a"fuel pump"but does not change the intent of the definition. Additional Consideration Added Following the Planning Commission's review, the County Attorney added the following consideration to LDC section 5.05.05 C.: "Any other factor or technology that reduces the level of fuel vapors impacting residential property." FISCAL IMPACT: Additional time and resources will be provided by county staff, elected officials, and the Office of the Hearing Examiner to prepare for and hold the public hearings as required and established by the LDC Amendment. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality. An affirmative vote of four is required for Board approval.—HFAC GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There are no anticipated Growth Management Plan impacts associated with the proposed amendment as described in the Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approves the proposed amendment to LDC section 5.05.05 —Automobile Service Stations and provide direction to Staff as to any modifications to the proposed text. Prepared By: Caroline Cilek,AICP, Land Development Code Manager Growth Management Division, Development Review Section Attachments: 1. Attach. 1. LDC Amendment Request for 5.05.05 Automobile Service Stations 2. Attach. 2. Appendix A—Existing Collier County Standards 3. Attach. 3. Appendix B—Historical Patterns of Gas Stations 4. Attach. 4. Appendix C—Examples of Gas Station Provisions Around the State and Country 5. Attach. 5. Appendix D—Consideration of Vapor Recovery 6. Attach. 6. Appendix E—Compatibility with Sensitive Land Uses 7. Attach. 7. Appendix 2-A—BCC Regular Meeting Minutes Excerpt(October 28, 2014) 8. Attach. 8.Appendix 2-B—Facilities with Fuel Pumps and Proximity to Residential Parcels and Sensitive Sites 9. Attach. 9. Appendix 2-C—CCPC Meeting handouts from February 5th, 2015 10. Attach. 10. Planning Commission discussion and public comments Packet Page -21- 3/10/2015 9.A. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.9.A. Item Summary: Recommendation to approve an ordinance amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three,Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter 1- General Provisions, including section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter Five- Supplemental Standards, including section 5.05.05 Automobile Service Stations, more specifically,to allow Automobile Service Stations with more than 8 fuel pumps within 300 feet of residential property to seek approval through a public hearing and to allow new residential property within 300 feet of an Automobile Service Station with more than 8 fuel pumps to seek approval through a public hearing; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. Meeting Date: 3/10/2015 Prepared By Name: CilekCaroline Title:Manager-LDC,Environmental Services 1/21/2015 7:01:38 PM Submitted by Title:Manager-LDC, Environmental Services Name: CilekCaroline 1/21/2015 7:01:39 PM Approved By Name: BosiMichael Title:Director-Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 2/18/2015 8:34:03 AM Name: McLeanMatthew Title: Project Manager,Principal, Operations and Regulatory Management Packet Page-22- 3/10/2015 9.A. Date: 2/18/2015 12:57:33 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst,Community Development&Environmental Services Date: 2/20/2015 8:32:22 AM Name: FrenchJames Title:Director-Operations Support, Operations&Regulatory Management Date: 2/20/2015 3:35:47 PM Name: AshtonHeidi Title:Managing Assistant County Attorney,CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 2/23/2015 10:01:59 AM Name:MarcellaJeanne Title:Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 2/25/2015 9:31:19 AM Name: IsacksonMark Title:Division Director-Corp Fin&Mgmt Svc,Office of Management&Budget Date: 3/2/2015 9:35:20 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 3/2/2015 1:13:25 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 3/3/2015 11:21:43 AM Packet Page-23- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term LDC Amendment Request ORIGIN: Board of County Commissioners AUTHOR: Growth Management Division Staff DEPARTMENT: Growth Management Division AMENDMENT CYCLE: 2014 Out of Cycle LDC Amendment- continued LDC SECTION(S): 1.08.02 Definitions 5.05.05 Automobile Service Stations CHANGE: The proposed amendment to LDC section 5.05.05 Automobile Service Stations establishes that automobile service stations, hereafter referred to as facilities with fuel pumps, that are located within 300 feet of residential property shall be limited to 8 fuel pumps; however, a greater number of fuel pumps may be sought through a public hearing process. In addition, considerations to address public health, safety, and welfare are proposed to be addressed during the public hearing process to allow more than 8 fuel pumps within 300 feet of residential property. These considerations would be in addition to any criteria or findings of fact for the public hearing. To address changes and functions of automobile service stations, the proposed language also amends LDC section 1.08.02 Definitions. The existing term "Automobile Service Station" is changed to "Facility with Fuel Pumps" in order to represent a number of uses which include the sale of fuel for motor vehicles. A "Facility with Fuel Pumps" includes, but is not limited to: gas stations, convenience stores with fuel pumps, automobile service stations with fuel pumps, or a business that includes retail or whole sale of gasoline/diesel for automobiles as an accessory use. The definition includes bulk gasoline/diesel stations. In addition, the term "fuel pump" is introduced to provide clarity to the proposed provisions. REASON: On October 28, 2014 the Board of County Commissioners,(Board) remanded the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission for a second review and directed their concerns be taken under advisement. During the meeting, the Board discussed several concerns and issues relating to the proposed amendment. Please see the BCC Meeting Minutes, Appendix 2-A, for further information regarding the Board's discussion. The following paraphrases several of their comments, including but not limited to: • Ensure that the required separation between gas stations and residential property is clear, including existing setbacks, walls, and buffers (Appendix 2-A,pgs. 8, 14-20). • To be as restrictive as possible regarding this type of development (Appendix 2-A, pgs. 8-9). • Ensure that property rights of all parties are protected(Appendix 2-A,pgs. 8-10). • Commercial properties have, by right, the ability to develop uses that are less desirable than a gas station(Appendix 2-A, pg. 10). • Examine compatibility and health concerns, in particular fuel vapors (Appendix 2-A, pgs. 18, 19, 20). 1 l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-24- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term • Require the maximum distance possible from residential zoning and address fuel vapors (Appendix 2-A, pgs. 14-21). o Board consensus was that this distance should be at least 300 feet from any gas station, regardless of the number of fuel pumps (Appendix 2-A, pgs. 19-21). The County Attorney noted it was unclear whether this standard could be accomplished(Appendix 2-A, pg. 19). o Motion by Board included addressing fuels vapors and a re-review by the Planning Commission (Appendix 2-A, pg. 19). Prior to submitting the amendment for re-review by the Planning Commission, additional research was conducted in order to establish a maximum distance between residential property and automobile service stations and a nexus for the separation. Based on this research, the distance requirements proposed in the original amendment have been maintained. The following are a snapshot of proposed changes incorporated into the amendment text: 1. Proposed a table of standards to improve formatting. 2. Proposed that the exception to allow more than 8 fuel pumps within 300 feet of residential use be expanded from a conditional use/PUD process to other public hearings procedures to consolidate processes. 3. To address vapor impacts, proposed language requiring the 300 feet measurement is from fuel pump or "underground storage tank vent riser opening", whichever is more restrictive. 4. Based on case law, proposed language requiring a public hearing if "new residential development"is within 300 feet of existing facility with more than 8 fuel pumps. 5. Proposed a new consideration under the public hearing evaluation to examine if the proposed use is within an Activity Center. The proposed amendment is designed to address the intensity, compatibility, and impact of facilities with 8 fuel pumps or more within 300 feet of residential property by regulating the location, number of fuel pumps, and approval process. As relayed in the Executive Summary to the Board on July 8` 2014, this issue is relevant because over time the conventional automobile service station has transformed both in intensity and in use. Traditionally, automobile service stations were comprised of a small service department with limited fueling stations, generally providing for four to eight cars to obtain gas at any one time. Today, common applications for facilities with fuel pumps, such as a gas station, consist of a convenience store and a greater number of fuel pumps. Recent applications for gas stations in Collier County have identified approximately 16-20 fuel pumps. Facilities with fuel pumps, such as gas stations, are recognized as having the potential to impact vehicular and pedestrian circulation, truck traffic, noise pollution, may have intense lighting schemes and often have extended operating hours. These site characteristics can impact the health, safety, and quality of life of nearby residents and other land uses. For these reasons, many communities require site design standards, such as landscaping, buffering, and architectural standards, to address these effects. LDC section 5.05.05 Automobile Service Stations requires site design standards to address these issues, but the section does not currently address the number of fuel pumps at a site or require additional design standards for facilities with a greater number of fuel pumps than historical development practices. 2 l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-25- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term Additional considerations for the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners are discussed in Section F below. These changes are supported by several areas of research summarized in the amendment. Additional materials can be found below and in the attached appendices: A. Existing Collier County standards B. Historical patterns of gas stations C. Examples of gas station provisions around the state and country D. Consideration of Vapor Recovery Technology E. Compatibility with sensitive land uses F. Potential additional standards A. Existing Collier County standards Appendix A provides the existing standards for automobile service stations pursuant to LDC section 5.05.05. The following list highlights existing standards required for all gas stations: • Permitted Use: Automobile Service Stations are permitted in Commercial Zoning Districts C-2—C-5 as a permitted use. • Setbacks: Rear and side yards are 40-feet; front yard is 50-feet. • Buffer: A 20-foot wide landscape buffer with a 6-foot wall, fence, hedge, berm or combination thereof is required when adjacent to single family or multi-family development. Other types of required buffers are described in Appendix A. • Separation from Residential zones: Automobile service station sites shall be separated from adjacent residentially zoned or residentially developed properties by an architecturally designed 6-foot high masonry wall or fence utilizing materials similar in color, module, and texture to those utilized for the building. Landscaping shall be planted on the residential side of the fence or wall. • Lighting: All lighting facilities shall be directed away from adjoining properties. On-site luminaries ... shall not exceed a height of greater than 20-feet above finished grade. Lighting located underneath a canopy shall be of low level, indirect diffuse type designed to provide light only to the pump island areas located underneath said canopy. • Architecture: Automobile Service Stations must comply with the architecture and site design section of the LDC. • Other Allowable Uses: o Vehicle Storage - Vehicle storage is limited to 60 days and vehicle storage areas must be surrounded by an opaque fence that is at least 6 feet high. o Automobile detailing is allowed as an accessory use only. o Car Washes are allowed as an accessory use only. • Prohibited Sales and Uses: o Major mechanical work and body shops are prohibited. o Outside displays, tires and merchandise are prohibited. o Vehicle sales are prohibited. B. Historical patterns of gas stations. In order to compare and characterize historical trends in gas stations, data was collected from several state agencies. Appendix B — Table identifies 100 active retail gas stations and 5 active bulk stations in Collier County. This table identifies the address, number of fueling positions, 3 I:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-26- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term and the approximate date of construction of each gas station (for .more information regarding the gas station identification methodology, see Appendix B — Methodology). This table is not exhaustive and does not include gas stations which have closed. However, an examination of this data illustrates the changing nature of gas stations in Collier County. This dataset indicates that at least 100 retail gas stations operate in Collier County and range between 2 and 24 fuel pumps. Since in 1944, gas stations have steadily increas ed the number of fueling positions. The trend of increasing fuel pumps can also be seen in Appendix B — Chart, which is reproduced below: Number of Fuel Pumps Installed at Collier County Foeiltiies with Fuel Pumps by Year of Establishment(Retail only) - r 1 I 1 !i r 4f Ii 1 lf_ f t { 1 'I;If"; t �il 4 t 4f 441 f r i 4fa 1II 1 -f:-:"141'.',1"T1-11%,1'1 1d ti- 7 1-11171.7-11,711-11.1'.11,14 1 7i �f � � ll zo -1 fit., _ o- 1" - m:.i f i'' "" l i 1 4 141' ;..x 1-.i OH ,171117!71t1 � 1124111-44.4-1.f {•t 1 i°{ 1 !— ,+i 7 l It .j T—t { f i I f u .l .;. s f ... T 2 1 f I � i i E i s ' 1 i{ 1 1 1 t 1 i 1 1 i 1 11 1 1-17—IT> 4 Y ' l i i -a l # r 4 a - f i p a 1 N" i .i..._.1 ,. :,Ir.a, 11 1 ,I -4 I,.a ,�., d T•v .111 .k_3 'C (i `-A 1 i I f T" i 1 t F' 1 1 } . I �� f i � �{ t�. +t I ( �I. J 1 lrl� 1- d i 1f l 1 .t I1Y' _ -} „� 7 t e ri ' -T ".i. F q 1' t"'" 4 1' I ,h i' 4 i 1 4 3 l { s k ' s 1 t i 1 if 111 f , G (f fr flit A 3 { 1 1� SSf, t i i ; f � 1 1L11 flif 5 II iii it 1 i i i li 1-� 111 11 it rt„1 .1. 1 t. f f i. f r-:.1 l l,i 1.. I :1 ;r J ;.m z , I_ 4 .i i l 1. -.,..�.gggggg gg.gg..gggggg 1 [ i .� 1: ,� RRR�. S. RRR RRRRRRR °:a :s:iiiECCSEE EE EE E$$£5"eF$££3£$i<#$B£$££$$$£ EARoFE?$ii££e$$$$$$ £€Eii£££stEEFEIEEEE YEAR OF ESTAILISNMENT While data prior to 1970 indicates an average of 7 fuel pumps were developed, between 2005 and 2015 the average number of fuel pumps increases tol 17. While Collier County gas stations have an average of 9 fuel pumps overall, in the last 25 years only 2 out of 38 gas stations have developed fewer than 8 fueling positions. The data and trends indicate that facilities with fuel pumps, such as gas stations, have transformed in intensity and now have more fueling stations. This dataset was also used to examine the spatial distribution of gas stations in Collier County. Appendix B—Map includes a map which displays the location and size of existing retail an d bulk gas stations in Collier County as well as the location of sensitive land uses. C. Examples of gas station provisions around the state and country. Staff has performed an expanded review of gas station regulations in 14 communities in Florida (including Collier County) and 10 communities outside Florida. This review is summarized in Appendix C. This review was not an exhaustive search for all existing gas station regulations, but provides some examples of communities in Florida, and throughout the U.S., that have adopted distance and/or location standards for gas stations. There were several trends related to fuel pump locations, gas station sizes, and zoning district standards observed: • Proximity to residential property: 8 of the 24 communities reviewed have incorporated minimum separations of 100 feet or greater from residential properties or buildings; of these, two are located in Florida. The remaining communities require distances ranging from 0 to 50 feet. The largest required pump 4 l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-27- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term distance in Florida is in the City of Boca Raton, where a minimum distance of 300 feet is required from any residential or public place. The largest required pump distance in any community reviewed is in Hamilton Township, New Jersey, where a minimum distance of 500 feet is required from residential properties and 1,000 feet from any public entrance to a church, school, library, hospital, charitable institution, or place of public assembly. Only Princeton, MN waived the distance requirement if the pumps were screened by a building. • Proximity to other land uses: All of the communities which require separations of 100 feet or greater include several other types of public places including: o Churches (or"Religious Buildings") o Auditoriums o Public Playgrounds (or"Playfields,"or"Outdoor Playgrounds") o Schools o Hospitals o Libraries o Charitable Institutions o Day Care Centers o Civic, Institutional, Recreational, or Entertainment Uses • Pump limits: 7 of the 24 communities reviewed have incorporated limits on the number of fueling stations allowed at gas stations; of these, five are located in Florida. In some cases, these pump limits are restrictions on the total number of fueling stations permitted, while in others,pump limits indicate when a conditional use hearing is required. In yet other communities, restrictions on the total number of fueling stations only apply to specified zoning districts. Pump limits varied in the communities reviewed from 4 to 8 pumps. • Zoning district standards: o Conditional use districts: 19 of`the 24 communities reviewed require a conditional use process in at least one zoning,district, or in order to exceed a specified number of pumps. 3 of the 24 communities allow gas stations to be permitted administratively when certain conditions are met in at least one zoning district. In Florida, only 2 of the communities reviewed, including Collier County,do not utilize a conditional use process in at least one zoning district. Neighborhood or Community Commercial zoning districts were the most frequent zoning districts requiring conditional uses for any gas station. Other common districts to require conditional use procedures include districts which provide for small scale or transitional commercial uses, retail, residential and office uses. o Prohibited use districts: 23 of the 24`communities reviewed prohibit gas stations in at least one commercial zoning district (all Florida communities reviewed). The City of Davis, California, the only community not to prohibit gas stations in any commercial zoning district, prohibits gas stations with the ability to serve more than 25 vehicles within 200 feet on the same side of the road as a school, public playground, church, hospital, public library, or institution for children. 12 of the 24 communities reviewed prohibit gas stations in more than one commercial zoning district. The most frequent zoning district prohibitions included Professional/Office districts and Neighborhood Commercial districts. 5 l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-28- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term While existing standards in Collier County currently provide for some site design and locational criteria, the review of other communities demonstrates additional areas for consideration by the Planning Commission. D. Consideration of Vapor Recovery Technology Pursuant to the Board's direction to review health concerns related to gas stations, a review of existing technology available was conducted, including mechanisms to protect public health in areas surrounding gas stations. Once of these mechanisms is called Enhanced Vapor Recovery Technology and was developed to control escaping gasoline vapors and toxins released during the refueling process. For many years there were two general methods of vapor recovery: 1) Stage I vapor recovery technology which traps gasoline vapors which escape during the refueling of underground storage tanks by tanker trucks, and 2) Stage II vapor recovery technology which traps gasoline vapors which escape during individual vehicle refueling and was accomplished with a special fuel pump nozzle. In 1994, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency required all new vehicles be equipped with Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR). The ORVR mechanism achieves a similar result as "Stage II" vapor recovery technology. It is installed in individual automobiles and traps gasoline vapors escaping during the vehicle refueling process in a carbon filter connected to the gas tank. ORVR was required by the EPA because it is less expensive than the original Stage II Vapor Recovery and because Stage II Vapor Recovery was never required in all areas of the Country. Manufacturers were allowed to phase-in ORVR technology between 1998 and 2006 and in 2012 the EPA estimated that over 71 percent of vehicles had ORVR technology installed (40 CFR pt. 51 —found in Appendix D). The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, published by the California Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board in 2005 and the Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines, a report released by the Toxics Committee of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in 1997 indicate that vapor recovery systems result in an approximately 90 percent reduction in benzene emissions compared to uncontrolled facilities (Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, pg. 31). Additionally, the U.S. EPA's Potential to Emit Guidance Memo provides emission reduction percentages for Volatile Organic Compounds related to several refueling and vapor recovery scenarios. In these scenarios,Vapor Recovery Technology is assumed to provide between 86 and 95 percent (Potential to Emit Guidance Memo, pgs. 9-10) reductions in emissions (except emissions from spillage). Despite these potential reductions, the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook still recommends a 300 foot separation between large gas stations and sensitive land uses (Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, pg. 32) It is also important to note that several emission sources are not covered by ORVR including spills by individuals, fueling of small engines, motorcycles, boats, landscaping equipment, or the fueling of vehicles over 14,000 lbs. E. Compatibility with sensitive land uses. Existing Collier County LDC provisions recognize the potential for gas stations of all sizes to impact vehicular and pedestrian circulation, increase truck traffic and noise pollution, and often 6 l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-29- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term have intense lighting schemes and extended operating hours. These site characteristics can impact the health, safety, and quality of life of nearby residents and other land uses. Moreover, the historical research in section B above demonstrates that gas stations have dramatically increased in size over the past 70 years. To better understand these increased impacts associated with larger gas stations, and the steps communities can take to address these potential impacts, several studies were examined which address the unique nature of gas stations and their impact on nearby sensitive land uses. Neighborhood impacts New, larger gas stations often offer a range of products and services which are less common in smaller gas stations. In particular, this includes expanded convenience stores with a wide range of products and services, such as prepared foods and outdoor seating. This highlights the large gas station's change from providing goods which are incidental to the sale of gas, to the convenience store as a destination place. In addition, large gas stations can often accommodate a wider range of patrons. For example, large gas stations with 8 or more fuel pumps often have larger sites, taller canopies, and sell alternative fuels, providing a place for larger vehicles, such as semi-trailer trucks a place to refuel. Further, when ethanol-free gasoline is offered, landscaping and maintenance companies may make regular visits to refuel equipment. These site conditions and alternative fuels may increase the number of vehicle types that visit a facility and have a greater impact than a facility with 8 or fewer fuel pumps. Health effects Several studies have been performed over the last 20 years which have established the health effects of exposure to gasoline and the health risks associated with locating gas stations in proximity to residential and sensitive land uses. In 1995, the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry's Toxicological Profile for Gasoline detailed the human health effects of exposure to gasoline. The study indicates that gasoline contains a mix of volatile substances and that humans may be exposed to gasoline by transmission through the air, water, or soil, but "exposure of the general population to gasoline occurs primarily...during automobile refueling" (pg. 117). The report indicates that "populations living in the vicinity of a service station are expected to have higher exposure to volatile gasoline related hydrocarbons than those far removed from these businesses" (pgs. 133-4). Additionally, the Toxicological Profile for Gasoline indicates that the young, elderly, and those with compromised immune systems are populations that are unusually susceptible to the health effects of exposure to gasoline (pg. 92). Excerpts of this report can be found in Appendix E—Page 2. The Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines describes at least 6 types of toxic substances in gasoline (pg. 11) and 4 sources of gasoline emissions at service stations (pg. 8) including: • Loading — Loading emissions occur when a cargo tank truck unloads gasoline to the storage tanks at the gasoline station. • Breathing — Gasoline vapors are emitted from the storage tank vent pipe due to temperature and pressure changes within the storage tank vapor space. • Refueling — During the refueling process, gasoline vapors are emitted at the vehicle/nozzle interface. 7 I:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-30- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term • Spillage—Spillage emissions occur from spills during vehicle fueling. The guidelines included a discussion of the ability of vapor recovery systems to mitigate these risks, however, nozzle tip emissions occurring after refueling, "whoosh" emissions, leakage emissions, loading spillage emissions, and several additional sources of emissions were also described as problems requiring future resolution. The models created for the Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines also demonstrate the change in cancer risk based on gasoline throughput and distance from the service station. The chart below "Cancer Risk — 1,000,000 gal/yr thruput" (pg. E-6) demonstrates the ability of vapor recover systems to reduce gasoline emissions from underground tanks in urban settings at gas stations with 1 million gallons per year throughput: Cancer Risk - 1 ,000,000 gal/yr thruput ISCST3 WITH SCREEN3 MET DATA as c30 225 z as 4520 CL 490 - - o cn cn 5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Distance from Station Center (meters) --II-- 4-no controls — 5A-Phase I >< 5B-Phase I with vent vaves 6A-Phase I&II w/o vent valises 6B-Phase I&II w/vent valves While cancer risk decreases with distance and as vapor recovery technology is utilized, in no scenario is cancer risk reduced to zero, however, when using Stage I and Stage II vapor recovery technology and at a distance of 300 feet (91.4 meters), cancer risk is reduced significantly. No recommendations regarding the siting of gas stations near residential property were included in these guidelines. Excerpts of these guidelines can be found in Appendix E — Page 7. In 1998, the U.S. EPA released a Potential to Emit Guidance Memo, and technical support documents, related to enforceable limitations on emission sources for several sources including Gasoline Service Stations and Bulk Plants. In the technical support document the EPA uses a model to estimate the amount of gasoline that a gas station could dispense each month. This 8 I:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page -31- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term model assumes that each fueling position (fuel pump) has the ability to dispense 43,200 gallons per month (pg. 7). This means that gas stations with as few as 8 pumps have the ability to dispense over 4 million gallons per year. An excerpt of this document can be found in Appendix E—Page 11. In 2014, the Journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology indicated that several new technologies have had the effect of significantly decreasing health risks and exposure to gasoline stating that, "post-1994 fuel and vehicle regulations have continued to decrease exposure to gasoline vapor and exhaust emissions (e.g. reduced vapor pressure, sulfur, and benzene in the fuel; on-board refueling vapor canisters in cars; strict specifications on portable gas cans; more stringent tailpipe emission standards, etc.)" (pg. S2). A copy of this editorial can be found in Appendix E—Page 21. Traffic impacts In addition to impacts from gasoline emissions, traffic generation may also introduce compatibility considerations. As the number of fuel pumps increases, traffic generation also increases. Transportation Impact Studies estimate daily and peak hour trips for proposed land uses using trip generation rates developed by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). The table below demonstrates the number of trips during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and the number of daily trips based on a gas station's number of fuel pumps. According to this table, a gas station with 24 fueling positions is estimated to generate three times as many daily trips as a gas station with 8 fueling positions. Based on ITE Land Use Code 945,Trip Generation,9th Edition. Description:Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market:based on Fueling Positions Number of Positions: 6 positions(3 pumps) 8 positions(4 pumps) 16 positions(8 pumps) 24 positions(12 pumps) AM Peak Hour' Average Rate:13.51/position 81 108 216 324 Total trips @ Driveway(s) Pass-by reduction of 50%: 41 54 108 162 New trips impacting the roads PM Peak Hour** Average Rate:10.16/position 61 81 163 244 Total trips @ Driveway(s) Pass-by reduction of 50°/,: 30 41 81 122 New trips impacting the roads Daily'"" Average Rate:162.78/position 977 1302 2604 3907 Total trips @ Driveway(s) Pass-by reduction of 50%: 488 651 1302 1953 New trips impacting the roads "-AM Peak means the highest one hour between 7am-9am ""-PM Peak means the highest one hour between 4pm-6pm """-Daily means the 24 Hour period beginning at 12:00am Using these trip generation estimates, the average gas station prior to the 1970's would have generated approximately 1,139 new trips per day, while the average gas stations over the past ten years has increased to approximately 2,767 new trips per day. Because the average number of fuel pumps per gas station has increased, the number of new trips to gas stations has more than doubled since 1970. Siting guidelines The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook focused specifically on air quality issues affecting a variety of sensitive land uses and individuals which are defined as follows: • Sensitive Land Uses: Land uses where sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time, including schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. 9 I:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-32- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term • Sensitive Individuals: Refers to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e. children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality(pg. G-4). Notably, the study indicates that motor vehicles are associated with over 90 percent of all benzene emissions in California (pg. 30). This study contains a detailed description of the air pollution potential associated with large gas stations (stations selling greater than 3.6 million gallons per year). The chart below (pg. 31) demonstrates the cancer risk associated with gas stations with 3.6 million gallons per year throughput: Gasoline Dispensing Facility Health Risk. for 3,600,000 gal/yr throughput = 15.0 -E 10.0 0- 5.0 0.0 I I 1 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance From Fenceline (feet) Similar to the findings in the Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines, cancer risk is never reduced to zero in the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook's model, but as the distance separating gas stations from other uses increases, the risk is significantly decreased. As a result of the study's benzene emissions and distance related findings, the study recommended that "sensitive land uses" avoid locating within 300 feet from large gas stations and 50 feet from all other gas stations (pg. 32). An excerpt of this study and the specific recommendations can be found in Appendix E—Page 23. In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published School Siting Guidelines which established model guidelines for siting pre-k-12 schools, technical and vocational schools, and Colleges and Universities. This report addresses potential environmental hazards, mitigation, site design and other site review criteria that should be considered when evaluating existing or potential school sites. The report also makes facility siting recommendations based on a number of potential sources of environmental hazards. According to this report, gas stations and other fuel dispensing facilities are associated with the following potential hazards: • Air pollution • Soil contamination • Groundwater contamination • Vapor intrusion into structures • Heavy vehicular traffic Based on these potential hazards, the U.S. EPA recommends that schools perform site- specific evaluations of any potential school site within approximately 1,000 feet from large 10 l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments15.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-33- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term gas stations (pg. 59). An excerpt of this study and the specific recommendation can be found in Appendix E—Page 29. Case Law As other communities have adopted similar distance requirements, some have been legally challenged. In at least two cases, courts have called into question ordinances which prohibit gas stations near sensitive land uses, such as churches, playgrounds, elementary schools or hospitals, without an inverse prohibition on those sensitive land uses near gas stations (City of Miami v. Woolin, 387 F.2d 893 (5th Cir.1968); Saar v. Town of Davie, 308 F.Supp. 207 (S.D.Fla. 1969); These opinions can be found in Appendix E — Page 31). For this reason, a prohibition on locating new residential property within 300 feet of a facility with more than 8 fuel pumps has also been included in the proposed amendment. However, residential property may locate within 300 feet of an existing gas station if approved through a public hearing. Examples of existing gas stations with buffers of 300 feet and 1,000 feet surrounding several existing gas stations have been provided in Appendix E—Maps 1-4. Please note that Maps 1-4 depict example buffers surrounding a single point for the ease of identification but the proposed amendment would instead measure these distances from the precise location of the fuel pumps or underground storage tank vent riser opening, whichever is more restrictive. F.Additional Standards to Consider Based on the research summarized above, the following are several considerations that have not been incorporated into the proposed amendment but may be added to provide further protection from the effects of facilities with more than 8 fuel pumps: 1. Measure 300 foot distance from the lot line (property line) of the residential property to the property line of gas station rather than from the fuel pump or underground storage tank vent riser opening. The Handbook recommends a 300 foot distance from the property line of a gas station. If the measurement is from property line to property line, the setback from the fuel pumps would be a minimum of 350 feet (front) or 340 feet (rear/side). As written in the proposed text, the setback to the facility with fuel pumps would be 250 feet (front) or 260 feet (rear/side.) Measuring from property line to property line would closely align with the Handbook's recommendation. 2. Amend setback for all gas stations. According to the California EPA's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, which was_utilized to establish the 300 foot requirement for gas stations with 3.6 million gallons per year throughput, it also recommends a 50 foot setback for all other gas stations. Currently, Collier County requires a 50 foot front yard setback and 40 foot side and rear yard setbacks. 3. Change gas stations to a conditional use in the C-2 zoning district. The Land Development Code describes the Commercial Convenience (C-2) Zoning District as areas for the provision of small-scale shopping and personal needs of the surrounding residential land uses. In the other communities reviewed by staff, it was common to prohibit gas stations in these types of districts (Neighborhood Commercial) or to make them conditional uses (even in communities with very large separation requirements). Collier County currently allows gas stations in C-2 zoning districts as a permitted use, but it could make all gas stations conditional uses in C-2 zoning districts in recognition of the 11 l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-34- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term potential impacts of very large gas stations. It should be noted that gas stations are currently not permitted in C-1 zoning districts. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: At this time, there are no anticipated fiscal and operational impacts to Collier County Government. RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS:None. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: There are no anticipated impacts to the GMP. 1 CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 2 amendment on Thursday, January 15th, and on Thursday, February 5th, and made the following 3 recommendations. Several of the Planning Commission's recommendations have already been 4 incorporated into the amendment and are noted below. 5 6 1. Reduce the number of fuel pumps requiring a public hearing when located within 7 300 feet of residential property from more than 8 fuel pumps to 7 or more fuel 8 pumps. 9 The California EPA's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook specifies that "large gas 10 stations" (stations with at least 3.6 million gallons throughput per year) should be 11 located at least 300 feet from residential property. The U.S. EPA estimated in their 12 Potential to Emit Guidance Memo that an individual fueling position has the ability to 13 dispense 518,400 gallons per year. This means that a gas station with 7 fuel pumps 14 could dispense up to 3,628,800 million gallons throughput per year which is in excess 15 of the California EPA recommendation. As a result, the Planning Commission 16 recommended adjusting the number of fuel pumps to be consistent with the Air 17 Quality and Land Use Handbook recommendation. 18 2. Exempt existing PUDs which have identified automobile service stations as an 19 allowable use from requiring a public hearing. 20 The Planning Commission discussed that the proposed amendment could invalidate 21 existing PUD zoning approvals. To avoid requiring existing PUDs to amend their 22 uses to allow for gas stations, the Planning Commission recommended only applying 23 the proposed amendment to new PUDs. 24 3. Consider creating administrative criteria so that Facilities with Fuel Pumps could 25 be approved without a public hearing in specific situations. 26 The Planning Commission recommended that if there are already mitigating factors in 27 place (i.e. the existence of a 6-lane road, or buildings between the fuel pumps and 28 residential property), the applicant should be able to obtain administrative approval. 29 This recommendation would require additional staff research to determine criteria for 30 mitigating factors. 31 4. Increase the side and rear yard setbacks to 50 feet when adjacent to residential 32 properties. This potential standard was recommended by staff and was based on the California Environmental Protection Agency's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook which recommends that gas stations (with throughputs less than 3.6 million gallons per year) are located at least 50 feet from sensitive land uses, such as residential property. This 12 l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page -35- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term change would result in a 10 foot increase to rear and side yard setbacks when Facilities with Fuel Pumps are adjacent to residential property. 1 5. Correct a scrivener's error in Table C.2. This change has already been included in the 2 attached amendment. 3 This recommendation corrects a typo in the amendment. 4 6. Clarify that residential property includes Estates zoning districts, but does not 5 include Agricultural zoning districts. This change has already been included in the 6 attached amendment. 7 The Planning Commission recommended clarifying that the Estates zoning district is 8 considered residential property for the purposes of this proposed amendment, but that 9 other agriculturally zoned properties are not. 10 7. Accept staff proposed changes to "fuel pump" definition. This change has already 11 been included in the attached amendment. 12 This change was recommended by staff and removes a conflict in the proposed 13 definition of a"fuel pump"but does not change the intent of the definition. Additional Consideration Added Following the Planning Commission's review, the County Attorney added the following consideration to LDC section 5.05.05 C.: "Any other factor or technology that reduces the level of fuel vapors impacting residential property." DSAC RECOMMENDATIONS: A previous version of this amendment was reviewed by this advisory board on October 1, 2014. Please see prior amendment draft for DSAC's recommendations. OTHER NOTES/VERSION DATE: Prepared by Caroline Cilek, AICP, LDC Manager: 8/26/14, 9/5/14, 9/19/14, 10/1/14, 1/27/15, 2/17/15 Amend the LDC as follows: 14 15 1.08.02 Definitions 16 17 Automobilo servico station: Facility with fuel pumps: means any establishment that sells, 18 distributes, or pumps fuels for motor vehicles whether or not such facility provides automotive 19 repair services or includes a convenience store. See fuel pump definition. Any commercial or 20 industrial facility wherein the retail sale of gasoline conducted. Where the sale of gasoline is• 21 - - - - z- - " --e-e- - -- -- - - -- .-• - - - - - -•-_. .-. - - - - - 23 -- - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - 24 25 Fuel pump: Also known as a "fueling position," means any self-service or full-service device 26 used for the sale of fuel for motor vehicles. A single fuel pump is a fuel pump that can serve only 27 one vehicle at-a-time. The number of pumps on a single device is determined by the maximum 28 number of vehicles that can be serviced at the same time. For example, a fuel dispensing 29 device that can fuel two vehicles at once is considered two fuel pumps, and two fuel dispensing 30 devices that can fuel four vehicles at once is considered four fuel pumps, and so on. 31 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 32 13 l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-36- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 1 5.05.05 Facilities with Fuel Pumps 2 A. The purpose of this section is to ensure that autom�-rcrvice ctationsfacilities with 3 fuel pumps do not adversely impact adjacent land uses, especially residential land 4 uses. The high levels of traffic, glare, and intensity of use associated with service 5 stationafacilities with fuel pumps, particularly those open 24 hours, may be 6 incompatible with surrounding uses, especially residential uses. Therefore, in the interest 7 of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the public, the following 8 regulations shall apply to the location, layout, drainage, operation, landscaping, parking, 9 and permitted sales and service activities of facilities with 10 fuel pumps. 11 B. Site design requirements. 12 1. Table of site design requirements: Site Standards Minimum lot area (sq. ft.) 30,000 Minimum lot width (ft.) ! 150 Minimum lot depth (ft.) 180 Separation from adjacent automobile service ctationsfacilities with fuel pumps (ft.) 500 (based on distance between nearest points) Minimum setbacks, all structures: Front yard I 50 Side yard E 40 Rear yard 40 See LDC Section 5.05.05 C for proximity to residential and fuel pump standards. 13 2. Waiver of separation requirements. 14 a. The BZA may, by resolution, grant a waiver of part or all of the minimum 15 separation requirements set forth herein if it is demonstrated by the 16 applicant and determined by the BZA that the site proposed for 17 development of ate facility with fuel pumps 18 is separated from another facility with fuel 19 pumps by natural or man-made boundaries, structures, or other 20 features which offset or limit the necessity for such minimum distance 21 requirements. The BZA's decision to waive part or all of the distance 22 requirements shall be based upon the following factors: 23 i. Whether the nature and type of natural or manmade boundary, 24 structure, or other feature lying between the proposed 25 establishment and an existing facility 26 with fuel pumps is determined by the BZA to lessen the impact of 27 the proposed service stationfacility with fuel pumps. Such 28 boundary, structure, or other feature may include, but is not 29 limited to, lakes, marshes, nondevelopable wetlands, designated 30 preserve areas, canals, and a minimum of a 4 lane arterial or 31 collector right-of-way. 32 ii. Whether the facility with fuel pumps 33 is only engaged in the servicing of automobiles during regular, 34 daytime business hours, or, if in addition to or in lieu of servicing, 35 the statienfacility with fuel pumps sells food, gasoline, and other 36 convenience items during daytime, nighttime, or on a 24 hour 37 basis. 14 I:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-37- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 1 iii. Whether the facility with fuel pumps is located 2 within a shopping center primarily accessed by a driveway, or if 3 it fronts on and is accessed directly from a platted road right-of- 4 way. 5 iv. Whether the granting of the distance waiver will have an adverse 6 impact on adjacent land uses, especially residential. 7 b. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for an 8 facility with fuel pumps waiver request. 9 The request for an facility with fuel pumps 10 waiver shall be based on the submittal of the required application, a site 11 plan, and a written market study analysis which justifies a need for the 12 additional facilities with fuel pumps in the 13 desired location. 14 c. Additional conditions. The BZA shall have the right to add additional 15 conditions or requirements to its approval of a distance waiver request in 16 order to insure compatibility of the facility 17 with fuel pumps with the surrounding area and the goals and objectives 18 of the GMP. 19 C. Standards for facilities with fuel pumps in proximity to residential property. In order to 20 promote the public health, safety, and welfare, it is the intent of this section to establish 21 standards and procedures for review and approval of the development of facilities with 22 fuel pumps in proximity to residential property. 23 1. For the purposes of this section: residential property shall be any lot which is 24 developed or zoned for residential use, and new residential property shall be any 25 property that is rezoned to a residential zoning district, including Estates districts 26 but excluding Agricultural (A) zoning districts, after[effective date of Ordl. 27 2. Table C.2. —Standards for facilities with fuel pumps establishes location and 28 fuel pump standards. In addition to these standards, new residential property 29 shall not be permitted within 300 feet of existing facilities with fuel pumps with 30 more than 8 fuel pumps, except as provided in 5.05.05 C.3. This section is not 31 intended to render residential property unbuildable. Existing residential and 32 Estates zoned lots shall not be affected by this amendment. 33 34 Table C.2—Standards for facilities with fuel •um•s. Maximum Number of Fuel Number of Fuel Pumps Location of Facilities with Fuel Pumps Pumps Approved Through a Approved Public Hearing ,3 Administratively More than 8 fuel pumps Within 300 feet of residential may be approved as New facilities property 8 fuel pumps part of a public hearing with fuel subject to LDC Section pumps 5.05.05 C.3. Further than 300 feet from No maximum N/A residential property Additions or More than 8 fuel pumps relocation of may be approved as Within 300 feet of residential fuel pumps or property 8 fuel pumps part of a public hearing. underground Existing fuel pumps as storage tank of(effective date) may 15 1:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-38- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term vent riser I be modernized or opening at replaced. existing Further than 300 feet from facilities with No maximum N/A fuel um s residential property The measurement shall be the shortest distance between the nearest fuel pump or underground storage tank vent riser opening, whichever is more restrictive, to the nearest residential property. 2 Public hearings shall include, but not be limited to: conditional uses, PUDs, PUD amendments, and rezone requests. 3 Public hearings shall be subject to LDC Section 5.05.05 C.3. 1 2 3. Considerations for public hearings. This section applies to 1)facilities with 3 fuel pumps seeking more than 8 fuel pumps within 300 feet of residential 4 property or 2) new residential property seeking to locate within 300 feet of 5 existing facilities with fuel pumps with more than 8 fuel pumps. These uses 6 may be approved through a process that includes a public hearing. In addition 7 to related findings or criteria established in the LDC, the public hearing shall 8 include, but are not limited to the following considerations to address 9 compatibility and adverse impacts of the request. 10 a. Number of fuel pumps. 11 b. Proximity and mitigation to residential property or facility with fuel 12 pumps. 13 c. Hours of operation of facility with fuel pumps. 14 d. Architectural design, lighting, landscape buffers, and other site features 15 as described in LDC section 5.05.05 B.2.a.i. 16 e. Location of fuel pumps, parking, loading, and refueling areas. 17 f. Buildings or features, as described in LDC section 5.05.05 B.2.a.i., that 18 are located between residential property and the proposed facility with 19 fuel pumps. 20 q. Additional uses and accessory uses of the facility with fuel pumps. 21 h. Whether the facility with fuel pumps is within an activity center. 22 i. Any other factor or technology that reduces the level of fuel vapors 23 impacting residential property. 24 GD. Building architecture and signage requirements. 25 1. Building architecture shall meet the requirements of section 5.05.08, 26 2. Signage for facilities with fuel pumps. The 27 following are the only signs allowed in facilities, 28 with fuel pumps and convenience stores with gas fuel pumps. 29 a. Window, Wall, and other signs: As allowed in Section 5.06.00 of this 30 Code. 31 b. All canopies may have an illuminated corporate logo with a maximum 32 area of 12 square feet shall be allowed on a canopy face which is 33 adjacent to a dedicated street or highway. Otherwise, accent lighting, J4 back lighting and accent striping are prohibited on canopy structures. 35 c. One ground sign shall be permitted for each site and shall be placed 36 within a 200 square foot landscaped area. Height is limited so that the top 37 edge of the sign face is less than eight feet above grade. Maximum 38 permitted area 60 square feet. 39 d. Signage is prohibited above gas pumpsfuel pumps. 16 I:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page -39- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 1 PE. The following landscape requirements are in addition to the requirements of section 2 4.06.00 Landscaping and Buffering. 3 1. Right-of-way buffer landscaping: 4 a. Landscaping adjacent to rights-of-way external to the development 5 project shall be located within a landscape buffer easement which is a 6 minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in width. Water management swales 7 shall not be located within these buffer areas; however, water 8 management facilities such as underground piping shall be permitted. 9 b. An undulating berm with a maximum slope of 3:1 shall be constructed 10 along the entire length of the landscape buffer. The berm shall be 11 constructed and maintained at a minimum average height of three (3) 12 feet. The berm shall be planted with ground cover(other than grass), 13 shrubs, hedges, trees, and palms. 14 c. The required trees and palms shall be clustered in double rows with a 15 minimum of three (3)trees per cluster. Canopy trees shall be planted a 16 maximum of twenty (20)feet on center within a cluster. The use of palms 17 within the right-of-way buffer shall be limited to landscaped areas 18 adjacent to vehicular access points. Palms shall be planted in staggered 19 heights, a minimum of three (3) palms per cluster, spaced at a maximum 20 of eight(8)feet on center, with a minimum of a four(4)foot difference in 21 height between each tree. Exceptions will be made for Roystonea spp. 22 and Phoenix spp. (not including roebelenii) which may be planted one (1) 23 palm per cluster. A maximum distance of twenty-five (25)feet between all 24 types of tree clusters shall be maintained (See Illustration 1 below). 25 d. All of the trees shall be a minimum of fourteen (14) feet in height at the 26 time of installation. Trees shall have a minimum of a three and one-half 27 (3%) inch caliper at twelve (12) inches above the ground and a six (6)foot 28 spread. At installation, shrubs shall be a minimum of ten (10) gallon, five 29 (5)feet in height, with a three (3)foot spread, planted four(4) feet on 30 center. 31 2. Landscaping adjacent to all other property lines: 32 a. Side property boundaries (other than those adjacent to rights-of-way) 33 shall be planted with single row hedges consistent with the minimum 34 requirements of section 4.06.00, Landscaping and Buffering. 35 b. Rear property boundaries (other than those adjacent to road rights-of- 36 way) shall be planted with a single row hedge. The hedge shall be a 37 minimum height of four(4) feet at planting, planted at three (3)feet on 38 center, and shall be maintained at a height of five (5)feet. 39 c. Curbing shall be installed and constructed, consistent with minimum code 40 requirements, between all paved areas and landscape areas. 17 l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page -40- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term M.us1A/1111M, i ggg ., 1 SY I 2 Illustration 1. Auto Service StationFacility with Fuel pumps R.O.W. Landscape Requirements 3 €F. Facility with fuel pumps sites shall be separated from 4 adjacent residentially zoned or residentially developed properties by an architecturally 5 designed 6 foot high masonry wall or fence utilizing materials similar in color, module, 6 and texture to those utilized for the building. Landscaping shall be planted on the 7 residential side of the fence or wall. 8G. Lighting. 9 1. All lighting facilities shall be directed away from adjoining properties. 10 2. On-site luminaries shall be of low level, indirect diffuse type, and shall not exceed 11 a height of greater than twenty (20) feet above finished grade. 12 3. Lighting located underneath a canopy shall be of low level, indirect diffuse type 13 designed to provide light only to the pump island areas located underneath said 14 canopy. 15 GH. All restrooms shall be located inside or to the side or rear of the building. 16 ill. As required by section 5.03.04, a six (6)foot high enclosed trash area to be integrated 17 with the design of the service stationfacility with fuel pumps shall be provided. 18 1J. Storage tanks shall be located below grade. 19 4K. There shall be no outside displays of products, stacking of tires, or other merchandise. 20 14L. No facilities with fuel pumps shall have an entrance or 21 exit for vehicles within 200 feet along the same side of a street as a school, public 22 playground, child care center, church, hospital, public library, or any institution for 23 dependents or for children, except where such property is in another block. 24 LM. Color accent banding on gasoline canopy structures and all other structures is 25 prohibited. Canopies shall be of one (1) color, consistent with the predominant color of 26 the principal structure, if applicable. The color of all structures on-site shall be of soft 27 earth tones or pastels. 28 MN. Each facility with fuel pumps shall provide the necessary 29 infrastructure and pre-wiring in order to provide the capabilities for generator service in 30 case of emergencies. 31 NO. In addition to the retail dispensing of automobile fuels and oil, only the following services 32 may be rendered and sales made, except as indicated: 33 1. Sales and servicing of spark plugs, batteries, distributors, and distributor parts. 18 l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-41- 3/10/2015 9.A. Text underlined is new text to be added. Bold text indicates a defined term 1 2. Sales, mounting, balancing, and repair of tires and wheel alignments, but not 2 recapping of tires. 3 3. Sales and replacement of water hoses, fan belts, brake fluid, light bulbs, fuses, 4 floor mats, wiper blades, grease retainers, wheel bearings, shock absorbers, 5 mirrors, exhaust systems, and the like. 6 4. Provision of water, antifreeze, flushing of the cooling system, air conditioning 7 recharge, and the like. 8 5. Providing and repairing fuel pumps and lines. 9 6. Minor motor adjustments not involving removal of the head or crankcase. 10 7. Greasing and lubrication. 11 8. Sales of cold drinks, candies, tobacco, and similar convenience goods for service 12 station customers, but strictly and only as accessory and incidental to the 13 principal business operation. 14 9. Provision of road maps and other information. 15 10. No mechanical work shall be allowed outside of the enclosed areas. 16 11. Oil drainage pits or appliances for such purpose or repair purposes shall be 17 located within a wholly enclosed building. 18 12. Uses permissible at a facility with fuel pumps do 19 not include major mechanical and body work, straightening of frames or body 20 parts, steam cleaning, painting, welding, storage of automobiles (except as 21 expressly permitted in subsection 13. below), commercial garage as an 22 accessory use, or other work involving undue noise, glare, fumes, smoke, or 23 other characteristics to an extent greater than normally found in such 24 stationcfacilities. AR facility with fuel pumps is not 25 a facility for the sale of automobile vehicles, a repair garage, a body shop, or a 26 truck stop. 27 13. The temporary storage of vehicles shall be permitted if the vehicles are to be 28 serviced at the service stationfacility with fuel pumps or if the vehicles have 29 been towed by the service stationfacility with fuel pumps and are being held for 30 servicing, for an insurance company, or for salvage. Any such vehicle(s), other 31 than those vehicles serviced daily, shall be stored within an area surrounded by 32 an opaque fence not less than six (6)feet high. Said vehicles shall not be stored 33 longer than sixty (60) days. 34 14. Washing and polishing of automobiles and sale of automobile washing and 35 polishing materials, but this only allows auto detailing as an accessory use. This 36 provision does not allow carwashes except in those zoning districts where a 37 carwash is a permitted use, and where such carwashes shall be subject to 38 criteria specified in the zoning district. 39 Q . Exceptions: 40 1. The site design standards set forth in 5.05.05 B.1. (table) shall not apply to, nor 41 render non-conforming, any existing facilities with 42 fuel pumps or any automobile service tatiensfacilities with fuel pumps 43 within a PUD in which a specific architectural rendering and site plan was 44 approved as part of a rezoning action prior to July 5, 1998. 45 2. The site design standards set forth in 5.05.05 F.—M. or any other applicable 46 development standard shall apply to existing 47 statiensfacilities with fuel pumps pursuant to the provisions of 9.03.00 48 Nonconformities, and all other applicable sections of the Land Development 49 Code. 50 (Ord. No. 09-43, §3.A; Ord. No. 10-23, § 3.JJ; Ord. No. 13-56, § 3.S) 51 # # # # # # # # # # # # 19 I:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\SECOND ROUND OF DRAFTS\5 05 05 Automobile Service Stations LDCA for 3-10-15 BCC 3-2-15.docx 3/2/2015 11:59:57 AM Packet Page-42- 3/10/2015 9.A. 1) L Y. Q) Q Q z a Packet Page-43- 3/10/2015 9.A. rots q ° C 3 3�i�g44.' ;F; .. d-+ Q m U m M 0 M M M m 0 0 co ' O' , U O O N' , 1 N N N N U , ;' 'CS t, C L Q Q) `� O -0 00 v, T ) .i fD 10 ❑. 0 a) a) �' ,,,0 �'{`_: -C C 0 ACA r-., p 'N C -C 0 c�II X � a �+ C O N U S a) E U to 4. a) a) bp 13 •^ x1 ,,, m a) v U s +� +� d' 00 +� L CO - a a ri Q� i C U C C L E a .^ Q!Al-.�' -''`: �+ E > L a) c L CD °- •L :� •` !n aNi +�` 0 O t > N d 0_ co N a © v r, :ti:.-;; +-' N al y ++ -a L i= Ca ∎4- •.• 4) oD �L,, +�.+ C: ri v, o c a) a) 0 -a u +. v In C Q v ",C1..4t:'''&0,-')" ° ua c .v u L U ++ a ut of "6 C + e, ,! E c C a) c co U 0 C 0) �. -, c 0 co '4/,. A .S`•60'''')1 G" ' et 0 a..l Q. C a) (J a > L '. t a) r6 , ++ 3 Ou of ++ a U h L cp y v �'~' N 1, ,70r., _c rci To C Q O C v &)i vi S 0 ' CTS 4-, 4" a) F- O 17 i u A /�/�'' r 1 v, O +v; o L U co -a +' 4 a) CD l6 C U vi in iii„}, V a) }' U Si, �± .`, L 0 C C 0 L Vf •` a) L C 0,,„, 4 4 c b 3 u"i ° ca v n °) c v01i v .� rn tli.r r�; co In 0 v, .a -0 0 h cn L O w i 'X ,� C' C +L' a O a) _ fl U 'O CCD v� O co r0 Oa 3 0 O > no in a, 0 ca a) co Q — v � j#Rr � � C C d0 a1 a) to � 4- 4' " W 4 E fro—t0a n: C N 0 cc c O CO L 0 CO E o N O E E /� N C s ; ~ L > _ U 'Tv of .N .` L O L 0 4- f+ • i 1 N,: m y ro 4 4 .N V •0 B a) t.)-5 d d To U o Q In L C d c0 T O •i` Y > O a CD W N C � v ,o . ;e, a) H a S O a u Q u c N C +1 N N aG a CO 4- Q CD a) > a)c 0)�, ,cg T o O v ,,, c '.. v 1 "' v -a v, v 'a ca "0 .1 +, v, a) O ry m > c a`) m v � : s C C tC C W 0 a) u CO 0 45 E ar rn a) In 7 v C LA U - cp Q 3 4- r6 p a) 0 �+ O U +O• u co �, a c en ut u■^. ' O L N v, C T 0 ' 4- L .0 L rD a) -J Vl C CD 'a E a) O d "- • L O "a O CD a) L 0 C .N fl. 0 00 C 0 -c 4-' .L LL._ C d N T L of 0 ..a U �9 0 aj,� vi• v x., rL+ C a U L) O N > +� T O C C 4- O ut 0 ��s c CU C L v 0 a) a) 3 ra La a'' v ++ a) p 0 v 0_ v 27= c m 3 v > .- 0 tea) 0 o a—' o m E C N z • n ,, v CO 4; v, c a) 3 0 - O -- (..) - 33 3 r co ,' a co rn • 2• b, Ou ai - ..a N cC Y u +• a-• an 0 L 0 a " co co` - c CD co a) 0 rCO O Q `0 o a) c Q " o p u s-f U o C ° - v, 0 0 v, 0 _0 a) 0 a) v, c_, O a 0 ,`i, E a C a , 4 '"`'� rC '0 a) E -0 0 L 0 - +' Y 'a 7 Z 0 x �' 3 C 'a .> a 0 •> L 4-- C > •> > •> r-n 00 +� E C 'n Q k p ^ u O U v, O O C 3 OL N OL T OL Q) a C 0 0 .0 `^ a.. ",,, Q 0 `) Z d ro < 0- -, d v, - .0 a w m Q +.+ U 0 ++ O '# o ui "' a L) ... r0 ,fin / U � , s c a) o E a) _ o cu 1 .,, x c9 U _ _ a) u7 c �" f£ a rC c w Cj !6 t9 tp O D U E V) L O L � •i' U N U v, N . ;'. a) •� 0) C 4] a) r0 Y +' C ++ C v, L U 0) .0 T O v w6,Ev arrA,i' 'V C a) •L -,,C1) E c .1-, CO '�' ' 's:; o o c 0 c N 0 a� m a) v, a) v, u O� ma U a L 0 U U V U S V C7 2 0 yes xe w ri'• 'd ti E 0 U J O • ' t + .,� OD k i aS N Packet Page -44- 3/10/2015 9.A. a) C ,__4 LE o m D 4., 0 CO 0 0 .0 o 0 ct R (-4 Q. .,-, 0 1 C C C (. CO CO N Q 0 L 0 0 0 R D R x C C • • • C C C C a) C C 43 .5 .5 4- a-= cCD - .0 O o 0 0 0 c E E E v v E a) E a E E Q) . 0 0 a) a a) N a) 0 L 0 0 LO C • L -C -C t U L L Y +J +J 4 Y L Q, u 0 0 C C C C C 0 � O O Tr Q CO - 0 O O O O E E E.co N a += iD '+ fD fD CD c6 f0 L a) a) a) L , a) a) C C C C 0 .0 o .0 . ••1•Cl) _o _o it .o U L L N y 0 0 o E E E E E O o o `D To M 0 0 0 0 0 a) aj Cl) f6 H C to b..O U U U U U MO i) DO on a) N co -O -0 'O -O 0. 'a L CU a) O O O O O a) N a) a) co a) ELI N 'Cr) N G) O) aJ C aj aj N c ro U U U V1 0 U U -0 -0 .0 .0 -0 C o C C ` C C E a) a) a) a) a) a) a .,a) U ++•O `- hA OD d0 OA 00 N _ _ > v, 6a, 3 3 Cl) -Ctts 3 3 4-C v •- ai ai ai ai ai •4-� + +-, 0 _ O' o U U U U U O a) O O U IA a, O O C C C C C O L O O L ? v, X X 4- 4- 4-- 4— ~' 4O X N E CI) CU CU CZ a) a) X 4 a) a) N N _- N U N O N fD c6 cD (D -FCO cD cD .co U L . o 3 3 3 3 3 s 0 C Z- Ln 4 - Q C II 3 3 3 a) cu ate) aa)) CU •3 > 3 3 I— 73 - 7 0 L 0 v V/ C co a) L al a N cc • fli >- 4- U U U U U .�` w- a- C a) a) a) co co co co CO a) a) a) > al W ti: co E E E E E co a � CO a GA-C -C t -C to C U vU, D U U U U U `^ 0 +� -00 -0 CO 0 W .- -0 C -C C .E t t t t a C t 1... O co CO co 3 3 3 3 3 c o ro I 7• a) ai ai ai ai ai a) Cl) C Cr; � a 3 N N -6 -O -O - -O -o 'O '0 a) O -a +� v 3 3 '3 '� '� u U . u C N "-• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V, .- 0 0 0 _a CU l7) a) O O N - O C N e-1 ,--1 ri r-I N m G U ON N Q V O V O m m m 00 m V O "a D N V O U O C a) a) v a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) L1 o a) — a) Q co Q +- Q o. FT- F• T- +� F> L > H H F?- !- F- Q H I? H H w o ui >• o _ N i a) E +T, C o U 4J U. lD = '� v +�' 0 L E > �' o v a) Y E +r '-' a) N °C a) L ~ -°- E co >- a) Q C a) a) u can Cl) E _ _ a, a aI 0 'U N a..+ E L L cD L Q u 0 7 ++ C: = L cn CD C O O -o a cD D C 3 0 cn i L 4-+ a) {A •` O O L O 0 N 0` a = a, a, D - E C N .0 E U C a) c U U U E 0 °' a v > w o t;_- 00 C° N _ O EO 3 00 0 a) 03 a) N (D O O z U Q `- < in cc > ,•-° U m E a U () U U a O > 5 0 (.7 Q cn E a, _ to V1 73 0 C v `O" 0 10 O E N o +' ° v v o C L J Job �, CUD N u O O L v .- co a 1p y U o in a m Q •� N Packet Page-45- 3/10/2015 9.A. M .0 U ca .Q U N N N ,-i ci ,--I N Cr) "i O 0 0 ul d p p Li Li Li U -- LA L!1 L1l I.P1 LA L rl In LA LA LA LA L17 0 O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 LA LA LA LA LA LA LA Lfl LA LA LA LA O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD LA LA LIl LA Lf Lfl LA "O LA LA LA Ill Lfl CD Q 0A N C To L 0 a••, c v > 0 c. C 0 00 N '� 'C vi 4- 0a L C - in 6 .0 3 . t 0 0 4_ d CO t O VI N C -0 04 Oa dA _ ° 0 U ±, -0 a) = a) C L v Q r L '+� Q a••, a) -O "a a (1) ▪ L ° co fa 0 s i a) a) Q. "O c 0 a) (Y.) UO �_ vi �+ 0 C +' C, a) C 0 C a) O CD t L Q fC0 E C J a > L U C '° '06 a) N L O L - 0 VI co O a) a.., d '� ? O 00 � 'C-., E C C O. `D IID cN-I CU 6 - _ C _ 0 U > O CU�_ ca a ��, 3 4, !0 a) 4"' y L.) a - O +� U C L ,••, a-+ a) L,• C o co (6 0 0 C 7 0 . O 'C MI I Q n O '�. 0 L '0 a) ,N CO • L C C ° +-, Q Ln VI Lp O -p c 0 O 0 O 4- - 3 O O O >. O in 0 .0 0 a) L4 C C O vi ID "6 L C 0 ,o Ms C O L E L C Ln O fD L 0 ;� Vl U 0 ` 4_ -c C CO E C s a) C C O '+O- •- a) t -0 E 0 ti a) O 0 a) °' L9 "C La -C 0 LD c Ln u _ u 00 0 d C C O +, 0 U CO '� a) t N E cD t N 0 0 o L v a ai _ c ° 4...� 4., — N 0A '4- +'C CO 0 > .> a) C > 4- Co 00 >, a) N C ON - a)`n 4_ 'C a) a_c •c C O w cu +� @ + v c ° s s Q = >. •F ° 4- 3 af6i N o E E c E cu a) +, +, 4- c C L •0 6I. O C 0 a) L O a) in a) C 0 (D 0 0 r( 0 a C f0 'O '.- '- LA "Q co 'O 76 z co .L' '� 00 �, +, E M � OD �i ,, E (�J ° -6 O •� V 2 _ L .0 7 C L a) L cc 0 4- +r L •�•, a) O a) a) C LA• to 'O a Q' U c0 6' 0 0 C O U y,, ',,._ 0 L L S2 7 a1 +' L a) ° no a) U Q -0 c L E Q 4- v- _ C a) a) a) Y 41 CU L >.. X a) .-C a) ,L., >� a) cc N •O u ut � of u a �, E �t fD v >- a) L E a0•+ a) LLD +0, v N E O C 7 v In U •.G U LD d ,L-+ C i �' E v 0 4 > Ln o +, E co a) tin >, u a) co v ,� °c o L�'OLi, cc u co o N E O `XD o tea) > tea) 0 0 U N C CO ` aa)co +- E c V, ws •- a) 4- 4- u E — v E ` () 3 vs 0 a) o f6 4- L C +v u cu IF) CU OU 0) 4) U 'O a) O -c ro s co O C U fD • ) a) •- ° CC w= CO }, -0 C 0 'I, L Q +' *' [Lo 'in CO 0 'O t 3 E t0 Ca) 4-- O N t of fo ++ 0n in C N U O _C C C E •in 00 C a-, O a) +, C "O 0 'n c0 D ro CV c cm 0) O _ .`- C f0 E �, c c.,--- f0 c0 f0 ° L 0 co c a) 3 cD > L rD o L v E — — _Q v -° E a c L o .L a u o ..0 o c o f *= E a as co E 'Q c " VI 0 o 0 0 CO e CO a ° ° °� s v o f � -c co a -o E ° E -c O O L 0 a) 4-, C 0 s3 - C N w 0 Ln 00 C U O N C (D U L .0 'N U a) � i-- a) - a) VI 4- Q -C I = +, -0 0 L0, 7 .N O L a) cD L a) _c @ E a., +_S C >. N C v U ■' 0 C Q a) -0 i 0_ co L ••- M ~ Ltn CO - .` O '° a) '> E 0_ c a) LU 0 L _fl a) O — a) co 4- 00 4- U C +0, 4-' 7 0 E C n ro U a) — V0, VI a. E .c 0p O C C a) - >. f0 Q A ° C 'n 4-4 Q I- >- 4_ct L to 04 co fo a) N C C 4' 9 vi 0 — 00 E C 0 +'' E. V u N 4- N .o O. 000 a LL', ,_ _Q a Ln O Q Q CO Q E +L•' L9 C N ? E i O v ° E O -a _c 00 co 0 0. To -0 cD ra m .M^.r T t ::, a) 3 to U a) cD a) cD o L Q) .,_, C E 0 'L a) U U �° U (D °- VI .� �, �' C ° 0 -° C L) y 0- _c +, "' vI C ,n a) 0_ Ln 00 O +-, +, C C co LO = - 3 0 0 a) O = n i0 ° LA u a Q -0a E o. J Q f9 s U c °-° . v O o ° Q O in J - L U Ln co 0 CU L!1 L / Y +, C IA L U CO aJ 0 E T > C ° N C U cu n Ln v L E W a) o. .a) -Q Q CL a O lC6 OL fL6 C U >. 000 N N O_ '° °. -0 In N N u O L v C L C .0 - 'O E o O C o U in cc .a U co m U m U C v E 0 E +' c in a) .� ao as C E to O C 0 0 a) Q �, a 0 4-) E U CO c -' N tin U a) ° `- C Q O 5 4- 0a L Q) CV m _f 9, a L rr m ° J Q _ Packet Page -46- 3/10/2015 9.A. cD - U —0 r•.1 Ni Ni N U U U U C.9 S — Y • O O O O O O O O 0) O O IA 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO L!) u'i Lf) Lf) tfi tf) LIT Lf1 a) a) t -a a) L co CU t- Q L L Y X .N a) '� �, c 'U L "CS cu - U a) CO O '6µ- t4 +-J lD 0_ a) a) a) +.' N :•• a L.+ S.. C h O Q 7 3 c .°A a) w .;° C CS L 0- W U 00 Q co in a) C > C N N -c 0 co t- N O '--I 0 c a C L of N N N v a) L L >- a) O ? a) o co tD L +- ` .n co 7 C a) t .3 3 a. - F L �i - L pA O V' L 0 ut fD ' C a1 U t_ 'a s_ 3 U "6 U Q co E L f6 • L -c a 0 >. a! `C O a a) C U C co O- U C L "C > a1 O v' >_ U CCD N C Q. " L O O a) a) oco E L } '.d U a L t- '-+ +'' fD L x v' _0 O L X U W C L 'a O tt- t- += a -a 3 v—, L v 4 " DO a) � a a 8 LE v CI) E to c a o ca C 2 aX) E v v c O -0 L ro Q. -a on 7 to o a, O a) +, O c C.) fD u +J +, a) vt +, C t- a) r co 0 a) U a) ) Q) a) -0 ca I.- ', 0 C s_ U L+ a) 'L 01 co vv' 0_ C al co , t- O L fl_ U a1 i a) no a) co co +-, O a1 K U '6 'Q O '., v) 0. 0 (D _c -0 t- s_ i O 0 E O a! O L CO cu Li) 03 O C N a1 l0 (L (6 a, +, a L -C +, 0 ac) a1 c c o aa)tn 0 0 LE U ,_ •E co op -O +. . • O L -a U c -O U C 0 Lri O. U a > CT) CO u' a) c C c a) -a ,.' 0 U a1 +-' co O- O 0 ro U C a 4., a- L O 0O V) V' a)j5 . U oA L a) 0 U 4, t- v' v0i (D o .a L = Q v - a) a) t>.. a) v U L O '.� v' CD -C _0 a) C .�.. >. C L v' +, J CO fD •- to a) C L ut CO a N Vf 0 v' U — L L }+ - a, C E ca Y co E O` co ca a 4- O, a, -O a, C co "c . O- O O O O U co CU O_ O 'Q 3 Q s O t'- -a 4J E -O c E O O C a1 dcD U Q) CIO v' -- "O n a1 O v' co Q co Q U O C C CD oc0 — `^ O a O E I o < < io — O f0 tw in < < a Z v' 0 vi 0 vi a) L a, yd Q VI — 0 u1 tip CJ c 3 510 b.0 >• -a N 0 O- C C +, a, -a v' 0 O 0 w U C C C C 0 D @ v' U 0 U c a) co E a) E U C 0c cD co E C 'L, Q V' E H w o O a) J O C L CO i= .-I V) . N t- tF O C V' C 0 CO N CIO a1 t- a-+ i.7"-)i.7"-) CC H Cr) (- / Packet Page-47- 3/10/2015 9.A. e-I N m d- N. C 00 2z •z z z zzzz z z z Z in 0 C z o o O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O ") 0 0 L U o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO L v• Ln Li, tri LA ti tri Sri Lri L.r1 111 CL a) L Q L "6 - a L ° a) °c° m E vi a re C w LI) O ++ "O U O C C t N U 1.� '3 CD t S ,o C O L a .N E O CL c- a 4- a CO , C L E �/. C "` 0 E U a ` O U uo L 0 O 4 U O a u C, a) L - U) a) 4- N a) n w 0D a) .x •o u CL° -1 L 0 N " •C .Q •, a) C -6 a) 0 ro 7 ut C O -0 NO , C L N H co a t- 4.., v, an "E O X U ..0 L co v, C to •C CO Y ro C O ui a) CO c to N "C co C of a O L U U1 U C L c 3 ao _OD ,- M O Q N O L a) a -a _m E t3 > n o U c c X i a) "- a > a co y_- U a vi 0 > a) v a) a Q C) > U ts > +, C t a {A "O 3 ro O b° {•' v a a L r° r° ro O `- Q L N 4-- L W v, a O' "O '.1-.RS a U O E n tF3 .ti co O ro a E L C up a) '. — L U U C U a U co i 3/10/2015 9.A. N 0 N *Cr O. —, e-7 I-I Z Z Z Z y O O O O o m v C C o 0 0 Ca L.ri u1 u1 u1 tf1 CL 1 ` LO 492 no U Q O tn a (c/)3 •L x • N 3 N p O L c to N to E ON a) L ..0 (1) C O v d Q CD O Q rs ..o U a H v 3 N C Q t0 U O C O c (B U 4--+ R .0 a) co a.... fo 01 co O N oA V N cu l0 (B . U .3 v .N-I a) O N "' N t N N a) (D aJ E > 3 U fo O C L 4) N (n a. 'O oA v o t U H - E a) — C O N +-, •O •L °c ._in a) 3 '0-.) L O W O B .+_L' az b0 O -0 N CD c U c O _ U L � O '47. O O U O O N 7.) a) a - w � C fl 3 a to c co N a) N f6 O 4A Y j C a) 0 0 fa i/1 'O --,-= O u N L N `� E • Cu 2, N v+'i .� LO y U E _ _ N •q.a R1 C) Q_ L tii C'co •0 C E U N o L ((D O 7 O .7 _ x N AS ..,., U aJ •a -6 U a) a d '-' U O O (o v) 41 a) _ L = •` N N a! L O 4— O N ` O of `n (a • O -a C ro -c 7 CD p a) (o 3 fa - v Q " v 0 N 3 c 3 (a cu w D•- .0 > O N I- U a) 0 OC Q C U U ae i E o , N O O U O a) U .— N O N o O O E C O Q ^ (o U O N d c N . = .- L U aJ H o f .7, ro E 0 o ' N -0 v s O O_ > > N CD N - C N N • h0 x .0 = - U .a O O L y C C) (o — C 0 Q •v, -0•• a) (o O s_ L TO CO E O > a) E U n- +O. 0 N 'co' O N O + o A a n Q1 -c-:___, O Co L a) N D t;', — Z < o F— a o N 0 (1) N 11) `3 C Y a) O E N N c cu v U Q (6 L N O C 3 cu CJ in t u cn ro Co- n aJ a m E L L O (o O c oA O in N cu (0 (o O Q N N U i L N 0 in U N -cs E +, s o U 0 >CD N Packet Page-49- 3/10/2015 9.A. rn co 0 Q x c 0 0. - , a C r ) V m • O N 21 ir,gie � N F< .,a N Ncc .--i Np I N O a, mZ i 0 ,mw d �i âIIi #� 4 f�^v3 ` Z 3 F QO o>°oaOC 111 Q. .t vl H I 6 Z a 0 t0 co kb W � C �Z w,,_, .. x,...: N C .x_ 9 ■•< M 0 1 r4 1 101 1 ;c,;,r,c.:5 u., ....... v m ( d , O oaf v V N m N U 1 I 3 0 411114 II OO uWi=Z E Q. o N ° # O O PM!0 O' 0. CCCU T i L CO Li) W ■ al% CO Z v CU W ►�• ''�O $o cu ra D I 0 =tn <3 a L w �� '�� f°w v ++ a I all 0 0 a mv)Z *e, .5 0 crj_3 C;V LL I ' U_ L f i LL ww2, LLw gW o W Q + pi LL. ( 0 � < mv�i a m � Q I .5'5 i 1 m m A m v ILjJ i o v' u5 �W$ u DQ p t O( V O O Q e€h ;' `zW a, CO Au O m mI m I O V1 a' m - Z aWd a, UJ(�.EH p V J Ji o Eli 0 ar E a, E a N a —u- >. U C CU E c a, E Q U CD J cl- '-I o N Packet Page-50- Appendix B - Table - 3/10/2015 9.A. APPENDIX B - Table Packet Page-51- Appendix B - Table - l 3/10/2015 9.A. Facility Name Address Type Store Built. el Fuel Pumps 1 TEXACO-HAMMOCK 20018 TAMIAMI'TRL E, Retail 1944 8 NAPLES;FL" 34114 2 JOY FOOD STORE#622 516 W MAIN ST, Retail 1954 4 IMMOKALEE, FL,34142 3 EVERGLADES STATION INC . • 31990 TAMIAMI TRL E; ..' .: Retail 1962 10 EVERGLADES CITY, FL,34139 4 CHEVRON-COURTESY AUTOMOTIVE 1863 9TH ST N, NAPLES, FL, Retail 1964 8 34102 5 FRANKS SERVICE STATION 1190 9TH ST N, NAPLES, FL, Retail. 1964 12 34102 6 MACMILLAN NAPLES SUNOCO 11825 COLLIER BLVD, Retail 1967 6 NAPLES, FL,34116 820 W MAIN ST, Retail 1968 4 7 HANDY FOOD STORE#91 IMMOKALEE, FL, 34142 8 7-ELEVEN STORE#34325 12125 COLLIER BLVD, Retail 1971 6 NAPLES, FL, 34116 120 W DELAWARE AVE' 9 HANDY FOOD STORE#92 Retail 1972 4 IMMOKALEE,FL, 34142 10 SUNSHINE#269 3300 TAMIAMI TRL N, Retail 1973 12 NAPLES, FL, 34103 1871 PINE RIDGE RD, 11 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE#17114 Retail 1975 4 NAPLES, FL,34109 12 HANDY FOOD STORE#65 507 N 15TH ST, IMMOKALEE, Retail 1976 4 FL, 34142 13 CIRCLE K#7331 5680 RADIO RD, NAPLES, FL, Retail 1976 4 34104 4612 9TH ST N, NAPLES, FL, 14 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE#34148 34103 Retail 1978 8 15 CIRCLE K#7356 13550 TAMIAMI TRL N, Retail 1978 6 NAPLES, FL, 34110 697 9TH ST N, NAPLES, FL, Retail 1979 8 16 HESS#09204 34102 17 CIRCLE K#7330 603 COLLIER AVE, Retail 1979 6 EVERGLADES CITY, FL, 34139 18 CIRCLE K#7386 12405 COLLIER BLVD, Retail 1979 6 NAPLES, FL, 34116 19 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE#20991 1480 AIRPORT RD, NAPLES, Retail 1979 2 FL, 34102 2902 LAKE TRAFFORD RD, Retail 1979 4 20 HANDY FOOD STORE#75 IMMOKALEE, FL, 34142 21 HANDY FOOD STORE#50 417 NEW MARKET RD W, Retail 1980 4 IMMOKALEE, FL, 34142 22 KWIK STOP 1767 SAN MARCO RD, Retail 1980 4 MARCO ISLAND, FL, 33937 23 THE GREEN STORES FOOD MART 11339 E TAMIAMI TRAIL, Retail 1981 8 #107 NAPLES, FL,34113 l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\Research\Research Summaries\Corrected Gas Stations Locations in Collier County 1-7-15 Packet Page -52- Appendix B - Table - 1 3/10/2015 9.A. 24 THE PANTRY#3995 DBA KANGAROO 2934 E TAMIAMI TRL, Retail 1981 12 EXPRESS#3995 NAPLES, FL, 34112 '1117E MAIN ST, ' '25 _ CIRCLE K#7424 Retail 3983 10 IMMOKALEE, FL, 34142 26 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE#23962 641 S COLLIER BLVD, MARCO Retail 1982 6 ISLAND, FL, 34145 1812 LAKE TRAFFORD RD, 27 HANDY FOOD STORE#77 ' Retail 1982 4 IMMOKALEE, FL, 34142 � u 1183 AIRPORT RD S, NAPLES, 28 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE#24289 Retail 1983 2 FL, 34104 10795 TAMIAMI TRL N, 8 29 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE#24259 Retail 1983 NAPLES,FL, 34145 10996 WINTERVIEW DR, 30 CIRCLE K#2707457 Retail 1983 6 NAPLES, FL, 34109 CHOKOLOSKEE CH OUTDOOR RESORTS OF 150 SMALLWOOD DR, 31 OKOLO Retail 1983 2 SKEE ISLAND, FL, THE GREEN STORES FOOD MART 11225 TAMIAMI TRL E, #106 NAPLES, FL, 34113 Retail 1984 4 5320 TAMIAMI TRAIL N, 33 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE#25386- Retail 1984 4 NAPLES, FL, 34108 1998 SANTA BARBARA BLVD, 34 CIRCLE K#7488 Retail 1984 8 NAPLES, FL, 34116 8901 DAVIS BLVD EXT E, NAPLES, FL, 34104 :` 35' 951 PETROLEUM CORP Retail 1984 8 36 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE#25725 600 BALD EAGLE DR, MARCO Retail 1984 4 ISLAND, FL, 34145 5100 GOLDEN GATE PKY, 37 HESS#09466 Retail 1985 4 NAPLES, FL, 34116 2100 GOODLETTE RD N, 38 HESS#09462 Retail 1985 8 NAPLES, FL, 34102 6300 DAVIS BLVD, NAPLES, 39 HESS#09464 Retail 1985 8 FL 34104. 8600 RADIO RD, NAPLES, FL, 40 CIRCLE K#4755 Retail 1985 8 34104 2055 PINE RIDGE RD, 41 HESS#09461 Retail 1985 10 NAPLES, FL, 34109 11200 TAMIAMI TRL E, 42 BP-LELY Retail 1985 7 NAPLES, FL, 34113 8900 DAVIS BLVD EXT E, 43 MOBIL ALLIGATOR ALLEY: Retail 1985 10 NAPLES, FL, 34104 11466 TAMIAMI TR E, 44 K SQUARE FOOD MART Retail 1985 8 NAPLES, FL, 34113 17100 E TAMIAMI TRAIL, 45 NAPLES PETROLEUM INC 102 Retail 1985 8 NAPLES, FL 34114 .:.' 10861 AIRPORT PULLING RD 46 EVERGLADES PETRO STORE#11255 Retail 1986 6 N, NAPLES, FL, 34101 1600 AIRPORT RD 5, NAPLES, 47 HESS#09463 . Retail 1986 8 FL, 34112 I:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\Research\Research Summaries\Corrected Gas Stations Locations in Collier County 1-7-15 Packet Page-53- Appendix B - Table - 3/10/2015 9.A. 4831 TAMIAMI TRL E, Retail 1986 8 48 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE#30012 NAPLES,FL, 34112 249 PINE RIDGE RD, Reta;1 198b 12 ` 49 EVERGLADES PETRO STORES#11491 � NAPLES, FLT 341091 r 1033 AIRPORT PULLING RD S, Retail 1986 18 50 CIRCLE K#2707627 NAPLES, FL, 34104 , 101'E NEW.MARKET RD, Retail 1986 r 8 rk 51. NEW MARKET SRVCS INC yy° II�IMOKALE6,FL,34142 E:. .;.. _ ,_ 11655 COLLIER BLVD, Retail 1987 6 52 HESS#09465 NAPLES, Ft, 34116 -- 86 BALD EAGLE©R, MARCO 53 ; NORTHWEST PETROLEUM INC Retail 1987 8 4171 DrFII34145 4171 TAMIAMI TRAIL E, Retail 1987 14 54 HESS#09363 NAPLES, FL,34112 55PAVILION CHEVRON 8901T A MIAMI TRL N, Retail 1987 16 ` ` � NAPLES F 12800 E TAMIAMITR, Retail 1987 8 56 CIRCLE K#1700 NAPLES, FL, 34112 " 11163 TAT�llAM1 TRL E, .57,:,,,,,,- MARATHON FOOD MART Retail ,,,,,,,,,,,,,.1§8 8 6 NAPLS, FL,33982 �u. 1410 N AIRPORT PULLING' Retail 1988 6 58 PERSECO CORP RD,NAPLES, FL, 34104 w 3396 E TAMIAMI TR,NAPLES, ;r `Retail 1988 8 59, CHEVRON-SHAD01l�COURT FL 34112 33919TH ST N, NAPLES, FL, Retail 1988 10 60 MOORINGS STATION IDC 34103 4716 TAMIAMI TRL E, Retail 1988 - 12 61 SUNOCO HAMMOCK COUE#637`,- ;,; �-F : NAPLES; FL,34112 ' , .. 6615 DUDLEY DRIVE, Retail 1988 18 62 CIRCLE K#2709766 NAPLES, FL, 34105 143441MMOKALEf RD,�s 63, E°S COUNTRY STORE NORM H �x r Retail - 1990 8 NAi�LES,FL,34120 4577 EXECUTIVE DR, NAPLES, Retail 1990 12 64 EVERGLADES PETRO STORE#11148 FL,34119 � 6100 COLLIER BLVD, NAPLES,- Retail 1990 1:81 ::' 65 CIRCLE K#2707522 FL,34114 13213 CR 858, IMMOKALEE, Retail 1991 8 66 SUNNILAND COUNTRY STORE FL, 34142 � 3701 SANTA BARBARA BLVD, Retail 1991 12 ; 67` 7-ELEVEN STORE#34816 NAPLES;FL,34104 �� , ... � .�.�:: .- 4704 GOLDEN GATE PKY, 68 GOLDEN GATE STATION Retail 1991 16 NAPLES, FL, 34116 493 TRADE CENTER WAY,, Retail ],992 8 69 CIRCLE K#2211013' NAPLES;, 1,:34169 ", 3825 TOLLGATE BLVD, Retail 1992 12 70 CIRCLE K#2211031 NAPLES, FL,33964 740 BALD EAGLE DR,MARCO 4 Retail 1993 8 71 PROGRESSIVE AUTO CENTER INC' ISLAND, FL,34145 .� : " `;' l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\Research\Research Summaries\Corrected Gas Stations Locations in Collier County 1-7-15 Packet Page-54- Appendix B - Table - l 3/10/2015 9.A. 203 COLLIER AVE, Retail 1994 4 72 GATOR EXPRESS EVERGLADES CITY, FL, 34139 384 RANDALL BLVD,NAPLES, Retail 1994 • 8 73 RANDALL BP FL.34120.: 5098 AIRPORT PULLING RD, Retail 1995 12 74 CARILLON FUELS INC NAPLES, FL, 34105 THE PANTRY#3989 6065 PINE RIDGE RD, 7 Retail. 1995 18 DBA/KANGAROO EXPRESS#3989 NAPLES, FL, 34119 76 THE PANTRY#3919 DBA KANGAROO 1000 WHIPPORWILL LN, Retail 1995 20 EXPRESS#3919 NAPLES, FL, 34105 2135 TAMIAMI TRL E, Retail 1997 12 77 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE#32231.. NAPLES, FL;34112.: 7392 RADIO RD, NAPLES, FL, Retail 1997 12 78 NAPLES SHELL 34104 1095 N COLLIER BLVD' • 79 DASH IN DASH OUT Retail 1998 8 MARCO ISLAND, FL,34145 • 2490 VANDERBILT BCH RD, Retail 1999 12 80 7-ELEVEN STORE#34856 NAPLES, FL, 34109 319TH ST N, NAPLES; FL; 81 7-ELEVEN STORE#34803 Retail 1999 12 34102 6275 NAPLES BLVD, NAPLES, Retail 1999 12 82 COSTCO STATION#354 FL, 34109 7445 DAVIS BLVD, NAPLES, Retail 1999 12 83 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE#32295 FL,34104 21 GOLDEN GATE BLVD, Retail 2000 8 84 E'S COUNTRY STORE SOUTH NAPLES, FL, 34120 2520.NORTHBROOKE PLAZA Retail 2000 12 85 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE#32794 DR, NAPLES, FL,34119 3725 PINE RIDGE RD, Retail 2000 24 86 RACETRAC#602 NAPLES, FL, 34109 87 TEXACO-ISLAND WALK 6155 TOWN CENTER CIRCLE, Retail 2001 4 NAPLES, FL,34119 12750 TAMIAMI TRAIL E, Retail 2001 12 88 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE #33004 NAPLES, FL, 34113 2550 IMMOKALEE RD, Retail 2001 12 89 SAMS GAS#6364 NAPLES,.FL,34110 4025 PINE RIDGE RD EXT, Retail 2001 16 90 KANGAROO EXPRESS#3860 NAPLES, FL, 34119 7770 PRESERVE LN, NAPLES, Retail 2002 8 91 TOWN MARKET-BP FL, 34119 5606 TAVILLA CIRCLE, Retail 2003 12 92 CIRCLE K#2709775 NAPLES, FL, 34110 14267 COLLIER BLVD, Retail 2005 16 93 7-ELEVEN STORE#34888 .. NAPLES, FL, 34112 1235 CREEKSIDE TR, NAPLES, Retail 2006 16 94 7-ELEVEN STORE#34891 FL,34108 3835 WHITE LAKE BLVD, Retail 2006 20 95 CITY GATE BP NAPLES, FL, 34103 l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\Research\Research Summaries\Corrected Gas Stations Locations in Collier County 1-745 Packet Page-55- Appendix B - Table - L 3/19/2015 9.A. 5330 AVE MARIA BLVD,AVE Retail 2012 12 96 MOBIL AVE MARIA#696 MARIA, FL,341.42 '' `' 105 CARVER ST,IMMOKALEE, R . 2013 8 97 MINERS SUPER MARKET FL '34142 , 1150 AIRPORT PULLING RD, Retail 2014 20 98 RACETRAC#2348 NAPLES, FL, 34104 .71 SI"1'h t Y.,Y 3 6180 COLLIER BLVD,NAPLES, Retail 2015 20 , 99 RACETRAC#2358 .' t, 4114' 5420 JULIET BLVD, NAPLES, Retail 2015 20 100 MURPHY USA#7445 FL,34109 COMBS OIL COIMMOKALEE BULK, 525 E MAIN STa IMMOKALEE, BuikStorage -1950 0 101 ,FACILITY FL 34142 Fac ,.. G . .7. .' ' 730 E MAIN ST, IMMOKALEE, Bulk Storage 1952 6 102 GATOR FOODS INC FL,34142 Facility ,' 1500 AIRPORT RD, NAPLES, Bulk Storage 3964 .,0 103' COMBS'OIL CO NAPLES BULK FAC,-y FL 34104 Facilityu 3506 PROSPECT AVE, Bulk Storage 1970 0 104 BALLARD INC NAPLES, FL, 34104 Facility 3170 HORSESHOE DRS, „ ,Bulk Storage #NJA '3 105 EVANS OIL CO-.: FL,34104 ,Facility l:\2014 LDC Amendment Cycle 2\Amendments\5.05.05 Automobile Service Station LDCA\Research\Research Summaries\Corrected Gas Stations Locations in Collier County 1-7-15 Packet Page-56- _- - 3/10/2015 9.A. -----: i - I ( SLOL -- - - I I -- --1 CO I # S OZ "qi 'a — -�-- --- , i -r i .Z00L ��-� L 00 N 1 I �Vi .LOOZ a. - -I 1 1 �_ ---ter L00Z C �.. 101 elC OOL C — y � b OOOZ N ._� 1 ' i .6661 WRAF IBIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIEIIEIIMIIIIIIEIIVIII 6661 1 ® 6661 0 -_ 6661 866 L W — -----1.------"I I 1 1 L66L w.. _- : 1 i 9661 Q - :,. ! 566 L -- d - -y� ---•- S661 0 _ { I �� 4661 066 L �' I - I 1 9661 ��_ Z66 2661 1 ^ 1661 N -- 1 { -�_ L66L fl' - i ,- - - 066 L D 1 I - 0661 O. - bl� 0661 8861 r -; 1 1 886 L LL. J 9861 Ilt- y- --- f- - - 996 L Z r� -._--_ , � -:I L861 ' 1 �J L86L 2 fdl a __ ! j' ! I 1861 = Et i- L86L ' -i- -�-- 1-L96L m ---1_ ' -! �!"� 9861 Q • O 0 1 - .__1 -......r--"-'1 - ! { 9961 ,i-in � 1— ® 9861 u >Q EL b 4 - -----I-- f- -i i- ---- 986 Li, C 0 - g , ■5861 Q Z Q= ` I LL I 5861 W J r ( I ,"�' - 5861 (� _ - 9861 Q1. .5861 _�-:�_ 5861 •O I _-'- 5861 V i -1 -I-- = ! -1 1,59966 L 1 , ----i r 496 L '` 1 4861 1Ql I - IMMPAMMEEN�� 4861 Y-- --i --*--- i---------- 1-{-- - I_9861. C3 £861 .� I *�i� £86 L N - j— r£861. Z96 L E - -r { { 1 86 1 _�a 1 -{-I 1861 1861 - I 0961 C. -i- `1 I 0861 r f 1 0861 1 { d1 - - ■ 1 j' ;-6161 • LL - - I I {- 1 � 4 }6161 W. - - 1 1 1 6161 •• 0 I ■ I I--1 6161 1 -k.8L6 l 1 -I---- d.,m I 1 0 8161 ._ I. .__. ...I ^ - r _..__ 9L61 I { (9161 I t SL6L I_ 1 -�`I --r ."'e- _ 1£L6L t ZLb l C - - - 1 1 4 - 96 L 1 1 i ! 8961 I I _ 1 1961 f 1 I -- { 1-4961 1I I I { a 496 L •{ , ' j - 1 4561 '1' I I ik i 4461 N r NO 'Cr N O GO %ID N LD N N r•I N ,I Q311V1SNI SdWfld 13(14 — — —Packet Page -57- --- CoTker Cotinty Gas Station Sites ' 3/10/2015 9A `1 Grovin Managmen!Dn�sicn l L`I.EIe}y Legend rt tv, rt Retail Fueling Stations 1 I Raz Fuel Pumps San ,,,J,P o • 2-8 rrlct, 0 10-16 • 18-24 i Bulk Fuel Storage rc'-.- Late Trafford R0 ' • 0-6 jE Activity Centers City Limits LA EsGnita' .p„. { Bay Club "+ i I Bonita i Sp ingo t C:. I I. .'R The [Glllta le.,... Quarry' Bay E as t k' - Immekalee RD I?' m anderb If BeachiRp} <• Fells. j T qe` � ' Gotden Gate BLVD W `` VIII Pine Ridge RD t O r_ '' s z Gol. z Radio RD » R ttic—Re Ham mock RD r c-_.. era Re ,,, Park - .. .. _' PP .l HENDRY 11l'}{Ional 7 �L� g Fark E'r t'9as o 1a�— f r._DROE r, MONROE 1. 0 1.5 J 12 _ ., , Sources:Esri,HERE.DeLorme TomTOm,Intennap,`increment P Corp,GEBCO.USGS FAO,'NPS, -.. I Miles NRCAN,GeoBase IGN,Kadaster NL,Ordnance Survey,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong) • '- ylndia 0 OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS User Commoney Laura Gibson Packet Page-58- 5 nor Environmental Specialist Digital Plan Review and Application Support Appendix B - Methods - 1 3/10/2015 9.A. METHODS For Appendix B - Table and Maps The table and maps used as supporting data for this amendment were created using data from several State Agencies, Collier County Public Utilities Division-Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Department, Collier County Property Appraiser's data, historical aerials,and site visits conducted by Growth Management Division Staff. Retail and Bulk Gas Stations: Sources: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) Appendix B—Table 1 was constructed using multiple sources. It was created by first using all active petroleum facilities on the FDEP Underground Storage Tank Facility Database. Facilities that meet Homeland Security exemption requirements were not included.This list was refined using the DOR Active Fuel Licenses Database. The FDEP Underground Storage Tank Facility Database, Collier County Property appraiser's data, historical aerials, and site visits were used to determine the year built and the number of fueling positions at each facility on this refined list. Hospitals: Source: Florida Department of Emergency Management This dataset contains 2013 Hospital Facility Information. Nursing Homes: Source: Florida Department of Health Bureau of Community Environmental Health This dataset contains 2009 Health Care Facility Information.The data was edited to show only nursing home facilities. Assisted Living and Family Care Facilities: Source: Collier County Business Center All types of residential assisted living facilities subject to LDC section 5.05.04 Group Housing. Child Care Cen ters: Source: Florida Department of Children and Families This dataset contains 2010 Registered Daycare Facility Information. Public School Locations: Source: Collier County School District Includes schools labeled elementary, middle, high, charter and other. Parks and Preserves: Source: Florida Natural Areas Inventory's Florida Managed Land Areas Collier County Property Appraiser feature classes. Packet Page-59- Appendix B - Methods - L 3/10/2015 9.A. Collier GMD staff combined data from county, state,federal and private active and passive parks and preserves . Residential Zoning: Source: Collier County GMD GIS staff The residential zoning category was created by querying from the Collier County zoning layer all residential zoning types, including A-MHO, E, MH, MPUD, PUD, RMF, RSF, RT,TTRVC,VR, and the Ave Maria SRA. Agricultural (A)zoning was included only if located in the urban area and with existing houses. PUDs with no residential component were removed from this dataset. Packet Page-60- 'b'6 1 1./£ - Page 1 Appendix C -19- aSed laPed 3/10/2015 9.A. ., l0 N cn 01 Lh N M .� O di l0 N m Qi tT 000 '-i '-I O2S.: l0 ^ 02S m m 00 m O �t 06 tV m m o2S o2S 1- oo N m 't r1 a-I. U e-1 aO N l0 0, N co M • ,w •N `�^ • N N N., - kn ea O1 • - N _ N-i u1 t.0 00 � � y 1-1 m a, m m m to Tr t,,p t r. OZ( In 23 - U ea ti-- ,n `- o W c RS 17 3 ji0 `^ c o p n o ,: ' • O c <SA r c Q u o a`j ,. V) C C v Z 47 a`, ° QJ L t j � a s s = v, ° v •E ,n o2S m E u a a a a m U ti o E E c„ 16 a CD j r. .. = Z _ a a 0 0 ..c o s�- e x` ° c c E m a' a E a c l� ,� y„ w -a E a o o c o o c a o 619 ,4 •L c i' L s ° 0 c E c«. a s �o c ° O ° '-' °' o 5 E e0o c . `CU E u. a.' r{` 'r s,'a,` Q ~ 0 U z N m i E Ln •••• co •y9 tr+s > b0 ` C N N An c��',PIA C O ., > 7 E =f`-X0- x1i/ .: V1 N > = O - = m E _ [4*,-,,,,144 .4-5.4 tai =aJ s > 1O .1 to Oa '0 E u i m m (a Q ,n u ro I`-' o u Yi1 E -a aa, c6 a •s ! ir p E E o u a O n. f. r. 0 a� - p E E L CO C •- u v a c' '.'s,,,4),),„V z-; to > u U N' u o o s a s ' c w a m ?� y E •a G as o u c co Z-p .mot Via"_' 4.:7''7" O CL u 1.13 Yr. kt1`i t� $ N f0 C a a QJ y f6 o ° a - a > E cu c Q s l7 ` !_) s o E Q Q a N c '' , z Z E - E > a " a• E o O ', - E v 6 Cl. a v - ',z o c a a -o •> >o , y Z a co a E CO 00 f `' o2S 025 "O ,n c vi 'D 3 _ r =ni Y c m .L a o .3 - o c—ao - u 0 =o -° E y o O ,x ,L . a c ,v a E U ++ p U �: V 7 in L T A 'p Y "- � a —° v a E E .E a C u -, v s s Q. D v `n co m a Qa) „ys'1. �.r �, O .E a a' O c s a c c a .� a -c �,•_' fxn s o c E U N d C -^ E a v vi 7 E o c E 4re w > > c a C7 v, v do v ° c m v a E c 'C' -.-O c c a L c E c .- c a� c a a a R : f° 3 ° c o 4-' o 'c a `-° aci ' `—° d o v a M O �;3 , E 2 v = al 3 H a C C (La N •a) N -0 -° a "' L i- —^ °o N al 1 Z - ,• O� :, o �,- s - ° E n ;0 C m C o v CO O C CO CO L a) Q ',AZ a a ii •E .1 a a m N 3 a a u > CO cc cc Y a C °cn u x Y to L C O N N > a) ` -' ri ri E cu ,W u > E r› r a O 0 u C a u O M * ..ie.'2, t > RS A ;a o ' O O a+ +r N Packet Page -62- 3/10/2015 9.A. °Zi °. o� m N. co O m o0 o25 ' v 00, OZS �. OZS r�-1 ': d' V M .mi rm-1 OZS 00 r,) N M U 00 i-i N 00 '� N r 1 _ C t N oZS m - m m .�'" �- l0 „ o ,-•{ Q "� m m et') o2{ o2S Q N ,--I r-i M CN co :oo O o tD Q nai cr o 00 009 02j N 0'J 00 ° lr M o cr Q `n cr �) N o m m a • o 1D -� m, `� - ^ CO `-� O" 00 .c v m cc) n DO a) do aaa)i ^ ,n ,n vmi ,,o N o cn o u m in oo. m a ' `I'...° lD C ,n o?$ ,rM-I °� `� Q '1 N U T. C fll X Co'° � `° CC • aJ� `+ C u CC C O Co N CO �' O +�+ U 1 E t) OA .a V Y ffl C 4 c) y u C «, 0_ o to U U C 3 t-) D O 7 06 .0 n Q To +N-' .•-I' a t] �o 'u "c + a) Co CC0 -a - I:,i u C 'O ,n _ u ra :3-.3 '� 'C �O y al C Q w u 0. C 0 �_ u s .c v E ai O o m L v L. 1 7 E u m �o z �. c v coy o 3 a) -0 = N o c C a, v� o ' co T 0 u m U_Q ` 0 u 2 f0 _ N O ++ w -p fa 'in L. 00 C a CD a) N ra •}. p ".,.+ O •ta O. N a) C !t/Ci p .0 cc O C •u O U E C O i E c` ,- La-, c C, L. E U 4,..4.7. L N O E 7 'C c'' Q c E a) U n E O c v E o E a) 0 00 O O 4- U U U C 0 E 0 Z �' E 3 N Ln 4 Co CO a-' N V PV +�+ C U 0 N C `' aN.' U .=�. t u tY_n m a) v }, E Lu E •v TO = E n p m s. N E E > a) v, E Co o a E E O E ° z U a; E v N U z 0 0 0 u U E: E -O z O Y D U C Q Q p r C 0 O p +' 0 W L 0 c., O — L , _ a) O Co Co C C -C u 2 O E, 4- U 0 p VI J L p v .Q 2 'Cr) -O L F.O.. — m 00 _ i L E C 00 t0 D .0) L O •- do E Co Z C' c a Z .a, o Z O) 0 c0.: CO Z Z U _' c ,n n V, O C: .- ,- 7 �O 00 Cu, t) m T ..t.1 tO a_, a, 'X L > 0 N E > c Z Z Z E v n °D , a) Z E v v •0'C.. O O'. E N a c 7 C 9 ++ Q '- 4 a) O_. O Z C a) W p co- C CO G C N U in t Y.' 0 nr 00 U A 0 O a., Q ;, a) -0 O w' o ca o ui > E C N: C .. u; c o • on 0 i c ^0. al C d O a) a� a) w' a+ 4- a t� u w O s w 'Ea It ,-1 +� N .� N y C m .0., N E ill � Q m C ,C y ,v O N� O, ++ O N 4- 0) 0_i 0 w O o U 0 o N 44.C . + C 0 A E C O 3 3 3 r+ 0 Q •++ C O O O C U U CJ 3 c tel O 3 C U C dJ = t4 = .a-i Lri p 3 - p d C ' o co o N • Q, U o • U 0 a, U v) v _ Packet Page -63- 3/10/2015 9.A. U N ■ N N 02S • 06 N 1� M co N M 00 •d• • `^ u mm °� o2f o 06 0,6 N r-- m r'' rn o �M-1 "' o `i. oM o o "• o o c a m 06 v m ° d � oo OZ{ M m O m M o0 Om o M O Q .i N cF N Q p rM-I 'M'1 LC.)`m 1..... N• p CZ{ M e^-i 00• CO O O lD -:a^'1 O N N N CO :06 O `"i O ..y: m r` m m M d0' o .^-1 o N N M ^ o oZS .. .-1 n ^� M ^ U M <--1 .^-1-1 .^� i^-1 .'"1 U o 0 N .-1-•1 . N a--1 N 00 M ^ .mi � oft.Ll 1 in m In 06 cn N ,(-1 o2S In ado .M^1 at 0.-1 °� 'Li LA O ' c U y .c ` f0 co ` �° -a u Y : . O U U j w-. Y a. +L-+ C •� O ° v n O D. E o o N _ C) '`U t. a Ca .F-• al CU ° E ° C a0- a O E O N U' G .' 7 .- va, ° E a )- 00 U CO CO a aJ �o u o c - 0 ° ' 0 o.to c a - .c E o z to c a E E a 'O C Q C O > ° U U a '0 U E c CL ns ., O L m ° E z 3 c L E Fa (o U O TO co J > J C.. U aJ Fa t9 U N L 0) y N U w fa ca .�. -W a •° CO V .fl (' fa U �' J C to •y Q - - Q E ul LM vi C ate.+ :0 CC C a = cc - to To 3 Z 1- o ,�a G c Z c i 5 U v~i cn O a`, C E �, v m > z ZO m m - - E '- E U E 0 N a1 m 3 .`u a V N U 0 EO 'O N U I E iy o 'Ip co '13 to Q Z .� .� Q OU 6 'C L U O 0 W u m N = c 0 O ).- •- v = O m rj no a f6 ca E f0 > E = E E ~ �' aci v c H E a a`) a@i E 2 H- o E o X° c i E a O o ••c E = v u E u t '� o' E 0 `' c E a u° ow y m o U Z U N .._i _ o CO C C i% ° ns -, a 4-' ° N ° .a E a 'C :: . 00' r O .� v o '4- E a -°._ �, U 7 Q v, L1 ° u '` Q Q "= E ,v O Z a L/1i .n E LA N Z z - O) U U E c L- E a a 5- - O .f6 CO c Z v '- N O .a j a a `A d `n` t ti,'- Z E o E I» a Eo u o ..- c vi O a+ — O CO t). w C N .- Cl/ .•°1 a0)i o •-1 O a E a) 0 v-. m 0O L 4.,..- v- 'd In N 0 N a To 0 0 C � v N U ° E -1 •a N e U y v v C O. ' U — O ? U . C .r to C a Q E — -o c tif `' w a = CU � u o o u C .1 a) 0 0 C 2 Tr .E = c Q = o 0 to U < U 0 tJ U tW Z G Packet Page-64- 3/10/2015 9.A. V N . aS p lD C., M a7) . LD.. ,-1 .06 o2S 06 Ol to `-4 ,0.t\ O� u w- N ^ Lf) '"1 fD n e-1 to- LIB o �° X N N Q Q oZS o2S u, M ;,� 02S oZS ■ N lD a n N U U 00 m 0 - m :.d rill. a-1 N ,--) o 025 lD M V *-4 e..1 ` • 001 'I• N lf) aT M M M e-i ^^ rl L a 1fj u1 '� u., M = o2S ,.r) t0:. C` iA CZ LL V M M V U Ol M Lb t� r1 a) M U a) X -o •- o 0 L CC .0 0 C 0 0 C CJ c a) o - o > o L CL. nl DO ,-7-, C m CL �' u Q Z O '^ V E is .� a O ++ E *' ." a u E •" VI v a) a O = p C) �, cm E o o ul rt L a) f0 0 ` o _ c c .°_ a L a) m N o CU E - Z 0 c a E U a) E U E >. N o 0. H fa O aJ a m o c w C ;3 o m X 1-_,• �_ 1O — c ,/, on E E To � p Q °° m _ v E ,y1 ++coa E v p O N cii ." a) E is a,, U E m Tx)._ .0 J v p Z N E C v v E v `- Q .c Q O p y O d i o C) C 0 Z 7 0 p y u E u > > E E Lo.o : O m "' z - . U E v E 3 E 0 '� o o m', a v° v E won v u Z Z s m E E _ O a) u _E (..) = Q. U U d J U U J C O Z-1 N m U Q Q Q Q_ Z Z ,L f) Z Z a 1- 0 E 0 O 0 0 u L.- v CC T. a = U O a) ••c— 0 in v ^ C t 0 a) N 0 Y +L+ jab u1 .0 1p 0 a) C ++ 0 +-+ i C O .1 O Q M O to is 0 > s a To 8 E Q -, •L E O O ra ar •, y s Q 8 8 `a " u 1n c o o ra 0 u a) 0 C 6 vi ++ a) o •n c — 0 3 Y ,- C w.. +' CD '5 E C OD ro C = U rCa V a) C C C L d to u p vi E „ = M 0 N u v '� ,_ E n3 o O O c a, a) Y -C • a) a >- E 41 to a) O O O u a.I Q •E 0. r i L S ej_ c.) ,, 15 O ” •= a a) t .-C ra a E .0 0 c L 4+ O 00 0 C O O T .v L rl ++ b>,1?. a L C N O ++ E O a) c o a, -c-c o r`na o o E m `a m ,in = E ,° a = o , a) O Q 4- c 4j 4- U �• '+� B O C. .... O : C .O Q �' uj N Y ,�i 0 C N d E > .0 C O i ro i+ •- 4+ Y. C Is" 0 O d O 41 r-+ N u cu w O O a) ,..� C -Q c �0 y CLD cv) u O ho y wa-) O " O. L — `G u � , L v I E O E a A cu Q Z v ettr Q 0 z � mv Om° Ocoi,` Packet Page-65- 3/10/2015 9.A. N 06 OZS M U m N Ol O oci NI GO 025 V) c� L , CIO CU N a--I V 0) lD Lo U N CU r-4 ti i In o 0 . L., f0" f9 U X i N a) a1 N E o N o E o ro Q v• c m n o Q _co > —V U n C Q a1 O N ai E U :-s_ 0 4- U 00 E O _ o 3 f0 C Q 'u O ..C, O a1 cua .tan ` E Z m O C E U co in i a1 a1 -co _ . +-) C C - Co CU _c c co to (0 E C J E. Y u 4-4 E 0 c —03 ate. p `n c O` N C .m u ` '' aJ a a1 -0 E N m N C • O a, LA - > a - m To 7o ro E C •( •0 a1 w M io Co I... t- 2 — Co 1 a1 fa C : N a E E a E E g s O by U U U O '0 :. 0 .6 J — C — O Co Y N a1 v d N a N Z Z a1 O E O Y_ Q O LA Q LA O 0 3 N t = 4E' o CO- to .' V1. 7 a1 O .a as in fQ -Q E tm ul Q O_ .0 Q! E _c o 0 ca -o E L L a1 Q O 7 O C L. 0`— ,_ d >. 0) N ,.. do v a1 >. 0 0 u w O C._ vi U n M O U +.0 C O m v E Z C G 2 ) 2 o U 0 J U v U M C _ N C O 3 N .L N ` O 0 u a - a Packet Page-66- Appendix D - 3/10/2015 9.A. APPENDIX D Packet Page -67- Appendix D - l 3/10/2015 9.A. 28772 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 95/Wednesday, May 16, 2012/Rules and Regulations�� ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Mr. This guidance will address SIP AGENCY Lynn Dail,Office of Air Quality requirements for states in the Ozone Planning and Standards,Air Quality Transport Region(OTR),which are 40 CFR Part 51 Policy Division,Mail code C539-01, separately required under section [EPA—HQ—OAR-2010-1076;FRL-9671-3] Research Triangle Park,NC 27711, 184(b)(2)of the CAA to adopt and telephone (919) 541-2363; fax number: implement control measures capable of RIN 2060—A097 919-541-0824;email address: dail. achieving emissions reductions Air Quality:Widespread Use for Lynn @epa.gov. comparable to those achievable by Stage SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: II.The EPA is updating its guidance for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery estimating what Stage II comparable and Stage II Waiver I.Purpose of Regulatory Action emissions reductions could be,in light AGENCY:Environmental Protection Since 1990, Stage II gasoline vapor of the ORVR widespread use Agency(EPA). recovery systems have been a required determination.The EPA now expects ACTION:Final rule. emissions control measure in Serious, Stage II comparable emissions Severe,and Extreme ozone reductions to be substantially less than SUMMARY:The EPA has determined that nonattainment areas.Beginning with what was estimated in the past before onboard refueling vapor recovery model year 1998,ORVR equipment has ORVR use became widespread. (ORVR)technology is in widespread use been phased in for new vehicles,and Therefore,the EPA encourages states to throughout the motor vehicle fleet for has been a required control on nearly all consult the updated guidance before purposes of controlling motor vehicle new highway vehicles since 2006.Over submitting a SIP revision removing refueling emissions,and,therefore,by time,non-ORVR vehicles will continue Stage II controls. this action,the EPA is waiving the to be replaced with ORVR vehicles. requirement for states to implement Stage II and ORVR emission control III.Costs and Benefits Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems systems are redundant,and the EPA has The primary purpose of this final rule at gasoline dispensing facilities in determined that emission reductions is to promulgate a determination that nonattainment areas classified as from ORVR are essentially equal to and ORVR is in widespread use as permitted Serious and above for the ozone will soon surpass the emission in section 202(a)(6)of the CAA.In this national ambient air quality standards reductions achieved by Stage II alone.In final rule,EPA is exercising the (NAAQS). This finding will be effective this action,the EPA is eliminating the authority provided by section 202(a)(6) as noted below in the DATES section. largely redundant Stage II requirement of the CAA to,by rule,revise or waive After the effective date of this notice,a in order to ensure that refueling vapor the section 182(b)(3)Stage II state previously required to implement control regulations are beneficial requirement for Serious, Severe,and a Stage II program may take appropriate without being unnecessarily Extreme ozone nonattainment areas action to remove the program from its burdensome to American business.This after the Administrator determines that State Implementation Plan(SIP). action allows,but does not require, ORVR is in Administrator use throughout Phasing out the use of Stage II systems states to discontinue Stage II vapor the ORVR is in widespread fleet.This r in turn may lead to long-term cost savings for recovery programs. gives motor that were required to gas station owners and operators while II.Summary of the Major Provisions of air quality protections are maintained. Major implement Stage II vapor recovery This Final Rule under section 182(b)(3)of the CAA the DATES:This rule is effective on May 16, option to submit for the EPA's review 2012. Clean Air Act(CAA) section 202(a)(6) o p ADDRESSES:The EPA has established a provides discretionary authority to the and approval revised ozone SIPs that docket for this rule,identified by Docket EPA Administrator to,by rule,revise or will remove this requirement.The EPA y waive the section 182(b)(3) Stage II projects that during 2013-2015, ID No.EPA—HQ—OAR-2010-1076.All requirement for Serious,Severe and gasoline-dispensing facilities (GDFs)in documents in the docket ocket are listed in Extreme ozone nonattainment areas up to 19 states and the District of the index,www.regulations.gov. information Although listed in after the Administrator determines that Columbia could seek to decommission the ind some information rs not ORVR is in widespread use throughout and remove Stage II systems from their publicly available,i.e.,confidential the motor vehicle fleet.Based on criteria dispensers.There are about 30,600 business information or other that the EPA proposed last year(76 FR GDFs with Stage II in these 20 areas.If information whose disclosure is 41731,July 15,2011),the EPA is the states submit and EPA approves SIP restricted by statute. Certain other determining that ORVR is in widespread revisions to remove Stage II systems material,such as copyrighted material, use.As of the effective date of today's from these GDFs,the EPA projects is not placed on the Internet and will be action, states that are implementing savings of about$10.2 million in the publicly available only in hard copy mandatory Stage II programs under first year,$40.5 million in the second form.Publicly available docket section 182(b)(3)of the CAA may year,and$70.9 million in the third year. materials are available either submit revisions to their SIPs to remove Long-term savings are projected to be electronically in the Air regulat diati ov or this program. about$91 million per year,compared to in hard copy at the Ai and Radiation The EPA will also be issuing non- the current use of Stage II systems in Docket and Information Center,EPA binding guidance on developing and these areas.No significant emission Headquarters Library,Room Number submitting approvable SIP revisions.1 3334 in the EPA West Building,located guidance is not final agency action,and is not at 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 1"Phasing Out Stage II Gasoline Refueling Vapor binding on or enforceable against any person. Washington,DC.The Public Reading Recovery Programs:Guidance on Satisfying Consequently,it is subject to possible revision Room is open from 8:30 a.m.to 4:30 Requirements of Clean Air Act Sections 110(e),193, without additional rulemaking.In addition,the p.m.,Monday through Friday, excluding and 184(b)(2)(tentative title)."U.S.EPA Office of approaches suggested in the guidance(or in any le al halide S.The tell hone number Air and Radiation,forthcoming.This guidance will changes thereto)will not represent final agency g y p provide the EPA's recommendations for states to action unless and until the EPA takes a final SIP for the Public Reading Room is (202) consider when developing SIP revisions following approval or disapproval action implementing those 566-1744. today's rulemaking.Unlike the final rule,the approaches. Packet Page-68- Appendix D - L 3/10/2015 9.A. Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 95/Wednesday, May 16, 2012/Rules and Regulations 28773 increases or decreases are expected from A.Executive Orders 12866:Regulatory substantial emissions reductions and this action. Planning and Review and Executive have contributed to improved air quality Order 13563:Improving Regulation and over time. IV. General Information Regulatory Review A.Does this action apply to me? B.Paperwork Reduction Act B. Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems pP 3 C.Regulatory Flexibility Act Entities directly y affected by this D.Unfunded Mandates Reform Act When a gasoline powered automobile or other vehicle is brought into a GDF E.Executive Order 13132:Federalism action include states (typically state air to be refueled,the empty portion of the pollution control agencies)and,in some F.Executive Order 13175:Consultation P Y P cases,local governments that develop and Coordination With Indian Tribal fuel tank on the vehicle contains air pollution governments rules that apply to Governments gasoline vapors.When liquid gasoline is P pP Y G.Executive Order 13045:Protection of pumped into the partially empty gas areas classified as Serious and above for Children From Environmental Health tank,gasoline vapors are forced out of nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS. and Safety Risks the tank and fill pipe as the tank fills Individuals and companies that operate H.Executive Order 13211:Actions That with liquid gasoline.Where air gasoline dispensing facilities may be Significantly Affect Energy Supply, pollution control technology is not indirectly affected by virtue of state Distribution,or Use P gY Y I.National Technology Transfer and used,these vapors are emitted into the action in SIPs that implement Advancement Act ambient air.In the atmosphere,these provisions resulting from final J.Executive Order 12898:Federal Actions vapors can react with sunlight,nitrogen rulemaking on this action;many of To Address Environmental Justice in oxides and other volatile organic these sources are in the following Minority Populations and Low-Income compounds to form ozone. groups: Populations There are two basic technical K.Congressional Review Act approaches to Stage II vapor recovery:A Industry group SICa NAICS b IX.Statutory'Authority "balance" system,and a vacuum assist Gasoline stations 5541 447110,447190 V.Background system.A balance type Stage II control tr A. What requirements for Stage II system has a rubber boot around the Standard Industrial Classification. q f g gasoline nozzle spout that fits snugly up b North American Industry Classification gasoline vapor recovery apply in ozone System. nonattainment areas? to a vehicle's gasoline fill pipe durin g refueling of the vehicle.With a balance B. Where can I get a copy of this The requirements in the 1990 CAA system,when gasoline in the document and other related Amendments regarding Stage II vapor underground storage tank(UST)is information? recovery are contained in Title I: pumped into a vehicle,a positive In addition to being available in the Provisions for Attainment and pressure differential is created between docket,an electronic copy of this notice Maintenance of National Ambient Air the vehicle tank and the UST.This will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/ Quality Standards.Under CAA section pressure differential draws the gasoline 182(b)(3), Stage II gasoline vapor vapors from the vehicle fill pipe through girder' event actions." recovery systems are required to be used P P P g under"recent actions." T3 Y q the rubber boot and the concentric hoses at higher throughput GDFs located in and underground piping into the UST. C.How is this notice organized? Serious, Severe,and Extreme This is known as a balance system The information presented in this nonattainment areas for ozone.2 States because gasoline vapors from the preamble is organized as follows. were required to adopt a Stage H vehicle tank flow into the UST tank to program into their SIPs,and the controls balance pressures.About 30 percent of I.Purpose of Regulatory Action were to be installed according to Stage II GDFs nationwide use the II.Summary of the Major Provisions of This specified deadlines following state rule Final Rule s p g balance type Stage II system. III.Costs and Benefits adoption.3 Since the early 1990s, Stage The vacuum assist system is the other IV.General Information 2 gasoline vapor controls have provided primary type of Stage II system A.Does this action apply to me? currently in operation.This type of B.Where can I get a copy of this document 2 Originally,the section 182(b)(3)Stage II Stage II system uses a vacuum pump on and other related information? requirement also applied in all Moderate ozone nonattainment areas.However,under section the vapor return line to help draw C.How is this notice organized.v vapors from the vehicle fill pipe into the V.Background 202(a)(6)of the CAA,42 U.S.C.7521(a)(6),the P P P requirements of section 182(b)(3)no longer apply in UST.An advantage of this type of A.What requirements for Stage Ii gasoline Moderate ozone nonattainment areas after the EPA system is that the rubber boot around vapor recovery apply for ozone promulgated.ORVR standards on April 6,1994,59 nonattainment areas? FR 16262,codified at 40 CFR parts 86(including the nozzle can be smaller and lighter(or B.Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems 86.098-8),88 and 600.Under implementation rules not used at all)and still draw the vapors C.Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery issued in 2002 for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, into the vapor return hose.This makes (ORVR)Systems the EPA retained the Stage II-related requirements for an easier-to-handle nozzle,which is D.Compatibility Between Some Vapor under section 182(b)(3)as they applied for the now- popular with customers.About 70 Recovery Systems revoked 1-hour ozone standard.40 CFR 51.900(f)(5) E.Proposed Rule to Determine Wides read and 40 CFR 51.916(a). percent of Stage II GDFs nationwide use Use of ORVR p a This requirement only applies to facilities that the vacuum assist approach. sell more than a specified number of gallons per New Stage II equipment is normally VI.This Action month and is set forth in sections 182(b)(3)(A)—(C) required to achieve 95 percent control A.Analytical Rationale for Final Rule and 324(a)—(c).Section 182(b)(3)(B)has the B.Updated Analysis of Widespread Use following effective date requirements for effectiveness at certification.However, C.Widespread Use Date implementation of Stage 11 after the adoption date studies have shown that in-use control D.Implementation of the Rule Provisions by a state of a Stage II rule:6 months after adoption efficiency depends on the proper t t GDFs l of the state rue.for s built after the enactment Implementation of Rule Revisions in the installation,operation,and maintenance Ozone Transport Region date(which for newly designated areas would be of the control equipment at the GDF.4 F.Comments on Other Waiver the designation date);1 year after adoption date,for gas stations pumping at least 100,000 gal/month Implementation Issues based on average monthly sales over 2-year period 4 The Petroleum Equipment Institute has VII.Estimated Cost before adoption date;2 years after adoption,for all published recommended installation practices(PEI/ VIII.Statutory and Executive Order Reviews others. Continued Packet Page -69- Appendix D - L 3/10/2. 015 9.A. 28774 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 95/Wednesday, May 16, 2012/Rules and Regulations Damaged,missing,or improperly these are"liquid seals"created by the new models.However,under the operating components or systems can incoming liquid gasoline slightly current regulatory construct, significantly degrade the control backing near the bottom of the fill pipe. motorcycles and heavy-duty gasoline effectiveness of a Stage II system. When the engine is started,the vapors vehicles not manufactured as a In-use effectiveness ultimately are purged from the activated carbon complete chassis are not required to depends on the consistency of and into the engine where they are install ORVR,so it is likely that there inspections,follow-up review by state burned as fuel. will be some very small percentage of agencies,and actions by operators to The EPA promulgated ORVR gasoline refueling emissions not perform inspections and field tests and standards on April 6, 1994 (59 FR captured by ORVR controls. conduct maintenance in a correct and 16262).Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA Even prior to the EPA's adoption of timely manner.The EPA's early required that the EPA's ORVR standards ORVR ve requirements,in 1993 EPA guidance for Stage II discussed expected apply to light-duty vehicles adopted Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) training,inspection,and testing criteria, manufactured beginning in the fourth System requirements for passenger cars and most states have adopted and model year after the model year in and light trucks,and eventually did so supplemented these criteria as deemed which the standards were promulgated, for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles up to necessary for balance and vacuum assist and that ORVR systems provide a 14,000 lbs heavy-duty GVWR.1°These systems are systems.s In some cases,states have minimum evaporative emission capture designed to monitor the These use strictly followed the EPA guidance but efficiency of 95 percent. performance to of monitor the vehicle emission other states have required a lesser level Automobile manufacturers began P of inspection and enforcement efforts. installing ORVR on new passenger cars control systems and components, Past EPA studies have estimated Stage in 1998 when 40 percent of new cars including protocols for finding II in-use efficiencies of 92 percent with were required to have ORVR.The problems in the purge systems and large semi-annual inspections, 86 percent regulation required the percentage of and small vapor leaks in ORVR/ with annual inspections and 62 percent new cars with ORVR increase to 80 evaporative emission controls.11 OBD II with minimal or less frequent state percent in 1999 and 100 percent in systems were phased in for these inspections.6 The in-use effectiveness of 2000.The regulation also required that vehicle classes over the period from Stage II control systems may vary from ORVR for light duty trucks and vans 1994-1996 for lighter vehicles and state to state,and may vary over time (<6000 pounds (lbs)gross vehicle 2005-2007 for heavy-duty gasoline within any state or nonattainment area weight rating(GVWR))was to be vehicles,so, during the same time frame because the in-use efficiency of Stage II phased-in during 2001 with 40 percent that manufacturers were implementing vapor recovery systems depends heavily of such new vehicles required to have ORVR into their vehicles,they already on the ongoing maintenance and ORVR in 2001,80 percent in 2002 and had implemented or were implementing oversight by GDF owners/operators and 100 percent in 2003.New heavier light- OBD II systems. the state/local agencies. duty trucks (6001-8500 lbs GVWR)were In 2000,the EPA published a report C. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery required to have 40 percent with ORVR addressing the effectiveness of OBD II (ORVR)Systems by 2004, 80 percent by 2005 and 100 control systems.12 This study concluded percent by 2006.New trucks up to that enhanced evaporative and ORVR In addition to Stage II controls,the 10,000 lbs GVWR manufactured as a emission control systems are durable 1990 CAA Amendments required complete chassis were all required to and low emitting relative to the FTP another method of controlling emissions have ORVR by 2006.8 Complete vehicle (Federal Test Procedure)enhanced from dispensing gasoline. Section chassis for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles evaporative emission standards,and 202(a)(6)of the CAA requires an between 10,001 and 14,000 lbs GVWR that OBD II evaporative emissions onboard system of capturing vehicle- (Class 3)are very similar to those checks are a suitable replacement for refueling emissions,commonly referred between 8,501 and 10,000 lbs GVWR. functional evaporative emission tests in to as an ORVR system.'ORVR consists For model consistency purposes, state inspection and maintenance(I/M) of an activated carbon canister installed manufacturers began installing ORVR programs.OBD system codes are on the vehicle into which vapors are on Class 3 complete chassis in 2006 as interrogated and evaluated in a 30 routed from the vehicle fuel tank during well. So,after 2006,essentially all new vehicle emission I/M program.A recent refueling.There the vapors are captured gasoline-powered vehicles less than EPA review of OBD data gathered from by the activated carbon in the canister. 14,000 lbs GVWR are ORVR-equipped. I/M programs from five states 13 To prevent the vapors from escaping ORVR does not apply to all vehicles, indicated relatively few vehicles h through the fill pipe opening,the but those not covered by the ORVR any evaporative system-related vehicles had a vehicle employs a seal in the fill pipe requirement comprise a small codes that would indicate a potential which allows liquid gasoline to enter percentage of the gasoline-powered but blocks vapor escape.In most cases, highway vehicle fleet(approximately 10 See Federal Register at 58 FR 9468 published 1.5 percent of gasoline consumption). February 19,1993,and subsequent amendments RP300-93)and most states require inspection, The EPA estimates that by the end of and the latest OBD regulations at 40 CFR part testing,and evaluation before a system is commissioned for use. 2012,more than 7lpercent of vehicles 86.1806-05 for program requirements in various 5"Enforcement Guidance for Stage II Vehicle currently on the road will have ORVR.9 years. Refueling Control Programs,"U.S.EPA,Office of percentage 11 ORVR systems are basically a subset of This erCerita e will increase over time evaporative emission systems because they share Air and Radiation,Office of Mobile Sources, as older cars and trucks are re laced b December 1991. replaced Y the same vapor lines,purge valves,purge lines,and activated carbon canister. 6"Technical Guidance—Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling at ,The EPA promulgated ORVR standards for light rz„"Effectiveness of OBD II Evaporative Emission Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Volume I:Chapters," duty vehicles and trucks on April 6,1994,59 FR Monitors-30 Vehicle Study,"EPA 420—R-00-018, EPA-450/3-91-022a,November 1991.This study is 16262,codified at 40CFR parts 86(including October 2000. a composite of multiple studies. 86.098-8),88 and 600. 13 See EPA Memorandum,"Review of Frequency 7 Unlike Stage II,which is a requirement only in 9 See EPA Memorandum"Onboard Refueling of Evaporative System Related OBD Codes for Five ozone nonattainment areas,ORVR requirements Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment."A State I/M Programs."A copy of this memorandum apply to vehicles everywhere.More detail on ORVR copy of this memorandum is located in the docket is located in the docket for this action EPA—HQ- is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/orvr.htm. for this action EPA—HQ—OAR-2010-1076. OAR-2010-1076. Packet Page-70- Appendix D - l 3/10/2015 9.A. Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 95/Wednesday, May 16, 2012/Rules and Regulations problem with the vapor management into the ambient air.These new UST requirement for Serious,Severe,and system. vent-stack emissions detract from the Extreme ozone nonattainment areas Based on emissions tests of over 1.100 overall recovery efficiency at the GDF. after the Administrator determines that in-use ORVR-equipped vehicles,EPA As discussed in the proposed rule,the ORVR is in widespread use throughout concluded that the average in-use level of these UST vent stack emissions the motor vehicle fleet.The percentage efficiency of ORVR is 98 percent.The varies based on several factors but can of non-ORVR vehicles and the legal requirement for ORVR is 95 result in a net 1 to 10 percent decrease percentage of gasoline dispensed to percent efficiency.Thus,the actual in overall control efficiency of vehicle those vehicles grow smaller each year as reported control achieved in practice is fuel tank emissions at any given GDF.14 these older vehicles wear out and are greater than the statutorily required The decrease in efficiency varies replaced by new ORVR-equipped level of control. depending on the vacuum assist models.Given the predictable nature of D. Compatibility Between Some Vapor technology design (including the use of this trend,the EPA proposed a date for Recovery Systems a mini-boot for the nozzle and the ratio ORVR widespread use. of volume of air drawn into the UST In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Even though the per-vehicle vapor compared to the volume of gasoline (NPRM) (76 FR 41731,July 15, 2011), recovery efficiency of ORVR exceeds dispensed(A/L)ratio),the gasoline Reid the EPA proposed that ORVR that of Stage II, Stage II vapor recovery vapor pressure,the air and gasoline widespread use will occur at the mid- systems have provided valuable temperatures,and the fraction of point in the 2013 calendar year,relying reductions in ozone precursors and air throughput dispensed to ORVR upon certain criteria outlined in the toxics as ORVR has been phased into vehicles.There are various technologies proposed rule.This date was also the motor vehicle fleet.In fact, overall that address these UST vent-stack proposed as the effective date for the refueling emissions from vehicle fuel emissions and can extend the utility of waiver of the CAA section 182(b)(3) tanks are minimized by having both Stage II to further minimize the overall Stage II requirements for Serious, Severe ORVR and Stage II in place,but the control of gasoline vapor emissions at and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas. incremental gain from retaining Stage II the GDF.These technologies include The EPA used two basic approaches decreases relatively quickly as ORVR nozzles that sense when fresh air is in determining when basic would be in penetration surpasses 75 percent of being drawn into the UST and stop or widespread te determining use in the motor vehicle dispensed gasoline.Please see Table 2 reduce the air flow.These ORVR fleet.Both approaches focused on the below.This occurs not only because of compatible nozzles are now required in eet.Both of ORVR-equipped vehicles a decreasing amount of gasoline being California and Texas.Another solution penetration dispensed to non-ORVR equipped is the addition of processors on the UST in the gasoline powered highway motor vehicles,but also because differences in vent pipe that capture or destroy the vehicle fleet.The first proposed operational design characteristics gasoline vapor emissions from the vent approach focused on the volume of between ORVR and vacuum assist Stage pipe.A number of these systems were gasoline that is dispensed into vehicles II systems may in some cases cause a presented in comments on the proposed equipped with ORVR,and compared the reduction in the overall control system rule.While they may have merit, emissions reductions achieved by ORVR efficiency compared to what could have installing these technologies adds to the alone to the reductions that can be been achieved relative to the individual expense of the control systems. achieved by Stage II controls alone.The control efficiencies of either ORVR or second approach focused on the fraction Stage II emissions from the vehicle fuel E.Proposed Rule To Determine of highway motor gasoline dispensed to tank.The problem arises because the Widespread Use of ORVR ORVR-equipped vehicles. ORVR canister captures the gasoline Section 202(a)(6)of the CAA provides In the proposal,the EPA included vapor emissions from the motor vehicle discretionary authority to the EPA Table 1 (republished below).This work fuel tank rather than the vapors being Administrator to,by rule,revise or was based on outputs from EPA's drawn off by the vacuum assist Stage II waive the section 182(b)(3) Stage II MOVES 2010 motor vehicle emissions system.This occurs because the fill pipe model,which showed information seal blocks the vapor from reaching the ,4 See EPA Memorandum`Onboard Refueling related to the penetration of ORVR in Stage II nozzle.Thus,instead of drawing Vapor Recovery memorandum Widespread located ssment."A the docket the national motor vehicle fleet vapor-laden air from the vehicle fuel for this action EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076.The level Projected to 2020.These model outputs tank into the underground storage tank of these UST vent stack emissions varies based on have been updated for the final rule to (UST),the vacuum pump of the Stage II several factors:EPA estimates a 5.4 to 6.4 be consistent with the latest public system draws mostl fresh air into the percentage point decrease in Stage II control release of the model(MOVES 2010a) y efficiency in the 2011-2015 time frame at GDFs since that is the version of the model UST.This fresh air causes gasoline in employing non-ORVR compatible vacuum assist the UST to evaporate inside the UST Stage II nozzles.The decrease in efficiency varies states would use in any future inventory and creates an internal increase in UST depending on the vacuum assist technology design assessment work related to refueling pressure.As the proportion of ORVR (including the use of a mini-boot for the nozzle and emissions control.Overall, ORVR P p P the ratio of volume of air drawn into the UST efficiency was shown in column 5 of vehicles increases,the amount of fresh compared to the volume of gasoline dispensed(Al air,void of gasoline vapors,pumped L)ratio),the gasoline Reid vapor pressure,the air Table 1 and was determined by into the UST also increases.Even with and gasoline temperatures,and the fraction of multiplying the fraction of gasoline pressure/vacuum valves in place this throughput dispensed to ORVR vehicles.The values dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles will increase over time as the fraction of total by ORVR's 98 percent in-use control eventually leads to gasoline vapors gasoline dispensed to ORVR vehicles at Stage II being forced out of the UST vent pipe GDFs increases. efficiency. Packet Page-71- Appendix D - L 3/10/2015 9.A. 28776 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 95/Wednesday, May 16, 2012/Rules and Regulations 1-PROJECTED PENETRATION OF ORVR IN THE NATIONAL VEHICLE FLEET BY YEAR-BASED ON MOVES 2010 Gasoline Vehicle population VMT ORVR Efficiency Calendar year percentage Percentage percentage percentage 1 2 3 4 5 2006 39.5 48.7 46.2 45.3 2007 45.3 54.9 52.5 51.5 2008 50.1 60.0 57.6 56.4 2009 54.3 64.5 62.1 60.9 2010 59.0 69.3 66.9 65.6 2011 63.6 73.9 71.5 70.1 2012 67.9 78.0 75.6 74.1 2013 71.7 81.6 79.3 77.7 2014 75.2 84.6 82.6 80.9 2015 78.4 87.2 85.3 83.6 2016 81.2 89.4 87.7 85.9 2017 83.6 91.2 89.7 87.9 2018 85.6 92.7 91.3 89.5 2019 87.5 93.9 92.7 90.8 2020 89.0 94.9 93.9 92.0 See EPA Memorandum "Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment" in the docket (number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010- 1076)addressing details on issues related to values in this table. Note: In this table,the columns have the following meaning. 1.Calendar year that corresponds to the percentages in the row associated with the year. 2. Percentage of the gasoline-powered highway vehicle fleet that have ORVR. 3. Percentage of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by vehicles equipped with ORVR. 4.Amount of gasoline dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles as a percentage of all gasoline dispensed to highway motor vehicles. 5. Percentage from the same row in column 4 multiplied by 0.98. In the proposal,the EPA estimated programs of 77.4 percent(0.90 x 0.86= understanding of that term. that ORVR would need to achieve in-use 0.774 or 77.4 percent)for emissions Furthermore,in Table 1,the percentage emission reductions of about 77.4 displaced from vehicle fuel tanks. 1617 of VMT by ORVR-equipped vehicles percent to be equivalent to the amount Table 1 indicated this level of ORVR (column 3) and the amount of gasoline of control Stage II alone would achieve. control efficiency is expected to be dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles This estimate was based on the in-use achieved during calendar year 2013. (column 4)reached or exceeded 75 control efficiency of Stage II systems In the second approach for estimating percent between the end of year 2011 and exemptions for Stage II for lower when ORVR is in widespread use,we and end of 2012. The EPA believed this throughput GDFs. In the NPRM,the also observed from Table 1 that by the provided further support for EPA assumed that in areas where basic end of calendar year 2012 more than 75 establishing a widespread use date after Stage II systems are used the control percent of gasoline will be dispensed the end of calendar year 2012.Based on efficiency of Stage II gasoline vapor into ORVR-equipped vehicles.As the dates derived from these two basic control systems is 86 percent.The use discussed in the NPRM,the EPA approaches,the EPA proposed to of this value depends on the assumption believed that this percentage of ORVR determine that ORVR will be in that daily and annual inspections, coverage(. 75 percent)is substantial widespread use by June 30,2013,or the periodic testing,and appropriate enough to inherently be viewed as midpoint of calendar year 2013. maintenance are conducted in a correct "widespread"under any ordinary VI.This Action and timely manner. In addressing comments,we have stated that this 's See section 4.4.3(especially Figure 4-14 and A.Analytical Rationale for Final Rule efficienC could be nearer to 60% if Table 4-4)in"Technical Guidance-Stage II Vapor Y Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Section 202(a)(6)of the CAA provides inspections testing and maintenance are Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, ionar not conducted and there is minimal Volume I:Chapters,"EPA-450/3-91-022a, discretionary authority to the EPA enforcement.15 November 1991.A copy of this document is located Administrator to,by rule,revise or In the NPRM,the EPA estimated that i10n the 76.This base docket for this d on annua action EPA- l HQ-0AR-2010- waive the section 182(b)(3) Stage II is enf the percentage of gasoline dispensed in inspections and on allowable exemptions orcement requirement 10,000/ after the Administrator an area that is covered by Stage II 50,000 gallons per month as described in section determines that ORVR is in widespread controls is 90 percent.Multiplying the 324(a)of the CAA.The EPA recognizes that these use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. estimated efficiency of Stage II systems two actua val lues in-use vary efficiencies by state and that rescrib ine ed some exemption cases As discussed in the NPRM,the EPA has ,p (86 percent)by the estimated fraction of levels,or both may be either higher or lower. broad discretion in how it defines gasoline dispensed in nonattainment r7 AP-42,The EPA's emission factors document, widespread use and the manner in areas from Stage II-equipped gasoline identifies three sources of refueling emissions: which any final determination is pumps yielded an estimate of the area- Displacement,spillage,and breathing losses.In the implemented.In our review of the EPA Memorandum"Onboard Refueling Vapor public comments received on the wide control efficiency of Stage II Recovery Widespread Use Assessment"(available p in the public docket),the EPA determined that for proposal,no commenter indicated that 75 See,"Determination of Widespread Use of separate Stage II and ORVR refueling events, a widespread use determination was Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery(ORVR)and spillage and breathing loss emission rates are inappropriate or took issue with the Waiver of Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements: similar.Thus,this analysis focuses on differences EPA's two-pronged analytical approach. Summary of Public Comments and Responses." in controlled displacement emissions. We have integrated responses to many 2012.Document contained in docket EPA- Compatibility effects related to ORVR and Stage II ne g p y HQ-OAR-2010-1076. vacuum assist systems are addressed separately. comments throughout the preamble to Packet Page -72- Appendix D - L 3/1_0/2015 9.A. Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 95/Wednesday, May 16, 2012/Rules and Regulations ' 28777 this final rule.A more detailed set of supporting future SIP revisions, business marketers).The EPA analysis responses is in a document titled, including revisions that seek to remove indicated that these GDF throughput "Determination of Widespread Use of Stage II programs. values exempted about 10 percent of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery 2. Stage II Parameters annual throughput in any given area. (ORVR)and Waiver of Stage II Vapor Some states included more strict Recovery,Summary of Public • Stage II efficiency.The EPA used an exemption rates,most commonly 10,000 Comments and Responses"that can be in-use control efficiency of 86 percent gallons per month(3 percent of found in the docket,EPA—HQ—OAR— for Stage II in the proposal.As throughput) for both privates and 2010-1076. discussed above,Stage II control independent small business marketers. The analytical approaches used by the efficiency depends on inspection, A few other states'exemption EPA to determine the widespread use testing,and maintenance by GDF provisions used values that fell within date are influenced by several key input owner/operators,and inspection and or outside this range.21 Of the 21 states parameters that affect the estimates of enforcement by state/local agencies. and the District of Columbia with areas the emission reduction benefits of Stage Typical values range from 62 percent to classified as Serious, Severe,or Extreme II alone versus the benefits of ORVR 86 percent.The public comments for ozone and/or within the Ozone alone and the phase-in of ORVR- referred the EPA to additional reported Transport Region,the plurality equipped vehicles.We received several information directly related to in-use incorporated exemption provisions in comments on the assumptions and effectiveness of Stage II vapor their state regulations,which exempted parameters used by the EPA in the recovery.19 The reports indicate that for about 10 percent of throughput.22 NPRM,and in some cases we have balance and vacuum-assist type Stage II Therefore,we believe it remains updated the information used in systems in use in many states today,the reasonable to use that value within this calculations that support the final rule, in-use effectiveness of Stage II is analysis. as discussed in the following typically near 70 percent.Nonetheless, • Compatibility factor for vacuum paragraphs. the EPA has elected to retain the use of assist Stage II systems.The EPA an 86 percent efficiency value in the discussed the compatibility factor at 1.ORVR Parameters analyses supporting the final rule.This length in the NPRM and provided • ORVR efficiency.The EPA used an is because many state programs have relevant materials in the docket. Several in-use control efficiency of ORVR of 98 included the maintenance and commenters asked that the EPA provide percent in the proposal.This was based inspection provisions recommended by guidance on how the compatibility on the testing of 1,160 vehicles drawn EPA to achieve this level of efficiency factor should be incorporated into any from the field.EPA has updated its in their initial SIPs that originally similar analysis conducted by a state for analysis to include an additional 478 incorporated Stage II controls.2°Current purposes of future SIP revisions refueling emission test results for in-use efficiency values may well be involving Stage II programs.The ORVR-equipped vehicles that were lower based on the performance of the magnitude of the compatibility factor for conducted in calendar years 2010 and Stage II technology itself or for other any given area varies depending on 2011.The data set,which now includes reasons related to maintenance and ORVR penetration,fraction of vacuum over 1,600 vehicle tests for vehicles enforcement.We are not rejecting the assist nozzles relative to balance from model years 2000-2010 with additional information from nozzles,and excess A/L for vacuum mileages ranging from 10,000 to over commenters or the possibility that Stage assist nozzles.Two states have adopted 100,000,continues to support the II efficiency may be lower in some states measures to reduce this effect through conclusion that the 98 percent in-use or nonattainment areas.However,the the use of ORVR-compatible nozzles efficiency values remain appropriate.18 EPA believes these issues are best and one state prohibits vacuum assist • Modeling program inputs.The examined in the SIP review process.If nozzles completely.Due to these NPRM relied on EPA's MOVES 2010 real in-use efficiency across all existing significant variables,the EPA is electing model for estimating ORVR vehicle fleet Stage II programs is,in fact,lower than not to include the compatibility factor penetration,VMT by ORVR vehicles, 86 percent,the EPA's final analysis in the widespread use date and gallons of gasoline dispensed to overestimates the length of time determination analysis,but will provide ORVR vehicles. Since the development required for emissions reductions from the guidance requested by the of the NPRM,the EPA has publicly ORVR alone to eclipse the reductions commenters for use in making future released MOVES 2010a.The updated that can be achieved by Stage II alone. SIP revisions.To the extent that model incorporates many • Stage II exemption rate.In sections compatibility emissions across all improvements.Those relevant here 182(b)(3)and 324 of the CAA,Congress existing Stage II programs as a whole are include updates in ORVR vehicle sales, permitted exemptions from Stage II significant,the EPA's final analysis sales projections,scrappage,fleet mix, controls for GDFs of less than 10,000 overestimates the length of time annual VMT,and fuel efficiency.The gallons/month(privates)and 50,000 required for emissions reductions from EPA believes that the modeling gallons/month(independent small ORVR alone to eclipse the reductions undertaken to determine the widespread that can be achieved by Stage II alone. use date for the final rule should 19 sae"Draft Vapor Recovery Test Report,"April B. Updated Analysis of Widespread Use employ the EPA's latest MOVES 1999 by CARB and CAPCOA(now cleared for P Y public use),and"Performance of Balance Vapor As discussed previously,the EPA has modeling program because it contains Recovery Systems at Gasoline Dispensing updated information that bears on the Facilities",prepared by the San Diego Air Pollution used two approaches for determining subject of this rulemaking,and because Control District,May 18,2000.Both reports are the EPA expects states to also use it in available in the public docket. 21 There are a few states that limit Stage II 2°The EPA report,"Enforcement Guidance for exemptions to only GDFs with less than 10,000 gpm any state-specific demonstrations Stage II Vehicle Refueling Control Programs,"U.S. throughput,which would exempt about three to EPA,Office of Air and Radiation,Office of Mobile five percent of area-wide throughput. 18 See the EPA memorandum"Updated ORVR In- Sources,December 1991,provides basic EPA 22 See the EPA memorandum"Summary of Stage Use Efficiency."A copy of this memorandum is guidance on what a state SIP and accompanying II Exemption Program Values."A copy of this located in the docket for this action EPA—HQ—OAR— regulations should include to achieve high memorandum is located in the docket for this 2010-1076. efficiency. action in EPA—HQ—OAR-2010-1076. Packet Page-73- Appendix D - L 3/10/2015 9.A. 28778 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 95/Wednesday, May 16, 2012/Rules and Regulations when ORVR is in widespread use on a analytical input parameters and NPRM.However,we have updated the nationwide basis.After reviewing our updating one.The in-use ORVR modeling program inputs as discussed methodology and reviewing the related efficiency,the in-use Stage II efficiency, previously,and the results are reflected comments on the NPRM,we are and the Stage II exemption rate in Table 2. retaining three of the four basic parameters are the same as in the TABLE 2-PROJECTED PENETRATION OF ORVR IN THE NATIONAL VEHICLE FLEET BY YEAR-BASED ON MOVES 2010(a) Vehicle VMT Gasoline ORVR End of calendar year population percentage dispensed Efficiency percentage percentage percentage 1 2 3 4 5 2006 42.6 51.2 49.2 48.2 2007 48.4 57.3 55.5 54.4 2008 53.3 62.3 60.5 59.2 2009 57.7 66.8 64.8 63.5 2010 62.4 71.6 69.5 68.1 2011 67.1 76.0 73.9 72.4 2012 71.4 80.0 77.7 76.1 2013 75.3 83.4 81.0 79.4 2014 78.7 86.3 84.0 82.3 2015 81.8 88.8 86.5 84.8 2016 84.5 90.9 88.6 86.8 2017 86.8 92.5 90.3 88.5 2018 88.8 93.9 91.9 90.0 2019 90.5 95.0 93.2 91.3 2020 92.0 95.9 94.3 92.4 See EPA Memorandum "Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment" in the docket (number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010- 1076)addressing details on issues related to values in this table. Note: In this table,the columns have the following meaning. 1. Calendar year that corresponds to the percentages in the row associated with the year. 2. Percentage of the gasoline-powered highway vehicle fleet that have ORVR. 3. Percentage of vehicle miles traveled (VMT)by vehicles equipped with ORVR. 4.Amount of gasoline dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles as a percentage of all gasoline dispensed to highway motor vehicles. 5. Percentage from the same row in column 4 multiplied by 0.98. The results in Table 2 are applied in passed,and the May 2013 benchmark has passed,and we expect in most cases the context of the two basic analytical date is less than 1 year away.We believe the second analytical benchmark date approaches used in the NPRM for it is reasonable for the EPA (May 2013)will have passed by the time supporting the final date associated Administrator to determine that ORVR the EPA is able to complete approvals with the EPA's widespread use is in widespread use in the motor of SIP revisions removing Stage II determination.First,using the analysis vehicle fleet as of the date this final programs and pass any revised based on equal reductions for Stage II action is published in the Federal regulations,then in response to and ORVR,the 77.4 percent in-use Register because this final rule is being comments asking us to expedite the emission reduction efficiency for ORVR promulgated within the window ORVR widespread use finding,the EPA will occur in May 2013 (See column 5 bounded by the two benchmark dates Administrator is determining that ORVR of Table 2). Second, 75 percent of derived from the updated analyses. is in widespread use in the motor gasoline will be dispensed to ORVR- As discussed previously in this notice vehicle fleet as of May 16, 2012. equipped vehicles by April 2012 (See and in the NPRM,the EPA has Accordingly,as of May 16, 2012 the column 4 of Table 2). discretion in setting the widespread use requirement to implement a Stage II date. It is evident from the public emissions control program under C. Widespread Use Date comments on the NPRM from states and section 182(b)(3)of the CAA is waived. The updated analysis indicates that members of the regulated industry,and D.Implementation of the Rule the two benchmarks will occur about a from recent state actions,that there is a provisions year apart, and that one benchmark of desire to curtail Stage II installations at April 2012 has already passed.At the newly constructed GDFs,and to initiate In this final action,the ORVR time of the NPRM,both of the an orderly phase-out of Stage II controls widespread use determination and benchmark dates for the ORVR at existing GDFs.23 Since one of the two waiver of the section 182(b)(3) widespread use determination were in analytical benchmark dates (April 2012) requirement applies to the entire the future,many months after the EPA's country.This includes areas that are expected final action.Thus,given the 23 For example,in November 2011,New now classified as Serious or above for basic merits of both approaches,the Hampshire put new regulations in place that ozone nonattainment,as well as those EPA believed it was reasonable to eliminate the need for new GDFs to install Stage II, that may be classified or reclassified as allows current GDFs with Stage II to decommission Serious or above in the future. propose a date between the dates the systems,and requires all systems to be associated with the two analytical decommissioned by December 22.2015.In May of In the NPRM,we indicated that states approaches. 2011,New York issued an enforcement discretion could potentially demonstrate that The EPA's updated analysis presents directive which curtailed the need for new stations ORVR was in widespread use in specific P y P to install Stage II and permitted current general,national the than a somewhat different picture.The April installations to be decommissioned.These actions areas sooner g 2012 benchmark date has already remain under review of EPA. date. Such a provision is no longer Packet Page-74- Appendix D - L 3/10/2015 9.A. Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 95/Wednesday, May 16, 2012/Rules and Regulations needed because today's action provides state may find that by removing Stage II independent requirement.The section for a nationwide determination of requirements,they are reducing the 184(b)(2)requirement does not impose widespread use effective on May 16, overall level of emissions reductions Stage II per se,but rather is a 2012. they have previously applied toward requirement that OTR states achieve an As stated in this final action and as meeting CAA rate of progress (ROP) or amount of emissions reductions pointed out by several commenters,the reasonable further progress (RFP) comparable to the amount that Stage II ORVR widespread use determination requirements,or demonstrating would achieve.Moreover,section and section 182(b)(3)waiver attainment.If so,the state should 202(a)(6),in allowing for a waiver of the determination does not obligate states to explain how removing Stage II controls section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement remove any existing Stage II vapor in the area would not interfere with for nonattainment areas, does not refer recovery requirements.It is possible that attaining and maintaining the ozone to the independent section 184(b)(2) a state would determine it beneficial to NAAQS in the area.In such requirements.Therefore,the section continue implementation of a Stage II circumstances,it is possible that 184(b)(2) Stage II-related requirement program.For example,in an area where additional emissions reductions from for the OTR will continue to remain in ORVR-equipped fleet penetration is other measures may be needed to offset place even after the ORVR widespread considerably less than the national the removal of Stage II. use determination and section 182(b)(3) average, or where Stage II exemptions If EPA has approved a state's adoption waiver effective date. are significantly more restrictive than • of Stage II requirements into a SIP In the mid-1990s,the EPA issued the national assumptions used in this before November 15, 1990, section 193 guidance on estimating what levels of analysis,a state may determine that it would also apply. Section 193 provides emissions reductions would be would not be appropriate to modify its that removal of an emissions control "comparable"to those reductions program immediately,but that it would program cannot result in any emissions achieved by Stage II.26 In response,most be more appropriate to do so at a later increase unless the increase is offset. OTR states simply adopted Stage II date.In assessing whether and how to Section 193 only applies if an area is programs rather than identify other phase out Stage II requirements, states nonattainment for the standard. measures that got the same degree of are encouraged to review,and as needed State and local agencies should also emissions reductions.Given the revise the area-specific assumptions consider any transportation conformity continued penetration of ORVR- about taking into consideration their impacts related to removing Stage II if equipped vehicles into the overall inspection and enforcement resource emissions reductions from Stage II are vehicle fleet, Stage II-comparable commitments as well as ORVR/vacuum- included in a SIP-approved on-road emissions are significantly less than in assist Stage II compatibility. motor vehicle emissions budget. States the past,and continue to decline. A state that chooses to remove the may need to adjust conformity budgets Accordingly,the EPA is issuing updated program must submit a SIP revision or the components of the budget if guidance on determining"comparable requesting EPA to approve such action removing Stage II requirements would measures." States in the OTR should and provide,as appropriate,a alter expected air quality benefits. refer to that guidance if preparing a SIP demonstration that the SIP revision is In previous memoranda,the EPA revision to remove Stage II programs in consistent with CAA section 110(1),and provided guidance to states on removing areas of the OTR.27 in some cases consistent with CAA Stage II at refueling facilities dedicated Commenters on the NPRM urged the section 193.The EPA will provide to certain segments of the motor vehicle EPA to revise its previous interpretation additional guidance on conducting fleet(e.g.,new automobile assembly of section 184(b)(2)to permit ORVR to assessments to support Stage II-related plants,rental car facilities,E85 be recognized as a Stage II comparable SIP revisions.24 The EPA encourages dispensing pumps,and corporate fleet emission reduction measure.This issue states to review this guidance and facilities).In these specific cases where is not within the scope of this consult with the EPA Regional Offices all or nearly all of the vehicles being rulemaking, and EPS is not taking final on developing SIP revisions seeking refueled are ORVR-equipped,the EPA agency action implementing section EPA approval for phasing out existing could conservatively conclude that 184(b)(2)or an interpretation thereof. Stage II programs in a manner that widespread use of ORVR had occurred However, for informational purposes, ensures air quality protections are in these fleets.25 we point out that simply treating the maintained. E.Implementation of Rule Provisions in ORVR requirements under section Section 110(1)precludes the 202(a)(6)as a comparable measure that Administrator from approving a SIP the Ozone Transport Region y States and the District of Columbia in an OTR SIP must additionally contain revision if it would interfere with would arguably render the 184(b)(2) applicable CAA requirements the OTR in the northeastern U.S.are requirement a nullity,which could be (including,but not limited to, also subject to a separate Stage II-related an impermissible statutory attainment and maintenance of the requirement.Under section 184(b)(2)of interpretation.If commenters wish to ozone NAAQS and achieving reasonable the CAA(42 U.S.C. 7511c(b)(2)),all further address this issue,we ask that further progress).A state may areas in the OTR,both attainment and they raise their concerns in any future demonstrate through analysis that nonattainment areas,must implement g y SIP actions under section 184(b)(2) removing a Stage II program in an area control measures capable of achieving regarding OTR states that may affect as of a specific date will not result in an emissions reductions comparable to them.In addition,we note that the emissions increase in the area, or that those achievable through Stage II expected level of emissions reductions the small and ever-declining increase is controls.The CAA does not contain offset by other simultaneous changes in specific provisions giving authority to ze stage II Comparability Study for the Northeast the implementation plan.However,a the EPA Administrator to waive this Ozone Transport Region,"(EPA-452/R-94-011; January 1995). 24"Phasing Out Stage II Gasoline Refueling Vapor 25"Removal of Stage U Vapor Recovery in 27"Phasing Out Stage II Gasoline Refueling Vapor Recovery Programs:Guidance on Satisfying Situation where Widespread Use of Onboard Recovery Programs:Guidance on Satisfying Requirements of Clean Air Act Sections 110(1),193, Refueling Vapor Recovery is Demonstrated,"from Requirements of Clean Air Act Sections 110(1),193, and 184(h)(2)(tentative title)."U.S.EPA Office of Stephen D.Page and Margo Tsirigotis Oge,EPA, and 184(b)(2)(tentative title)."U.S.EPA Office of Air and Radiation,forthcoming. December 12,2006. Air and Radiation,forthcoming. Packet Page-75- Appendix D - p 3/10/2015 9.A. 28780 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 95/Wednesday, May 16, 2012/Rues and Regulations that Stage II programs can obtain has that are binding and enforceable under reasonable and representative but it was changed significantly in the past 15 state law.In order to change the federal concluded that two of the values should years with ORVR-equipped vehicles enforceability of SIPs, states must go be updated.These include: (1)The pre- phasing in at the rate of 3-4 percent of through the SIP revision process,and tax price of gasoline used in the the fleet each calendar year.Therefore, the EPA can approve the SIP revision foregone vapor recovery savings the EPA is issuing updated guidance on only if the provisions of section 110(1) calculation,which increased from$2.30 estimating the emissions reductions and any other applicable requirements, in 2010 to$3.04 in 2011 (average price needed to be comparable to those such as the requirements of section 193 per gallon),and(2)the number of Stage achievable through Stage II controls. and the comparable measures II facilities potentially affected by SIP Theoretically,comparable measures requirement for OTR states,are revisions removing Stage II could in some areas mean no additional satisfied.Today's final rule takes no requirements in non California Serious, control beyond ORVR is required if action in implementing CAA sections Severe and Extreme ozone Stage II is achieving no additional 110(1), 193,or 184(b)(2),and any future emission reduction benefit in the area, final actions regarding"comparable nonattainment areas which increased or has reached a point of providing only measures" SIPs will be fact-specific in from 26,900 to 30,600 in 19 states and a declining de minimis benefit. response to individual state the District of Columbia.As discussed submissions.Also,subsequent to the in our final regulatory support F. Comments on Other Waiver effective waiver date of the section document,the EPA estimates recurring Implementation Issues 182(b)(3) Stage II requirements,areas cost savings of about$3,000 per year for Numerous commenters on the NPRM currently implementing the EPA- a typical gasoline dispensing facility, urged the EPA to adopt provisions in approved Stage II programs in their SIPs and an annual nationwide savings of up the final rule that would exempt new as a result of obligations under the 1- to$91 million if Stage II is phased out gasoline dispensing facilities with hour or 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, of the approximately 30,600 dispensing construction occurring between the final would be required to continue facilities outside of California that are rule publication and the effective Stage implementing these programs until the required to have Stage II vapor recovery II waiver date from installing Stage II EPA approves a SIP revision adopted systems under section 182(b)(3)of the equipment.The timing issue is now under state law removing the CAA.29 This analysis assumes that Stage largely moot since widespread use is requirement from the state's ozone II is removed from GDFs over a three deemed to have occurred on the implementation plan. year time frame in an equal number effective date of this action.However, each year.What actually occurs will under the CAA,states adopt state- VII.Estimated Cost Y Y specific or area-specific rules,which are As part of the NPRM,the EPA depend on actions by the individual then submitted to the EPA for approval conducted an initial assessment of the states.If the states submit and EPA into the SIP.These rules are costs and savings to gasoline dispensing approves SIP revisions to remove Stage independently enforceable under state facility owners related to this proposed II systems from these GDFs,the EPA law,and also become federally action.The report titled,"Draft projects savings of about$10.2 million enforceable when the EPA approves Regulatory Support Document, in the first year, $40.5 million in the them into the SIP.The EPA cannot Decommissioning Stage II Vapor second year,and$70.9 million in the unilaterally change legally-adopted state Recovery,Financial Benefits and Costs," third year.Long term savings are statutes or rules or otherwise revise an is available in the public docket for this projected to be about$91 million per approved SIP that was not erroneously action.The report examines the initial year,compared to the current use of approved.The EPA's only authority to costs and savings to facility owners Stage II systems in these areas. establish requirements that would apply incurred in the decommissioning of VIII. Statutory and Executive Order in lieu of approved SIPs is its authority Stage II vapor recovery systems,as well Reviews under CAA section 110(c)to promulgate as changes in recurring costs associated a Federal Implementation Plan(FIP). To with above ground hardware A.Executive Orders 12866:Regulatory trigger FIP authority,the EPA must first maintenance,operations,and Planning and Review and Executive determine that a state has failed to administrative tasks.The EPA received Order 13563:Improving Regulation and submit a required SIP or that the state's no substantive comment on the draft Regulatory Review SIP must be disapproved.The report, other than a concern that the circumstances of this ORVR widespread savings identified therein may not come Under Executive Order(EO) 12866 use finding and waiver of the section to pass as quickly as envisioned in the (58 FR 51735,October 4, 1993),this 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement to do not draft report if the EPA does not provide action is a"significant regulatory present either of those situations. updated guidance on comparable action"because it raises novel legal or According to requirements established measures for the OTR states.We intend policy issues arising out of legal by the CAA that are applicable here, to address this concern by issuing mandates.Accordingly,the EPA states will need to develop and submit separate guidance for the states.28 EPA submitted this action to the Office of SIP revisions to the EPA in order to will post this action at the following Management and Budget(OMB)for change or eliminate SIP-approved state web site address:http://www.epa.gov/ review under Executive Orders 12866 rules that set forth the compliance dates glo/actions.html. and 13563 (76 FR 3821,January 21, for newly constructed GDFs. As part of the re-analysis following 2011)and any changes made in Commenters also urged EPA to simply the NPRM,the EPA reviewed the input response to OMB recommendations allow states to eliminate all active Stage values used for the proposal draft.Most have been documented in the docket for II programs from certain nonattainment input values were confirmed as this action. areas after the widespread use date, without requiring SIP revisions from 28"Phasing Out Stage II Gasoline Refueling Vapor states.While the EPA has discretion to Recovery Programs:Guidance on Satisfying 29 See"Final Regulatory Support Document, Requirements of Clean Air Act Sections 110(1),193, Decommissioning Stage II Vapor Recovery, determine the widespread use date,the and 184(b)(2)(tentative title)."U.S.EPA Office of Financial Benefits and Costs,"available in public EPA cannot simply nullify states'rules Air and Radiation,forthcoming. docket,EPA—HQ—OAR-2010-1076. Packet Page-76- Appendix D - P 3/10/2015 9.A. Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 95/Wednesday, May 16, 2012/Rules and Regulations 28781 B.Paperwork Reduction Act recovery equipment,but does not I.National Technology Transfer and This action does not impose an impose any obligations to remove these Advancement Act information collection burden under the programs. Section 12(d)of the National provisions of the Paperwork Reduction E.Executive Order 13132:Federalism Technology Transfer and Advancement Act,44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"),Public Law defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).It does not This action does not have federalism 104-113, 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 note) contain any recordkeeping or reporting implications.It will not have substantial directs EPA to use voluntary consensus requirements. direct effects on the states,on the standards in its regulatory activities relationship between the national unless to do so would be inconsistent C.Regulatory Flexibility Act government and the states, or on the vt'ith applicable law or otherwise The Regulatory Flexibility Act(RFA) distribution of power and impractical.Voluntary consensus generally requires an agency to prepare responsibilities among the various standards are technical standards (e.g., a regulatory flexibility analysis of any levels of government, as specified in materials specifications,test methods, rule subject to notice and comment Executive Order 13132.This action does sampling procedures,and business rulemaking requirements under the not impose any new mandates on state practices)that are developed or adopted Administrative Procedure Act or any or local governments.Thus,Executive by voluntary consensus standards other statute unless the agency certifies Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. bodies.The NTTAA directs EPA to that the rule will not have a significant F.Executive Order 13175:Consultation provide Congress,through OMB, economic impact on a substantial and Coordination With Indian Tribal explanations when the Agency decides number of small entities. Small entities Governments not to use available and applicable include small businesses, small voluntary consensus standards. organizations,and small governmental This action does not have tribal This rulemaking does not involve jurisdictions. implications,as specified in Executive technical standards.Therefore,EPA is For purposes of assessing the impacts Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,November 9, not considering the use of any voluntary of this action on small entities, small 2000).It will not have substantial direct consensus standards. entity is defined as: (1)A small business effects on tribal governments, on the Executive Order 12898:Federal as defined in the Small Business relationship between the federal J Administration's (SBA)regulations at 13 government and Indian tribes, or on the Actions To Address Environmental distribution of power and Justice in Minority Populations and CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental Low-Income Populations jurisdiction that is a government of a responsibilities between the federal p city,county,town,school district or government and Indian tribes,as Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 special district with a population of less specified in Executive Order 13175. (Feb. 16, 1994))establishes federal than 50.000; and (3) a small Thus,Executive Order 13175 does not executive policy on environmental organization that is any not-for-profit apply to this rule. justice. Its main provision directs enterprise which is independently G.Executive Order 13045:Protection of federal agencies,to the greatest extent owned and operated and is not Children From Environmental Health practicable and permitted by law,to dominant in its field. and Safety Risks make environmental justice part of their After considering the economic mission by identifying and addressing, impacts of this action on small entities, The EPA interprets Executive Order as appropriate, disproportionately high I certify that this action will not have a 13045 (62 FR 19885,April 23, 1997) as and adverse human health or significant economic impact on a applying only to those regulatory environmental effects of their programs, substantial number of small entities. actions that concern health or safety policies, and activities on minority This rule will not impose any new risks, such that the analysis required populations and low-income requirements on small entities.Rather, under section 5-501 of the Executive populations in the United States. it provides criteria for reducing existing Order has the potential to influence the The EPA has determined that this regulatory requirements on gasoline regulation.This action is not subject to final rule will not have dispensing facilities,some of which Executive Order 13045 because it does disproportionately high and adverse may qualify as small businesses. not establish an environmental standard human health or environmental effects intended to mitigate health or safety minority or low-income populations D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act risks. because it does not directly affect the This action contains no federal level of protection provided to human H.Executive Order 13211:Actions mandates under the provisions of Title Concerning Regulations That health or the environment under the II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform EPA's NAAQS for ozone. This action Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531— Distribution, or Use proposes to waive the requirement for 1538 for state, local, or tribal states to adopt largely redundant Stage governments or the private sector.The This action is not a"significant II programs,based on a determination of action imposes no enforceable duty on energy action"as defined in Executive widespread use of ORVR in the motor any state,local or tribal governments, or Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, vehicle fleet. the private sector.Therefore,this action 2001)),because it is not likely to have K. Congressional Review Act is not subject to the requirements of a significant adverse effect on the sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. supply, distribution, or use of energy.It The Congressional Review Act, 5 This action is also not subject to the does not impose additional costs on U.S.C. 801 et seq.,as added by the Small requirements of section 203 of UN1RA gasoline distribution,but rather Business Regulatory Enforcement because it contains no regulatory promises to lower operating and Fairness Act of 1996,generally provides requirements that might significantly or maintenance costs for gasoline that before a rule may take effect,the uniquely affect small governments.This dispensing facilities by facilitating agency promulgating the rule must action addresses the removal of a removal of redundant gasoline refueling submit a rule report,which includes a requirement regarding gasoline vapor vapor controls. copy of the rule,to each House of the Packet Page -77- Appendix D - p 3/10/2015 9.A. 28782 Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 95/Wednesday, May 16, 2012/Rules and Regulations Congress and to the Comptroller General classification. States must submit and Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0714.All of the United States.The EPA will receive EPA approval of a revision to documents in the docket are listed in submit a report containing this rule and their approved State Implementation the www.regulations.gov Web site. other required information to the U.S. Plans before removing Stage II Although listed in the electronic docket, Senate,the U.S.House of requirements that are contained therein. some information is not publicly Representatives and the Comptroller [FR Doc.2012-11846 Filed 5-15-12;8:45 am] available,i.e.,confidential business General of the United States prior to BILLING CODE 6560-50-P information(CBI)or other information publication of the rule in the Federal whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Register.A major rule cannot take effect Certain other material,such as until 60 days after it is published in the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION copyrighted material, is not placed on Federal Register.This action is not a AGENCY the Internet and will be publicly "major rule"as defined by 5 U.S.C. available only in hard copy form. 804(2).This rule will be effective upon 40 CFR Part 52 Publicly available docket materials are publication in the Federal Register. available either electronically through [EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0714;FRL-9670-3] www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for IX.Statutory Authority public inspection during normal Approval and Promulgation of Air business hours at the Air Protection The statutory authority for this action Quality Implementation Plans; is provided by the CAA,as amended(42 Delaware,New Jersey,and Division,U.S.Environmental Protection U.S.C. 7401,et seq.);relevant provisions Pennsylvania; Determinations of Agency,Region III, 1650 Arch Street, of the CAA include,but are not limited Attainment of the 1997 Annual Fine Philadelphia,Pennsylvania 19103. to sections 182(b)(3), 202(a)(6), particulate Standard for the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:If 301(a)(1),and 307(b),and 307(d)(42 Philadelphia-Wilmington you have questions concerning EPA's U.S.C. 7511a(b)(3), 7521(a)(6), Nonattainment Area action related to Delaware or 7601(a)(1), 7607(b),and 7607(d)). Pennsylvania,please contact Maria A. List of Subts in 40 CFR Part 51 AGENCY:Environmental Protection Pino, (215)814-2181,or by email at I Agency(EPA). pino.maria @epa.gov.If you have Environmental protection, ACTION:Final rule. questions concerning EPA's action Administrative practice and procedure, related to New Jersey,please contact Air pollution control,Ozone,Particulate SUMMARY:EPA is making two Henry Feingersh, (212)637-3382,or by matter,Volatile organic compounds. determinations regarding the email at feingersh.henry@epa.gov. Dated:May 9,2012. Philadelphia-Wilmington,PA-NJ-DE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:The Lisa P.Jackson, fine particulate(PM2.5)nonattainment following outline is provided to aid in Administrator. area(the Philadelphia Area).First,EPA locating information in this action. is making a determination that the I.Background For reasons set forth in the preamble, Philadelphia Area has attained the 1997 II.Summary of Actions part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of the annual PM2.5 national ambient air III.Summary of Public Comments and EPA Code of Federal Regulations is amended quality standard(NAAQS)by its Responses as follows: attainment date of April 5, 2010.This IV.Final Actions determination is based upon quality V.Statutory and Executive Order Reviews PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR assured and certified ambient air PREPARATION,ADOPTION,AND Background monitoring data that show the area SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION monitored attainment of the 1997 On January 23,2012,EPA published PLANS. annual PM2,5 NAAQS for the 2007-2009 a direct final rulemaking(77 FR 3147) monitoring period. Second,EPA is and companion notice of proposed • 1.The authority citation for part 51 making a clean data determination, rulemaking(NPR) (77 FR 3223)for the continues to read as follows: finding that the Philadelphia Area has States of Delaware and New Jersey and Authority:23 U.S.C.101;42 U.S.C.7401- attained the 1997 PM .5 NAAQS,based the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the 7671 q. on quality assured and certified ambient States).In the January 23, 2012 air monitoring data for the 2007-2009 rulemaking action,EPA proposed to Subpart G—[Amended] determine that the Philadelphia Area and 2008-2010 monitoring periods.In attained the 1997 PM2.s NAAQS by its • 2.Section 51.126 is added to read as accordance with EPA's applicable PM2.5 attainment date,April 5, 2010.EPA also follows: implementation rule,this determination proposed to a make ke clean data suspends the requirement for the determination, a clean that the §51.126 Determination of widespread use Philadelphia Area to submit an finding of ORVR and waiver of CAA section attainment demonstration,reasonably Philadelphia Area has attained the 1997 182(b)(3)Stage II gasoline vapor recovery available control measures/reasonably PM2.5 NAAQS. requirements. Because EPA received adverse available control technology(RACM/ (a)Pursuant to section 202(a)(6)of the RACT),a reasonable further progress comment,EPA withdrew the direct final Clean Air Act,the Administrator has rule on March 13,2012 (77 FR14697), determined that,effective May 16,2012, (RFP)plan,and contingency measures and the direct final rule was converted onboard refueling vapor recovery related to attainment of the 1997 annual to a proposed rule. PM2.5 NAAQS for so long as the area (ORVR)systems are in widespread use continues to attain the 1997 annual R.Summary of Actions in the motor vehicle fleet within the PM2.5 NAAQS.These actions are being United States. Q g These actions do not constitute a taken under the Clean Air Act(CAA). redesignation to attainment under (b)Effective May 16, 2012,the DATES:This rule is effective on June 15, g Administrator waives the requirement J section 107(d)(3) of the CAA.The of Clean Air Act section 182(b)(3)for 2012. designation status of the Philadelphia Stage II vapor recovery systems in ozone ADDRESSES:EPA has established a Area will remain nonattainment for the nonattainment areas regardless of docket for this action under Docket ID 1997 annual PM•.5 NAAQS until such Packet Page-78- Apper,n" C 3/10/2015 9.A. APPENDIX E Packet Page-79- Apper"' c D^-^ 7 3/10/2015 9.A. TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR GASOLINE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry June 1995 Packet Page -80- D-..t5., ? 9 3/1 01201 .A. GASOLINE yz 2.HEALTH EFFECTS 2.7 POPULATIONS THAT ARE UNUSUALLY SUSCEPTIBLE A susceptible population will exhibit a different or enhanced response to gasoline than will most persons exposed to the same level of gasoline in the environment. Reasons for such a response include genetic make-up, developmental stage,health and nutritional status, and chemical exposure history. These parameters may result in decreased function of the detoxification and excretory processes (mainly hepatic and renal) or may affect the pre-existing compromised function of target organs. For these reasons we expect the elderly with declining organ function and the youngest of the population with immature and developing organs will generally be more vulnerable to toxic substances than healthy adults. Populations who are at greater risk due to their unusually high exposure are discussed in Section 5.6, "Populations With Potentially High Exposure." Limited data are available on populations that are unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of gasoline. There are limited data that gasoline may enhance sister chromatid exchange in circulating lymphocytes of cigarette smokers, possibly as a consequence of increased hepatic metabolism of gasoline to reactive metabolites (Edwards and Priestly 1993). Most of the information available on susceptible populations of gasoline toxicity pertains to the benzene component. In general, benzene exposures are likely to present a concern for those whose immune systems are not functioning optimally, such as the very young and the very old. There is some evidence to suggest that females are more susceptible to benzene toxicity (Goldstein 1977). Furthermore, pregnant women, whose hematopoietic systems are naturally under stress, may be particularly susceptible to benzene toxicity (Calabrese 1978). Benzene toxicity may be potentiated in the presence of thalassemia(abnormal hemoglobins) and malnutrition (Aksoy 1989; Calabrese 1978; Goldstein 1977). The hematotoxic effects of benzene may be enhanced by ethanol (Baarson et al. 1982,Nakajima et al. 1985). This is of particular concern for gasolineexposed workers who consume alcohol. (Note that this is not a comprehensive discussion of populations that are susceptible to benzene toxicity. For more information on populations unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of gasoline's components, see the appropriate toxicological ATSDR profiles [ATSDR 1989, 1990, 1991). Packet Page-81- Apper,�c., C D ten`+ /1 3/1 01201 5 9.A. GASOLINE 5.POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE 5.1 OVERVIEW Gasoline is a mixture of relatively volatile hydrocarbons, including alkanes, cycloalkanes, alkenes, and aromatics. Individual hydrocarbon components differentially partition to environmental media on the basis of their physical/chemical properties. Gasoline is released to the atmosphere as hydrocarbon vapors from processing and use as a fuel, and to surface water, groundwater, and soil through spills and leaks in aboveground and underground storage tanks and pipelines. Gasoline has been identified in 23 of the 1,397 NPL hazardous waste sites that have been proposed for inclusion on the NPL (HAZDAT 1992). The frequency of these sites within the Unites States can be seen in Figure 5-1. The volatile hydrocarbon fraction of gasoline, which consists primarily of short-chain (C4-05) alkanes and alkenes and some aromatics, partitions to the atmosphere where photochemical oxidation is the main removal process. Much of what is released to surface waters and surface soils is lost by volatilization to the atmosphere. Releases to subsurface soils may leach through the unsaturated zone and contaminate groundwater. Aromatics constitute most of the water soluble fraction of gasoline. Biodegradation of gasoline hydrocarbons by a diverse group of microorganisms is an important removal process in surface waters, soil, and groundwater. Bioconcentration and sorption of gasoline hydrocarbons to soils and sediments may be important only for higher molecular weight hydrocarbons that are resistant to biodegradation. Exposure of the general population to gasoline occurs primarily through inhalation of very small quantities of the volatile fraction of the mixture during automobile refueling. Another important source of exposure is ingestion, dermal, and inhalation exposure for certain populations through the use of gasoline-contaminated surface water or groundwater in domestic potable water applications. Inhalation also appears to be the main route of occupational exposure for individuals employed in the petroleum and automotive industries. Populations with potential exposures to gasoline hydrocarbons Packet Page-82- Apper,l:., C D-....+ C 3/1 0/201 5 9.A. GASOLINE 5.POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE Breathing zone samples collected at bulk loading terminals where driver/salesmen load their own trucks showed that highest exposure occurred during loading of tanker trucks when no vapor recovery system was used (Phillips and Jones 1978). Approximately 90% of the samples had levels of hydrocarbons of 225 ppm or less. Exposure was substantially reduced when a vapor recovery system was used, with 90%of the samples having levels of 110 ppm or less during a bottom-loading operation and 98% of samples having levels of 25 ppm or less during a top-loading operation. During unloading at service stations, 98% of the samples had levels hydrocarbons of 50 ppm or less. Results from another survey where benzene was used to monitor workers at a bulk transfer facility for exposure to gasoline vapor support the reduced exposure associated with vapor recovery systems (Irving and Grumbles 1979).Ninety-five percent of samples from top-loading facilities without vapor recovery systems had benzene levels below 8.5 ppm. At bottom-loading facilities without vapor recovery, 95%of the samples were below 3.5 ppm and at bottom-loading facilities with vapor recovery, 95%were below 1.8 ppm. These data also suggest reduced exposure levels are associated with bottom-loading of tankers. According to the National Occupational Exposure Survey conducted from 1981 to 1983 by NIOSH, 70 employees (including 7 females) in seven plants producing petroleum and coal products were potentially exposed to natural gasoline or products containing natural gasoline (NOES 1991). Most of these (63 workers) were categorized as miscellaneous machine operators and the remainder were operators of separating, filtering, and clarifying machinery. These data are based only on actual observations of the use of gasoline or of products containing gasoline in 4,490 business establishments in the United States. In view of the information on exposure presented above, these data are believed to substantially underestimate the potential occupational exposure to gasoline. 5.6 POPULATIONS WITH POTENTIALLY HIGH EXPOSURES Results from surveys of service station personnel strongly indicate that general population exposure to gasoline vapor can be expected at service stations. People who refuel their own vehicles are at risk of higher exposure than those who let attendants service their vehicles. These people are also at greater risk of contacting gasoline released from leaking pump lines and overfilled tanks. Populations living in the vicinity of a service station or bulk loading terminal are expected to have higher exposure to Packet Page -83- Apper,1;., C -...�. G 9 3/1 0/201 5 9.A. GASOLINE 134 5.POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE volatile gasoline-related hydrocarbons than those far removed from these businesses. Higher exposure to both gasoline and its vapor is also expected during filling of tanks on machines that operate on gasoline such as gasoline-powered lawn mowers. Populations located near underground storage tanks or pipelines are at risk of exposure to high levels of gasoline-associated hydrocarbons through ingestion of contaminated drinking water. Additional inhalation and dermal exposure would come from other water uses such as washing dishes and showering. These populations may also be exposed to higher than background levels of gasoline vapor that may seep into basements. Workers employed in occupations in which gasoline is transferred between various storage containers, such as those employed at bulk transfer facilities or marine loading facilities,tanker truck drivers, and service station employees, are exposed daily to higher levels of gasoline and gasoline vapor. Workers employed in occupations responsible for location of leaks, remediation of spills and leaks, and removal and maintenance of underground storage tanks are also potentially exposed to high levels of gasoline and gasoline vapor. 5.7 ADEQUACY OF THE DATABASE Section 104(i)(5) of CERCLA, as amended, directs the Administrator of ATSDR (in consultation with the Administrator of EPA and agencies and programs of the Public Health Service) to assess whether adequate information on the health effects of gasoline is available. Where adequate information is not available, ATSDR, in conjunction with NTP, is required to assure the initiation of a program of research designed to determine the health effects (and techniques for developing methods to determine such health effects) of gasoline. The following categories of possible data needs have been identified by a joint team of scientists from ATSDR,NTP, and EPA. They are defined as substance-specific informational needs that, if met, would reduce or eliminate the uncertainties of human health assessment. This definition should not be interpreted to mean that all data needs discussed in this section must be filled. In the future, the Packet Page -84- Apper�,;" c c'^-^ h't' 3/10/2015 9.A. CAPCOA Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines Prepared by the: Toxics Committee of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), in consultation with the: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA), California Air Resources Board(CARB), and CAPCOA Vapor Recovery Committee. Assistance was provided by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and other industry representatives. Principal Authors: Monterey Bay Unified APCD . . . . David Craft, Sara Demyanovich, Mary Giraudo, Jim Johnston California Air Resources Board . . . Louis Chiu, Lynn LaBarber CAPCOA Contributors: California Air Resources Board . . . Bob Fletcher, Dan Donohoue, Greg Harris, Tony Servin, James Loop, Ray Asregadoo OEHHA Tim Collins Bay Area AQMD Ken Kunaniec, Scott Lutz, Hari Doss, John Chiladakis South Coast AQMD Tom Chico, Alene Taber, Pierre Sycip, Wayne Barcekowski, Kate Chun San Diego County APCD Tom Weeks, Debbie Ryan, Barney McEntire San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Leland Villalvazo, Ty Kharazi formerly SJVUAPCD South Frank Ripepi Santa Barbara Co. APCD Joe Petrini Sacramento Metro AQMD Karen Kelly, Jorge DeGuzman Mendocino County APCD David Faulkner Shasta County APCD Russ Bennett Imperial County APCD Bob Fischer Lake County APCD Ross Kauper November 1997 Packet Page-85- Apper' " C D-..+., o 9 3/1 0/201 5 9.A. IV. EMISSIONS FACTORS The gasoline emissions identified in this effort originate from the following four processes: Loading - Loading emissions occur when a cargo tank truck unloads gasoline to the storage tanks at the gasoline station. Storage tank vapors are emitted from the vent pipe during the initial fuel transfer period. These emissions are significantly reduced when the vent pipe includes a pressure/vacuum valve. Breathing - Gasoline vapors are emitted from the storage tank vent pipe due to temperature and pressure changes within the storage tank vapor space. Refueling - During the refueling process, gasoline vapors are emitted at the vehicle/nozzle interface. Spillage - Spillage emissions occur from spills during vehicle fueling. The existing CARB and EPA emission factors have been reexamined and updated for this report. The new emission factors are shown in Appendix A. The emissions factor changes resulted from Reid vapor pressure changes, and emissions tests. A more detailed explanation of the emission factor changes is shown in Appendix A. V. EMISSIONS PROFILE It was assumed that the emissions occur continuously throughout the year, 365 days, 24 hours per day. This emissions profile was chosen because the risk results, generally, were not significantly different when different operating profiles were compared. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) meteorological data were used in the comparisons. Three scenarios were considered: 1) The annualized alternative assumes that 100 percent of daily emissions occur equally each hour throughout the day. 2) The 100/0 alternative assumes that 100 percent of daily emissions occur equally each hour only from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. 8 Packet Page-86- 3/10/2015 9.A. a) tup cz i x c CI) a. 2 Q )iuel punoa6aapun Joi. s}uaioi}}o3 Ieanj Q. ' N- L L O CD • L co N I .4—, m 03 6 I _CO a) co 0 x O z ii O W d —o O W ~ C co > o U 1 —si 3 a> 0 j (I) / i, a) C > ca o CO -08 u) f O (6 ■ U L i A O r C 4 co I I '' I^^ 1 I i t 1 i 1 1 I I I 1 CD u J © L ) O V J 0 in 0 ab ifiPuilal Vtigasoueo Packet Page-87- 3/10/2015 9.A. -1 y TS L LI X 3 y 3 2 Cl) - Ci (a )luel punoa6iopun aoj s}uequoj uegan O a) •§ � Q I a rti W c X � CO To U > o LZ ° C C W i § O .�.r c U ,, 1 co v) - o I a) a)co lJ I E U) U) � 0_ a. 1 = o _ Net H O co 0 1 2 c i ls L ?v � _ U I 00 > l CO o 0 / 0 06 — / I o _ o . <' N c can) o ca I I I { 1 I 1 U L o 0_ o 1.0 CD Lt) o LC) CD UO!I w Jed 'I ! I J83ueO Packet Page-88- Appenc" C D-.— 11 3/10/2015 9.A. Attachment Technical Support Document for Potential to Emit Guidance Memo. Documentation of Emission Calculations. Tim Smith, USEPA/OAQPS. April 1998 1 Packet Page-89- A ppenc " C fl- ,,,, 11 3/10/2015 9.A. Section 1. Introduction This document provides the background calculations for the specific values for that appear in EPA's policy guidance memo, "Potential to Emit Guidance for Specific Source Categories," released in April 1998. In the guidance memo, the EPA calculated cutoffs that States can use to establish prohibitory rule or general permit cutoffs that sources could use as enforceable limitations on their operations, thereby achieving minor source status. This document covers calculations made for the following categories: -- Gasoline Service Stations and Bulk Plants (Section 2) -- Oil and Natural Gas Combustion in Industrial Boilers Having Capacity of 100 million BTU/hour or less (Section 3) -- Cotton Gins (Section 4) -- Coating Sources (Section 5) -- Printing, publishing and packaging operations (Section 6) -- Degreasers Using Volatile Organic Solvents (Section 7) -- Hot Mix Asphalt Plants (Section 8) The EPA author appreciates and acknowledges all of the technical contributions made by EPA and State and local agency staff who assisted with this effort. In particular, the author acknowledges the help from Steve Shedd, Jeff Herring, Mike Sewell, Dave Salman, Ron Myers and Dallas Safriet of EPA/OAQPS, Martha Larson of EPA Region 9, Barbara Cook (California), Mary Jean Fenske (Minnesota), Wayne Anderson and Randy Wolfe (Mississippi), Susan Fields (Nebraska), Dick Everhart (Jefferson County, Kentucky) Jim Current and Neeraj Verma (Georgia), Kevin Wood (New York), Richard Rasmussen (Virginia) and Edythe McKinney (North Carolina). In addition, special thanks to Gary Jones of the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation and Marci Kinter of the Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging Association International. Finally, thanks to Reese Howle and staff of Alpha-Gamma technologies, Inc., who were of great assistance in early brainstorming efforts on this project. If I forgot anybody, rest assured, I didn't mean to. 2 Packet Page-90- Appenc':., o .,�,. 3/1 0/201 9.A. Section 2. Gasoline Service Stations and Bulk Plants. 2.1. Gasoline Service Stations A. Pertinent Data and Calculations The EPA agrees with findings of industry comments and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) that the major source determination for service stations will always have volatile organic compounds (VOC) as the limiting case. (Ref: Fax with attachments from John Huber, Petroleum Marketers Association of America to Tim Smith, EPA, January 10, 1997). (Ref: Fax with attachments from Judy Yee, California Air Resources Board, February 10, 1997.) This is because each individual hazardous air pollutant(HAP) contributes less than 10%of the organic emission total, and the total across all HAP contributes less than 25%. The highest individual HAP percentage would be roughly 10% for MTBE for an area that is nonattainment for ozone and CO. Accordingly, in an ozone attainment area(or moderate ozone nonattainment area) with a 100 ton/yr VOC major source cutoff, that 100 ton/yr cutoff would be reached before any individual HAP would reach 10 ton/yr, and before any combination of HAP would reach 25 tons/yr. VOC would, of course, also be limiting for ozone nonattainment areas for which the VOC cutoff was 50, 25 or 10 tons per year because HAPs would be a proportionally smaller fraction of the major source cutoff when the major source VOC cutoff was reached. The EPA has calculated the number of"refueling stations" at a gasoline service station that could result in emissions greater than major source amounts. The term "refueling position" is used rather than the more ambiguous terms "pump" or"nozzle." The number of"refueling positions" is the number of vehicles that could be pumping simultaneously. For example, a typical service station island with two dispensers has three nozzles on each side of both dispensers. Such a two-dispenser design would yield four"refueling positions,"because a maximum of four vehicles could be refueling at any given time. The results of these calculations are presented in Table 1. The EPA has also calculated the number of gallons of gas pumped that would correspond to the major source cutoff based upon the available emissions factors in Table 3. This value will vary depending on the VOC major source cutoff, and depending on whether vapor recovery during tank loading (Stage I vapor recovery) and vapor recovery during vehicle fueling (Stage II) is required. These values are summarized in Table 2. Finally, to put these values in perspective, the EPA reviewed data related to throughputs at average-sized and large gasoline dispensing facilities. Data from broad surveys indicate average gasoline sales of about 65,000 to 100,000 gallons/month [780,000 to 1.2 million gallons/year] for"service stations,"while "pumpers" averaged 110,000 to 145,000 gallons/month [1.3 to 1.7 million gallons/year]. (Ref: Market Facts `96. Facts, Figures and Trends.) Data for the New Jersey Turnpike Authority facilities,judged to be among the largest in the nation, 3 Packet Page-91- Appenc';" C D 9 A 3/10/2015 9A.A. indicated average gasoline sales of 264,000 to 550,000 gallons/month [3.2 to 6.9 million gallons per year]. (Ref: December 10, 1996 letter and attachments from Edward Gross, Acting Director, New Jersey Turnpike Authority to Eric DeGesero, Associate Director, Fuel Merchants Association of New Jersey). According to the California Air Resources Board, there are only a few gasoline stations that would approach or exceed the 7 million gallon per year cutoff in the CAPCOA model rule. (Ref: Judy Yee, California Air Resources Board,personal communication with Tim Smith, EPA. February 1997). It also may be useful to note that a gasoline tank truck's capacity is about 8000 gallons, and 240,000 gallons per month would represent a station with a full tank truck unloading every day. B. Recommended Approaches for Screening Cutoffs For sources where gasoline dispensing operations account for more than 90% of all emissions, the EPA recommends the following guidelines for a State or local prohibitory rule or general permit: (A) The source's total sales of gasoline in gallons/month must not exceed the following limits in any calendar month: (the cutoff level varies depending on VOC major source cutoff and on the type of vapor recovery required): (These values represent 50% of the values in table 2, and are converted to a monthly basis to make the cutoffs correspond to records already being kept). VOC Major Type of Control Gallons/Month Source Level Required At 50% of tons/yr) Major Source 100 No controls 380,000 100 Stage I 630,000 100 Stage I and Stage II 2,900,000 50 No controls 190,000 50 Stage I 310,000 50 Stage I and Stage II 1,500,000 25 No controls 95,000 25 Stage I 160,000 25 Stage I and Stage II 740,000 10 No controls 38,000 10 Stage I 63,000 10 Stage II 290,000 4 Packet Page-92- Append;" 3/1 0/201 5 9.A. (B) to demonstrate compliance with this limit, monthly records of throughput. [Records for many if not most should be already available due to the EPA underground storage tank inventory control requirements]. (C) A source may be considered low priority(no need for formal notification) if it contains less than or equal to the number of refueling positions identified in table 1. 2.2. Bulk Plants A. Pertinent Data and Calculations A "bulk plant" generally means a bulk gasoline loading facility that is smaller than a"bulk terminal.- Air quality regulations define of"bulk terminals" as those with a capacity greater than 20,000 gallons per day, and define "bulk plants" as those less than or equal to 20,000 gallons per day. (See 40 CFR 60.111b). In terms of emission characteristics, there are three types of bulk plants, as follows: (1) uncontrolled facilities, (2) facilities with vapor balancing of storage tank and incoming tank trucks, and (3) facilities with vapor balancing of storage tank and incoming and outgoing tank trucks. Emission factors for each of these three types are contained below in Table 4. The EPA believes that all bulk plants in VOC nonattainment areas will have vapor balancing controls. In states with regulations that mirror the CTG, facilities less than 4000 gallons per day require vapor balancing of storage tank and incoming tank trucks, and facilities greater than 4000 gallons per day require vapor balancing of outgoing tank trucks as well. A bulk plant (i.e., gasoline loading facility with a capacity of 20,000 gallons per day) operating 365 days per year would have a maximum possible annual throughput of 7,300,000 gallons per year. Typical bulk plants operate at less than 20,000 gallons per day for 300 days per year or fewer. Assuming the highest theoretical operation of 7.3 million gallons per year, and using the emission factors in table 4, the maximum theoretical emissions from an uncontrolled facility would be: 7,300,000 X 1/1000 thousand gallons X 2460 mg/l X 0.0083 [conversion from mg/1 to lb/1000 gallon] X 1 ton/2000 lb= 75 tons VOC/year Assuming that 4000 gallons per day is the maximum throughput for a facility for which vapor balancing would not be required in a nonattainment area for outgoing trucks, then the maximum possible annual throughput for such facilities is 4000 X 365 = 1.5 million gallons. The 5 Packet Page -93- Appenc''" C D ,,t.. 'I C 3/10/2015 9.A. maximum possible emissions from such facilities, using the emission factor of 830 mg/I in table 4, are as follows: 1,500,000 X 1/1000 X 830 X 0.0083 X 1/2000= 5.2 tons/year Finally, assuming the maximum theoretical throughput of 7,300,00 gallons per year, and using the emission factor of 130 mg/1 in table 4, are as follows: 7,300,000 X 1/1000 X 130 X 0.0083 X 1/2000 = 4 tons per year. The results of the above three calculations illustrate that, even in a worst-possible case, no facility whose actual throughput is less than 20,000 gallon per day definition of"bulk plant" will be emitting major amounts of pollutants. B. Recommended Approach for Screening Cutoffs For this category, it does not appear necessary to calculate a throughput level as a "screening cutoff'because any source which meets the basic 20,000 gallons per day definition would not be a major source. The basic definition itself should serve adequately as the basis for a "limitation." 6 Packet Page-94- Appenc''3-A0/D2-61-51 7 9.A. Table 2.1. Low priority gas stations Type of Refueling positions service station Attainment Marginal or Serious Severe Extreme Moderate 100 tpy 100 tpy 50 tpy 25 tpy 10 tpy Uncontrolled 17 17 9 4 2 Stage I 29 29 14 7 3 Stage I & II 134 134 67 34 13 Notes: These calculations assume: -- the average vehicle dispenses 10 gallons in one minute time period -- each vehicle is replaced by another vehicle at every refueling position at the the service station every 10 minutes over the entire year. -- as a result, each refueling position pumps 10 gallons six times and hour, which is equivalent to one gallon/minute at each position These assumptions are based upon EPA's technical judgment rather than actual data. The EPA believes they represent very conservative upper bounds. The following calculation demonstrates the conservative nature of the assumption: 1 gallon/minute X 60 minutes/hour X 24 hours/day X 30 days month=43,200 gallons/month Thus, the worst-case assumptions would result in a configuration with 10 refueling positions [5 2-sided pumps], pumping 432,000 gallons per month. This is a volume equivalent to the pumping rates at a very large station on the New Jersey turnpike. In reality, such a small station would not pump as much as a New Jersey turnpike station. The EPA believes, therefore, that this calculation suggests that gasoline stations having no more refueling positions than indicated in the above table would he unlikely to emit major source amounts, even if for some a physical possibility may exist. Accordingly, the EPA believes that State prohibitory rules and general permits may treat such stations as low priority sources: that is, the sources would be covered by the prohibitory rule or general permit even if no formal notification was required. 7 Packet Page -95- Appenc " C °^—^ 10 3/10/2015 9.A. Table 2.2. Gallons/year at major source threshold using EPA emission factors Type of Gallons/year of gasoline at the major source threshold service station Attainment Marginal or Serious Severe Extreme Moderate 100 tpy 100 tpy 50 tpy 25 tpy 10 tpy Uncontrolled 9.1 million 9.1 million 4.5 million 2.3 million 0.91 million Stage I 15 million 15 million 7.5 million 3.8 million 1.5 million Stage II 71 million 71 million 35 million 18 million 7.1 million 8 Packet Page-96- Appenc';" C D^-- 1 3/10/2015 9.A. Table 2.3. Service Station VOC Emissions from Gasoline Storage and Handling Operations [Milligrams of VOC per Liter of Gasoline Transferred (mg/1)] Source Uncontrolled STAGE I: Vapor STAGE I &I: Vapor Emissions' Balancing of Tank Balancing of Tank Truck, Truck and UST UST, &Vehicle Refueling Red. Emissions %Red.Applied Emissions Applied UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (UST) LOSSES: Truck Unloading/ 11002 95%3 55 95%3 55 UST Filling Loss Breathing/Emptying 120 0% 120 86%4 17 VEHICLE REFUELING LOSSES: Displacement 1340 0% 1340 86%4 188 Spillage 80 0% 80 0% 80 TOTAL: I 2640 40% I 1600 I 87% 340 US EPA, "Gasoline Distribution Industry (Stage I) -Background Information for Proposed Standards", EPA 453/R-94-002a, January 1994, page 3-35 unless otherwise noted. 2 Assuming 50% splash loading (1556 mg/1) and 50% submerged fill (1556 mg/1 x 41%) 3 US EPA, "Technical Guidance - Stage I Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, Volume I Chapters", EPA 450/3-91-022a, November 1991,page 4-50. pg 4-35. US EPA, "Technical Guidance - Stage I Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, Volume I Chapters", EPA 450/3-91-022a, November 1991, page 4-50. 9 Packet Page-97- Append'- c o— .1(1 3/10/2015 9.A. Table 2.4. Bulk Plant VOC Emissions from Gasoline Storage and Handling Operations [Milligrams of VOC per Liter of Gasoline Transferred (mg/1)] Source Uncontrolled Vapor Balancing of Vapor Balancing of Emissions' Storage Tank and Storage Tank and Incoming Tank Truck Incoming and Outgoing Tank Truck %Red. Emissions %Red. Emissions Applied Applied STORAGE TANKS: Emptying losses 432 22 22 95%6 10 95%2 10 Breathing losses 203 Filling losses 1081 54 54 TRUCK LOADING : Submerged fill 738 0% 738 95%2 37 EQUIPMENT LEAKS': Pumps: 1.2 0% 1.2 0% 1.2 Valves: 2.6 0% 2.6 0% 2.6 TOTAL: I 2,460 66% 830 95% 130 ' US EPA, "Gasoline Distrbution Industry (Stage I) -Background Information for Proposed Standards", EPA 453/R-94-002a, January 1994, page 3-33 unless otherwise noted. 6Reference 8,pg 4-34. ' Calculated using footnote a from reference 1 above,plus new emission factors in US EPA, "Gasoline Distribution Industry (Stage I) -Background Information for Promulgated Standards", EPA 453/R-94-002b,November 1994, page C-9. [ 5.3x10-4 lb./hr x 300d/yr x 24hr/d x 4 pumps x 0.454 kg/lb x 10*6 mg/kg/ (5,000 gal/day x 300d/yr x 3.785 1/gal)] and same calculation for valves except 9.2*10-5 lbs/hr and 50 valves. 10 Packet Page-98- Append:., "— " 3/10/2015 9.A. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 70;2014)S1—S2 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect 4 eittl 'f�- New Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology ;4Jti „,„ 1, tee, ., ,t? journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/yrtph * Editorial Introduction: Gasoline health effects and risk management CmssMark In 1994 the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)issued a gasoline influences potential hazard of the evaporative emissions final rule under the Clean Air Act(CAA)requiring new health effects to which humans may be exposed.All of these studies conformed information and testing for motor vehicle fuels and fuel additives. to EPA guidelines where available, and where none existed, the The rule, referred to as the "211(b)" rule, directed producers of Research Group worked with academic and government experts motor vehicle fuels and fuel additives to provide information on to develop sound experimental approaches to meet or exceed the the composition of emissions from their products and the potential requirements of the 211(b) rule. This series of studies "Health effects of these emissions on the public health and welfare.To fulfill Assessment of Gasoline and Fuel Oxygenate Vapors" includes these requirements,the American Petroleum Institute(APO)orga- the following: nized the 211(b)Research Group,an unincorporated group of over two hundred fuel, oxygenate, and fuel additive manufacturers, Sub-chronic Inhalation Toxicity (Clark et al., 2014) relates the which embarked upon a nearly 20 year effort to fulfill the require- results in Sprague-Dawley rats of seven separate inhalation ments of the rule. studies of baseline gasoline vapor condensate or vapor conden- This issue of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology is sate from gasoline blended with different oxygenates. These devoted to describing the 211(b)rule requirements,the petroleum studies also served as the main exposure studies for three sep- industry's response,and the results of toxicity studies on evapora- arate satellite groups assessing genetic toxicity, neurotoxicity, tive emissions.This was by no means the first effort to characterize and immunotoxicity.Their conclusions are described in the fol- the hazards of gasoline. The first article in the supplement lowing three papers: "Gasoline Toxicology: Overview of Regulatory and Product Micronucleus and Sister Chromatid Exchange Evaluations- used Stewardship Programs" (Swick et al., 2014a) describes other the bone marrow micronucleus test to identify chromosome mandatory and voluntary product stewardship and toxicology damage and aneuploidy, and the sister chromatid exchange testing programs that have generated hazard characterization data test (SCE) to detect reciprocal exchanges of DNA between for gasoline, the refinery process streams used to blend gasoline, homologous loci of two sister chromatid strands of a duplicating and some of the individual chemical constituents of gasoline. chromosome(Schreiner et al.,2014). A major challenge was how to safely and correctly produce Neurotoxicity Evaluation - used standard neurotoxicity samples of the individual substances to be tested. The second screening batteries as well as analysis of glial fibrillary acidic paper in this issue "Health Assessment of Gasoline and Fuel protein(GFAP)in the brain.The GFAP assay was performed in Oxygenate Vapors: Generation and Characterization of Test Dr.O'Callaghan's laboratory as no commercial laboratories were Materials" (Henley et al., 2014) describes the extensive research sufficiently experienced to perform this assay. The results involved in designing a method to generate the evaporative demonstrated that the GFAP assay is probably not effective emissions used in these toxicology studies.Due to the extreme flam- for evaluating petroleum hydrocarbon materials. (O'Callaghan inability of gasoline,it was not a trivial effort to develop and main- et al., 2014). tain safe handling procedures at several contract laboratories to Immunotoxicity Evaluation - used antibody-forming cell (AFC) ship, store and perform studies with the test articles. The 211(b) response to the T-dependent antigen,sheep erythrocyte(sRBC) Rule required the construction of specialized equipment at each lab- to determine the effects on the humoral components of the oratory,operated under strict conditions of temperature and evapo- immune system(White et al.,2014). rated volume. Those conditions imposed significant logistical and safety issues which led the Research Group to undertake develop- Following those articles are the results of three studies which ment of an improved method for the generation of test substances. investigated the reproductive and developmental toxicity of the The paper provides details of the fuels evaluated in the testing same gasoline and gasoline/oxygenate vapor condensates used in program, and of the generation and characterization of the test the sub-chronic toxicity studies: materials designed to mimic real-world human exposures. It also describes GLP-compliant analytic procedures developed to monitor Reproductive Toxicity-used a two generation protocol design in atmospheric exposures in the animal studies and to ensure Sprague Dawley rats and also used the GFAP assay to assess reproducible exposures at multiple contract laboratories. neurotoxicity(Gray et al.,2014). The following papers in this issue summarize and compare the Developmental Toxicity in Mice - evaluated the maternal and results of the toxicology studies on the evaporative emission developmental toxicity in CD-1 mice of both gasoline and substances.These studies assessed whether oxygenates added to gasoline blended with MTBE(Roberts et al., 2014a). http:!/dx.doi.org/70.1010].yrtph 2014.08.007 0273-2300/©2014 The Author.Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://crearivecornmons.org/licenses!hy-nc-nd;3.01). Packet Page-99- Appene 3/10/2015 9.A. S2 Editorial/Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 70(2014)S1-S2 Developmental Toxicity in Rats - evaluated the maternal and development of the rule,the tiered structure of the requirements, developmental toxicity in Sprague-Dawley rats of gasoline what specific testing was required, and the overall objectives of and gasoline blended with six different oxygenates (Roberts the program. Also discussed, are the publication of the proposed et al.,2014b). rule and the subsequent public comment period,and the changes made to the final rule in acknowledgment of already existing data Other novel aspects of the testing program included the use of and laboratory safety concerns. external experts to provide peer review of the laboratory reports. Special thanks are owed to Drs. Richard Schlesinger, Thomas References Goldsworthy, and James Bond for their review and guidance.The Research Group also contracted with independent quality assur- Clark, C.R.,Schreiner, C.A., Parker,C.M., Gray,T.M, Hoffman, G.M., 2014. Health ante experts to audit both the laboratories and the study reports assessment of gasoline and fuel oxygenate vapors: subchronic inhalation in addition to the QA procedures of the laboratory. toxicity. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 70 (25), 518-528. doi:10.1016/ j.yrtph.2014.07.003. As to the future of gasoline toxicology and regulation, the Gray,T.M.,Steup,D.,O'Callaghan,J.P.,Roberts,LG.,Hoffman,G.M.,Schreiner,C.A., Research Group has completed all of the hazard screening studies Clark,C.R.,2014. Health assessment of gasoline and fuel oxygenate vapors: required in the 211(b)rule which demonstrate a low potential for reproductive toxicity.Regul.Toxicol.Pharmacol.70(25),548-S57.doi:10.1016/ j.yrtph.2014.04.014. hazard from evaporative emissions encountered by the public Henley,M.,Letinsky,DJ.,Carr,J.,Caro,M.L.,Daughtrey,W.C.,White,R.D.,2014. when refueling vehicles. Exposure assessment studies separately Health assessment of gasoline and fuel oxygenate vapors: generation and conducted and reported as part of compliance with the 211(b)rule characterization of test materials.Regul.Toxicol.Pharmacol.70(2S),S13-S17. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.05.012. (Zielinska et al., 2012), demonstrate a wide margin of safety O'Callaghan,J.P.,Felton,Daughtrey,W.C.,Clark,C.R.,Schreiner, C.A.,White,R.D., between various high-end exposure scenarios and the no observed 2014.Health assessment of gasoline and fuel oxygenate vapors:neurotoxicity adverse effect levels(NOAEL)demonstrated in the hazard screen- evaluation. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 70 (25), S35-542. doi:10.1016/ j.yrtph.2014.05.002. ing studies reported in this issue. In addition,post-1994 fuel and Roberts, LG., Gray, T.M., Mart, M.C.,Tyl, R.W., Trimmer. G.W., Hoffman, G.M., vehicle regulations have continued to decrease exposure to Murray,F.J.,Clark,C.R.,Schreiner,C.A.,2014a.Health assessment of gasoline gasoline vapor and exhaust emissions(e.g.reduced vapor pressure, and fuel oxygenate vapors: developmental toxicity in mice. Regul. Toxicol. sulfur,and benzene in the fuel;on-board refueling vapor canisters Pharmacol.70(25),558-568.doi:10.1016/ray, F.J., R., Roberts,L.G., Gray,T.M.,Trimmer, G.W., Murray, F.J., Parker, R., Schreiner, C.A., in cars; strict specifications on portable gas cans; more stringent Clark,C.R.,2014b.Health assessment of gasoline and fuel oxygenate vapors: tailpipe emission standards, etc.). The final article in this issue, developmental toxicity in rats. Regul.Toxicol. Pharmacol. 70 (2S),S69-S79. "Gasoline Risk Management: A Compendium of Regulations, doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.05.009. Schreiner, C.A., Hoffman, G.M., Gudi, R., Clark, C.R.,2014. Health assessment of Standards,and Industry Practices"(Swick et al.,2014b),summa- gasoline and fuel oxygenate vapors: micronucleus and sister chromatid rizes those regulations which provide the U.S.federal government exchange evaluations. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 70 (25), S29-534. extensive authority to regulate the entire gasoline lifecycle-from doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.05.014. Swick, D., Jaques, A., Walker, J.C., Estreicher, H., 2014a. Gasoline toxicology: manufacture, through distribution, to end-use-all of which are overview of regulatory and product stewardship programs. Regul. Toxicol. subject to detailed, complex,and overlapping regulatory schemes Pharmacol.70(2S),S3-S12.doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.06.016. intended to protect human health,welfare,and the environment. Swick,D.,Jaques,A.,Walker,J.C.,Estreicher,H.,2014b.Gasoline risk management:a The article also describes the broad array of voluntary standards compendium of regulations,standards,and industry practices.Regul.Toxicol. Y rY Pharmacol.70(25),S80-592.doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.06.022. and best management practices implemented by industry to White,K.L.,Peachee,V.L,Armstrong,S.R.,Twerdok,LE.,Clark,C.R.,Schreiner,C.A., ensure that risks from gasoline manufacturing, distribution, and 2014. Health assessment of gasoline and fuel oxygenate vapors: use are minimized. immunotoxicity evaluation. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 70 (25). S43-S47. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.04.010. For those interested in additional detail on the 211(b)rule,the Zielinska,B.,Fujita,E.,011ison,W.,Campbell,D.,Sagebiel,J.,2012.Quantification of appendix to this supplement, "Alternative Tier 2 Health Effects personal exposures to gasoline vehicle emissions in high-end exposure Testing Requirements for Gasoline and Oxygenated Gasolines" 1346 1357.lments: effect of fuel and season.J.Air Waste Manag.Assoc.62, 1346-1357.http:jldz.doi.org,10.1080,10962247.201-712605. describes the events and expert analyses leading up to the Packet Page-100- Appenc';., C D-,,.../10/2015" 3 9.A. AIR QUALITY AND OOK: A COMMUNITY HEALTH AA PERUSE HANDBT SPECIVE ,#IP f' r.1 . �C d . �,, b , � �. ` e ,4 . ld � n i „ ; . 1111) .e,,z-f. kI Y ,' .j t - s Ft Iv April 2005 California Environmental Protection Agency California Air Resources Board Packet Page-101- Appenc" C D-+,.n 7/I 3/10/2015 9.A. Table 1-1 Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Such As Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical Facilities* Source Advisory Recommendations Category Freeways and • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, High-Traffic urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 Roads vehicles/day. • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration Distribution units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 Centers hours per week). • Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points. • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major Rail Yards service and maintenance rail yard. • Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches. • Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of Ports ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks. • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of Refineries petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation. Chrome Platers • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater. • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry Dry Cleaners cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, Using provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult Perchloro- with the local air district. ethylene • Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning operations. Gasoline • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas Dispensing station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons Facilities per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. *Notes: • These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues. Page 4 Packet Page -102- Appenc':" C D-,.tom, 7C 3/10/2015 9.A. Recommendation • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district. • Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning operations. References • Proposed Amended Rule 1421 — Control of Perchloroethylene Emissions from Dry Cleaning Systems, Final Staff Report. South Coast AQMD. (October 2002) • Air Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning Operations. ARB (1994) (http://www.arb.ca.00v/toxics/atcm/percatcm.htm) • "An Assessment of Tetrachloroethylene in Human Breast Milk", Judith Schreiber, New York State Department of Health — Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment, Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, Vol.2, Suppl.2, pp. 15-26, 1992. • Draft Air Toxics "Hot Spots"Program Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaner Industry- wide Risk Assessment Guidelines. (CAPCOA (November 2002) • Final Environmental Assessment for Proposed Amended Rule 1421 — Control of Perchloroethylene Emissions from Dry Cleaning Systems. South Coast AQMD. (October 18, 2002) Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Refueling at gasoline dispensing facilities releases benzene into the air. Benzene is a potent carcinogen and is one of the highest risk air pollutants regulated by ARB. Motor vehicles and motor vehicle-related activity account for over 90 percent of benzene emissions in California. While gasoline-dispensing facilities account for a small part of total benzene emissions, near source exposures for large facilities can be significant. Since 1990, benzene in the air has been reduced by over 75 percent statewide, primarily due to the implementation of emissions controls on motor vehicle vapor recovery equipment at gas stations, and a reduction in benzene levels in gasoline. However, benzene levels are still significant. In urban areas, average benzene exposure is equivalent to about 50 in one million. Gasoline dispensing facilities tend to be located in areas close to residential and shopping areas. Benzene emissions from the largest gas stations may result in near source health risk beyond the regional background and district health risk thresholds. The emergence of very high gasoline throughput at large retail or Page 30 Packet Page-103- Appenc';" C D-.— 7G 3/10/2015 9.A. wholesale outlets makes this a concern as these types of outlets are projected to account for an increasing market share in the next few years. Key Health Findings Benzene is a human carcinogen identified by ARB as a toxic air contaminant. Benzene also can cause non-cancer health effects above a certain level of exposure. Brief inhalation exposure to high concentrations can cause central nervous system depression. Acute effects include central nervous system symptoms of nausea, tremors, drowsiness, dizziness, headache, intoxication, and unconsciousness. It is unlikely that the public would be exposed to levels of benzene from gasoline dispensing facilities high enough to cause these non- cancer health effects. Distance Related Findings A well-maintained vapor recovery system can decrease emissions of benzene by more than 90% compared with an uncontrolled facility. Almost all facilities have emission control systems. Air quality modeling of the health risks from gasoline dispensing facilities indicate that the impact from the facilities decreases rapidly as the distance from the facility increases. Statistics reported in the ARB's staff reports on Enhanced Vapor Recovery released in 2000 and 2002, indicated that almost 96 percent of the gasoline dispensing facilities had a throughput less than 2.4 million gallons per year. The remaining four percent, or approximately 450 facilities, had throughputs exceeding 2.4 million gallons per year. For these stations, the average gasoline throughput was 3.6 million gallons per year. Figure 1-6 Gasoline Dispensing Facility Health Risk for 3,600,000 gal/yr throughput s 15.0 - E 10.0 ? 5.0 -- Y Q! 0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance From Fenceline (feet) As shown in Figure 1-6,the risk levels for a gasoline dispensing facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year is about 10 in one million at a distance of 50 feet from the fenceline. However, as the throughput increases, the potential risk increases. Page 31 Packet Page-104- Append"' C °--- -7 3/10/2015 9.A. As mentioned above, air pollution levels in the immediate vicinity of large gasoline dispensing facilities may be higher than the surrounding area (although tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles dominates the health impacts). Very large gasoline dispensing facilities located at large wholesale and discount centers may dispense nine million gallons of gasoline per year or more. At nine million gallons, the potential risk could be around 25 in one million at 50 feet, dropping to about five in one million at 300 feet. Some facilities have throughputs as high as 19 million gallons. Recommendation • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gasoline dispensing facility (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. References • Gasoline Service Station Industry-wide Risk Assessment Guidelines. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (December 1997 and revised November 1, 2001) • Staff Report on Enhanced Vapor Recovery. ARB (February 4, 2000) • The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. ARB (2004) • Staff Report on Enhanced Vapor Recovery Technology Review. ARB (October 2002) Other Facility Types that Emit Air Pollutants of Concern In addition to source specific recommendations, Table 1-3 includes a list of other industrial sources that could pose a significant health risk to nearby sensitive individuals depending on a number of factors. These factors include the amount of pollutant emitted and its toxicity, the distance to nearby individuals, and the type of emission controls in place. Since these types of facilities are subject to air permits from local air districts, facility specific information should be obtained where there are questions about siting a sensitive land use close to an industrial facility. Potential Sources of Odor and Dust Complaints Odors and dust from commercial activities are the most common sources of air pollution complaints and concerns from the public. Land use planning and permitting processes should consider the potential impacts of odor and dust on surrounding land uses, and provide for adequate separation between odor and dust sources. As with other types of air pollution, a number of factors need to be considered when determining an adequate distance or mitigation to avoid odor or Page 32 Packet Page-105- Appenc " C 3/10/2015 9.A. APPENDIX G Ordinance: A law adopted by a City Council or County Board of Supervisors. Ordinances usually amend, repeal or supplement the municipal code; provide zoning specifications; or appropriate money for specific purposes. Overriding Considerations: A ruling made by the lead agency in the CEQA process when the lead agency finds the importance of the project to the community outweighs potential adverse environmental impacts. Public Comment: An opportunity for the general public to comment on regulations and other proposals made by government agencies. You can submit written or oral comments at the public meeting or send your written comments to the agency. Public Hearing: A public hearing is an opportunity to testify on a proposed action by a governing board at a public meeting. The public and the media are welcome to attend the hearing and listen to, or participate in, the proceedings. Public Notice: A public notice identifies the person, business, or local government seeking approval of a specific course of action (such as a regulation). It describes the activity for which approval is being sought, and describes the location where the proposed activity or public meeting will take place. Public Nuisance: A public nuisance, for the purposes of air pollution regulations, is defined as a discharge from any source whatsoever of such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. (Health and Safety Code section 41700). Property Setback: In zoning parlance, a setback is the minimum amount of space required between a lot line and a building line. Risk: For cancer health effects, risk is expressed as an estimate of the increased chances of getting cancer due to facility emissions over a 70-year lifetime. This increase in risk is expressed as chances in a million (e.g.,10 chances in a million). Sensitive Individuals: Refers to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Sensitive Sites or Sensitive Land Uses: Land uses where sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time, including schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. Setback: An area of land separating one parcel of land from another that acts to soften or mitigate the effects of one land use on the other. Page G-4 Packet Page-106- /�wwpO�;~ c 13,,,,,-, 10 ' �U1��O1� � �l . .~ ^_. .. ~^ ^. ,.....• 411k. '' ' ''.:1 !"....;:i.:i''.1.:.';:;,„,.. 1 , I 4t it ,, . , ,,,,e„ ,, , ,..,,_ , ........ ,.... ,..4:::',.,{.- ..• '1. , 17'. .i' 'i.,•,,,Tir- '''-':'''''-''. ..7 -14147.4.- i.i• iik, liar , ,i,,,,,r.f,..;„.,„:,,,.,,,,_,,.,,_,,,,,,,,1 t.,,,,,,,i4::,,,,,,fg'%.,,,,,t,,,74....yA, • , .,- •. .;(' ,. ,, . ,: ,•:-- ' ' ..1 -,-7•.7.ff,7, , . ,. .., .t ..,..;,.....,,,.f,.4:,,„'"j,,- e . _, , ...:, ,,:.,,,_.,,,:.2,- ;.1,":',.:‘,,,,I*1*,•.'.. ..:,-, „. - . . '. . . . . : ---‘'a- - .- '-'. . :--...,- :.:' .,,,,: • 3/10/2015 9.A. I suogeaapisuOJ e1aalUJ 5upts!eauaWuOu!nu3 • vw .„ ,tea, w � - ..a� �x a) _ on z.. Cl! a, a °- a) o L. „ ;,i :•D O O .Z O1 a) -. v, O .." O -" E o L o1 L o Q v s r^ - L Q r1 a1 D. ;' Q ° a a n o G • _ a G O _ Q CC Z Z 5 in Q CC rc Z > > ! e r e a e e e e 0 . -s lc C N ++ C -o c ° ate+ _ O a) _ O C 3 .....1 c a) O ;n w- C co a) ra a) N +' a) U -,= - ro in ..7-.7 01 Y a E a—) r� `^ .c m Y v E C c c ra a as -0 0- Y -o ++ co -O -o L +-. — +-. O C Ecc -- w a) o u, v u a ° Q o a) a�i CU v � - C o ■_ 0 aL o —° •`-) = a`, v; = a:o .0 o v_ N ° v t C p C C ' > .° X o o a > E > .°J X ao °c ao >c m O w v, w > O U rs rs w C .,.. a1 L U > O U ra rs U a) 'O C :o 0 e e e n z o, — 3 c a)Ln E L rra L •0 (aa �' ra a, a) 01— Y U .- ac a a.) 3 a) o _ v a _ > C a) V.; O O a) ° •0 2 ,n ° c Q. > L 'v a c L,, C > ro ,� C C v c a, ra rca c v u0 YO N v, rCS ° 4? u0 YO a) in 01 U C Cu ' c c 0 a, ra 0 2.' C O ari ra 0 O O •+� O O c •7 a O O Q LET rr0 C RS C) 0 Q� rs ✓ as v, -C O u a) a) -c a s u - rn 2 rui, Q al V 2 vu, Q CO n: u a r. U O 'E O --. C 0 C Y c a s c L C s ` C o N °) o C c a) 4 'G o ro c c E v, t o E 3 c = a) O =• C .0 v > > C -O .0 E c o E c ° C Y >, O u C t6 +., N °- V 0 C 0- ` d 0' .O O O a o 0 C _ ra 0 Q Vt C7 °V >al t I < ul lJ u > in LO rn C O C c° C o p O Q`n 01 >, V co Z. O p •- .z u N O E ° Y v, a, o )v, C) a o �, u Q7 _ n a) a) o = c ,a E Ol Q= E _ u v J 40 C >•• l� Q'tn U r 0) C N VI C 3 C a) '� .N is L c a) v o v a) Y u CU O_ Nt(6 VI U IL 0 O -0 w@- 0 Packet Page-108- Appenc"" c °^— 71 CITY OF MIAMI v. WOOLIN I Leagle.com 3/10/2015 9.A. Online mpus ba � �l��f ITTr I Request a i >: t�a I�sl TIENGT. HOME SEARCH FEATURED DECISIONS LEAGLE KONTACT ABOUT US CONTACT US View Case Cited Cases Citing Case CITY OF MIAMI v.WOOLIN 11O.24350. 357 F.2d 893(1968) CITY OF MIAMI,Appellant,r.David M. WOOLIN and Annie Woolin,his wife,Appellees. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Reheenng Denied April 2. 1268. Edward J.Fitzaatnck,Miami,Fla..for appellant Hennetn M.Myers,Eugene C.Heiman,Mia,'ni,Fla.,for epoeliees. Before BROWN,Chief Judge.COLEMAN and SIMPSON.Circuit Judges. COLEMAN,Circuit Judge: Appellees brought this suit in the District Court for an injunction against the enforcement of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Number 6871 of the City of Miami, alleging that portions of it were constitutionally invalid in their entirety and as applied to property of the appellees. The Florida State Courts had previously sustained the constitutionality of the Ordinance,City of Miami v.Walker,169 So,2d 842(Fla.App.,1964). After this suit was begun,Section 25 of Ordinance 6871 was repealed and Ordinance Number 7421 was enacted.The essential differences were that Number 7421 eliminated language which plaintiffs had attacked as being void for vagueness but a more important change limited gasoline filling station distance restrictions to properly zoned C-2 and C-4.Property in seven other zones were exempted from this requirement.The City refused to allow the construction of a gasoline filling station on appellees'property in zone 0-2.The District Court permanently enjoined the City from enforcing the ordinance as to appellees'property.We affirm. We recognize,of course,that zoning ordinances are matters within the peculiar knowledge,competency,and jurisdiction of local authorities.Consequently,federal courts do not rush to interfere in such matters unless jurisdiction and the duty to decide plainly exist.Looking first to the jurisdictional issue,we find after careful consideration that both requirements of 28 U.S.C.A §1331,the presence of a federal question and$10,000 in controversy,are clearly met.The complaint raised federal issues as to equal protection of the law and deprivation of property without due process of law.Also,the uncontradicted evidence in this record shows that appellees'property would be worth$130,000 if it were usable for a filling station.Otherwise,it is worth only$67,500.Thus,under the decision in Gibbs v.Buck,307 U.S.66,59 S.Ct.725,83 L.Ed.1111(1939),appellees have undoubtedly more than proved that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy. The facts may be briefly stated.Plaintiff bought the property in question in 1947,and at that time could have built a filling station on the property but failed to do so.City ordinances which were passed in 1937,and amended after this suit was flied,prohibited the erection of filling stations within 350 yards of a church,hospital,or school, and within 750 feet of another filling station.Originally,as above indicated,the ordinance applied to all zones within the city,but the recent amendment now makes the distance requirements applicable only to two zones.Plaintiffs'property is still within one of these zones.The Court found that although filling stations were prohibited within the specified distance of churches,hospitals,or schools,no ordinance prohibits these structures from being built within 350 yards of a filling station.The city planning department recognized this as an indefensible contradiction.The Court also found that the distance requirements produced no greater safety than if the stations were closer together.There is also a noted lack of conformity within the city in the location of filling stations.For example,of the 456 stations in the city,448 were within the prohibited distance of each other,132 were within the prohibited distance of a church,hospital,or school,and in many situations,both at intersections and along highways,stations were clustered together.Much of this situation was brought about through variances granted by the city.Thus the District Court concluded that the ordinance has no real relation to the public 1387 F.2d 895] health,safety,or welfare of the community. Appellees'most telling argument on the merits of the case are that the city is unable to show any justification for its ordinance in light of the fact that the distance requirements apply in only two zones within the city and there is no reasonable basis to conclude that safety is promoted through these requirements.These conclusions form the basis of appellees'equal protection and due process argument.Other facts have a telling effect on the reasonableness of the ordinance.As already pointed out,although no filling station may be built within 350 yards of a church,hospital,or school,there is no equivalent ordinance prohibiting construction of a church,hospital,or school within 350 yards of stations,Also,the city has granted 75 to 100 variances within the past several years and has granted at least three since the filing of this suit.An overall survey shows that of the 456 stations 448 were within the prohibited distance of each other and 132 were within the prohibited distance of a church,hospital,or school. After finding the foregoing facts,the District Court held that the city had offered no evidence to show any rationality for the distance requirement to be applied to the plaintiffs'property.Accordingly,the City of Miami was permanently enjoined from enforcing distance restrictions against plaintiffs'property or preventing them from constructing a gasoline filling station on the property due to such distance restrictions.The Court cited Yick Wo v.Hopkins,118 U.S.356,6 S.Ct.1054,30 L.Ed.220 (1886);City of Evansville,Ind.v.Gaseteria,7 Cir.,1931,51 F.2d 232;and City of Vincennes v.Marland Refining Co.,7 Cir.,1929,33 F.2d 427. Packet Page-109-, http://leagle.com/clecision/19681280387F2a6y.5_i aura. xmuCITY%200F%20MIAMI%20v... 1/7/2015 Appendix E - Page 32 CITY OF MIAMI v. WOOLIN I Leagle.com Page 2 of 2 V.6 51.OZ/0L/£ We think the disposition of this appeal is clearly controlled by what this Court said in Mayhue v.City of Plantation,Florida,375 F.2d 447,in which inance was held to violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Affirmed_ Copyright a 2014 Leagle,Inc. Disclaimer I Terms of Use I Privacy Statement 1 A ; I Contact t1s -OTT-aSed 1a)IPed http://leagle.com/decision/19681280387 1893_I 1018.xml/CITY%200F%20MIAMI%20v... 1/7/2015 Appenc"., c D-, - Do 3/10/2015 9.A. Page 1 • fl LexisNexisL' R.W.SAAR and Althea Saar,his wife,Plaintiffs,v.TOWN OF DAVIE,a municipal corporation of the State of Florida,Defendant No.68-684-Civ. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,MIAMI DIVISION 308 F.Supp.207; 1969 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 8895 November 21,1969 COUNSEL: [**1] Joel Miller, Fort Lauderdale, feet of playgrounds, churches, elementary schools or Florida, for plaintiffs. hospitals. Shell alleges that these zoning provisions deprive it of equal protection and due process as guaran- Paul Manning,Hollywood,Florida,for defendant, teed to it by the 14th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. JUDGES: Atkins,District Judge. For the reasons set forth below I reluctantly find Judge. Shell's position to be correct. In examining municipal OPINION BY: ATKINS zoning ordinances the Court must determine if they are "clearly arbitrary and unreasonable,having no substantial OPINION relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare."Gorieb v.Fox,274 U.S.603,47 S.Ct.675,71 L. [*207] MEMORANDUM OPINION Ed. 1228 (1927); Central Bank and Trust Company v. ATKINS, District Judge. City of Miami Beach,392 F.2d 549(5th Cir. 1968).There are two aspects of the Davie law which dictate determi- The balancing of private property rights with the nation that it is arbitrary and unreasonable. First,there is public interest is always a difficult task. In this non jury no ordinance prohibiting the construction of churches, case the plaintiff is Shell Oil Company, purchaser of a playgrounds, elementary schools or hospitals within 250 parcel of land from Mr.and Mrs. R. W. Saar,the original feet of gas stations, although the adverse is true: As the plaintiffs. The defendant is the Town of Davie, a small Fifth Circuit acknowledged in City of Miami v. Woolin, rural municipality in Broward County. Shell seeks to 387 F.2d 893 [**3] (1968) this is an indefensible con- have a portion of the Town's zoning law declared uncon- tradiction. Second, there have been two variances stitutional as the law prevents [*208] Shell from con- granted since the inception of the ordinance. ' There is no strutting a gasoline service station on the Saar land. This evidence that the granting of these variances was based on Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1331.There any extraordinary situation. It is difficult to understand is a federal question,the alleged unconstitutionality of the how these variances could have been granted if the zoning law, and the requisite jurisdictional amount is aforementioned "public health, safety, morals, or general provided by the difference in the value of the property if a welfare" were endangered by the departure from the dis- service station can be built on it. tance requirements. In this regard I find the relation of these zoning provisions to public health,safety,morals or The Saars acquired title to the property in 1948. In general welfare to be tenuous. 1961 when the defendant Town was incorporated it was zoned B-2,a classification which permits service stations. 1 One variance was not utilized for that purpose In 1964 the Town enacted Article XXVIII, [**2] Sec- as a bank was built on the land. The other vari- tions 20-240.1(1) and (2) of its comprehensive zoning ance has not been used but it is anticipated that code. These prohibit the construction of a service station construction of the station will begin soon. within 750 feet of another service station and within 250 Packet Page -111- Appendix E - Page 34 Y6 51.OZ/0I/C Page 2 308 F. Supp.207, *; 1969 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 8895,** The evidence reflects that the primary purpose of the limit the number of any commercial estal ment. This zoning provisions is the preservation of the rustic "small is not a valid basis for zoning law. town" characteristics of Davie by restricting traffic and It is therefore ordered and adjudged 1 he Town of preventing the promulgation of abandoned service sta Davie is permanently enjoined from enfoi..mg a distance tions. Fire safety was not advanced [**4] as a basis for restriction against plaintiffs property now owned by Shell the provisions and in fact there was testimony from the Oil Company or preventing the construction of a gasoline State Deputy Fire Marshal and the Davie Building In- service station on the property due to distance restrictions. spector that construction of stations side by side was safe. The traffic generated by a service station is certainly no This memorandum opinion serves, to the extent greater than that generated by a large food market or a necessary, in lieu of findings of fact and conclusions of shopping center and Davie imposes no distance limita- law. tions on these properties. The distance requirement is Plaintiff shall submit a form of judgment within five unjustifiable as is the attempted limitation of stations to days prevent the creation of abandoned stations.Plaintiff points out that if this principle were applied equally Davie could -ZIT-aSed }a)ped Append., c o.,,.,, 3C 3/10/2015 9.A. Page 3 SHEPARD'S®-308 F. Supp.207-4 Citing References L 1s is® Copyright 2014 SHEPARD'S(R)-4 Citing references Saar v.Davie,308 F.Supp.207, 1969 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 8895(S.D.Fla.1969) Restrictions: Unrestricted FOCUS(TM)Terms:No FOCUS terms Print Fonnat:FULL Citing Ref. Signal:Hidden SHEPARD'S SUMMARY Unrestricted Shepard's Summary No subsequent appellate history. Citing References: Citing Decisions: Citing decisions with no analysis assigned(3) Other Sources: Treatises(1) PRIOR HISTORY (0 citing references) (CITATION YOU ENTERED): Saar v. Davie,308 F. Supp.207, 1969 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 8895(S.D.Fla. 1969) CITING DECISIONS (3 citing decisions) FLORIDA DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 1. Cited by: Margate v.Amoco Oil Co.,546 So.2d 1091, 1989 Fla.App.LEXIS 3539, 14 Fla.L. Weekly 1496(Fla.Dist. Ct.App.4th Dist. 1989) 546 So.2d 1091 p.1092 2. Cited by: Margate v. Amoco Oil Co., 1989 Fla.App.LEXIS 2101, 14 Fla.L. Weekly 990(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.4th Dist. Apr. 19, 1989) TENNESSEE COURT OF APPEALS 3. Cited by: Consul. Waste Sys., LLC v. Metro Gov't of Nashville,2005 Tenn.App.LEXIS 382(Tenn.Ct.App.June 30, 2005) 2005 Tenn.App.LEXIS 382 TREATISE CITATIONS(.1 Citing Source) 4. 6-38 Zoning Law and Practice @ 38-7 Packet Page -113- Z 3/1 0/2015 9.A. CO I II j s w °. x 1.111 17. ,` E il_-lp r _., SPerr'^��-° ':_ :� _ I �-�� Collier BLVD / §I co 0 ) ..,, ( N O Z N G1 N J \ e_.,,/ i, , cf...) > f/ •N can' ,' _ _! Logan BLVD N O L is N c N I ,--� 1 co ( E y y I _- y - I _ y v ! x`R O �0 gad e y m m L a m H _o rn N_ i y N C z � 9 n Y r �c N -T .'3 a m m ,i m �" o LL iE A a 4 5 2 a3 ¢ a LL aN ° U ,.._9__E uy i t Packet Page-114- e b , ct LL ` o ee U ��o 3/10/2015 9.A. wciu(, JeL1103 --®------- 1 0 . - ‹*4 \ --)1) sa -,1,, -‘'.1., 1 ,, (-- C:'\ CIA19 eieqie9 PlUPS CU1... :i—i ,,,-------------- C) N'll 0 1 .— \ --1\----) i 4..1 U) .1 " CO C9 1 [ ' OH NOISONIAll 0 0 5 = 1 vi; 1111111 7411rs ,IL:4, f, ‘:1 4 R If, (7',, 0 qi -- —rlaig"111,!LIT -', . li ; t11 ( .F. 2. . 1,::. 41211-111-KI-liffir—-—• R c 0 a) It' 6 c? ° ''' .5_ E, 2.-.,. g LEi, Packet Page-1115-F 3/10/2015 9.A. - i'g 1 \ a ) x PP _ S_I-CZ eri- j 6. J ^ m -� i� �7 03 2 L U / N N ONm JNIlllld 1210di1IV K 0 ' , = l ` _ .` - e n -- ,.�. I " t > E 0 L C ctS / h N i 3/1 0/2:1 5 9.A. ... , co s 2 0 1.i.1 . 1 ' .?..< 1 T1 c). CI- , ==ar . , .-A.VA',14M.Z 1,,,,O.71-Z... \ N - a) \ I /''' as) / ("LIII.,,, as o E ' ,• ) ) \1__,/ i c. q_ 7 ,,,,- ., /_ _ ---_..„-----------„,.. CD / \\ , r ,--- , ___.,__,_.... \ I 1 MO ''', /,- -/ ,-----,-- fl. , (1) '1 (IL C c) •... Cl) / i /\ __ / f ( - ) \■ CI) ‘ ) o / / „ f- / 4. ci ) ,......----/ s.., -cs \ , ..„-- . ---- ._ ( ■ C t s / 0 , , •ip.a CO 4, ''-' i --' (a• v)_ o' ad ucks.le3 c_, I ..r. / < C a cn — i cc o s L' g ".) \ / a, z E' n',I a gtoo ,c2 A 0 0 Q_ t,I i , . s" k 1 g a L. ,t ; Packet Page -117- , ,,.. (3 i : 4, fik ,a 0., 1/4,..r.,, , = ■ .----1 a.- 3/10/2015 9.A. APPENDIX 2-A Packet Page-118- 3/10/2015 9.A. BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 28, 2014 Packet Page-119- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 SECOND HEARING — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Very good. That takes us to your advertised public hearings. The first advertised public hearing is Item 9A. It's a recommendation to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, for three specific Land Development Code amendments that were previously directed by this commission, and Ms. Caroline Cilek will take you through those items, Commissioners. MS. CILEK: Thank you. Yes, good afternoon, Commissioners, Caroline Cilek, Land Development Code Manager with the Growth Management Division. And I am here to present three board-directed out-of-cycle LDC amendments for your consideration. This is the first hearing for these amendments. Because we are proposing changes to the permitted conditional and prohibited uses of several zoning categories, the Land Development Code requires that the amendments are considered at two board hearings. To fulfill this requirement, the amendments are on the agenda for the November 18th meeting. Each of these amendments was thoroughly vetted by the public and by Collier County advisory boards. Several public information meetings were held, and all comments collected are provided in the attachments of your agenda packets. If I may, P11 proceed into the amendments. The first amendment was board directed on January 14th and seeks to amend the Estates zoning district accessory use section to allow for residents to grow fruits, vegetables, and nursery plants for both personal consumption and off-site retail sale. Those pursuing to sell produce and nursery plants off site, pursuing to sell produce and nursery plants off site would be subject to Page 100 Packet Page-120- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 LDC Section 5.02.00, home occupation, as well as several additional site design standards. This amendment was approved by the Planning Commission on October 16 with a unanimous 6-0 vote. The second amendment was directed by the board on the same date, January 14th, and seeks to streamline the process for raising hogs in the Estates and agricultural zoning districts as part of the county's 4-11 youth development program. This amendment was approved by the Planning Commission on October 16th with a 6-0 unanimous vote of approval. The third amendment follows board direction on July 8th and proposes to limit automobile service stations to eight fuel pumps when located within 300 feet of residential property. A greater number of fuel pumps may be sought through the conditional use process or as part of a planned unit development. This amendment was approved by the Planning Commission on October 16th with a unanimous 6-0 vote. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. CILEK: Are there any questions regarding these amendments? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I'd like to address No. 3. MS. CILEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we are talking specifically about the automobile service stations. We had no idea that interstate humungous gas stations were going to come in and decide to plant themselves at the entrance to people's neighborhoods. We're trying to take care of that now, but I think we -- we might need to go just a little bit further, and I don't know if we can do it on this agenda or not. But also when they're directly across the street from a community Page 101 Packet Page-121- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 park where the kids are running back and forth across the main thoroughfare, 55-mile-an-hour thoroughfare, it can be a very dangerous situation. And we have that going on in one section of the county now on U.S. 41 . Also, when they plant themselves in the front of a neighborhood that already has cute little two-story stilt homes, and now these people will never have a moment's peace and quiet. We need to have -- first of all, this is what this is for but, secondly, on those that are in the future, we need to make sure that there is some kind of protection for the neighborhoods behind them. For instance, on Manatee Road, there's a 55-and-older mobile home park there, and you can see all the mobile home park vehicles sitting there, but there's no protection, no walls, no nothing to protect them from what's going on in front of them. And so we need to address that, and I don't know if you can add that in here. I don't know if the other commissioners would agree. But it's just coming right now in my district, but it's going to be coming into others, and I want to make sure that we have this so that nobody else has to deal with the stuff we're dealing with right now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, have you talked to staff members about this particular -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Who did you speak to on that? Maybe they can address it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nick. CHAIRMAN HENNING: My understanding, fuel stations, gas stations, must have a separation with a wall. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would think so. I couldn't believe on Manatee Road -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, for the record, Nick Casalanguida. Page 102 Packet Page-122- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 We discussed it yesterday. And, you know, going forward I think we can look at that, but it would be hard to make that change right in the middle of a hearing today, so -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: It is a requirement under the service station provisions that there has to be that separation with a wall. MR. CASALANGUIDA: She's talking about the type of buffer, sir, the height of the wall. She's also talking about pedestrian accessibility, things that -- because it's a conditional use above eight pumps, you can look at a lot of different things. Both the Planning Commission and the board has a lot of leeway for the conditional use process to address compatibility. So, you know, discussing with staff, I think you've got that flexibility in a conditional use. The way this is written now, under eight pumps, you don't have a conditional use process. It's just the Land Development Code. So if you change the threshold, then it becomes more of a conditional use hearing in front of the Planning Commission and both the board. So that's the challenge. If you go lower in pumps, you'll see more of these things. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's call them mega-stations. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, above eight pumps. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're saying above eight pumps is a mega-station. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mega. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. But the way the commissioner's describing it, if it's below eight pumps right now, it's administrative. You would not go through a conditional use process if it meets the zoning criteria. If you're asking to see all gas stations that abut residential come in front of the board for conditional use review and the Planning Commission, that's not our prior direction, but it can Page 103 Packet Page-123- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 certainly be done. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I have a question. Let's make sure we clarify. I have a feeling that some of the people in the audience today are concerned about the gasoline station that is considered for U.S. 41 very near to this building. As I understand it, this change will not, in itself, prohibit that particular project from proceeding; is that correct? This will address only those projects that are brought before the Board of County Commissioners after this ordinance is approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Do I have that right? MS. CILEK: (Nods head.) MR. OCHS: Say yes. MS. CILEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So this is not a solution that can be applied retroactively to any project that is currently under consideration? MS. CILEK: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I wanted to make sure I got that right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And this is the first of two -- MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- hearings on these three items. MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I don't think there's any objections to approving these by the Board of Commissioners since it was directed by the board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You don't have to convince us that we need to approve this, because I think you'll find us unanimously agreeing with you. So if you want to waive your time, you may do so. Page 104 Packet Page-124- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just say, as I mentioned, is there something that we can do with this also to make sure that there's some kind of separation, wall or something, to protect people from behind where they have eight pumps or whatever? I just want to make sure that -- and same with the safety factor for the parks. As we're working this up, I want to make sure that we address that, too. MS. CILEK: Sure. I want to point out one of the provisions in the proposed amendment language, which is Cl -- or excuse me, C2(b), and that is regarding proximity and mitigation of impact to ensure compatibility with residential property. That standard is designed, through the conditional use process, to address your concerns. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. Okay, very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And I think it's very important that two things be made clear, and the first, that this is the most restrictive we can be in order to limit this type of development. Is that correct, legally, that we can't be any more restrictive than we're being by providing this code provision? MS. CILEK: I think when it comes to legally restrictive -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let -- I don't want you to answer that. MS. CILEK: Fine. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's for the county -- I know I looked at you, but -- MS. CILEK: Perfect. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- I really meant to be looking at the county attorney. MS. CILEK.: That's great. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, I want to be sure that we Page 105 Packet Page-125- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 are doing the most the law allows because of it's a matter of such great public concern, but without, in any way, compromising property rights -- MR. KLATZKOW: We're trying to balance -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- of the owner. MR. KLATZKOW: If you're asking the question, we're trying to balance the two as best we can. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is -- but, again, is this the most restrictive we can be, or do we have the ability to be -- MR. KLATZKOW: The most restrictive you can be is to go through your whole county and start Xing out areas where you can have a gas station, but then you're running a risk of people claiming that their rights have been diminished. So this is a -- this is better than what you have. This is a lot better than what you have. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, does this provision -- and I want this to be clear on the record. It allows the property owners to seek approval as part of a PUD or as a conditional use, but it does not guarantee the owners of the property that they will be given the right and that it remains the board's discretion, based on the evidence presented, to deny such a request coming to us under a PUD or as a conditional use. MR. KLATZKOW: As long as the board takes the criteria and fairly implements the criteria, yes, the board can say no. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does that satisfy you, Commissioner Fiala? Because I know how concerned you are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's moving in the right direction. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it enough? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't -- I don't know. I was just going to ask another question and see if it is. But that's definitely -- I don't know if you guys have any suggestions. I would have never Page 106 Packet Page-126- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 thought to put something like this on the agenda two years ago, because it was unheard of to have a mega-station in a neighborhood. Now, I understand many more are coming. Like, for instance, the one that's being built on Manatee Road, right next door by the Wal-Mart they're going to build a mega-station, a Wal-Mart mega-station, then Wawa is coming in and building mega-stations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I love those. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We could build one in your neighborhood. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I wish you would. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyway, so these things are all coming. And I think just as long as we make sure that both people have property rights -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- not only the people coming in, but those people who are already here, and it will affect their property values and property rights. And so we have to take in both sides of that issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance? COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I agree -- I agree with this recommendation. I'm in full support of all three items on here, but just as a cautionary reminder to everyone, that a lot of the properties that people apply to use under all sorts of commercial conditions, Cl, 2, 3, and 4, have a lot of activities that are included in the Land Development Code that might be a lot less desirable than a gas station. And people need to understand that our current Land Development Code provides protections for buffers between commercial properties and residential properties. So everybody needs to understand that there's a full gamut of things that can happen on properties that currently exist in our Land Page 107 Packet Page-127- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 Development Code pretty much by right and that it's not a conditional use. So everybody needs to be aware of what those are and the fact that there are many alternatives that, you know, we're going to have to come to grips with and this board does all the time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, let's go to public speakers. And, again, I don't think you're going to find anybody opposing moving this forward to the second hearing. Thank you. MS. CILEK: Thank you. MR. MILLER: I have two registered public speakers on this item. Eric Donihoo, Donihor (sic), and he'll be followed by Vern Hammett. MR. DONIHOO: Thank you. First, I would like to say it's definitely a step in the right direction that you're looking at. To answer your -- part of what your statement was, is there more that can be done? In my opinion, absolutely yes. If you look at some of the information that was very thoroughly done by the current staff in trying to give you information, they pointed out that there are other communities within our own state, such as Davie, Florida, that does not allow a gas station within 250 feet -- of any size gas station -- to residential use. Okay. We've used the language in here that a gas station of eight pumps or less may come in, without expectation or approval by you-all, within 300 feet. So they could basically put their pumps 20 feet from your property line if they so desired. If you go on to read the information that we provided from the county, on Page 2, it talks about the EPA providing an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook that basically comes out and says they recommend locating sensitive land uses such as residential 300 feet from a large gas station based on benzene emissions. That is their minimum of 300-foot, not within 300 feet. So I would ask our board Page 108 Packet Page-128- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 to take a hard look at not using the language of allowing someone eight pumps or less within. I would say 300 feet should be our minimal. It also goes on to state, if you look at some further information in there that's available that had some experts that have put out some letters on it, one of which is Patrick Breysse, who's a professor of Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health. When asked about mega-stations, in particularly -- he was referring to a particular brand that -- I don't need to come out and give their name or anything, but it's a mega-station similar to what we're looking at within our county. He comes out to state that they looked at this in the minimum that came out from the California Air Resource Board, who did an extensive study on this, was 300 feet should be the minimum of residential to any gas station facilities referring to the measurement of the pump. They used a gallonage of a facility doing 3.6 million gallons a year as their threshold. In the meeting that we held with the mega-stations looking for a location within our county, they stated openly in this meeting, as a matter of public record, that their average in their portfolio, including all stores within their portfolio, was a minimum of 85,000 gallons per week, which simple math tells you that it's well in excess of 3.6 million. Their portfolio also includes much, much smaller stations that are not mega-stations. If you go on to continue to read his information, he tells you that, quite frankly, as a result, setback distance of 100 meters, even, is not likely to provide adequate protections from cancer risk. So what I would ask the board is to continue down the path you have, take a hard look at saying within 300 feet requires nothing. Maybe 300 feet should be the minimal. And then for a mega-station, maybe it should be as much as 1,000 feet, which is the measurements that were used, if you look at Page 2 of the county's assessment in Page 109 Packet Page-129- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 school site guidelines. And then anything over that measurement would require your approval, and that would answer your needs there. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker on this item is Vern Hammett. MR. HAMMETT: I waive my time. MR. MILLER: And he's waiving his time, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Caroline, did the Planning Commissioner or DSAC hear an enhanced setback for these mega gas stations? MS. CILEK: Both of those advisory boards reviewed the proposed language. DSAC's recommendations are in the amendment text and on the summary sheet. And then there was one change by the Planning Commission regarding, actually, that provision I just read a little bit earlier, but we -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's what's being adopted by the -- that's what's being recommended by the staff? MS. CILEK: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me -- MS. CILEK: Planning Commission recommended to move forward with the language as written, which was prepared by staff. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Yeah, DSAC, it says -- let me get the packet page. Packet Page 39. That doesn't make sense. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's on Page 17, recommendations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. The recommendations by DSAC, No. 3, measurement distance of 300 feet from the pump to the face or the edge of the residential building. MS. CILEK: That is actually less restrictive than we have it now. Right now it's written so that it's from the fuel pump to the lot line of the residential property, which allows for the lot -- basically your Page 110 Packet Page-130- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 backyard and your side yards to be used without -- or not be impacted. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And what's the separation distance? MS. CILEK: 300. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well -- okay. So we do have a 300 -- MS. CILEK: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- within there? Okay. My misunderstanding. From the speaker it sounded like it was a lot less. MS. CILEK: The first sentence of the proposed language reads, automobile service stations shall be limited to eight fuel pumps when located within 300 feet of residential property. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Within. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they allow pumps, as long as it's under a total of eight, to be within 300 feet. MS. CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Within. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Within. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The word is "within." MS. CILEK: So within that 300 feet distance, you can have up to eight pumps. Once you hit 300 feet, you would have to go through a conditional use or through a planned unit development process to allow for a greater number. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't like that language. I think it has to define the separation no matter how many pumps you have. You can have, according to this, 10 feet, as long as you don't exceed eight pumps. MS. CILEK: Well, the setbacks would apply for a gas station, automobile service station in the LDC. So those setbacks would still apply. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, what are the setbacks? MS. CILEK: I don't have that table up, but I can identify that before the next board meeting, if that would be helpful. Page 1 l 1 Packet Page-131- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that we need to address it today. MS. CILEK: Okay. We can -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I don't know what the other board members feel. I would like to continue this discussion till later on this afternoon and give that. You want me to get my LDC book? MS. CILEK: I can -- Pll access someone's computer. CHAIRMAN FIENNING: Okay. What do you think? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's a good idea, because I wanted to address the thousand feet anyway. That would be great. MS. CILEK: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm confused about the confusion. When you say within 300 feet of a residential area, you're essentially saying from the lot line of the gasoline station to the lot line of the residential area is 300 feet? MS. CILEK: It's actually from the fuel pump of the automobile service station to the lot line of a residential property. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's not good. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So — MS. CILEK: And within that are only eight fuel pumps. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the distance between those eight fuel pumps and the next residence will be 100 yards, 300 feet? MS. CILEK: It will be subject to the LDC setback standards, and any other walls and buffers that we have outlined in this section, which I can highlight for you. I don't have them off the top of my head, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. What I'm having trouble with is the statement by the speaker that the fuel pumps could be within 20 feet of the residential area, and that makes no sense to me. And I think that's what has confused some of the members of the board. Page 112 Packet Page-132- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 If you're saying that the separation, the minimum separation for fuel pumps, eight or less, is 300 feet; is that what you're saying? That's not what you're saying? Okay. Tell me what you are saying. MS. CILEK: I'm going to read the language so that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. CILEK: it's very clear what the proposed amendment relayed. So C 1, automobile service stations shall be limited to eight fuel pumps when located within 300 feet of residential property. For the purposes of this section, residential property shall be any lot which is developed or intended for residential use. The measurement shall be the shortest distance between the fuel pump to the residential property. A greater number of fuel pumps may be approved as part of a PUD or conditional use subject to the following section, and it goes on to discuss existing fuel pumps. I would like to note real quick about automobile service stations. This is language in the section. Shall -- sites shall be separated from adjacent residentially zoned or residentially developed properties by an architecturally designed 6-foot-high masonry wall or fence utilizing materials of a similar color. So I just wanted to point out at least one provision that addresses compatibility between residential and automobile service stations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you see, this can be interpreted to mean that if it's located anywhere within 300 feet of the residential property, the fuel pumps -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can only have eight. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can only have eight, but they can be located anywhere. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Subject to the LDC. Page 113 Packet Page-133- 3/10/2015 9.A. - ,- - - October 28, 2014 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right. So they could be located within 5 feet of the lot line of the residential unit. MS. CILEK: Subject to LDC setbacks. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, subject to the setbacks, which are not going to be really great. What do you have, a 20-foot setback or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It depends on the area. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So -- MS. CILEK: Right. And it would depend on the PUD. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So now it's -- now I'm beginning to understand the concern of the speaker. I think if your intent is that the fuel pumps should be located 300 feet from the nearest residence, that sounds pretty good, but that's not, apparently, what you're saying. MS. CILEK: Right. And this was -- we followed this following your direction. So perhaps we can revise the language to reflect your current interest. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my current interest would be to make sure that the fuel pumps are located the maximum distance you can get them from residential property; like 10,000 feet would be good. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HEI 4\TNING: Commissioner Coyle, on this one, let's get a consensus from the board -- from the board, on just this issue about the separation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask one more question before we get the consensus? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If that fuel station with eight pumps or less then has a 40-foot-high convenience store behind it, that's all part of that 300 feet, isn't it; the fuel pumps in front, the convenience Page 114 Packet Page-134- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 store, it could then be 20 feet from their residence, right? CHAIRMAN HENNING: It could be in the back. MS. CILEK: I mean, it would depend on the layout of the land. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. So I think it's important to -- for us to decide what we mean by -- where we take the measurements from. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, actually what we need to do, and I'm sure it's done -- it has been done, is what is the -- the typical commercial lot out there and, you know, debate that. Like Commissioner Coyle said -- and I support a distance of the fuel pumps no less than 300 feet, and try to get them as far removed from residential area, right? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but then you have the lights and the traffic, or the lights and the deliveries that are going behind this convenience store, which will still be also a detriment to the people that are living smack behind that property. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you would have the same thing with a Wal-Mart or CVS, deliveries in the back. You have that right by Shadowlawn. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but they wouldn't -- I don't think you'd have a Wal-Mart backed right up -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, I'm sorry, a Walgreen's -- I'm sorry, a Walgreen's or a CVS or any type of service area, most of them have unloading -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we have an ability to -- we have an ability now to carve something into our Land Development Code that will protect our neighbors -- our neighborhoods for the future. We're not going to be here, but we can at least set something up so that we protect the neighborhoods of the future. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, Jeff, Commissioner Page 115 Packet Page -135- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 Fiala's concerns about more changes to the proposed LDC, can we -- I know in the past that would be a future amendment. It hasn't been heard by the other committees. How do we do that? MR. KLATZKOW: Why don't you -- you've got three amendments here. I understand you've only got one amendment here that you're concerned about. So we can move the other two amendments forward in the process. Why don't you kick this one back to the Planning Commission, who can then publicly air these concerns and maybe come up with something else. As I'm seeing this chart, I'm looking at, like, 40-foot setbacks between the pumps and residential as we currently are. So if we want to move to 300 feet, I don't know if, from a practical standpoint, that you can even do that. But that's something that the Planning Commission could just really get their teeth into. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's not a bad idea. But let me get the consensus of a 300-foot separation or greater. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I think that no gas station should be allowed within 300 feet from the commercial lot setback line that abuts the residential community -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Nance? COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- at a minimum, and that -- it doesn't matter the number of pumps. COMMISSIONER NANCE: I would be in favor moving the other two items forward, but I believe if we have issues with fuel -- and that's what people are talking about, pollution with fuel -- that we need to address that. If we are talking about the distance between commercial activities and residential, I think that that is a huge issue. I think it's rightfully -- the county attorney has made a great suggestion. I believe we should remand this one to the Plan (sic) Commission and talk specifically Page 116 Packet Page-136- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 about fuel-related issues, if that's the issue. If we're talking about the distance of a store or other commercial activities, I think that's a much greater issue. And we're going to -- we're on a slippery slope here, because we're talking about major, major overhauls to what we've done. So I know that these -- that these facilities have a convenience store element, and they have a fuel element. But I would I would make the motion to remand that to the Planning Commission and let them take this under advisement and make a recommendation back to us. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Not only do we have a consensus, now we have a motion and a second. Motion by Commissioner Nance, second to approve the remainder of the LDC proposed amendments, reprimand (sic) the automobile -- COMMISSIONER NANCE: Remand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, remand. COMMISSIONER NANCE: We've done enough reprimanding, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I said that twice today -- the service stations back to the Planning Commission for a full vetting. MS. GLEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNIN G: Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 117 Packet Page-137- 3/10/2015 9.A. October 28, 2014 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. I hope that's satisfactory. Good. Next item? Item #14B1 AN OFFER TO PURCHASE CRA OWNED PROPERTY IN THE GATEWAY MINI-TRIANGLE BY FORTINO CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND ASSIGNEE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMPRISING RESIDENTIAL, HOTEL AND ROOFTOP RESTAURANT AND RETAIL USES; AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO FACILITATE THE SALE AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE SALE INTO THE APPROPRIATE ACCOUNT - MOTION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE CONTRACT IN ITS CURRENT FORM INCLUDING THE CHANGES THAT WERE READ INTO THE RECORD DURING THE MEETING WITH THE REALTOR'S COMMISSION TO BE HEARD AT A LATER DATE — MOTION FAILED (COMMISSIONER HENNING, COMMISSIONER HILLER AND COMMISSIONER NANCE OPPOSED), MOTION TO BRING BACK THE CONTRACT TO THE NOVEMBER 18, 2014 BCC MEETING — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to the two o'clock Page 118 Packet Page-138- 3/10/2015 9.A. APPENDIX 2-B Packet Page -139- Z� r 3/10/2015 9.A. N - _ N 6,, -` m f6 '.,,., c e I YS 3 a c o ,,3 A.\ N c 1 © C a) `..`2 E O a " N E o o 9 m C U U EQ n Q 'O .x, n p m 61 - LL 2 s s d m LL 2 c LL= y m � Q iN a 0 v d E C - l N8 .12>L � 8 Z m� of i ;,a E CD ` .. 'gip`(' .- �} ~Y, cu U L I rW J � a .� ti - LL . E . : .a = CU N E 0 d Li -�, .y 1 f ��ri _ _- . B S E i Pr — Packet Page-140- m - ,Ps 11=—, 9l$ Q M N I m 3/10/2015 9.A.'_ CO .0 -. r _ a . V` � _ N o 0 \ CC a, J N v ,_ 0 o . 7 Z4-- . CO 0 § c E X 3 0 V •Q v u •d 6 e ry l of a d o it .. , i 2, QC _ a ° E m z m .E d U 1 cf. N Q N C ■ A_ o ZN ml 3 ¢ o Ni_ ' 1 o Y. LL o �� - ._ _ _ u, E w 421 NOlSONIA`11 a d U.) ' _, H co V CCV Cyr.■Zv`, .07J W W d . o , t a_ ,,,,' LL C N 021 9NI911 d 1'21Odi1IV r Q a _ i €;% `\ a _ ,. / I it ti\\ N \ ` Cap w � 7 ..} �/s ' � ` .• 11E°t A s ; ' Packet Page -141- w E U : 9i0 Z_,... •'' 3/10/2015 9.A. a) w E 1 .2 s'`‘‘.-5'4,:`.'''''''''s\k''''''\\'''.\-'i,„,\,''''''',..' '5 - Ie r ta O \ Rf ` N of E 0 t\-r'1�3 ctj' 'S15,'"1.'J. 'i �I `�° ° E L C N 1 o LL \ k 14Ry • ,;' Z g QC _ LL E m d . t < ' c2i o \N''�a�''\y ,"\. \S.\y"+ '.'\ „� E C v .� as m Y o N v r \c'''' ^ t\\ \k\ ;' ... *'` 0 J K u_ m a",,�o a N 8 u R m 0)a 1 N _ Oa r w C �/� ` . • N.. r,, t - cig E Iil„ i l'=5' w a 0 N Ci) Fr . . Ul ila',1 iJ Ill L 1zr,0 .5.. v/ a 6 o n . E o N 1E� d V �Y �- as N®IS-NIAIu1 . .: . ea ary . V'I n fl Gr ,:nl,csd n n ea w y yn u N , O i L3 ra,, CIS G f ° m g E y t3 G c LL Cl) G1 0 I , a LL '. i 44Q21 9NI•l�f1d 1210d,�ilV IN I 'I:). i ,_, ,'-'," ','.`q',...' , , e' 0 ) L•3 IlJ3 Packet Page -142- es 3/10/2015 9.A.' w to Z p fiI w■_ ° a R�17r {b et, CC Cr) o CD IJ, „�oEa rN a. i f i'�c \ ,.A.A ,,,, .�A , \ V: �• w o C ' i ''''," ' V 1 'y / ,., r , N ici 'v \ ,'1'. LL _ `o W c - p '.m fo -17 C y C, o , „ S ? © V $ P c o o C m g a o ' �i i s) - 9 u 0 Q. ,. 0 c a LL Y a u FI E Packet Page -143- °-0 ,� fl.. - -_ eH U ; o ZQ 3/10/2015 9.A.' co Lill a) - co 2 d V \ \ :• e. CI) 1\ CC ®® l?J f . 5 ` Z ryyr O fS I It LL a N tv r.l..'.t 1 ,, ?G. O U }' t.c ie Gr, 0 cn m W_ d tisa5l„l� e 0 E 4 i 5 u:t9 O vii 1 \` VL w - O ik CO CU { r E a. LL 4,,1 1. '. . I I A o ° ` o 7 m e w o•MI I . d a na y` • e C E c m a 1 A € a n v (5 +_k! __ = 2 = m o i Y u E t o r Packet Page -144- 3 @e'-0 tL O a : s 6ws 5xg z , r ..e 3/10/2015 9.A. cm ri , c. N w r • z N ot I. il f a ; _i m (7.- E a CA Z. d ° o ° CO to 8 CD Nip o / `<;. < NrF' U'N c t� OO T 13 c a CA E w II= Li �,.: ,— '))1\'',.., _\� r=ve W tu G1 �a •N WI e f°-4° &c] 1 ,, CL o I 0 I ■mi °"' Earl .41 a ��1Stl hN __,,,..,14,•" II . ■ y G - J c CD 12a r o I CZ P: i i N N m , 1 ® a C ° N ° ~9 E z ?1 J N m W8 1 w 2 ha e 0, a S2 ¢ m o d o �¢'�' '— C E m v o u &II.' ,6 1 G) U e = a e. o e 4.1t n o C 2 P t 3 Packet Page -145- °c� ISO m• d`. , o �x ll— Iii a` eo Appendix 3/10/2015 9.A. APPENDIX 2-C Packet Page-146- z.< 3/10/2015 9.A., g?1, 11 Nr 2- 1 (.15 L i i 72 F -.0_,J o , , mizac2 0 Cj I re' 7•E' I x C 1 = F., . rn g -.. C 4 Er 1 0 a) . g g s g a .. Ct.. 2,8 \ , ra `7., E Ta '2= :'A r-- ,.. '' 0 ce r•E, To o 2 Cu t.. ''CC - o ..E. ct •E C a) 67 6 (3 a ¢ re a a j,„ ° Cu cy 1 c Ir. co p (1) 1 0 ■.• 0_ = L ____I 0- C @Ails eiegiegaria:@ 1 1 cr) 1 1 .._ U) - cl, cp E ce 1 7:3 CO 0 1 cti uie9 am:0) cs) 0 4 4:( a) (n = = .... .-- ."1 2 U) C. -0 E 1 a.) -c, . 0_ 0 , (y\--< '1:5°-.- ..- cu = LL. -77-\' ' -'- '• - CtS CO -,>''''' ' E C ' (' Lo ----P- , 4_, C 0 = rS 23 ,,--„,„:, >„,> - .— u-, 7.--',/,:>•;,,,Z,\N / 7- tij 30 // C / ' ,'/1, / E ,•,, ,,,,,, I •..•. C 0 L6 '/C' C /'S.. ''/ 0 / ,>..'- Psi -1 5 (-D .I-, 1--------\ ' - Cr.-__. ‘, CD gCli%KM:11110d I V 1 ,_ t% i.. ,______ i- 1 --11 CD ,..,. d = ,,li I fai w0.------FT-7,7,;,,,,,7L ,, = c O a, C...) , A ,.= •-. [//--...y— t" a E ,.„. _ „;/:._ m -cs ' -7''.- u.' ' ' , elt-19•duracE._30 7ro Mill r ;7.... C—] C E _ T "7—9 c-, 1.;Qco-i(1[ 3-E-4g' L-11 Q. 0 -a ..., ' -1 ppit 1 1 i Tja 13.1 o s i S P i-,1 ,-1,-4‘-i < 1 ,,I./ g v 3 Il 8 X ° c X co u) C L 0 ,n_.' 0111111L111.p 3-, ,..i-;1: L., 1:171,... . .. ._ .. .m.....m;1..._ ■L_ .,,, cn c ... mill1•11111■I • . —. MP" INIIMIIIII It or Y a u,,..b. u , slassale'■.— , , _ .0 N w- Packet Page -147- a.= Ely,8 o_0 o ZQ , 3/1 0/201 5 9.A., N t. N` '� m f OAIg,a!I107 _ a_ L c m C ° Q c ._ 2t Q 3 N ° "2 p, m 9 T8 d U C m 10 ~z Of ry N 2 .0 , co l7 \'A{ N 9 O O c Ct m S 9° ' a a v m ro c in r-,,,,, a O1 m in c 2 c y O L y 2 -� m O b N - N W Q c m Q .� O U -e. u)Q c 2 $ 2 r. n RS ' d a` U U U a cc a U T QQi'�� o �vim _.nmt 4Alg e,eq�eg elue5 � � I 0 y O d ca 7 :a+ Q C m G1 � Q U) / 1 co ) \. E co c 3 CD ° (A C 0. if E , -� a O 5. i1 cu I C O I pmlaodaty L__J e uL IM C ) O a Q ■ ht— co 5 C _ I J @ o • O _ N rl o N j m L — �_ -_..N❑) lNVNd-311314000 (7 i tai... ; c r U O N 0 a Lr �.. _ .-. ,.�ri �' ?' a f:.. "T"t't ts_i"LL �S I 1i rl l--, �.--+ -- -F � , ° 0 a v l ' � a o O N - 3 N w '1 O N N c Packet Page -148- , 1 2 2!, a 0 0 3/10/2015 9.A. Collier County Planning Commission Discussion and Public Comments The Planning Commission reviewed the amendment to LDC section 5.0.50.05 Automobile Service Stations on Thursday, January 15th and Staff submitted additional research materials and a series of maps which demonstrate the location and number of pumps of existing gas stations with 300 and 1,000 foot buffers and the location of sensitive land uses, including residential property (Attachments 2 through 6). During the hearing, Staff presented the following materials/ and topics for discussion to the Planning Commission: • Board of County Commissioner feedback on Oct. 28th o Motion to remand the issue to the Planning Commission o Take their concerns under advisement • Defining the separation, including existing setbacks,walls, and buffers • Property right concerns • Maximum distance possible from residential zoning • Consensus at least 300 foot separation • A summary of additional research o Brief overview of existing Collier County standards for Automobile Service Stations o A visual depiction of the definition of"fuel pumps." o Highlights from historical automobile service station development patterns. o Traffic impact considerations. o Examples of gas station provisions from around the state and country. o A discussion of vapor recovery technology. o A summary of the research regarding compatibility with sensitive land uses, including residential property. • Examples from Staff's Automobile Service Station site visits. o The range of sizes observed. o Examples of buffers observed. o Examples of uses which raise compatibility concerns • A discussion of the proposed standards for Facilities with Fuel Pumps o Comparisons and examples of 300 feet. o Examples of how the proposed standards would be applied in different development scenarios. • The list of additional standards for the Planning Commission's consideration. o Measure 300 foot distance from the property line of the residential property to the property line of the facility with fuel pumps o Amend setback for all gas stations to 50 feet. o Change gas stations to a conditional use in the C-2 zoning district. Following the Staff presentation and public comments, the Planning Commission discussed the following issues: • Potential clarifications to the definition of"fuel pumps." • Concerns regarding the impact of the proposed standards on residential development within 300 feet of a facility with fuel pumps, including: 1 Packet Page-149- 3/10/2015 9.A. o When residential development would be required to seek approval through a public hearing, o Whether residential properties within 300 feet of a facility with more than 8 fuel pumps would become non-conforming, and o Whether changing all gas stations to a conditional use in all zoning districts would reduce the number of potential non-conformities. Additionally,there were two public speakers who provided comments. The following paraphrases their comments and is not intended to be verbatim or all inclusive of their comments. • Public Speaker 1: o The Board's direction was that no pumps should be within 300 feet of a residential property line, but the proposed amendment still allows 8 pumps or less within 300 feet. o Boca Raton has a 300 foot requirement fuel pumps near residential property lines, so the request to not allow any pumps within 300 feet is not over-reaching. • Public Speaker 2: o Many PUDs throughout the county include both Commercial and Residential components. Many of these PUDs have service stations in the Commercial component of the PUD and it is likely that those Commercial components of PUDs are often within 300 feet of the Residential component. o if the proposed standards are approved,they will unilaterally change the PUD contracts that the Board has negotiated. • How will the proposed amendment affect existing PUDs that don't have limitations on the location of gas stations? o Gas stations should be"grandfathered"in all existing zoning districts, especially PUDs because the amendment does not currently give enough consideration to the rights of the property owner. • If there are no exceptions for existing zoning or redevelopment,there may be too many non-conformities created. The Planning Commission then requested staff to make additional changes to the definitions of "fuel pumps"and "new residential property"to improve clarity and to analyze the number of residential properties that could be affected by the proposed amendment and to present these results at the February 5th Planning Commission meeting. After performing additional research, Staff provided the requested analysis to the Planning Commission on Thursday, February 5th, and presented the following issues: • A more in depth review of the October 28th Board direction. • A review of the definition of"fuel pumps." • Proposed and additional changes to the definition of"fuel pumps"and"residential property"to provide additional clarity as requested by the Planning Commission. • A summary of the location and number of residential properties within 300 feet of existing facilities with fuel pumps. 2 Packet Page-150- 3/10/2015 9.A. • A summary of the location of current zoning districts and commercial that allow automobile service stations and are within 300 feet of existing residential property. • Examples of how the proposed amendment would apply to several potential development scenarios. • A list of additional standards for the Planning Commission to consider(list was also presented on 1/15/15 meeting) During the staff presentation,the following issues were discussed by the Planning Commission: • Clarifying the definition of"Facilities with Fuel Pumps," and "fuel pumps." • Whether the definition of residential includes Agriculturally zoned property. • The criteria that would apply to new residential property within 300 feet of a facility with more than 8 fuel pumps. • Whether there are any mitigating criteria that could allow for an administrative approval process. • Where bulk fuel facilities are located within Collier County. • Whether it is appropriate to make a change that would affect all PUDs, even if they have already specified that gas stations are a permitted use. Additionally, the following public comments were heard during the February 5th meeting. The following paraphrases their comments and is not intended to be verbatim or all inclusive of their comments. • Public Speaker 1: o The amendment still does not meet the Board's direction to limit all gas stations within 300 feet of residential property. o The amendment request should state the Board direction and then add that staff cannot support that direction. o The research states that"large gas stations" include 8 pumps so the requirement should be for facilities with 8 or more fuel pumps. • Public Speaker 2: o Pointed out perceived inconsistencies and typos in the amendment. o The additional criteria for consideration to measure from property line to property line will be a drastic change and might affect properties that are large enough to locate a facility with fuel pumps further than 300 feet away from residential properties. o Many PUDs have both Residential and Commercial components adjacent to one another, so existing PUDs which specify gas stations as a permitted use should be exempt since changing this contract would be unfair. o The maps provided to the Planning Commission don't show the PUDs that will need to go through a public hearing to keep a use that they already had approved. 3 Packet Page -151- 3/10/2015 9.A. NAPLES DAILY NEWS « Wednesday,February 25,2015«15A PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE. • NOTICE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday,March 10,2015,in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,3rd Floor,Building"F,"Collier County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples,Florida 34112,the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will consider amendments to the Collier County Land Development Code.The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M..The title of the proposed ordinance is as follows: • AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE,RECITALS;SECTION TWO,FINDINGS OF FACT;SECTION THREE,ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS, INCLUDING SECTION 1.08.02 • DEFINITIONS;CHAPTER FIVE-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS,INCLUDING SECTION 5.05.05 AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS,MORE SPECIFICALLY,TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS WITH MORE THAN 8 FUEL PUMPS WITHIN 300 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO SEEK APPROVAL THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING AND TO ALLOW NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN 300 FEET OF AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION WITH MORE THAN 8 FUEL PUMPS TO SEEK APPROVAL THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING;.SECTION FOUR,CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;SECTION FIVE,INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE;AND SECTION SIX,EFFECTIVE DATE. • ►— Collier Coenq y. P OF THE BOARD WILL ALSO CONSIDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING A REDUCTION TO THE NUMBER OF FUEL PUMPS REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING TO 7 FUEL PUMPS AND TO CONSIDER INCREASING SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR ALL AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS TO 50 FEET WHEN ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND TO ALSO CONSIDER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE ALL AUTOMOBILE.SERVICE STATIONS A CONDITIONAL USE IN C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS AND MEASURE THE 300 FOOT DISTANCE BETWEEN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE • STATIONS AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FROM PROPERTY UNE TO PROPERTY LINE. All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed amendment are available for public inspection in the Zoning and Land Development Review Section,Growth Management Division,2800 N.Horseshoe Drive,Naples,Florida,between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday. Furthermore,materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office,Building F, Fourth Floor,Suite#401,Collier County Gbvernment Center,East Naples,one week prior to the scheduled hearing: If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, • you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department,at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite#101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239) 252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are ' available in the Board of County Commissioner's Office. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA • TIM NANCE,CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK • By:Teresa Cannon Deputy Clerk(SEAL) • No.231123959 Packet Page-152- February 25.2015 •