[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
L@L LGI COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER OfIll PoW 0"" "'Final Environmental Impact Re .port 13 usgo u [Dhstk@ TD 194.66 C22 S26 1980 14051 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (UPD #78102-EIR-1; SCH #78030604) CZIC COLLECTION Environmental Impact Report on Master Plan Diego Unif ied Port District Project by PLANNING DEPARTMENT Report by ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Port of San Diego Unified Port District SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT P.0 Box 488 San Diego, California 92112 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER February 1980 CERTIFICATION STATUS On February 2, 1980, the District Clerk's Office received appeals by W 1) R. T. Carney, of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) of San Diego c. #12634), and (2) Robert P. Hoffman, of the University of San Diego (USD) Legal Clinic (Doc. #12635), for the Bay Front Committee of the Barrio Logan. The Port's Master Plan, p. 73, Figure 9, will be modified to more clearly indicate those areas leased from the Marine Corps which are owned by the Federal Government, to clarify ownership questions. The Final EIR, on p. 145/146, Figure 17, indicates some of the subject MCRD area between the lease line designation and thi jurisdictional limit line. Neither the Planning nor the EIR maps are legally governing. The Board of Port Commissioners, on March 18, 1980, directed amending the MCRD Appeals Staff Report to the Final EIR by reference, and denied the appeal. A joint Committee of the Port and the Bay Front Committee (with other Barrio Logan comtRun-i,ty-representatives) has been formed and is meeting to resolve differIng land/wate-r use points of view. Some of the information and opinions rel,e0ni to this pla@nning issue for the waterfront south of the 10th Avenue Mari-ne:Termi@nal can 4e'found on-pages: 8, 10, 38-40, 74-76, 286-289, 3049 30,,-@:3-30-331, 333-335.,-340-343, 345 and possibly elsewhere. The reader is a6ivea that-the Board-excluded the parcel of tide and submerged lands bounded by thk,i4ean high ti.de -line on the northeast, Crosby Street and its extension int([email protected]'Bay--on-the southeast, the pierhead line on the southwest, and a line parallel'to and northwesterly of Beardsley Street on the northwest from the certificat-i-on-act-i6n and Plan adoption, and designated it "Area Under Study." The Board, on March 18, 1980, denied the appeal of the Bay Front Committee. The Board of Port Commissioners, on March 18, 1980, certified the Final EIR ,(Doc. #12590) by Resolution 80-73. The MCRD Staff Report (Doc. #12710), is incorporated by reference; a copy can be supplied on written request to the District Clerk. The reader is advised that the Certification Resolution included a paragraph: "Any subsequent specific project involving the former Rowing Club structure, which was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on August 30, 1979, according to the California State Historic Preservation Officer, shall be subject to all applicable environmental and other particular regulations which may pertain to its status, irrespective of adjacent land or water use designations of the Port District Master Plan, as amended." SUBJECT Project Title Environmental Impact Report on MASTER PLAN, San Diego Unified Port District Project Location The Port of San Diego's jurisdictional land and water area is located along the Pacific Coast in southwestern San Diego County, California, with a planning area of 5,483 acres of tidelands and sub- merged lands. These surround and include portions of San Diego Bay, and are adjacent to and/or include some portions of five cities: San Diego; Coronado; National City; Chula Vista; and Imperial Beach. The total project area includes 2,491 acres of tidelands as well as 2,992 acres of submerged lands within San Diego Bay. Project Description Summary The proposed Port Master Plan provides land and water use policies, as well as management guidance, for the enhancement of existing developments and the construction of new improvements in nine Plan- ning Districts within the Port's jurisdiction. The Port's proposed Master Plan has been conceived to give flexible direction within its overall goals and provisions. It incorporates existing .land and water activities as a basis for both Port and leasehold programs. Applicant Planning Department, San,Diego Unified Port District. Environmental Impact Report coordinated and prepared by the Environmental Management Department. NOTICE FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION This report and the information contained herein does not constitute, nor shall it be construed as a waiver of-any right, title or interest, including sovereign interest, in any lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the State of California, or any of its agencies, or any grantee in trust .of sovereign lands including but not limited to political corporations or subdivisions of the State. "Tidelands", properly speaking, are lands between the lines of mean high tide and mean low.tide, whereas "submerged lands" are those seaward of mean low tide and not uncovered in the ordinary ebb and flow of the tide. For literary convenience, the term "tidelands" will refer to both types of property in the report. Many terms in the report including tidelands, submerged lands, and granted lands are used in a non-technical nature and should not be construed as determination of the legal character of the lands involved. The maps included in the report.are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to depict accurately ownership boundaries. REVISIONS AND ERRATA. The reader is advised that in the process of responding to comments, a number of statements or other information in the EIR needed to be revised. It is requested that the page on which the revision appears be consulted so that the correct information is used by the reader. Page Number Page Number of Revision 62 332 121-123 300 129 320 142, 166, 172, 178 312 178 297 228, B-12 332 240, 251 313 249-250 335 ii (Revised) TABLE OF CONTENTS PIage SUBJECT FOREWORD xv SUMMARY I Major Conclusions I Areas of Concern 7 INTRODUCTION 11 Master Plan 11 Master Environmental Assessment 12 Specificity 13 Incorporation by Reference 13 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 15 Location and Ownership 15 LOCATION 15 OWNERSHIP 15 Port Master Plan 16 Planning District Project Proposals 16 III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 27 Land and Water Use 27 SHELTER ISLAND 27 HARBOR ISLAND/LINDBERGH FIELD 35 CENTRE CITY/EMBARCADERO 36 TENTH AVENUE MARINE TERMINAL 38 NATIONAL CITY BAYFRONT 41 CORONADO BAYFRONT 42 CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT 43 SILVER STRAND SOUTH 48 SOUTH BAY SALTLANDS 50 Open Space 53 UNDEVELOPED AREAS 53 IMPROVED OPEN SPACE 53 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE LAND AREAS 53 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE WATER AREAS 54 OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 54 Air Transportation 56 SAN DIEGO PLAN FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION 56 SAN DIEGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (LINDBERGH FIELD) 59 iii Page Circulation 62 SAN DIEGO BAY REGIONAL CIRCULATION 62 SHELTER ISLAND* 66 HARBOR ISLAND/LINDBERGH FIELD* 68 CENTRE CITY/EMBARCADERO* 71 TENTH AVENUE MARINE TERMINAL* 74 NATIONAL CITY BAYFRONT* 76 CORONADO BAYFRONT* 76 CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT* 77 SILVER STRAND SOUTH * 79 SOUTH BAY SALTLANDS* 80 Navigation 81 SHIP CHANNELS 81 BOAT CHANNELS 81 BOAT BERTHING 82 ANCHORAGE AREAS 83 BOAT SLIPS/MARINAS 84 Public Services and Facilities 85 SEWERAGE SYSTEMS 85 San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System 85 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan 87 WATER SUPPLY 88 STORM DRAINS 90 Flood Control 90 ELECTRICITY, GAS, AND TELEPHONE 90 FIRE PROTECTION 91 POLICE PROTECTION 91 REFUSE COLLECTION/DISPOSAL 92 Socio-Economic Characteristics/Growth 93 SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS 93 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 97 GROWTH INDUCEMENT 98 Visual Quality 101 VISUAL APPEARANCE 101 AVAILABLE VIEWS 102 Noise Quality 106 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL NOISE 109 San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field) 109 Noise Control Plan 110 North Island Naval Air Station 121 MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC 122 TS-615-sections for each of the Planning Districts discuss: Tidelands Access Street System Traffic Parking Other Circulation Aspects iv Page Climate/Air Quality .126 CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS 126 'Precipitation 126 Air Temperature 126 Wi nd Condi ti ons 126 AIR QUALITY 129 Temperature Inversions 130 Air Quality Monitoring 130 San Diego Bay Air Quality 131 Energy 137 ENERGY CONSUMPTION 137 TRANSPORTATION USES 138 SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS 138 Biology 140 BIOLOGICAL SETTING SUMMARY 140 Physiography 140 Hydrology/Water Quality 141 Habitat/Vegetation Types/Including Rare and Endangered 141 Animal Life/Including Rare and Endangered 142 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MAPPING/REFERENCES 142 Terrestrial Habitats/Vegetation 142 Marine Habitats/Vegetation 162 Animal Life 165 Rare and Endangered Plants 167 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 167 Habitats/Vegetation Types 167 Animal Life 168 Unique Habitat Associations 168 Ecological Relationships 170 MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 170 Seagrasses, Algae and Marsh Habitats 170 Marine Invertebrates 171 Fishes 171 Unique Habitat Associations 172 Ecological Relationships 173 Water and Sediment Quality 174 MONITORING STATIONS 175 Water Quality Sampling Stations 175 Sediment Sampling Stations 175 Heavy Metal Sampling Stations 175 WATER QUALITY 176 SEDIMENT QUALITY 176 CONTAMINATION SOURCES 178 GROUND WATER 179 v Landform/Geology/Archaeology .180 LANDFORM 180 Topography 180 Soils 183 GEOLOGY 183 Prehistory 183 Stratigraphy 184 Paleontological Resources 193 Mineral Resources 193 SEISMICITY 194 Fault Systems 194 Ground Response 203 Tsunamis and Seiches 203 HYDROLOGY 204 Groundwater Resources. 204 Surface Water 204 Watershed Drainage 204 Flood Plain Areas 207 Ocean and Bay Circulation 208 Bay Currents 208 Tidal Flushing 213 Sediment Transport 213 Shoreline Erosion 213 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 214 Historical Sites 214 Archaeological Sites 214 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES 221 Land and Water Use 221 North Bay Planning Districts 221 Central Bay Planning Districts 222 South Bay Planning Districts 223 Open Space 224 Air Transportation 225 Circulation 227 North Bay Planning Districts 227 Central Bay Planning Districts 227 South Bay Planning Districts 228 Navigation 231 Public Services and Facilities 232 Socio-Economic Characteristics/Growth 233 Social Characteristics 233 Economic Characteristics 233 Growth Inducement 234 vi Page Visual Quality 235 Noise Quality 236 Aircraft Operations 236 Motor Vehicle Traffic 236 Climate/Air Quality 238 Energy 239 Biology 240 Water and Sediment Quality 242 Landform/Geology/Archaeology 244 Landform 244 Geology 244 Seismicity 244 Hydrology 244 Historical and Archaeological Resources 245 V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 247 VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED 'PROJECT 249 VII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF THE ENVTR-ONMENT 251 VII1. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 253 IX. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS 255 X. AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED 257 XI. REFERENCES 263 XII. PUELIC REVIEW Initial Distribution 281 Comments Received and Response* 285 *This Section added to Draft EIR; printed on blue vii (Revised) XIII. APPENDICES A - San Diego Bay Anchorages and Regulations B - Circulation Analysis Summary C - Air Quality Information D - Biological Reconnaissance Summary E - Species Lists Biological Habitat Information F - Historical Site Descriptions G - Archaeological Site Records and Summary H - Notice of Preparation and Comments I - Coastal Comments on Port's Prel imi.nary Master Plan J - Coastal Comments on Draft EIR Content K - Noise Control Plan viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Vicinity Map 17 2 Master Plan Area, Tidelands Ownership 19 3 Planning District Map Key 21 4 Planning Jurisdictions 23 5 Major Fill Areas 29 6 Major Dredged Areas 31 7 Shoreline Features 33 8 Vehicle Traffic Circulation 63 9 Visual Analysis 103 10 Major Vista Points 107 lla Aircraft CNEL Noise Contours -San Diego International Airport, Calendar 1978 ill llb Aircraft CNEL Noise Contours San Diego International Airport, 75 CNEL (6/30/79) 113 12 Aircraft CNEL Noise Contours -North Island Naval Air.Station 123 13, Climate and Meteorology 127 14 Air Quality Distribution -Ozone, Hydrocarbon, Nitrogen Emissions 133 15 Air Quality Distribution -Particulate Matter, Carbon Monoxide Emission 135 Biological Resources - Water/Sediment Quality: 16 -Shelter Island (Planning District 1) 143/144 17 - Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field (PD 2) 145/146 18 - Centre City Embarcadero (PD 3) 147/148 19 - Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal (PD 4) 149/150 20 - National City Bayfront (PD 5) 151/152 21 - Coronado Bayfront (PD 6) 153/154 ix Page 22 - Chula Vista Bayfront (PP 7) 155/156 23 - Silver Strand South (PD 8) 157/158 24 - South Bay Saltlands (PD 9) 159/160 25 Topography and Bathymetry -San Diego Bay 1979 181 26 Topography and Bathymetry -San Diego Bay 1857 185 27 Soil Types 187 28 Bedrock Geology 189 29 Geologic Cross Sections 191 30 Mineral and Water Resources 195 .31 Earthquake Faults and Epicenters -California 197 32 Earthquake Faults and Epi.centers 33 -San Diego Region 199 Earthquake Faults and Epicenters -San Diego Bay 201 34 Watershed Drainage/River Basins 205 35 Flood Plains 209 36 Tidal Currents 211 37 Historical Sites -San Diego Bay Area 215 38 Recorded Archaeological Sites -San Diego Bay Area 217 x Appendix Figures Page A-1 San Diego Bay/Anchorage s A-2 B-1 Traffi'c Circulation -shelter Island CPD 1) B-4 B-2 Speed and Delay Studies -Rosecrans Street B-4 B-3 Speed and Delay Studies -Shelter Island B-5 B-4 Traffic Circulation -Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field (PD 2) B-5 B-5 Speed and Delay Studies -Harbor Drive B-6 B-6 Traffic Circulation -Center City Embarcadero (PD 3) B-6 B-7 Speed and Delay"Studies -Pacific Highway B-7 B-8 Speed and Delay Studies -Market Street B-7 B-9 Traffic Circul4ion -Tenth Avenue Marine Termi,nal (.PD 4) B-8 B-10 Traffic Circulation -National City Bayfront (.PD 5). B-8 B-11 Traffic Circulation -Coronado Bayfront (P.D 6) B-9 B-12 Speed and Delay Studi,es -Coronado Island B-9 B-13 Speed and Delay'Studies -Silver Strand Boulevard B-10 B-14 Metropolitan Transit (MTDB) -Light Rail Transit Route B-10 B-15 Traffic Circulation Concerns -Silver Strand South (PD 8) B-11 B-16 Traffic Circulation Concerns -South Bay Saltlands (PD 9) B-11 B-17 Light Rail Transit Route B-12 C-1 -Ozone Trend C-1 -Violation Days xi LIST OF TABLES Table Page I Average Daily Traffic Counts -Shelter Island, Planning District 1 (PD1) 67 2 Average Daily Traffic Counts -Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field (PD2) 70 3 Average Daily Traffic Counts -Centre City/Embarcadero (PD3) 72 4 Average Daily Traffic Counts -Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal (PD4) 75 5 Average Daily Traffic Counts -Coronado Bayfront (PD6) 78 6 Rare and Endangered Terrestrial Vascular Plants -San Diego Bay Area 169 Appendix Tables C-1 Photochemical Smog Violations C-1 -Violation Days C-2 Ozone Data, Cumulative C-2 C-3 Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide -County Averages 1978, 1977, 1976 C-3 C-4 Nitrogen Dioxide -Violations 1978, 1977 C-3 C-5 Sulfur Dioxide -Violations 1978, 1977 C-4 C-6 Hydrocarbons -Violations 1978, 1977 C-4 C-7 Carbon Monoxide -Violations 1978, 1977 C-5 C-8 Total Suspended Particulates C-5 C-9 California Ambient Air Quality Standards C-6 C-10 San Diego Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP) -Assumptions and Projections (Port Master Plan) C-7 D-1 Selected Water Quality Parameters -Biological Reconnaissance Study Sites D-5 xii LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Page D-2 Benthic Macrofauna D-6 D-3 Species, Abundances, and Size Ranges -Twenty-Fourth Street Channel; Chula Vista Boat Basin; Coronado Bayfront; Coronado Cays; South Bay sites D-7 D-4 Species Composition, Abundance of Avifauna -Observations at six sites D-8 D-5 Species, Abundances, and Size Ranges -Three sites by beach seines D-9 D-6 Ichthyoplankton.and Zooplankton; -Species and Abundances, South Bay D-10 E-1 List of Plants and Marine Animals -San Diego Bay' E-1 E-2 List of Birds -San Diego Bay.' E-4 G-1 Archaeological Site Records Summary -Site Information San Diego Bay, shoreline and vicinity G-7 xiii FOREWORD The Port's proposed Master Plan was developed by the Planning Department of the San Diego Unified Port District. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides the evaluation of the environmental consequences of adoption of the proposed goals, objectives, and--p-o-FE'Tes of the Plan. In some cases, pertinent material has been extracted directly from the proposed Master Plan. In other cases the Master Plan is incorporated by reference. However, the proposed Master Plan itself is the controlling document should any discrepancies or in- consistencies have developed in providing this background base for the EIR. In the following EIR, the illustrative examples of the proposed Master Plan (or planning area boundaries developed for planning purposes) are used as an aid for analysis and are not to be construed as rigidly fixed. For instance, planning for Port tidelands on the Coronado Bayfront is currently (September 1979) under reconsideration jointly by the Port and Coronado. It should be noted that the sub-area use which was analyzed in this EIR is anticipated to be more environ- mentally severe than the options under discussion by the joint ad hoc committee. It is essential to recognize that the environmental evaluation is focused on the proposed Plan as a dynamic concept, with illustrative examples, rather than on the details of specific projects or their enumeration. The environmental assessment is based on the existing conditions, the proposed or anticipated changes in land/water use, and their environmental consequences. For some identified projects the degree of specificity in the analysis is greater than for those areas where specific projects have not been (or may not be) pro- posed. The analysis of existing conditions and potential overall effects due @o land/water use constitutes a Master Environmental Assessment for subsequent implementation proposals. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the Guidelines of the-California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, the Resource Agency Guide- lines, and the implementation regulations adopted by the San Diego Unified Port District in Resolution 78-102. By providing a comprehensive environmental assessment of the existing conditions in the planning areas and an environmental impact assessment for full implementa- tion of the proposed Master Plan, this EIR serves as the District s master en- vironmental reference. An EIR is not an engineering document; it does not relieve the Port District or its tenants of the responsibility to ensure that engineering/ technical or site-specific documents otherwise required for specific project im- plementation be prepared. Nor is an EIR a precise plan. A large amount of material, text and graphics, and consultation has been provided by the District's Planning Department and is gratefully acknowledged. We acknowl- edge the cooperation and assistance particularly from the Director of Planning, Frederick H. Trull; his assistant, John Wehbring; Bill Briggs; Bill Saver; and by Kerry Scheevel, who contributed most of the illustrations in this report. xv SUMMARY Major Conclusions@ The Port's Master Plan covers the ownership of the San Diego Unified Port District, which covers 2,491 acres of land area and 2,992 acres of submerged lands. These tidelands were conveyed by the State Legislature in 1962 and 1965 to the Port as trustee and administrator with regulatory duties and pro- prietary responsibilities. The Master Plan proposes land and water use designa- tions and individual development concepts over its total jurisdiction of 5,483 acres within nine Planning Districts. The Port's entire ownership is within the Coastal Zone boundaries pursuant to the California Coastal Act'of 1976. These lands are also within the corporate limits of four cities: San Diego, National City, Chula Vista and Coronado. The US Navy, Coast Guard and California State Lands Commission have adjacent jurisdiction. The Master Plan includes six general land and water uses including commercial, industrial, public recreation, public facilities, conservation, and military. Existing development is greatest for Planning Districts in North and Central San Diego Bay. South San Diego Bay includes undeveloped and partially developed areas. The Master Plan would: intensify existing commercial/recreational developments and develop new improvements in,North Bay Planning Districts; further intensify marine industrial uses and marine terminal facilities in Central Bay Planning Districts; and further enhance commercial/recreational facilities already begun in South San Diego Bay Planning Districts. Master Plan implementation would have different environmental consequences depending on individual development proposals in various areas. The following list of consequences summarizes anticipated effects within each category. For detailed information regarding each category, see text Section IV, Environ- mental Impacts and Mitigating Measures. LAND AND WATER USE New development and reconstruction/replacement of existing facilities within Shelter Island, Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field, and Centre City/Embarcadero Planning Districts, would conform with Plan Land/Water Use designations. No environmentally significant land/water use impacts are anticipated. Shelter Island and Centre City/Embarcadero Planning Districts have previously received environmental review, resulting-in certified Environmental Impact Reports. The Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal, National City Bayfront and Coronado Bayfront Planning Districts, would include uses which are in conformance with existing and surrounding uses. Implementation of specific Master Plan project proposals would not result in environmentally significant land or 'water use impacts. Proposed land uses for the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal and the Coronado Bay- front Planning Districts are discussed in the next section under "Areas of Concern". The Chula Vista Bayfront, Silver Strand South, and South Bay Saltlands Planning Districts would include the expansion of existing industrial, commercial and recreational uses, such as the addition of marina and other recreational boat- related facilities at the Chula Vista Boat Basin, and the retention of salt ponds in South Bay in their current state. These proposals are not anticipated to result in significant adverse land/water use impacts. OPEN SPACE The Master Plan would retain existing open space in most areas. Extensive improvements including shoreline parks, pedestrian/bike pathways, beach sitting areas, and public fishing piers are proposed for public recreational uses which would enhance and create additional improved public access to San Diego Bay. Master Plan implementation would add an increased utilization of the present acreage of improved landscape and permanent open space. No environmentally significant adverse impacts on open space are anticipated. AIR TRANSPORTATION Implementation of the Port's Master Plan is not anticipated to have any adverse environmental consequences on air transportation facilities or air transportation systems throughout the San Diego Region. The Plan has no specific proposals which would increase existing runway capacity or expand terminal facilities except for the upgrading or remodeling of primarily the East Terminal at San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field). The San Diego Plan for Air Transportation (SANPAT) has designated Lindbergh Field to be the regional commercial airport for the San Diego area through 1995. CIRCULATION Master' Plan implementation would result in additional vehicle traffic primarily during evenings, weekends and holidays. In areas where existing industrial facilities would be further intensified and expanded, such as the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal and National City Marine Terminal, vehicle traffic would increase during commuter hours. In some areas congestion would be relieved. Traffic loads would also be shifted for better distribution onto adjacent streets and highways. For example, the Shelter Island landscaping and beautification proposals would facilitate circulation and decrease congestion along Shelter Island Drive. In a similar fashion, the Lindbergh Field peripheral road proposal, if imple- mented, would greatly relieve existing traffic and congestion on the Harbor Drive interchange leading to Harbor Island from the Airport. The Harbor Drive realignment in the Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District would divert traffic from Harbor Drive back onto Pacific Highway, and thus greatly reduce congestion on adjacent lateral streets. 2 NAVIGATION The Master Plan proposes'additional recreational and commercial boat berthing facilities, dry boat storage, improvements to anchorage areas, shoreline im- provements and public fishing piers. The installation of these facilities could accommodate about 3,500 additional recreational and commercial vessels, excluding military and commercial shipping, in San Diego Bay. The average daily use of San Diego Bay by recreational vessels is substantially less.than the total berthed in marinas or at anchorage, Neither these facilities, nor the added vessels, would significantly interfere with navigation within San Diego Bay. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES The Master Plan proposes no major changes in land or water use activities that would significantly impact the availability, quality, or ultimate capacity of existing public services and facilities including bus services, sewerage systems, water supply, storm drains, electricity, gas and telephone, fire protection, police protection, or refuse collection. Existing utilities services would not be significantly impacted by increased demands from Master Plan proposals. Police and fire protection requirements of tidelands development are the re- sponsibility of the Port's Harbor Police Department, with Assistance provided as needed by City police and fire departments. VISUAL QUALITY Master Plan proposals would include structures that in some places may inter- fere with Bay views from adjacent areas. Because surrounding topography is, except in Point Loma and Mission Hills, essentially as level as the Plan area itself, existing adjacent residential, commercial, or industrial structures partially or entirely block many Bay views. Multi-story structures would not have a significantly greater potential viewshed impact than would single-story structures in most places. Major vista points in the San Diego Bay area would not be sIgnificantly impacted by Master Plan implementation. NOISE QUALITY Master Plan implementation would result in minor temporary increases in ambient noise levels during construction activities as individual projects are under- taken. The Master Plan includes no proposals which would change land use designations or specific projects which would affect, or be significantly affected by, noise generated by aircraft operations associated with Lindbergh Field. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have cogni- zance over service and route authorization for entrance of new airlines to Lindbergh Field, and the addition of new routes or service by existing airlines. Master Plan implementation would generate increases in motor vehicle traffic throughout the Plan area and attendant increases in vehicle traffic noise. 3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS/GROWTH The Master Plan proposes land uses which are compatible with adjacent areas within the surrounding cities of San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, and Coronado. Coronado Bayfront tidelands plans are currently (9/79) under joint consideration. Master Plan proposals are not anticipated to significantly alter the characteristics of the communities or populations of surrounding areas. These areas include primarily residential/commercial communities with local employment provided mainly by marine-related industry and visitor-related service facilities, many of which are, or would be, located on Port tidelands. Master Plan implementation would generate additional monies within local economies. Future Port tenants would pay possessory property taxes and provide other sources of revenue. Projected growth in visitor-related businesses, intensified use of the marine industrial area, and commercial and recreational facilities, would re- sult in economic growth of the cities surrounding the Master Plan area. Port tenant leasing revenues would increase. These revenues would continue to be, as they are currently, used to finance public works projects throughout the Port's Master Plan area. Such projects, including landscaped parks, public boat launching ramps, fishing piers, recreational beach areas, shoreline erosion control improve- ments, public parking lots, and street improvements, would continue to be provided to the public at no cost. The San Diego Unified Port District has not utilized property taxation as a source of revenue since 1966. This is a particularly important feature of existing and future Port financial operations, especially in light of recent cutbacks under Proposition 13, which have substantially affected public works capabilities of California cities and counties. The Port's goal under the Port District Act of 1962 is to provide for development and utilization of San Diego Bay for commerce, navigation, fisheries, and recreation. No significant permanent population growth increases are anticipated for the surrounding area. Any growth inducement that might be attributed to ultimate Plan implementation would occur as a result of the requirements for various services, operations and facilities which may, in turn, increase the demand for support services within surrounding cities. CLIMATE/AIR QUALITY Master Plan implementation is not anticipated to introduce significant levels of new air pollutant emissions into the San Diego Air Basin. Due largely to the existing flat topography, open ocean exposure to prevailing westerly winds, and the absence of major air pollutant sources to the west, the Master Plan area would,not experience additional air quality impacts following Plan implementation New commercial establishments, recreational facilitiess expansion of existing marine industrial facilities, and vehicle traffic increases in the Master Plan area could cause an increase or transfer of air emissions from one part of the Plan area to another. This increase has been assessed and incorporated in the preparation of the federally required Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP) by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Increased emissions are accounted for through the regionally and city adopted population projections and the "activity level fore- cast" developed by the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) in 1978. Major 11new source" incremental additions of emissions to the San Diego Air Basin woul-d be subject to subsequent environmental review, and would be, as they are presently, subject to regulation by the San Diego APCD. 4 ENERGY Master Plan implementation would increase energy consumption over that which is currently experienced in the Plan area. Electrical power and natural gas consump- tion for industrial, commercial and recreational uses would increase by an indeter- minate amount depending upon individual project requirements. Demand increases for electrical power and natural gas would not significantly impact management of energy resources in terms of existing trends of supply and demand. The Master Plan area does not include residential uses. The surrounding areas which do include residential uses are not expected to experience substantially increased population or energy growth rates. Solar/thermal energy, rather than natural gas, would be encouraged where feasible, for heating swimming pools and supplementary water heating. State energy regula- tions which offer the option of utilizing building designs that consume less energy than standard designs, would continue to be, as they are currently, enforced through the building permit process applicable to Port and tenant construction projects, and by adjacent cities. BIOLOGY Master Plan implementation would not have significant biological impact on terres- trial biological habitats in areas which include introduced and/or disturbed vege- tation. Isolated native plant communities, together with animals normally associated with these areas, exist in some areas adjacent to Central and South Bay Planning Districts, where projects are proposed. In these areas, the terrestrial plants and animals primarily represent those typically found in association with disturbed habitat and urban settings. No significant impacts to native plant or anima.1 communities, or to rare and endangered species are anticipated. Marine habitats,, including eelgrass, mudflats, and intertidal sandy beaches, would not be significantly impacted by Master Plan implementation. Marine habitat intrusion would result from construction of public fishing piers, shore- line revetment, recreational marinas, and miscellaneous commercial fishing fleet berthing facilities. Erosion control revetment improvements would replace exist- ing interti.dal sandy beach and rubble-strewn shoreline with rock revetment which would constitute habitat replacement, rather than total habitat loss. The opportunity for more effective source control of potential marine habitat pollu- tants would be enhanced. This continues to be successfully conducted by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) and has accomplished the re- covery of the former (prior to 1963) distressed marine environment of San Diego Bay. The proposed Chula Vista Boat Basin, J Street Second Peninsula Extension would involve artificial fill nearly a mile in length which would eliminate shallow subtidal habitat in relatively close proximity in the Sweetwater River/Paradise Marsh Creek complex. This area is known to support a great abundance and large variety of marine fish and invertebrates, which are very closely linked with the survival of two rare and endangered bird species, and other resident and migratory wildlife. This proposal would be subject to subsequent environmental review and would likely require the preparation of an additional or supplementary EIR. Other project proposals for areas either within or in close proximity to sensitive biological resources would receive subsequent environmental review and EIR's may be required, as appropriate. 5 WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY Master Plan implementation would include dredge and fill operations in some locations. For example, deepening water at berths 7 and 8 at the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal, and fill operations for the Chula Vista Boat Basin Second Penin- sula Extension would result in a short-term localized turbidity increase. Recreational and commercial vessels berthed at proposed marinas introduce long- term potential for localized water and sediment quality degradation from heavy metals contained in bottom anti-fouling paints and from unauthorized waste dis- charges. Short-term impacts associated with pier construction and erosion con- trol projects would also occur during construction. There are currently no known major uncontrolled sources of water pollutants within or adjacent to the Master Plan area and no -individual elements of the Master Plan proposal include future potential sources, other than minor amounts typically associated with urban development. No significant water quality impacts are anticipated to result from Plan implementation, other than short-term impacts associated with dredge and fill operations a@d pier construction. All redevelopment and new construction activity would be under the continued control of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDWQCB). The SDWQCB controls waste water discharge and operation cleanup procedures at all tenant facilities and Port operations, under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 as amended (FWPCA). The US Coast Guard controls accidental spills of oil, paint, grease, fuel, and other materials into San Diego Bay. The Coast Guard also regulates Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD), used by recreational vessels. These existing regulatory controls would con- tinue to apply to future individual projects during Master Plan implementation. Storm drains from adjacent cities contribute runoff drainage water, some of which contains contaminants from upland areas. Source control of these facili- ties would continue to be exercised by the SDRWQCB. LANDFORM/GEOLOGY/ARCHAEOLOGY Existing topography of the Master Plan area includes essentially level terrain. No unique landform features are present. Master Plan implementation would not include substantial amounts of grading, and no significant environmental impacts to landforms are anticipated. No valuable geological resources, such as building materials, mineral resources, or paleontological resources are known to exist within the Master Plan area. Agricultural soils exist in the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District but not on Port ti'delands. Master Plan implementation is not anticipated to increase existing minimal soil erosion rates. Erosion control measures are presently being implemented (1979) in those shoreline areas where erosion is occuring. Seismic hazards, including ground shaking, ground failure in the forms of liquefaction and seismically generated tsunamis or seiches are possible within 6 the Plan area. Potential for damage and subsequent environmental impact necessitated by repair or cleanup operations following a seismic event such as an earthquake, also exists. Impact assessment cannot be conducted in the absence of detailed theoretical model studies to predict seismic events and structural damage due to ground failure, ground shaking or seismic seawaves. Physical properties of the soil and underlying rock strata within the Master Plan area have been found to be generally adequate for structural foundation and no significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. All construc- tion projects would have to comply with applicable federal, state, and local codes and satisfy soil and seismic requirements. Master Plan implementation is not anticipated to result in significant adverse hydrological impact. Construction within special preliminarily designated flood prone areas would be subject to the National Flood Insurance Program established by the Flood Insurance Act of 1978 to make available, under Federal auspices, specified amounts of flood insurance otherwise unavailable from pri- vate insurance companies. New public fishing piers, shoreline revetment and recreational and commercial marinas are not anticipated to result in significant environmental impacts on ocean and bay circulation, bay currents, tidal flushing, sediment transport or shoreline erosion. The Chula Vista Boat Basin J Street Peninsula Extension may result in significant water circulation impacts and would be subject to sub- sequent environmental review. No known significant archaeological or historical resources exist within the Master Plan area which would be adversely impacted by Master Plan implementation. Although historical and archaeological site record searches indicate that no known submerged sites exist within the Master Plan area, subsequent environ- mental review may be required in areas which have not been disturbed by major dredge/fill activity, and where future projects would be located. Areas of Concern The following discusses areas of concern or controversy which relate to issues raised by federal, state, and local public agencies, special interest groups, and individuals. Some issues were raised during the Notice of Preparation Process, required by the State EIR Guidelines. Other issues have been ongoing. Others resulted from individual project reviews or coordination with various cities, agencies, group, or individuals during Port Precise Plan or City Community Plan preparation. LINDBERGH FIELD: AIRPORT NOISE AND SAFETY The Port of San Diego has proprietory responsibility over the operation of San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field, primarily operation of terminals, and supervision of operations of the airport's existing commercial carriers and general aviation lease facilities. The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have authority over aircraft operations including additions of new airlines or exit of authorized carriers in San Diego and the assignment of new routes by existing carriers. 7 The operation of aircraft from Lindbergh Field generates noise and is alleged to involve safety issues with respect to areas surrounding Port tidelands. Litigation concerning aircraft noise associated wtih Lindbergh Field aircraft operations by individuals and groups, some of which are dedicated to airport relocation, has been ongoing for several years. Lindbergh Field is currently the officially designated regional commercial air- port through 1995 under the San Diego Plan for Air Transportation (SANPAT). Master Plan implementation would not affect the demand response level of air- craft operation, with the associated noise, nor would plan implementation intro- duce land uses which would be adversely impacted by aircraft noise from Lindbergh Field. BARRIO LOGAN BAY ACCESS A number of Barrio Logan residents have requested access to San Diego Bay for recreational purposes adjacent to the Port's Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal. Bay access over these Port tidelands has been made unavailable since at least 1949, by the construction of naval, shipyard, and industrial developments along the bay, and by mixed residential and industrial upland community improvements, in- cluding freeway construction. The Board of Port Commissioners, by policy, directed that bay access would be provided by a special landscaped area, including some parking, benches, and viewing amenities, in conjunction with a proposed Mauricio boatyard (1979). However, significant "park" development is not envisaged because of the indus- trial character of the area and the conflict between recreation and heavy marine industrial port uses which could be hazardous, and are not compatible with the residents' intended recreational uses. In 1979, legislation was introduced (AB47, Chacon) to remove certain tidelands from Port jurisdiction and convert them for park purposes. This would remove a needed shipyard site, existing tugboat service facilities, and two fueling docks, tank farms, main oil pipelines, and other facilities. It would also isolate the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal from upland road and rail access. The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides that Port related projects are prime consideration for ports. Master Plan implementation would include completion of the Embarcadero Marina Park, including a fishing pier, passive and active recreational fields, and a landscaped waterfront public park. This would provide a new, major park facility about one mile northwest of the Barrio Logan Community Plan residential area. CORONADO BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT Port jurisdiction over the Coronado Bayfront, north of the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge, has a long history of attempts by the Port of San Diego to resolve possible land uses in this area with the City of Coronado. The City of Coronado has expressed concern over both the intensity and scale of development submitted in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan as produced by the Port of San Diego in 1978. The Port has presented three alternative land use plans, SDUPD (1978c), to the Coronado City Council to elicit comments on the development scenarios for 8 this northern area which has been open for many years following the demolition of World War II Naval housing facilities. The Coronado City Council subsequently appointed a Land Use Committee (May 4, 1978) to review the Port's alternatives and make recommendations back to the City Council. The Coronado Land Use Committee also served in an advisory capacity to the Coronado City Council re- garding Coronado's Local Coastal Program (LCP) planning, and the revision of Coronado's Glorietta Bay Master Plan. The Coronado Land Use Committee was dis- banded August 9, 1979. The key issues of contention by the City of Coronado include the concern that additional vehicle traffic circulation, as a result of proposed Port developments on Coronado Bayfront tidelands, would have a signifi- cant impact on the City of Coronado. A joint agency Ad Hoc Committee was formed (March 30, 1979), including some members of the Coronado City Council and Port of San Diego Port Commissioners to continue to work toward resolution of these and other key land use issues along the Coronado Bayfront. DREDGING AND FILLING Master Plan proposals, including the Chula Vista Boat Basin Second Peninsula/ J Street Extension, and the D Street Fill/Sweetwater Wharf construction contain elements of concern primarily expressed by US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fishery Service, and the California State Department of Fish and Game. These agencies have indicated that South San Diego Bay is the last remaining area for Bay estuary habitat in San Diego Bay, and have had their views included in the California Coastal Act of 1976. The resources agencies indicate that South Bay contains valuable wetlands, im- portant to both fish and wildlife. The extensive mudflat and shallow water habitats are nursery grounds for sport fishes, as well as ecologically important fishes, which provide forage food for both commercial and sport fisheries of considerable economic importance. The mudflats are heavily used by shorebirds as feeding areas, and migratory waterfowl use the open water areas for both resting and foraging. The resources agencies are concerned that implementation of the Master Plan, in- cluding the specific projects mentioned, would significantly modify the existing Bay estuary habitat and reduce the important nursery functions of San Diego Bay. The California State Coastal Commission staff has expressed an opinion that these projects may be inconsistent with some Coastal Act policies. For the Sweetwater Marsh complex and the surrounding area, (most of which is off Port jurisdiction) many uncertainties concerning implementation with respect to US Army'Corps of Engineers and City of Chula Vista project plans exist. This further complicates the impact assessment of the projects proposed for this area. The California State Coastal staff has requested that alternatives to the intensive commercial/ recreational developments described for this area, as well as the extensive bay filling proposed, be sought elsewhere within San Diego Bay, but has not identi- fied potentially feasible sites. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING Persistent mention is being made for publi c transit, and concerns are being ex- pressed regarding increased vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic associated with intensification of commercial and recreational development. The Master Plan proposes 9 additional hotels and recreational boating slips, and questions are being raised regarding transportation impacts and alternatives to deal with parking and access requirements. Suggestions for mitigation are for the Port to develop a shuttle bus system to serve existing and proposed commercial/recreational areas and to provide these facilities with transportation centers such as the airport and major development proposals throughout the Port's jurisdiction. Clearly, ground transportation modes, service, and implementation must be carried out by the authorized transit operators serving the Port's jurisdiction. CARRYING CAPACITY The California State Coastal staff has expressed concern about the "carrying capacity" of additional commercial/recreational and marina development for San Diego Bay. Master Plan proposals for additional hotels and recreational boat slips are related to the infrastructure serving the Port District and the water areas, given the competing uses of commercial shipping, military vessels, and commercial fishing water traffic in San Diego Bay. Issues such as parking facilities and potential traffic congestion adjacent to proposed new marinas and commercial fishing fleet berthing facilities were requested to be, and have been addressed. PRIORITY OF USE The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires that all port-related developments shall be located, designed, and constructed so as to give highest priority to the use of existing land space within harbors for port purposes, including, but not limited to, navigational facilities, shipping industries, and necessary support and access facilities. The Coastal Act further requires that ports shall not eliminate or reduce existing commercial fishing harbor space, unless the demand for commercial fishing facilities no longer exists or adequate alternative space has been provided. Higher priority in the Plan is to be given to uses which are primarily Port- related in nature or directly supportive of primary Port or marine-related activities. Coastal staff suggested that recreational opportunities and im- provements, such as small craft marinas, public parks, fishing piers, and recreational/commercial developments which exist within the Master Plan area and are proposed for further enhancement, should be given priority, since all provide for significant public enjoyment of San Diego Bay. The California State Coastal Commission staff has also encouraged the Port to expand other types of recreational opportunities, such as recreational vehicle park facilities, dry boat storage, and new public accessways wherever possible. 10 I. INTRODUCTION This Environmental Impact Report (.EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Public Resources Code, Section 21151, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It evaluates the environmental consequences of adoption of the proposed planning goals, objectives, and policies, of the Port's Master Plan revision. This EIR has been coordinated with the Port of San Diego's proposed Master Plan (revised) to provide an integrated approach to environmental impact analysis in the form of a readily accessible document. It puts forth specific aspects of anticipated project proposals with a corresponding environmental impact analysis which may be utilized by agencies and individuals alike in a number of ways. Master Plan The California Resources Agency EIR Guidelines provide guidance for ways in which an EIR may be prepared and used in consort with a corresponding Master or a General Plan. This EIR draws most heavily upon the portions of the Port's proposed Master Plan which refer to specific aspects of proposed project im- plementation and references those in the Project Description section of the EIR. To this extent the EIR is an integral part of the Port's proposed Master Plan (project) report. This EIR, therefore, contains baseline information for future reference of subsequent project-specific EIR's. This procedure is provided for in the EIR Guidelines, Section 15068.5, Use of a General Plan EIR With Subsequent Projects, which reads: "The EIR on a general plan may be used as the foundation document for EIR's subsequently prepared for specific projects within the geographic area covered by the general plan. The subsequent EIR's may reference and summarize material in the EIR on the general plan for the description of the general environmental setting and as much of the description of the environmental impacts as applies to the specific project. Detailed information in the EIR on the specific project may be limited to a description of the project, the specific environmental setting and those impacts which are not adequately described for the specific project in the EIR on the general plan. When a subsequent EIR refers to an EIR on the general plan for part of its description of the environment and the environmental impacts, copies of the EIR on the general plan shall be made available to the public at a number of locations in the community and to any clearinghouses which will assist in public review of the EIR. The purpose of this section is not to restrict analysis of environmental issues but is to avoid the necessity for repeating detail from a general plan EIR." The Port routinely deposits EIR's with all member city library systems, the government reference library, the reference section at San Diego State University, coordinating for all academic institutions, state and local metropolitan clearing- houses, and a number of other locations, see Section XII, Public Review. 11 Master Environmental Assessment This EIR is also a Master Environmental Assessment. The EIR Guidelin es provide for this use in Section 15069.6, Master Environmental Assessment, which reads: "(a) General. A public agency may prepare a master environmental assessment, inventory, or data base for all, or a portion of, the territory subject to its control in order to provide information which may be used or referenced in EIR's or Negative Declarations. Neither the content, the format, nor the procedures to be used to develop a master environmental assessment are prescribed by these Guidelines. The descriptions contained in this section are advisory. A master environmental assessment is suggested solely as an approach to identify and organize environmental information for a region or area of the State." This section further states: "(b) Contents. A master environmental assessment may contain an inventory of the physical and biological characteristics of the area for which it is prepared and may contain such additional data and information as the public agency determines is useful or necessary to describe environmental characteristics of the area. It may include identification of existing levels of quality and supply of air and water, capacities and levels of use of existing services and facilities, and generalized incremental effects of differenct Categories of development projects by type, scale, and location." The usefulness of a Master Environmental Assessment, is more specifically described in Section 15069.6(d) of the EIR Guidelines, which reads in part: 110) A master environmental assessment can identify the environmental characteristics and constraints of an area. This information can be used to influence the design and locations of individual projects. (2) ... may provide information agencies can use in initial studies to decide whether certain environmental effects are likely to occur and whether certain effects will be significant. (3) ...can provide a central source of current information for use in preparing individual EIR's and Negative Declarations. (4) Relevant portions ... can be referenced and summarized in EIR's and Negative Declarations. (5) ... can assist in identifying long-range, areawide, and cumulative impacts of individual projects proposed in the area covered by the assessment. (6) ... can assist a city or county in formulating a general plan or any element of such a plan by identifying environmental characteristics and constraints that need to be addressed in the general plan. 12 (7) can serve as a reference document to assist public agencies which review other environmental documents dealing with activities in the area covered by the assessment. The public agency preparing the assessment should forward a completed copy to each agency which will review projects in the area." Specificity This document has been prepared according to the degree of specificity and level of detail appropriate to the preparation of a Master or a General Plan EIR as provided for in the EIR Guidelines, Section 15147, Degree of Specificity, which reads: "The degree of specificity req uired in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. (a) An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy. (b) An EIR on projects such as the adoption or amendment of a compre- hensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow." in response to the goal for early integration of environmental considerations into the planning process, this EIR has been prepared closely in conjunction with the development of the Port's proposed Master Plan. Incorporation by Reference To avoid unnecessary repetition while still serving as a comprehensive source document this EIR has utilized as reference material many previous environmental and technical documents written by various agencies, firms, and/or individuals, covering the same general project area,.some with more specific project assessment and analysis, some with more general overall background data. The procedure of utilizing information from previous docu- ments is provided for in the EIR Guidelines, Section 15149, Incorporation by Reference, which reads: It (a) An EIR may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR." 13 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION' Location and Ownership LOCATION The Port of San Diego's Master Plan area is located generally coincident with San Diego Bay and shoreline. San Diego Bay is situated on the Pacific Coast in California, in southwestern San Diego County, adjacent to the Point Loma Penin- sula and the San Diego downtown area, about 120 miles south of Los Angeles, and about 10 miles north of the US-Mexican Border, see Figure 1. OWNERSHIP The Master Plan area, see Figure 2, includes the entirety of the Port's owner- ship, which can be generally described as a band between the landward mean high tide line (as located by the 1918 USGS Land Survey), and the bayward US pierhead line (in some cases the combined US pierhead-bulkhead line). The Port's owner- ship includes land portions of tidelands (some of which have been filled and are no longer subject to tidal inundation); and submerged lands (lands constantly beneath the waters of some portions of San Diego Bay). These lands are also within the corporate limits of four cities: San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, and Coronado. For individual acreages within each city area refer to the Master Plan itself. -The Port's ownership does not include all tidelands and submerged lands in and around San Diego Bay. The Port's ownership includes only those tidelands (2,491 acres) and those submerged lands (2 '992 acres) conveyed by the State Legislature in 1962 and 1965 to the Port as Trustee and Administrator with regulatory duties and proprietory responsibilities. The total Port ownership of 5,483 acres in- cludes 37.1% of the total 14,951 acres of tidelands/submerged lands within and around San Diego Bay, see Figure 2. A total of 2,868 acres (19.2%) has been deeded to the Federal Government, for use by the-Coast Guard, Marine Corps and the Navy. An additional 34 acres (0.2%) have been granted to the Cities of San Diego and Coronado, and to the County of San Diego. A total of 6,502 acres (43.5%) remains ungranted, is under State of California jurisdiction, and is administered by the State Lands Commission and the State Department of Parks and Recreation. The Port's entire ownership is completely within the Coastal Zone boundaries pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976. 15 Port Master Plan The Port's-Master Plan is a comprehensive guide to unified, integrated, and comprehensive development of Port tidelands and submerged lands. The Master Plan includes policies for the achievement of the stated goals, a map of general land/water use designations, and interpretations of appropriate uses for desig- nated land/Water areas. The Master Plan provides for Port public works projects as well as tenant proposals. Land and water uses are planned to include transi- tional areas to insure use compatibility throughout the San Diego Bay area wherever possible regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. The Port's proposed Master Plan includes six different general land and water uses: -Commercial -Industrial -Public Recreation -Public Facilities -Conservation -Military. The general use.designations incorporate 39 more specific use descriptions (23 land uses and 16 water uses), all of which are tabulated with their individual acreage and percent use area allocations in the Port's proposed Master Plan, where detailed descriptions of each land and water use category can also be found. In order to further clarify and interpret Master Plan policies and general land/ water use designations, the Port's Master Plan area is divided into nine Planning Districts which separate San Diego Bay tidelands and submerged lands into identi- fiable areas for precise planning and environmental management purposes, see Figure 3. Each Planning District is further divided into several subareas, based largely upon distinguishing individual land and water use characteristics, see proposed Master Plan. The nine Planning Districts outline some adjacent uplands as well as tidelands and submerged lands within other jurisdictions, which include: the US Coast Guard; the Marine Corps; the Navy; the State Lands Commission; the State Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation; the County of San Diego; and the Cities of San Diego, Coronado, National City, Chula Vista, and Imperial Beach. Jurisdictions other than the Port of San Diego are identified throughout this report when surrounding areas are discussed. The Port's Master Plan, however, includes only those tidelands and submerged lands specifically within the Port's juris- Ui-c-tion. The planning jurisdictions of other agencies adjacent to the Port's jurisdiction are illustrated in Figure 4. Planning District Project Proposals The proposed Master Plan, hereafter 'Master Plan', provides additional detail for the planning subareas of the nine Planning Districts with more precise land and water use designations and acreage and should be consulted for details. This EIR refers frequently to the Master Plan's illustrations and tables which describe in detail the land/water use allocations, concepts, Planning Districts and subareas, and specific project lists for the nine Planning Districts. The 16 ORANGE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY S. S-76 S-76 OCEANSIDE S-79 ESCONDIDO S -78 RAMO S'67 DEL MAR POWAY 1-15 1 -@805 S-1 1-5 1-8 ALPINE LA MESA EL CAJON 18 SAN DIEG S. 4 CHULA VISTA S-94 1-805 Master Plan Area 1-5 San Diego Unified Port District ---ME)(ICO 79 r IS-44, Fi gure 7a102-I Regional DEIR 9/79 D 9/79 0 44,50 v I'LNG DEPT pbnMng dept. icinity Ma RMI 2/78 p 17 us RINE COR S B .u.. .......... .. ....... . ADMINISTRATION US NAVAL TRAMING USNAVY CENTE I firz USNAVAL AIR STATION USNAVY, WORTHERN TIP LISAAMAL.STATI LISMAVALSTATI R S, SEWER PUMP NC STA'nO 2, m CoRi CITY OF AMPHIBIOUS,BA N@' LAND IWATER I T0`rAL ACRES % IACRES % I .. . . .. ..... UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT- -5483 -37. MGRANTED LANDS-_ 2491- MGRANTED SUBMERGED LANDS -2992 -29 FEDERAL (Military 2132- 1" ED DEEDED LANDS 1881 43 =]DEEDED SUBMERGED LANDS- MW JAI CITY & COUNTY_-- _a4 -02 =GRANTED LANDS_- 34 _u =GRANTED SUBMERGED LANDS- -0- STATE-- - _fiWZ _43- MLANDS -12 jU M SUBMERGED LANDS - - I BA90 I At ITOTALS 4,419 1100110.532110 @ Mas d ter Plan Area San Diego Bay Tidelands Ownership 4" Z, J 1 47 `7 r"v"", V % 7' % V, % 1 shelter island N 2 harbor island lindbergh field X. % 3 center city embarcadero %% %%"% B % 4 tenth avenue marine terminal %% %%% % 5 national city bayfront 6coronado bayfront 7 chula vista bayfront 1% .. . ......... . . ZHver strand south PLANNING DISTRICTS (S.DJLLPD.) AL MAPPING ------- SUPPLEMENT 9 south bay salt lands DISTRICTS Iwale Figur 7M74 78 88 PE1101;1 D@ , " UL' p jWnnkiqd9paft Planning Districts Map Key 19an Diego UnIfied Port Distict G"D71'PT & 'J/ National City 2 Mule Vista I Federal Government %a( Diego-Peninsula Commun of Plan Area nity Plan Area Diego.-Midway Commu J,@C@; of San Diego-Old Sa i Diego Community Plan Area 5 city of ban Dlego-Uptown Community Plan Area 7 City of San Diego-Centre City Plan Area \43 City of San Diego-Southeast San Diego Community Plan Area 9 City of San Diego-Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan Area W 10 City of National Clty-General Plan Area 11 City of Chula Vista-General Plan Area 14 12 City of Chula Vista-Bayfront Redevelopment Plan Area 13 County of San Diego-South Say Plan Area 14 City of San DWgo-Otay Mesa/Nestor Community Plan Area 16 15 City of Imperial Beach-General Plan Area 16 City of Coronado-General Plan Area lffqWa Basch scale Figure o P, /E P'. Ptaming Depart@nt Planning Jurisdictions around San Diego Bay 14 land/water use designations (with illustrative tabulated project lists and interpretation as to implementation) constitute the project addressed by this EIR. The specifi'c details, therefore, of the EIR's project description are contained in the proposed Master Plan. The Port has an existing Master Plan, adopted in January 1964 and subsequently amended after considerable public input on December 19, 1972, by Resolution 72-308 (SDUPD, 102d). Updates of the Plan also occurred in 1975 and 1976. It is hereafter referred to as the '1972 Master Plan' to distinguish it from the proposed Master Plan, hereafter rKa-ster Plan'. 25 III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Land and Water Use The overall land/water use setting of the Port's Master Plan area includes existing uses in six general categories. A more detailed description is pro- vided for each of the Port's nine Planning Districts to illustrate the relative geographic location of existing land/water uses, arranged as follows: -Shelter Island -Coronado Bayfront -Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field -Chula Vista Bayfront -Centre City/Embarcadero -Silver Strand South -Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal -South Bay Saltlands -National City Bayfront @ecause of similarities in existing land and water uses and ecological character- istics, the Port's Master Plan area can be grouped for environmental purposes into three geographical areas within San Diego Bay, namely North,'Central, and South San Diego Bay. North Bay includes the Shelter Island, Harbor Island/ Lindbergh Field, and CFn-tre City/Embarcadero Planning Districts. Central San Diego Bay includes the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal, National City Bayfront, and Coronado Bayfront Planning Districts. South San Diego Bay includes the Chula Vista Bayfront, Silver Strand South, and South Bay Saltlands Planning Districts. Existing development is greatest for the Planning Districts in North and Central San Diego Bay, particularly commercial and recreational uses in North Bay Planning Districts, and commercial, industrial, and some recreational uses in Central San Diego Bay Planning Districts. South San Diego Bay Planning Districts primarily include undeveloped and partially developed areas. This EIR places more detailed emphasis on description and analysis of undeveloped and partially developed Plan- ning Districts, particularly those in the South San Diego Bay area. SHELTER ISLAND Planning District I (see Master Plan) includes 145.3 acres of land and 206 acres of water (submerged lands). The land area consists almost entirely of artificial fill, see Figure 5. The main body of the Shelter Island peninsula was filled. between 1936 and 1942. The causeway fill connecting the peninsula to the 'mainland area was placed in 1946. Submerged lands in the Municipal Yacht Harbor and Commercial Basin were dredged in 1946 and 1*949, see Figure 6. The main channel bayward and adjacent to Shelter Island was dredged by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1941, subsequently deepened during 1961 through 1966, and slightly modi- fied in.1977 to provide adequate deep draft clearance for military vessels and commercial shipping. The shoreline in the Shelter Island Planning District in- cludes protected (riprapped), as well as unprotected areas, see Figure 7. Existing land and water uses are described in detail in the Shelter Island Precise Plan Final EIR (SDUPD, 19766, pp. 1-8, 20, 21) and'in the Master Plan. Existing land and water uses include commercial recreation, commercial fishing and sportfishing fleet berthing, support fac'ilities for the commercial fishing and sportfishing fleets, and commercial marina and/or repair facilities. As described in the Shelter Island Precise Plan EIR, (SDUPD, 1976e, p. 20): 27 "The following major categories are designated: Commercial, Military, Public Recreation, and Public Facilities. Various subordinate uses are identified ... such as Fisheries berthing, Recreation/Open Space, Harbor Services, etc...." Two projects under consideration by the Port and carried to various stages of design detail, as described in the Shelter Island Precise Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1976e, p. 20), include: "A major beautification project proposes the implementation of a coordinated landscaping program of Shelter Island Drive, both in the Entrance Corridor and, and the Bay Corridor."; The coordinated improvement of conditions in the Commercial Basin has been proposed by providing a proper mooring facility in the basin's anchorage area, construction of onshore support facilities, including a landing, and integrating public improvements in the sportfishing area." The Entrance Corridor, which extends along Shelter Island Drive from the mean high tideline to the traffic circle, is the area wherein the major emphasis of renovation for the entire Shelter Island Planning District will be focused by projects u`nder Port consideration. Public recreational land and water use amenities include approximately 1,000 feet of relatively undisturbed sandy beach, a public boat launching ramp, and a public fishing pier. The Port's La Playa Beach Restoration project would re- store, replenish, as well as improve a small local beach for continued recrea- tional use near the foot of Kellogg Street, see La Playa Beach Restoration EIR (SDUPD, 1979). The Port's 1972 Master Plan (SDUPD, 1972d) designates the majority of the land as "Commercial Recreation" and as "Parks, Recreation Areas". Smaller portions are designated under "Military Leased Tidelands" and "Commercial Fisheries". The water areas are designated "Commercial Marina and/or Boat Repair", "Commer- cial Sportfishing Berthing", and "Commercial Fishing Fleet Berthing." Surrounding land and water uses (and jurisdictions) include the Fleet Sonar School (Navy) to the north, military, commercial, and recreational water traffic in San Diego Bay (State of California) to the east, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) Nimitz Marine Facility (Nav_y_@_to the south, and single and multi-family residential uses, and commercial uses (City of San Diego) to the west. . I The City of San Diego has planning jurisdiction over the land uses to the west. The City's General Plan provides for commercial and residential uses in these areas by way of the adopted Peninsula Plan (City of San Diego, 1975b). This plan emphasizes commercial and high density residential land use in the areas close to the Shelter Island Planning District. Further to the west, the Peninsula Plan calls for less commercial development and lower density resi- dential uses. The Peninsula Plan area is essentially completely developed. 28 1170 14' 1170 06' mo 320 44' ..... ...... ............ ............ W66/ SAN DIEGO 1975 Pre 19,W H ISLAND 1934 POINT CORONADO m LOMA 1930- NATIONAL 194 19" CITY 1975 AN SCALE 941 0 1 1 3 MILE 4 2 4 1941-45 CHULA & 1975 VISTA LEGEND U.S. PIERNEAD LINE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE of 1918 L FILL 1914-1979 .-A 1978-79 sm 3203 SOURCE: Bureau of Yards & Docks, Naval Base, Southwest Division 1975- IMPERIAL BEACH Naval Facilities Engineering Comand, San Diego, California -T scale: Figure 9/7' UID 9" 10 179 Major Fill Areas In San Diego Bay "AT PHYS FACTORS I b;8;; 29 11710 14' 117[06' 32* 41 SAN DIEGO 1949 1975 W" ORTH ISLAND 1975 % POINT CORONADO LOMA 1 & 197 N ATIONAL 1956" Ciry % % 1941-40 AN SCALE 0 14 1 2 34 1 MILE A62 C H L A LEGEND VISTA U.S. PIERHEAD LINE MEAN HIGH Tj DE LINE of 1918 DREDGING 193671979 1977-79 32036* SOURCE: Bureau of Yards & Docks, IMPERIAL BEACH Naval Base, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California Figure Al 1"11 Major Dredged Areas In San Diego Bay 6 'F C UIV 1170 14' 1 1 117[ 06' 32044. SAN DIEGO 4-4 /NORTH ISLAN D Z-1 POINT COR ADO LOMA NATIONAL CITY AN SCALE 0 !4 12 34 1 MILE I CHULA LEGEND VISTA U.S. PIERHEAD LINE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE f 191a BULKNIAD UNPROTECTED SRO" mmmm RIPRAP-RUBSEE RIPRAF - OUARKY STONE SANDY BEACH SLOPING REVETNINT 010-0.1-04. MIXED WAYS AND D=S wwvdww A.T. I-DICAT. AREAS Of EROSION TO MAN-MADII ROWSOVIKIES41S BY mom SURVEY OF S.D.U.P.D. IMOINERRING, DEPARTMENT 32036' IMPERIAL BEACH Figure 2-1 'EIR09/ Up! FAATC OP'.Rys'S' NO. T Shoreline Features In San Diego Bay 7 1.4, 33 HARBOR ISLAND/LINDBERGH FIELD Planning District 2 (see Master Plan) includes 763.6 acres of land and 180 acres of water (submerged lands). The land area consists entirely of artificial fill, see Figure 5, and includes two distinct areas, namely the Harbor Island peninsula and San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field). The airport land area is the result of at least four fill operations which occurred in 1925, 1940, 1942, and 1949. Harbor Island is the result of two fill operations done in 1961 and 1966. Submerged lands within the Harbor Island East and West basins were dredged in 1941 and again in 1967, and the adjacent Navy Estuary area west of Harbor Island was dredged in 1946, see Figure 6. The main channel bayward and adjacent to Harbor Island was dredged by USACE in 1941, subsequently deepened during 1961 through 1966, and slightly modified in 1977 to provide adequate deep draft clearance for military vessels and commercial shipping. An extensive sandy beach public recreational area exists along Spanish Landing Park within the West Basin. Existing land and water uses are partly summarized in the Master Plan: "Planning District 2 embraces two different activities --- the transporta- tion hub of the San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field) with its ancillary commercial and industrial activities, and Harbor Island, with its tourist, commercial orientation." Lindbergh Field facilities have been airport oriented since the area was first filled in 1925. The construction of the East Terminal in 1967 has been comple- mented by the completion of the new West Terminal in July, 1979. Descriptions of the East and particularly the West Terminal have been provided in the West Terminal Project, Lindbergh Field EIR (SDUPD, 1975b). Harbor Island facilities include hotel and marina complexes and Spanish Landing Park along the West Basin and restaurant facilities at the eastern end of Harbor Island. The Harbor Island shoreline consists primarily of riprap on the bayward edges and in some areas within both the basins, see Figure 7. The shoreline in the East Basin is scheduled for riprap erosion protection from ,the outer peninsula edge to the inner basin in 1979. The East Basin area is, except for the restaurants and marine research facilities, as yet undeveloped. However, this portion was for planning purposes located within Planning Dis- trict 3, and the Embarcadero Development Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1976a) analyzed and included it in the "Entry Zone" plan for the Embarcadero. The 1972 Master Plan designates the Harbor Island land area as "Commercial Recreational" and "Parks, Recreation Area" with "Industrial, Air-Oriented" and "Research Park" designations along the landward portion adjacent to the East Basin. Water areas in the West Basin and southernmost East Basin are desig- nated "Commercial Marina and/or Boat Repair". The remainder of the East Basin is designated "Channel" and "Industrial, General Berthing". Outer portions of the adjacent bay waters are designated "Open Bay Waters". The entire Lindbergh Field area is designated "Industrial, Air-Oriented". Surrounding land and water uses to the north include the Naval Training Center (Navy), the Marine Corps Recruit Depot _( -Marine Corps), the Coast Guard Air Station (Coast Guard), and various military/industrial related support facilities and businesses (City of San Diego); to the east, air related commercial and industrial 35 businesses (City of San Diego); to the south, military, commercial, and re- creational water traffic in San Diego Bay TC-alifornia); and to the west, the Naval Training Center and Fleet Sonar School (Navy). Adjacent land uses outside of Port jurisdiction within the City of San Diego are included in the Midway Community Plan area. The nearby area to the north, includes multi-family and light manufacturing uses while areas further to the west include residential uses at various densities. CENTRE CIT@/EMBARCADERO Planning District 3 (see Master Plan) includes 231.8 acres of-land and 200.9 acres of water (submerged lands). The majority of this Planning District, which stretches from the "Crescent Zone" adjacent to Lindbergh Field south to the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal, was built with fill from adjacent dredging (USACE) in San Diego Bay over a period of many years, see Figure 5. The original fills along the Embarcadero proper were placed in 1914, the fill which is now the Navy Athletic Field was placed in 1924, the fill which comprises the G Street Mole was placed in 1942, and the fill which makes up the "Crescent Zone" waterfront wharf was placed in 1939. Additional fills were placed in the area of the G Street Mole in 1941, and in the area adjacent to the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal in 1949. Adja- cent submerged lands have been.dredged by USACE over a period of several years to accommodate military and commercial vessels, see Figure 6. The shoreline along the Embarcadero from the "Crescent Zone" to the G Street Mole is bulkheaded. The Fish Market, Sea Port Village, and Embarcadero Marina Park area is riprapped. Existing land and water uses include commercial, recreational and commercial fisheries facilities, particularly along the Embarcadero, which constitutes a single unified waterfront with pedestrian orientation. Military facilities, including the Navy pier and the Naval District Headquarters and Supply Depot, are centrally located within this Planning District. The County of San Diego's Administration Center is also adjacent to the waterfront. Further detailed descriptions of land and water uses can be found in the Embarcadero Development Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1976a). A landscaped waterfront park, the Embarcadero Marina Park, and a large waterfront theme shopping area, Sea Port Village, are adjacent to a Fish Market complex. This area is described in greater detail in the Sea Port Village EIR (SDUPD, 1977c). The 1972 Master Plan designates the land areas as "Industrial Air Oriented", in the "Crescent Zone" adjacent to Lindbergh Field; and "Commercial Recreation" in the area including B Street Pier, Harbor Drive, the Fish Market, Sea Port Village, and the Navy Athletic Field. "Commercial Fisheries" are designated for the area surrounding G Street Mole and adjacent pier, and "Parks, Recrea- tion Areas" are designated for the Broadway Pier and Embarcadero Marina Park. "Industrial, Marine Oriented" designations have been placed upon the area south of Navy Field and along a portion of the 5th Avenue Marina. Water use designa- tions include "Deep Draft Berthing" adjacent to B Street Pier, Broadway Pier, and Navy Pier; "Fishing Fleet Berthing" adjacent to G Street Mole; "Commercial Marina and Boat Repair" within the 5th Avenue Marina Basin; "Channel" adjacent to the southern peninsula of the 5th Avenue Marina; and "Open Bay Water" in the "Crescent Zone" and "Civic Zone". 36 Surrounding land and water uses are described in detail in the Embarcadero Development Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1976a, p. 3), which describes the City of San Diego's adjacent Centre City Planning area in part as follows: "Within this area ((Centre City Planning area)) is the central business district and the governmental offices of the City. Basically, land uses in the Centre City area are office and commercial with some light manufacturing and high density residential." The Port's Embarcadero Development Plan also involves the redevelopment of the G Street Mole area (and the adjacent former US Navy Fleet Landing) for commercial recreation uses and Fish Harbor support facilities. The interrelationship between the Port's Embarcadero Development Plan area and the existing and proposed uses in the City of San Diego's Centre City Redevelop- ment Planning area is particularly important to the overall function of both areas. Land use concepts developed in close coordination with the City, which emphasize the supporting relationships, have been described in detail in the Centre City Redevelopment Projects EIR (City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, 1978). Essentially, the Centre City Redevelopment Projects complement Port projects as embodied in the San Diego Embarcadero Development Plan (SDUPD, 1976c) of the Port's 1972 Master Plan, from Harbor Island through the Embarcadero south into and including the Navy Field area. Projects within the Centre City Redevelopment Plan area include three major projects: Horton Plaza, Columbia, and Marina Redevelopment. These highly urbanized areas include 335.5 contiguous acres within the City of San Diego. Portions of the Marina and Columbia areas are within the Port's Embarcadero Development Plan area. Centre City Redevelopment projects are also contiguous with the existing Central Business District, Community Concourse, and the proposed Gas Lamp Restoration District. The three Centre City Redevelopment projects described in the Centre City Redevelopment Projects EIR (City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, 1978, pp 111-9 to 111-17) in part as follows: Horton Plaza Redevelopment Project "...The Project area is comprised of 15 blocks bounded by Broadway on the north, Fourth Avenue on the east, "G" Street on the south, and Union Street on the west...Two major structures have been constructed, the Federal Office Building and the Central Federal Office Building. The remainder of the Project area will be comprised of the Horton Plaza Retail Center, the Horton House, commercial retail areas and two highrise office buildings." "Current plans call for the provision of approximately 3,800 parking spaces for the Retail Center." Marina Redevelopment Project "The Marina Redevelopment Project includes the area south of "F" Street to Union Street, south of "G" Street to Fourth and bourtded by Fourth except for the half-block where the Royal Pie Bakery is located between Market and Island. On the south and west, the Project area is bounded by San Diego Bay..." Port District property is also included in this project area. 37 "The Marina Project Area will be predominantly multi-family housing with complementary commercial uses that would provide services and convenience goods for those living withi*n the Project area. Housing in the Marina Project area will be part of the Marina/Columbia Residential Development, which also includes some land in the Columbia Project area bounded by Broadway, State Street, "F" Street and Kettner Boulevard..." "Housing in the Marina/Columbia Residential Development will consist of 2,500 to 3,000 multi-story townhouses and garden apartments." "...rather than constructing all of the housing at once, the Marina/Columbia Residential Development will be constructed in four phases." The multi-family housing (Phase IV) to be located adjacent to the Port's Navy Field area is described in the Centre City Redevelopment Projects EIR (City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, 1978, p. 111-13), as follows: "Phase IV will be the largest area designated for multi-family housing. Phase IV is bounded on the north by Market Street, the east by Fourth Avenue, except the half block bounded by Market, Fourth, Island and Third, on the south by the railroad right-of-way and ending where the railroad right-of-way intersects Market Street, all within the Marina Project area. It is expected that a minimum of approximately 1,000 dwelling units would be developed within Phase IV with higher densities up to those permitted in the Redevelopment Plan possible if market conditions warrant." The Columbia Redevelopment Project area, wh ich includes the City's proposed Convention Center, is located adjacent to the Port's Embarcadero Development Plan area, which includes the B Street, Broadway, and Navy Piers. It is described in the Centre City Redevelopment Projects EIR (City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, 1978, p. 111-14), as follows: Columbia Redevelopment Area "The Columbia Redevelopment Project area is bounded on the north by Ash Street, on the east by Union Street, on the south by "F" Street, and on the west by San Diego Bay..." "The proposed uses which are currently projected for the Columbia Redevelopment Project area include multi- family housing, commercial and lowrise offices." Port District property is also included in this project area. TENTH AVENUE MARINE TERMINAL Planning District 4 (see Master Plan) includes 257 acres of land and 114 acres of water (submerged land). The majority of this Planning District, which in- cludes the area from the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal on the north to the 28th Street Pier adjacent to the US Naval Station on the south, was built with fill from adjacent bay dredging by the USACE over a period of many years, see Figure 5. The original fills which established the San Die o industrial waterfront south of the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge (built in 1969@ and the NASSCO Shipyard, were placed in 1934 and 1937. The landward portion of the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal was partly filled prior to 1949. In 1949, a small fill was placed bayward of the bulkhead line. The fill for the Terminal itself was placed in 1955. Submerged lands adjacent to the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal were dredged by USACE in 1949 and 1955 to provide for deep draft vessels. Adjacent main channel dredging was conducted by USACE in 1941, during 1964 through 1966, and 1977 for military and commercial vessels, see Figure 6. The shoreline adjacent to the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal is bulkheaded and along adjacent marine industrial areas the shore- line includes various marine ways,docks, bulkheads, and riprap revetment, see Figure 7. 38 Existing land and water uses include marine related, water dependent industrial uses which support ship berthing at the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal, described in detail in the Master Plan. It is a deep water berthing terminal covering 96 acres. It handles inbound cargoes of general merchandise, chemicals, molasses, tuna, cement, and various ores. Major outbound cargos include chemicals and grain, which are loaded utilizing the Terminal's bUlk loader. The Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal handles about half of the Port's shipping tonnage. The adjacent Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) rail storage and marshalling yard has a capacity of 285 rail cars. The yard operates in conjunction with the marine terminal complex and the bulk loader for handling rail cargo for vessel shipment. Other marine related industrial uses include: boat building and repair facili- ties; marine engine sales; kelp processing facilities; tug boat services; storage/distribution of bunker fuels to cargo or passenger vessels, tugs, and fishing boats. Detailed descriptions are available for many existing marine industrial facili- ties in this area including: the Van Camp Tuna Cannery EIR (SDUPD, 1973b); Campbell Industries EIR (SDUPD, 1974a); Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Access Road Relocation (SDUPD, 1974e); Kelco Plant Expansion EIR (SDUPD, 1975d); San Diego Marine Side Launch Ramp EIR (SDUPD, 1975f); and four EIR's which ,address various im rovements and modifications of the NASSCO Shipyards (SDUPD, 1973a, c; 1974b, 7. The 1972 Master Plan designates the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal land area as "Industrial Marine Oriented." Water areas are designated "Industrial, Deep Draft Berthing" adjacent to the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal; "Industrial, Ship Building, Repair" from north of the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge to the NASSCO Shipyards; and "Industrial, Ship Building, Repair" adjacent to the NASSCO facility. Surrounding use s to the north and east include single and multifamily residen- tial use mixed with vari6"u--scommercial and industrial businesses (City of San Diego); military, commercial, and recreational water traffic in San Diego Bay to the south and west; and Naval Station facilities (Navy) to the south. The Naval Station (NAVSTA) is the only Naval Station on the West Coast and is the largest concentration of fleet operations in the United States. As described in the Naval Station San Diego Master Plan EIS (US Navy, 1978a, p. EX3): "The installation's physical plant consists of 722 acres of land and 316 acres of water; 475 buildings and structures with 4,628,000 square feet of floor space; 12 berthing piers, two channels. and a mole pier, furnishing 50,700 feet of berthing; a drydock; and supporting utilities." "The west or bay side of the NAVSTA houses operational, industrial, supply, and administrative functions within 321 acres; the east side contains 324 acres devoted to bachelor housing, outdoor recreation, and community facilities. Training,health care, and personnel support functions are located on both sides of the station. A 35-acre parcel lying between the east and west sides, and isolated by railroad tracks, is used for warehousing and open storage functions." 39 "The NAVSTA furnishes comprehensive shore support services to home-ported fleet units, which number over 90 ships and 26,000 personnel; limited support to 35 shore-based tenant activities and fleet commands; and various support services to the Naval Base complex, including provision of certain welfare, recreation, and community facilities, degaussing and port services." Adjacent land uses to the east are within the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego. The areas are zoned predominantly for industrial and light manufactu 'ring uses, as well as commercial facilities and some multi-family residential. The City of San Diego has proposed a community plan for this area, commonly known as the Barrio Logan Community. The area and proposals are described in a combined plan and draft EIR, The Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan (City of San Diego, 1979b, pp. 5-18) in part as follows: "The most prominent characterization of Barrio Logan is its Mexican- American community together with the waterfront industrial complex..." "...This former bayside residential district has changed into a combined residential-industrial community. The largest Naval Base in the Continen- tal United States serves as a back-drop, with heavy and light industry, and mixed commerce encroaching on the remaining residential sector." "The study area is bounded by Commercial Street to the north, 1-5 to the east, National City to the south, and San Diego Bay to the west." "The plan generally proposes an expansion and protection of the residential uses with the necessary supportive commercial and public facilities. It also recommends the organization, enhancement, and/or relocation of industrial development into identifiable units eliminating or minimizing in so far as possible the present incompatible mixed uses. The develop- ment of an industrial park for oceanic industries closely related to the Port's 10th Avenue Terminal would reinforce the water oriented industry already located on tidelands ... The plan also proposes ... a mercado commercial complex..." Goals and major recommendations include in part: the provision of open space links to the waterfront for public access to San Diego Bay in coordination with the Port District in an area just north and west of the Bay Bridge. Although Port District Board policy provides for public access, park use of Port tidelands in this location would be in non-conformance with the Port's 1972 Master Plan which designates the specific area adjacent to the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal as."Industrial, Marine Oriented", and contrary to intensification of existing harbor facilities for marine use according to Coastal policies. A commercial boat building/repair facility (Mauricio Boatyard) has been approved for a 4.9 acre area south of the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal. A Longshoremen's Union hall is being considered (1979) for a contiguous 0.7 acre site. These uses are in conformance with the Port's 1972 Master Plan and with the California Coastal Act of 1976, which places highest priority for such waterfront areas to be used for port purposes. 40 NATIONAL CITY BAYFRONT Planning District 5 (see Master Plan) includes 253 acres of land and 152 acres of water (submerged land). The area is 4sed for industrial and marine terminal purposes except for a small southeastern portion. Port tidelands within this Planning District are on artificial fill, see Figure 5. The northern portions were filled in 1941 for Navy vessel berthing; the area adjacent to the National @ity Marine Terminal was filled in 1946 also for Navy vessels; and the Terminal itself was placed in 1968. Adjacent submerged lands have been dredged by the USACE over a period of several years, see Figure 6. The portions to the north @nd west of the Terminal were dredged in 1946 and 1967; adjacent deep water berth- ing was dredged in 1969 and 1971; and areas further bayward were dredged by the USACE during 1941 through 1945, and 1975-1978 for military and commercial vessels. The shoreline in the northern portion of this Planning District is bulkheaded (Navy Pier). Riprap quarry stone protection exists around the entire Terminal and the northern edge of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel, see Figure 7. The building of requisite quay walls and wharves for the National City Marine Terminal is phased. The northerly side and northwesterly corner were completed as Phase I. Extension of the container crane wharf southerly by about 1,000 feet is planned for Phase II to provide for increasing terminal utilization (1979). Completion will be carried out as needed. The land area has been surcharged with adequate material to allow for various wharf designs. @xisting land and water uses include marine terminal operation, which specializes in the handling of containerized cargo, scrap metal, lumber, and bulk petroleum products for SDG&E fuel oil and ship bunkering. Bulk copper concentrate and coke, and containerized cargo are handled by the Port's container crane. Other marine related industrial uses include ship and boat building/repair facilities described in greater detail in the Ship Repair Facility EIR, Guy F. Atkinson Company (SDUPD, 1977a). This Planning District also includes a public recreational area, boat launching ramp, and vacant land at the eastern end of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel. A more detailed description of the National City Marine Terminal facility is provided in the Master Plan. The 1972 Master Plan designates the land areas as "Industrial, Marine Oriented" and "Industrial, General" for the National City Marine Terminal and for the land area to the east. The public boat launching ramp is designated "Parks, Recreation Areas". The water uses are designated "Industrial, Channel", and "Industrial, Deep Draft Berthing", adjacent to the National City Marine Terminal. Surrounding land and water uses to the north include the Naval Station (Navy); light and medium industrial uses to the i@a-st (National City); vacant land including the essentially barren D Street fill and adjacent tidal marsh at the Sweetwater River mouth (both within the City of Chula Vista) to the south; and commercial and recreational water traffic, to the west, in San Diego-RaT(Chula Vista/ California). Surrounding land uses to the east within the City of National City's juris- diction include industrial uses designated by the National City General Plan as "Light Industrial" and "Medium Industrial", (City of National City, 1975). A description of adjacent uses is given in the Business and Industrial Park Redevelopment Project EIR (Multi Systems Associates, 1977) and the Dixieline 41 Retail Lumber Facility EIR (Nasland Engineering, 1977). A detailed description of the US 'Army Corps of Engineer's proposals is available in the EIS entitled: Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel, State Highway Route 54, Interstate Highway Route 5, Recreation Facilities and Conservation of Marshlands (USACE, 1977b). A major boat bui,lding project proposal (being considered for the south- western corner of the National City Marine Terminal) is detailed in the Ship- building Facility EIR, Rohr Marine, Inc. (SDUPD, 1978a). CORONADO BAYFRONT Planning District 6 (see Master Plan) includes 162 acres of land and 103 acres of water (submerged land). The majority of this Planning District, which includes the area from the First Street residential shoreline on the Coronado Peninsula near North Island Naval Air Station to the Glorietta Bay area adjacent to the Naval Amphibious Base, has been constructed on artificial fill, see Figure 5.. The original fill north of the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge was placed in 1941 to provide Navy housing during World War II. The fills underlying the Coronado Golf Course were placed in 1956 and 1967. Submerged lands adjacent to the First Street shoreline were dredged by the USACE in 1944 and again during the main channel dredging projects in 1964 and 1975-78 to accommodate military and commercial vessels, see Figure 6. The San Diego/ Coronado Bay Bridge was built in 1969. Portions of submerged lands within Glorietta Bay including the boat channel out to the San Diego Bay main channel were dredged in 1956 and 1967. An additional boat channel.was dredged in 1956 adjacent to the Coronado Golf Course. The shoreline along First Street includes riprap rubble and unprotected areas, see Figure 7. Sandy beaches exist at the end of Orange Avenue; north and south of the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge; and intermittently spaced in other areas. Existing uses along the shoreline are primarily strolling, picnicking, and fishing. Existing land uses include commercial, marine related, and public utilities along First Street and Orange Avenue; vacant land (former site of a US Navy housing project), north of the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge, and recreational uses including the Coronado Golf Course on Port tidelands, and tennis facili- ties south of the Bridge; and recreationalmarinas in Glorietta Bay. Water uses include commercial, military, and recreational water traffic in San Diego Bay and Glorietta Bay. More detailed descriptions of existing land and water uses for the City of Coronado's jurisdiction are provided in the City of Coronado General Plan 1990 Master EIR (Ultrasystems, 1977); and the Port's Coronado Bay- front Precise Plan Development Program Background Report (SDUPD, 1978b) and Coronado Bayfront Development Plan Draft EIR (SDUPD, 1978d). These plans are currently (9/79) under joint reconsideration. The 1972 Master Plan designates land areas in the Orange Avenue area and in parts of the Second Street Shoreline area as "Commercial Recreation"; a portion of the Second Street Shoreline as "Parks, Recreation Areas"; and an area north of the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge as "Research Park". Areas south of the Bridge are designated "Park, Recreation Areas" and areas around Glorietta Bay are designated "Commercial Recreation". Water areas are designated "Open Bay Water" for all areas except for a portion of Glorietta Bay designated "Marina and/or Boat Repair". 42 Surrounding land and water uses within the City of Coronado include single- family and multi-family residential areas as well as commercial uses particu- larly in the Orange Avenue area. These are described in greater detail in the City of Coronado 1990 General Plan Master EIR (Ultrasystems, 1977). Surrounding land and water uses to the north include Naval Air Station (Navy) aircraft carrier berthing and air station operation activities (Navy); commercial, recreational, and military water traffic in San Diego Bay to the east (California); Naval Amphibious Base facilities (Navy) to the south; and residential and commercial uses to the west (Coronado). The relationship between land use designations included in the City of Coronado General Plan 1990 (City of Coronado, 1977a) and the 1972 Port Master Plan's designated uses on Port District tidelands was addressed in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan Draft EIR (SDUPD 1978d) in part as follows: "The City of Coronado 1990 General Plan shows land use designations for Port tidelands which are in non-conformance with the District's adopted Master Plan of-1972. The City of Coronado 1990 General Plan has placed land use designations of Parks, Recreation, and Open Space over the entire Tidelands Park, Second Street Shoreline, and Orange Avenue Area." The Coronado City Council appointed a planning group, the Coronado Land Use Com- mittee (CLUC) which worked from May 4, 1978 to August 9, 1979 (disbanded by Council action) to revise the City's suggested land uses on Port tidelands along the Coronado Bayfront. A joint Port/Coronado Ad Hoc Committee was formed March 30, 1979, including some members of the Coronado City Council and San Diego Port Commissioners to continue to work toward resolution of these and other key land use issues. A public recreational area, Tidelands Park plus a shoreline park, has been completed by the Port District through design phases for the area immediately north of the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge, but is currently (9/79) under reconsideration. CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT Planning District 7 (see Master Plan) includes 560.4 acres of land and 1,129.1 acres of water (submerged land). This Planning District is largely vacant. An aircraft parts assembly plant (Rohr Industries) and a boatbuilding and repair facility (Southwest Marine) are the major existing developments in the area. Port tidelands within this Planning District are on artificial fill, see Figure 5. The northern portion, which extends westward from D Street, commonly known as the D Street Fill, was placed in 1969. The westernmost bayward containment dike, which enclosed the fill material, overflowed during placement and formed a small earthen fan further bayward into the future expansion area. This fan has subsequently developed into a man-made mudflat. Near the southern portion around the western end of D Street and H Street, fills were placed in 1960 and in 1968. In 1968, the existing peninsula arm which protects the Chula Vista Boat Basin and also includes the public boat launching ramp facilities, was placed. Additional fill was placed further to the south adjacent to the Chula Vista Boat Basin in 1971. This same area has more recently (1978 and 1979) been the drying site of dredge material in connection with the Chula Vista Boat Basin/Wildlife Reserve project in South Bay. Adjacent submerged land has been dredged primarily for deep and shallow draft berthing and channels, see Figure 6. The portions to the north, adjacent to the D Street Fill, which include deep draft berthing in the Sweetwater Flood 43 Control Channel, were dredged in 1969. An extension from the deep draft berth- ing to provide shallow draft access to the southern areas was dredged in 1960 and in 1962. This shallow draft channel was extended from the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel to the G and H Street Fill areas in 1968, and was further extended to the Chula Vista Boat Basin in 1975. The shoreline throughout this Planning District is primarily unprotected in the northern and central areas, see Figure 7. Some riprap quarrystone protection exists adjacent to the G Street Fill area, within the Chula Vista Boat Basin, and around the bayward edge of the J Street Peninsula. Only very small, inter- mittent, sandy beaches exist in this Planning District, but extensive tidal marsh and mudflat areas are present, which provide support for a variety of recreational uses such as clamming, fishing, etc. Rohr Industries and Southwest Marine are both located on fill between G and H Streets. A public boat launching ramp and picnicking facilities are on the Chula Vista Boat Basin Peninsula. Land uses in the surrounding undeveloped areas in- clude bicycling, hiking, educational research and scientific activities, off road vehicle use, and illegal hunting and construction material disposal. The latter uses are confined largely to the D Street Fill and Sweetwater River tidal marsh, outside of the Port's jurisdiction. This Planning District has the greatest amount of Undeveloped tideland areas which have the greatest potential for land use changes as a result of implementation of the Port's proposed Master Plan. A more detailed description of existing land and water uses in the northern por- tion of this Planning District, primarily around the D Street Fill area, is pro- vided in the Chula Vista Ba front Redevelopment Project EIR (City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, 1976b@. A specialized water use south of the Chula Vista Boat Basin is the water intake channel used for power plant cooling by San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E). A dike separates the cooling water intake channel from the warm water discharge to the south. At the western ed e of the SDG&E dike, dredge spoil from the Chula Vista Boat Basin is currently ?1979) being used to create a 70-acre wildlife reserve. The existing land and water uses in the southern area, primarily around the Chula Vista Boat Basin, are described in the Chula Vista Boat Basin/Wildlife Reserve EIR (SDUPD, 1976b). Completion of the Chula Vista Boat Basin and surroundings, begun in 1971, involves shoreline revetment and wave protection structures; marina, with support facilities; public park development; and commercial recreation facilities including, for example, projects such as a recreational vehicle park. The 1972 Master Plan (SDUPD, 1972d) designates the land areas surrounding the D Street Fill as "Industrial, Marine Oriented". The shoreline from D to G Streets is designated "Preservation & Research, Tidal Mudflats". The extreme northern boundary of the G Street area was designated "Parks, Recreation Areas", "Commercial Recreation", "Public Recreation, Boat Launching", and "Industrial, Marine Oriented". These designations would provide for a future shallow access channel and marina between G and H Streets. Further to the south, the 1972 Master Plan designates a combination of "Industrial, General" uses for the extreme easterly areas. Adjacent areas are designated "Parks, Recreation Areas" and "Commercial, Recreation". The southern boundary of H Street is designated "Commercial Recreation", adjacent to the Chula Vista Boat Basin. The Chula Vista Boat Basin and J Street peninsula are designated "Parks, Re- creation Areas", "Public Recreation, Boat Launching", and a small strip of "Commercial Recreation" on a future outer peninsula. 44 The 1972 Master Plan water uses are consistent with the designated land uses. The Chula Vista Boat Basin area includes "Commercial Marina and/or Boat Repair". The G and H Street Fills include "Commercial Marina and/or Boat Repair" on the southern area, and a combination of "Commercial Sportfishing Berthing", and "Commercial Fishing Fleet Berthing" on the northern area. Water uses adjacent to the tidal marsh areas and mudflats between G and H Street and the D Street Fill are designated "Shallow Water", "Open Bay Water", and "Industrial, Channel". Further west, a water area is designated under preservation and research for "Aquaculture; Pond/Dike". Water areas adjacent to the D Street Fill are desig- nated "Industrial, Deep Draft Berthing" and "Industrial, Channel" within the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel. A southern area adjacent to the SDG&E dike is designated "Preservation and Research, Habitat Replacement". An area on the J Street peninsula outer extension is designated "Public Recreation, Public Fishing Pier or Access". Surrounding land uses to the east are within the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. Land uses south and east of the D Street Fill include recreational and educational uses in the existing fidal marshes (Chula Vista). Further south and east, extensive cultivation of horticultural crops, such as tomatoes, represent major agricultural uses (Chula Vista). Major surrounding land uses in the G and H Street areas include manufacturing facilities; commercial activi- ties, such as boatbuiding and motels; and electrical power generating facilities (SDG&E) southeast of the Chula Vista Boat Basin. Land uses to the east provide rail transportation access by the Atchison-Topeka and Santa Fe RailTo-ad (AT&SF). Utilization of Chula Vista tidelands has been described by the City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency (CVRA) in the Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project EIR (CVRA, 1976b, pp. 92-94), in part as follows: "In summary, the tidelands of Chula Vista have a history of poor utiliza- tion because of natural and man-made conditions. The significant natural factors include the shallow depth of the South Bay, the proximity of the area from the ocean for both recreational and commercial boating purposes, and the extensive marshlands. The man-made factors center on the railroad rights-of-way, the freeway, the high power lines, and the subsequent orientation and growth of the City away from the water..." "With the exception of the early (World War I) munitions plant on Gunpowder Point and the existing agricultural/commercial activities, use of the overall area, along with public access to the site, has been limited. Site zoning is.varied and relatively non-specific, permitting a wide variety of land use." in addition, development of land use in the surrounding area has been the subject of much debate and concern as summarized in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Master EIR (City of Chula Vista, 1973) in part as follows: "The mixed uses of the project area have led to a completely uncoordinated land use pattern, and it appears that until recently, the attitude has been that the area was essentially a waste area. It appears that the land was held by property owners with the expectation that as industrial use of the Bay Front extended southward from San Diego, the Chula Vista Bay Front would also ultimately become industHalized. Based on those assumptions, landfills were made, and in one locale, industry did locate. The other 45 areas of landfi-11 are barren, and covered with weeds. Public access is essentially non-existent north of F Street and west of Bay Boulevard. Access to the bay itself by the-public is limited to the foot of G Street and the J Street area of landfill, and none of the land area presents a particularly aetthetically pleasing appearance." Several major proposals have been put forth by various agencies for the land areas surrounding this Planning District. A description of the individual projects and their proposed phasing is available in the Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project EIR (CVRA, 1976b, p. 3), as follows: "This project constitutes the first phase of development of the Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. The proposed project has six distinct actions which have been reviewed for potential impact: 1) the proposed extension and alignment of Tidelands Avenue, 2) the preliminary grading plan for the northern section, 3) development and alignment of the utilit corridors, 4) the proposed drainage plan for the northern section, r5@ the alignments and extensions of F-G Streets and 6) enhancement of,impacted and degraded marsh land and upland areas immediately contiguous to roadway improvements." and as summarized on page 14: "It is anticipated that the actual construction of portions of the Tidelands Avenue and the E Street extension would be undertaken by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency (CVRA) within the next year. The remainder of the improvements would be constructed in phases as the total redevelopment of the area occurs." The six individual projects are described further in much greater detail in the Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project EIR (CVRA, 1976b, pp. 15-29). It should be emphasized, however, that in this same document a description of the future land use relationship based upon those improvement activities covered in the EIR included considerably different land uses than now exist for the area surrounding the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District. As described on pp. 31-34 of the EIR: "To clarify project parameters, it is important within the heading of 'Project Description' to discuss what is not (in a direct sense) part of this project. There are a variety of land uses proposed for the northern section of the Chula Vista Bayfront area ... The project described herein has utilized those land uses as a maximum base to determine road alignments and size, utility demand, traffic generation, project costs and impacts. This EIR/EIS, however, is not addressing the impact of those land uses except as they indirectly affect the project or encourage growth. These land uses will receive individual impact analyses as specific development plans are completed. Further, the overall development plan and proposed uses were analyzed in a Master EIR (MEIR) prepared by the City of Chula Vista in 1973." The Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Plan proposes residential, commercial and water oriented facilities for the D Street Fill area; a resort complex for the area known as Gunpowder Point south of the Sweetwater River mouth; a 46 reception center and golf course further to the east; residential, park, and commercial uses further to the south between E and F Streets; and an additional public park immediately south of F Street. The close relationship of the Chula Vista Bayfront Development Plan proposals with other agency proposals in the area has also been summarized in the Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project EIR, (CVRA, 1976b, pp. 33-34) in part as follows: "It has been assumed for the purpose of this report that the proposed Corps of Engineers' Sweetwater River Flood Channelization/Highway 54 Project will become a reality. This assumption is made because an integral part of that project is the purchase of the following for the purpose of preservation: Ahe Sweetwater Marsh .Vener Pond Vener Marsh .50 foot buffer surrounding the above areas However, if the Corps' project does not come to fruition, it has been stated other methods of Federal, State and Local purchase will be pursued." As stated by the US Army Corps of Engineers in the San Diego Harbor Navigation Channel EIS, entitled Final Environmental Statement San Diego Harbor, San Diego County, California (USACE, 1975, p. 27): "The proposed construction of the Sweetwater River flood control channel would provide flood protection for the Sweetwater River valley. It would also eliminate freshwater inflow and attendant sediment contribution to Sweetwater Marsh during periods of high runoff. Increased access would be provided to bayfront lands as a result of construction of the State Route 54 freeway and the completion of Tidelands Avenue across the Sweetwater Marsh. The construction of the Sweetwater River flood control channel would make available large quantities of excavated material, most of which would be used as land fill for the construction of the State Route 54 freeway. It is proposed that the flood control channel and the freeway be constructed simultaneously. A separate Environmental Statement is being prepared for this proposed project." The EIS subsequently prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers for construction is entitled, Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel, State Highway Route 54, Interstate Highway Route 5, Recreation Facilities, and Conservation of Marshlands, (USACE, 1977b). It summarized the project in part as follows: "The recommended plan.comprises 3.4 miles of earth-bottom trapazoidal channel to provide design flood protection. To save construction costs and reduce rights-of-way requirements, the flood control channel will be combined with a State of California freeway project. About 1.9 miles of the channel will be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes of State Route 54. Interstate Route 5 will be modified with the addition of one southbound lane, 1.5 miles in length and a freeway-to-freeway interchange with State Route 54. The project will include recreation facilities and acquisition of 188 acres of the 47 Sweetwater-Paradise marsh complex for (a) mitigation of effects resulting from channel construction and (b) preservation of lands for endangered species. Acquisition for mitigation will be a combined Federal/local action, while acquisition for preservation will be a Federal action. As a corollary element of the recommended plan, the San Diego Unified Port Dis- trict will designate 50 acres of mudflats as buffer area ((Note that the Port indicated that it would take this measure under consideration, on the basis that the total project move forward.)), and the California Department of Transportation wi 1 acquire 11 acres of degraded saltpan and marsh and reestablish them as high quality habitat." SILVER STRAND SOUTH Planning District 8 (see Master Plan) includes 31.3 acres of land and 178 acres of water (submerged land). Port tidelands within this Planning District include only the two islands (peninsulas) connected to the adjacent Coronado Cays via causeways. These two islands, North Island (Crown Isle), and East Island (Grand Caribe Isle), were established on artificial fill in 1969, see Figure 5. The Coronado Cays residential marina development area (within the City of Coronado) also received a portion of artificial fill in 1970 prior to construction of the housing development. It should be noted that none of the Coronado Cays residen- tial marina development is on tidelands. Adjacent submerged land has been dredged primarily for shallow draft recreational boat berthing and channel and by the USACE for Navy seaplane use during 1941-45, see Figure 6. To the south, Emory Channel was dredged for small boat launching in 1944. In 1969 the main access channel leading to Coronado Cays was dredged adja- cent to North Island and East Island. The network of channels which provides boat access to the residences within the Coronado Cays development was begun by Coronado Landmark in 1970 and some work continues to the present (Coronado). The shoreline throughout the Coronado Cays residential marina development within this Planning District is bulkheaded, see Figure 7. The shorelines of the two islands are largely unprotected with the exception of riprap along the northwestern shoreline of East Island and bulkhead at the northern extreme. Sandy beaches exist along the shorelines of both islands, and the shorelines to the north, including the Crown Cove area. Adjacent extensive mudflat areas provide support for a variety of recreational uses such as clamming, fishing, etc. Existing land uses on North Island and East Island include bicycling, hiking, and jogging. East Island also includes a real estate operation center for the Coronado Cays Company along Grand Caribe Causeway. Land on the adjacent Coronado Cays subdivision (City of Coronado) has been largely developed into an exclusive, high value, residential community which is separated from central Coronado by the Naval Amphibious Base (Navy) to the north and from Imperial Beach by the South Bay salt ponds to the south. The 1972 Master Plan designates the land area on East Island and North Island as "Commercial Recreation". The southwestern corner of East Island is desig- nated "Parks, Recreation Area". Adjacent to this area is a designation of "Public Fishing Pier or Access". Water uses are consistent with the land uses. Water area north of North Island is designated "Research Park", and "Commercial Marina and/or Boat Repair" south 48 of North Island. The outer water areas adjacent to East Island are designated "Channel", and "Commercial Marina and/or Boat Repair" on the inner water areas. Water areas further to the south are designated "Channel" and "Shallow Water". Surrounding land and water uses include single family, high value, residential and marina uses in the Coronado Cays development to the west (City of Coronado); and recreational boating and limited educational and scientific uses adjacent to the north, east, and south (California, Coronado, County of San Diego). Further to the southwest aT-ong the Silver Strand State Beach is the Naval Radio Station installation (Navy); to the north is the Naval Amphibious Base (Navy); and to the west adjacent to State Highway 75 is"the Silver Strand State Beach and parking area (State of California). 'The surrounding land uses are described in greater detail in the City of Coronado 1990 General Plan Master EIR (Ultra Systems, 1977). Projects being considered for the surrounding area include t hose proposed by the City of Coronado, the Navy, and the Army Corps of Engineers. The City of Coronado is considering the construction of an 18 hole golf course and country club recreational facility called Coronado Links Golf Course, south of the Coronado Cays development, north of the Naval Radio Station area on about 100 acres, (City of Coronado, 1979). Further north the Navy is considering a recreational marina facility south of the Naval Amphibious Base. This facility is described in: The Master Plan Water Oriented Recreation Facility, Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado, California (US Navy, i978c, pp. 2-4), in part as follows: "Eventual facility development will include construction of a new marina complex encompassing more than 300 new,boat slips, repair shops, office and storage space, dry berth space, concession storage space, and a major boathouse facility." "Additional requirements include a clubhouse, a dministrative and classroom facilities, bathhouses, and a variety of retail shops. Outdoor recreational facilities include a softball field, two volleyball courts, two basketball courts, six tennis courts, open and landscaped spaces for picnic or play areas, a sunning beach, and a natural wildlife area. Other facilities to be incorporated in the plan are a boat storage and repair lay-up yard, and parking spaces for approximately 600 vehicles with the capacity of accommo- dating 85 vehicles with trailers. In addition, facilities for a deepsea fishing boat are to be provided." "The site is located on the bay side of the Silver Strand approximately 2 miles south of Coronado'along-State Highway 75, and contains approxi- mately 30 acres of made land and harbor inlet." Starting with interest by the Federal Government in the 1930.'s, the Army Corps of Engineers has continued a minimal planning effort for a second entrance-to the southerly portion of San Diego Bay across the Silver Strand. The Army Corps of Engineers proposed five alternative plans north of Crown Cove on property under the jurisdiction of the Navy. A preferred location for a second entrance has been described in: Preliminary Environmental Assessment, Second Entrance to San Diego Harbor, San Diego County, California (USACE, 1977a, Appendix A); and in: San Diego Harbor Second Entrance -- A Navigation Study, 49 First Edition Public Brochure (USACE, 1976b). The project is described in the former report on pp. 1-2, in part as follows: "Five alternative plans are currently being investigated. Four of the Plans concern a second entrance to San Diego Harbor with varying widths, depth, and traffic crossing facility. The fifth plan, alternative 5, onsiders widening and deepening of the existing navigational channel." "The second entrance channel would cross the peninsula that forms the western perimeter of San Diego Bay. North Island, Coronado, and the Silver Strand are the major physical components of the peninsula. The City of Imperial Beach is located at the southern limits of the peninsula. The preferred location for a second entrance crossing is immediately north of the Silver Strand State Beach and within the city limits of Coronado ... This location would provide the shortest, most direct ocean access route to existing marine terminals, would cost the least to construct, and is preferred by the US Navy." "The preferred location of a second entrance channel crosses lands primarily in State and Federal ownership. The State lands (seaward side of State Highway 75) are presently leased to the Navy with the stipulation that they be returned to the State in an acceptable condition when no longer needed by the US Government. The Federal Government (Navy) owns much of the land bayward of State Highway 75." The alternative preferred by the US Navy (number three) would provide a channel 600 feet wide and 48 feet deep; would include a fixed highway bridge with 220 foot vertical clearance, or a tube (tunnel) crossing 50 to 60 feet beneath the channel; and would allow navigation by maximum sized Navy traffic, commercial shipping, and recreational boating. The report (USACE, 1976b, 1977a) did not recommend a preferred alternative. SOUTH BAY SALTLANDS Planning District 9 (see Master Plan) includes 192 acres of land and 605.5 acres of water (submerged land). With the exception of the Western Salt Company salt evaporation ponds and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) power generation facilities, this Planning District is undeveloped. No dredging or filling dates are recorded for this extreme southerly end of San Diego Bay. This Planning District does however include a complex of dikes which separate the extensive salt extraction area adjacent to the Otay River mouth into numerous individual salt evaporation ponds. In addition, a dike has been constructed to separate the cool water intake channel (north side) from the warm water dis- charge channel (south side) used by SDG&E. The shoreline throughout this Planning District is primarily unprotected, see Figure 7. Sandy beaches and extensive tidal marsh and mudflat areas adjacent to the shoreline provide for a variety of recreational uses such as clamming, fishing, hunting, etc. Access to these areas is primarily over privately owned or leased lands. Existing land and water uses include the production of salt through solar evaporation by Western Salt Company and electrical power generation by SDG&E. 50 Both uses are located on the eastern boundaries of this Planning District. Other land uses include occasional educational and.scientific trips out onto the salt pond dikes, primarily associated with annual migratory water fowl censuses. The area is also used infrequently for occasional fishing and illegal hunting. Water depths in the adjacent areas are inadequate for navigation by all but very shallow draft boats and rafts. The 1972 Master Plan designates the land areas as "Tidal Mudflats" and the water areas as "Aquaculture; Pond/Dike", both under the "Preservation and Research" category. Further bayward, the adjacent water area is designated "Shallow Water". On the extreme western edge an area is designated "Public Fishing Pier or Access". Surrounding land uses to the east are within the jurisdictions of the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego, as well as the County of San Diego. These areas are primarily in agricultural, commercial, light industrial, or low density resi- dential uses. To the south, similar uses are found within the jurisdiction of the Cities of San Diego, Imperial Beach, and Coronado. To the west, land uses include the Naval Radio Station ('Navy); and further to the north, along the adjacent shoreline, is the South Bay Marine Biology Study Area and Wildlife Preserve (County of San Diego, Department of Parks and Recreation). Adjacent areas continue to be served by the southernmost extension of the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad (SD&AE), which forms a perimeter around the eastern and southern portions of this Planning District. Surrounding area uses to the south and southeast have been described in greater detail in the Otay Mesa-Nestor Community Plan and Environmental Impact Report (City of San Diego, 1977b, pp. 2, 21), in part as follows: "The study area comprises approximatly 4,300 acres and is located in the northwesterly sector of the 17,750 acre San Diego Border Area. This area is bounded by S-117 and Leon Street to the south, the City of Imperial Beach to the west, the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad, Main Street, and the San Diego City limits to the north, and 1-805 on the east. The valley immediately north of the study area is within the Otay River flood- plain and lies in unincorporated territory of San Diego County. The San Ysidro Community lies south of Otay Mesa in the Tia Juana River Valley is south of the Nestor Community and west of 1-5." "This concept (.(Concept 4 - The Selected Concept)) assumes the adoption of the Otay Mesa-Nestor Community Plan and promotes (1) development of a relatively self-contained community by increasing job opportunities, (2) a balanced community with a variety of housing types, (3) orderly develop- ment of conveniently located commercial facilities, (4) enhancement of the overall quality of the physical environment and retention of the Otay Valley in open space uses." "Concept 4 attempts to retain the residential character of the community while providing well located commercial facilities and industrial parks. This alternative promotes the retention of Otay River Valley as open space and preserves the valley walls through development controls. Only moderate population growth is anticipated and relatively few new community facilities are likely needed." 51 The Otay Mesa-Nestor Community Plan de signates those land uses adjacent to the Port's South Bay Saltlands Planning District as primarily "Parks and Open Space", "Commercial", and "Very Low Density Residential". In May, 1979, the California Coastal Commission approved the Otay Mesa-Nestor Land Use Plan, submitted by the City of San Diego as the first of 14 "segments" of the City's total Local Coastal Program (LCP). The Commission found "no substantial issue" as to conformity with the Coastal Act and no changes in land use designations were made in the original (1977) Otay Mesa-Nestor Community Plan. The Land Use Plan addressed about 1200 acres within the Coastal Zone, off Port tidelands, southeast of the Port's South Bay Saltlands Planning District. Surrounding land to the south and southwest is within the jurisdiction of the City of Imperial Beach. The City of Imperial Beach has designated the lands adjacent to the southern portions of this Planning District in the Imperial Beach, California, General Plan 1990 (City of Imperial [email protected], 1968), for "in- dustrial" uses. 52 Open Space UNDEVELOPED AREAS Undeveloped areas (Summer, 1979) exist to a greater or lesser extent in each of the nine Port Planning Districts. It should be noted that physically vacant land may, nevertheless, be under a lease or on a permit. "Undeveloped" areas are de- fined for purposes of this EIR as physically vacant lands. This is in contrast to the California Coastal Act of 1976 definition of "development", which includes land/water used to store solid, liquid or gaseous materials, or which has been disturbed by grading, dredging, etc., and which for Coastal Act purposes are considered as "developed" areas. Vacant parcels exist north of the Commercial Basin in the Shelter Island Planning District; along the Harbor Island east peninsula in the Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field Planning District; adjacent7fo--the Coast Guard Station, Sea Port Village, Embarcadero Marina Park, -a_nd_lTa_vy Field in the Centre City/ Embarcadero Planning District; south of the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal and the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge-Tin-7he Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Planning District; north of the Atkinson Shipbuilding facility in the National City Bayfront Planning District; along the oute portions of the D Street Fill, the G and H Street fills, and east of the Chula Vista Boat Basin in the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District; along the North Coronado Bayfront shoreline area -adjacent to Second Street and Orange Avenue in the Coronado Bayfront Planning District; on Crown Island and Grand Caribe (East Island) in the Silver Strand South Planning District; and on the land areas surrounding the South Bay Saltlands Planning District. IMPROVED OPEN SPACE As distinguished from undeveloped areas or vacant land, Port District open spaces include improvements which physically enhance the existing setting and thereby contribute to a more satisfying, stimulating environment. Existing Port improvements include: landscaping of park areas; areas adjacent to traffic interchanges and median strips; and/or narrow, isolated, and irregular shoreline areas where use and development potential is limited. Many areas throughout the Port's nine Planning Districts include completely 'landscaped parks which encourage and serve as completely unrestricted public access to the land/water interface. Public recreational facilities such as fishing piers, boat launching ramps, beaches, historic feature landmarks, vista areas, scenic routes, promenade pedestrian routes, and bicycle and pedestrian trails are also provided. RECREATION/OPEN SPACE LAND AREAS Recreation and improved open space land areas exist within eight of the Port's Planning Districts. -Shoreline landscaping, a public fishing pier, and a public boat ramp, as well as an improved public sandy beach area, exist on the outer edge of the Shelter Island peninsula in the Shelter Island Planning District; -Spanish Landing Park and beach area are located within the west Harbor Island Basin in the Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field Planning District; -Harbor Island Shoreline Park is located along the outer shoreline of Harbor Island in the Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field Planning District. 53 -various pedestrian and bicycle promenades, landscaped areas, vista areas, and the passive and active Embarcadero Marina Park development, including a public fishing pier on the south peninsula, exist within the Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District; -several sandy beaches, a 98-acre golf course, and Tidelands Park (proposed) and pedestrian/bicycle shoreline promenade, are located within the Coronado Bayfront Planning District; -a public boat launching ramp, fishing pier, and landscaped park exist- adjacent to the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel in the National City Bayfront Planning District; -the Chula Vista Boat Basin and public boat launching ramp with parks and landscaping improvements, are located within the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District. All of the parks have been provided with public restrooms and other amenities. For additional details on recreation improvements, consult the Master Plan. RECREATION/OPEN SPACE WATER AREAS Various water uses occur around San Diego Bay in areas adjoining the Port's shoreline recreational areas: boat launching ramps, fishing piers, vista areas, and other public facilities where the need for open water is related to a shore activity. Open bay waters are used for many purposes including re- creational, educational, scientific, and natural habitat preservation. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT The 1972 Master Plan Open Space Element includes three major planning concepts. The first deals with natural resource utilization and includes five categories of open space classification under "Preservation and Research" activities. The second classification deals with both commercial and public recreational areas under the "Recreation" category. The third classification includes areas over which detailed development controls are proposed in a "Limited Development" category. The 1972 Master Plan includes development standards for certain areas under the category of "Limited Development, Light Intensity". These development standards control structure height, vista protection, architectural design, utilities undergrounding, landscaping, signing policies, and the provision of public access to the water. "Limited Development" areas exist along the western edge of the Shelter Island peninsula and within the Shelter Island Yacht Basin; along the shorelines of Harbor Island in the Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field Planning District; along the Second Street shoreline portions of the Coronado Bayfront Planning Dis- trict; along the Chula Vista Boat Basin northern shoreline in the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District; and on East Island and North Island, in the Silver Strand South Planning District. 54 The 1972 Master Plan includes a route designated as "Bicycle Trail" through all nine Port Planning Districts connected with bicycle routes through other juris- dictions to form a continuous bikeway around the perimeter of San Diego Bay. Public access for casual recreational uses along many portions of the San Diego Bay shoreline is available for fishing, swimming, picnicking, strolling, and bicycling. Locations of public bay access within each of the Planning Dis- tricts around San Diego Bay are geographically illustrated and tabulated along with their shoreline lengths in the Master Plan. 55 Air Transportation The Port of San Diego's Master Plan area and vicinity is a major center of commerce and industry for the entire San Diego region. Air transportation for passengers and cargo into the San Diego Bay area via San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field) constitutes a most influential factor in maintaining vital economic links with the downtown San Diego central business district, the shipping commerce associated with the Port of San Diego, and the resultant economic stability and growth potential of the greater San Diego region. SAN DIEGO PLAN FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION Because air transportation in San Diego is a regional issue, the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO), an association of local governments formed to assure overall areawide planning for the San Diego region, has drafted a San Diego Plan For Air Transportation (SANPAT). The objectives and findings of SANPAT are described in the Executive Summary, San Diego Plan for Air Transporta- tion, Final Report (CPO, 1976a) in part as follows: "The San Diego Plan for Air Transportation (SANPAT) is intended to serve as a guide for airport development within the San Diego Region through 1995. It is sufficiently detailed to enable the region's airport operating agencies to carry out definitive master plans for each individual airport. The planning effort, which was initiated in 1971, has provided for local, technical, and policy level input through specially appointed ad hoc committees, which have monitored the program and formulated recommendations to the CPO Board of Directors at key decision points. An extensive public information and public hearing program that included the appointment of a citizen hearing board to take testimony was carried out to ensure citizen participation in the decision making process. Tasks carried out in the initial phases of the effort included inventorying existing airports, preparing aviation demand forecasts, evaluating existing facilities to determine their ability to meet future requirements, and carrying out a preliminary evaluation of alternative potential sites to serve the Region's needs. As a result of this evaluation and CPO Board actions, the number of commercial airport alternatives was reduced to the Jollowing: Lindbergh expansion, Lindbergh realignment, civil Miramar, Carmel, and San Diego-Tijuana (Otay Mesa). Twenty-three potential general aviation airport alternatives were also retained for further consideration. Following public hearings and extensive deliberation by CPO member agencies, the following policy was adopted in April of 1976 by the CPO Board of Directors within the context of the updated regional transportation plan: Lindbergh Field in its existing runway configuration is designated as the site most suitable for serving commercial air transportation needs of the San Diego region through 1995. The ongoing airport system plan should be expeditiously completed based upon the decision to retain Lindbergh." 56 On January 15, 1979 the Comprehensive Planning Organization adopted the 1978 Update of the Regional Transportation Plan which contains an Aviation Element (CPO, 1978f). It states in part (pp. 71): "The San Diego Plan for Air Transportation (SANPAT) airport systems plan has been incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan as the Aviation Element. The plan is intended to serve as a guide for both commercial and general aviation developments within the region through 1995. The airport systems plan is sufficiently detailed to enable the region's airport operating agencies to carry out definitive master plans for each airport. The primary recommendation of the plan is that an airspace management element be prepared for the San Diego region based on the findings of the National Transportation Safety Board and FAA recommendations emanating from the recent aircraft accident as well as the SANPAT study. The plan also calls for a vote of the people to determine the future use of Lindbergh Field as a commercial aviation facility, and to consider possible options to the Lindbergh site. To better accommodate existing and projected passenger demand, the West Terminal expansion at Lindbergh Field is presently under construction and scheduled for completion in early 1979, ((completed July, 1979)). While staffs of the responsible agencies have agreed to work cooperatively to improve access and develop a land use plan for the Lindbergh Field area, work has not yet begun on either project." Further, the Plan delineates Aviation Policies specifically related to Lindbergh, as follows: "CPO shall prepare and adopt an airspace management element for the San Diego region. This will include consideration of the National Trans- portation Safety Board findings related to the September 1978 air crash, previous SANPAT information, as well as revised FAA procedures and plans for San Diego air navagational facilities. The issue of whether or not another commercial airport should be developed for the time period beyond 1995 should be submitted to the appropriate, voters in 1980. At the 1980 primary election the voters should decide whether another airport site should be considered. If the decision is affirmative, then the voters should consider alternative sites at the 1980 general election. All information pertaining to the site alternatives identified in the SANPAT study should be updated and made available to the public in sufficient time for consideration prior to the 1980 primary election. This should include information on the costs of alternative sites as well as the cost of remaining at Lindbergh Field. Lindbergh Field in its existing runway configuration is designated as the site most suitable for serving the commercial air transportation needs of the San Diego region through 1995. Except for safety and maintenance projects and projects currently underway, the Lindbergh Field facilities 57 should not be further expanded until after a decision is reached on its future role following the 1980 elections. Projects utilizing federal funds will be considered by the CPO through the A-95 process. A Master Plan identifying Lindbergh Field facility requirements through the year 1995 should be prepared by the San Diego Unified Port District by 1980 for incorporation into the 1980 Regional Transportation Plan. The City of San Diego shall coordinate the development of a Route Loca- tion Plan and an evaluation of other options for improving near tem access to Lindbergh Field. This will require the joint efforts of the City of San Diego for improvements to the local arterial system, the California Department of Transportation for localized improvements to the interstate highway system, the San Diego Unified Port District for the development of improved access within the airport boundaries, the US Department of Defense for military real property right-of-way considera- tions and other appropriate agencies. In light of Lindbergh Field's role as the region's air-carrier airport, commercial operations should be given first priority and general aviation activity should be limited so that it will have no adverse impact upon commercial aviation. In recognition of the severe noise problem which exists at Lindbergh Field, CPO encourages the immediate development and implementation by the San Diego Unified Port District of a definitive California State Noise Standard compliance program. Mitigation measures considered should include, but not be limited to, conversion of severely impacted areas to compatible land uses, acoustical treatment of impacted properties, purchase of noise aviation easements, restriction on the types of aircraft permitted to operate, and limiting the hours of operation. It is recognized, however, that while the purchase of noise easements and the acoustical treatment of structures will fulfill the legal requirements of the State Noise Standards, residents will remain subject to the adverse impacts of noise. Major investment in mitigation measures should be limited until the future role of Lindbergh Field is determined following the 1980 elections. A 1995 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Lindbergh Field should be pre- pared in accordance with the CPO's responsibilities acting as the airport land use commission. This plan should be based upon the influence area which takes into account accident potential and those areas adversely impacted by noise. In recognition of the Federal Aviation Noise Abatement Policy which states that the primary obligation to address the airport noise problem is a local responsibility, CPO encourages the State of California to reevaluate the California State Noise Standards in order to strengthen and clarify the local enforcement responsibilities of the County and to establish pro- visions for the funding of noise compliance programs. It is recognized that the accommodation of unconstrained general aviation demand within the 1978-1995 planning period will require the development 58 of two training strips with the conversion of one' to a full service airport. In order to preserve the option to develop these strips, the process of site selection and property acquisition should be pursued immediately by an appropriate designated agency. Responsibility for the further development, management and operation of the region's existing aviation facilities should remain with the current operating agencies. An appropriate entity to implement the new commer- cial aviation site should be designated if a new airport site is selected following the consideration by the voters. Pursuant to its regional aviation planning responsibilities, the CPO shall maintain a current facility inventory, document plan implementa- tion actions, assist the region's airport operating/implementation agencies in obtaining state and federal funding supprot, establish formal plan review and update procedures to be carried out in conjunction with the regional transportation plan update required under state law and under- take such additional efforts necessary to provide the information needed for the ballot issue in 1980. CPO should appoint a permanent Aviation Advisory Committee to facilitate the coordination between all appropriate aviation agencies and interest groups, to formulate plan change and new commercial aviation site recom- mendations for CPO action and to recommend an entity to implement a new commercial aviation site should one be selected." The regional setting of commercial, military and general aviation airports in the San Diego region has also been summarized in the 1978 Regional Trans- portation Plan (CPO, 1978f) in part as follows: "The region's existing airport system comprises one major commercial air-carrier facility, Lindbergh Field; twelve publicly administered general aviation airports; four military aviation facilities; and a number of private airports, heliports, and emergency strips ... and the United States Coast Guard operates a heliport and seaplane station adja- cent to Lindbergh Field." SAN DIEGO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (LINDBERGH FIELD) Lindbergh Field was dedicated as an airport August 16, 1928, after the land area was first filled in 1925. Facilities at Lindbergh Field which provide air transportation service to over 6,000,000 passengers a year, an average of about 16,000 a day, and more than 25,000 tons of air cargo handled annually, are summarized in the descrip- tion provided in the West Terminal Project, Lindbergh Field EIR (SDUPD, 1975b) in part as follows: "Lindbergh Field serves as the international airport for the San Diego metropolitan area. It i's the only airport in San Diego County which is served directly by commercial air carrier operations; eight major air carriers and three air taxi operators occupy space in the existing terminal facility. 59 Lindbergh Field is situated on a 487 acre site on the tidelands of San Diego Bay, and is therefore within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Unified Port District, operator of the airport. The existing terminal facility ((1975))is a relatively new building which opened in 1967, and provides a wide range of passenger services such as ticketing, baggage claim, a major food/beverage concession, car rental and six 160 foot ground level aircraft loading gates and ten 200 foot diameter ground level aircraft loading gates for commercial air carrier operation. At the east end of the field, there is also a modern general aviation terminal operated by Jimsair, the field's primary, fixed base operator (FBO). This operator and Lockheed Air Terminal provide most of the general aviation services such as repair, fueling, charter, and instruction flights. In addition, there are general maintenance and parking area for servicing commercial aircraft, air cargo facilities, fuel farm, inflight food service building, and rent-a-car ready area. The only major maintenance facility is operated by Pacific Southwest Airline (PSA). Other facilities include the FAA control tower, fire house, waste disposal building, and parking facilities for 2,929." Air Transportation provided through the East Terminal facilities was greatly enhanced in terms of efficiency by the completion (July 1979) of the West Terminal project as described in the West Terminal Project, Lindbergh Field EIR in part as follows: "The propo sed West Terminal project ((completed July, 1979)) is an addition to the air terminal facilities of Lindbergh Field. It will occupy a ground area of approximately 110,000 square feet in a one and two level building, linked with a pedestrian bridge over the parallel enplane and deplane roadways. The building will closely resemble the existing terminal in its appearance, and will provide second level boarding access for ten additional aircraft gate positions. The project will include the westerly extension of the on-site roadway system, and will increase the number of automobile parking spaces from 2,929 to approximately 4,000 spaces. External access will continue to be provided via Harbor Drive, with an additional loop construction in the northwest quadrant of the interchange. The site will be landscaped to blend harmoniously with the ornamental vegetation previously planted. The project does not include any improvements to the present runway system or its air operations capacity." The relationship of the West Terminal project to the East Terminal facilit ' ies at Lindbergh Field is described in the West Terminal Project, Lindbergh Field EIR in part as follows: "The West Terminal project ((.completed July 1979)) including the terminal building facilities, aircraft parking area improvements, and roadway parking area additions will allow Lindbergh Field to accommodate 8,000,0010 passengers every year without undue stress. The present ((1975)) Lindbergh Field passenger load is about 4.3 million passengers a year. It is expected that 8,000,000 would be reached in the early 1980's. Thus, the thrust of the project is accommodating near-term needs between now and that time, since the design capacity of the present terminal (4.0 million/year) has already been reached. 60 Past experience at L indbergh Field, as well as current experience at other major commercial airports indicates that passenger loadings generally re- spond to air travel demands'as related to a region's population growth, economy, and overall transportation network.. The present runway capacity, at Lindbergh Field is 175,000 air carrier operations/year, a figure which is not expected to be reached until after the 1990's, based on current trends. Presently ((1975)) Lindbergh Field is handling about 70,000 carrier operations per year This project is specifically focused on ensuring that a high level @f service is maintained at Lindbergh Field between now and the early 1980's.1' 61 Circulation SAN DIEGO BAY REGIONAL CIRCULATION Vehicle traffic circulation within and surrounding the Port's Master Plan area is interconnected throughout the San Diego region by a network of major freeway systems. Interstate 5 and 805 provide north-south direction linkages between Orange County and Los Angeles areas and the US/Mexico border. Interstate 5 allows close access connections to the eastern boundaries of Port tidelands and thereby provides the most critical regional transportation link to the San Diego Bay industrial areas, Lindbergh Field, and to US Naval Facilities. Interstate 805, further inland to the east, links more distant easterly areas to the San Diego Bay region via several east-west connectors, such as Highway 94. Recre- ational and commercial centers in Mission Valley and Mission Bay are connected to Interstate 5 by an east-west linkage via Interstate 8, see Figure 8. Rail service is provided to the Master Plan area by two major freight and passenger lines. The Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Rail Road (AT&SF) provides passenger service (via AMTRAK) from northern areas, to the Santa Fe passenger station adjacent to the Port's Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District. AT&SF also provides a freight line with extensive marshalling and switching yards further south to the Port's Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal. The San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway (SD&AE) provides freight service connections be- tween the Port's National City Marine Terminal and eastern areas, including Imperial Valley and Arizona areas. A crossover connection between the AT&SF and SD&AE lines near the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal provides freight connec- tion access from northern areas to the Port's National City Marine Terminal. A major project proposal adjacent to the Port's Master Plan area, with regional circulation importance is the San Diego Light Rail Transit Project being insti- tuted (1979) by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB). The proposal is summarized in the Guideway Project, Centre City San Diego to San Ysidro, Supplemental Draft EIR (MTDB, 1978a, pp. 4b-4c) in part as follows: transit (LRT) vehicle system from the west side of the Santa Fe depot in "The construction and operation of an approximate sixteen mile, light rail Centre City San Diego, via "C" Street and Twelfth Avenue via the SD&AE railway track to San Ysidro. The electric powered vehicle(s) would operate at grade on dual tracks on "C" Street and Twelfth Avenue to Imperial, then south on 13th Avenue along the side of the SD&AE railway yard where it joins, west of Sigsbee Street, the single track of the main line. The LRT will share useage of track with the SD&AE railway on the main track. Passing tracks as required would be provided for the LRT in the yard at Twelfth Avenue to San Ysidro. Operation of the LRT is planned for 7 days a week from approximately 6:00 AM to 1:00 AM with typically 15 minute headways during the day. The schedule will be set in a manner which will accommodate straight service on the line. 62 M MM w M M M M M MM Mao @J' .k .......... ... .. ... .. ...... .... (b cq@ 3 Ln' 0 130 ................ . ......... \j 00.0 Traffic Volume in Thousands ALL VOLUMES ARE BASED ON TRAFFIC COUNTS RECEIVED BY CPO FOR 1978 AND STANDARDIZED FOR AN AVERAGE WEEKDAY. SOURCE: 1979 Average Daily Traffic Volumes, San Diego Metropolitan Area, Comprehensive Planning organization Cale Vehicle Traffic Circulation Figu 00, Planning Department San Diego Bay Area E S 11C 11 Street from Kettner Boulevard to 10th Avenue is planned as a pedestrian/ transit street having restricted traffic service; 10th Avenue to 12th Avenue, then south to the SD&AE main track will have the LRT operating in mixed traffic. (PUC classification C-1)." The proposed MTDB Guideway project would provide service to a total of seven different areas with 15 different stations, many with adjacent parking lots to be constructed at locations placed throughout the seven designated areas, (MTDB, 1978b), see Appendix B, Figure B-14. The MTDB Guideway project proposes an efficient mode of passenger transporta- tion along its corridor, east of Port tidelands and parallel with 1-5. The project, however, would require joint useage of the existing SD&AE railway which, as has been mentioned, is the primary means of north-south freight movement in support of Port of San Diego industrial and maritime activities. Another major proposal with regional circulation importance adjacent to the Master Plan area is the Bay Route Bikeway. This proposal is a joint powers agreement between the cities of San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, and Coronado; the County of San Diego; and CALTRANS to construct a 22 mile bikeway around a major portion of San Diego Bay. The project is described in the Bay Route Bikeway Draft EIR (City of San Diego, 1978e) in part as follows: "The 22 mile bikeway extends from the intersection of Pacific Highway and Harbor Drive in the City of San Diego through the jurisdictional limits of National City, Chula Vista, San Diego County, Imperial Beach, and into the City of Coronado. The entire project is within the perimeter of the San Diego Coast Regional Commission. Several segments are within the San Diego Unified Port District. In the cities of San Diego and National City, the bikeways project follows the Pacific Coast Bi-Centennial Route for approximately 5 miles. The recommended project includes constructing about 7.8 miles of Class I Bikeway (separate paved path, 10 feet to 16 feet wide), 11.8 miles of Class II Bikeway (striped bike lane on existing streets), and 3.0 miles of Class III Bikeway (shared lane on existing streets). Most of the Class I separate bike path is to be constructed within the San Diego Arizona Eastern Railway right-of-way along State Highway Route 75 from Imperial Beach to the City of Coronado proper. Railroad tracks were removed by the railroad company several years ago except for about 200 feet of track located near 7th Street in Imperial Beach. Another short, 0.4 mile, segment of Class I bikeway is proposed between Bay Boulevard and 19th Street in the City of San Diego." About two-thirds of the proposed bikeway project would consist of signing, striping or minor widening along existing streets. About one-third of the proposed project would consist of a separate bikeway most of which would be constructed within the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway right-of-way along State Highway 75, from Imperial Beach into the City of Coronado. The northern extension of the proposed bikeway which begins at the intersection of Pacific Highway and Harbor Drive in the City of San Diego, is intended to 65 connect with the Port's 1972 Master Plan Bicycle Trail. The Port's Bicycle Trail provides for a bikeway through the Coronado Bayfront and from Shelter Island around Harbor Island and the Embarcadero to the Bay Route Bikeway connection. Vehicle traffic circulation within the Port's Master Plan area is described as follows for the Port's nine Planning Districts. Data have been obtained from the Comprehensive Planning Organization's updated 1979 regional traffic volume map (CPO, 1979) and accompanying tables; as well as the Circulation Analysis prepared for the San Diego Unified Port District by Berryman & Stephenson, Inc. (1979). See also Appendix B for Circulation Analysis Summary Traffic Circula- tion and Congestion information, and Speed and Delay Studies. SHELTER ISLAND Tidelands Access Regional vehicular access into Planning District I is from Interstate 5 and 8 freeways, about two miles to the east. The transition is made on local major streets. Rosecrans Street and Harbor Drive are the principal feeder routes from other local streets. Local access is provided via streets which cross Rosecrans and lead down to the waterfront, particularly Canon Street, Shelter Island Drive and Nimitz Boulevard. Scott Street also links these streets and provides addi- tional access. Street System Shelter Island Drive serves the Shelter Island peninsula. A two-lane collector street, it has a right-of-way of 80 feet.and a paved surface 50 feet wide. The street collects local traffic, provides on-street parking and access to abutting commercial properties, and accommodates commercial truck-trailer movements of large boats or frozen fish. Circulation to upland areas is provided by inland roads such as Rosecrans or Scott Street. Harbor Drive is a six-lane major street which connects downtown City of San Diego to Point Loma. It provides a northern connection to Scott Street for access to Shelter Island. Other local streets are extensions of the Point Loma grid pattern and terminate near the waterfront. Traffic Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts of representative streets in Planning Dis- trict 1 are given in Table 1. Traffic in the Shelter Island area is relatively heavy. At peak times traffic may be backed up due to traffic signals or vehicles turning into driveways. Heavy congestion is infrequent and for relatively short periods. The Shelter Island peninsula is connected to the mainland by a long, narrow causeway developed with manyactive boatyards and businesses. Traffic is somewhat impeded by movement onto and from the boatyards and businesses along the corridor. Street parking, pedestrian crossings, and cars pulling out of driveways cause traffic flow to slow down. Traffic congestion is most frequent on Shelter Island Drive from Rosecrans Street (off tidelands) to the traffic circle on the peninsula. Intermittent congestion 66 Table 1 Shelter Island, Planning District 1, Average Daily Traffic Counts Street Cross Street Lanes ADT Harbor Drive Navy Estuary 4 35,700 Harbor Drive East of Scott Street 4 23,400 Scott Street South of Harbor Drive 4 13,900 Shelter Island Drive Anchorage Lane 2 14,200 Shelter Island Drive North of Traffic Circle 2 1,200 Shelter Island Drive South of Traffic Circle 2 7,200 Anchorage Lane Shelter Island Drive 2 1,600 Rosecrans Street Shelter Island Drive 4 20,100 (Off Tidelands) Rosecrans Street Nimitz Boulevard 4 28,100 (Off Tidelands) Nimitz Boulevard Harbor Drive 4 15,900 (Off Tidelands) 67 also occurs at the turn from westbound Harbor Drive to Scott Street and in the area immediately around Fisherman's Landing. Parking The total number of parking spaces in Planning District I is 5,069 (March, 1979), including 2,327 public spaces and 2,742 private (leased) spaces. Most of the public spaces are contained in the public lots scattered throughout the area, expecially on the bay side of the peninsula and at Fisherman's Landing. There are a total of 544 curbside parking spaces. Private spaces also exist at hotels, restaurants and other businesses. Some are available for public use. A total of 258 parking spaces are reserved for boat storage at three yacht clubs on the peninsula. Parking space demand on Shelter Islan'd is a result of the high activity level of all the uses. Because of space limitations, corridor businesses provide a minimum amount of on-site parking. Cars are forced to park at the curb, which causes congestion in some areas. Weekend parking space demand is high near recreation areas, while weekday parking demand is highest near the boating businesses on the corridor. The Sportfishing Landing area experiences continuous parking shortages during the peak fishing season. Other Circulation Aspects San Diego Transit bus service is provided along Rosecrans Street but there is no service directly into Planning District 1. Most of the hotels on Shelter Island provide limousine service for their guests,.and a tourist bus visits the area as part of its normal service. Existing streets provide bicycle access to Shelter Island, but there are no special facilities such as lane or grade separation. In addition to the usual sidewalks serving the parks and commercial businesses on Shelter Island, the Port District has constructed a waterfront pedestrian path along Fisherman's Landing. HARBOR ISLAND/LINDBERGH FIELD Tidelands Access Regional access into Planning District 2 is from Interstate 8 via Nimitz Boulevard and Harbor Drive and from Interstate 5 via Rosecrans Street or Laurel Street. Both of these routes involve considerable travel over local streets before entering the district. Street System Airport and Navy facilities block street access except from east or west along the southern edge, or from the east and north on Pacific Highway. Thus, all traffic must arrive on Harbor Drive or Pacific Highway. A potential bottleneck is, however, avoided because turn options are restricted. Harbor Drive is a connector street between Point Loma and downtown San Diego and provides access to Lindbergh Field and Harbor Island. It also is the 68 access road for three major employers, PSA, Ryan Aeronautics, and part of Convair, and several smaller businesses. It is a six-lane carrier classified as a major street. Pacific Highway is a peripheral road forming the northeast boundary. Laurel Street is another boundary street connecting Pacific Highway and Harbor Drive on the southeast. Traffic Counts Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts of representative streets in Planning Dis- trict 2 are given in Table 2. Due to the high activity levels at Lindbergh Field, industry on the Harbor Island peninsula, and serving as the major downtown to Point Loma link with major Naval facilities, Harbor Drive has high traffic volume. At 61,900 vehicles per day, it carries more traffic than any other street in San Diego, but flows smoothly due to a straight, open design and few intersecting driveways. Conges- tion does occur during rush hours, during peak airport use times, and when accidental bottlenecks occur. A major congestion factor is the necessity to manually manage employee traffic from Ryan during shift changes. Laurel Street is the primary access street around the east end of the airport, and therefore experiences fairly constant high level use. The short blocks east of Pacific Highway which include a railroad crossing exacerbate this problem. Harbor Island Drive, however, is not congested. Traffic congestion in Planning District 2 occurs at the following locations: Harbor Drive between Laurel Street and Harbor Island Drive due to airport traffic, local employment, and Harbor Island activities. Laurel Street, caused by airport traffic and other westbound traffic. Parking A total of 14,531 parking spaces exist in the Lindbergh Field/Harbor Island Planning District (June, 1979). Of this total, 5,740 are public parking spaces, including 3,783 pay spaces at the airport and 1,957 other public spaces, mostly at Spanish Landing Park and Harbor Island. There are 437 curbside on-street spaces. There are 8,791 private parking spaces. These are primarily utilized for employee parking by Convair, Ryan, PSA, and other major area employers. The total includes 2,917 spaces on Harbor Island associated with commercial recreation uses. Parking shortages are primarily restricted to industrial uses where manufacturing employment fluctuates. Occasional parking shortages occur during peak use times on Harbor Island but are usually of short duration. Other Circulation Aspects San Diego Transit bus service is provided to Lindbergh Field and along Pacific Highway (several routes). All routes go to the downtown San Diego area and 69 Table 2 Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field, Planning District 2, Average Daily Traffic Counts Street Cross Street Lanes ADT Harbor Drive East of Navy Estuary 4 35,700 Harbor Drive West of Laurel Street 6 61,900 Harbor Drive West of Winship Lane 6 60,700 Harbor Island Drive North of Harbor Drive 4 17,600 Harbor@ Island Drive South of Harbor Drive 4 13,600 Harbor Island Drive West of H.I. Traffic Circle 4 9,500 Harbor Island Drive East of H.I. Traffic Circle 4 4,200 Stillwater Road North of Harbor Drive 2 700 Winship Lane North of Harbor Drive 2 3,900 Pacific Highway North of Laurel Street 6 19,600 Washington Street North of Interstate 5 4 21,900 (Off Tidelands) Laurel Street East of Pacific Highway 4 23,700 (Off Tidelands) 70 from there link up to others going regionwide. Harbor Island hotels provide limousine service to the.airport, train, or intercity bus stations. A tourist busline also provides transportation to major tourist attractions. Curbside taxicab service is provided at the airport, and rental cars are available at the airport and along Pacific Highway. A Class I (separated) bicycle path runs on the south side of Harbor Drive between Harbor Island Drive and Laurel Street. Because of their design, other streets are easily used by bicycles. Some intersections may be hazardous for bicycle use, particularly Harbor Drive/Laurel, and Pacific Highway/Laurel. Bicycle paths also are provided in Spanish Landing Park and along the Bay side of Harbor Island. Many of the above mentioned bicycle paths are utilized by pedestrians. Extensive, improved pedestrian walks exist on Harbor Island and Spanish Landing Park. No sidewalks are available on the north side of Harbor Drive, forcing pedestrians to cross to the south side or walk through parking areas. CENTRE CITY/EMBARCADERO Tidelands Access Principal access into Planning District 3 is made via Interstate 5 from the north, along Kettner Boulevard and intersecting east/west streets or Pacific Highway; from the south, along Grape Street; from Point Loma and areas south along Harbor Drive; and from the east along Ash Street, Broadway, or Market Street. Street System Internal circulation is along Pacific Highway and Harbor Drive. Both have considerable through traffic and are major arterials which connect with other parts of San Diego. Harbor Drive carries 60,000 vehicles per day west of Laurel Street; 40,000 at Hawthorn; 16,000 south of Grape; and 10,000 south of Broadway. South of Grape Street, Harbor Drive serves primarily as local access to adjacent activities. Pedestrian movements are heavy and parking maneuvers are frequent. South of Broadway, Harbor Drive is further constricted, discouraging through traffic. Pacific Highway, a six-lane divided arterial, borders Planning District 3 on the east. Traffic volumes are relatively light because the Interstate 5 freeway functions as the main north/south coastal road in this area. Pacific Highway is, however, a major access road to downtown San Diego, the Embarcadero area, and to various tideland tenants. The remaining tideland streets of this grid patterned system are the termini of east-west streets serving the Centre City area. They provide access from down- town San Diego and cross-circulation within the Embarcadero area. Grape and Hawthorn are one way streets which provide access from Interstate 5 to downtown San Diego, the airport, and upland areas surrounding North San Diego Bay. Traffic Counts Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts of representative streets in Planning Dis- trict 3 are given in Table 3. 71 Table 3 Centre City/Embarcadero, Planning. District 3, Average Daily Traffic Counts Street Cross Street Lanes ADT Harbor Drive West of Laurel 6 61,900 Harbor Drive Hawthorne 6 35,300 Harbor Drive Ash 6 17,700 Harbor Drive North of Broadway 4 12,500 Harbor Drive South of Broadway 2 12,500 Harbor Drive Pacific Highway 4 12,400 Harbor Drive Fifth Avenue 4 12,400 Pacific Highway Laurel 6 16,700 Pacific Highway Ash Street 6 12,500 Laurel Street Harbor Drive 4 17,900 Hawthorne Street Harbor Drive 3 14,100 Grape Street Harbor Drive 3 13,000 Ash Street Harbor Drive 4 10,500 Broadway Harbor Drive 4 9,700 72 In general, traffic flow on Planning District 3 streets is relatively uncongested. During off-peak hours, the flow is steady with delays caused by necessary traffic signals. During peak hours, traffic flow is slow but stable, with intermittent delays at traffic signals. Occasionally traffic flow becomes more restricted and delays more lengthy, but queues rarely occur. Congestion occurs at the following locations: -Harbor Drive at Laurel Street, caused by conflict with Lindbergh Field traffic. Regulated by traffic signal. -Harbor Drive at Hawthorn/Grape Streets, caused by airport-freeway traffic and local employment peak traffic. Well regulated by signals. Heavy most times, congested during peaks. -Laurel, Hawthorn, and Grape Streets, due to short blocks which cause intersection blockage. Aggravated by work shift peaks and train crossings. Probably the most critical location due to high volumes and short blocks. -Harbor Drive at Ash Street, caused by intermixture of tourist traffic with local and through traffic. Pedestrian activity high during midday. Parking There are 2,850 public parking spaces in the Centre City/Embaracdero, 936 of which are on-street spaces. -In the tourist areas, many spaces have been metered to regulate heavy demand. Public parking lots are located on Broadway Pier, G Street Mole, and the Harbor Seafood Mart. These lots do not include about 1,100 spaces in the adjacent County of San Diego Administration Building lots, off Port tidelands. Private parking (actually leased parking which is at times used by others) totals 2,553 spaces. Some of these are reserved for employee parking such as for Solar Industries or Campbell Shipyards, but most are used by customers of the commercial businesses along Harbor Drive and adjacent streets. Parking is not in short supply in the Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District except during peak demand times near the Solar Turbine plant and the County building, along main tourist area near Broadway and Harbor Drive, and at the Harbor Seafood Mart. Other Circulation Aspects Bus transportation to the Centre City/Embarcadero is provided by San Diego Transit Corporation. Several routes run along Harbor Drive and Pacific Highway. A separated bicycle path has been constructed on Harbor Drive between Broadway and Market'Street. In other parts of the Centre City/Embarcadero, bicyclists must use local streets or parking areas. Bicycle traffic along the Embarcadero is relatively light. Pedestrian activity in Planning District 3 primarily involves local workers and tourists. Employment centers such as Solar and the County of San Diego Adminis- 73 tration Building generate walking traffic during shift changes and lunch hours. Tourist attractions including Broadway Pier, Anthony's Restaurants, and the Star of India draw pedestrians on weekends and on weekday afternoons. Although pedestrian traffic signals have been installed in some of these critical areas, they are not always utilized. TENTH AVENUE MARINE TERMINAL Tidelands Access Regional access in Planning District 4 is from Interstates 5 and 15, and State Highway 75. Principal feeder routes from these freeways are Crosby Street and Harbor Drive. Harbor Drive provides major access from the north and south. Other access roads are 8th Avenue, Gull Street, Belt Street, Crosby Road, 28th Street, and 32nd Street. Street System Few streets are located on tidelands in Planning District 4 because most tenants front on Belt Street and Harbor Drive, both peripheral roads. Access to the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal is via Crosby Road which is an extension of Crosby Street. Gull Street provides additional tenant access. Traffic Counts Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts of representative streets adjacent to Plan- ning District 4 are given in Table 4. Industrial employers in Planning District 4 attract heavy employee and business related traffic. 'Congestion occurs during shift changes at Van Camp Seafoods, Sun Harbor Marine Industries, National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO), and to some extent at adjacent smaller industries. Shift changes occur 2-4 times daily, usually on weekdays only. Peak vehicle traffic congestion typically lasts 10-15 minutes. Local collector street capacity is generally adequate to handle most commuter traffic, but local congestion does occur at 28th Street, Crosby Street, and other north-south streets. Train crossings east of Belt Street and east of Harbor Drive cause occasional backups onto intersecting streets. Truck traffic from Tenth Avenue can also be heavy at times. Parking There are a total of 2,035 parking spaces in Planning District 4. Of these, 257 are on-street (curb) parking spaces and another 297 are public spaces at the Tenth Avenue Terminal and the Port District Maintenance Yard. The remaining 1,481 are private spaces on leased land, most of which are reserved for employees or for limited business purposes. Parking is in short supply in Planning District 4. About 50,000 people are em- ployed in the general industrial and Naval Station areas between the Interstate 5 freeway and the Bay. The existing 1,481 private spaces excluding Naval Station parking, are not adequate to accommodate the demand on the tidelands portion of this general area. Additional spaces are available on upland areas, but off- street space is scarce, which results in high use of curbside parking by industrial commuters. Demand is highest at NASSCO and Sun Harbor Industries. 74 Table 4 Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal, Planning District 4, Average Daily Traffic Counts Street Cross Street Lanes ADT Crosby Street South of Harbor Drive 2 4,200 28th Street North of Harbor Drive 2 10,500 32nd Street Nor th of Harbcr Drive 6 21,600 Harbor Drive West of Beardsley Street 2 13,600 8th Avenue North of Harbor Drive 2 4,000 75 Other Circulation Aspects Rail spurs serve the Tenth Avenue.Terminal and feed back to the San Diego and Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) and the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe (AT&SF) main tracks. Other spurs serve Kelco, NASSCO, and other tideland tenants. NATIONAL CITY BAYFRONT Tidelands Access Regional access to Planning District 5 is available from Interstate 5 via 24th Street or 13th Street. Nineteenth Street also allows local access from nearby uplands. Access to the National City Marine Terminal is directly from 24th .Street. Street System Tidelands Avenue forms part of the National City Bayfront east boundary and is the main street of Planning District 5. All activity in the National City Bay- front is industrial@-related, except for a public boat launching ramp. Four- lane streets carry employee traffic and truck traffic associated with lumber storage and other industries. Quay Avenue, 28th Street, and 19th Street, are minor low volume local streets that connect the main streets and provide access to businesses. Traffic Counts Traffic congestion is not apparent in Planning District 5. Traffic is nearly all industrial except for that associated with the public park/launching ramp which has access along Tidelands Avenue to the waterfront. Parking Parking is readily available on all tidelands parcels. Of the 1,239 total parking spaces, 836 are public spaces, primarily on-street parking and trailer parking at the National City Boat Launching Ramp. Of the private spaces, 244 are at the former International Telephone and Telegraph Company (ITT) Plant location. Other Circulation Aspects No bus, bicycle or pedestrian facilities are provided in Planning District 5. CORONADO BAYFRONT Tidelands Access Regional access into Planning District 6 is available from the south along State Highway 75 which enters Coronado via the Silver Strand, or from the east over the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge. Local access is available via State Highway 75 and Orange Avenue, a prime arterial, as well as from several local streets which abut the Coronado Bayfront, primarily Glorietta Boulevard, lst, 2nd and 3rd Streets, and A and B Avenues. Street System Public streets on Port District tidelands which serve the general Coronado community include portions of First and Second Streets, C and D Avenues adjacent to the City of Coronado Public Works yard, and a portion of Pomona Avenue near 76 Glorietta Bay. Some abandoned, closed streets remain on a former Navy Housing site north of the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge. Traffic Counts Because there is very little traffic-generating development on tidelands in Planning District 6, most of the traffic passing on nearby streets results from off-tidelands activities, particularly the Navy. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts of representative streets adjacent to Plan- ning District 6 are given in Table 5. Traffic congestion near tidelands in Planning.District 6 occurs primarily at the Third/Fourth Street couplet which provides the approach and exit streets for the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge. Peak traffic significantly impacts the entire circulation pattern in the north part of the City of Coronado, primarily from the Naval Air Station and Amphibious Base, City of Coronado (1977b),. Additional con- gestion occurs along State Highway 75 where high traffic volume enters'Coronado from the south. This area, specifically the Pomona/Highway 75 intersection, has a high accident rate. Parking There are 109 off-street and 42 on-street parking spaces on tidelands streets, in Planning District 6. Additional upland spaces include 32 at the Bridge Toll Plaza; 71 along Orange Avenue; 67 at the Coronado Yacht Club; and 76 at the Glorietta Bay Marina. Parking is not in short supply on tidelands because private uses provide adequate on-site parking. Additional parking exists in unmarked areas near Little League baseball parks and on vacant land. Parking demand sometimes exceeds available spaces in the Chart House/Glorietta B ay Marina,area. Other Circulation Aspects San Diego Transit bus transportation is available over the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge. The nearest stop to tidelands is at Second and C. The bus continues to the Naval Amphibious Base and then passes near the Glorietta Bay tidelands. The buses mentioned above have bicycle racks to enable riders to connect to San Diego over the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge. Although no special bicycle facilities exist, most local Coronado streets are suitable for bicycling. No improved pedestrian facilities exist on tidelands. CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT Tidelands Access Regional access into Planning District 7 is available from Interstate 5 via J Street. Access from the City of Chula Vista is provided from F and J Streets and the Tidelands Avenue link. There is no paved access to the D Street fill area. Street System Tidelands Avenue, a four-lane divided collector street, is the principal street 77 Table 5 Coronado Bayfront, Planning District 6, Average Daily Traffic Counts Street Cross Street Lanes ADT SD-Coronado Bay Bridge Glorietta Boulevard 5 35 000 First Street E Avenue 2 3,400 First Street B Avenue 2 2,600 Second Street A Avenue 2 2,600 Glorietta Boulevard 3rd Street 2 700 Glorietta Boulevard 5th Street 2 1,300 Glorietta Boulevard Monterey Avenue 2 1,800 Pomona Avenue State Highway 75 2 4,200 State Highway 75 Pomona Avenue 4 24,000 78 serving the Chula Vista Bayfront. G and J Streets service some additional areas. Quay Avenue is very lightly used. Traffic Counts Interstate 5 carries about 77,000 vehicles per day near Planning District 7. Traffic on Tidelands Avenue is heavy during shift changes at the adjacent Rohr Industries but the street has adequate capacity to handle this traffic. Short, undedicated connections between F and G Streets, which handle northbound traffic become congested at times. Parking There are 1,859 parking spaces on Port District tidelands in Planning District 7. Of these 1,250 are public spaces, 564 of which are on-street spaces mostly on Tidelands Avenue near Rohr, and 686 of which are off-street parking spaces located near Rohr, at the end of G Street, and at the Chula Vista Boat Basin launching ramp area. All of the 609 private spaces are located on a leased lot at the corner of Tidelands Avenue and G Street. Additional overflow parking areas are available on unleased tidelands. Parking areas are underutilized, however, because Tidelands Avenue parking is unmarked. Other Circulation Aspects Buses connect downtown Chula Vista with Rohr Industries on H Street, but no bus lines run directly onto tidelands. No special bicycle facilities are provided in Planning District 7, but local streets are adequate for bicycling. No improved pedestrian facilities exist. SILVER STRAND SOUTH Tidelands Access Regional and local access into Planning District 8 is from State Highway 75 and local streets within adjacent Coronado Cays residential development. Since Port District tidelands are limited to Crown Isle and Grand Caribe Isle, access consists of extensions of adjacent road systems to these two areas. Crown Isle is directly accessible via Coronado Cays Boulevard and Grand Caribe Isle is accessible via Grand Caribe Causeway. Street System No paved street exists on Crown Isle, and only a short two-lane road to the Coronado Cays sales office exists on Grand Caribe Isle. Traffic Counts Traffic along Grand Caribe Causeway is very light and is generally only associated with users of the Coronado Cays sales office. Parking Parking is limited to a single paved lot adjacent to the Coronado Cays sales office. 79 Other Circulation Aspects No bus facilities or improved bicycle or pedestrian facilities exist in Plan- ning District 8. SOUTH BAY SALTLANDS Tidelands Access No regional or local access is provided directly to tidelands within Planning District 9. Access to adjacent areas is provided primarily along Palm Avenue and State Highway 75 to the south and west. Street System No improved streets exist within the South Bay Saltlands. The Western Salt Company ponds include a network of dirt roads for private access along numerous earth fill dikes. Traffic Counts Vehicle traffic is primarily limited to infrequent off road vehicle use and very light employee traffic associated with operation of the Western Salt Company. Parking No improved parking areas exist within Planning District 9. Other Circulation Aspects No bus facilities or improved bicycle or pedestrian facilities exist in Planning District 9. 80 Navigation The existing physical features and improvements of San Diego Bay proper which relate to navigation and shipping into and out of the Port's Master Plan area include ship channels, boat channels, boat berthing facilities, anchorage areas, boat slips, and marinas. The following description relates closely to the Land and Water Use section in this EIR and the discussion on Water Based Transporation Systems in the Master Plan. SHIP CHANNELS The main ship channel from the bay entrance, between Point Loma and San Diego Point on the North Island peninsula, generally extends as a dredged improvement past the Coronado Bayfront, where the deeper channel is located along the ex- treme eastern margin of San Diego Bay, for a total distance of about twelve miles. The main ship channel provides a range of depths and widths for ship movement. From the entrance to the US Navy aircraft carrier berthing area on the eastern shore of North Island the main channel provides a depth of 42 feet at mean low or lower water (MLLW) and a width which varies from 600 to 2,000 feet. From this point on to the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal the channel depth is maintained at about 40 feet MLLW and width varies from 600 to 1,900 feet. From the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal south to the National City Marine Ter- minal the main channel continues at a depth of 35 feet MLLW and a width varying from 600 to 1,350 feet. The San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge spans the main channel between the Coronado peninsula and the San Diego marine industrial area to the south of the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal. The bridge includes two spans over the main channel with a vertical clearance of 195 feet mean higher water (MHW) and a clear width of 600 feet. The last span is located at the pierhead line on either side of the main channel and provides a vertical clearance of 175 feet MHW and a clear width of 500 feet. For additional discussion on the relationship of the main ship channel to the possibility of a proposed second entrance as well as additional main channel dredging which may be associated with such a federal government proposal, reference is made to both the Land and Water Use section of this EIR and the Water Based Transportation System of the Master Plan. BOAT CHANNELS Various boat channels exist within San Diego Bay to provide closer shore access, for smaller commercial and recreational vessels, along lanes which are general- ly too shallow and too narrow to accommodate larger ships. In the Shelter Island Planning District boat channel access exists at the opening to the yacht harbor at the southern end of the Shelter Island peninsula maintained at a depth between 19 and 21 feet MLLW. At the entrance to the com- mercial basin a boat corridor is available at the northern end of the Shelter Island peninsula with a depth of between 17 and 21 feet MLLW. 81 Small boat corridors exist within both the Lindbergh Field/Harbor Island Planning District and the Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District. Adequate depth for small craft navigation is maintained within the east and west basins of Harbor Island. Within the Crescent Zone of the Embarcadero area and at the entrance and within the interior of the Fifth Avenue Marina area small boat corridors are currently (1979) being developed. Adjacent to the Coronado Bay Bridge and easterly along the Coronado Bayfront shoreline, a 400 foot wide boat channel is located about 1,000 feet offshore. The channel has a depth of between 15 and 17 feet MLLW and is dredged shoreward to within about 400 feet. This boat channel passes-beneath the San Diego- Coronado Bay Bridge adjacent to the south Coronado Bayfront subarea and provides access for shallow draft recreational sailing and power boats to Glorietta Bay, further to the southwest. Adjacent to the National City Marine Terminal, in the Port's National City and Chula Vista Bayfront Planning Districts, boat channels exist from the entrance to the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel, dredged to about 35 feet MLLW, and ex- tending southerly about 1,000 feet west of the mudflat of the D Street Fill. Depth of this channel decreases from 25 to 18 feet, with widths varying from about 500 to 700 feet between the Sweetwater Channel and an area approximately west of Gunpowder Point. From this point two additional boat channels proceed in a southerly direction; one channel is closer to the shore allowing access to small boat building facilities at G Street adjacent to Rohr Industries in Chula Vista. This channel has a dredged depth of between 18 and 15 feet between 1962 and 1968. Widths vary from about 200 to 400 feet. The second boat channel further in the bay provides access to the Chula Vista Boat Basin and public launching ramp facilities. It is approximately 200 feet wide and has been dredged to provide shallow draft clearance (about 14 feet MLLW) to within about 1,000 feet of the Boat Basin where the depth decreases to about 6 feet MLLW. On the western shoreline of South Bay, remnants of a boat channel remain which had provided access for small boat launching and was dredged in 1944, 1953, and ?l 1975 to a depth of about 7 feet MLLW for a width of about 200 feet. This chann( has been often called Emory Channel and proceeds for about 2,000 feet in a south- westerly direction from an area offshore and south of Coronado Cays Grand Caribe (East Island) down to a shoreline area adjacent to State Highway 75 and the County of San Diego's Marine Biology Preserve. BOAT BERTHING Boat berthing (in addition to launching and haulout facilities for commercial or recreational vessels) with appropriate adjacent water access depths exists at many places throughout San Diego Bay. The locations, facilities, and the numbers of vessels which can be accommodated has been inventoried and includes a boat and slip count (SDUPD, 1977b). The Shelter Island Planning District provides boat berthing with launching and haulout facilities for small to medium size recreational vessels in the yacht harbor and for medium size commercial vessels within the Commercial Basin. 82 In the Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field Planning District boat berthing has been developed in the west basin for recreational and some commercial vessels. In the east basin it consists primarily of specialized berthing for institutional and research vessels. The Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District allows both shallow and deep- draft berthing for recreational, commercial, and military vessels at the Crescent Zone of the Embarcadero proper, and includes the B Street Pier, Broadway Pier, and the military facilities of the US Navy Pier. Cruise- ship facilities such as customs are avilable at the Broadway Pier. Special- ized berthing facilities for the commercial fishing fleet, including tuna seiners, exist along the Embarcadero and at the G Street Pier area slightly to the south. The Fifth Avenue Marina will be developed with piers, slips, and other amenities for recreational boating. Further to the south the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal and adjacent shipyards and marine industrial areas provide a variety of deepdraft berthing for large ocean going vessels and specialized commercial vessels including oceangoing freighters and larger commercial fishing boats. Further to the south in the Tarine industrial area specialized berthing exists, primarily deepdraft berth- ing for a variety of craft including the Kelco kelp harvesters, and the various drydocks and ship ways of NASSCO for the construction of freighters, military ships as well as large oil tankers. To the south, past the thirteen piers of the US Naval Station, the Port's National City Marine Terminal in the National City Planning District includes deepdraft berthing on the northern and western sides of the terminal wharf. A 35 foot deep channel extends the main San Diego Bay channel to the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel to provide deep water access to the southern wharf of the National City Marine Terminal (known as the Sweetwater Wharf). The Coronado Cays residential development contains numerous berthing facilities for shallow draft recreational vessels, both sail and power boats of a variety of sizes. The Coronado Bayfront area includes commercial boat construction and repair operations including launching and haulout facilities for commercial or recreational vessels along the Orange Avenue shoreline, and marinas and a City of Coronado boat launching ramp and Glorietta Bay. ANCHORAGE AREAS Ship anchorage for oceangoing vessels concentrates primarily in the area west of the B Street Pier but includes all navigable waters of the harbor except designated channels, cable and pipeline areas, other specially designated anchorages, and the naval restricted areas. Special boat anchorages have been set aside and marked on coastal charts to identify places of refuge and to ensure safe, efficient moorage areas for small craft. Specific locations are designated together with conditions for their use: two within the Shelter Island Planning District, one within the yacht harbor and one within the commercial basin area; one within the Fifth Avenue Marina in the Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District; and one along the northern shoreline of Glorietta Bay adjacent to the Coronado Golf Course. 83 More specific descriptions of these anchorage areas are provided on coastal charts as well as described in the Project Description section for Planning Districts 1, 3, and 6. Anchorage of vessels is in some cases specifically prohibited along some portions of shoreline adjacent to recreational areas frequented by water- skiers. For example, in Coronado anchorage of vessels is prohibited along the northern portion of the Golf Course area (City of Coronado Municipal Code 13.16.540), while further to the south anchoring of vessels is authorized use (City of Coronado Municipal Code 13.16.550) and extends into the Glorietta Bay subarea as an officially designated anchorage (US Anchorage A-5). BOAT SLIPS/MARINAS Boat slips and marinas can be found at various locations for a variety of uses throughout the Port's Master Plan area. A general breakdown of the facilities which exist by their general use classifications is as follows: nine boatbuilding and repair facilities; 13 pleasurecraft marinas; 4 yacht clubs, all of which also include marinas; 4 main sportfishing landings; 3 main commercial fishing landings and facilities; 5 separate fuel docks and support facilities; and a total of 11 unclassified marine craft facilities including guest docks, special fishing clubs, and improved anchorages. The May 1979 San Diego Bay Boat and Slip Count compiled by the San Diego Unified Port District Harbor Police indicated: 718 slips and boats at anchor in the Commercial Basin area of the Shelter Island Planning District and 2,090 in the Yacht Harbor; 1,662 in the Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field Planning District; 936 in the Coronado Bayfront Planning District, however, included in that count was the US Navy Sailing Club; 60 in the Centre City/ Embarcadero Planning District; and at anchorage area A-3 (currently under marina development) the Grape Street piers and the G Street piers a total of 112. The combined total count for slips, berths, and vessels at anchor in San Diego Bay as of May 1979 was 5,518. Additional detailed information is available in the Master Plan,in the section dealing with Commercial Fishing, Pleasurecraft Marinas, Sportfishing, Marine Sales and Service, Boat Sales, and Boatbuilding and Repair. Marine facilities have been inventoried by Planning District including the locations of various dockside improvements including fire protection facilities, guest docks, and pumpout facilities. 84 Public Services and Facilities Public services and facilities which exist within and adjacent to the Port of San Diego's Master Plan area are a combination of specific urban support services and facilities provided by the Port of San Diego for areas within Port tidelands and an extension of the urban support services and facilities which are provided by incorporated cities in areas adjacent to tidelands boundaries. Although the Port of San Diego has representation from the five member cities, only four cities including the cities of San Diego, Coronado, Chula Vista and National City, as well as military installations of the US Navy and US Marine Corps provide facilities from adjacent areas. An additional feature which makes urban support services and facilities unique for public use upon tidelands is that no specific permanent residential uses are permitted on Port tidelands, therefore, the public services and facilities which are provided are more of a special nature for the commercial industrial and recreational developments that exist on Port tidelands. Those services and facilities include sewerage systems, water supply, storm drains, electricity, gas and telephone, fire protection, police protection, and refuse collection. SEWERAGE SYSTEMS San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System Sewerage facilities which presently serve the Port's Master Plan area are provided by the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System. Otherwise known as Metro, the existing waste water treatment system provides waste water disposal and treatment facilities for all of the various uses on tidelands as well as those uses which interface with tidelands activities from upland areas. These facilities have been summarized in the description,provided in the San Diego Metropolitan Facilities Plan Waste Water Treatment, Reclamation, and Disposal 1975-2000 Final EIS (EPA, 1977), in part on pages 2 and 3 as follows: "The San Diego Metropolitan System provides municipal and industrial waste water treatment and disposal to the cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, National City, Lemon Grove, and San Diego; special districts serving unincorporated areas (Lakeside, Montgomery, Palmarado, Santee, Spring Valley, Orlando, and Otay Municipal Sanitation Districts); and the US Navy. Emergency sewerage services provided to the City of Tijuana, by California, by diverting raw sewage from Tijuana into the Metropolitan system during power outages and other system failures in the Tijuana Treatment Facility. Physical structures in the Metropolitan system are owned and operated by the City of San Diego and capacity in the system is allocated on a contractual basis with the communities listed above. The San Diego Metropolitan Waste Water Treatment System consists of large interceptors which come together at Pumping Station Number One near Lindbergh Field before proceeding as a single interceptor to the Point Loma Metropolitan Treatment Facility. The design capacity of the southern interceptor (15 miles in length) increases from 27.6 million gallons a day (mgd) at its southern terminus to 198 mgd at Pumping Station Number One. The design capacity of the northern interceptor (2 miles in length) is 186.4 mgd. The interceptor from Pumping Station Number One to 85 the Point Loma Plant (5 miles) has design capacity that varies from 337.8 to 360.3 mgd. These main interceptors are fed by a number of community and inter- community interceptor systems. @Point Loma Waste Water Treatment Facility has a rated primary treatment capacity of 120 mgd with on-site sludge digestion. Stabilized sludge pumped to Fiesta Island in Mission Bay is de-watered and used as a soil amendment. Non-disinfected primary effluent is discharged to the ocean from an outfall 11,508 feet offshore. Design capacity of the outfall is 240 mgd average daily flow (ADF). The existing metropolitan.treatment system is faced with problems or potential problems related to: 1. Capacity, The present average dry. weather flow ADF through the San Diego Waste Water Treatment Facility at Point Loma is approximately 115 mgd (114.9 mgd ADF for January, February and March 1977) which is near the design capacity of 120 mgd; consequently, the design capacity of the treatment facility will be exceeded in the near future. 2. Requirements of.the Federal Water Pollution Control.Act (FWPCA) Amendments (PL_92-506@_,and the California Water Code, Division 7. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Diego Region adopted waste discharge requ.irements ... for the San Diego Point Loma Waste Water Treatment Plan ocean outfall. NPDES permit requirements are set for each waste discharge to protect water quality, implement water quality control plans; and if the discharge is to the surface navagable waters of the United States, to meet the requirements of the FWPCA (administered by EPA through the state). The FWPCA (PL92-500) requires that by July 1, 1977, all publically owned waste water treatment facilities must utilize "secondary treatment" and if an industrial discharger sends its wastes through a publically owned treatment works, certain "pre-treatment standards" must be met. EPA defined the minimum level of effluent quality attainable by "secondary treatment" ... I The City of San Diego Waste Water Treatment Facility System, therefore, has two problems associated with the federal law as expressed in the NPDES permit. First, they are not in compliance with PL92-500 because they do not have secondary treatment at the facility (required by July 1, 1977) and second, they cannot meet future discharge requirements. A third major concern of the San Diego region and the San Diego metropolitan waste water treatment system is the untreated waste water flow from the City of Tijuana, Baja California. The San Diego Metropolitan Waste Water Treat- ment System accepts emergency flows from Tijuana; however, emergency use comprises about 4.5 mgd on almost a daily basis. It is not known if any source control is practiced by Tijuana industry." The San Diego Metropolitan Facilities Plan EIS identified and assessed a number of alternatives for waste water treatment, sludge disposal, reclamation/recycling, industrial source control, salinity control, and other facets of total waste water management programs. The following is a summary of the conclusions and 86 recommendations reached by the Facilities Plan and are arranged in their order of ranking with the first preference being listed first: 1. Recommendation Number One - First Choice. Continue primary treatment at Point Loma and increase capacity to 150 mgd with a Phase II expansion to 200 mgd. 2. Recommendation Number Two - Second Choice. Continue primary treatment of up to 120 mgd at Point Loma. Construct a 30 mgd biological secondary sewer treatment plant at a central San Diego site. 3. Recommendation Number Three - Third Choice. Two different alternative plans; a. Provide biological secondary sewage treatment plant (45 mgd) at Point Loma and a central San Diego site (105 mgd). Phase II add 50 mgd average daily dry weather flow capacity of biological secondary treatment at central San Diego site. or b. Install 150 mgd biological secondary plant in central San Diego and expand to 200 mgd in Phase II. 4. Recommendation Number Four - Fourth Choice. Construct a 70 mgd biological secondary facility in the Southbay area. Build a 40 mgd biological secondary facility for Tijuana. Construct a common land and ocean outfall for both faci I ities. Areawide Water Quality Management Plan The national goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 are put forth in the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, San Diego-Riverside Designated Area Summary (CPO, 1978m). The Plan would ensure that land development resulting from anticipated population growth would have adequate waste water facilities available at the appropriate time. The Areawide Plan based its sewage transmission and treatment needs and management responsibilities upon regional growth forecasts, which were agreed to by all cities and counties. One of the findings of the Areawide Plan was that the major coastal sewage treatment plants in the San Diego area are operating within about 10% of their design capacity but all are developing plans to expand. These plans to expand as has been indicated are described in greater detail both in the San Diego Metropolitan Facilities Plan EIS as well as the Waste Water Treatment System Needs and Management Responsibilities as stated in the CPO Areawide Water Quality Management Plan for San Diego-Riverside Designated Area. As summarized in the Areawide Plan on pages 53 through 58: "The facilities identified in the Plan for the San Diego County portion of the planning area are based upon the regional growth (Series IV) forecasts, which were adopted or accepted by all local general purpose governments." According to the forecasts approximately 2.3 million people will be served by sewers in 1995, generating some 207,000,000 gallons of sewage per day (mgd). The 87 areasis sewage treatment plant capacity is currently 162 mgd. Therefore, an additional 45 mgd in treatment plant capacity will be needed by 1995. "To provide sufficient capacity, the plan proposes expansion of twelve existing treatment plants ... Many new and replacement transmission facilities must also be constructed. In addition to expansion of existing treatment plants the plan also proposes recommendations for waste water reclamation projects. A single recommendation for areas adjacent to Port tidelands was made for the City of Coronado under a waste water reclamation project alternative 1, Irrigation of Coronado Municipal Golf Course. The feasibility for this proposal is currently being investigated for using treated sewage water for irrigation of the Coronado golf course. If imple- mented, such a reuse facilty could utilize approximately 0.75 mgd, and may reduce to some extent, conveyance costs and flow demands on the existing sewage distribution." It should also be again emphasized a capacity of existing sewerage facilities includes those commercial, industrial, and recreational contributors from areas within the Port's Master Plan area which have been taken into account in the Areawide Plan Regional Growth Forecast. The specific locations of all waste water treatment and transmission facilities existing in and around the Port's Master Plan area as well as detailed descriptions of the proposed locations and nature of facilities of new treatment plants in addition are also given in pages 54 through 57 of the Areawide Plan. Additional specific detailed information regarding the existing sewerage system facilities in other areas of the Port's Master Plan area are provided in the Shelter Island Precise Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1976e) and in the Embarcadero Development Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1976a), the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1978d), and the Chula Vista Bayfront Precise Plan Development Program Background Report (SDUPD, 1974d). WATER SUPPLY Water supply to the Port of San Diego's Master Plan area is generally via incor- porated cities and municipal water districts adjacent to the Plan area. The Shelter Island Planning District water supply as described in part by the Shelter Island Precise Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1976e), is as follows: "The Planning District is served by the City of San Diego water distribution system. All fresh water comes into the area by way of two 16 inch cast iron pipe (CIP) mains located in North Harbor Drive and a 12 inch CIP main located in Rosecrans Street. The uplands areas are fed by 6 inch CIP mains located in the streets perpendicular to Rosecrans. These mains also run into tidelands areas. Shelter Island is served by a 12 inch asbestos-concrete main off the Rosecrans main." The City of San Diego water distribution system also provides water supply to the Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field Planning District via the North Harbor Drive CIP main. The Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District is sup lied water as described in the Embarcadero Development Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1976a@, as follows: 88 "The project area is currently served with water by the City of San Diego through a 16 inch cast iron pipe buried in Harbor Drive. Water for San Diego comes from the watershed east of the city and from the Colorado River. While no figures are available showing current water use in the project area, if San Diego can provide sufficient water for both uses (Weaver, 1974). The city has proposed replacing the existing 16 inch line in Harbor Drive with a 30 inch line when funds are available." The Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Planning District water supply is provided as described in the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Access Road Relocation EIR (SDUPD, 1974e), as follows: "Univ ersity Heights reservoir, approximately 4-1/2 miles northeast of the project site, supplies water to the project area. This reservoir feeds an @xisting 16 inch water main adjacent to the Santa Fe railroad tracks. This is connected with 8 inch water lines under Beardsley and Water streets, and a 6 inch water line under Crosby Street." National City Bayfront, the Chula Vista Bayfront, Silver Strand South, and the Southbay Saltlands, are all provided water service as described in the Rohr Marine, Inc. Shipbuilding Facility EIR (SDUPD, 1978a), as follows: "Water service to the project area is provided by the Southbay Irrigation District (formerly the California American Water Company), which receives its water from the Colorado River via the San Diego aquaduct. Total demand for the service area, which includes National City, Chula Vista and Bonita areas, averages approximately 17,000,000 gallons per day. On a high demand day, as much as 30,000,000 gallons could be provided if necessary (Bennet, 1977). Distribution facilities in the project area include a 14 inch line on Tidelands Avenue and a 10 inch line on Terminal Street (Davis, 1977)." The Coronado Bayfront is provided water supply as described in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1978d), as follows: "City of Coronado water supply and distribution facilities presently serve the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan area. The city purchases potable water from the privately held California American Water Company, which in turn, purchases water from the San Diego County Water Authority, a member agency of the Metropolitan Water Districts of Southern California (MWD). The MWD obtains water from the Colorado River and the California Water Project (Feather River Project). Water is supplied to the Plan area on the south from a 16 inch mainline along Strand Way, and on the north, from a 24 inch mainline across San Diego Bay from the City of San Diego's water distribution system..." 89 STORM DRAINS Throughout the Port of San Diego's Master Plan area numerous storm drains of a variety of sizes convey surface runoff from adjacent off-tidelands urban drainage areas across tidelands within the Port of San Diego's Master Plan area. With few exceptions, storm drains convey rainfall runoff directly into San Diego Bay, generally across easements held by the city adjacent to the storm drain location. For the specific location and sizes of storm drains which convey surface runoff across tidelands into San Diego Bay the references sited in the previous Water Supply section would provide additional detailed information. Flood Control With the exception of the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel adjacent to the National City Marine Terminal in National City the Port's Master Plan area includes no major flood control facilities or storm drainage facilities. Potential flood hazards throughout the Port's Master Plan area are generally low due to relatively small contributing source areas and short distances from adjacent water sheds to San Diego Bay. Local ponding in various areas periodically causes inconvenience but little damage results. Portions of some District tidelands such as the Coronado Bayfront adjacent to the City of Coronado have been tentatively designated as special flood hazard areas by the Federal Department of Housing and Urb 'an Development (HUD). It should be noted, however, that these designations are only preliminary and are based largely upon the existing topographic contours and projected base flood elevations of a one year flood which qualified the area only for a first stage study program which indicates the need for further study. The potential for flooding in the Sweetwater River area in general both adjacent to the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel and to the Sweetwater River Marsh has been described in the Chula Vista Bayfront Development Project EIR (Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Agency, 1976), in part as follows: "According to the US Army Corps of Engineers (1975), large floods are believed or known to have occured in the Sweetwater Basin in 1825, 1862, 1916, 1927, and 1937. Medium and small floods occured in 1889, 1891, 1906, 1921, 1938, 1941, and 1943. The largest known flow on the Sweetwater River occured on January 27, 1916, when, at the Sweetwater Dam, a peak flow into the reservoir of 45,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) was reported for one hour. No floods have been reported since 1943, and there have not been any outflows from the reservoir since a 410 cfs flow over the spillway during the April 1943 flood." A delineation of the 100 year flood plan in the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District indicates that only those tidelands immediately adjacent to the shore- line at the mouth of the Sweetwater River and west of Tidelands Avenue between E and F streets would be affected by such a flood. These areas are currently undeveloped with the exception of agricultural land. .ELECTRICITY, GAS, AND TELEPHONE San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) supplies both electrical power and natural gas to all of the PTanning Districts within the Port's Master Plan area. Electrical power is-provided via several main transmission lines from the SDG&E 90 Southbay power plant, and the SDG&E Silvergate power plant. The Corona do Bay- front Planning District is served via electrical power provided by a 69 kv main transmission line across San Diego Bay connected to a substation on Orange Avenue and First Street adjacent to tidelands. Existing transmission lines, substations, and distribution systems appear to be adequate to meet the existing and future electrical power requirements of the Port of San Diego's Master Plan area. Future electrical generating capacities and natural gas supplies for proposed tidelands developments are available, but are largely dependent upon regional, state, and national energy policies on fuel resource utilization. For aesthetic and public interest considerations, SDG&E has future plans to underground electrical power facilities-within and adjacent to many locations within the Port's Master Plan area. First priorities are assigned to those areas where, at the present time, facilities intrude on bay views from adjacent uplands. Telephone service is provided throughout the Port of San Diego's Master Plan area by Pacific Telephone. Future undergrounding of electrical power facilities will likely include concurrent undergrounding of telephone facilities in many areas as well. Additional detailed information as to the locations, capacity, and future expansion considerations for electricity, gas, and telephone utilities throughout the Port's Master Plan area is available in the reports sited previously in the Water Supply and Storm Drain sections. FIRE PROTECTION Fire protection is provided to the Port of San Diego's Master Plan area by the city fire departments of San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, and Coronado, as well as by the Port District Harbor Police. Specific locations and detailed descriptions of equipment of the various fire protection facilities within individual Planning Districts of the Port's Master Plan area are also provided in the previously referenced reports regarding other facilities and services. Assistance with fire protection along shoreline areas is provided by the Port District's fire boats docked at the Harbor Police facility on Shelter Island and at the G Street Pier. Response time to most places within the Plan area for such occurances as vessel or shoreline fires is approximately 8 minutes. A history of the fires which have occured throughout Port of San Diego tidelands indicates that most fires have been minor and associated with small grass fires, vandalism, and fires associated with boats or vehicles along the shoreline. POLICE PROTECTION Law enforcement within the Port of San Diego's Master Plan area is provided jointly by the Harbor Police and the Police Departments of the cities of San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, and Coronado. Specific locations, equipment, and staffing levels for the various police departments are also 91 provided in the reports previously referenced above for Public Facilities and Services. Response time for police protection both from the San Diego Harbor Police and backup by the police departments from the various cities to most places within the Port's Master-Plan area is about 15 minutes or less. The San Diego Harbor Police currently (1979) operate with a force of 75 patrol officers plus 9 supervisors, three police vehicle units as well as the fire fighting and logistic support of four vessels. Individual support of specific activities concerning customs, navigation, as well as federal and state boating requirements enforcement are also assisted by the US Coast Guard vessels and personnel stationed within the San Diego Bay area. REFUSE COLLECTION/DISPOSAL Refuse collection service is provided throughout the Port's Master Plan area as well as to some immediately adjacent areas largely by private firms as well as the trash collection services of the cities of San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, and Coronado. A large number and variety of receptacles and dumpsters is currently located on and adjacent to developed and partially developed areas throughout Port tidelands. Refuse collected within Port tidelands is disposed of at the Otay Sanitary Land Fill within the City of San Diego. 92 Socio-Economic Characteristics/Growth SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS The social characteristics of developed and undeveloped areas within the Master Plan area have been described in the Socio-Economic Factors Port of San Diego Master Plan Revision Program, Section I: Social Characteristics; Section II: Economic Characteristics (SDUPD, 1972b). Although there are nine Planning Districts, the socio-economic analysis included fourteen planning units to represent the characteristics not only within the Port's jurisdiction but also of the surrounding area. Because Port tidelands cannot be developed for residential purposes, no permanent "population" exists within the Master Plan area. The following descriptions are provided in summary from the Socio-Economic Factors Report (SDUPD, 1972b) for the fourteen planning units utilized in the study. The Shelter Island Plan ning District Number 1 is summarized as follows: Point Loma is comprised of two basic groups - the young, single service men living in group quarters, and the older service family of normal size living in government housing. Because few persons are in the older age groups one may presume that the head of the household is employed, and that the tenure of families depends upon its employment by the federal government. The La Playa planning unit includes the commercial area of Shelter Island as well as the La Playa resi'dential neighborhood. The population is older, more stable, and nearly all white. La Playa's population density is third highest despite some land being devoted to commercial use (Rosecrans Avenue and Shelter IsTand). La Playa can be classified as a family area, one where a few primary individuals reside and where almost no persons live in group quarters. The Lindbergh Field planning unit within the Port's Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field Planning District is described as follows: While the airport forms the main identifier in this planning unit, nearly all the population is concentrated in two military bases - the US Naval Training Center and the US Marine Corps Recruit Depot. This fact colors the data analysis and explains much about this unique area. The Lindbergh Field planning unit contains the largest population, by far, of any area, and its population density exceeds any other planning unit, despite the great amount of land used by Lindbergh Field and therefore unavailable for residential purposes. 93 The Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District is described as follows: Centre City exhibits many characteristics associated with typical older inner city residential neighborhoods. There are very few children and a large number of older men. Fewer families reside here; in fact, Centre City has the lowest average family size of any planning unit. The number of widowed and divorced people is also about three times the city average. A typical resident of Centre City would be a middle-aged, single, white man renting an inexpensive apartment. This profile obviously simplifies the natural range of personal differences among a population, but can be useful in describing the most common type found in a particular area. The Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Planning District is described as follows: The Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal planning unit has a relatively small population with a moderate density, probably because of the disbursal of residential uses of the area's periphery. It contains some families and many others who appear in the working class category. The Thirty-Second Street Naval Station planning unit is located between the Port's Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Planning District and the Port's National City Marine Terminal Planning District. This off-tidelands area is described as follows: This appears to be a family area, outside of the Naval Station itself. A large number of the total population live in group quarters, which is undoubtedly related to the number of single males. For households, the family unit is similar to other typical ones around the Bay, with an average size quite normal. House values are the lowest of any planning unit. The dwellings are relatively inexpensive and probably somewhat crowded (excluding group quarters). The National City Bayfront Planning District is described as follows: The National City Bayfront is a small unit with a few residents or housing units. The planning unit can be considered largely as an area of working class families and moderate housing, with little to distinguish it from other subareas on the east side of the bay. 94 The Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District is described as follows: The population is also older than most, averaging about 30 years old. A very small number of residents live in group quarters, making family type households the predominant housing class. Home values are less than Chula Vista's average, and are relatively low compared to other near-bayfront properties. The Chula Vista Bayfront South planning unit, also within the Port's Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District, is described as follows: This planning unit is very similar to Chula Vista Bayfront North, because the population is concentrated in the eastern portion between Interstate 5 and Broadway. Social characteristics are also similar. The Southbay Saltlands Planning District is described as follows: The Saltlands planning unit in the area, known as Palm City, and the northern portion of the City of Imperial Beach makes this the second largest unit in terms of population. The density, however, is average, probably because of the large amount of census tract 101.01 devoted to salt evaporation ponds but included in the land area summary. The Silver Strand South Planning District is described as follows: Silver Strand South has only relatively few people, making it the least populated area. All of these are presumably living in the Coronado Cays luxury housing subdivision being built in phases on the bay side of the planning unit. There are no persons living in group quarters and most persons are white. The housing is among the most expensive. The Silver Strand North planning unit which is between the Port of San Diego's Silver Strand South Planning District and the Coronado Bayfront Planning District, is described as follows: The Silver Strand North contains a large amount of Navy family housing and Navy barracks, which affects social composition as well as housing characteristics. The population is clustered, with a large amount of land set aside for non-residential uses, primarily beaches. 95 Men outnumber women by about 5 to 1. and half the men are between 20 and 24. These are apparently Navy men having advanced training at the bases and being housed there. A very low percentage of both sexes are widowed or divorced, probably because of the demand of military housing. All units are rented, with 84% being priced at $100 to $149 and the rest (almost) having no cash rent. Average rent is $130. The Coronado Bayfront Planning District is a residential community wi'th local employment opportunities provided mainly by tourist related servi'ces and employment within the governmental sector, as follows: The Coronado planning unit comprises five census tracts clustered around the main part of the City of Coronado. It is densely developed, second only to the Lindbergh Field area, but has only a token group quarters population. The number of women exceeds the number of men in the older age group. Almost two-thirds of the adult population is married, showing a relatively large family situation. A very high percentage of women i"s widowed, somewhat less are divorced. Most of the adult female population were previously married, while only a few of the male population were married. The homes in Coronado are also the third most expensive, behind Silver Strand South (Coronado Cays) and La Playa. The North Island planning unit off-tidelands and north of the Port's Coronado Bayfront Planning District is described as follows: The North Island planning unit is co-terminus with the Naval Air Station and population density is low. There are few housing units, most of the population is living in group quarters and is made up principally of young, single, white males, A great majority of men, and somewhat fewer women, are single. All units are rented, usually at no cash rent. The following general observations regarding the sociological setting of the Port's Master Plan area and surrounding areas have been concluded from the Socio-Economic Factors Report. - Areas under total, or near total, Navy control exhibit unusual sociological characteristics indicative of the specific functions for which they are used. The Navy areas should be identified and recognized for their place in the picture but they should not be. presumed to typify the kind of population that would result from normal demand mechanisms characteristic of a civilian housing market. 96 - Older areas contain older people. La Playa and Centre City are good examples of established, settled neighborhoods where more permanent residents occur. The older areas may have a cohesive stability that relates to the needs of older people. - The value of housing near the water - expressed in median rent and value of owner occupied units - depends primarily upon total neighborhood environment and how favorable it is for residential purposes. The dominant factor frequently is primary land use, for if an area is known as an industrial or commercial district, housing becomes scarce or values are depressed. - Within the limited study area, population densities, housing values, and the social status of residents are inversely related to distance from the harbor entrance. In general, as distance from the entrance increases, values decrease. Major activity is clustered in the north bay. - The characteristics of population around the bay generally correspond to those of the regional population as a whole. Localized exceptions can be identified but they do not-greatly affect this generalization. If Navy lands are excluded, the only unique area is-Centre City where housing is quite different from other areas, but this area is under redevelopment. When examining the racial composition of the nearby San Diego Bay populations, it is apparent that the area is predominantly white. There is a substantial number of persons belonging to races other than white or black; in some cases this group exceeds the black population by at least ten times. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS The following description of economic characteristics within and surrounding the Port's Master Plan area is taken primarily from the Socio-Economic Factors Report of the Port's Master Plan Revision Program, Section II: Economic Char-. acterirstics (SDUPD, 1972b). Additional detailed updated information on in- dividual specific areas is available in Comprehensive Planning Organization reports (CPO, 1976b and 1978g), and in the General Plans of the five cities surrounding the Master Plan area. In summary the report describes the economic characteristics of the San Diego Bay area dated at the early 1970's level in part as follows: "San Diego Bay, recognized as one of the ten best natural harbors in the world, is not only a focus of community identity for the San Diego region but is an economic asset of undetermined potential. Even the casual observer can notice what the bay means to San Diego - merchant ships entering the harbor; busy Navy installations along the shore; hotels; pleasure boats; fishing boats; the airport - all these visible objects are manifestations of a strongly functioning economy. 97 "If one attempts to measure the effect the Port of San Diego has on the total economy, however, he must be content to report on certain of its components such as shipping tonnage and income. In the large scheme, related activities, including manufacturing industries, depend upon tideland sites and the benefit of ocean access, both of which have incalcuable value." The San Diego regional economy is strongly linked to Port activities on tide- lands.* In particular, maritime and aviation activities, shipbuilding, industrial development, and commercial recreation rank among the most significant economic contributions of the San Diego Bay area. Both civilian employment and dollar value of goods and services produced can be used to rank economic activity and therefore describe the economic characteristics of the area. As measured by civilian employment the top four ranked major factors in San Diego's economy are government, wholesale and retail trade, services, and manufacturing. Re- gionally, the major factors are manufacturing, Navy and Marine payrolls, tourism, and agriculture. Within and adjacent to the Master Plan area the major economic activities include shipbuilding; shipping; commercial and sport fishing; manufacturing; air transporations; tourism and recreation; retail commercial trade; and military training, supply, repair, and other operations. GROWTH INDUCEMENT Population increases for the Master Plan area and surroundings are anticipated to be slight in the near future as well as in the long term. Areas around the North Bay will show relatively little population increase in the near future, mostly by redevelopment and fill-in development. The South Bay will grow at rates varying with economic conditions and the removal of development constraints including those in South County and with increasing emphasis on the border area. Long-range population forecasts for the growth of the five incorporated cities surrounding the Port District indicate population increases. Since residential use is not permitted on tidelands none of the population increase itself will be on Port District jurisdiction. Projected smaller household sizes, increasingly restrictive land use economics, rising local property values, and anticipated increased costs of energy and transportation all influence the rate of population growth for the area sur- rounding the Master Plan area. As population gradually increases, the supply of low and moderate income housing may not be sufficient by meet demands. New housing may be developed in the city areas adjacent to Port tidelands, but land use economics will create pressure within communities to replace low or middle income housing with moderate to high income housing. The high cost and limited availability of land may induce medium to high density development replacing lower density single-family units in some areas. Population projections for the five cities surrounding the Master Plan area have been developed by the Comprehensive Planning Organization in the Series IV Regional Growth Forecasts: 1975-95 (CPO, 1978h). *See also discussion in Summery Section on page 4 on public works financing from tenant lease revenues rather than from property taxes. 98 Population projections by CPO indicate that all cities project a 20 year growth of 70-100%. Additional residential units will be completed and occupied in older areas of the city of San Diego, such as the Centre City Development area. Declining family size projected for many areas could, however, result in a loss, rather than a net gain in overall population, particularly outside the urban core. North Bay Planning Districts are already substantially developed, as are the @urrounding residential and commercial areas. There have been recent increases in one person households in North Bay Planning Districts which are responsible for reductions in average family size and for lowering of population estimates. South Bay Planning Districts include large vacant or underdeveloped areas available for housing construction. Growth in the areas surrounding these Port Planning Districts may be expected. Only the City of Chula Vista has additional room for expansion into the back country. Most of the City of Chula Vista's population growth will likely occur as a result of annexation and/or development of rural, undeveloped lands. Further, as pointed out in the Socio-Economic Factors Report, (SDUPD, 1972b): A major factor in the south bay's future will be the decision whether to allow urban uses in the Tijuana River valley. Construction of flood control facilities there will precipitate heavy demands for housing and in turn, attract industries, shopping centers, and similar activities. Even without the flood control measures growth in this area will be substantial. With the exception of the City of San Diego's Centre City Development area and some small sites adjacent to Port tidelands, the general plans of the cities surrounding Port jurisdiction do not show substantial new areas for residential growth near the tidelands, but instead allow gradually increased densities in already existing developed areas. The City of Coronado, has some areas for new housing within the center city grid area. The City of National City is in the process of converting some substandard housing areas to non-residential uses. The general attempt by the cities surrounding the Port's jurisdiction seems to be to reserve bayfront areas for industrial or recreational uses while allowing housing just near enough that such uses would not be incompatible with residential activities. The Port's Master Plan area includes existing support facilities such as public services and commercial centers which could affect or be affected by growth in the surrounding area. Existing support facilities included within the cities surrounding Port tidelands appear adequate to accommodate estimated population growth projections, but do not appear to have high growth inducing potential for the area. Implementation of the General Plan Housing Elements of the cities surrounding Port jurisdiction may induce population growth. Most of this growth inducement, however, may occur as a result of the provision of visitor accommodations and new commercial operations rather than new housing, and may increase the demand for supporting public services and infrastructure. It is primarily in this respect that growth inducement from Port development may interface with that resulting from residential population increases in adjacent cities. 99 An increase in tourist related businesses will contribute to the economic growth of the five cities surrounding the Port's Master Plan area, through sales tax revenues, transient occupancy taxes, and spending by employers and employees for payroll taxes and local government services. Such economic growth may induce population growth in surrounding areas. Increased residential density in the Centre City Development area, the City of Coronado, and the National City-Chula Vista area may result from the development of lower and middle income housing projects. This increase in housing density may induce more families to remain in these areas rather than to seek affordable housing elsewhere. 100 Visual Quality VISUAL APPEARANCE The visual quality of San Diego Bay constitutes an important and attractive resource within the Port's jurisdiction. The 1972 Master Plan (SDUPD, 1972d), specified in Section VIII of the Planning Goals that: "Views should be enhanced through the preservation of panoramas, accentua- tion of vistas, and shielding of the incongruous and inconsistent." The overall visual image and character of San Diego Bay and adjacent areas convey an attractive impression. The aesthetic appeal of San Diego Bay and surrounding areas have long been one of the area's greatest assets. Overall, the attractiveness of the area seems to be based upon unique topographic features, including adjacent uplands; encircling hills on three sides; and the southern orientation of the Bay entrance to the Pacific Ocean. These features convey a pleasing arrangement which blends with other topographic forms in- cluding the 300 to 400 foot high Point Loma peninsula; the curving narrow Silver Strand; ocean and bay views available throughout the area; and various mountains, mesas, canyons, and gentle river valleys in the background. As summarized in the Port District Appearance, Master Plan Revision Program (SDUPD, 1972c), in part as follows: "There is a sense of the whole. From anywhere on tidelands the major landmarks, such as Point Loma and Coronado Bridge, can be seen. Loss of orientation is virtually impossible. Although the tidelands area is fractionalized into districts, there are always the predominantly unifying factors of the bay itself, the ever visible highlands, and, to a lesser extent, the transportation artery around the bay." "The same visible factors provide a sense of place. The hills gently enclose. They do not forbid, but comfort. The bayshore provides a unifying band around which activities flow. The bay itself is an identifying focal point." In the San Diego Bay region the visual orientation is very strong in the direction of the Bay itself. Existing open spaces, including vacant land, landscaped areas and other amenities contrast with and complement many of the surrounding residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational uses. Prominent points of interest or landmarks, which dominate the visual appearance of San Diego Bay and adjacent areas, include the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge; the downtown San Diego skyline; the Hotel del Coronado and the Coronado Shores condominiums on the Coronado peninsula; the Port's Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal and National City Marine Terminal and container crane; the marine industrial areas, particularly the National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO); and the Point Loma peninsula. These features provide a variety of interesting and cenic vistas and are visible from many points throughout the San Diego Bay area. s 101 Visual qualities which characterize individual Planning Districts throughout the Port's jurisdiction reflect the general or predominant land uses in the particular area. For example, the commercial and recreational facilities, including visitor oriented centers with hotels and restaurants on Shelter Island and Harbor Island, provide an overall varied visual impression, but one which combines with,centers of intense use and activity. The areas along the Embarcadero, including Broadway Pier, Sea Port Village, and Embarcadero Marina Park, convey interest and visual diversity as well as a spacing of pedestrian oriented recreational amenities. In contrast, the Port's Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal; the adjacent marine industrial and shipbuilding area; the US Naval Station; and the Port's National City Marine Terminal, reflect the visual characteristics of the unique marine industrial uses which occupy these areas. Further to the south, the Chula Vista Bayfront area represents a combination of industrial and agricultural uses with a rural character. South San Diego Bay conveys an expansive visual impression that is generally featureless, but has added interest because of the large number of waterfowl that inhabit the area. Toward the ocean, the open stretch of the Silver Strand is interrupted only by the Coronado Cays marina residential development, the Silver Strand State Beach in the southern area, and by the Naval Amphibious Base in the northern area. Further north, along Glorietta Bay, past the marinas, the appearance is park-like along the Coronado Golf Course. Outstanding features are the curved San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge, and the prominence of the condo- minium high-rise towers. These are located within the City of Coronado, adjacent to the Hotel del Coronado and the downtown area. Further on to the Coronado peninsula, the North Island Naval Air Station and aircraft carrier berthing areas shift the attention to the military uses that exist in this portion of San Diego Bay. The downtown San Diego skyline is separated by the San Diego/ Coronado Bay Bridge from the marine industrial character of South Central Bay. In addition to the physical setting of San Diego Bay, other factors influence the overall visual appearance of Port tidelands and surrounding areas. These other factors include: weather influences, such as the contrast between cloudy overcast and bright sunlit days; the time of year, for example, low winter sun makes viewing in some areas more difficult; and the time of day and day of the week, for example, the weekend concentration of vehicles and utilization of parking lots can dramatically change the visual appearance of an area. Additional, more detailed, visual descriptions and analyses of several specific areas within the Port of San Diego's jurisdiction are available in many of the EIR's and other reports and documents listed in the References section under the San Diego Unified Port District entries. AVAILABLE VIEWS A comprehensive visual analysis of available views in the San Diego Bay area has been conducted and the results are presented graphically in Figure 9. A number of visual elements were analyzed, including continuous, and panoramic views, as well as areas wherein visual disruptions, clutter, or barriers exist. 102 < comom- V4 LEGEND "th 0 dftmw -oo- ow@. Visual Analysis San Diego Bay Area Among the more important existing available views are the numerous areas through- out San Diego Bay, particularly near the shoreline, wherein continuous, broad, or panoramic views exist. Such views are found along the outer edge of the Shelter Island peninsula, and within the Shelter Island Municipal Yacht Harbor and Commercial Basin; along the outer edge of the Harbor Island peninsula and inner shoreline of the Spanish Landing Park area; along the Embarcadero's Crescent Zone, Sea Port Village, and Embarcadero Marina Park areas; along the north Coronado Bayfront shoreline, the Coronado Golf Course, and the San Diego/ Coronado Bay Bridge; along several areas within and adjacent to National City and the Sweetwater Marsh complex, particularly the E and F Street marshes, the J Street peninsula, and the Chula Vista Boat Basin area; along the shoreline adjacent to the salt ponds south of the SDG&E Plant in South Bay; along the western shoreline of South Bay and including North Island and East Island on the Coronado Cays; and along both sides of the Silver Strand. In addition to views on or adjacent to Port tidelands, spectacular bay views exist from higher elevations along portions of Interstate 5 adjacent to Lindbergh Field and to the US Naval Station in National City. A more detailed discussion and definition of the terms used in the visual analysis, is provided in Figure 9, and in the Port District Appearance, Master Plan Revision Program (SDUPD, 1972c). The visual analysis of San Diego Bay and adjacent areas also included an inventory of major vista points, see Figure' 10. These have been classified as: taken of the Bay from uplands; of uplands from the Bay; and of the Bay from major land paths. Panoramic vistas are also highlighted on this illustration. Perhaps most notable are the large number of vistas available from moving vantage points, such as adjacent streets and highways. 105 Noise Quality The noise environment within and adjacent to the Port's Master Plan area is complex and attributable to many different sources. Noise is unwanted sound. What is "unwanted" is defined by the individual; it varies widely and is influenced by the relationship to the noise source (i.e., dog owner, neighbor, hunter, motorcyclist, pilot), emotional state and many other factors. Govern- mental regulations address health aspects. Noise is generated by aircraft in the vicinity of San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field) and North Island Naval Air Station (NAS) on the Coronado peninsula. More widely distributed noise sources such as motor vehicle traffic including automobiles, trucks, buses, and motorcycles, exist along streets, highways, and freeways throughout and adjacent to the Master Plan area. Military, commercial, and privately owned vessels which operate in San Diego Bay also contribute to the noise environment. Various railroad activities along the Atchison-Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (AT&SF) and the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway (SD&AE) constitute another noise source. Fixed noise sources associated with military, industrial, commercial, recrea- tional, and institutional activities also exist within and around the Master Plan area. Short duration, infrequent noise sources such as emergency vehicle sirens, local construction activities, and various community activities in- cluding musical events, parades, picnics, carnivals, etc., exist on a temporary basis. The noise environment is described in a general sense because of the variety, number, and complexity of noise sources involved. More detailed information is provided, however, for aircraft operations and motor vehicle traffic as the primary contributors to the noise environment. Individual reports are referenced to provide information in greater detail for the types of site-specific noise sources. Noise levels discussed herein are expressed in decibels (dB) usually measured on the A-weighted scale (dBA), which most closely approximates the human hearing response. Decibels indicate a relative measurement of sound energy on a logarith- mic scale.. An increase of 3 decibels represents a doubling of the sound energy, for example 53 dB represents twice the sound energy of 50 dB, etc. This in- crease, however, is barely perceptible to most people, who are only able to distinguish sound level changes of approximately 3-5 dB. The actual increase in energy perceived by a person as "doubling the loudness" i.e., twice or half as loud, corresponds to about 10 dB. For example, because of the logarithmic nature of noise descriptors, the noise from two similar automobiles instead of one (a 3 dB change) is not clearly discernible, while 10 rather than I appear to be twice as loud. 106 A-2 A-3 C all -J@ C-3 C- . ... ... ..... ............... B-2 C-14 B-10 C-6 C-7 .2 B-4 14 B-6 B-1 ... ..... . ......... 4, LEGEND "Islas of the bay from uplands vistas from the bay of uplands C-1 vistas at the bay from major land path* panoramic vistas J Aft Points S.nDlego Bay Area ........ Major VI-SI&CM Aircraft noise1evels are expressed on the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), a continuous 24 hour scale which averages hourly noise events and takes into account all A-weighted sound (dBA) recieved at a point from a noise source which causes noise above some prescribed value. The CNEL scale not only averages noise, but in addition, includes weighting factors which place greater importance on noise generated during evening hours (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM), which is multiplied by a factor of three, and even greater importance upon noise generated during nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM), which is multiplied by a factor of ten. Motor vehicle traffic noise, boat traffic, railroad operation, and other noise sources, are described for selected locations within and surrounding the Master Plan area. In some cases the noise samples have been statistically analyzed to determine the amount of time the measured noise levels exceeded selected reference points. Some noise levels are presented as a median (middle of the range of noise levels) and are expressed as L50. Other noise samples are averaged to include both day and nighttime noise (similar to CNEL), expressed as Ldn. Noise samples taken for only short time periods are expressed as a representative percentage, for example, 60 dBA LIO describes the maximum noise level (60 dBA) at some location, which is exceeded only 10% of the time over which the noise measurements were taken. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL NOISE San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field) Noise generated by aircraft operations associated with Lindbergh Field is the result of a variety of circumstances and several influencing factors. An air- craft operation is defined as a takeoff or a landing. As stated in the Study of Noise Control Alternatives for San Diego International Airport Lindbergh Field, (Systems Control, Inc., 1978, p. 2-2) in part: "An understanding of the Lindbergh Field noise environment requires knowledge of the interdependent components of that environment. At every airport, runway length, approach area topography, landing aids, .weather, aircraft performance, and aircraft operations combine to produce a site-specific situation that results in a unique spatial dis- persion of noise energy." Lindbergh Field is operated by the San Diego Unified Port District. It is used by commercial airlines which use various mixes of nine different aircraft types and by general aviation. The Boeing 727 accounts for about 65 per- cent of all commercial jet aircraft operations. About 70 percent of all de- partures are to destinations within 500 miles. About 90 percent of all take- offs and landings by commercial airliners utilize an eastern approach and a western departure. Lindbergh Field since 1975 has been under operating limitations from 12:00 midnight to 6:00 AM, as per Port District Resolution No. 75-226. On June 5, 1979, the Board of Port Commissioners extended the time from 11:30 PM to 6:30 AM to become effective September 4, 1979, and provided for 15 minute "grace" periods. The accumulated noise levels for the calendar year 1978, produced the contours shown in Figure lla which represent about 82,000 jet aircraft operations by scheduled air carriers. The Port District reports the measured 75 CNEL contour on a quarterly basis to the County of San Diego. The latest available (8/79) 75 CNEL contour data, ending June 30, 1979, is shown in Figure llb. 109 The 1978 annual contours associated with Lindbergh Field are illustrated in Figure lla. The contours were developed as stated in the SCI 1978 report on p. 4-7, in part as follows: "Quarterly and annual CNEL contours for Lindbergh Field have been gen- erated using a master set of contours and correlating them with the data from the 12 permanent monitoring sites which are monitored continuously over the year. The 12 sites are located to monitor the 75 CNEL contour. Monitored data from the 12 months ending June 1978 were analyzed and the process of correlation was validated. Having obtained a validated and accurate 75 CNEL contour, the Integrated Noise Model (INM) was then used to generate this same contour. The pre- diction of the INM model had an excellent correlation with the verified 75 CNEL contour further validating the accuracy of the noise impact pre- diction. With minor calibration of the model, the 75 CNEL contour was duplicated within a 1 dB tolerance on the computer. Exact operational data for the 9 months ending September 1978 were collected from airline schedules and discussions with operations per- sonnel. Based on that data, a projection for the October through December quarter was made to arrive at annualized operational data. Using the calibrated model, contours were then generated." Noise Control Plan After consideration of the SCI report, the Board of Port Commissioners adopted a No'ise Control Plan for Lindbergh Field. The Plan was adopted on December 12, 1978, and contains the following elements: 1. Alternatives Affecting Aircraft Operational Procedures and Techniques 2. Alternatives Affecting Land Use A. Land Acquisition B. Land Use Compatibility 3. Alernatives Affecting Airport Use A. Curfew B. Type Restriction C. Aircraft Scheduling D. Jet Aircraft Maintenance Runups 4. Airport Design 5. Noise Abatement Advisory Committee 6. Acceptance of Service by Commercial Air Carriers Not Presently Serving Lindbergh Field 7. Periodic Review of the Noise Control Plan A discussion of these noise reduction programs can be found in the Port's Noise Control Plan (SDUPD, 1978f), attached as Appendix K. Following is the Plan's discussion for each item above. 1. Alternatives Affecting Aircraft Operational Procedures and Techniques T-hree of the items which the Port District was to consider in the development of its plan were a preferential runway program, alteration of existing arrival and departure paths, and changes in aircraft operational techniques (Items (3), (4) and (5) in Condition 3 of the 110 Mimion B-P, V;;6 A Ic j CNEL: Aircraft noise measured by the Community Noise Equivalent Level SAN method in 75:4, decibels :70 At L SOURCE T "A Study of Noise Control -AA Alternatives for SDIA" Iq ------------ Fit; ------------------ Systems Control, Inc Dec ;mber 1978 0 NJ 9 1 P r- -H k .1 NAVAL A. AIH SIATI -A)HIM I SLAND Scale lipre Daft Dr. C Aircraft CNEL Noise Contours 0 5000' San Diego International Airport I Base year 19781 la Dam Planning Department No. I I I I I I I i I I . I I .1 I I 1 112 1 P U F 9 a M All, 4, O's V CNEL: Aircraft noise measured by the Community Noise Equivalent Level method in decibels ------------- ---------------------- Z SOURCE FOR 1P 75 CNEL: Lindbergh Field Quarterly Noise aj1 Report for I period ending June 30, 1979 k .1 NA%AL Alk SIATI "N "Mil 1.1LAND % Scale Fi gure Da 01 ircraft CNEL Noise Contours .Dr 0 500 San Diego International Airport IBase year ending] 11b sa Planning Department 4une 30,1979 J No I I I I I I I i 'i i I I I i I I i 114 1 Variance Decision). The SCI report evaluates each of these items. However, as noise abatement strategies, each of these matters also require consideration of safety issues since they involve the actual flight of aircraft. Decisions regarding operational techniques and procedures utilized by aircraft in flight are under the sole regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration, and the proprietor of an airport is in no position to substitute its judgment for that of FAA regarding the proper balance between noise abatement and safety considerations in evaluating any one of these items. In view-of FAA's sole authority and responsibility for regu- latory action in this particular subject area, the plap of the San Diego Unified Port District in respect to these items is as follows: A. The Port Director is directed to forward a copy of the SCI Report to appropriate officers of the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration specifically referencing the information provided in that report regarding preferential runway, flight paths, and operational techniques. In view of the obligations which the Congress of the United States has imposed upon the Federal Aviation Administration through various amendments to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, directing FAA to take such steps as it deems necessary or desirable to afford relief from noise in respect to those matters under its regulatory authority and control, the Port Director will request FAA to evaluate carefully the information provided in the SCI report to deter- mine what noise benefits FAA can provide to the San Diego com@-. munity. B. The Port Dierector is directed to advise FAA and appropriate representatives of the airline industry of'the Port District's support for continued research and experimentation regarding aircraft operational procedures which would be effective in -reducing noise. 2. Alternatives Affecting Land Use In litigation now pending in Te San Diego Superior Court, certain owners of real property have alleged that the Port District has taken an interest in their property as a result of noise generated by jet aircraft using Lindbergh Field. Such an interest is commonly referred to as an avigation easement. The Port District's response in the litigation has been, among other things,@ that if the operation of jet aircraft at Lindbergh Field has indeed resulted in the acquisi- tion of an avigation easement for noise in respect of the plaintiffs' properties, then the use constituting such as easement existed for a period more than five years prior to the time that the plaintiffs first filed their action, and has continued since that time. Therefore, it is the position of the Port District that it has acquired all necessary avigation easements for noise by prescription. The.Port District's position regarding its acquisition of a prescrip- tive easement for noise applies not only to those particular parcels of real property involved in pending litigation, but applies equally 115 to any and all parcels of real property which may be subject to noise generated by jet aircraft operations at Lindbergh Field. Because of its past acquisition of these easements, the Port District is in compliance with the California Noise Standards and has a "noise impact area", as defined in the regulations, of zero. However, in previous variance proceedings, the Port Di9trict has stated publicly its position that, despite'its acquisition of prescriptive easements, it was voluntarily participating in the variance proceedings because the Port District had hoped that the variance proceedings might evolve into a forum in which ideas regarding noise control at Lindbergh Field could be responsibly discussed. It has been expressly agreed by the parties to the past variance proceedings, and confirmed by the administrative law judge in each proceeding, that the Port District's application for a variance was made without prejudice to its position regarding the acquisition of its prescriptive easements. A. Land Acquisition Addilional land acquisition programs are at least theoretically possible, including acquisition of fee interests rather than easements, and relocation of persons now residing in a noise impacted area. For the time being, the Port District has con- sidered and rejected any program involving acquisition of a fee interest in residential properties for a number of reasons: First, the expense of such a project would be substantial. It is clear that, at least for the present, the citizens of California are interested in reductions, not major increases, in government spending. Second, acquisition of fee interests in residential properties would necessarily be accompanied by a conversion of the land to uses more compatible with airport operations, significantly ,changing the character of some existing neighborhoods. The Port District has had many indications from residents in adjacent areas that they do not presently favor such a program. B. Land Use Compatibility To e extent that zoning or other land use regulation could be used to convert land to uses which the Noise Standards would deem compatible with the operation of Lindbergh Field - or to prevent development of new and additional incompatible uses - such regulatory authority rests primarily with the City of San Diego. The Port District understands that, under compulsion of state law, the City is seeking to enforce some measure of soundproofing for new construction to meet a specified interior noise criterion. However, the City has also continued to permit new high density residential development within the "noise impact area" of Lindbergh Field even though the Port District has advised it of the inconsis- tency of its actions with the objectives of the Noise Standards, and despite objections by other interested persons and agencies. The Port District therefore requests that the City of San Diego not make any further discretionary land use decisions which would serve to increase incompatable development within Lindbergh Field's 1986 criterion CNEL contour; and the staff is directed to continue 116 to encourage the City of San Diego to make land use decisions which are consistent with the operation of Lindbergh Field, and to object to those decisions whi.ch are inconsistent with the operation of the airport. In addition, should the City make a firm commitment to pursue aggressively the use of its land use regulatory authority in an attempt to improve materially the existing situation, the Port District remains willing to cooperate in the development and implementation of such a program. 3. Alternatives Affecting Airport Use rtain items listed in Condition 3 of the Variance Decision come within a general category of regulations commonly known as airport use restrictions, specifically, items: (1) /"curfew"/, (2) /"re- strictions to types of aircraft"/, (9) /"aircraft scheduling"/, and (10) P'location and time for engine run-up"/. The plan of the Port District with respect to each of those items is as follows: A. Curfew The SCI study shows that expansion of the Port District's existing curfew to the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. would have virtually no effect on Lindbergh Field's existing CNEL contours. However, the CNEL methodology itself may or may not be adequate to describe the impact or benefits to be realized from a nighttime curfew. It has been approximately three years since the present curfew was adopted by the Port District, and the Port District believes that it would be appropriate to solicit public comment and hold public hearings in the near future to permit the Port Commissioners to consider the effect 9f the existing curfew, and to consider whether or not there is any reason why the existing curfew should be expanded, con- tracted, or otherwise modified. Therefore, the Port Director is directed to provide proper notice to the public and all other interested parties, and to schedule a public hearing before the Commissioners to take place not later than March 31, 1979, for the purpose of con- sidering possible modifications to the existing curfew.* Further, because of the complexities of the curfew issue, the notice of hearing shall invite all interested parties to submit written comments or proposals regarding modifications to the curfew in advance of the public hearing so that the Commissioners may have an opportunity to review carefully any such submissions. B. Type Restrictions The landing permit agreements between the Port District and most of the air carriers now serving Lindbergh Field expire in March of 1982. A few of the landing permits expire prior to that date, but are renewable annually. The staff is directed to prepare an ordinance, to be effective in March of 1982 and upon expirati.on of the current landing permit agreements, which will thereafter prohibit any person from operating any aircraft at Lindbergh Field which is not certificated under the provisions of Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. *This public hearing was held on March 6, 1979. 117 C. Aircraft Scheduling Other than the matters discussed elsewhere in this noise plan, the Port District does not presently perceive any significant noise benefits which would be sufficient to justify further restricting the flexibility of the air carriers in the scheduling of their operations. I D. Jet Aircraft Maintenance Runups The Fort District has regulated the time and location for jet engine maintenance runups at.Lindbergh Field for more than ten years. The SCI report indicates that no meaningful noise benefit would be realized by further restricting necessary maintenance operations at the airport. Therefore, the Port District will maintain in full force and effect its current regulations and procedures regarding jet enginer maintenance runups. 4. Airport Design At the time the Port District retained Systems Control, Inc. to analyze various noise abatement alternatives which might be applicable to Lindbergh Field, there had been some public indication that the United States of America might be considering the abandonment of certain property to the north of Lindbergh Field now used for military purposes (the Marine Corps Recruit Depot /"MCRD"/). For that reason, the Port District requested SCI to analyze generally the feasibility of constructing a new runway through,MCRD sufficient to serve air carrier aircraft, and to evaluate what noise benefits, if any, might be realized from the construction of such a runway. The SCI report considers two such runways, both on a heading of 3000. One alternative is a runway with a length of 7200 feet, and the other is a 10,000 foot runway. In addition, SCI analyzed two different departure profiles from those runways in order to determine their respective noise impacts. It is apparent from the SCI report that the construction of a new Runway 30, either 7200 or 10,000 feet in length, could be used only for take-off purposes and would not be available for landings. Thus, the construction of the runway would have no effect on the noise impact to the east of Lindbergh Field presently caused by aircraft landing on Runway 27. (Approximately 90% of the current landing operations occur on Runway 27.) Nor would the construction of the new runway have any effect on the noise impact on the areas to the west of Lindbergh Field which presently occur when conditions require aircraft to land on Runway 9. (Approximately 10% of current landing operations occur on Runway 9.) Further, during that period of time when conditions require aircraft to depart on Runway 9, the construc- tion of the new runway would have no effect on the noise impact which now occurs to the east of Lindbergh Field during those take-off operations. Nevertheless, it is clear that the construction of this new runway would provide substantial noise relief to the area west of Lindbergh Field, because it would redirect a significant portion of the take-offs which now occur on Runway 27. It appears to the Port District that this noise benefit may be of sufficient magnitude to justify the expense of constructing a new Runway 30. 118 Unfortunately, the land needed for the construction of Runway 30 is presently being used by the United States Marine Corps, and the Port District has no legal means, by eminent domain or otherwise, to acquire the property without the consent of the United States of America. Therefore, the Port Director is directed to advise appropriate local, state and federal officials of the results of the SCI study by providing them with a copy of the SCI report, together with any additional informa- tion which might better explain the benefits to the public which would be realized by the construction of Runway 30; and the Port Director shall convey the Port District's interest in acquiring this property should it become available at any time in the future. 5. Noise Abatement Advisory Committee As noted earlier, the Port District is currently a defendant in multi- million dollar litigation initiated by certain persons generally residing in the Loma Portal area of San Diego. The Port District has a public duty and responsibility to defend this litigation, and it has, and will continue to do so. Unfortunately, the existence of litigation substantially inhibits free and open communication between the parties. It now appears that a major segment of these lawsuits will be tried early in 1979, and may well be completed by July of 1979.* The Port District has previously expressed the view, which it continues to hold, that litigation of this type is not an effective means to achieve noise control, nor is it a proper means to strike the delicate balance between the San Diego's need for an adequate commercial air transportation facility and the desire of persons living around the airport for a reduction of noise levels. Also, it is clear that the proprietor of an airport has limited authority to achieve a reduction of incompatible uses adversely affected by airport operations, and that other entities have the authority and responsibility for taking many of the measures which might result in some noise reduction. The Port District is, of course, fully aware that there are substantial competing interests involved in the operation of Lindbergh Field which often appear to be irreconcilably in conflict. Nevertheless, if further attempts to improve the noise environment around Lindbergh Field are to be effective, all of these competing interests must be involved in a forum where they can communicate directly with each other. Obviously, such communication can be effective only if each of the interested parties and entities participates in good faith, with a full recognition of the valid and substantial nature of the concerns of each of the other parties, and with a willingness to accept the reality that compromise, rather .than "total victory", is the only.possible solution. It may be that the conflicts between these competing interests are so great that they cannot work effectively together. Nevertheless, the potential benefit to be realized from effective communication between these interests is also great, and justifies an effort by the Port District to provide a forum in which those competing interests could work together if they so choose. *The lawsuits are imminent. They were not tried by July of 1979. 119 Therefore, and subject to any further advice from the Port District's special counsel for litigation, on July 1, 1979, the Port District will establish a Noise Abatement Advisory Committee to be composed of representatives of all governmental agencies, commercial interests, the airline industry, and citizens groups which have a direct interest in the operation of Lindbergh Field. The staff is directed to prepare recommendations regarding the composi- tion of this Advisory Committee, as well as any recommendations they may have regarding its procedures. 6. Acceptance of Service By Commercial Air Carriers Not PresentV Serving Lindbergh Field (Note: This section, No. 6, was deleted by Resolution 79-16 on January 16, 1979, see Appendix K.) In recent months, the current administration and the United States Congress have taken action to begin a process of reducing regulatory restrictions on the operation of the commercial air carriers in the United States. This process has been commonly referred to as "deregulation." As.a result of one of the initial steps in this process of deregulation, certain air carriers, not presently serving Lindbergh Field, have been granted authority by the federal govern- ment to commence service to San Diego. Those air carriers have now, or are expected shortly to request the Port District's permission to commence scheduled operations at Lindbergh Field. Deregulation of the commercial air carriers is a significant and substantial change in federal policy. Its effects on airport opera- tions and airport use cannot now be accurately predicted. The ultimate effects of airline deregulation on the noise environment at Lindbergh Field are also extremely difficult to ascertain at the present time, and it may well be that this federal decision to deregulate will eventually require a substantial reevaluation by the Port District of its approach to noise control at Lindbergh Field. Therefore, the Port District hereby declares a moratorium, effective through December 31, 1979, on the use of Lindbergh Field for scheduled operations by any commercial air carrier not presently serving the airport. *This moratorium is intended to permit the Port District sufficient time to evaluate the possible consequences of deregulation on the approach by the Port District, as proprietor, to noise control at Lindbergh Field. It is anticipated that, upon formation of the Noise Abatement Advisory Committee discussed above, procedures and policies for regulation of the use of Lindbergh Field by new and existing commercial air carriers will be a priority item for dis- cussion, and that appropriate recommendations will be made by staff to the Port Commissioners for their consideration prior to the ex- piration of this moratorium. *This moratorium was rescinded by Board Resolution 79-16 on January 16, 1979. 120 7. Periodic Review of the Noise Control Plan Striking a proper balance between the desire for noise reduction and assuring adequate commercial air transportation service to San Diego is an extremely delicate process and involves numerous factors which are subject to change. Therefore, it is the intent of the Port Commissioners to review tnis noise control plan annually, or more frequently in the event that special circumstances should so dictate. The staff is therefore directed to schedule a regular time and meeting for the purpose of the annual review of this noise control plan. In connection with the annual review by the Commissioners, the staff shall prepare and submit a report to the Commissioners regarding the implementation and effects of the noise control plan during the past year, together with its recommendations, if any, for modifications to the plan. North Island Naval Air Station Additional noise is generated within the Port's Master Plan area by aircraft operations at the North Island Naval Air Station (NAS), located on the Coronado peninsula. The facility is operated by the US Navy and includes about twenty air squadrons, most of which include anti-submarine warfare aircraft. Facilities at NAS include two runways. Most aircraft landings occur on runway 29 (from the southeast along the Coronado ocean shoreline) and most takeoffs are normally on runway 18 (to the southwest, out over the Pacific Ocean). NAS has 24 hour aircraft operations under normal conditions. Flight patterns are influenced b the close proximity of Lindbergh Field and the Point Loma peninsula. The flight patterns, together with other factors and based on an averaged annual operations level of about 145,000 (about 11,700 per month) produce the CNEL y contours shown in Figure 12. Military airports do not operate on schedules as do commercial airports, and large fluctuations from 3,000 to 20,000 air operations per month have occured at NAS and can again take place. The facility also includes aircraft and engine repair operations. In addition to noise from aircraft operations during flight, noise is also generated by engine runups conducted for the purpose of testing the repaired engines prior to flight. Engines are tested, both in frames (engines in the aircraft) and out of frames (engines removed from the aircraft). About eight engine runups per day occur between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM. Jet engine runups average about 8 minutes' duration at idle power, and about 4 minutes at hi ,gher power settings. Occasional jet engine runups are conducted between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM to prepare for early morning missions, according to the US Navy (1977c). Propeller aircraft runups average about 2 minutes at full power. Although no specific estimates of the number of persons, housing units, or residential acreages affected by aircraft noise from NAS have been developed, Figure 12 indicates that NAS aircraft operations and runups affect the noise environment in areas adjacent to several of the Port's Planning Districts. Specifically, the 65 dB CNEL contour extends over adjacent residential areas within the City of Coronado. The NAS noise setting description is based upon noise surveys conducted at NAS and in Coronado by the Aircraft Environmental Support Office (AESO), report number AESO 311-74-2, (AESO, 1973); the Air Installations Compatible Use Zones 121 (AICUZ) Study, Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego, California (US Navy, 1977c); and the Aircraft Noise Survey Report, Naval Air Station/Naval Air Re- work Facility, North Island, California (AESO, 1978). The CNEL contours illustrated in Figure 12 (AESO, 1978), indicate a reduction of the noise impact area shown on earlier 1973 CNEL contours. As stated on an unnumbered insert page following p. V-1, in the 1977 AICUZ (US Navy, 1977c) study: "Preliminary survey work shows a 65 CNEL contour line generally following Balboa Avenue in Coronado. The 65 CNEL contour curves around in the direction of the street pattern and intersects Ocean Avenue. A monitor at Ocean Avenue and "F" Avenue has been recording levels of 65 CNEL. Another monitor at the western end of Ocean Blvd. indicates a noise level of 75 CNEL at the station gate. Other land areas impacted by 65 CNEL or higher are portions of Ballast Point and the air station itself." The NAS Noise Survey (AESO, 1978) indicates that no portions of Port Planning Districts are within the NAS 65 dB CNEL contour. The Port's Master Plan area is not experiencing noise levels from NAS in excess of those established specifi- cally for residential areas, as specified by the California Noise Standards. MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC Noise within and surrounding the Port's Master Plan area attributed to motor vehicle traffic is most pronounced along streets, highways, and freeways which have high average daily traffic (ADT) flow, high percentages of trucks and buses, and high actual speed of travel or steep grades. Areas of acceleration and deceleration, such as on-ramps and off-ramps, also tend to experience in- creased noise from vehicle traffic. Transportation Noise Contour maps, which include 1973 noise contours from free- Ways, highways, railroads, and aircraft including the San Diego Bay area, are available at the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO). The contours are based upon the Wyle Laboratories Research Report: Development of Ground Trans- portation Systems, Noise Contours for the San Diego Region (CPO, 1973). Vehicle traffic noise along streets and highways is primarily a localized noise source. State law establishes noise limits and time-phased criteria (55 dBA Ldn for residential areas) for vehicles operated on streets and highways. In addition, local agencies have enforcement power regarding such regulations and may, in fact, establish regulations in ordinances for more specific restrictions. A general relationship between vehicle traffic noise and ADT has been described by the City of National City as referenced in the Marina/Columbia Residential Development EIS (City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency, 1979). Values are expressed in day-night average noise levels (Ldn) for six roadways within downtown San Diego. The relationship between traffic volume (ADT) and noise (Ldn) shows a reasonable level of agreement with actual traffic noise moni- toring along major streets in the Marina/Columbia Residential Development area. The San Diego streets had ADT's between 7,600 and 21,300 and corresponding noise levels between 61 and 65 dBA Ldn. These data suggest that traffic noise 122 0 7 7 60 BI DIEGO Co F T 14G ...e RKET 65 70 (80 76 70 61 . .. ..... 85. 60% WIN A 8ts .......... SAN DIE Co 75 SA14 Go CITY 0 % 65 CITY SoyI SAN IF-60 60 CNEL: Al @.craft noise measured by the Community Noise Equivalent Level method in decibels. SOURCE: "Aircraft Noise Survey Report, NAS/NARF, North Island, Calif." Aircraft Environmental Support Office, September 1978. Scale Figure OF awa D7E8102 179 MMPMMEPM Aircraft CNEL Noise Contours M.1911 8 2000. AESO 0 -12 HAS/NA7RF Planning D"artment North Island Naval Air Station y4e,. 123 I I I I 'I I I I I I I I i I i I I I I 124 1 @ i increases by I to 2 dBA Ldn for each additional 5,000 ADT. Consequently, a traffic flow of 5,000 ADT which produced 58 dBA Ldn might be expected to produce 68 dBA Ldn with a traffic flow of 40,000 ADT. As a general rule, traffic noise increases about 3 dBA for every doubling of traffic volume; increases about 6 dBA for every doubling of speed; and decreases about 3 dBA for every doubling of distance from the center line of the nearest street (Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise; Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., 1973). Because of the variables which influence vehicle traffic noise, and because of the use of different measurement methods, a description of vehicle traffic noise along streets and highways is provided for only selected locations within and adjacent to the Master Plan area. Traffic noise within the Shelter Island Planning District has been described in the Shelter Island Precise Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1976e), on p. 33, as follows: "Vehicular traffic on the major and collector streets constitutes the predominant source of noise in the area, although traffic on local streets also contributes. The highest noise levels are associated with peak hour traffic. City of San Diego street noise contours show no problem areas." Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field Planning District traffic noise has been esti- mated in the North Harbor Drive Noise Impact Report (CALTRANS, 1976c). Adjacent to the US Naval Training Center, traffic noise contours (LIO) indicate 75 dBA, 100 feet from the North Harbor Drive center line and 70 dBA, 200 feet from the center line. Traffic noise estimates (L50) within 100 feet of selected streets in the Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District have been provided in the Embarcadero Develop- ment Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1976a). Harbor Drive traffic generates 57 to 69 dBA; Pacific Highway traffic generates 56 to 60 dBA; Laurel Street traffic about 63 dBA; Hawthorn and Grape Streets about 58 dBA; and Ash, Broadway and Market about 56 dBA. Noise measurements for the area adjacent to the Sea Port Village site in San Diego Embarcadero have been recorded in the Sea Port Village EIR (SDUPD, 1977c). Ambient noise measurements of motor vehicle traffic along adjacent areas of Harbor Drive and Pacific Highway showed an average noise level range of between 54 and 68 dBA. 125 Climate/Air Quality CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS The Port of San Diego's Master Plan area and the surrounding area including the cities of San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, and Coronado share climatic characteristics similar to those of the San Diego coastal area in general. This climatic region is classified as Dry Steppe (BSk) Koppen-Geiger classification system. The climate is characterized by ocean influenced, mild temperatures and light to moderate precipitation primarily during the winter months. The Master Plan area is situated on a semi-arid coastline with a long, dry, and uninterrupted summer season as summarized in the Natural Physical Factors of the San Diego Bay Tidelands (SDUPD, 1972a). The three north San Diego Bay Planning Districts, which include Shelter Island, Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field, and Centre City/Embarcadero, are subject to minor localized minor climatic influences due primarily to the proximity of these areas to the Point Loma peninsula to the west. The intervening peninsula sometimes diminishes the direct effects of predominantly westerly winds and late afternoon sun in these Planning Districts. Two meteorological stations exist within and in the Master Plan area; one at Lindbergh Field and the other at North Island NAS. Data gathered from these two stations are used as the basis of the climate descriptions for the Port of San Diego's Master Plan area and surrounding area, see Figure 13. Precipitation Average annual rainfall received at the Lindbergh Field 10.4 inches. Average annual rainfall at the North Island NAS is 8.4 inches. About 75% of the pre- cipitation received in both areas falls between the months of December and March. Heavy fogs occur in the San Diego Bay area approximately 24 days out of every year, most frequently in the fall and winter months; with the majority between November and January. Air Temperature Ai6Temperature as recorded at Lindbergh Field has an annual mean of approximately 63 F. Air temperature a8 recorded at North Island NAS a@ the Fleet Weather Facility has an annual mean of 62 F. Coldest temper8tures (45-60 F) generally occur in January and the warmest temperatures (60-75 F) in August and September. In general, temperatures within the San Diego Bay immediate area are more moderate than the surrounding upland areas in general. Wind Conditions The most characteristic feature of wind conditions in the Port of San Diego's Master Plan area is the predominant sea-land breeze, which persists as a westerly daytime wind, sometimes countered at night with an eastern land breeze as a result of cold air drainage. The average wind velocity at North Island NAS is 5.5 knots. Average wind velocity at Lindbergh Field is 6.6 knots. The sea-land breeze is less persistent in the winter than in the-summer, and strong winds and gales are infrequent except in the early fall and winter, when occasional hot, dry, 126 TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION LF MIA M J'JJAISO NID J F IM AIM I J J JAI S 101 N D F 1006 recorded monthly recorded highest highest ;w- average high lzo - ----- mean 4 over ge low 5 recorded lowest mean 2 recorded monthly lowest 0 source NAS N1, NAS 18, USDC source NAS N1 NAS 111, USDC HUMIDITY SUNSHINE/ OVERCAST J F A MIJ J I A I S 10 N I D J F M!AiM!i J AISIO D recorded higest average 9M. 30 maximum- clear mea n 20 - --- -- ilverag! m1n. 50% partly cloudy t 10 recorded o es w t cloudy 10%- source NAS 16 USDC source USDC IN WIND VELOCITY WIND ROSE 2 FIMIA M J J A S N 2 4@ X "06-1 4 50 recorded fastest mile 0 0 30 JFMAMJJAS ON cl; high average 100% b NO S AJ J MAM F -100%, mean 10 E KV9a1t\1'1 'N\K, low overag@ 0 11R 0 0 a. source NAS N1 NAS 111, USDC z 0 SOURCES: Naval Air Station North Island NAS NI X Naval Air Station Imperial Beach, 7% calm tie source NAS Ill NAS IS) average for.3 years S U. S. Department of Commerce (USDC) 0 0 scale Figure Dat, 6111 o. Chk Climate and Meteorolog UPD I..e '@6 25 planning department o Bay Area 13 N@- 11 San Dleg 011',103 FE 817 127 I I I . I I t I I I I i i I I i I .I I .128 1 (Santa Ana) winds blow from the east with great force. High temperatures are often accompanied by very low relative humidity, often below 20%. AIR QUALITY The Master Plan area in general experiences fewer air quality impacts than do the areas surrounding San Diego Bay, particularly inland foothill areas. This is largely because of the existing flat topography immediately adjacent to the central and south bay Planning Districts and the open ocean exposure to prevailing westerly winds, and the absence of major air pollutant emission sources to the west. The Master Plan area is situated in the western portion of the San Diego Air Basin, which includes the western two-thirds of San Diego County. This area has been designated as an Air Quality Attainment Maintenance Area by the California Air Resource Board. Project proposals within an Air Quality Attain- ment Maintenance Area must be evaluated as to their influence on control strate- gies to obtain and maintain established standards for major air pollutants. Existing commercial and industrial vehicle traffic and activities on tidelands are the primary contributors to air emissions which define the air quality environment in the Master Plan area. Previously the Port District has sub- mitted to the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) the existing adopted Master Plan land use designations. The various general land uses were then subsequently used by CPO to assist in the determination of activity center data and related emissions projections during the development of the San Diego Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP) (CPO, 1978j). The intensity and distribution of various land uses designated in the Port's Master Plan have only changed negligibly since the land use designation information has been submitted to CPO and, therefore, the various emission products for proposed Port develop- ments have already been incorporated into the AQMP. The objectives of the AQMP are to achieve and maintain air quality standards throughout the San Diego Air Basin. The existing and proposed land use and resulting vehicle traffic circulation resulting in air emissions are fully accounted for in the AQMP projections. The AQMP also accounted for air emissions for specific activities, anticipated to develop as allowed under various land use designations, using the Regional Emissions Trends Projections.* Development assumptions using these projections identify five major Emission Source Categories including; -Process Losses -Fuel Combustion -Air, Water, Rail Transportation -Motor Vehicles -Miscellaneous and corresponding Activity Indicator Assignments based upon: -CPO Series IV B, Employment and Population Data -California Department of Motor Vehicles Registration Projections -CALTRANS Transportation Models ADT and BMT Data -CPO Regional Energy Plan Gasoline Comsumption Data -CPO SANPAT Annual Operations Data -SDG&E Energy Sales and Requirements Forecasts See App6ndix C. 129 Temperature Inversions The San Diego area in general and the San Diego bay and surrounding vicinity to a lesser extent, frequently experience strong temperature inversions together with light wind conditions in an easterly direction that are conducive to the concentration of air pollutants. Data from North Island NAS indicates that the base height of inversion (warm air) layers, which are about 1,500 feet above sea level or less, occur at a frequency of at least 18% of the time during the spring and summer months and no more than 16% of the time during the fall and winter months. The annual frequency of inversion layers with bases below 2,500 feet is 77% for the early morning period and 63% for the afternoon period. The annual average height is about 1,340 feet above sea level. The air pollution potential during the winter and spring months is generally lower than during the summer and fall months due to the high westerly wind velocities which tend to reduce the probability for temperature inversions. In general the San Diego area has a greater frequency of occurrence of temperature inversions than either Los Angeles or Orange County (US Department of Commerce, 1978). Air emission sources within and surrounding the San.Diego Bay area have been described in summary in the San Diego Harbor Main Channel Dredging Project EIS (USACE, 1975) in part as follows: "Because of the extensive vehicular traffic and industrial and commercial activities that are concentrated around the bayshore, the bay area is probably one of the most important sources of smog in the county. The major sources of air pollutants are industrial, commercial and residential activities, motor vehicles, and aircraft. It is estimated that seventy to eighty percent of the air pollutants are discharged from automobiles. Air pollutants discharged from boats and ships are not of sufficient magnitude to be considered a significant source. The major emissions are hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, carbon monoxide, and particulates." "The concentration of air pollutants is dependent upon the amount and rate of discharge into the air, and upon the rate of dispersion and mixing of the contaminants with clean air. Mixing is greatly inhibited by calm air conditions and the presence of temperature inversions that restrict circulation. Adverse meteorological conditions occur most frequently during summer and early fall. After sea breezes that occur near the coast are particularly effective in dispersing air pollutants. For this reason there are relatively low smog concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the bay." Air Quality Monitoring No specific air quality monitoring programs nor quantitative analyses have been conducted within the individual Planning Districts of the Master Plan area. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) operates air quality monitoring stations in close proximity to the Master Plan area in downtown San Diego east of the Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District and in South Bay east of the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District. Air quality monitoring data obtained from the downtown San Diego and Chula Vista stations cannot be used effectively to evaluate the local air quality characteristics of the Planning Districts to the west surrounding San Diego 130 Bay, since local emissions of primary pollutants, primarily produced by motor vehicle traffic are significantly dispersed within a few thousand feet of the emission source. Such is the case particularly for the Coronado Bayfront Planning District, the Silver Strand South Planning District, and to some extent for the Southbay Saltlands Planning District. Furthermore, air pollu- tants emitted within and adjacent to the,Master Plan area are usually trans- ported rapidly from their point of origin by westerly winds to upland areas further inland and to the east. Data from the San Diego downtown station and from the Chula Vista monitoring station are therefore presented for informa- tional purposes only. APCD monitoring data for the calendar year 1978 is based upon information obtained from the Air Quality and San Diego County, Annual Air Monitoring Report 1978 (APCD, 1979). These data indicated that the San Diego downtown station exceeded standards on 16 days for carbon monoxide and exceeded the standards for nitro- gen dioxide on 9 days. Standards for photochemical oxidant (primarily ozone) were exceeded on 39 days. Particulate matter levels exceeded standards on 17 days. Monitoring data for 1978 compared to 1977 data shows a slight in- crease (38 to 39) in the number of days oxidant standards have been exceeded; a slight decrease (from 9 to 3) in the number of days the standards for nitrogen dioxide have been exceeded; and a slight increase (from 12 to 17) in the number of days the standards for particulate matter have been exceeded, see Figures 14 and 15. By contrast, data from the Chula Vista Air Quality Monitoring Station indicates that the station exceeded standards on 8 days for carbon monoxide, and did not exceed standards for nitrogen dioxide. Standards for photo chemical oxidant (primarily ozone), however, were exceeded on 51 days as compared to 39 days for the San Diego downtown station. Particulate matter levels did not exceed standards. Monitoring data for 1978 compared to 1977 data shows a decrease (from 52 to 51) in the number of days photochemical oxidant standards have been exceeded; a decrease (from 2 to 0) in the number of days the nitrogen dioxide standards have been exceeded; and a decrease (from 2 to 0) in the number of days the standards for particulate matter have been exceeded. High oxident values typically occur in-March and April, and in September and October. Concentrations of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrocarbons, and suspended particulates are usually highest during the fall and winter months. San Diego Bay Area Air Quality It is unlikely that ambient air quality within and adjacent to the westernmost Planning Districts within the Port of San Diego's jurisdiction is worse than that monitored at either the downtown San Diego station or the Chula Vista station. On the contrary, because of the proximity to open coastal waters, the prevailing westerly winds, and the absence of major air emission sources upwind, it is likely that ambient air quality at least in the Planning District areas on the western side and northern side of San Diego Bay is better than that experienced either in downtown San Diego or in Chula Vista. The predominant existing source of air pollution within and adjacent to the Port's Master Plan area results from motor vehicle traffic. Major traffic 131 generators such as the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge and the Silver Strand Highway concentrate and focus approximately 35,000 vehicles per day and 28,000 vehicles per day respectively into these areas along the western periphery of the bay. Although heavy vehicle traffic also occurs to the east of the San Diego Bay area along 1-5 and adjacent on-ramps and off-ramps, the prevailing westerly winds rapidly disperse and transport these air emissions further to the east away from the San Diego Bay area. Other minor sources of air pollution include ship and boat exhaust emissions and fuel transfer vapors from various fuel docks in the Master Plan area. Ship and boat exhausts are under federal and state regulations and emission controls are installed at the point of manufacture. A total of 12 fuel docks are located in the Master Plan area. All are regulated by the San Diego APCD under existing "Permit to Operate" standards. 132 DAYS OF vioLATiON - FEDERAL 0.12p;xn REAC TIVE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS PRI14ARY OZONE STANDARD - 1978 (PERCENT OF TOTAL BASINWIDE:EMISSIONS) 00080"W10 082% 4V 17% 01% ,tt 20 15 W, 5 'N n Diego ir Basin ir Bassn' _p!!Di oA 2 gr Bomb W Pipint wny Mesa pjp;ne % V on on. 50 a v4a# *Vias MEXI 0 MEXIC6 NITROGEN DIOXIDE OXIDES OF NITROGEN EMISSIONS ANNUAL AVERAGE-1978 (PARTS PER HUNDRED MILLION) (PERCENT OF TOTAL.BASINWIDE EMISSIONS) 082% 017% 7, ndido 0 1% 3 R an Diego Air Basin a Air Basin sobna Beach Kearny ham ."y Mesa AIP;ne .0"On 5 Dowatawn a ONAD vias a Via& MEXICO M.=X1 SOURCE: Air Quality in San Diego County Annual Air Monitoring Report 1978: APCD Figure D,I* of: S44, Air Quality - 78102-1 0 5rn --Chk DEIR 9/79 0 - UPD 9/79 Gea%peraphical Distribution Base APCD RPRT `61"d 14 Ozone, Hydrocarbon, Nitrogen Emissions NO 9/78 PARTICULATE MATTER PARTICULATE MATTER PERCENT OF SAMPLES EXCEEDING ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN-1978 C,TATF 2A NDARD-1978. (MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER) 30 10 j. A.;; 20 70 60 50 eg San Di o Air Basin San Di 0 Air Basin So,. Sow" Be Kearny Moss Alpine Kearny M Alpine 3-0 a Colon 70 Cajon fp Down w 0 DZ/ Chula Vista a Chuto vists MEXICO L DAYS* OF VIOLATION - FEDERAL CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS 8-HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE STANDARD-1978 (PERCENT OF TOT AL. BASINWIDE EMISSIONS) EsconOdD 082% 017% '4a 01% Z-krll Al San Dino Air Basin Si' Diego Air Basin . Sol.* Bosch Solan .,a Kearny Mass Alpine arny Mova tipips, 8 Cajon Dome c3u" Vista EXICO SOURCE: Air Quality in San Diego County Annual Air Monitoring Report 1978: APCD Daw Of' S44, STJ eg Figure 78102-1 Air Ouality Orn --Uhk DEIR 9/79 dio Geographical Distribution Base UPO 9/79 APCD RPRT Particulate Matter, Carbon Monoxide Emissions 15 W-, 9/78 Energy The Port of San Diego Master Plan area and surrounding area share in common with the San Diego region the lack of any major naturally occuring, conven- tional energy resources. The Master Plan area as with the rest of San Diego County, has nearly all of its primary energy needs met by other areas. Approxi- mately 43% of this imported energy is used directly in electrical power genera- tion. The primary reference source for the information contained in this section is from the County of San Diego General Plan, Energy Element (County of San Diego, 1977). About 23% of all of the region's energy supply is imported as oil. The majority of the energy used in electrical power generation is based upon imported residual fuel (oil). About 31% of the imported energy into San Diego County is in the form of natural gas. About 11% of that amount is used for electrical power generation, the balance going for other uses, particularly light industries, commercial establishments and residences. Gasoline and related fuels account for 32% of the energy supply for the county and all is used for purposes other than electrical power generation. The primary use of gasoline and related fuels as an energy supply is for the private automobile. Dependence on the automobile and on electrical generation places residual fuels (oil) and gasoline and related fuels in prominance in terms of energy demand. Existing energy consumption trends provide few choices for energy supply, and any significant decrease in one of the two main energy sources, such as oil, could have significant impact on the economy of the San Diego region in general and upon the Port of San Diego's Master Plan area surrounding San Diego Bay in particular. Electrical power generation and transportation, which depend to a greater extent than others upon oil, and which combined equal more than 70% of San Diego County's total energy consumption, would be most impacted. Future electrical generation capacities and natural gas supplies for proposed tideland development are available, but depend upon regional, state, and national energy policies on fuel resource utilization. ENERGY CONSUMPTION If existing energy consumption trends continue, the energy use growth rate in San Diego County in general would remain at,approximately 3.5% per year, and annual natural gas consumption would reach about 4.9 billion therms (1 therm equals, 100,000 BTU's) by 1985 and about 8 billion therms by the year 2000. This consumption rate is comparable to the national average only because the county's population growth rate exceeds most areas in the nation, even though the county- wide per capita consumption rate is about 20% less. Per capita energy consumption in the,Port of San Diego's Master Plan area and in the immediate surrounding area is comparable to that experienced throughout the 137 region, but the population growth rate of the area surrounding the Port's Master Plan area is considerably less than the county-wide average. Energy use growth rates in the Master Plan area and surrounding areas would, therefore, be expected to be essentially less than those experienced county-wide. TRANSPORTATION USES Heavy dependence, county-wide, upon private automobiles is evident both in the energy consumption attributed to the private automobiles and in the number of private automobiles which travel to and from the Master Plan area and surrounding areas. A regional network of rail service with inter-connecting bus service could provide significant reduction in existing energy expenditures in the Plan area and in the surrounding area. Although at the present time the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is developing a proposal for such a combined rail service and bus transportation system, some Port District Planning Districts such as the Coronado Bayfront, the Silver Strand South or the Southbay Saltlands Planning Districts, are included in the planning objectives of the MTDB Light Rail Transit Development Plan. SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS If existing trends were to continue, the projected population and energy use growth rate for the San Diego area in general would necessitate large scale expansion of energy production facilities and/or a much greater importation of energy. The Port's Master Plan area does not include residential uses and the surrounding area is not expected to experience significantly increased population growth rates nor energy growth rates. The Bay area may nonetheless have less energy available due to a future shift in the energy supply distribu- tion mix which may emphasize domestic fossil fuel, imported oil, or possibly nuclear power. Existing Building Code provisions affect existing and future energy con- sumptiun patterns in the Port's Master Plan area. Building Codes apparently require energy saving construction practices, such as building insulation; and in some cases, the use of solar/thermal energy for heating swimming pools and supplementary water heating for residential and commercial applications, rather than natural gas. In addition, voluntary conservation efforts in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors are being experienced and are anticipated to continue into the future. Lastly, automobiles manufactured after 1985 are assumed to be capable of reaching an average energy efficiency level of 27.5 miles per gallon as a result of the requirements of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. It is anticipated that new developments proposed for the Port's Master Plan area and for surrounding areas will be designed for optimum energy efficiency in accordance with the Energy Conservation Standards for new non-residential buildings, adopted by the State of California Energy Commission on February 6, 1976; and with the Energy Insulation Standards for Residential Buildings adopt- 138 ed by the State of California, February 22, 1975. These regulations prescribe energy conservation standards for all new residential and non-residential buildings in California. Specifically, the regulations include energy saving designs for lighting, heating, air conditioning, and hot water supply. These regulations encourage the use of solar and/or wind power and other "non de- pletable" energy sources. The regulations offer the options of utilizing building designs that consume less energy than standard designs. The regula- tions are currently enforced by local building officials through the building permit process. 139 Biology The following description of the San Diego Bay area's biologi'cal resources has several objectives: it provides a master environmental assessment and references, describes the existing flora and fauna's envi'ronmental setting, and meets the requirements of the Californi*a Coastal Act of 1976, Article 3, Implementation; Master Plan, Section 30711(a), which states that a port master plan shall include (3): "An estimate of the effect of development of habitat areas and the marine environment, a review of existing water quality, habitat areas, and quantitative and qualitative biological inventories, and proposals to minimize and mitigate any substantial adverse impacts." BIOLOGICAL SETTING SUMMARY The following description of the biological setting is based upon references cited herein which describe biological surveys conducted in the terrestrial and the marine environment of the Port's Master Plan area and the surrounding area. The Executive Summary of a Biological Reconnaissance of Selected Sites at San Diego Bay by Lockheed Center for Marine Research (LCMR, 1979) is included as Appendix D-1. The biological resources of San Diego Bay are closely linked to the physi'ographic, hydrologic, and water quality characteristics of the bay, summarized as follows: Physiography San Diego Bay is crescent-shaped, about 14 miles long, and from 1/4 mile to 2-3/4 miles wide. It covers 18 square miles and contains 300 million cubic yards of water at mean tide. North Bay extends from the main entrance to the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge; Central Bay, from the Bridge to the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel; and South Bay, the remaining area to the south. North Bay depths generally exceed 30 feet (70 feet maximum). Central Bay depths range from 10-15 feet except for the 30-40 foot deep main channel and berthing areas along the eastern shore. South Bay depths range from 0-8 feet, except for boat channels, 8-20 feet deep. The bay is an "atypical" estuary because of limited intermittant fresh water input from the Sweetwater and Otay Rivers, from other small watersheds, and from surface runoff. As described by Ford (.1968): "San Diego Bay is unique among large bays in the United States in that it presently receives minimal fresh water runoff and has a high evapo- ration rate ... During the summer months, both salinity and temperature in the inner bay are significantly higher than in its outer sections ... during the cooler months they are generally comparable, throughout most of the bay, to values for water on the.open coast, although temper- atures usually remain somewhat higher in the south bay." 140 !iydroloq.y/Water Quality Tides are "mixed" (two daily highs and lows). Average tidal range is 5.6 feet; near the entrance 3.7 feet; and extreme tidal range is 10 feet. The bay tidal prism (volume of water contained between high and low tide horizontal planes) is about one-third of its volume (96,000,000 cubic yards). About 30% of the bay water volume is exchanged per tidal cycle (12.5 hours). Tidal currents are strongest near the entrance and the narrows between the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal and the Coronado Bayfront. North Bay maximum velocities are 2.9 feet per second (about two miles per hour) on ebb tide, and 2.2 feet per second (about 1.5 miles per hour) on flood tide. Central and South Bay tidal current velocities are much less. South Bay water circul,ation is generally clockwise. Dissolved oxygen (DO) ranges from 4-8 milligrams per liter (mg/liter), comparable to many open ocean areas.. Since August 1963, when the discharge of municipal sewage and industrial wastes into the bay was terminated, DO has increased. Former algal blooms and sludge layers have disappeared. The high surface to volume ratio of shallow South Bay water also promotes rapid aeration. Water temperatures range from 57-750 F. South Bay sometimes reaches 840 F due to reduced circulation, solar heating, and power plant thermal discharge. Salinities range from 33-35 parts per thousand (o/oo). Heavy rainfall may reduce South Bay salinities to 31 o/oo, while summer evaporation may increase salinities to 36 o/oo. Moderately high current velocities, two tidal changes per day, and a high ratio of tidal prism volume to bay volume below the tidal prism (about 1 to 3) help to stabilize water temperature, salinity, and high dissolved oxygen levels, all of which contribute to a productive environment for bay marine life. Good water circulation and tidal flushing also provide high nutrient levels essential to larval (just hatched) and juvenile (early stages) marine life. Habitat/Vegetation Types/Including__Rare and Endangered San Diego Bay is a major and important spawning area for ocean and bay fishes, and the marine and terrestrial habitats are an integral element in the inter- connected food web of the adjacent ocean waters. The area contains seven marine and six terrestrial habitat/vegetation types. Habitats categorized by elevation or depth include: terrestrial (above extreme high tide line); inter- tidal (between tidal levels); shallow subtidal (from mean low tide to 18 feet); and deep subtidal (18-70 feet). San Diego Bay includes 10,230 acres of open water, 58% shallow subtidal habitat and 42% deep subtidal habitat. The area surrounding the bay (including some areas outside the Port's jurisdiction) includes 3,600 acres of terrestrial and marine intertidal habitat: 1,250 acres of disturbed or landscaped vegetation; 650 acres of mudflats; 350 acres of tidal marsh and salt flats; 200 acres of sandy beach; 950 acres of salt ponds; and 200 acres of native terrestrial plant communities including the Coastal Dune Sand Plant and Maritime Sage Scrub. At least 100 species of marine and terrestrial plants have been identified in the Bay area. Seven rare endangered terrestrial plants occur in the tidal marsh habitat and in the Coastal Dune Sand Plant and Maritime Sage Scrub plant communities. 141 Animal Life/Including Rare and Endangered San Diego Bay marine and terrestrial habitats support a wide diversity and high abundance of animals. At least 200 different species of resident or migrant birds use the Bay for feeding, nesting, or resting. Mo're than 60 species of fish and at least 200 species of marine invertebrates, including clams, lobster, crab, shrimp, etc., many of commercial or recreational importance, are found in San Diego Bay. Three rare and endangered birds, including the California least tern, the light-footed clapper rail, and Belding's Savannah sparrow reside in and/or utilize the Bay area. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MAPPING/REFERENCES The following category descriptions are a guide to information on nine maps entitled Biological Resources, Water/Sediment Quality, covering each of the Port's Planning Districts, see Figures 16-24. Specific references which deal with the location of individual biological resources are indicated by small numbers adjacent to the animal or plant life symbols or habitat vegetation areas. This section provides a detailed description of the interpretation of each of the map symbols for marine and terrestrial habitats and vegetation and for animal life. Terrestrial Habitats/Vegetation This category of biological resources indicates the location and extent of disturbed/introduced terrestrial habitats and vegetation, and native terrestrial habitats and vegetation. Classification of native habitats and vegetation follows plant community nomenclature of Thorne (1976). Terrestrial habitats/ vegetation are herein defined as those which occur above the extreme high tide 1 i,ne. - Disturbed/Introduced This category includes all non-native terrestrial habitats and vegetation which are the intentional or unintentional result of human activities. Although not often apparent, disturbed areas, such as vacant lots, also provide habitat for plants and animals that are well adapted to urban impacted settings. Disturbed Vegetatibn/Unimproved: This category includes areas such as artificial fill which may include native plant species; however, the native plant community no longer maintains its integrity. The area may also include a number of different adventitious weedy plant species. The areas are unimproved in that no-buildings or other structures are present. Such areas are contrasted with barren areas devoid of vegetation. Disturbed Vegetation/Partially Developed: This category is similar to the previous one but does include buildings and other structures interspaced with the disturbed vegetation; again, primarily weedy adventitious species. 142 fl Ll 11 F1 "L-1 Li Li E IN Z E BIE PD scott street pssasf-@ teir street 7T WP ITH IIIIIIIII III, ++ MF 'A 05 13 D Dee,, 110 "A 238 11,1111tary Reservation IB 118 its Shelter Island Yacht Basin TI o 19, j91 ommercial Basin 110 238 019A 118 si@ P DW 14Z s= 8 2 9 9 142 142 1 .w- 1238110 151 142 18 FISHES COLLECTED 110 Snell- b k croaker 207 1,12 I:c perch 155 *Califo nia corbina s F SHES C lifornia scorpionfish 238 S@. diamond turbot ilia 777% ack c gray smoothound @Z ftj ack p ey 18 lAF C lif Pa fic barracuda ia dia A*oa ci t A207 *0 e e picle perch TERRESTRIAL HABITATSIVEGETATION 8 ific boni o 14 1 c ific cif'c queenfish 8,uee@ r und stingray ndf' s 0 DISTURBEDANTRODUCED: 142 mund,s z rubberlip seaperch o- d sand bass s-- 142 an a slim cii sottad sand bass Mv/nu Disturbed Wgistation/unimproved sp?tted White c *walleye surfperch SEEM Disturbed wgetation/Partially Developed t *white seaperch whi a s yello-fin croaker MAP. Introduced Vegetation/LandSCaped A 207 TOTAL D M08 Habitat Replacement MOST AB @DTAL DIFFERENT FISHES 18 MOST ABUNDANT FISHES SEE REF SEE REFERENCE 142 NATIVE: WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY MM: Maritime Sage Scrub Coastal Dune Sand Plant Water Quality Sampling Stations ASediment Sampling Stations MARINE HABITATSIV Heavy Metal Sampling Stations 155 SUBTIDAL: a= Deep Subtidal (18-70 ft 150 18- NIF 8- Shallow Subtidal (MLL ftb- ............ M'A 0W. Eelgrass .. ........ .... INTERTIDAL: ..... .. . .... Mi" Mud Flats North Island Salt Flats IAF Tidal Marsh LEGEND Sandy Beach ................. . ........... Mean High Tide Line p 10 US iermad Lim - - - - - - US Bulkhead Line 150 combined US Pierhead/Bulkhead Lim I MF Lease L -9 SDUFTD Limit Structure Oullines SDUPD Upland JurisclMlon Limits 91 scale BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES All habitat locations 9@2 @w Planning District 1 2/18/75; Prelimina Plan Biological Rec planning department SHELTER ISLAND/LA PLAYA WATER/SEDI M ENT, QUALITY Note: Symbol num A J/P ................... US Marine Corps Recruit Depot 0 ............ US Naval Training Center 108 STALB US Marine Corps 0 108 Recruit Depot ,71 US Naval Training Center 108 STALB _j 708 13 STALB .4 3 155 Harbor Drive - 155 CID. 0 7j@ 155 Harbor Island West Basin Q M C1 1b 155 MF 9 AM Harbor Island East Basin .............. 8- Deep 6\ I /1 11 Subtidal ANIMAL LIFE Deep FISHES COLLECTED 110 Subtitle) 238 238 Deep .3 *01)"'ey E411- Fish Survey Sampling Locations 1 0 Subfidal nd - sand bass Fish Survey, Trawling Locations 83 :P-Il'-..d TERRESTRIAL HABITATSNEGETATION TOTAL DIFFERENT FISHES 3 Fish Nursery Areas MOST ABUNDANT FISHES - DISTURBEDANTRODUCED: SEE REFERENCE 83 Clam Habitals FISHES COLLECTED - 83 Mitt 1 Disturbed Vegetation/Unimproved LEGEND Lobster Habits"unsery, Areas' arrm goby MI Disturbed Magetation/partally, Developed ay blenry bay pipefish MrV Introcluced Vagetation/Landscaped SDUPD Upland Jurisdiction Limits Rock Crab Habltat/Nursery Areas -blacl.cr?,Ier, W11% Habitat Replacement . ......... Mean High Tide Line -Calif rn,, 'ib,t Sea Turtle HabItst2 cheeksp., goby NATIVE: US Plerhead Line giant kelpfish 1111K] Rare and Endangered Bird Sightings k:Ip bass MM Maritime Sage Scrub US Bulkhead Line g@debas F Coastal Duns Sand Plant Combined US Plerhead/ r :rch j Seal Sightings slo'ungh anchovy 'N M Structure Outlines 1. California Department of Fish and Gene prohibits lobster fishing in San Diego Bay. See refs. 80-81 Lease Line 207 2. Fully protected. Sel refs. 2M227 207 70TAL DIFFERENT FISHES 11 207 SDUPD Limits DST ABUNDANT FISHES SE AM M I scale All habitat to Planning District 2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2/18/75; Pre Plan Biologi planning department LINDBERGH FIELD/HARBOR ISLAND WATER/SEDIMENT QUALITY Note: Symb tare ANIMAL LIFE MARINE HABITATSNEGETATIO Fish survey sampling Locations SUBTIDAL: a=, Deep Subtidal (18-70ft.) Fish Survey, Trawling Locations Shallow Subtidal(MLLW-18 ft.) Fish Nursery Areas 0944 Eelgrass Clem Habitats iNTERTIDAL: @-7- Mud Flats Lobster Habitats/Nursery Areas' R@4@, Salt Flats LIEJ FZ7&.Rock Crab Habitat/Nursery Areas Tidal Marsh Sandy Beach Sea Turtle Habftat2 Rare and Endangered Bird Sightings WATER AND SEDIMENT QUAL 155 lob % (9 Water Quality Sampling Stations A 9 *Seal Sightings s@ 1, California Department of Fish and Game prohibits ASediment Sampling Stations 155 lobster fishing in San Diego Bay. See refs. 80-81 -227 2. Fully protected. see refs. 226 Heavy Metal Sampling Stations @4 V, 142 18 xr 142 9HES ECTED X 101, 8 1 &@ California Corbin DW ow California halibu Y < 'Inc t.rb r re smo a.y smot?hM kelp bass 18 -leopard @Wark "c' IF bonito nfish tterfish bu round 'tingray X *sickle in smDothound 238 89 -:lim midshipman 110 tfi n croaler spotted sand be. W i croaker 0 It 87 *Whh t: seaperch 707AL DIFFERENT FISHES 18 89 MOST ABUNDANT FISHES SEE REFERENCE 142 8 Street P or 198 J_ 04 by > Broadway rl 89 1 198 FISHES COLLECTED8 SDW Harbor Drive Irn bmgobir 18 ay blnby No black croaker 89 18 Califor'nia halibut 198 155 0@ 9A al, f. iorpionfish rntagosc Cpo by checks 89 -diamond turbot 8 fmo n sw 207 1k:11p bass 89 108 sel blenry 155 STALB northern anchory G Street Mole Pacific angel shark 89 198 Pacific bonito reef finspot Q@ round stingray ::nd bass A rgo 89 207 -shiner perch shvelnose guitarfish 238 spotted send bass 0 striped mullet top smelt Elie 207 207 TOTAL DIFFERENT FISHES 23 E A 207 MOST ABUNDANT FISHES - - 207 SEE REFERENCE 83 89 83 MA 207 Z z scale' All habitat locations Planning District 3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 211817,5; P,.Iimln,,ry Plan Biological Reco planning department CENTRE CITY EMBARCADERO WATER/SEDIMENt QUALITY Note: Symbol numb .......... AO 1z" 7;6- Match L:ffwJPlanning District 3 o z A L - - - - - - - - - CO) U) ID =r CL a 5 ox 1> tio -8 im M 'n m CL X X cr s CL 2) 47 Cor > 'F2 1.0 13 U2 100' Z to A to cow = 9! .2 or >C Aim on '5 m a > U) CD 0 (31 ED g CD to 3 E3 to Z R. IM-1 "I ic R, -x & wo 'A tL m C U) > u o F- 1 1-5 a@ 1. z;; 0 > L CL 2 5.10--7 m Cr ao= a= ftar swv ri m Tm R;; CL 0. m co M o .0 Cn =1 m LJC3 C M-1 m U) M 0 C==3 5 &D El > r7 m Co rL 31, 9 a @C , r z it @ U) C3 m m m Z Cl) 0 00 0 a 7 1> -- Smmp-@ S-trO&L- C > o M @-Odo booo 0 ke F"t Ul z OZ UO St. mm 0 C Co @z CO) I- pi o,@ t' ou -3 43 m 5. 2 A U) Fri 0 4:13 .3 0 jo to eoq < o U) CD SO0 CO -4 @"4 co D CO ml> .4 k 110 0 0 m z 21 R 0 CL to 0 Cp = CL k kStree CL CL @70 a 3 2 m -,- me Ht- CL 1 0 A48fct, Wa =r ft-ft rL 0 Atoka ANIMAL LIFE MARINE HABITATSNEGETATION TERRESTRIAL HABITATSIVEGETATION E4M Fish Survey sampling Locations SUBTIDAL: DISTURBEDIINTRODUCED- 9= Deep Subtidal (18-70 ft.) _18- rnul Disturbed Vegetationtunimproved Fish Survey, Trawling Locations Shallow Subfidal (MLLW-18 ft.) *d W40 Eelgrass EDMI Disturbed Vegetation/Partially Developed Fish Nursery Areas Introduced Vegetation/Landscaped INTERTIDAL: M%Habltat Replacement Clam Habitats W' Mud Flats NATIVE: Lobster Habitats/Nursery Areas' IZRi@@ Salt Flats IWM Maritime Sage Scrub rz@-).Rock Crab Habltat/Nursery Tidal Marsh Coastal Dune Sand Plant Areas WE Sandy Beach F@01 Lin Sea Turtle HabItat2 Rare and Endangered Bird Sightings S@S'eal Sightings Interstate 5 1. California Department of Fish and Game prohibits i U lobster fishing in San Diego Bay. See refs. 80-81 Harbor UTIVO ....... 2. Fully protected. See refs. 226-227 WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY ..... .... . 155 0 Water Quality Sampling Stations ASediment Sampling Stations Heavy Metal Sampling Stations DW 18 0 D- 155 A 142 18 is FT ES COLLECTED US Naval Station s@ California co.-bina Call fo ni h libut EM, E*(. r - 0:; 142 cheeks,. 9 h *gr sain t; hound Jack imckerel FISHES COLLECTED 8,9 eopard shark -Pacific bonito -black croaker Pacific butterfish Pacific sardine 111wend- - - ----- 20 queenfish ark =-Von"o -----roiUvd stingray *Pacific bo 119 155 sand bass 3 :,and Bass- slim midshipman 2 8 QA iner perch SX 55 spotted sand bass 1117 -sicklefin smoothhound gv\ A slim midshipman 207 slough anchovy P 155 spotted sand bass TOTAL DIFFERENT F t@eo lirbot ISHES 7 01. A opsm 07 9 207 207 A MOST ABUNDANT FISHES - @11118 207 white seap;rch 207A SEE REFERENCE 142 A El 207 TOTAL DIFFERENT FISHES , 21 18 MOST ABUNDANT FISHES - - to SEE REFERENCE 142 182 207 45 M107 18 119 238 0' "A, 7- LEGEND 18 Sh@ CITY subwa 207 CITY OF SA, ..... . ..... Mean High Tide Line US Pierhead Line 207 US Bulkhead Une t7__ Coil-NA Combined US Pierhead ulkhea S.D.U.P.D. Limits Lease Line Ct:3 M 9@9 13 Structure Oyfflnes SDUPD Upland JurlsOalonLimits All habitat locations approxi Planning District 5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2118/75; Preliminary Biologic Plan Biological Reconnaissa NATIONAL CITY BAYFRONT WATER/SEDIMENT QUALITY Note: Symbol numbers Corr planning department FISHES COLLECTED b C:yipipefish 1 Forni a halibut -Cali fornia gr,union diamond turbot northe rn anchovy round st in9ray shadow goby San Diego Bay spotted sand bass striped mullet *topsmelt A 8,9 TOTAL DIFFERENT FISHES - 10 15,1 MOST ABUNDANT FISHES . li MF SEE ---REFERENCE 118 A Deep 8.9 Subld. Subfidaj 18 Sh.ft. shw1a. Subfidal 118 SubfidaJ 4 DV/PD A 8,9 a 9 155 DV/ 118 -MF 404 MIF ..... . . . . . . F Deep MF A s""da' E@q a MF NM .4 A 155 _,2 a@ Nl*@, All 0 0 4 ANIMAL LIFE MARINE HABITATSNEGETATION % ;*@f Fish Survey Sampling Locations SUBTIDAL: a= Deep Subtidal(18-70ft.) Fish Survey, Trawling Locations Shallow Subtidal (MLLW-18 ft.) 0949 Eelgrass Blvd. Fish Nursery Areas INTERTIDAL: X@? Clam Habitats Mud Flats 01 Lobster HabitatslNursery Areas' kk4N9 Salt Flats 0 ;.-n, Tidal Marsh 14 Rock Crab Habftat/Nursery Areas Sandy Beach Sea Turtle Habftat2 Rare and Endangered Bird Sightings TERRESTRIAL HABITATSNEGETATION Seal Sightings DISTURBEDANTRODUCED: 1. California Department of Fish and Game prohibits 17-011 Disturbed Vegetation/Unimproved 4s. Disturbed Vegetation/Partially Developed lobster fishing in San Diego Bay. See refs. 8D-81 rDv- y 2. Fully protected. See refs. 226-227 tt,7MP Introduced Vegetation/Landscaped O.V% Habitat Replacement U.S. WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY NATIVE: Avenue Naval MV" Maritime Sage Scrub C, Air Water Quality Sampling Stations Coastal Dune Sand Plant ASediment Sampling Stations ; V Station Im Heavy Metal Sampling Stations Ilk 6 0 z scale; All habitat locations approximated F@. Planning District 6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2118/75; Preliminary Biological Fiel Plan Biological Reconnaissance 1/ planning department CORONADO BAYFRONT WATER/SEDIMENT QUALITY Note: Symbol numbers correspon Spitecja ITHE PARADISE RivER &RsH CoMina (SEE Rus, 103, 0 e. 133-34, 21L 234) IS &MIDE THE JURisDicTiotaL LIMITS OF THE SAN AE Railway N DIEGO UNIFIED PoRT DISTRICT kid,96 C16ek 191 Interstate 5 D U Lu x j@& AE R Itway - - - - - - Un. -Am--- , DV/U Agriculture] W" - 1-.: TV 133 DV/U -PAS4 Vt. 0000 ve' - FISHES COLLECTED V- - I f2 3 "r 1i3 JAgriculturej V-nerls Pond C@,,jfo nia 11 - ---- F- = forni fish F-G Street I% I goby r- Street Mar @%Poturbot _r ato 87 Marsh [email protected] p i - Tidela *shado. - g4y, n topsnel t t Marsh TOTAL a(FFERENT F1 231 MOST jABUHDANT FISl, RALOL 3 133 )@4 SEk.'*REFFRENCE 87 -19, DV/U MF 108 a STALB 133 (Agriculturel o/h r 11.: p Ail P Marsh*,@sl D Street Fill MF DV/U DV/ U -_;@PASAB.@,: A 155 M F 0 FISHES -COLLECTED 133 DV/PD ne"Mm ---- - :-I_ - - by 155 ALPM M F MF i l:-.PA- 2 di'aVd turbot A round stingray MF thornback z z- Gunpowder TOTAL DIFFERENT FISHES 4 Deep Point MF , - MF Sh, MOST ABUNDANT FISHES u 18 S."llci at 134 118 SEE REFERENCE 177 Shallow 18 Subtidal Daep Sublidal ANIMAL LIFE MARINE HABITATSNE 18 MF 118 MF NIF Fish Survey Sampling Locations SUBTIDAL: 118 WE, 18 _!@@L Deep Subtidal (18-70 ft Fish Survey, Trawling Locations Shallow Subtidal (MLL 4ft. Eelgrass 207 182 18 Fish Nursery Areas INTERTIDAL EM -111. Clam Habitats -mi- Mud Flats 182*@ FISHES @COLLECTE@-@_ Salt Flats Lobster HabftatstNursery Areas' bar d pipefish Rock Crab Habitat/Nursery Areas 11dat Marsh re Sandy Beach California halibut :c eek pot goby 18 diawnd turbot Sea Turtle Habftat2 Zorthern anchovy Deep A Subfidal 18 Rare and Endangered Bird Sightings WATER AND SEDIME M 11, ro, Shallow Shallow ddstingray Subtldal sbass Surbildal shiner perch Seal Sightings Water Quality S81111plin slough anchovy 18 1. Galitomia Department of Fish and Game prohibits A Sediment Sampling Sig lob., fishmg in San Diego GaY. See refs. B"i C-p 18 Fully protected. See refs. 226-227 Heavy Metal Sampling Subfidel --101.11 @DlIIERENT FISHES 9 18 1 M MOST ABUNDANT FISHES TERRESTRIAL HABITATSNEGETATION RARE AND ENDANGE SEE REFERENCE 182 Deep 18 DISTURBE DANTRODLIC ED: Collection Collection r-v-lu I Di rbod Vbgetagon/Unimproved After 1945 Before 1945 18 -----__18 M Diatturbed Vegetation/Partially Developed Shallow Shall- V,5@V Introduced Vegetation/Landscaped 2 Subtitle) Ty OF CIIULA Subfidal aV&'Habitat Replacement 0 NAnVE-. source: California Nat" Plant Sod ty LEG-ERD-:@- ClTY OF pjArjoVAL CfrV MM Maritime Sage Scrub Special Publication No. 1. a Coastal Dune Send Plant Uzi= ED H:::3 Structure-oaknes- 207 Lease Lines C'rV OF SAAf DIEGO . ........................... Mean High Tide Line US Pierhead Line 0,- US Bulkhead Line IVAIO - - --------------------------- Combined US Plerhead/Bulkhead Line SDUPD Upland Jurisdiction Limits scale All habitat locations approximati Planning District 7 BIOLOGICAL RESOU13CES 2JI8175; Preliminary Biological F Plan Biological Reconnaissance planning department CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT WATER/SEDIMENT QUALITY Note: Symbol numbers corresp barrel sand bass bay p@efish -1 roaler fo@' nia hal 1bu *diamond @-jrbot gian@ kelpfish JZ29- Pacific. staghorn sculpin roun,J @tingray shadow goby 'hine), surfperch *spo t@od sand bass spotted turbot t.psm'It SAN DIEGO BAY hite surfperch Special Note: TOTAL DIFFERENT FISHES - 14 MOST ABUNDANT FISHES = - SEE REFERENCES 90, Ila FISHES COLLECTED LjocATioN, SIZE, SHAJ* AND DWIjY Ila :black croaker OF ESSRASS BEDS ARE SEASONABLY C lifornia c rbia S@_ C: I, fornla ho"but VARIABLE California n:edlefish 41 90 118 gr4y smoothhound 118 go 118 90 leopard shark .Pact fic bonito .d b ss shiner p1rc d4.-arl"aribe 4ak- s n h shovel no a uil.rfish FISHES COLLECTED ...... ..... sicklefin s..,hhound s p d a d be at. DV/PD slim midshipman otte s n bass barred sand bass PAS , as bayipipe ft'h Wh ss Cal f.'ni. '. libut diamond turb? t &6w. jackselt Its a Pacific butterfish TOTAL DIFFERENT FISHES 14 round stingiay MOST ABUNDAWFISHIES * SEE REFERENCE 142 shadow goby Crown Isle -spotted sand bass 142 topstrelt _7WA61" . . ........ .. TOTAL DIFFERENT FISHES 10 ul Court MOST ABUNDANT FISHES T SEE REFERENCE 118 STALB 1118 118 A0=X 113 %V - - - -2 118 F L M s_ MF HAB 145 Sl El 13 X DV/PD US Navy Amphibious Base . . . . . . . . . . .. S . ....... Silver Strand State Beach ANIMA Fish -.7 Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X. Fish Cla MARINE HABITATSNEGETATION LOVi Lob LEGEND SUBTIDAL: rzal Roc S.D.U P.D. Limits s= Deep Subtidal (18-70ft.) Llgvej .... . ...................... Mean High Tide Line Shallow Subtidal (MLLW-18 ft.) US Plerhead Line A Sea US Bulkhead Line WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY 0944 Eelgrass Ran Combined US Pierhead/Bulkhead Line INTERTIDAL: Property Boundary Line Water Ouallity Sampling Stations -ML Mud Flats Sea -------Lease Lines k, Salt Flats 1. C SDUPD Upland Jurisdiction Limits ASediment Sampling Stations i- Tidal Marsh 10 Heavy Metal Sampling Stations ".0""'. Sandy Beach 2. Fu scale All habitat locations approximated troy Planning District 8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ?JIS/75; Preliminary Biological Field R Mal Plan Biological Reconnaissance 1/217 planning department SILVER STRAND SOUTH WATER/SEDIMENT QUALITY Note: Symbol numbers correspond t atch trIct 8 0 > 18 z ILL MF 0 0 7. C5 District C VISIT MF DV/PD MF Shaffow SAN DIEGO BAY Subtidal Shot Subt"Wal ANIMAL LIFE Fish Survey Sampling Locations Fish Survey, Trawling Locations -_- : 7 MF Fish Nursery Areas Ii2l Clam Habitists Lobster Habtlat"ursery Areas' RALOL 123 Rock Crab HabilatIlifursery Areas PASAB Sea Turtle HabtW2 ia - . ;-_, I S-u-bt.idaf NIF 64 11 TAI VU Rare and Endangered Bird SightIngs 'IV 123 seal sightings PASAB 1. Caftfornia Deparbrant of Fish and Garnia prohibits MF W)ster fisrdng in San Diego Bay. See raft 40-81 7, 2. Fultyprotwed. Seereft.22S-W 123 WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY 123 Water Quality Sampling Stations PAW A sediment sampling stations Heavy Metal Sampling Stations F's US Naval Radio Station 7\ DV/PD 10 Ei -7 TERRESTRIAL HABITATSIVEGETA'nON V, DISTURBEDANTRODUCED; 133 Disturbed VegetationfUnimproved 134 Disturbed vegetation/Pardally Developed 7 =M Introduced Vagetation/Landscaped 5, Ma Habitat Replacement NATIVE: MO Maritime Sage Scrub Coastal Dune Sand Plant X, i STALB MARINE HABITATSNEGETATION 7 SUBTIDAL: DeWSubtidal(III-7014.) Shallow Subtidal(MLLW-18tL) 4M Eelgrass INTERTIDAL: e,;j Mud Flats MI 9M Salt Flats -v Tidal Marsh M Sandy Beach 12 Salt Ponds I Diked I .......... LEGEND -7 - ............................ Mean High Tide Li US Pierhead LJ S-Bulk a Ine @@--tomblned US Pierhea Lease Line 233- 03 cil rr--1. Structure outlines SDUPD Upland 133 jl@ JuriTction Limits 13 scale All habitat locations approximate Planning District 9 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2/18/75; Preliminary Biological Fi iepartment S Plan Biological Reconnaissance -@ @nnlng d OUTH BAY SALTLANDS WATER/SEDIMENT QUALITY Note: Symbol numbers correspo Introduced Vegetation/Landscaped: These areas include landscaped ed traffic interchange and median strips, landscaped isolated narrow irregular shorelines, and grassy or forested landscaped parks. These areas have value as a biological habitat, primarily for animals well adapted to an urban setting. Habitat Replacement: This category is not a native, naturally occurring habitat, but one in which, artificial habitat replacement III! I !, L1!11-1 I @, 7111! 1` and/or enhancement has been, or will be, provided in a variety of settings. These areas include physical modifi*cations which enhance the biological habitat value. - Native - Habitats in this category include those naturally occurri.ng terrestrial plant communities which exist throughout the Port's jurisdiction and surrounding areas. This category includes native plants which, when found in the same area, are scientifically classified as a plant community. A plant community constitutes an aggregation of a specific grouping of individual plant species and is said to be floristically determined. This is contrasted-with a habitat, which is simply an area wherein plants and animals abide and may or may not include a given aggregate or indicator species. Maritime Sage Scrub: This plant community includes sagebrush and low shrubs along coastal areas. The Maritime Sage Scrub community was formerly designated as Coastal Sage Scrub by Munz (1974) and was said to be found in: "...Dry, rocky, or gravelly slopes, south coast ranges mostly below 3,000 feet and below chaparral ... plants are half shrubs, 1 to 5 feet tall and somewhat woodier or larger forming a more open entity than chaparral . 'The Maritime Sage Scrub community is further defined by Thorne (1976) as: immediate coast covering hilltop slope ... on rocky or gravelly slope Individual plant species, among others, which occur in the Maritime Sage Scrub plant community would typically include the following: Common Name Scientific Name Coastal Sage Brush Artimesia californica White Sage Salvia apiana California Buckwheat ErigonuF75-s-1-culatum f. Lemonadeberry Rhus Tntegrifolia Brittle Bush E_ncella californica Maritime Sage Scrub plant community is found within the Port's Master Plan area in the Chula Vista Bayfront, Silver Strand South and South Bay Saltlands Planning Districts. 161 Coastal Dune Sand Plant: This plant community includes the strand or sand dune vegetation formerly defined by Munz (1974) as Coastal Strand and described as found on: "Sandy beaches and dunes scattered along the entire coast ... vegetation low or prostrate ... often succulent The Coastal Strand community has been renamed Coastal Dune Sand Plant community by Thorne (1976) and is described as found on: "Dunes and upper sandy beaches along the entire coast ... loose sand, sea salt, fog, strong winds, extreme isolation, moderate temperatures." Individual plant species, among others, which occur in the Coastal Dune Sand Plant community would typically include the following: Common Name Scientific Name Lupine Lupinus chamissonis Sand-verbena. Abronia maritima Saltbush Atriplex leucophylla Iceplant Gasoul crystallinum Beach Morning-glory Convovulus soldanella No Coastal Dune Sand Plant community is present within the Port's Master Plan area. Marine Habitats/Vegetation This general category of biological resources includes only those major marine habitats and vegetation in the intertidal areas (between high and low tides) and in the subtidal areas (permanently submerged) of San Diego Bay. - Subtidal This category includes all habitats distinguished by elevation within the subtidal range, between the average of the lowest tides, Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), to a maximum depth of 70 feet. 11 Deep Subtidal: This habitat includes permanently submerged areas __18 between 18 and 70 feet deep. Deep subtidal areas are mainly found Deep in North and Central San Diego Bay and are primarily the result of Subtidal dredged ship or boat channels within major navigational corridors. Deep subtidal habitat commonly includes muddy bottom, but coarse sand bottom may be present also, especially in the deep shipping channels in North Bay and near the Bay entrance where current velocities are high. 162 Shallow Subtidal: This habitat i.ncludes bay bottom, permanently submerged from MLLW to a depth of 18 feet. Shallow subtidal habitat is located adjacent to North and Central San Diego Bay shorelines and within the marina basins formed by Shelter Island and Harbor Island. Shallow subtidal habitat is also present in some areas along the Central San Diego Bay and Glorietta Bay shorelines. The remainder of Central San Diego Bay and South Bay is entirely shallow subtidal habitat with the exception of main ship channels adjacent to the eastern margin of the Bay and leading down to the Port's National City Marine Terminal and Chula Vista Boat Basin. Shallow subtidal habitat most often is found with a mud or fine sand bottom. Eelgrass: This habitat is categorized based upon the marine plant, eelgrass (Zostera marina) which usually occurs in relatively sheltered, calm shallow waters from the MLLW line to about 18 feet deep. Eelgrass habitat is usually associated with shallow subti'dal habitat, but in some areas overlaps onto intertidal habitats as well. As illustrated in Figures 16-24, eelgrass in North San Diego Bay is located at the North and south ends of the Shelter Island Peninsula, along the western shoreline of North Island, and within the Navy estuary area along the shoreline (US Navy Training Center). In Central San Diego Bay eelgrass is located along the Coronado Bayfront and along the shoreline of Silver Strand south to Crown Cove (US Naval Amphibious Base). In South Bay, eelgrass is located adjacent to the mouth of the Sweetwater River, along the Coronado Cays shore- line, North Island and East Island, and offshore in the shallow subtidal waters of the South Bay Saltlands Planning District. Interti.dal This category of marine habitats/vegettation includes areas between the high and low tides, along San Diego Bay shorelines. Four major interti'dal habitats are present in San Diego Bay. They are described as follows, beginning with those habitats which are exposed only during the lowest tides and ending with those which are covered only during the highest tides. Mud Flats: This habitat includes intertidal areas with very fine sand or mud bottom, relatively gentle bottom'slope, and located in areas of low-velocity tidal currents. Mud flats form extensive bottom coverage in South Bay adjacent to the Sweetwater River mouth, along the Chula Vista Bayfront, within the South Bay Saltland shore- line areas, and in areas along the Silver Strand adjacent to the Naval Amphibious Base. Smaller mud flats are present elsewhere to a Timited extent in North and Central Bay, see Figures 16-24. Mud flats typi'cally contain a wide assortment and great abundance of marine invertebrates (clams, crabs, shrimp, worms, etc.) which live either on top of, or within the bottom sediment. These animals constitute a major food source for a large variety of resident and migrant shore birds. 163 Salt Flats: This plant community includes vegetation which is ne areas. Formerly defined by Munz (1974) as tolerant of alkali Coastal Salt Marsh, and described in part as follows: "Salt marshes along the coast, from sea level to 10 feet ... most extensive on tidelands." The Coastal Salt Marsh community has been divided into the Tidal Marsh and Salt-Flat Succulent communities by Thorne (1976), who defined the location of the Salt Flat community (also called Salt Flat Succulent community) as follows: "Above normal tidal action but inundated by Spring or storm tides and with an even higher salt content in the substrate..." Individual plant species among others, which occur in the Salt Flat Succulent community would typically include the following: Common Name Scientific Nai-iie Salt Marsh Bird's Beak Cordylanthus maritimus maritimus Palmer's Frankenia Frankenia palmeri Saltgrass Distichlis spicata spicata Saltbush Atriplex sp. Sea-Blite Suaeda sp. Tidal Marsh: This plant community includes the marshy wetlands vegetation originally combined with Salt Flat vegetation by Munz (1974) into the Coastal Salt Marsh designation. The location of this community was described in part as follows: "Salt marshes along the coast, from sea level to 10 feet ... most extensive on tidelands." The Coastal Salt Marsh community has been renamed into Salt-Flat Succulent and Tidal Marsh by Thorne (1976). Tidal Marsh is described in part as follows: Littoral ... inundated with salt water regularly." Individual plant species among others, which occur in the Tidal Marsh community, would typically include the following: Common Name Scientific Name Pickleweed Salicornia Cordgrass Spartina foliosa Sea-Lavender Limonium californicum Arrow-Grass Triglochin maritinum Glasswort Salicornia subterminalis 164 Sandy Beach: This habitat includes intertidal sandy beaches that occur naturally or have been constructed artificially. The habitat itself is usually devoid of-any noticeable vegetation. Marine plant foliage and debris wash up along the sandy beach habitat. These materials provide temporary shelter, and in some cases food for various shore birds and small marine invertebrates such as sand crabs, marind.@worms, and amphipods- (beach hoppers), which live within the sand. Sandy beaches are located in many places in North San Diego Bay, including Shelter Island, Harbor Island, and the Naval Air Station. Sandy beaches are present in Central San Diego Bay along the Coronado Bayfront and the Silver Strand adjacent to the US Naval Amphibious Base. Other small sandy beaches are located in South San Diego Bay adjacent to the Chula,Vista Bayfront, the Coronado Bayfront and to a limited extent, the South Bay Saltlands Planning District. Animal Life This general category of biological resources utilizes a series of map symbols to indicate the approximate location of marine and terrestrial animals as determined by a variety of sampling programs and studies. Fish Survey Sampling Locations: This symbol indicates the location of fish survey sampling stations. The method of sampling at these locations usually included a static technique such as fish traps, gill nets, or beach seines. Individual fish species collected at these locations are listed next to this symbol, see Figures 16-24. The reference for additional information is indicated by a number, which corresponds to the EIR's reference list, next to the symbol. Fish Survey Trawling Locations: This symbol represents locations where fish surveys have been conducted using trawl nets, usually towed behind a small boat. The symbols are placed on Figures 16-24 in locations to represent a continuous line corresponding to the area covered by the trawl. The fish species collected during the trawling surveys are also listed adjacent to the symbols. The source references are keyed as described above. Fish Nursery Areas: The designation of fish nursery areas is based upon literature references to juvenile fish surveys con- ducted in particular locations, and upon habitat characteristics of areas, which are conducive to their use by fishes as a natural hatchery area. Such characteristics include shallow quiet waters, such as embayments or small basins, and areas located closely adjacent to river mouths, such as the Sweetwater River or the Otay River in South San Diego Bay. Clam Habitats: This symbol designates areas which are known to contain a variety of bivalves commonly taken by recreational clammers, or by commercial fishermen. Most often, clams present in these habitats would include little neck clams, cockles, Washington clams, jackknife clams, and razor @lam@, Browni ng et al (1973). 165 Lobster Habitats/Nursery Areas: This symbol designates known locations of California spiny lobster habitats and/or nursery areas. The California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) exists primarily in shoreline locations-in. North and Central San Diego Bay. The California Department of Fish and Game prohibits any lobster fishing in San Diego Bay, Edgerton (1975, 1976). Lobster habitats and nursery areas are known to be closely associated with the presence of eelgrass and submerged structures such as pier pilings, particularly in the North Bay areas, Peeling (1975). Rock Crab Habitat/Nursery Areas: This symbol indicates the location of rock crab habitats and nursery areas primarily within North and Central San Diego Bay. Rock crabs of the genus Cancer are known to frequent the same habitats and utilize the same nursery areas as do the California spiny lobsters, Peeling (1975). There are no prohibitions on crab fishing in San Diego Bay. Sea Turtle Habitat: Habitat for the green sea turtle (Chelonia Ty@as) is limited to South San Diego Bay adjacent to the'cooling water discharge outlet of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company . The green sea turtle is a fully protected species, US Fish and Wildlife Service (1977, 1979), and at the present time the population in South San Diego Bay appears to be a migrant group which winter in the South San Diego Bay area, Stinson (personal communication). Rare and Endangered Bird Sighting : This map symbol refers to the visual sightings of any of three rare and endangered birds known to utilize the San Diego Bay area during all or part of the year. The reference number adjacent to the map symbols on Figures 16-24 correspond to the source of the sighting or a general reference which describes the nature of the resource management plan currently being followed to protect these rare and endangered species. Three rare and endangered birds, including the California least tern (Sterna albifrons browni), map symbol T@Rallus longiros STALB,the lightfooted clapper rail tris levipes map symbol RALOL,and the Belding's Savannah sparrow (Fa-sserculus sanwichensis beldingi), map symbol PASAB,reside in and/or utilize areas within the surrounding Port jurisdiction. Seals: This symbol refers to some areas where regular sightings of harbor seals (Phoca ditulina geronimensis) and California sea lions (Zalophus califoLnianus Fhave been sighted within San Diego Bay, Doughterty (1966). Sightings of sea lions and harbor seals have most often been made in the main channel areas of North and Central San Diego Bay, particularly adjacent to the main channel navigation buoys. Harbor seals have also been sighted well into South Bay, adjacent to the SDG&E power plant cooling water channels. 166 Rare and Endangered Plants This general category includes information from the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) designations of officially recognized rare and endangered terrestrial vascular plants. Symbols and classification systems follow that officially adopted by the CNPS, after Powell (1974). The capital letters which appear adjacent to the map symbols represent the Plant Code from the CNPS list. The Plant Code is keyed to the scientific and common name of the rare and endangered plant on the CNPS list. The location of each rare and endangered plant collected or observed is marked on Figures 22-24 with one of the six symbols according to the following scheme: Collection Collection Possibly After 1945 Before 1945 Extirpated Location Precisely Known Location Not Precisely Known 0 A. A listing of the rare and endangered terrestrial vascular plants occurring within the San Diego Bay area is provided in the following section, see Table 6. Two rare and endangered plant species are recorded on Port jurisdiction. TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Habitats/Vegetation Types The majority of the Master Plan area in the North and Central San Diego Bay exists on artificial fill which is either developed or includes disturbed habitat/vegetation. The three North San Diego Bay Planning Districts are nearly completely developed with commercial, recreational, and industrial uses. The biological environment in these Planning Districts includes primarily intro- duced plants and animals typically associated with such disturbed urban settings. Landscaped areas are the result of improvements by the Port District and its tenants. In some areas, introduced vegetation is mixed with vacant unimproved or partially developed areas. The terrestrial habitats and vegetation within the three Central Bay Planning Districtsare similar to those in North Bay. The areas of introduced vegetation/landscaped are somewhat less extensive in these three planning districts, with the exception of the landscaped portions along the Coronado Bayfront (the existing Golf Course on Port tidelands and the proposed Tidelands Park). No native habitats or vegetation exist within the six planning districts in North Bay or Central Bay within the Port's Master Plan area. Native vegetation exists within the South Bay Planning Districts, including the Chula Vista Bayfront, the Silver Strand South and the South Bay Saltlands Both native terrestrial plant communities which occur within the San Diego Bay region are found in the three South Bay Planning Districts. Only one, however, A 167 the Maritime Sage Scrub Community, occurs on Port tidelands. The Maritime Sage Scrub plant community and the Coastal Dune Sand plant community are both found in the Silver Strand South and the South Bay Saltlands Planning Districts, see Figures 23 and 24. The Maritime Sage Scrub community is adjacent to the marsh vegetation within the area sometimes designated as the.Sweetwater River-Paradise Creek marsh complex in the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District, see Figure 22. A total of seven species of rare and endangered terrestrial vascular plants are found in the greater San Diego Bay area and vicinity. These seven species of plants together with their California Native Plant Society (CNPS) designations, and their plant community associations are described in Table 6. Only two rare and endangered plant species are recorded on Port Tidelands. One species, the Salt Marsh Bird's Beak (Cordylanthus maritimus), is located within the Port's jurisdiction on the Chula Vista Bayfront, see Figure 22. The other, Palmer's Frankenia (Frankenia palmeri), is located within the Port's jurisdiction within the Silver Strand South Planning District, see Figure 23. Animal Life The North and Central Bay portions of the Master Plan area include various mammals, birds, reptiles and perhaps some amphibians, which are characteristic of upland, urban developed areas, such as landscaped and disturbed vegetation. Finches, starlings, sparrows, mockingbirds, mourning doves, and other@birds typical of urbanized settings are known to nest in and adjacent to the Plan area. Terrestrial mammals within the Master Plan area include various mice, rats, ground squirrels, and occasional rabbits. Domestic and feral dogs and cats are also present. Reptiles, primarily small snakes and lizards, are present in most of the vacant areas of the Master Plan area, particularly on the larger unimproved areas with disturbed vegetation. Amphibians, if present, would be expected in areas where surface water drains and could support small localized patches of vegetation, such as adjacent to minor drainage swales and near shoreline storm drain culverts. South San Diego Bay Planning Districts generally support large populations of a wide variety of different species of shorebirds or seabirds. In particular, gulls, sandpipers, terns (other species of terns, not the California least tern), grebes, coots, plovers, herons and egrets are common,throughout the three South Bay Planning Districts. The National Audubon Society annually sponsors a winter bird count in South San Diego Bay. The results of the 1978 December count indicated a total of 191 different species of birds and a total number of 74,892 birds present. Unique Habitat Associations Specific habitat requirements for feeding, shelter, and breeding activities are characteristic of the three rare and endangered bird species which utilize the San Diego Bay area. The California least tern (Sterna albifrons browni), is a late spring and summer migrant which utilizes some barren sandy, or otherwise vacant areas adjacent to San Diego Bay as nesting habitat. Specific requirements for 168 Table 6 San Diego Bay Area Rare and Endangered Terrestrial Vascular Plants Plant Plant Name R-E-V-D* Flower Family Community Code Scientific/Common Code Period Association Association ASTET As ragalus tener titi 3-3-2-3 Apr.-May Fabaceae Coastal Dune (Coastal dunes (Pea Family) Sand Plant rattle-weed) COMAM-3 Cor lanthus maritimus 3-2-2-2 May-Oct. Scrophulariaceae Salt Flat maritimus** (Figwort Family) Succulent TS-alt marsh bird's beak) ERAM-2 Erysimum ammophilum 1-2-1-3 Feb.-May Brassicaceae Coastal Dune (Coast wallflower) (Mustard Family) Sand Plant FRPA-2 Frankenia palmeri P.E.--l May-Jul. Frankeniaceae Salt Flat (Palmer's frankenia) Succulent LONU-2 Lotus nuttallianus 1-2-2-2 Mar.-Jun. Fabaceae Coastal Dune T-Prostrate hosackia) (Pea Family) Sand Plant ORPAB Orobanche parishii 2-2-2-2 Apr.-Aug. Orobanchaceae Coastal Dune brachyloba (Broomrape Family) Sand Plant (Short-lobed broomrape) PHAR-3 Pholisma arenarium 2-2-2-2 Apr.-Jul., Lennoaceae Coastal Dune TPh_olisma@__ Oct. (Lennoa Family) Sand Plant *California Native Plant Society R-E-V-D Code Interpretation Rarity (R) 1. Rare, of limited distribution, but distributed widely enough that potential for extinction or extirpation is apparently low at present. 2. Occurrence confined to several populations or one extended population. 3. Occurs in such small numbers that it is seldom reported; or occurs in 'one or very few highly restricted populations. P.E. Possibly extinct or ext irpated. Endangerment (E) 1. Not endangered. 2. Endangered in part. 3. Totally endangered. Vigor (V) 1. Stable or increasing. 2. Declining. 3. Approaching extinction or extirpation. General Distribution (D) 1. Not rare outside California. 2. Rare outside California. 3. Endemic to California. Located in small areas on Port tidelands. 169 nesting substrate and other conditions, optimum to survival of the newly-hatched young have not been completely isolated,.Swickard (1974). Young are very sus- ceptible to predation from terrestrial mammals*and raptors (birds of prey).' Between 100-150 California least terns are estimated to nest in the San Diego Bay area. Breeding colonies have been steadily increasing in numbers over the last four years, according to the monitoring results of the California Least Tern'Recovery Team, Jurek et al (1977). Nesting colonies have been observed at locations indicated on Figures 16-24, map symbol STALB. The light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) is a full-time resident of the Tidal Marsh and_@`alt F areas in the Chula Vista Bayfront and the South Bay Saltlands Planning Districts, see Figures 22-24, map symbol RALOL. Specific habitat requirements include the presence of cordgrass (Spartina foliosa and an abundance of intertidal marine invertebrates as food supply. About 15-20 light-footed clapper rails are estimated to be in the San Diego Bay area, Wilbur, et al (1976). This bird is not a good flier and is susceptible to predation from terrestrial mammals (including dogs) that inhabit tidal marsh peripheral areas. The Belding's Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi), uses habitat found within the Tidal Marsh plant communities of the Chula Vista Bayfront, Silver Strand South, and South Bay Saltlands Planning Districts. About 150 Belding's Savannah sparrows are estimated to be in the San Diego Bay area, Massey (1977). Locations of the sightings of Belding's Savannah sparrow are indicated on the Biological Resources, Water/Sediment Quality maps, see Figures 22-24, map symbol PASAB. Ecological Relationships In general, interactions among terrestrial plants and animals, and their physical environment in the terrestrial portions of the Master Plan area, particularly in the North and Central Bay Planning Districts, do not evidence the kind of inter- dependence which is characteristic of undisturbed natural systems. Since North and Central Bay Planning Ditricts include primarily disturbed habitats, major utilization of these areas is most likely by resident and transient animals from surrounding urbanized areas. Because of the sparse distribution of introduced plants (mainly weeds and low-lying shrubs) within the disturbed land areas of the North and Central Bay Planning Districts, critical and unique relationships between resident animals and introduced plants have not likely been established. MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Scagrasses, Algae and Marsh Habitats Marine vegetation exists within San Diego Bay in forms of various species of algae (non-flowering plants), and one species of seagrass, commonly called eelgrass (Zostera marina). Eelgrass is an attached, marine flowering plant which grows on the Bay m in clear, calm water near-shore in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas between the MLLW line and about 18 feet deep, Boone and Hoeppel (1976). About 400 acres of eelgrass exist in San Diego Bay. Approximately 130 acres are within the Port's jurisdiction. Eelgrass grows in very sparse patches in some areas, and in dense "beds" in other areas. Both the location and the density of eelgrass vary from year to year. Marine algae are representated by large, more obvious filamentous or bushy forms of green and red algae, such as witch's hair or mermaid's hair (Enteromorpha sp.), usually as a film covering the bottom of shallow water 170 areas in a thick, green or red mat, particularly-in spring or summer seasons, Ricketts and Calvin (1968). In addition, larger forms of green algae, such as sea lettuce (Ulva sp.), are attached to rocks, pebbles or seashells. Two large forms of algae, including the brown alga, sargassum (Sargassum muticum) and a red alga (Gelidium sp.), are abundant in some areas attached to quarry rock revetment WT-t-hinthe intertidal zone. It should be noted that algae are also found throughout the waters within and adjacent to the Master Plan-area in the form of tiny, single-celled plants (phytoplankton) floating in the water. Although not as visible or as obvious as the larger forms of marine plants, phytoplankton is present in far greater amounts than are the more noticeable plants, Lackey and Clendenning (1965). Native marine intertidal vegetation exists within the South Bay Planning Districts, including the Chula Vista Bayfront, the Silver Strand South and the South Bay Saltlands. Two native marine intertidal plant communities are found in the three South Bay Planning Districts. Both communities occur on Port Tidelands. These plant communities are the Salt Flats (or Salt Flat Succulent) and Tidal Marsh, see Figures 22-24. Marine Invertebrates Over 200 species of marine invertebrates live in San Diego Bay, Ford (1968, 1971a), US Army Corps of Engineers (1975), Peeling (1975). Sediment samples taken by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDWQCB' 1978) and by Barry (1972) in several areas throughout San Diego Bay, see Figures@ 16-24, indicate that infaunal organisms (marine animals living within the sediment) include many species of marine worms known as polychaetes, small crustaceans, and various bivalves, such as clams and cockles. Marine invertebrates on pier pilings, rocks, marine floats and other structures include lobster, crabs, worms, mussels, barnacles, echinoderms (starfish, sea urchins), sponges, sea anemones and tunicates (sea squirts) present in varying numbers from place to place, Flittner et al (1971), and rord, Chambers and Chambers,(1975). Near-shore marine invertebrates seem to be most abundant and diverse in the area of wharf pilings and marine floats than in other areas, Parrish and Mackenthun (1968). Shoreline revetment structures, such as riprap, concrete or steel bulkheads, etc., provide artificial habitat for many attached forms of marine invertebrates, including mussels, barnacles, sponges and tunicates, Allen (1969). Among the more well known invertebrates is the California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) which has an estimated breeding population size of about 300-400 in San Diego Bay, Peeling (1975). Fishes The Naval Undersea Center Proximate Survey of San Diego Bay collected about 60 different fish species in San Diego Bay. Other studies indicate 80-90 different fish species inhabit San Diego Bay, Miller and Lea (1972), SDUPD (1977a), Lockheed Center for Marine Research (1977-1979). The most abundant and widely distributed fishes in the Bay include Pacific bonito, black croaker, spotted sand bass, sand bass, California halibut, and opaleye. 171 Although most marine plants and animals are generally uniformly distributed throughout the Bay, a greater number of different fish species, and these in greater abundance have been found in North and South Bay than in Central Bay. Fishes which are commonly found as adults in the open ocean, such as white sea bass, Pacific barracuda, Pacific bonito, and jack mackerel are more plentiful in North Bay than in Central or South Bay. Fishes found in greatest abundance in South Bay include those with higher tolerances to warm, brackish waters, such as slough anchovies, blennies, California killfish, long jaw mudsucker, gobies, striped mullet, pipefish, and Pacific staghorn sculpin. The most abundant fishes in Central Bay include the Pacific bonito, black croaker, spotted sand bass, sand bass, opaleye, and two species of small dogfish shark, the gray smoothhound and the sicklefin smoothhound. Common names follow the nomenclature of the American Fisheries Society (1970). Recreational sportfishing and clamming are permitted throughout most of San Diego Bay excepting some individually regulated species and some specially designated areas, Edgerton (1975-1976). Commercial bait fishing, primarily seining, is permitted in the deeper waters (deep subtidal habitat) of North and Central Bay for northern anchovies and jack mackerel, and occasionally gill netting for mullet occurs in the shallow subtidal habitat of South Bay. Commercial bait harvesting of jackknife clams, purple clams, and ghost shrimp is also permitted in the shallow intertidal areas, primarily in South Bay, -Maxwell (1969). Commercial fishing for California spiny lobster and the various species of abalone is not permitted in the Bay. Unique Habitat Associations Of the marine habitats in San Diego Bay, the most notable in terms of potential value and biological productivity is eelgrass. Eelgrass Zostera marina) is located in several areas in North and South Bay, see Figures 16-24. Eelgrass constitutes a unique habitat association in that many species of marine invertebrates and fishes utilize this area for food, shelter, and as a nursery ground. It is supportive of juvenile fishes and crustaceans, particulary crabs and lobster, which find shelter between the grass blades and roots. Eelgrass also serves as a place of attachment for the eggs of many different marine invertebrates and fishes. Migratory geese, particularly the black brant (Branta bernicla nigricans), rely heavily on eelgrass as a food source. Alt ugh no rare and/or endangered species of marine invertebrates, fishes or marine plants are known to occur within or adjacent to the waters of the Master Plan area, eelgrass beds constitute a productive habitat for many important species of fish and marine invertebrates. The most notable species present are those of potential commercial and/or recreational importance such as the California spiny lobster, rock crabs, littleneck clams, cockles, Washington clams, jackknife and razor clams, mussels, and ghost (mud) shrimp. Marine invertebrates are more directly dependent upon bottom habitat conditions than are fishes. Consequently, the intertidal mudflats, and eelgrass beds in shallow, protected subtidal areas support the greatest abundance and variety of marine invertebrates and fishes in San Diego Bay. 172 Other habitat is also provided by artificial structures such as shoreline revetment, including riprap and concrete or steel bulkheads, pier floats, pilings and wave attenuators. These structures provide supportive habitat for attached marine invertebrates, and additional shelter and feeding areas for several different fish species including perches, basses, dogfish, opaleye and croaker. Tidal Marsh and Salt Flats constitute unique habitat associations for fishes, marine invertebrates, and birds. These habitats include plants and animals which are well adapted to a wide range of salinities and are able to with- stand alternate wetting and drying caused by tidal action. The nutrient rich sediments, the active materials recycling, and the very high rate of photosynthesis combine to make.the marsh areas among the most biologically productive of all habitats. Biological productivity is usually expressed as the amount of plant material produced in a given area per day. The ultimate importance of a biologically productive area, such as the Sweetwater River Marsh Complex, lies in its ability to support a wide diversity and high abundance of marine invertebrates, fishes, and birds. Because the marsh areas provide shelter, food, and quiet waters, they are important breeding and hatching grounds for birds, fishes, and marine invertebrates, many with considerable commercial and/or recreational importance. Some species which have been officially designated as rare and endangered, reside in or utCize these areas as discussed above. In the sense that eelgrass serves as the most biologically important marine subtidal habitat, Tidal Marsh constitutes the most important marine intertidal habitat in San Diego Bay. For some animals, such as the light-footed clapper rail, which nests only in the cordgrass of the Tidal Marsh, this type of habitat is essential to survival. Ecological Relationships The ecological relationships which exist among marine organisms, as indicated by the presence of a large variety of marine plants, invertebrates and fishes indicate a condition of stability and interdependence among the various marine habitats within and surrounding the Port's Master Plan area. The interactions among marine organisms which utilize the mudflat areas and eelgrass beds as feeding and breeding areas are most important. These areas support other marine invertebrates and fishes which primarily inhabit the adjacent deeper waters of San Diego Bay (and ultimately in the case of some species) assist in the replenishment of marine plants and animals in the open ocean. San Diego Bay has direct and indirect importance as a nursery to many marine organisms which are of commercial and recreational value. Some marine inver- tebrates and fishes which hatch and develop in the Bay, particularly in South Bay shallows, remain permanent residents of the original nursery ground. Many others migrate to adjacent deeper Bay waters where they remain as residents; still others move out of the Bay to assist in the replenishment of open ocean fish species. 173 Water and Sediment Quality As described in extensive water quality sampling and analyses in the US Army Corps of Engineers' Environmental Impact Statement for San Diego Harbor, San Diego County, California, Los Angeles District (USACE, 1975), water quality in San Diego Bay is generally acceptable for most human activities, including water contact recreation in most areas. Water quality is dependent to a greater or lesser degree upon the type and quantity of material discharged into all portions of San Diego Bay. In general, however, the concentrations of most contaminants tend to decrease significantly with increased distance from the sources. Contaminants which reach San Diego Bay waters are further diluted and dispersed-by tidal action and local water circulation patterns, which are to some extent determined by existing shoreline topography and, in particular, by small embayments such as the Shelter Island Yacht Harbor and Commercial Basin areas; Harbor Island East and West Basins; the 5th Avenue Marina in the Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District; the Chula Vista Boat Basin in the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District, and Glorietta Bay in the Coronado Bayfront Planni,ng District. Water circulation patterns in San Diego Bay are discussed in the section on hyrdology. Sediment quality in San Diego Bay is linked to water quality. In most cases water quality sampling and subsequent analyses have been conducted simultane- ously with sediment sampling and analyses. ' Up' to 1963, sewage disposal directly into San Diego Bay resulted in adverse impacts to water quality and sediment quality. The implementation of the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System for areawide sewage treatment and disposal resulted in an extremely successful water pollution control program which has provided San Diego Bay with some of the cleanest waters and sediments of any bay in the world. San Diego Bay water quality before and after the implementa- tion of the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System have been described in many reports'including Newman (1958); Parrish and McKenthon (1968); SDUPD (1972a); and Browning, et al (1973). The before and after circumstance for water and sediment quality in San Diego Bay is described in SDUPD (1972a), in part as follows: "...the dissolved oxygen concentration was less than 4 mg/l - an accepted minimum for marine life is 5 mg/l out of a possible 8 or 9 mg/l; coliform counts were in excess of 10 per milliliter - past the danger point for life sustenance; turbidity was such that visibility was less than 4 feet; plankton blooms proliferated and sludge deposits stifled bottom marine life. Since 1963, ... dissolved oxygen has risen to an average in excess of 5 mg/l; coliform counts are down to a safe level except in areas within 100 feet of Naval ships at North-Island; turbidity has improved with an average visibility factor of 8 feet, which is in excess of the minimum required for most activities; plankton blooms are virtually nonexistent since the nutrient rich sewage discharges have been diverted; and sludge is gradually dissipated through tidal action and fresh silting." More recently, water and sediment quality have improved even more due largely to the implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 as amended (FWPCA) and the implementation of the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process as regulated and enforced by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 174 MONITORI.NG STATIONS Measurements by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB, 1978),.Peeling (1974) of the Naval Ocean Systems Center (NOSC), as well as many other individuals and agencies listed in the reference section have provided data on the physical and chemical characteristics of the waters and sediments of San Diego Bay within and adjacent to the Port of San Diego's Master Plan area. The locations of monitoring stations in and surrounding the Master Plan area are indicated for each of the Port's nine Planning Districts on separate Planning District maps entitled Biological Resources, Water/Sediment Quality, see Figures 16-24. The map symbols and a brief explanation of the meaning of the symbols, the references which apply to them, and their specific locations are provided as follows: Water Quality Sampling Stations: This symbol located on the Port's nine Planning District maps indicates the approximate location of .one or more water quality sampling stations which have been sampled at least once, and usually on a repetitive basis by either individuals, private consulting firms, or public agencies. The parameters sampled at these locations vary from study to study, however, they generally include water quality characteristics such as temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen turbidity, coliform bacteria, nitrate-nitrogen, total kjeldahl nitrogen: and total phosphata-phosphorous. Other data have been gathered at these water quality sampling stations in some cases. The specific reference to the in- dividual private firm or public agency which has sampled the water quality at these locations and which maintains the specific results of the sampling is indicated by a small number on the map immediately adjacent to the symbol. This small number is keyed to the listed references of this EIR. A Sediment Sampling Stations: Sediment Sampling Stations throughout the Port's nine Planning Districts also come from a variety of studies and from a variety of sources. Although the parameters sampled vary from year to year and from station to station, in general, sediment sampling stations include information on overall sediment grain size as a result of test borings and subsequent grain size analyses, a general description of sediment composition and the depths of the various layers, and in some cases an indication of biological organism's used as contaminated sediments indicators. The location and source referencing system is identical to that used for Water Quality map symbols. Heavy Metal Samplinq Stations: In addition to sediment sampling for physical characteristics, many studies in San Diego Bay have included sampling and subsequent analyses specifically designed to detect the presence of heavy metals within the sediments. In some cases heavy metals were sampled and analyzed simultaneously with sediment physical character- istics. In other cases sampling stations for the sole purpose of monitoring heavy metals in bay sediments have been established. The same location and referencing system exists for these symbols as does for Water Quality and Sediment Quality. 0 '000`06 30 000, 0 "'00,0"b'000, 0000@000 175 The WQCB monitors surface water temperature, salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, coliform bacteria, nitrate-nitrogen,, total kjeldahl nitrogen, and total phosphate-phosphorous at 30 permanent water sampling stations through- out San Diego Bay, see Figures 16-24. Considerable differences in water quality are often detected at similar locations. The standard indicators of water quality such as dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity and turbidity, are often affected by the season and time of sampling; by localized short-term disturbances of both the water column and bottom sediments shifts; by changes in the abundance of phytoplankton (microscopic marine plants) which can alter localized oxygen levels over the short term; and by intermittant local dis- charges of sediment-laden storm drain runoff, and discharge from Las Chollas Creek and either or both of the two rivers (Sweetwater River and Otay River) which drain into San Diego Bay. In addition, different sampling and analyti- cal techniques are from time to time used to monitor water quality p,4rameters. WATER QUALITY Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations of about 6.5 to 7 milligrams per liter (mg/liter); and coliform bacteria counts of between 43 to 460 maximum probable number per 100 milliliters (MPN/100ml) are routinely recorded for the 30 WQCB sampling stations within the Port's Master Plan area in San Diego Bay. During holiday weekends, particularly during times of increased boating activity, the potential exists for a short-term increase in coliform counts within those portions of San Diego Bay immediately adjacent to boating and recreational facilities, and in embayments or marinas which are more confined than open bay waters. Water quality in the North Bay entrance and the Central Bay adjacent to the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge is in some cases somewhat better than other areas within San Diego Bay. In particular, water quality adjacent to industrial areas, boat building and repair facilities, and shipyards tends to be somewhat lower than in other areas of San Diego Bay where such industries are absent. Available nutrients including total phosphate-phosphorous concentrations average 0.16 milligrams per li-ter; total nitrate-nitrogen averages 0.03 milligrams per liter and total kjeldahl nitrogen averages 0.47 milligrams per lSter. Arrage surface water temperature for areas within San Diego Bay is 65 .7 F (18.7 C), and salinity averages 34.3 parts per thousand (o/oo). Turbidity (water clarity) data for the waters surrounding the Master Plan area average 6.6 feet (2 meters). Turbidity is quite variable throughout San Diego Bay and is generally higher in areas of more rapid circulation and areas which receive heavier disturbance. The variation in turbidity is also due to seasonal storm drain discharge and from surface runoff transport of sediments during and following heavy rainfall. These data describing the existing water quality setting in San Diego Bay re- present a composite of the findings of Peeling (1974); Smith (1972); and USACE (1975). SEDIMENT QUALITY The San Diego Bay bottom sediment in several areas within and adjacent to the Master Plan area has been sampled and analyzed, primarily for the presence of heavy metals, see Figures 16-24. Heavy metals analyzed for have included: 176 arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, cobalt, and zinc. At most of the sampling locations the elements,which had been found to be present in the sediment which occasionally exceeded Federal Water Pollution Control Standards have been zinc and copper. Some data exist regarding the concentration of -:soluble forms of heavy metals which may be present in the water column in areas within and around the Port's jurisdiction in San Diego Bay. Monitoring on a relatively limited scale for heavy metals in the water column has been reported for some areas,particularly adjacent to marinas in Shelter Island and shipbuilding facilities adjacent to the marine industrial area south of the Port's Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal for co per, lead, zinc, and cadmium according to Kenis et al (1978) and Zirino et al M78). The results of these studies indicate that soluble. forms of copper and zinc are present in higher concentrations adjacent to the aforementioned areas than are present in other areas throughout San Diego Bay and in open ocean conditions. It should be pointed out, however, that the concentrations that have been found are still far beneath the Federal Pollution Control Standards for the elements monitored and summarized in the La Playa Beach Restoration, Shelter Island Draft EIR (SDUPD, 1979) in part as follows: "Recent studies have shown that the bay waters contain abnormally high concentrations of heavy metals (Zirino et al (1978); Kenis et al (1978). Near the bay entrance copper and zinc concentrations in sea water have been found to increase markedly with the falling tide, and to decrease with the incoming tide. During one tidal cycle, copper values varied from 0.7 to 3.5 parts per billion (ppb). Copper concentrations observed during one survey of heavy metals in the harbor waters increased in a northerly direction (i.e. with increasing distance from the main bay channel) from 0.5 to 1.3 ppb. Another survey found that copper concen- trations fn the Municipal Yacht Harbor waters ranged up to 7 ppb, a value higher than that found anywhere else in San Diego Bay (unpublished data from H.W. Goforth and M. Salizar; and Zirino et al, 1978). Zinc concentrations in the Municipal Yacht Harbor waters have been found to be 5 times greater than in open ocean waters.", As with water quality contamination the presence of pollutants in bottom sediments is a function of many different variables. Generally speaking, heavy metal contamination is most often detected in areas immediately adjacent to heavy industrial activities such as shipbuilding and repair facilities as reported by Barry (1972) and Barry (unpublished data 1971 to 1973). Samples of bottom sediments of some areas within San Diego Bay have indicated that some areas included a thin covering layer of sludge-like material which contained species of polychaetes (marine worms) which are typically used as indicators of moderately polluted sediment. Due to the variables in time over which such data have been gathered, and due to the wide variety of sampling conditions and investigators conducting such sampling programs, the presence or absence of such biological indicators of moderately contaminated sediments must be interpreted with caution. 177 CONTAMINATION SOURCES There are currently no known, major uncontrollable sources of water pollution within or adjacent to the Master Plan area, which are not specifically regulated under the existing NPDES permit process. A potential uncontrolled source of minor amounts of contamination, which could include fertilizers and plant control chemicals associated with landscaping maintenance activities, exists whenever rainfall (sometimes laden with these materials) is conveyed to San Diego Bay from adjacent upland areas via the large number of city owned storm drains in many locations throughout San Diego Bay. These storm drains discharge directly into San Diego Bay and compared to other upland areas adjacent to Port tidelands throughout San Diego Bay, the discharge volume is quite small. The discharge of surface runoff at times may increase turbidity and may intro- duce minor amounts of fertilizer salts, and small amounts of petroleum-related materials from roads, highways, and parking lots. There are 12 fuel dock s within the Master Plan area, located adjacent to marinas at Shelter Island, Harbor Island, and Glorietta Bay; and along the Embarcadero and the marine industrial area. Sewage discharge from the cities surrounding San Diego Bay primarily from the City of San Diego ceased as of 1964 when all industrial and municipal sewage discharges were required to flow into the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System. All existing effluent discharges related to industrial and commercial or other activities are subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process as provided for in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 as amended (FWPCA), implemented locally by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDWQCB). The North Island Naval Air Station Sewage Treatment Plant for Onshore Wastes is presently connected to the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System and except for direct sewage and oil discharge from Navy ships, all naval industrial pollu- tion of the bay is being controlled. About 400,000 gallons of raw sewage is discharged into San Diego Bay each day from ships berthed at North Island and the 32nd Street Naval Station (US Navy, 1977a). The North Island piers along the Central Bay area now have complete sewage collection facilities for those ships which have holding tanks. Some ships, however, such as some aircraft carriers, do not have holding tanks and pump-out facilities and, therefore, continue to contribute sewage discharge to San Diego Bay waters. Similar facilities for sewage collection are currently being installed at the Naval Amphibious Base adjacent to the Port's Coronado Bayfront Planning District as well as in other areas adjacent to Navy facilities throughout San Diego Bay. There are six pump-out facilities within the Master Plan a rea, located adja- cent to marinas at Shelter Island, Harbor Island, and Coronado Cays. All are operated under NPDES permits. Sewage discharge contributions from individual privately owned recreational pleasure craft and commercial vessels as well as maritime shipping are regu- lated by the Environmental Protection Agency through the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Act as enforced by the US Coast Guard through the Federal Marine Sanitation Device Regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations on January 29, 1976 which revised the Federal Standards of Performance for Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD's). The regulations apply to 178 all vessels on which toilet facilities have been installed, but do not require the installation of toilet facilities on a vessel which does not already have an installed toilet. The Coast Guard issued regulations which implement these standards on April 12, 1976. The term MSD includes any equipment for installa- tion on board a vessel which is designed to recieve, retain, treat, or dis- charge sewage and any process which treats such sewage. It does not include portable devices" which can be carried on.and off the vessel. These regula- t"ions are in effect now (July, 1979) for new vessels, and will apply to existing vessels after January 30, 1980, see US Coast Guard pamphlet CG-485, Federal Marine Sanitation Device Regulations (USCG, 1978). After the effective date of the regulations (or the date of compliance for those vessels which comply early), vessels are exempt from state and local regulation of MSD's with one exception. A state may completely prohibit discharge from all vessels of any sewage whether treated or not into some or all of the water within such state by making a written application to the Administrator, EPA, and by receiving the Administrator's affirmative determination that'adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment.of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for such waters to which the prohibition would apply. San Diego Bay has been designated as a non-discharge bay and discharge of sewage from vessels is specifically prohibited. In San Diego Bay flow-through devices must be closed to prevent any discharge to the receiving waters. The standards of performance, definitions of new and existing vessels, and the time table for early and regular compliance are elaborated in greater detail in the Coast Guard pamphlet CG-485, Federal Marine Sanitation Device Regulations (USCG, 1978). Floating debris in San Diego Bay waters, particularly in those areas which have narrow restrictions to basins or poorer circulation than other areas, seldom accumulate in any significant amount, particularly when compared to other harbors. Discarded paper, styrofoam, wood, and other materials are at times windblown from various locations along areas adjacent to the Master Plan area and tend to accumulate along the shoreline in such confined embayments and basins. Such accumulated debris is then at times conveyed into other areas of San Diego Bay via wind or water action. The Port periodically and as necessary operates a special boat to collect and dispose of flotsam. GROUND WATER The ground water table beneath the Master Plan area and immediately adjacent areas varies with tidal action and local rainfall, but generally is found at depths between 10 and 20 feet beneath the existing topography (generally 5 to 10 feet above sea level). Ground water that exists beneath the Master Plan area may be subject to saline intrusion and, therefore, it is unlikely that available ground water in most areas immediately adjacent to or within the Master Plan area constitutes potable water resources. No known authorized water wells are in operation in the Master Plan area or in the immediately adjacent surrounding area. 179 Landform/Geolp.gy/Archaeolog,y LANDFORM Topography The topography of the Master Plan area is characterized by occasionally very gently sloping ground at an average elevation of about 10 feet above mean sea level. The nearly level land slopes toward the bay at a grade of one to five percent, see Figure 25. Well-defined natural stream courses exist at the Paradise Creek-Sweetwater River complex in the National City Bayfront/Chula Vista Bayfront Planning Districts and at the Otay River and Palomar Street Creek complexes in the South Bay Saltlands Planning District. Unique topographical features are not present on Port tidelands. 'To the northwest, outside the Master Plan area, the Point Loma Peninsula rises abruptly from the bay proper.to an elevation of 300-400 feet above sea level. To the northeast the Old Town and Hillcrest areas (City of San Diego) are on a mesa at an elevation of 200-300 feet. In some areas the land-water inter- face is separated by small 5-10 foot high bluff-like areas where artificial fill forms steep slopes down to unprotected shorelines. In some areas un- protected shorelines include sandy beaches or mudflat areas, see Figure 7. Sandy beaches or mudflats often are the end points of natural drainage swales where surface runoff moves in sheetflow to the bay. Nearly-leval topography without unique features throughout the Master Plan area inherently provides for lower development costs and reduced disturbance to natural landforms. This topography, however, reduces the operational efficiency of gravity flow storm drains and sewer mains. Conversely, the extreme elevation difference between the Point Loma Peninsula and the North Bay area, requires a sewage pump station (San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System) and force main to convey sewage up over the Point Loma Peninsula and subsequently to the treatment plant and ocean outfall. The nearly-level topography limits available views in some areas. Near the shoreline the appearance of vertical structures, particularly those higher than one story, is intensified. Topography of the submerged land portions (bathymetry) of the Master Plan area, see Figure 25, is separated into three geographical sections. North Bay includes the deepest waters. From Ballast Point to the Fifth Avenue Marina area, depth averages about 30 feet, except for the Municipal Yacht Harbor and Commercial Basin, of Shelter Island, the Navy estuary, and the two Harbor Island basins. The main ship channel is in North Bay, (42 feet deep and 600-800 feet wide) continuous from the Harbor entrance to the North Island aircraft carrier berthing area with turning basin. Central Bay includes a dredged deepwater area (32 feet deep) which extends from the Fifth Avenue Marina, along the eastern edge of the Bay, adjacent to the US Naval Station. It continues down to the Port's National City Marine Terminal. From the east side of the curve in the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge a boat channel proceeds across to Glorietta Bay in Coronado. The 180 '17 0 14' tt0 1170 06' 32* 44 "e, 10 0@ 40 35 io 36 1 41 -- '33 10 41 NOR7H ISLAND 34 30 P L At I C CINA' 0 11 41 \1 1 IN S _.b 12 4 \10 ^N SCALE 0 14 2 34 mitE 10 (6 0o - \ , L 2 - k\@, %\,. I - A LEGEND All U.S. PIER HEAD LINE 5 It MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE f 1918 12 3 Dotted lines in the bay represent depth 3 contours of 6, 181 and 30'. Figures in the bay represent spot soundings. 3 36* 10 SOURCE: U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY IMPERIAL BEACH 0. Figure 78102-1 /79 Tonmraphy and Bathymetry R `11 4,%T P HyS FAC ORS -1979 San D ego Bay Area 25 "'T 181 remaining bathymetry of Central Bay is very shallow (average depth less than 12 feet). The water depth in South Bay is also shallow (average depth less than 5 feet) except for three locations: The boat channel extension along the eastern Bay shoreline, from the National City Marine Terminal, averages about 20 feet; the boat channel adjacent to the Coronado Cays on the western Bay shoreline is 10-15 feet deep; Emory Channel, south of Coronado Cays is 8-12 feet deep. Soils The soils of the Master Plan area exist as a result of biogeochemical weather- ing of Late Pleistocene Terrace sands, silts, and clays and loose sands of the "Recent Deposits" geochronological period. Most soils within the Master Plan area and surrounding area do not possess sufficient fertility or appropriate texture to offer a potential for commercial agricultural uses, see Figure 27. Within adjacent city-areas, established residential and commercial land uses preclude major agricultural use. In South Bay near the Sweetwater River mouth and the Otay River backwaters, soils with good fertility and texture for agricultural uses are present. These soils, particularly the Salinas Group, have potential for tomatoes, bell peppers and other coastal crops. Such crops are being grown adjacent to the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District. Four main soil groups are within the Master Plan area, according to the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conserva- tion Service (USDA, 1973). A description nf these soil types and their corres- ponding characteristics are provided in Figure 27. Generally, soil erosion potential in the Master Plan area is negligible due to essentially level topography, small adjacent drainage basins, and relatively sparse rainfall (about 10 inches annual). Soil erosion does occur, however, in some areas along unprotected shorelines, see Figure 7. After heavy rainfall or wave disturbance from ship activity or seasonal storms, erosion of shoreline features occurs. It occurs most often where artificial fill is exposed to a large expanse of open bay water allowing for a long, unobstructed fetch. Ex- amples are found at the outer shoreline of the Chula Vista Boat Basin; the outer shoreline of Grand Caribe Isle (East Island) in the Silver Strand South Planning District; and the inner shoreline of Harbor Island's East Basin in the Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field Planning District. Shoreline protection projects are currently under way for these areas (1979). Physical properties of'soils in the Master Plan area are generally adequate for structural foundations. Artificial fill areas, however, do have special pro- perties such as a potential for liquefaction, which are described in the Seismicity and Ground Response sections. GEOLOGY Prehistory The earlier geological history of the San Diego Bay region was summarized by the US Army Corps of Engineers in the Final EIS on the San Diego Harbor Channel Dredging project (USACE, 1975), in part as follows: 183 "San Diego Bay owes its origin to (a) the uplift of one or more fault blocks, which include Point Loma and possibly North Island and Coronado; (b) alluvial erosion (which occurred during the last period of lowered sea level) of channels through the present bay area by the San Diego, Sweetwater and Otay Rivers; and (c) the construction by lateral cur- rents of a tombolo-like beach ridge (the Silver Strand) connecting North Island with Imperial Beach." The Southern California coast experienced extensive tilting and slippage during the Pleistocene epoch (100,000 to 1,000,000 years ago). During that time, the area which is now San Diego Bay began receiving drainage from the San Diego, Sweetwater, Otay, and Tijuana rivers. During a much wetter climate these rivers transported large sediment loads, including sands and gravels, to the Pacific Ocean shoreline. The northward littoral drift (caused by com- bined wave action and shoreline currents) transported sediments of the Otay and Sweetwater Rivers to form what is now the Silver Strand. When these transported sediments encountered the San Diego River and the Point Loma Peninsula, the littoral drift was slowed, and the combined sediments from the three rivers began accumulating to form the barrier beaches of the Silver Strand and the wave-built terraces of the Coronado Peninsula, Moore and Kennedy (1970). The more recent geological history of the San Diego Bay area was also sum- marized in the Final EIS referenced above, in part as follows: "Historically, the bay floor and bay margins were characterized by sand, silt, clay, and mud deposits. Sands were most common near the mouth and along the western margins, while finer mud deposits were characteristic on the eastern margins and the southern end of the bay. Recent studies suggest that in South San Diego Bay, the bay floor muds average about 10 to 12 feet in thickness. The bay muds rest on a 40 to 60 foot section of unconsolidated sand and silty sand layers, which, in turn, rest upon ancient consolidated sedimentary deposits. Extensive dredging since 1940 has somewhat altered the character of the bay floor. As a result of this dredging, an estimated 15 to 26 million cubic yards of sediment have been added to the Silver Strand. In areas that have been dredged, the bay floor mud layer has been removed exposing the underlying sandy strata." Stratigraphy Six geologic strata underlay, with some discontinuity, the Master Plan area, see Figures 28 and 29. In addition, three more recent geologic strata exist over most of the Port's tidelands, deposited during the Quaternary period, according to: Hertlein and Grant (1944); Lockheed Corporation (1967); and California Division of Mines and Geology (1975). These strata, including those listed by name and symbol, are in geochronological order as follows: Rosario Group (Kr): Firm sandstone (bedrock); Cretaceous period, Upper Cretaceous, 70 to 100,000,000 years old; located to 150 feet deep, thickness unknown. La Jolla formation (Tij): Fi rm sandstone (bedrock); Tertiary period, Eocene epoch, 40 to 60,000,000 years old; located 50 to 150 feet deep, thickness unknown. 184 San Diego River 3 2 5 ),14 4; ,,,,, 1 45 9 -1 ,0 2 A 3 'N4 8 Switzer 36 4 Creek S Las Chollas Creek 1;tk, 25 04 2 5 Seventh Street 3 3 Creek 1% 6 25 \@ \ W@, 22 N 4 7 3B A Paradise Creek 5 4 1:" 22 2 3 Sweetwater River 6 3 5 F Street fill Creek LEGEND 3 mean lower low water line 5 4 tidal marsh 2 depth contours at 6, 12' 18' 6 3 & 24. 2 Telegraph mud flats Creek datum: mean lower low water line Palomar St. Creek source: Coast Survey Office Otay Survey of the Coast of the United States 1857 River Figure 6 71- STATUTE MILES 0... A Topography and Bathyrnetry Up. NIC P P N San Dlego Say Area-1857 26 TORYS plan -a. -P, - o4; 185 I .. 98L I I 'I I I 11 .1 .1 I i i I I i i i -1 'I "I M 1mv M on M so M Am mw so Ur National City Ur m mic Mid d M1C Md di Tf Cr mc iMEKD@Sdh TYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS. PORT MASTER PLAN AREA. A MAP TIONN NG DESCH" ION SYMBOL SOIL WE POSITIOMMRN ic COASTAL GRAVELLY AM SAM BEACES. WELL TO RAPID SLOW HIGH - ------- LOW Mid CA BEACHES CDVM DO IN HIGH TIDE AMD EXCESSIVELY R MG STDRMY PERIODS. KmERO- CLAY LOAN TO SANDY LOAM. MODERATELY VERY SLOW SLOW TO SLIGHT TO 41 TO 5.5, HIGH d HAD Lam 2 TO 9% SLOPES, ALLUVIAL WELI. MEDIUM MODERATE I FANS. HUD WERNAERO- LOAN TO CLAY LOAM, MY FKMERATELY VERY SLOW SLOW TO SLIGHT TO 3.5' TO 6' H16H URBAN LAND WINE SEDIMENTS, 2 TO 9% VELL MEDIUM MODERATE Md COMPLEX SLOPES, WINE TELUCES. I I Ur K40E LAND SMOOTH, LEVEL ILLS FROM MMERATELY SLOW WID HIGH ------- VARIABLE F Ly 111) DREDGE SOIL, FINE BAY CLAYS WELL TO COARSE SANDS. @t MARINA LOAMY MANSE TO LOARY SAND. WELL TO RAPID SLOW 10 SLIGHT TO 4' TO 5' LOW KID LOW 2 TO 92 SLOPES, ON SENILE EXCESSIVELY MEDIUM MODERAIT COARSE SAND RIDGES. mic REIFF LINE LOAN TO SM LOAM, 0 TO 21 MODERATELY MODERATELY VERY SLIGHT 7.51 TO 9.5" LOW RKA SANDY LOAN SLOPES, EARLY LEVEL WELL RAPID SLOW ALLUVIAL FANS. TIDAL CLAY TO VERY FINE SM. MODERATELY VERY SLOW VERY SLIGHT ------- H16H TF FLATS LEVEL, PERIODICALLY COVERED WELL SLOW BY TIDES. SALINE. UR URBAN SOIL ALTERED BY URBAN MODERATELY VERY SLOW RAPID VARIABLE VARIABLE VAN!!] LAND DEVELOPMENT WELL RVEY SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMEW OF AGRICULTURE -WIL-COMI-ERVATIONWERVI 1973 1 16 soil Types San Diego Bay Area SAN DIEGO AREA, CALIFORNIA, AiTiS I AND 11. 'I 1 88 L I I I I i I I I 'I I I I I 'I I I I 117* 20' La joll -'il7* $0- 1170 0& Va -320 500 1;7@ OP Pacific Beach: La Mesa e o . . .. ... . ..... ... OP o 5 San Stop 6 Corona4o Hationa IL ....... Diego 320 40 Bay Point Lou N ula Vi ta GRAPHIC SCALE F=1 2MOW Statute Miles IqWweri al t 0 10 ;;eMsia Kilometers 0 LO 6 EXPLANATION MAP SYMBOLS Dashed where inferred Tsd San Diego Formation Dotted where concealed To Otay Formation Contact Tsw Sweetwater Formation . . . ....... L.-J. Fault C .0 Tp Poway Group 49 Anticline TIJ La Jolla Group 0 U LL111 Kr Rosario Group CL I" Syncline 00 Kjgm MetaTorphic and 0 ran Route of field trip 9 itic rocks SOURCE: Geology after Kennedy, 1967-1969; Artim and Pinckney, 1973. Quaternary deposits not shown. Major Road Of, S441 Fi gure Date 78102-1 0 Drn --d-hk DEIR 9/79 Bedrock Geology - UPD 9/79 San Diego Bay Area 28 Base KENNEDY ?40 1967-69 10> z 0 z z 0 0 z 0 0 3C ;i 0 Z z 0 z Of z 0 0 0 LEGEND PLEISTOCENE South & Central San Diego Bay PLIOCENE View Looking North V E R T I C A L S C A L E EXAGGERATED EOCENE CRETACEOUS x 9T';-7' X z MESOZOIC CRYSTALLINE ROCK SECTION AS SHOWN IS ADAPTED FROM THE SAN DIEGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM'S ILLUSTRATED LECTURE SERIES ON "THE NATURAL HISTORY AND ECOLOGY OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY" SUMMER 1971. THE INTERPRETATION IS SUGGESTED BY HERTLEIN AND GRANT (1944). DOTTED LINE ALTERNATE REPRESENTS INFERRED EXTRAPOLATED SYNCLINIC INTERPRETATION AFTER MOORE AND KENNEDY (1970) 7 bay mud is wfta 1@ layers of gray W Slump sity sand sand MAI %MCI jp'v vr J1 IT @J' -bedrock South San Diego Bay Area View Looking North VERTICAL S C A L E EXAGGERATED SOURCE: Lockheed Report me. 20867, 041016111lical SufvOY Of South Son Diego Bay, August 1967 scale Figure Geolo ic Cross Sections n -75-k OTEIRG 9/79 9 "PI "7 MIKE. San Dieg 208 7 planning department o Bay 29 1 191 San Diego formation (Tsd): Finn sandstone (bedrock); Tertiary period, Pliocene epoch, I to 13,000,000 years old; located 25 to 150 feet deep, thickness unknown. Bay Point formation (Qbp): Loose, unconsolidated sands, silts and gravels; Quaternary period, Pleistocene epoch, 100,000 years old; located 10 to 75 feet deep, thickness varies to at least 18 feet. Late Pleistocene Terrace Loose unconsolidated sands, with d,is- continuous layers of cohesive silts and clays; Quaternary period, Pleistocene epoch, 50 to 100,000 years old; located 10 to 50 feet deep, thickness varies to at least 10 feet. Recent Deposits._( -- ): Loose unconsolidated sands; Quaternary period, Holocene epoch, present to 50,000 years old; located at the surface to 14 feet deep, thickness varies from two feet beneath tidelands to 14 feet beneath submerged lands. Many portions of the Master Plan area have subsequently been covered by arti- ficial fill at various times between 1914 and 1979, Smith (1975a), see Figure 5. The compaction properties of all fills have not been determined, but adjacent to some areas, such as the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge, the depth and compaction are known. In this area the fill is 12 to 13 feet thick and is composed of fairly dense clean sand, California Division of Toll Crossings (1968). Paleontological Resources No unique or potentially scientifica1ly valuable paleontological resources are known to exist on the tidelands or submerged lands of the Master Plan area, Stephens (1929); Valentine (1961)' Dostert (1974). One recorded fossil locality exists off-tidelands approximately 450 feet north of the Pomona Avenue and State Highway 75 intersection, near the Coronado Yacht Club, Kern (1978). Minerai Resources No commercial mining operations exist on the Port tidelands or in the immediate surrounding area, (Weber (1963). Sands and silts from surrounding areas have been used in the past for beach ero0on control but in general the high organic content of most bay sands decreases their commercial value as building material, particularly as compared to river sands. @Gravel deposits, which are not being mined, are known to exist adjacent to the Chula Vista Boat Basin area in South Bay, see Figure 30. The extent of the deposit and the feasibility of mining have not been investigated. The gravel deposit is covered by a layer of bay mud several feet thick. Clay deposits from surrounding areas have at times been used for brick manufacturing, but the depth (10 to 50 feet) of the clays in the Late Pleistocene Terrace deposits beneath the Master Plan area precludes feasible mining operations. Salt is commercially produced by passive s olar evaporation of sea water in the South San Diego Bay area, see Figure 30. Existing deepwater areas and estab- lished recreational, commercial and industrial land uses in most-other areas within the Port's jurisdiction would preclude such an operation elsewhere. 193 SEISMI CITY The Port's Master Plan area, San Diego as well as the entire State of California, is within an active seismic region, the Circum-Pacific Seismic Belt. The San Diego Bay area has experienced mild earthquakes in recorded history, but none have been catastrophic. In 1964, three earthquakes of magnitude 3.5 on the Richter Scale had epicenter locations in San Diego Bay east of the Naval Amphi- bious Base (City of Coronado, 1974a). Earthquake faults and epicenters recorded for California, Grantz and Bartow (1971) and Real, et al (1978), are illustrated in Figure 31. Earthquake faults and epicenters within the San Diego region are illustrated in Figure 32. Earthquake faults and epicenters within the San Diego Bay area are illustrated in Figure 33. The risk or hazard associated wtih seismic events, however, is a function of the underlying soils and rock strata, the quality and type of structures built, and the probable magnitude of an earthquake, as well as the proximity to an epicenter or fault system, Von Hake and Cloud (1966). Fault Systems Six fault systems exist within the San Diego region which could potentially affect existing and future developments within the Master Plan area, Richter, et al (1967); McEuen and Pinckney (1972); Kennedy, et al (1975; and Leighton and Associates (1978). These fault systems are described with recorded earth- quake magnitudes on the Richter Scale in order of increasing distance from the Master Plan area as follows: Rose Canyon Fault: System may be associated with the Newport-Inglewood system in the Long Beach area, the San Diego Bay-Tijuana system within San Diego Bay, and the Vallecito and San Miguel system in Baja California; if associated with other systems, it is approximately 140 miles long and is within the Master Plan area, about 1,500-2,000 feet northeast of the old Coronado Ferry landing; maximum probable magnitude unknown; coastal damage potential, unknown; maximum recorded magnitude, if associated with Newport-Inglewood System, 6.3. LaNacion Fault : System includes the Sweetwater fault; neither fault appears to have been active during recent time (within the last 11,000 years); approximately 14 miles long; parallel to the Rose Canyon System and 4-5 miles distant; maximum probable magnitude unknown; maximum re- corded magnitude, 3.0. Elsinore Fault: System includes the related Agua Calienta and Earthquake Valley faults; largest known active fault in region; approximately 135 miles long and 50 miles distant; maximum probable magnitude, 7.6; could cause moderate damage to coastal areas; maximum recorded magnitude, 6.0. San Clemente Fault: System is offshore and may include extensive associated faults; approximately 110 miles long and 50 miles distant; maximum probable magnitude, 7.7; coastal damage potential unknown; maximum recorded magnitude, 5.9. San Jacinto Fault: System includes the related Coyote Creek fault; most active known faUft in region; approximately 125 miles long and 75 miles 194 1170 14' 117006, 32- 44' SAN DIEGO ,NORTH ISLAND POINT CORONADO I LOMA % NATIONAL I CITY AN SCALE 14 1 @1' 4 1 MILE CHULA LEGEND VISTA U.S. PIERNEAD LINE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE of 1918 CO"I" WAIIIII M"AKI AND/00 CUTLET SALT 10111MUCTNIN 641AVIL 09pow (not being mined) X* V. 0 36' X % IMPERIAL BEAC Figure OZ781 02-1 Mineral and Water Resources JR 9/7S A P V @i@ AC ORS' San Diego planning depl. Say 30 ".F'TT" 195 LEGEND RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULT - HOLOCENE . ARROWS DENOTE DIRECTION OF RELATIVE HORIZONTAL SLIP FAULT ACTIVE DURING HISTORICAL TIME OBSERVABI E SURFACE MOVEMENT INFERRED FAULT EXTENSION .................. INFERRED SUBMARINE FAULT r DATE AND MAGNITUDE OF HISTORICAL FARTHOUAKES o 1906-8.3 0 EPICENTERS OF EARTHOUAKES WHICH CAUSED DAMAGE TO HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES MAGNITUDE: 0 > 6.75 < 6.75 PARTS OF SAN ANDREAS FAULT SYSTEM SUBJECT TO 1950 5.6 - FAULT CREEP AND RELATIVELY FREGUENT SMALL-TO- .............. MODERATE-SIZED EARTHOUAKES ............. 0 0 0 1906-8.3 1861 -? 1838-7.0 36-7.0 ::68-zO 0 1890-? % 1901-6.3 1872-8.3 1922-6.5 1934-6.0 % 1966-5.5 0 & 0 0 % 1952-Z,,7 1i ,,I*ck N 1852-7 qe-1947-6.4 P SCif 57- .0 7@7 7, Iso C -A- Master Plan Area 1868 -? San Diego Unified Port District 8-6.5 /1966-3.6 1?40-71 SOURCES: -GRANTZ & BARTOW 1971; BULLETIN 116-3 CALIF. DEPT. of WATER RESOURCE 34-7 scale: Fi gure 71 781 1-1 will Earthquake Faults and Epicenters no D.N/79 It @26 so Mi. - UP0 V7 9 11 " S California - . R1 _4'i T planning clept., 31 eiija T9/ 197 1, A, r + A L\ A 71 ItI C Master Plan Area E San Diego Unified Port District $CAI + + Legend NI'll: ---- , 1311il I W" 411i"d, dallmd appro@immll or Wwrod, dotw -.1 a' Ermter NwitLde hava: 2.0-2-9. a 3.0-3.9. 4.0-4.9. @* 5, M. 9. Epcenter Intensity Rrigm; WI-VI I. Otrwr: 4 - mober Of aPicantars ramonied at that loudio.. 1943(4.0) - Vale NW mWitudr or intanti ty of earthqLWe (11.0 aid greater). SOURCE - Cft of 60 Sehmic So" EWmnI " 74 E FIGURE Mfg 781 V, arthquake Faults & Epicenters I , 1 .11, OE 75, San Diego Region 3 2 19 199 V, T wn 10 U N', U Mallonal City @7 wm Cor do . ..... .. ...... V N3 .. ......... :% It X, . . ........... 01 D .. ..... ....... U \14 AD -% D ID U LEGEND D Accurately Located Fault Approximately Located Fault U Possible Fault D' U\D ............... Fault Concealed Beneath Younger Deposits Fault Showing Relative Vertical Move ment "U'@E ..... All' 1-11, IT11 III ZONES N- SEPTEnER 1975 0 0 Epicenters 3.0-3.9 on Richter Scale NO 1AIJ1I$ A I 140matakont934-6i soatatitken1962-681 C-1 " @N@; BIE. scato -0- mmuna 0 -N, Earthquake Faults & Epicenters PhMing Dewmen, San Diego Bay Area distant; maximum probable magnitude, 7.8; could cause moderate damage to coastal area; maximum recorded magnitu de, 6.8 (Coyote Creek fault). San Andreas Fault: System includes numerous other related faults; largest known active fault in California; approximately 650 miles long and 85 miles distant; maximum probable magnitude, 8.3; could cause moderate damage to coastal area; maximum recorded magnitude, 8.3. Ground Response Of the various types of ground movement responses experienced during earth- quakes, those most applicable to the Master Plan area are ground shaking and ground failures, including liquefaction and lateral spreading, which are re- sults of ground shaking, Ross and Dowlen (1973). Ground shaking causes by far the most damage experienced during earthquakes. Structures built upon loose, unconsolidated, water-saturated materials, such as the Late Pleistocene Terrace, Recent Deposits, and artificial fill under- lying the Master Plan area, are susceptible to vibrations or oscillations which result from an earthquake. Ground failure from liquefaction, i.e., the situation wherein water-saturated soil, which, because of ground shaking, changes to a liquid-like state and loses its shear strength, Youd (1973), could occur on artificial fill areas in the Master Plan area. Damage to existing and future structures because of liquefaction could result from tilting, floating, or settling. Lateral spreading, i.e., the movement of soils towards an unsupported surface, could result in damage to existing and future structures along shoreline areas, particularly if soft saturated clays are present. Tsunamis and Seiches Tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are very long, shallow, high-velocity ocean waves that are usually generated by earthquakes. Most locally experienced seismic sea waves have been within the normal tidal range and have had few noticable effects. The greatest recorded height of a tsunami in San Diego Bay was 4.6 feet in 1960, Joy (1968). The potential for damage from seismic sea waves to land areas adjacent to San Diego Bay exists but has not been quantified. Tsunamis generated by very distant offshore earthquakes have been dampened by the wide continental shelf extending offshore from San Diego. The San Clemente Fault, however, shows evidence of vertical separation which is parallel to the coastline and could generate a tidal wave at the coast, Inman and Nordstrom (1973). Even if an extensive runup did no-t occur, associated currents could be strong enough to result in damage to existing and future structures located in the water or along primarily the coastal shore- line. In the absence of detailed theoretical model studies to predict tsunami runups within the Bay, using land elevation contours to delineate potential runup damage zones is conjecture. Seiches are water surges which sometimes occur within confined areas, such as San Diego Bay, and are often initiated by earthquakes. No sieches have been recorded within San Diego Bay. An offshore localized seismic event, or one within San Diego Bay, could generate seiches which could affect the Master Plan,area particularly along the shoreline. No predictions have been made. 203 HYDROLOGY The hydrologic setting of the Master Plan area includes surface and ground water from rainfall and surface watering operations such as maintenance of recreational landscaping and adjacent off-tidelands residential areas. The hydrologic setting also includes the tidal circulation and current patterns of San Diego Bay. Groundwater Resources Ground water stored within the soil and loosely compacted rock strata beneath the Plan area and surrounding area exists as the result of surface percolation of rainfall and is periodically recharged by urban activities in those areas where impermeable surfaces such as streets, pavement, and structures do not exist. There has not been an established link between ground water beneath the Coronado peninsula and ground water beneath the San Diego mainland area. The existing water table is located about two to five feet above sea level. It serves to prevent the complete intrusion of sea water into otherwise qn- saturated soils and rock strata. The prevention of complete intrusion of saline and brackish waters from the surrounding waters, both of the open ocean and of San Diego Bay, reduces the potential for salt water damage to most species of vegetation which are typically used in urban landscaped areas. The Natural Physical Factors Report (SDUPD, 1972a), describes subsurface water within and surrounding the Master Plan area as follows: "The water table on tidelands property varies in level approximately from a depth of two feet down to mean sea level. Salt intrusion ex- tends inland for about one-third of a mile in the South Bay area. The ground water upland of the tidelands is not potable and is of limited use in irrigation. It has a high concentration of sulfates and chlorides. The pH level is as for sea water: approximately 8.0. Any intrusion in reverse of so-called ground fresh water into the salt water-intruded area on tidelands would obviously carry these ingredients. The closest natural source of softer water is in an aquifer at a depth of 600 feet in the South Bay region." Surface Water There are no permanent, large bodies of surface water either stored artifi- cially or which exist as a result of natural processes in the Master Plan area or in the immediately surrounding area. In addition, the essentially level topography of the Plan area and surrounding area includes no natural stream- beds or features which would facilitate the storage of potable water. Watershed Drainage Watershed drainage and river basins in the San Diego Bay area are illustrated in Figure 34. The Master Plan area includes two major river basins: the Sweetwater River basin, which drains into San Diego Bay via the Sweetwater River in the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District, and the Otay River basin, which drains the Otay River into South San Diego Bay in the South Bay Saltlands Planning District. Three other minor localized basins provide watershed into 204 'AN CREEK =UP' 'ABASIDI'@!z LOS PENASOUI--% SAN DIEGO B (N TOS CREEK GROUP 0o0F LAS CHOLLAS 11W I TER BASIN 13AS W NORTH BAY 'TAY .SAN DIEGO OBASIN CREEK GROUP Aaw .I'- )@q SEA SOUTH BAY XICO SAN DIEGO CR EEK GROUP U"A N A Master Plan Area BASIN San Diego Unified Port District @fNDI @R scale: Figure -10 71 W. Watershed Drainage/River Basins EaN. UPD "AT FAC planning p,. San Diego Bay Area M@ o do* 34 205 San Diego Bay as well. In North and Central San Diego Bay, watershed drainage is via sheet overflow. In some cases, surface runoff is conveyed to San Diego Bay via flood control channels in the North Bay San Diego Creek area and in the Las Choll-as Creek drainage area. Surface runoff during and following heavy rainfall in the Master Plan areas travels at relatively low velocities via storm drains from adjacent cities due to the essentially level topography. In some areas the result of inadequately drained upland areas is that occasional nuisance situations of small localized ponding and moderate saltation of both upland and tideland areas typically follow periods of heavy rainfali.l. Water- sheds within and adjacent to the Master Plan area are inadequate in size and too heavily urbanized to serve as dependable sources of potable water. Flood Plain Areas Flood plain areas within and surrounding the Master Plan area are illustrated in Figure 35. Areas subject to overflow according to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 1975) exist near the Sweetwater River, Otay River, and Las Chollas Creek. Flood potential on tidelands at the mouth of Las Chollas Creek is estimated to cover about 4,000 feet of waterfront. Under major flood conditions, the ground could be covered with creek overflow, 1-2 feet deep. Such conditions could effect the northern portion of the Naval Repair Base and a portion of the industrial tidelands to the north. The Sweetwater flood plain surrounding the Sweetwater River is about one mile wide near the railroad and freeway overpasses. The projected overflow area on undeveloped tideland is about 1,000 feet wide on the east and about 4,000 feet wide on the west. Under major flood conditions water could cover the area 1-2 feet deep. The Otay River flood plain exists in the South Bay Saltlands Planning District. Concurrent with the Otay flood plain is an overflow channel from the Tijuana River. According to the Natural Physical Factors Report (SDUPC, 1972a), the potential for flood damage in this area is as follows: "In 1895 severe flooding caused contours to be radically changed and ex- tensive damage to be inflicted in the lower valley. The Tijuana water- shed is stopped up by reservoir dams under the present circumstances but the quality of the engineering is uncertain to land users near the estuary." The report also indicates minor flooding potential along the Chula Vista Bay- front Planning District as follows: "The Chula Vista waterfront is subject to minor flooding even during the one year flood. The surface runoff is too rapid as a result of urban paying and the existing storm sewers are seriously inadequate. The one year flood, occuring simultaneously with a spring tide, would cause considerable backup flooding." Portions of the Master Plan area have been given preliminary designations as pecial flood areas by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) thereby establishing eligibility for participation in the National Flood s Insurance Program. The preliminary designations of these areas are based upon 207 the simultaneous occurence of a one hundredyear frequency storm; t 'he highest anticipated extreme high tide level; together with additional special water movement phenomena, such as a seismic seawave, windblown storm waves, or seismically or otherwise induces water movement within the bay. The National Flood Insurance Program was established by the Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to make available under Federal auspices, specified amounts of flood insurance, previously unavailable from privately owned insurance companies. This in- surance is available where the local government will adopt and enforce land use and control measures which will guide land development in flood prone areas in order to avoid or reduce future flood damage. The Act further re- quires the purchase of flood insurance as a condition of eligibility for the receipt of Federal financial assistance to be used for acquisition or con- struction in areas designated as special flood hazard areas. Ocean and Bay Circulation Water circulation in the Master Plan area is primarily the result of tidal flow of ocean waters into San Diego Bay, which is permanently open to the Pacific Ocean by a one-half mile wide, 40 to 70 foot deep, entrance channel located south of the Point Loma peninsula. This entrance is protected along the outer coast from shoaling, by the Zuniga Jetty, and by periodic mainten- ance dredging. Tidal circulation supplies the San Diego Bay environment with vital concentration of salts, dissolved nutrients and oxygen. Wind currents and thermal discharges at various locations, see Figure 30, also assist in Bay water circulation. Recreational, commercial, and military vessels have a small scale effect on localized water circulation while under- way. Bay Currents Currents in San Diego Bay and in Glorietta Bay are primarily the result of tidal flows, which in San Diego Bay are defined as mixed diurnal (twice daily), with an average tidal range of 5.3 feet and an extreme range of 9.5 feet. The US Coast and Geodetic Survey has reported maximum flood tide velocities of 2.9 feet per second (1.72 knots) and maximum ebb tide velocities of 2.2 feet per second (1.30 knots) in 1970, see Figure 36. Tidal current surface velocities along the northeast shoreline of the Plan area adjacent to the main channel reach a maximum velocity of 1.5 feet per second (0.89 knots), see Figure 36. Tidal current velocity decreases shore- ward. Along the shoreline, water movement slows to less than 0.2 feet per second (0.12 knots). The Army Corps of Engineers hydraulic model of San Diego Bay (now abandoned) describes eddy currents near the entrance to Glorietta Bay and in South Bay. Within Glorietta Bay and South Bay random water movements are present with velocities of 0.1 feet per second (0.06 knots) and less (USACE, 1970). This slow water circulation constitutes a situation which is conducive to the re- tention of contaminants which may be discharged into the area or which may arrive from outside sources. Such contaminants would tend to remain within these areas for long periods of time. At peak flood tide, the eddy which forms between the Naval Amphibious Base and the Coronado Golf Course is characterized by a clockwise rotation, circu- 208 '17014, 117 10 06* 32o 44' SAN DIEGO -, % Los Chollas NORTH ISLAND Creek C ONADO POINT PIP I -OMA % NATIONAL CITY swow- waftr /NI Ri SCALE 0 14 MILE CH VISTA LEGEND U.S. FIERHEAD LINE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE of 1918 AREAS SUBJECT TO OVERFLOW 010 ive 20 36' SftWf: U S Army Cerps of Er*news IMPERIAL BEW6H- /3/71 scale: Figure 78102-1 Flood Plains 0"' '179 .. -171 A, PH'S San Diego Bay Area A RS planning depl.' 35 FC,@ 209 4 AA -A 4 A A 4 A 4 .4 A v AIN F LOOD TIDE 14 14 4 A v v v v\j V V v v 'A EBB TIDE LEGEND PATH OF GREATEST AVERAGE SPEED (WIDTH VARIES WITH INTENSITY) CURRENT (SIZE VARIES WITH SPEED) SURFACE VELOCITY SCALE IN FEET PER SECOND K 0 10 SOURCE SURFACE CURRENT PATTERNS SAN DIEGO SAY MODEL U.S. A:MY CORPS OF ENGINEERS VICKS URG MISSISSIPPI scale Fi gure at. D78102'Ia10. D', 11, Tidal Currents 0 1 mile Base ,@ 5 San Die 36 No F111 planning department go Bay 211 lating surface bay water at about 0.14 feet per second (0.08 knots). Be- tween peak flood tide and peak ebb tide, the eddy disburses into random movements. At peak ebb tide, the eddy reoccurs with approximately the same velocity, but with a counter-clockwise rotation. Movements in South Bay are less well defined. Tidal Flushing Average tidal flushing for San Diego Bay is about 30% of the entire Bay water volume, sometimes referred to as the tidal prism, exchanged per tidal cycle (12.5 hours). Extreme variation, however, exists between tidal flushing rates for the South Bay area as compared to the Bay entrance area. Complete tidal flushing for the South Bay may require 7 to 14 days, but may be only I to 2 days for areas near the Bay entrance. Tidal flushing rates for the Master Plan area Bay waters is similar to rates typical of the Bay entrance. The exception would be areas around the US Naval Amphibious Base, wherein rates would be somewhat reduced. At the extremes of Glorietta Bay and South Bay tidal flushing rates would be reduced further. Sediment Transport Current velocities in the Master Plan area are sufficient for sediment trans- port along the shoreline. Sediment transport contributes to beach sand move- ment and to some localized shoaling, particularly in areas where artificial structures intervene along an otherwise smooth shoreline, (SDUPD, 1979). Al- though sediment transport is responsible for displacement of sands along areas that are or may be used for recreat,ional purposes, the rate of transport is very slow. Existing shoreline features in most areas within the Plan area have not changed appreciably during the last 10 years. Shoreline Erosion The shoreline within the Master Plan area is subjected to moderate to low velocity tidal currents that tend to replenish the sands they erode with each cycle of ebb and flood tide. This erosion appears to be caused more by wave action from winds and from the wakes of passing vessles than by tidal action. The 33.1 mile shoreline within the Master Plan area is partially protected by riprap, rubble and bulkheads in most areas. The remaining shoreline includes unprotected sandy beach areas, see Figure 36. Localized shoreline erosion does occur, particularly along the main channel where wave action is the greatest. The shoreline adjacent to the several areas, such as the Chula Vista Boat Basin peninsula, has receded. Gradual erosion between rubble and riprap has caused some undercutting and minor shoreline slope or bluff failures along shorelines in nearly all Planning Districts. 213 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Historical Sites Both Federal and State registers exist for designated histori.c sites in the San Diego Bay area. In addition, each of the member cities and many individual societies refer to varied areas and structures as hi"storic sites. The National Register of Historic Places cites the Star of India and Cabrillo National Monument as officially designated historic sites. The local San Diego City Historical Site Board identifies four sites in the Port's Centre City Embarcadero Planning District as having special historical interest. These are: The Spirit of St. Louis Construction Site; the Barracks site; the Old Ferry Landing site (Dead Man's Point); and the Santa Fe Depot (off tidelands), see Figure 37. A total of 26 historical sites exists within the Port's Master Plan area and surrounding vicinity. Descriptions of the recorded historical sites are provided in Appendix F. Sites have been recorded according to the County of San Diego Inventory (County, 1972) and the California State Inventory of Historic Resources (California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1976). Port tidelands on the Coronado Bayfront Planning District include additional historical sites listed by the Coronado Historical Society and the San Diego Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. The majority of these sites do not have Federal or State official designation or registration; however, they are included and described in detail in the City of Coronado Master EIR, Coronado -- 1990 The General Plan (Ultrasystems, 1977). No known historical sites, derelicts, wrecks, or other objects of historical significance have been recorded on the submerged lands within the Master Plan area or in the surrounding vicinity. Archaeological Sites Information regarding archaeological (prehistoric) resources in and around San Diego Bay exist in the form of site records (both written and mapped) maintained in local institutions including the San Diego Museum of Man (SDMM) and the San Diego State University Anthropology Department (SDSU). Site record searches were reqUested of and have been received from these two institutions in January of 1979, (Hedges, 1979, and Johnson, 1979). Archaeo- logical sites located within the Master Plan area and surrounding vicinity are illustrated on Figure 38. SDMM sites are designated with a "W"; SDSI sites are designated with an "SDI". A total of 25 archaeological sites have been recorded by SDMM within the San Diego Bay area. The presence of even very minor prehistoric resources consitutes a "site". As indicated in Figure 38, most recorded archaeological sites are in areas which have been destroyed or nearly so. Archaeological site records from both SDMM and SDSU are included in Appendix G. Table G-1 provides a detailed summary of archaeological site records and site information within the Port's Master Plan area and vicinity. 214 13 12 ............ .... ...... 26.. tz Q, LEGEND abrillo National Monument jOld Point Loma Lighthouse) 18-090 51 Q Fort RosecranS 62 i@% 3 Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery -260 55 4 Fort GuijarroS 69 1.. -760 Whaling Stat 50 6 Ballast Point -030 U7 Spanish Lighthouse -670 La Playa Ouarantine Station :16 Old Landin Site UIO San DI.,.'0'k1 Town 830 11 ( ir Saint Louis Site -675 7 LD Spsl'to'Front and Fir Streets Complex: Old Homes Site +San Diego Historical Society (SOHIS) 13 6 El PTado Ay:a,.Balboa Park -550 3 Starof Ind! .. Embarcadero Complex -680 -V\@- 2 -04 5, 88 Santa FQq Depot +SDHS /42@ Gaslight puarter +SDHS Pantoja ark -580 San Diego Barracks -620 523 19@ L* Punta de los Muertos (Dead Man,s Point) -480 57 it. Old Homes In National City (Square Mile Arva) 21 Santa Fe Terminal 630 First Glider Flight -200 (D La Punta -130 Pourade (1966) Hotel Del Coro ado 844 Rockwe I Fieldn First Military Flying School -210 818 San Diego County First Seaplane Flight -220 Calilovnia Department of Pa Historical Landmarks Hist orical SiteS San Diego Bay Area lating surface bay water at about 0.14 feet per second (0.08 knots). Be- tween peak flood tide and peak ebb tide, the eddy disburses into random movements. At peak ebb tide, the eddy reoccurs with approximately the same velocity, but with a counter-clockwise rotation. Movements in South Bay are less well defined. Tidal Flushing Average tidal flushing for San Diego Bay is about 30% of the entire Bay water volume, sometimes referred to as the tidal prism, exchanged per tidal cycle (12.5 hours). Extreme variation, however, exists between tidal flushing rates for the South Bay area as compared to the Bay entrance area. Complete tidal flushing for the South Bay may require 7 to 14 days, but may be only 1 to 2 days for areas near the Bay entrance. Tidal flushing rates for the Master Plan area Bay waters is similar to rates typical of the Bay entrance. The exception would be areas around the US Naval Amphibious Base, wherein rates would be somewhat reduced. At the extremes of Glorietta Bay and South Bay tidal flushing rates would be reduced further. Sediment Transport Current velocities in the Master Plan area are sufficient for sediment trans- port along the shoreline. Sediment transport contributes to beach sand move- ment and to some localized shoaling, particularly in areas where artificial structures intervene along an otherwise smooth shoreline, (SDUPD, 1979). Al- though sediment transport is responsible for displacement of sands along areas that are or may be used for recreatIonal purposes, the rate of transport is ery slow. Existing shoreline features in most areas within the Plan area have not changed appreciably during the last 10 years. v Shoreline Erosion The shoreline within the Master Plan area is subjected to moderate to low velocity tidal currents that tend to replenish the sands they erode with each cycle of ebb and flood tide. This erosion appears to be caused more by wave action from winds and from the wakes of passing vessles than by tidal action. The 33.1 mile shoreline within the Master Plan area is partially protected by riprap, rubble and bulkheads in most areas. The remaining shoreline includes unprotected sandy beach areas, see Figure 36. Localized shoreline erosion does occur, particularly along the main channel where wave action is the greatest. The shoreline adjacent to the several areas, @uch as the Chula Vista Boat Basin peninsula, has receded. Gradual erosion between rubble and riprap has'caused some undercutting and minor shoreline slope or bluff failures along shorelines in nearly all Planning Districts. 213 The SDSU Anthropology Department record search showed 16 sites located within and in the vicinity of San Diego Bay, but eight of those have no recordation date. These undated sites were likely recorded between .1920 and 1950. Several archaeological sites have been recorded by both SDSU and SDMM, see Figure 38 and Appendices F and G. The eight sites above may be associated with aboriginal peoples from as' early as 12,000 years ago, or they may be more recent. The Silver Strand area was used repeatedly by prehistoric peoples, and native Americans continued to use the area until the early part of the century, Johnson, 1979). The majority of the remaining sites identified by SDSU are located in highly impacted residential zones off Port tidelands. Most of them were shell middens (refuse mounds) with.no other artifactual remains which.might aid in the identification of cultural or chronological affiliation. Pottery is mentioned in the descriptions of three of these sites, all off tidelands. This indicates that these sites may be more recent. Further study of these areascould place the materials in a chronological frame. Neither SDSU or SDMM have records of offshore sites or submerged sites in the Master Plan area or vicinity. It is, however, possible that archaeological resources exist on submerged lands, since the sea level has probably risen 10 to 12 feet within the last 10,000 years, and human use of these areas as formerly dry lands may have occurred (R. May, County of San Diego, Personal Communication). Prehistoric peoples may have been present in the San Diego Bay area and immediate vicinity for as much as the last fifteen thousand years, Rogers (1966), and Kroeber (1970). San Diego prehistoric peoples have probably existed over time in three functionally distinct and geographically separate complexes, each of which has separate identifiable characteristics with regard to the archaeological resources discovered. The three most often recopized cultural complexes are San Dieguito, La Jollan, and Diegueno (Kumeyaay). As described by Kaldenberg and May (1975), and Hatley (1979), the San Dieguito people (12-14,000 years ago) were primarily hunting tribes, somewhat nomadic and, at least in the first two stages of their historical complex, did not @ppear to have permanent encampments, since no shell middens have been located in connection with these complexes. The first two identified levels of these complexes, i.e., San Dieguito I and San Dieguito II, have not yet been found west of the Laguna Mountains in San Diego County, However, the last phase of the San Dieguito complex, San Dieguito III, has been associated with shell midden in areas west of the Laguna Mountains and may, in fact, have been associated with the next complex known as La Jollan. The La Jollan complexes (7-9,000 years ago) are most often associated with very large shell middens, large, permanent coastal populations in permanent encampments, particularly along the bays, lagoons and estuaries within San Diego County, and a functional existence based upon shellfish harvesting.and deep water fishing. Following the identified La Jollan complexes, geological records indicate that substantial changes in sea level and climate began which may have led to the establishment of the next complexes of what are often called the late milling stages, the Diegueno. 219 The Diegueno peoples (1-7,000 years ago) are most often identified as being smaller coastal units with smaller scattered shell middens, typically represented by temporary coastal encampments but primarily represented by inland settlement patterns along well water drainage courses. These people primarily had a floral subsistence; they were widely distributed and are typified most by resource gathering functions, the construction of storage graineries and, most importantly, pottery. As can be seen from the archaeological site record descri-ptions, see Table G-1, peoples who may have occupied the San Diego Bay vici.nity in prehistoric times were most likely associated with the La Jollan, and to some extent with late milling, the Diegueno complexes. 220 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES Land and Water Use The Master Plan proposes individual projects for the Port's nine Planning Districts, listed in tables in the Master Plan document. This environmental impact analysis applies to,those project lists. In those instances where a potential for a significant adverse environmental impact may exist, environ- mental review subsequent to this analysis will be required. In some cases, it is conceivable that such environmental review could result in the require- ment for an additional EIR to cover specific details. Consequently, this analysis is limited to only general issues at a level-of specificity appro- priate for a master plan, see EIR Guidelines. The Port's Master Plan designates land and water uses to ultimately include development which will change existing undeveloped and partially developed areas to various uses within the nine Planning Districts. IMPACTS A number of improvement projects have been under consideration by the Port and some have been carried to various stages of detail, including environmental processing, preparation of permit applications, etc. The Coronado Tidelands Park and the Embarcadero Marina Park are two such examples of projects which are in stages of extensive discussion or construction within two of the Port's Planni.ng Districts'. In each Planning District wherein improvement projects are contemplated, the Master'Plan emphasizes the.compatibility of the proposed land and water uses with those adjacent existing uses on Port tidelands and within the surrounding communities. North Bay Planning Districts Proposed improvements in the North Bay Planning Districts are described in the Master Plan projects list. Two North Bay Planning Districts, Shelter Island and Centre City/Embarcadero, have received detailed environmental analysis in the EIR's prepared for their Precise Plans, (SDUPD, 1976a, 1976c). The Shelter Island area is almost completely developed except for implementation of the Commercial Basin mooring facility, a small boat landing, and the possible future development of a marine services building in the Shelter Island Drive commercial area. The Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field Planning District includes upgrading of the exist- ing East Terminal without enplanement gate additions, minor facilities repair, and work such as the aircraft holding apron and blast fence construction. Harbor Island improvements'would include development of the Harbor Island east area for a hotel complex/marina, and a small aquatic center adjacent to the Coast Guard station. These proposals appear compatible with designated and existing land and water uses. Again, as appropriate, individual projects would be subject to subsequent environ-. mental review and processing. The Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District includes project proposals, some of which have received early environmental analysis in the Embarcadero Develop- ment Plan EIR, and others which are in various stages of detail, including en- 221 vironmental processing, preparation of permit application, planning, etc. Included among these are the future consideration of a hotel complex from Ash to Broadway Streets; the reconstruction of Harbor Drive; the construction of a Port Plaza complex adjacent to the Embarcadero Star of India area; modifications to the B Street pier area to accommodate cruise ship berthing, including shopping/restaurant facilities and maritime commerce support areas; and the renovation of the G Street mole area for various commercial and marine- 'related uses. The construction of the Embarcadero Marina Park, the future development of the Embarcadero Marina, the adjacent hotel complex at Navy Field, and other projects are identified on the project list. These were or would be subject to supplemental environmental review at such times as the project planning stages come closer to reality. At this Master Plan stage of analysis, however, those improvements currently underway and anticipated for the future, appear to be compatible with both designated and existing surrounding land and water uses in the area. Project proposals, and reconstruction and replacement of existing facilities within North Bay Planning Districts, appear to conform with Plan designations and no environmentally significant land or water use impacts are anticipated to result from their implementation within these areas. Central Bay Planning Districts Proposed Master Plan improvements for the three Central Bay Planning Districts have been tabulated in three project lists in the Master Plan. Planning Dis- tricts 4 and 5, the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal and the National City Bay- front, differ substantially in the nature of their existing and proposed land and water uses from Planning District 6, the Coronado Bayfront. Planning Dis- tricts 4 and 5 include marine-industrial and marine-related uses, whereas Planning District 6 includes undeveloped lands as well as existing commercial and recreational uses. Proposals for the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Planning District include a boat-building and repair facility adjacent to the Terminal, and reconstruction and additions to other existing Terminal facilities. The National City Bay- front proposals include modifications and additions to the National City Marine Terminal and container wharf, the Sweetwater Wharf dredge and fill, and possible construction of shipyard facilities for the Rohr Surface Effect Ship (SDUPD, 1978a), and the extension of Tidelands Avenue (CVRA, 1978). Illustrative projects proposed for the Coronado Bayfront have received environ- mental analysis in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1978d). The City of Coronado's Land Use Committee is considering proposals addressed in the EIR, as well as modifications and alternate committee proposals. Certain City of San Diego planning concepts for the Port's area that is located outside the City's planning jurisdiction (e.g. San Diego's' Barrio Logan Community Plan) do not conform with the marine related industrial use proposed such as boat building and repair facilities. This is particularly so for an area south of the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal for which the marine industrial uses, which have been established since before 1949, are to continue. Plan concepts of the City of Coronado for the Port's North Bayfront area outside Coronado's planning jurisdiction do not conform with the proposed commercial and recreational projects. The Port's proposed projects as indicated, are presently (September, 1979) under joint review concerning revision. It is anticipated that the 'environmental impacts would be less severe than the case chosen for analysis. 222 Proposed Master Plan projects are however, compatible with existing and designated uses, for both of above areas, within and adjacent to the Port s jurisdiction. National City Bayfront proposals, including Tidelands Avenue Extension, are compatible land uses with the surrounding area and with plan proposals of the Cities of Nati.onal City and Chula Vista. Because proposed land uses are in conformance with those land uses existinq and surroundinq tidelands, the imple- mentation of the Master Plan is not anticipated to result in environmentally significant land or water use impact. South Bay Planning Districts Master Plan implementation for the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District would include expansion of industrial and commercial development by Port tenants. Hotels and other commercial or recreational facilities would also be included. The existfng surrounding land and water uses in the Chula Vista Bayfront are similar to those proposed in the Master Plan. Specifically, development of a recreational vehicle park and hotel complex is compatible with the surrounding land uses and with those designations of the City of Chula Vista General Plan and the City of Chula Vista Bayfront Development Plan. An additional boat basin peninsula from J Street is under consideration as is the complete build-out of recreational marinas within the basin. The Silver Strand South Planning District would include only the addition of a marina and shore protection within the Coronado Cays south area. The addition would be compatible with surrounding land and water uses. No specific Master Plan project proposals are listed for the South Bay Saltlands, although a small portion would be added to the County of San Diego's wildlife preserve. The Western Salt Company salt ponds would revert to State control in 1984, and at such time the California Department of Fish and Game could be given management of the area for the creation of a wildlife preserve, (Bauer and Speth, 1974). Until that time, the Master Plan proposes no change from the continua- tion of the current land/water uses. Expansion of existing industrial, commercial, and recreational uses within the Chula Vista Bayfront; the addition of a marina and other recreational boat- related facilities in the Silver Strand South area; and the retention of the South Bay Saltlands land and water uses in their current state are not antici- pated to result in significant environmental impacts upon land and water use. MITIGATING MEASURES As there appear to be no environmentally significant impacts associated with land and water use designations of the Port of San Diego's Master Plan, which are incompatible with existing conditions, with the Port's 1972 Master Plan, or with the land or water use designation of surrounding jurisdictions, no mitigating measures are proposed. 223 Open Space IMPACTS Master Plan open space proposals are consistent with the 1972 Master Plan Open Space Element. Existing open space would be retained in most areas. Extensive improvements are proposed for public recreational uses which would enhance and create additional improved public access to San Diego Bay. Proposals would provide shoreline parks with pedestrian/bike pathways, beach sitting areas, and public fishing piers. Landscaped public parks along the waterfront would serve as connecting links between adjacent land uses and surrounding jurisdictions. Public recreational uses including fishing, swimming, picnicking, strolling and bicycling would be increased. Existing sandy beach areas would be enhanced in many locations. Master Plan implementation would add and increase utilization of the present acreage of improved landscaped and permanent open space. No environmentally significant impacts on open space are anticipated to result from implementation of the Port's Master Plan. MITIGATING MEASURES Proposed uses within existing commercially designated areas would be designed to minimize the uses of existing vacant land for new structures, As an example, the boat building and repair facility being considered in the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal area proposes to include landscaped improved waterfront access peripheral to the boat building and repair facility. Utilization of dredge spoil deposit sites for development into public recreational areas and land- scaped parks, such as the Embarcadero Marina Park, provide an overall increase of the amount of landscaped permanent open space on Port tidelands. Since no environmentally significant open space impacts have been identified, no specific mitigation measures are proposed. 224 Air Transportation IMPACTS The Master Plan proposes no major changes in land or water use activities that would significantly impact the availability, quality, or ultimate capacity of existing commercial air carrier transportation facilities serving the San Diego region. Master Plan proposals do not include major improvements to the present runway system or to the air operations capacity of Lindbergh Field. Intensifi- cation of existing Port tidelands development and new construction on presently undeveloped areas within the Master Plan area may slightly increase the service demand on Lindbergh Field. Operations forecasts for Lindbergh Field (SCI, 1978), are not significantly affected by the Master Plan's land or water use project proposals. The operations forecasts contain, in general, the various demand increases brought about as the result of implementation of individual project proposals of the Port's Master Plan. An example would be the addition of hotel facilities on Harbor Island East Peninsula, which would increase the potential for visitor oriented use of existing air trans- portation facilities at Lindbergh Field. No significant adverse environmental impacts on air transportation systems as a result of Master Plan implementation have been identified. MITIGATING MEASURES No specific mitigating measures are proposed. The objectives and findings of the San Dfego Plan for Air Transportation (SANPAT), as described in the first Executive Summary, San Diego Plan for Air Transportation, Final Report (CPO, 1976a) with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 1978 Update, recommended that an Air/Space Management Element be prepared for the San Diego Region. This is to be based upon the findings of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommendations,.resulting from the September 1978 crash, as well as the SANPAT studies. The RTP update calls for a vote of the people to determine the continued future use of Lindbergh Field as a commercial aviation facility. The plan delineates Aviation Policies, particularly related to Lindbergh Field, which would be further elaborated on under the-Air/Space Management Element for the San Diego Region, to be prepared by CPO. The findings of the Air/Space Management Element, as well as revised FAA procedures and plans for all San Diego air navigational facilities, would constitute additional mitigating measures primarily as related to the most desirable location for com- mercial aviation facilities and air transportation as a safe mode of travel, as opposed to additional growth demands upon regional air transportation facilities in general. Further, the Port of San Diego, as identified in SANPAT, is to prepare a Master Plan identifying the Lindbergh Field facility requirements through the year 1995, for incorporation into CPO's Regional Transportation Plan Update. As to general aircraft noise considerations, beyond those discussed under the individual items of the Port's Noise Control Plan earlier, the report concluded (SDUPD, 1978f and Appendix K): 225 "Under the existing institutional scheme of airport noise regulation, the authority of an airport proprietor to directly regulate airport and air- craft operations is limited. Much of the authority to take regulatory action which would have the effect of reducing noise belongs to other government agencies. The Federal Aviation Administration has sole authority and responsibility for actions affecting aircraft operation. In San Diego, the City of San Diego has the primary authority and responsibility to make and effect land use decisions designed to improve, rather than aggravate, the existing noise situation. Therefore, this noise control plan cannot, and does not, constitute a promise for substantial future noise reduction. To the extent that the Port District does have authority to strike the delicate balance between adequate air transportation service and noise reduction, it has in the past, and will continue in the future to exercise that authority. This noise plan, however, is intended also as an invita- tion to other government agencies which have authority to take meaningful noise reduction action to accept their responsibility for the consequences of their actions or inactions, and with that understanding, then to work together in a determined effort to improve the existing situation." 2126 Circulation IMPACTS North Bay Planning Districts Shelter Island, Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field, and Centre City/Embarcadero Planning Districts are anticipated to experience an increase in average.daily traffic in some areas as a result of Master Plan implementation. The Shelter Island Planning District should experience some improvement of vehicle circulation through the main corridor, Shelter Island Drive, as a result of coordinated landscaping and parking space improvements , The pro- posed Marine Services Building and a low-cost food restaurant would add addi- tional traffic, bUt the level is not anticipated to be significant. Parking near Anchorage Lane and Shelter Island Drive would be impacted by the removal of on-street and off-street parking at this location. However, additional parking would be made available at the Starkist Pier. Overall, vehicle traffic and parking space demand along Shelter Island Drive would increase near Anchorage Lane, Berryman and Stephenson (1979). Harbor Island/Lindbergh would receive increased traffic as a result of increased passenger use of Lindbergh Field, particularly across the Harbor Island Drive Bridge and on Harbor Drive. Additional traffic would be generated by hotel and marina proposals on Harbor Island's East Peninsula. Additional congestion during peak hours would continue to occur at critical places, but it is not anticipated that Master Plan implementation would significantly worsen this circumstance. Centre City/Embarcadero would also experience a traffic increase following Master Plan implementation. Circulation speed may be decreased and some congestion may result in critical areas. Traffic along Pacific Highway between Grape and Market Streets may increase by 50% or greater. Additional traffic generated by Centre City proposals adjacent to the Master Plan area would also be directed to Pacific Highway and South Harbnr Drive. Traffic generated by Master Plan proposals would be moderately heavy at Navy Field, Seaport Village and Land Field. Traffic increases would be lighter at the G Street Mole, Embarcadero Marina Park, and B Street Pier areas. Parking demand would increase adjacent to these developing areas. Central Bay Plann ing Districts The Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal, National City Bayfront, and Chula Vista Bayfront Planning Districts would experience traffic increases, but less than those anticipated for the North Bay Planning Districts. The Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal area would not experience significant addi- ti,onal traffic from Master Plan implementation. The Bay Route Bikeway, City of San Diego (1978e), would retain most existing-curb parking and delineate a bicycle path along Harbor Drive. This may have an effect on the circulation pattern near the National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO), but would at the same time improve bicycle facilities. No significant vehicle traffic impacts relating to circulation are anticipated to result in the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Planning District. 227 The National City Bayfront would receive only minor changes in vehicle traffic circulation patterns and flow volumes. Master Plan proposals consist primarily of improvements and expansion to the existing National City Marine Terminal, expansion of the existing public park, and some street improvements. Traffic increases (including trucks) would be anticipated following completion of the Rohr Marine Industries' Surface Effect Ship (SES) Boatyard on the southwestern corner of the National City Marine Terminal, (SDUPD, 1978a). Circulation changes would accompany the extension of Tidelands Avenue and the connection to the State 54 Freeway. New traffic along the Tidelands Avenue extens,ion would consist of recreational travelers to and from National City and Chula V4sta, tourists from outside the area driving from Chula Vista to the freeway, and commercial traffic transiting between National City and Chula Vista. To the north, 32nd Street could become the main gateway for truck traffic from the east to the National City Bayfront. Traffic increases may occur following completion of the proposed MTDB Light Rail Transit System, since passenger stations would be constructed at 8th and 24th Streets adjacent to the Master Plan area. The Coronado Bayfront would receive tra ffic increase as a result of Master Plan implementation. Additional traffic would be generated by Port develop- ments north of the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge. These increases are de- scribed in greater detail in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1978d). City of Coronado streets may be impacted to some extent by increased traffic, although the net effect would not likely result in addi- tional congestion. The congested Third and Fourth Street intersection would not be significantly affected. Existing commuter traffic is heaviest primarily during the morning and afternoon, CALTRANS (1975). Plan proposals would generate additional traffic primarily during the evenings, weekends and holidays. It is expected that ultimate plans for this area will be less environmentally severe than those evaluated for this EIR. South Bay Planning Districts Additional traffic would be generated by Master Plan implementation in the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District. In addition to Master Plan proposals, the City of Chula Vista Bayfront Plan proposes major land/water use changes adjacent to the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District. Ongoing LCP review (September, 1979) may substantially change aspects of original Plan proposals. A loss of industrial parking and potential traffic conflicts with employment centers and recreational travelers may occur. Without the proposed extension of Tidelands Avenue connecting State 54 at the D Street landfill, additional traffic generated by Master Plan implementation would have an even greater impact upon localized congestion and higher traffic volume. The Silver Strand South would receive slight increases in vehicle traffic corresponding to the intensity of development of Grand Caribe (East Island) and Crown Island (North Island) in the Coronado Cays. Crown Island would be served by an extension of Coronado Cays Boulevard, and traffic associated with commercial and recreational development would increase. It is not anticipated, however, that significant environmental impacts from vehicle traffic circulation increases would result in the Silver Strand South Plan- ning District. The South Bay Saltlands includes no improved streets within the Master Plan area and no development proposals are included in Master Plan implementation. Consequently, no significant vehicle traffic circulation impacts are anticipated. 228 MITIGATING MEASURES North Bay Planning Districts The Shelter Island Drive landscaping proposal itself, would result in improved circulation. This would result from a reduction of visual conflict, the addi- tion of coordinated landscaping, and a reduction of curbside parking spaces. Since travel lanes would remain the same width, the project would have no adverse effect and may increase the average speed through corridors. Mit.iga- tion of parking space losses along Shelter Island Drive would be accomplished by adding additional parking at the Starkist Pier and by redesigning the public parking lot at Anchorage Lane and Canyon Street. It is anticipated that the proposed fast-food restaurant would encourage rapid turnover of parking spaces so as to increase effective utilization of existing spaces. The recent completion of the Lindbergh Field West terminal and additional parking lot (July, 1979) mitigates the traffic circulation, congestion, and parking impacts previously associated with the airport. The proposed airport peripheral road would significantly ease congestion associated with both air- port use and hotel/marina use on Harbor Drive. Adequate parking would be re- quired for all tenant proposals for commercial developments on the Harbor Island East Peninsula. The Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District proposes a number of changes for traffic circulation which would substantially mitigate any anticipated in- creases in vehicle traffi,c in this area. Through traffic on Harbor Drive between Grape and Market Streets would be diverted onto Pacific Highway. Harbor Drive would then be redesigned to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Harbor Drive, between Pacific Highway and 5th Avenue would be re- located from the waterfront to west of the railroad tracks. As a result, traffic on Harbor Drive between Grape and Market Streets would be reduced 50- 70%. Vehicle access would be provided to the Embarcadero Marina Park. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic circulation would be greatly.improved. The result of Harbor Drive relocation would be to remove heavy traffic from waterfront locations and move it back one block from the waterfront. Many existing traffic congestion areas within adjacent City of San Diego streets would thereby be relieved. Adequate parking would be required to serve all new uses and some of the parking demand would be relieved by joint use of parking facilities when service times do not conflict. The improvement of Pacific Highway and the redesign of the Grape/Hawthorne interchange would further accommodate increased traffic. San Diego transit shuttle trams and the extension of the bus transit system to this area would relieve additional localized traffic congestion by providing a linkage connection with the City of San Diego's Gaslamp District's transit vehicles. The peripheral congestion volume and airport access road proposed by the Master Plan would reduce traffic on Laurel Street. Rerouting of traffic onto Pacific Highway would achieve the greatest mitigation for increased traffic anticipated to result from Master Plan implementation. Central Bay Planning Districts The Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal improvements and adjacent boatyard construc- tion are not anticipated to result in significant traffic impacts. Offstreet parking would be provided for the proposed boatyard. Redesign of the Bay Route Bikeway would accommodate both parking and bicycling. The Rapid Transit System would also mitigate to some extent, localized traffic congestion associated with minor employment increases at the boatyard. 229 National City Bayfront minor traffic increases associated with the National City Marine Terminal improvement projects and proposed Rohr Marine Industry SES Shipyard would be accommodated by existing streets. Coronado Bayfront vehicle traffic increases would be mitigated by the re- direction of Third Street traffic onto Second Street by a new road on Port jurisdiction. An inherent mitigation measure of the Master Plan proposal is that peak traffic would be spread out over a longer period and would not coincide with commuter traffic using the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge. Additional parking would be provided for proposed uses and additional bicycle facilities may reduce vehicle trips taken by Coronado residents to future Master Plan development areas. Modification of B Street into a one-way north, three l.ane street would relieve localized congestion. A recently developed potential alternative might include a loop road underneath the Bridge on Port tidelands, constructed and maintained by the City of Coronado. Again, it is expected that the joint Port/Coronado reconsideration of this area will result in less intensive use and/or a more favorable traffic flow problem. This mitigation measure is described in the Coronado Bay Development Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1978d). South Bay Planning Districts Chula Vista Bayfront may require the installation of new traffic control devices on Tidelands Avenue to control traffic from new access driveways and turning movements. Street extensions would be constructed of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated increases in traffic. In some areas, access driveways onto major streets may also be limited. The Tidelands Avenue extension would mitigate traffic increase impacts associated with development in the G and 1i Street areas. No significant environmental impacts have been identified for either the Silver Strand South or the South Bay Saltlands Planning District and no miti- gation measures are proposed for these areas. 230 Navigation IMPACTS The Master Plan proposes various water uses which could affect water traffic within San Diego Bay ship or boat channels. Additional recreational and commercial boat berthing facilities, dry boat storage, and anchorage areas are proposed, as well as Shoreline improvements such as public fishing piers. A total of approximately 1,800 recreational boat slips in new marinas are proposed for Harbor Island East Peninsula, the Embarcadero Marina Park basin, and the Chula Vista Boat Basin. In addition,-the Chula Vista J Street Peninsula Extension Marina concept could supply up to 1,500 recreational slips. These added recreational boats, plus vessels from the new commercial fishing berthing facilities at the G Street Mole Fish Harbor, the Commercial Basin Anchorage, and portions of the J Street Peninsula Extension Marina, may add up to an aggregate of 3,500 vessels, excluding military or commercial shipping, using San Diego Bay. - Average daily use of San Diego Bay by recreational vessels is substantially less than the total berthed in marina slips or at anchorage. Even during peak use periods, such as Independence Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas, many vessels remain berthed. The recent trend in recreational boats has been to larger sailing craft. It is not anticipated that Master Plan proposals for berthing or navigation facilities would sigificantly interfere with existing or pro-posed navigational aspects of San Diego Bay. MITIGATING MEASURES Improvements proposed under the Port's Master Plan, including recreational marinas and commercial berthing areas are regulated by navigational standards enforced by the US Coast Guard and the Port of San Diego Harbor Police. No additional mitigating measures other than those existing regulations are proposed. 231 Public Services and Facilities IMPACTS The Master Plan proposes no major changes in land or water use activities that would significantly impact the availability, quality, or ultimate capa- city of existing public services and facilities including bus service, sewer- age systems, water supply, storm drains, electricity, gas and telephone, fire protection, police protection, or refuse collection. Existing utilities and services would not be significantly impacted by the increased demands the Master Plan proposals would ultimately place upon them. Police and fire pro- tection requirements of tidelands developments are the primary responsibility of the Port's Harbor Police Department. The on-going consequences of Master Plan implementation would be related to upgrading existing improvements. .Existing local sewer and water lines in some locations within the Master Plan area, such as the Coronado Bayfront, are in a deteriorated state and may have to be replaced. These activities would constitute an upgrading of existing local distribution systems. Each of the cities surrounding the Master Plan area has an existing allotment of sewerage capacity purchased from the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System. Existing main lines and interceptors within adjacent cities appear to have adequate capacity for existing flows from areas presently served, and for future flows, including those which would be generated by Master Plan implementation. Master Plan proposals could ultimately generate an additional 5 to 7 million gallons per day (MGD) of demand for the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System as part of the member city allocation. No significant adverse environmental impacts on urban support systems have been identified. MITIGATING MEASURES No specific mitigating measures are proposed. In some areas the potential for water reuse or reclamation facilities does exist and, during environmental review of subsequent project proposals, such alternatives for water conserva- tion methods would be explored. The City of Coronado, for example, is cur- rently investigating the feasibility of using treated sewage water for irriga- tion of the Coronado Golf Course. If implemented, such a facility could reuse approximately 0.75 MGD and could reduce, to some extent, treatment and con- veyance costs and flow demands on the existing sewerage distribution system. 232 Socio-economic Characteristics/Growth IMPACTS Social Characteristics The Master Plan proposes land uses which are compatible with adjacent areas within the surrounding cities of San Diego, National City, Chula Vista, and Coronado. The Master Plan proposals are not anticipated to significantly alter the characteristics of the communities or population of the surrounding areas. These areas include primarily residential communities with local employment provided mainly by marine-related industry and visitor-related service facili- ties many of which are, or would be, located on Port tidelands. Since tidelands cannot be developed for residential purposes, Master Plan proposals include no provisions for permanent residents or "population" in the Plan area. Master Plan proposals are not anticipated to substantially alter the population mix in terms of permanent/transient residents; popula- tion density; age; sex; race; marital status,; or household composition. Master Plan implementation would result in the addition of many new employ- ment and leisure opportunities following completion. Employment opportunities in the surroundings of the Master Plan area include visitor-related businesses, the government sector, marine-related industrial, and commercial and recrea- tional support activities. These opportunities would be further expanded and enhanced.by Master Plan implementation. No significant impacts on employment characteristics are anticipated to result from Plan implementation. In like fashion, it is not anticipated to signifi- @antly impact the characteristics of education, place of work, occupation, or income of residents in surrounding areas or of employees who commute to places of work within adjacent cities. Although Master Plan implementation would not have a significant impact on housing units, surrounding housing and land values may change depending upon proximity to San Diego Bay, and other characteristics relative to proposed land improvements within the Master Plan area. Master Plan implementation would not significantly alter existing community services and facilities such as schools and libraries, cultural/recreational areas, medical facilities, or commercial centers. The proposals do include public recreational facilities which could serve as cultural and recreational centers, particularly for nearby communities. An example of this is the proposed Embarcadero Marina Park and publi-c fishing pier located adjacent to San Diego's Marina Redevelopment area and about one mile from the Barrio Logan community. Economic Characteristics Following Master Plan implementation, additional monies would be generated within local economies. Future Port tenants would pay possessory property taxes, and provide other sources of revenue such as'sales, gasoline, transient occupancy taxes, and local spending by employers and employees for goods and services. A growth in visitor-related businesses, intensified use of the 233 marine industrial area, and commercial and recreational facilities, would result in economic growth of the cities surrounding the Port's Master Plan area.* Growth Inducement Master Plan proposals include such projects as new commercial centers, marine industrial facilities, public recreational areas, and support facilities for public services which could affect or be affected by population or activity growth in the surrounding areas. Master Plan implementation is not anticipated to result in significant, permanent population growth increases for the sur- rounding area. Any growth inducement that might be attributed to ultimate Plan implementation would occur as a result of requirements for various services, commercial operations, and new facilities which may, in turn, increase demand for public services and infrastructure within cities surrounding the Master Plan area. MITIGATING MEASURES Master Plan implementation is not anticipated to result in significant adverse socio-economic impacts or growth inducement impacts and no specific mitigating measures are proposed. `@@_S_eealso discussion in Summary Section on page 4 on public works financing from tenant lease revenues rather than from property taxes. 234 Visual Quality IMPACTS Primarily due to the nearly level topography of the majority of the Master Plan area, Bay views are partially or entirely blocked by off-tidelands adjacent residential, commercial, or light industrial structures. Broad views of many of the Port's tideland areas and of San Diego Bay from residences within the adjacent cities are also obstructed by intervening city or shoreline structures in many locations. Numerous existing two- story or higher residential, commercial, industrial or city-owned structures have already eliminated many ground-level, single-story Bay views from inland areas. Master Plan projects would include structures that in various places may interfere with existing bay views from adjacent areas. Because surrounding topography is essentially as level as the Plan area itself, except for the Mission Hills area and the Pt. Loma Peninsula proper, multi-story structures would not have a significantly greater potential for visual impacts than would single-story structures. As can be seen from Figure 10, major vista points in the San Diego Bay area would not be significantly impacted by proposals of the Port's Master Plan. Individual bay views, as illustrated in Figure 9, may be disrupted or blocked by some Port District proposals. MITIGATING MEASURES Master Plan improvements may in some cases constitute a visual barrier. They would also however, transform existing unkempt, unsightly vacant areas into landscaped public recreational facilities. Debris and clutter which collect in some areas would be removed. The result would be a more visually appealing setting following development of these areas with Master Plan proposals. Master Plan proposals are in conformance with the objectives and criteria of the 1972 Master Plan Open Space Element which emphasizes landscaping and open space amenities within the Port's area. Ultimate Master Plan implementation would result in overall improved visual quality. Other than limited bay view obstruction at some locations, no significant adverse visual impacts are anticipated. Individual structures would, wherever possible, be oriented so as to result in minimal view interference from adjacent areas. The Port of San Diego, by Board policy, also observes strict regulations as to overall appearance requirements both of tenant and Port District proposals. The Port District also applies architectural standards which vary from area to area, but maintain a consistency of architectural theme, design, and overall visual appearance. Other than the inherent mitigation conveyed by extensive landscaping provisions proposed within the various open space and public park projects, no additional general mitigation measures are contemplated. 235 Nofse Quality IMPACTS Master Plan implementation would result in minor temporary increases in ambient noise levels during construction activities as individual projects are undertaken. Other fixed noise sources associated with military, industrial, commercial, recreational and institutional land uses may increase slightly during development and operation of proposed facilities within and around the Master Plan area. Contributors to these noise sources located'on Port tidelands, for the most part, would include increased operations of existing marine industrial and Port terminal-related facilities. Railroad activities may increase along the AT&SF and SD&AE routes. These may constitute additional temporary noise impacts. Aircraft Operations Master Plan proposals include no changes in land use designations or specific projects which would affect noise generated by aircraft operations associated with Lindbergh Field. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) have authority over the entrance of new airlines to Lindbergh Field or the addition of new service by existing airlines. Ultimate implementation of Master Plan projects does not appear to have a potential for significant changes in noise impacts associated with. aircraft operations from Lindbergh Field. As can be seen from Figure 11, Lindbergh Field aircraft noise currently affects areas of Port Planning Districts 2 and 3; Harbor Island and Centre City/Embarcadero. Additional surrounding areas within the City of San Diego are also within the various CNEL aircraft noise contours. Master Plan implementation, however, will have no effect on these existing contours. New users of areas within Planning Districts 2 and 3 may be impacted by Lindbergh Field aircraft operations noise in the future. MITIGATING MEASURES Significant increases in aircraft operations noise are not anticipated to result from Master Plan implementation and no specific mitigating measures are proposed. Subsequent project proposals, however, would be subject to individual environmental review. Consideration of the potential for sig- nificant adverse noise i.mpacts upon future land uses in Planning Districts 2 and 3 would receive appropriate analysis. Motor Vehicle Traffic Master Plan implementation would result in increased vehicle traffic noise adjacent to areas wherein additional development is contemplated. Project proposals for example within the Port's Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District may generate additional vehicle traffic noise which has the potential to impact both adjacent residential and commercial areas as well as future residential.areas within the City of San Diego. 236 Similarily, additional commercial/recreational development in the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District has the potential to generate increased vehicle traffic noise which could impact adjacent properties. Surrounding areas in the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District are, however, largely vacant, and Chula Vista Bayfront Development Plan future plans for adjacent land uses would not include densely developed residential areas. Additional traffic noise which may be generated by Master Plan implementation in the Coronado Bayfront has been covered in detail in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1978d). In Coronado, as is the case for other Port Planning Districts which include commercial and marine industrial uses, many streets which are currently identified as having existing vehicle traffic noise problems are those which serve as routes for heavy morning and evening commuter traffic to other off-tidelands areas. These high peak traffic commuter flows are normally associated with weekday activities. Master Plan commercial/recreational proposals for the Coronado Bayfront and other Planning Districts, would tend to generate traffic during the off- peak hours of weekdays and during the non-commuter hours of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. MITIGATING MEASURES Noise controls will be implemented on several governmental levels to decrease short-term noise impacts created by trucks and other equipment during con- struction activities. Significant noise impacts as a result of vehicle traffic increases are not anticipated to result from Master Plan implementation. However, subsequent project and site specific noise analyses may be required on a case-by-case basis during the sequential and on-going construction of .individual development within the scope of the overall Master Plan proposals. No specific mitigating measures are herein proposed. 237 Climate/Air Quality IMPACTS Master Plan implementation is not anticipated to significantly impact climate or to introduce significant levels of new source air pollutant emissions into the San Diego Air Basin. Due largely to the existing flat topography, open ocean exposure to prevailing westerly winds, and the absence of major air pollutant sources to the west, the Master Plan area would not experience addi- tional air quality impacts following Plan implementation. Primary pollutants introduced as a result of increased motor vehicle traffic associated with ultimate development of Master Plan proposals would increase. Local emissions would be substantially dispersed within a few thousand feet of emission sources and would be, as they are currently, transported rapidly by predominantly westerly winds from the Master Plan area further to the east. It is unlikely that ambient air quality within and adjacent to the Plan area would become any worse than that monitored at the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) stations in downtown San Diego or in Chula Vista. Because of topography and metrologfcal conditions and the absence of major air pollutant emission sources upwind, air quality in the Master Plan area would likely continue to be better than downtown San Diego or Chula Vista. Additional commercial establishments, recreational facilities, and improvements and expansions of existing marine industrial facilities in the Master Plan area would increase the amount of air emissions. These additional emissions have been assessed in preparation of the federally required Air Quality Main- tenance Plan (AQMP), San Diego APCD, (1978). The increased emissions are accounted for through the regionally and city-adopted population projections and the "activity level forecasts" developed by the Comprehensive Planning Organization, (CPO,1978h). Major "new source" incremental additions of air emissions to the San Diego Air Basin would be subject to subsequent project- specific environmental review and would continue to be, as they are presently, subject to regulations from the San Diego APCD. MITIGATING MEASURES No significant increases in motor vehicle air emissions or fixed source emissions from individual Master Plan proposals are anticipated following Plan implementation and no specific mitigating measures are proposed. Re- gional emissions, which included the Port's land/water use contributions, are being addressed by a large number of strategies and tactics. Individ- ual projects would still have to comply with all air quality rules and regu- lations as promulgated and enforced by APCD. Continued and improved modes of public transit could ultimately reduce automobile use and related air emissions. adjacent to and even within the Master Plan area. Future implementation of the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) Light Rail Transit System, and the San Diego Bay Route Bikeway could further reduce automobile use and related air emissions. The Port is coordinating and participating in these endeavors. 238 Energy IMPACTS Implementation of the Port's Master Plan would increase energy consumption over that which is currently experienced within the Plan area. Electrical power and natural gas consumption for industrial, commercial and recreational uses would increase by an indeterminate amount dependant upon individual pro- ject requirements. It is not anticipated that increases in@the demand for electrical power and natural gas as a result of the Master Plan implementa- tion would significantly impact management of energy resources in terms of existing trends of supply and demand. The Master Plan area does not include residential uses. The surrounding areas @hich do include residential uses are not expected to experience a substantial increased population growth rate or energy growth rate. Nonetheless, the Master Plan and surrounding area may experience an energy reduction or use restrictions, independent of Plan implementation, due to governmental policies or changes in availability of the energy supply mix which includes domestic fossil fuels, imported oil, gas or power, or possibly nuclear power. No significant energy consumption impacts are anticipated to result from the implementation of the Port's Master Plan. MITIGATING MEASURES Industrial and commercial development and recreational facilities proposed for the Master Plan must be designed for energy efficiency in accordance with the energy conservation standards for new non-residential buildings as adopted by the State of California Energy Commission. Proposed hotels must be designed in accordance with the State Energy Insulation Standards for non-residentail buildings. In addition, voluntary as well as mandated conservation efforts in the com-. mercial/industrial sectors are being experienced and would be encouraged to continue to be applied to specific projects of the Master Plan. Conservation, measures would include energy saving designs for roof, wall, and floor insula- tion, lighting, heating, air conditioning, and water supply, and would include operational procedures. The use of solar/therTnal energy rather than natural gas would be encouraged for heating swimming pools and supplementary water heating for industrial and commercial applications. State regulations also offer the option of uti- lizing building designs that consume less energy than standard designs. Such options would be encouraged during construction of individual projects through- out the Master Plan area. The State Regulations are currently enforced through the building permit process applicable to Port and tenant construction projects by the cities adjacent to the Port's Master Plan area. 239 Bi ol ogy IMPACTS Master Plan implementation would replace existing disturbed weedy areas with landscaped habitat in several locations with-in the Port's nine Planning Districts. Introduced vegetation in the areas to be landscaped is not anticipated to result in significant adverse biological impact. No naturally occurring, undisturbed terrestrial plant or animal communities exist within locations where landscaping projects are proposed. Isolated native plant com- munities, together with animals normally associated with these areas, exist within some areas adjacent to Central and South Bay Planning Districts where projects are proposed. In these areas, the terrestrial plants and animals primarily represent those typically found in association with disturbed habitats in urban settings. Representative examples of relatively undisturbed, naturally occurring marine habitats, which include eelgrass beds, mud flats, and intertidal sandy beach habitats along the Master Plan area shoreline, are not anticipated to be significantly impacted by Master Plan implementation. The only marine habitat intrusions that would result from Master Plan implementation would be the construction of public fishing piers and other shoreline revetment structures in those Planning Districts previously identified, see Figures 16-24. Miscellaneous erosion control revetment improvements along the Plan area shoreline, are designed to replace existing intertidal sandy beach and rubble-strewn shorelines with rock revetment, which itself, constitutes habitat replacement rather than a total habitat loss. Intensified application of the most stringent water quality control plans to eliminate contaminants from being introduced into the bay waters has successfully initiated the recovery of the formerly distressed marine environment of San Diego Bay. Master Plan implementation would further enhance the opportunities for more effective source control of potential marine habitat pollutants. No significant adverse biological impact with regard to terrestrial or marine habitat are anticipated to result from Master Plan implementation with the possible exception of the proposed Sweetwater Wharf and the Chula Vista Boat Basin J Street Second Peninsula extension. This extension, which would involve artificial fill nearly a mile in length, would destroy intertidal habitat in relatively close proximity to the Sweetwater River/Paradise Creek marsh complex. This area is known to support a great abundance and large variety of marine fish and invertebrates which are very closely linked with the survival of various birds and other wildlife which reside in the Sweetwater marsh area. The Sweetwater Wharf project has the potential to significantly impact existing tidal marsh and mud flat marine habitat, adjacent to the southern edge of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel. Master Plan proposals are not anticipated to have a significant adverse environmental impact upon rare and endangered terrestrial or marine plants or animals which are known to exist in the Plan area. Those areas of maximum biological sensitivity have been previously identi fied in the Environmental Setting Section, describing biological resources.- The Master Plan includes no proposals which would impact these sensitive resources. 240 MITIGATING MEASURES National Pollutant Discharge El'imination System Permits (NPDES) would continue to be monitored by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDWQCB) for effectiveness and compliance of future tenant and Port District activities with regard to water contamination potential within the Plan area. Existing tenant leases and future leases require adjerence @o all federal, state, and local environmental regulations which would be implemented through future lease agreements. Project proposals proposed for areas either within or in close proximity to sensitive biological resources would receive subsequent environmental review and supplementary EIR's may be required, as appropriate. No specific mitigating measures are proposed at this time to alleviate the potential significant environmental impacts as a result of the Chula Vista Boat Basin Peninsula J Street extension, or the Sweetwater Wharf project. 241 Water and Sediment Quality IMPACTS Master Plan implementation includes dredge and fill!operations in some locations. The proposed dredge operation at Berths 7 and 8 at the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal to increase water depth for bulk vessels may result in a short-term localized turbidity increase. The fill operation for the Chula Vista Boat Basin Second Peninsula Extension may also result in a short- term turbidity increase. Construction of marinas at the Harbor Island East Peninsula, the Embarcadero Park, the Chula Vista Boat Basin, and the Coronado Cays East Island would increase turbidity during construction and may have other water quality impacts during operation. Recreational vessels berthed at the proposed marinas introduce the long-term potential for localized water quality de- gradation from heavy metals in bottom anti-fouling paints and from unautho- rized waste discharges. Short-term impacts associated with pier construction or repairs would occur during reconstruction of the Shelter Island public fishing pier. Construction of the Harbor Island Aquatic Center, the Embarcadero Park's public fishing pier, and the southerly fishing vessel pier and slips at the Fish Market would have similar impacts. Erosion control projects would also have the potential for associated short-term water quality impacts. Redevelopment and new construction activities would be under continued control of the San Diego Regional Control Board (WQCB). Proposed landscaping and runoff from impermeable surfaces associated with individual Master Plan project development may indirectly increase very minor amounts of contaminants reaching San Diego Bay via existing city storm drain systems. There are currently no known major uncontrolled sources of water or sediment pollutants within or adjacent to the Master Plan area and no individual elements of the Master Plan proposal include future potential sources, other than minor amounts typically associated with urban developments. No significant water or sediment quality impacts are anticipated to result from Plan implementa- tion other than short-term impacts associated with dredge and fill operations and pier construction. MITIGATING MEASURES The WQCB currently controls waste water discharge and operations cleanup at all tenant facilities and Port operations throughout the Master Plan area. Pollutant source control is currently accomplished by regular inspections and insistence on "broom-clean" conditions in effective solid waste handling procedures as well as site-specific measures to prevent pollutants from entering the water under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. 242 The US Coast Guard provides for control and clean-up of accidental spills of oil, paint, grease, fuel and other materials into San Diego Bay. The Coast Guard also regulates Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD) to be used by recreational vessels berthed within marinas. These existing regulatory controls would continue to apply to future individual projects during Master Plan implementa- tion. Diversion and processing of storm drain runoff water is not considered a necessary nor a feasible approach for the Master Plan area, particularly since adequate supervision regarding fertilization and watering programs for recreational and commercial areas to be landscaped would continue to be exer- cised by the Port of San Diego. Storm drains that exist on properties under the jurisdiction of adjacent cities contribute runoff drainage water from many upland areas. Source control would continue to be exercised by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. No.significant adverse water or sediment quality impacts have been identified and no other specific mitigating measures are proposed. 243 Landform/GeologyJArchaeology IMPACTS Landform Existing topography of the Master Plan area includes essentially level terrain. No unique landform features are present. Master Plan implemen- tation would not include substanstial amounts of land grading or excavation, and no significant environmental impacts to landforms are anticipated. Master Plan proposals include minor dredge and fill improvements along the shoreline, particularly adjacent to the National City Marine Terminal. No significant environmental impacts on submarine topography in these areas are anticipated. Geology No valuable geological resources such as building materials, mineral resources, or paleontological resources are known to exist within the Master Plan area. Agricultural soils exist within the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District within and adjacent to the Master Plan area. Master Plan proposals, however, do not include modification of these areas which would foreclose their potential use for agricultural purposes. Soil erosion in the Master Plan area is minimal due largely to the essentially level topography, the small drainage basin, and the relatively sparse annual rainfall. Master Plan implementation is not anticipated to increase existing minimal soil erosion rates. Localized erosion does occur along the shoreline of existing artificial fills, such as the Chula Vista Boat Basin outer peninsula and the Harbor Island east peninsula, however, erosion control measures are presently being implemented. The physical properties of the soil and underlying rock strata within the Master Plan area have been found to be generally adequate for structural foundations and no significant adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. Seismicity Seismic hazards, including ground shaking, ground failure in the forms of liquefaction, and seismically generated tsunamies or seiches are possible within the Plan area. The potential for structural damage and subsequent environmental impact necessitated by repair and/or cleanup operations following a seismic event, such as an earthquake, also exists. Specific potential damage and impact assessment cannot be conducted in the absence of detailed theoretical model studies to predict a seismic event and sub- sequent structural damage due to ground failure, ground shaking, or seismic sea waves. The use of land elevation contours as the basis to delineate potential damage zones, as has been done by some agencies, is conjecture. Hydrology Master Plan implementation is not anticipated to result in significant adverse hydrologic impacts. Ground water stored within the soil and loosely compacted rock strata beneath the Master Plan area may experience a decrease in recharge rate due to the introduction of impermeable surfaces such as streets, pavement, and structures. Since there are no permanent large bodies of surface water stored artificially or which exist as a result of natural processes in the 244 @aster Plan area or in the -surrounding area, no adverse environmental impacts on natural stream beds or other surface water features can result. Because of the introduction of impermeable surfaces and improved on-site drainage systems during Master Plan implementation, watershed drainage is likely to improve. Localized ponding, particularly in adjacent city areas such as the City of Coronado, as well as moderation siltation of both upland and tideland areas following heavy rainfall is going to diminish. Construction with special preliminary designated flood prone areas would be subject to the National Flood Insurance Program established by the Flood 'Insurance Act of 1968 to make available under Federal auspices specified amounts of flood insurance otherwise unavailable from private insurance companies. The construction of public fishing piers, shoreline revetment, and recreational marinas would not result in significant environmental impacts on ocean and bay circulation, bay currents, tidal flushing, sediment transport, or shoreline erosion. The placement of the Chula Vista Boat Basin J Street Peninsula extension may result in significant circulation impacts. Historical and Archaeological Resources No known significant archaeological or historical resources exist within the Master Plan area which would be adversely impacted by implementation of individual elements of the proposed Master Plan. Although historical and archaeological site record searches indicate that no known submerged sites exist within the Master Plan area, subsequent environmental review would be required in those areas which have not yet been disturbed by major fill and dredge activity, see Figures 5 and 6. MITIGATING MEASURES No specific mitigating measures are proposed with regard to potential environmental impact on landform, geological resources, or historical/ archaeological resources. Regarding seismic or other geological hazards, specific construction projects would all have to comply with all applicable federal,state and local codes and satisfy soil and seismic requirements. The ongoing shore protection program wo,uld upgrade erosion control to prevent future loss of land due to wave and tidal action,which have resulted in cutback and collapse of some of the banks of the shoreline. Subsequent individual project construction for individual Master Plan elements may be subject to historical/archaeological resource searches including at the shoreline and in adjacent submerged lands where appropriate. 245 V. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Unavoidable sho rt-term environmental impacts would occur during construction of proposed individual projects of the Master Plan. These would be limited to relatively small areas within the Shelter Island and Harbor Island/ Lindbergh Field Planning Districts, and to various areas previously covered by environmental review of the Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District. In Central Bay, short-term environmental impacts would occur during planning implementation on the Coronado Bayfront, north of the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge Toll Plaza. Central Bay short-term impacts would include areas around the National City Marine, Terminal. Chula Vista Bayfront short-term impacts would be restricted largely to the Chula Vista Boat Basin, placement of the outer basin arm, and the existing Rohr Industries area. South Bay Planning Districts would receive even fewer short-term impacts. No projects are proposed for the South Bay Saltlands. The Silver Strand South Planning District includes only the commercial/marina proposals south of Coronado Cays East Island. Unavoidable short-term impacts would include: --Dust generated by site preparation and minor grading activities in each of the Planning Districts where construction is proposed. Noise caused by construction equipment during use on site and trans- portation to and from project construction sites on some surrounding community streets. Short-term noise impacts would also occur during pile driving activity and pier construction. Temporary disruption of traffic flow patterns by construction equipment, by minor excavation and demolition operations, and by trucks hauling excavation/fill material. Minor amounts of additional air emissions from construction equipment and other work vehicles. Increases in vehicle traffic and vehicle traffic noise generated by construction workers commuting to and from individual Planning Districts within the Port's Master Plan area. Temporary disruptions in utility services during the installations and hookup of new service facilities. Disruption of limited areas of the marine intertidal and subtidal habitat along the shoreline during construction of proposed public fishing piers and other structures built below mean lower low water (MLLW). 247 Unavoidable long-term impacts, not necessarily adverse, identified with implementation of the Port's Master Plan would include: - Unavoidable increases in traffic volume and modification to existing traffic circulation patterns in response to anticipated future traffic demands. These impacts would have the greatest effect adjacent to vacant or partially developed areas which are proposed for considerable development and resultant traffic increases. - Increase in vehicle traffic generated noise levels on some community streets resulting from increased traffic volume and alteration in existing circulation pattern of adjacent communities. - Potential changes in local and regional air quality primarily from addition of vehicle traffic emissions. Minor emissions are anticipated to increase as a result of on-site operation of proposed commercial and industrial facilities. - Increase in consumption of electrical energy and natural gas and an increased demand for public services, particularly waste water treatment. - Overall reduction in biological resources and intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat, Primarily as a result of the Chula Vista Boat Basin J Street Marina Second Peninsula extension, and the Sweetwater Wharf project. Other biological resource impacts would include alteration of primarily intertidal habitat during the construction of piers and other structures which would intrude into water areas. These long-term impacts would primarily consist of conversion of one habitat type to another. The conversion of a shallow intertidal or subtidal sandy bottom to one replaced by rock revetment shoreline and/or pier piling or structures associated with marinas and other facilities would constitute long-term impacts. 248 VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Overall San Diego Bay regional planning alternatives included consideration of over fifteen different City General Plans and Community Plans, and military plan areas. These surrounding areas, see Figure 4, were reviewed extensively during a study of composite land use, and were analyzed in conjunction with the 1964 and 1972 Port Master Plans. In addition, prior to, and during the preparation of the Mast er Plan, other land/water use development alternatives were considered in detail for in- dividual Planning Districts within the Port's jurisdiction. Alternatives for Planning Districts 1, 2 and 3, Shelter Island, Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field, and Centre CitT/Embarcadero were proposed and described in detail in two Precise Plans SDUPD, 1976c and 1976d), and in the EIR's which accompanied these two Precise Plans (SDUPD 1976a and 1976e). The Chula Vista Bayfro nt Plan alternatives have received considerable analysis during the preparation of the Chula Vista Bayfront Precise Plan Development Program Background report (SDUPD, 1974d), and subsequently through numerous other documents published by the City of Chula Vista including: Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan EIR (City of Chula Vista, 1974); Bayfront Re- development Developer's Report (City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, 1976a); and Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project Draft EIR (City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, 1976b). Port Master Plan land/water use designations do not differ substantially from those proposed in the SDUPD plans referenced above. Impacts of implementing the alternatives discussed in the corresponding SDUPD EIR's are not anticipated to differ substantially from those identified in the previous EIR's. As an example, alternatives to the,proposed project for the Coronado Bayfront includes two separate options, (SDUPD 1978b, c, and d). The first option (Option A) emphasizes the development of a mixed use oceanographic research park including an educational center, a research and business complex, and a marine sales and service facility. In addition, a small conference hotel and a waterside resort motel were proposed. A dinner restaurant and lounge and a bayside specialty shopping complex, along with the proposed Tidelands Park and @horeline park were also part of this option. This alternative would result in a slightly decreased total overall estimated traffic generation as.compared with the use illustrated in the proposed Plan. A second option (Option B) for the Coronado Bayfront proposed more recreational resort type improvements adjacent to the research park area, but would also include a dinner restaurant, small seafood market, and a recreational resort hotel. Implementation of this alternative would result in a considerable increase in the estimated daily average traffic as compared to the proposed plan. These alternatives have been analyzed in greater detail in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan EIR (SDUPD, 1978d). Presently (September, 1979) further alternatives are being explored jointly. Additonal detailed alternatives for the remaining Planning Districts including the National City Bayfront and the South Bay Saltlands and Silver Strand South Planning Districts have been reviewed. 249 In the National City Bayfront, some consideration was given to possibly phasing out, at some future time, existing lumber storage yards to permit expansion of the National City Marine Terminal or of more port- related developments. Alternatives considered for the South Bay Saltlands included: continuation of salt production; conversion of the salt ponds to small or large commercial aquaculture production; and the reversion of these lands to the State of California for redevelopment as wildlife habitat. No specific additional detailed alternatives were considered for the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Planning District because of existing, long-term marine industrial lease committments. The overall regional need for marine- related industrial waterfront land area provides the basis for continuation of these established and existing uses. The remaining alternative for the marine industrial/terminal areas would be to discontinue the expansion of existing facilities, and to propose development of the South Bay Saltlands. As stated in the Master Plan, several specific alternatives, under the general designation of Commercial Recreation, still exist for the Silver Strand South Planning District. No Project Under the "No Project" alternative, individual subsequent development proposals for each Planning District would be evaluated against the 1972 Master Plan, Board policies, and other applicable rules and regulatfons. Without the Master Plan, projects would be individually considered without formal benefit of the integrated planning and environmental management principles developed for the Port's nine Planning Districts. The result would be an emphasis upon "piece-meal planning" as opposed to comprehensive planning. The comprehensive "Planning,District" approach includes the feature of availability of appropriate timing and the provision of public facilities, well coordinated with on-going individual aspects of the Master Plan. Other agencies involved in regional planning efforts, such as the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO), and special resource oriented agencies, such as the California Coastal Commission (_CCC), have strongly urged the preparation of comprehensive planning documents, to the extent of rejecting individually submitted public facility improvements for an alleged lack of jurisdictional planning commitment. In this sense, it is likely that the "No Project" alternative would have the greatest potential for significant adverse environmental impact on the as yet undeveloped or partfally developed portions of the Planning Districts in North and Central Bay; to a lesser extent upon Planning Districts in South Bay. The "No Project" alternative would also not allow for the comprehensive planning approach required under the California Coastal Act of 1976 and for the Port's Master Plan and accompanying Master Plan EIR to meet the requirements of Chapter 8 of the Coastal Act which require the Port to describe the existing environmental setting and the anticipated adverse environmental impacts on biological resources within the Port's jurisdiction. 250 VII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT The Master Plan does not foreclose future development options of a significant nature. There are no absolutely permanent commitments which would be to the detriment of either the short or long range benefit of the environment. The Master Plan is consistent with the goals identified in Port's 1972 Master Plan, and with the General Plans of the surrounding cities. No significant irreversible environmental effects have been identified, other than the proposed Chula Vista Boat Basin, J Street Second Peninsula extensiont. and the Sweetwater Wharf project. As transportation/circulation is a major concept of the Port's proposed @aster Plan, incorporation of other modes of transportation which would increase the overall efficiency of areawide circulation such as people- movers, etc., can be achieved as they become feasible. A self-contained or even supplementary public transit system in the Master Plan area is neither economically justifiable nor environmentally sound when viewed from the total resource commitment which would be required. The Master Plan, by its emphasis on coordinated ongoing improvement activities, compatible with existing adjacent land and water uses, sets a pattern of resource conservation which would provide a more effective and efficient use of increasingly scarce land and water areas. As such, the Plan promotes the conservation and efficient utilization of land, water, and energy resources. The Master Plan proposes to further intensify existing Port operations and marine-related facilities, and thereby further concentrate Port-related uses within an already existing center of industry and commerce. The Master Plan thus promotes and carries out the goal of the California Coastal Act of 1976 to conserve undeveloped, non-port coastal land and water areas which are in constant competition for,uses other than commerce and industry. Further, by implementation of the South Bay Wildlife Reserve in its completed form, the Port of San Diego has constructed the single largest artificial wildlife reserve of its kind in the Continental United States,(SDUPD, 1976b). As such, this wildlife reserve constitutes an expansion and enhancement of natural biological habitat and has additional value because of its location within the Pacific Flyway, the pathway used by waterfowl during winter migrations to the south. In addition, the clean and calm water of South San Diego Bay in close proximity to this artificial habitat provides an ideal food'and shelter source for many fishes and marine invertebrates, which in turn, are fed upon by resident and migratory birds. The General Plans of the surrounding cities also look to San Diego Bay as being planned to support their residential/resort communities with a large variety of commercial attractions intended to serve the needs of local residents and visitors. The Master Plan clearly encourages the long-term enhancement of San Diego Bay as a commercial and recreational area. The Master Plan also recognizes the close proximity of Naval installations, the US/Mexico border, and San Diego International Airport/Lindbergh Field as being important elements in shaping the future of surrounding cities. 251 The Master Plan would produce long-term economic benefits to the communities surrounding San Diego Bay, particularly, those of the metropolitan San Diego region. The Centre City Marina residential complex would be greatly enhanced by the increased commercial and recreational developments proposed in the Master Plan. Except for the J Street Peninsula extension and the Sweetwater Wharf project, it is not anticipated that the developments proposed within the Master Plan would have significant impacts upon the long-term productivity of San Diego Bay as a biological resource. Conservation and enhancement of existing natural habitat areas where feasible, for both terrestrial and marine life, would continue to be implemented under the Master Plan, due largely to the environmental resources inventory established by this EIR and by ongoing federal, state and local programs. 252 VIII. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Master Plan implementation would commit natural and manufactured materials including wood, steel, concrete, and the application of support services, management, labor, etc. The basic concept of Master Plan implementation integrates the proposed facilities with the environment in both function and scale. Irreversible environmental changes which would result from implementation of the Master Plan are directly associated with the con- sumption of non-renewable natural resources including fuel, minerals, energy, air, water, and open space. Energy in the form of electrical power and natural gas consumed during construction of Master Plan development proposals is irreplaceable. Natural resources for miscellaneous building materials would be used to construct and furnish structures with indirect commitment to provide additional energy sources such as natural gas and electricity and other community services such as water, sewerage facilities, and police and fire protection. Construction of buildings on currently undeveloped areas would preclude future utilization of the land as open space, excepting their future removal. However, the Port leases are limited to a maximum term of 66 years with project leases commensurate with District policy and the sponsor's project proposal. Master Plan implementation would involve the redevelopment of certain areas, primarily within small sections of the Shelter Island and Coronado Bayfront Planning Districts, necessitating demolition of some existing facilities or structures..1hese changes are not anticipated to result in significant environmental impacts. The Plan's overall emphasis provides a coordinated comprehensive improvement program. It enhances a basically established port related land/water utilization which includes visitor-oriented and recreational and commercial facilities, as well as marine-related services and community amenities which would provide additional opportunities for area residents. In carrying out the Port's responsibilities under its enabling legislation, the Master Plan is specifically designed to fulfill the Port's obligation to enhance and maintain a balance of activities of commerce, navigation, recreation and fisheries. With the exception of the Chula Vista Boat Basin J Street Second Peninsula extension and the Sweetwater Wharf project, the Port's Master Plan would not involve irreversible environmental changes to San Diego Bay proper. The construction of this second peninsula extension would necessitate the placement of artificial fill on shallow and deep subtidal habitat adjacent to the Chula Vista Boat Basin in the Chula Vista Planning District. The placement of this fill would constitute an irreversible environmental change in that the removal of the fill, once placed and once developed with com- mercial and recreational amenities including landscaped public parks, marina and support facilities, including an additional new harbor police station, is highly unlikely. 253 IX. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The Master Plan includes support facilities such as commercial centers and other improvements which would enhance existing public services in surrounding communities, but which could be affected by, or could affect, population growth within the surrounding cities. Population growth in areas immediately surrounding the Port's jurisdiction are not anticipated to increase at a significant rate. The single exception for this circumstance would be the future development of the Centre City Marina residential area adjacent to the Embarcadero Marina Park. Support facilities proposed for the Master Plan area appear to be adequate to accommodate existing estimated population growth projections for the surrounding cities, but do not, by themselves, appear to have significantly high growth-inducing potential. Plan-related growth inducement might be expected to occur as an indirect result of the provision of visitor accom- modations and new commercial operations, which may slightly increase the demand for public support services and infrastructure in the surrounding communities. The Master Plan would, however, directly and indirectly stimulate considerable economic and some population growth through the creation of additional jobs, visitor accommodations and new commercial enterprises some of which are tourist-related. The Plan would not induce population growth within the surrounding cities by large scale residential demands for subdivisions or etc. 255 X. AGENCIESIORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED In addition to routine contact and beyond utilizing available literature or report sources the following have been consulted: PUBLIC AGENCIES Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District (USACE) U.S. Coast Guard Commander D. C. O'Donovan H. John Pendergast Waterways Experimentation Vicksburg, Missippi. Jean Hunt U.S. Department of Housing and,Urban Development (HUD) San Diego Office Samuel Tucker, Site Engineer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) Southern California Area, Laguna Niguel Ecological Services James McKevitt Wayne White Maeton Freel U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southwest Region, Long Beach James E. Slawson Robert Hoffman U.S. Navy (USN) Naval Air Station, San Diego Lt. Commander Phillips Lt. J. G. Richard French Jan Larsen Paul Jorgensen Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego Office R. E. Salter, Engineer/Planner Aircraft Environmental Support Office (AESO), San Diego Robert Gay Raymond Glass Naval Ocean System Center (NOSC), San Diego Environmental Services Group Hal Goforth Thomas Peeling Peter Seeligman State Department of Fish and Game (.CFG) Sacramento Earl Lauppe Allen Craig 257 Region 5, Long Beach Rolf E. Mall Richard J. Nitsos Larry Espinoza Paul R. Kelly San Diego Elizabeth Copper John Duffy Terry Hoban Harold McKennie Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) District 11, San Diego Stuart Harvey Tim Vasquez John P. Rieger California State Coastal Commission (CCC) Michael L. Fischer, Executive Director Michael Dadasovich, Port Coordinator Mark Stevenson Eric Metz California State Office of Planning and Research Deni Greene San Diego Regional Coastal Commission (-SDRCC) San Diego Region Tom A. Crandall, Executive Director Michael Kennedy Milton Phegley Steve Horn Debra Lee San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (.SDRWQCB) San Diego Region Arthur Coe Roland Rossmiller Peter W. Michael San Diego State University (.SDSU) Department of Anthropology Dr. Larry L. Leach, Department Chairman Melissa J. Johnson, Cultural Anthropology Laboratory Technician Department of Geological Sciences Dr. Phillip Kern, Professor of Geology Department of Biological Sciences Dr. Joy Zedler, Professor of Biology Dr. Gerald Collier, Professor of Zoology Dr. Richard Etheredge, Professor of Zoology Majorie Stinson, Graduate Student Mary Kay Allen, Graduate Student Scripp's Institution of Oceanography Geological Research Division Dr. Edward Goldberg Dr. Vernon Hodge Mesa College Department of Anthropology Diane Borbola 258 Regional/Local Comprehensive Planning Organization (-CPO) Steven Sachs Ronald J. Hertel Michael Aulick County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Michael Alberson Environmental Analysis Division (EAD) Bradford K. Williams Ronald V. May Integrated Planning Office (IPO) Environmental Planning Michael U. Evans Charlie Lough Integrated Planning Office (.IPO) Transportation Planning Hem Rosenthal, Director of Transportation Planning Larry Taylor Nick Marinovitch Public Health Department John Melbourne, Chief, Division of Environmental Health City of Chula Vista Douglas Boyd Douglas Reid Paul Desrochers City of National City Don Rose City of Coronado Planning Department Jack Lohman, Planning Director Tony A. Pena Ed Kleeman .Public Works Department Police Department Fire Department City of San Diego Planning Department Angeles Leira Environmental Quality Division James Gleason, Director Paul Fiske Noise Abatement and Control Office James E. Dukes San Diego Unified Port District (SDUPD) Airport Operations M. A. (Bud) McDonald, Manager William (Buck) Jones Engineering Department Joachim E. Liebmann, Chief Engineer John E. B. Wilbur Donald Forrest H. R. Stephanson Bob Bourke Paul Bohenkamp Ken Andrecht 259 Environmental Management Tomas E. Firle, Coordinator Michael V. Needham, Assistant Coordinator Harbor Police Chief Edward Taylor Captain Donald Hadley Marine Operations Department William Garrett, Manager Robert Hutton Planning Department Frederick H. Trull, Director John Wehbring Bill Briggs Kerry Scheevel Bill Saver Property'Department Donald Hillman, Manager Bradley J. Schultz Financial Services Donald Funderburk Reece Jones San Diego Museum of Man Kenneth Hedges, Curator Hubbs Sea World Research Institute Jon C. Van Olst James Carlberg Other Organizations California-American Water Company Al Bennett, Water Engineer Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company Jerry Guevara, Sales Representative San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) Bruce J. Williams, Land Planner Assistant San Diego Harbor Industrial Association Naida West, Consultant Coronado Yacht Club Robert Cooper Coronado Board of Realtors 260 Report Contributors This Environmental Impact Report was prepared by the San Diego Unified Port District's Environmental Management Department. The environmental information contained in this report has been compiled from many resources including the sources and individuals indicated. To the best of our knowledge and belief this information is accurate, current, and reflects our best professional opinion of the direct and indirect environmental effects of the proposed Master Plan. The primary analysis, evaluation and authorship was carried out by Michael V. Needham, under direction, supervision and editing by Tomas E. Firle, and in on-going interactive coordination with the Port's Planning Department under the direction of the Planning Director, Frederick H. Trull, and the Port's Engineering Department under the direction of the Chief Engineer, Joachim E. Liebmann. (0 Auto, ofX Ad- ,f , 0'_'@ Z/ . - - --- - - - - TOMAS E. FIRLE, Coordinator MrCHAEL7.7-REMA-M, fiss-istant Coordinator Environmental Management Environmental Management September 12, 1979 261 XI. REFERENCES 1. Aircraft Environmental Support Office. 1973. Air Installation Compatible Use Zones, North Island Naval Air Station, Coronado. Report No. AESO 311-74-2. 2. Aircraft Environmental Support Office. 1978. Aircraft Noise Survey Report Naval Air Station/Naval Air Rework Facility, North Island, California. AESO, Naval Air Systems Command, North Island, California. 3. Allen, M.K. 1979. Bird Census of the Coronado Tidelands. Ornithology Class Project, Dr. Gerald Collier, San Diego S,tate University. 4. Allen, R.K. 1969. Common Intertidal Invertebrates of Southern California. Department of Zoology, California State College, Los Angeles. 5. American Fisheries Society. 1970. A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada (Third Edition). American Fisheries Society. 6. Anderson, Heiss and Hughes. 1975. City Inclusion Study, San Diego County Flood Control District. 7. Arbib, R. 1974. The Blue List for 1975. American Birds, Vol. 28, No. 6. pp 971-974. 8. Barry, J.N. 1972. Staff Report on Wastes Associated with Shipbuilding and Repair Facilities in.San Diego Bay. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. 9. Barry, J.N. In Preparation. Heavy Metal Concentrations in San Diego Bay Sediments and Marine Life. June 1971 to January 1973. 10. Bauer, R.D. and J.W. Speth. 1974. Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California. California@Department of Fish and Game; U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, Cooperative Report. 11. Berryman and Stephenson, Inc. 1979. Circulation Analysis, An Overview. SDUPD, Environmental Management. 12. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. 1973. Fundamentals and Abatement of High- way Traffic Noise. FHWA Textbook and Training Course Manual. Contract No. DOT-FH-11-7976. 13. Boone, C.G. and R.E. Hoeppel. 1976. Feasibility of Transplantation, Re- vegetation, and Restoration of Eelgrass in San Diego Bay, California Environmental Effects Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water- ways Experiment Station. Contract No. DACW09-75-B-0026. 14. Browning, B.M., J.W. Speth and W. Gayman. 1973. The Natural Resources of San Diego Bay, Their Status and Future. California, Department of Fish and Game; Sea Science Services. 263 15. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1976. California In- ventory of Historic Resources. State of California - The Resources Agency. 16. California Department of Transportation. 1975. Coronado Transportation Study. CALTRANS, District 11. 17. California Department of Transportation. 1976a. San Diego Traffic Generators, Progress Reports Dec. '71, Dec. '72, Nov. '74, Dec. '76. CALTRANS, District 11. 18. California Department of Transportation. 1976b. California Transportation Plan, Task Force. CALTRANS, District 11. 19. California Department of Transportation. 1976c. North Harbor Drive Noise Impact Report. CALTRANS, District 11. 20. California Department of Transportation. 1978a. Traffic Volumes on California Highways, 1967 through 1978. CALTRANS, District 11. 21. California Department of Transportation. 1978b. Executive Summary, West Coast Corridor Study. CALTRANS, District 11. 22. California Division of Mines and Geology. 1975. Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California. Bulletin 200. Sacramento, California. 23. California Division of Toll Crossings. 1968. Geologic Section Along San Diego-Corona@do Bay Bridge. 24. California Water Resources Control Board. 1976a. Areas of Special Biological Significance. Office of Public Affairs, Sacramento, California. 25. California Water Resources Control Board. 1976b. Inventory of Marine/ Estuarine Water Quality Monitoring Stations for California. California Department of Fish and Game; WRCB, Division of Planning and Research Surveillance and Monitoring Unit. Sacramento, California. 26. City of Chula Vista. 1973. City of Chula Vista General Plan Master EIR. City of Chula Vista, Planning Department. 27. City of Chula Vista. 1974. Bayfront Redevelopment Project Plan EIR. City of Chula Vista, Planning Department. 28. City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. 1976a. Bayfront Redevelopment Developer's Report. Wilsey & Ham; Project Design Consultants; WESTH Services; Southern California Testing; Wimmer, Yamada & Associates; CVRA. 29. City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. 1976b. Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project Draft EIR. WESTEC Services, Inc.; David D. Smith and Associates; CVRA. 264 30. City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency. 1978. Extension of Tidelands Avenue and "E" Street, Administrative Action Draft EIS. WESTEC Services, Inc.; City of Chula Vista; U.S. DOT; CALTRANS. 31. City of Coronado. 1974a. Coronado - 1990 The General,Plan, Safety and Seismic Safety Element. City of Coronado, Planning Department. 32. City of Coronado. 1974b. Coronado - 1990 The General Plan, Environmental Resource Management Element. VTN Consulting Engineers, Inc.; City of Coronado, Planning Department. 33. City of Coronado. 1977a. Coronado - 1990 The General Plan, as amended. City of Coronado, Planning Department. 34. City of Coronado. 1977b. Average Daily Traffic Map. City of Coronado, Public Works Department. 35. City of Coronado. 1977c. Traffic Accidents, January - October 1977. City of Coronado, Public Works Department. 36. City of Coronado. 1978. Draft Glorietta Bay Master Plan, as amended. City of Coronado, Planning Departm6nt. 37. City of Coronado Municipal Code. Section 13.16.540, Water-Skiing areas, Etc. (Prior code 7551). 38. City of Coronado Municipal Code. Section 13.16.550, Bathing, Swimming and Surfboarding. (Prior code 7551.1). 39. City of Coronado. 1979. City of Coronado Local Coastal Program. City of Coronado, Planning Department. 40. City of Imperial Beach. 1968. Imperial Beach, California General Plan 1990. Williams, Cook and Mocene; City of Imperial Beach, Planning Department. 41.- City of Imperial Beach. 1978. Traffic Control Device Inventory Study. City of Imperial Beach, Public Works Department. 42. City of National City. 1975. National City General Plan. City of National City, Planning Department. 43. City of San Diego. 1975a. Centre City San Diego Development Plan. City of San Diego, Planning Department. 44. City of San Diego. 1975b. Peninsula Plan. City of San Diego, Planning Department. 45. City of San Diego. 1975c. Midway Community Plan. City of San Diego, Planning Department. 46. City of San Diego. 1977a. San Diego Metropolitan Facilities Plan and Final EIR, For Waste Water Treatment, Reclamation and Disposal 1975 - 2000. Sayed El Wardani; City of San Diego, Environmental Qaulity Division. 265 47. City of San Diego. 1977b. The Otay Mesa-Nestor Community Plan and EIR. City of San Diego, Planning Department. 48. City of San Diego. 1978a. Progress Guide and General Plan, The City of San Diego. City of San Diego, Planning Department. 49. City of San Diego. 1978b. Progress Guide and General Plan Amendment, Growth Management Element. City of San Diego, Planning Department. 50. City of San Diego. 1978c. Progress Guide and General Plan Amendment, Growth Management Element, EIR. City of San Diego, Environmental Quality Division. 51. City of San Diego. 1978d. Greater Golden Hills Precise Plan and EIR. City of San Diego, Planning Department. 52. City of San Diego. 1978e. Bay Route Bikeway Draft EIR. CALTRANS; City of San Diego, Environmental Quality Division. 53. City of San Diego. 1978f. Centre City Transportation Study. City of San Diego. 54. City of San Diego. 1979a. Supplement to Progress Guide and General Plan Amendment, Growth Management Element, EIR. City of San Diego, Environmental Quality Division. 55. City of San Diego. 1979b. Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan and EIR. City of San Diego, Planning Department. 56. City of San Diego. 1979c. Machine Count Index. City of San Diego, Traffic Operations. 57. City of San Diego, Redevelopment Agency. 1978. Centre City Redevelop- ment Projects, Supplemental Master Final EIR. VTN Environmental Consultants; CCDC. 58. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency. 1979. Marina/Columbia Residen- tial Development Final EIS. CCDC, City of San Diego. 59. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1976a. Executive Summary, San Diego Plan for Air Transportation, SANPAT Final Report. DMJM; CPO. 60. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1976b. Managing Urban Growth and Public Facilities. CPO. 61. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1977. Comprehensive Plan, San Diego Region, Transportation Volume 5. CPO. 62. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1978a. The San Diego Regional, Coastal Access Study Report. CPO. 63. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1978b. Travel Behavior Survey Report. CPO. 266 64. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1978c. Travel Time Study Report. CPO. 65. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1978d. Transit Ridership Survey. CPO. 66. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1978e. Centre City Parking Study Report. CPO. 67. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1978f. Transportation Plan for the San Diego Region, Summary of Policies, Plans and Programs, Updated Edition 1978. CPO. 68. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1978g. San Diego County, Growth Base Densities. CPO. 69. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1978h. Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, San Diego-Riverside Designated Area. Series IV ,Regional Growth Forecasts: 1975-95, The San Diego Regions Expecta- tions for Population, Housing, Employment and Land Use. CPO, February 1978. 70. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1978i. Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, San Diego-Riverside Designated Area. Beneficial Uses, Standards, and Objectives for Ground and Surface Waters. CPO, February 1978. 71. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1978j. San Diego Air Quality Maintenance Plan, AQMP, Regional Emissions Trends Projections. -CPO. 72. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1978k. Revised Regional Air Quality Strategy, September 1978 - Draft. CPO; APCD, San Diego. 73. Comprehensive Planning Organization. 1979. Traffic Flow Map, San Diego Metropolitan Area. CPO. 74. County of San Diego. 1972. Natural Resources Inventory, 7 volumes. Environmental Development Agency. 75. County of San Diego. 1977. San Diego County General Plan, Energy Element. County of San Diego, Integrated Planning Office. 76. County of San Diego. 1978. Preliminary Regional Growth Management Plan, Draft EIR. County of San Diego, Regional Growth Management., 77. Dougherty, A.E. 1966. Marine Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Species Booklet No. 14. 78. Dostert, B.C. 1974. A Paleoenvironmental Comparison of Two Upper Pleistocene Fossil Assemblages from San Diego, California. Geology Senior Thesis, San Diego State University, Department of Geology. 79. Eberhardt, R.L. 1967. Environmental Features of Lockheed Cove, Harbor Island, San Diego Bay, California. Lockheed Corp., Oceanic Technical Manuscript 1. 267 80. Edgerton, L.F. 1975. Fish and Game Code. Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Game Commission. 81. Edgerton, L.F. 1976. 1976 Supplement to Fish and Game Code. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Game Commission. 82. Falter, D.H. 1971. Tidal Currents in San Diego Harbor. Master's Thesis, San Diego State University. 83. Flittner, G., J.S. Bradshaw, R.F. Ford, J.R. Jehl, M.N. Kirven, R.L. Miller, and P.J. Mudie. 1971'. South San Diego Bay Environmental Study Commit- tee Report. SDUPD, Planning Department. 84. Ford, R.F. 1968. Marine Organisms of South San Diego Bay and the Ecologi- cal Effects of Power Station Cooling Water Discharge. Environmental Engineering Laboratory, for San Diego Gas and Electric Company. Contract C-821. 85. Ford, R.F., R.L. Chambers, and J. Merino. 1970. Ecological Effects of Power Station Cooling Water Discharge in South San Diego Bay During August 1970. Environmental Engineering Laboratory, for San Diego Gas and Electric Company. 86. Ford, R.F., W. Gayman, J. Merino, and S. Kellogg. 1971a. Marine Organisms of Central San Diego Bay and the Potential Effects of Dredging and Spoil Deposition. Sea Science Services, Technical Report No. 2. 87. Ford, R.F., A. Brabon, and M.V. Needham. 1971b. Marine Algae, Grasses, Invertebrates, and Fishes of the Sweetwater River and Paradise Creek Marshes and the Potential Ecological Effects of the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel. Sea Science Services, Technical Report No. 3. 88. Ford, R.F., and R.L. Chambers. 1973. Biological Studies at the South Bay Power Plant. Environmental Engineering Laboratory, for San Diego Gas and Electric Company. 89. Ford, R.F., R.W. Chambers, and R.L. Chambers. 1975. Final Report, Biological Studies and Thermal Distribution at the Station B Power Plant, September 1972 - August 1973. Environmental Engineering Laboratory. San Diego Gas and Electric Company Purchase Order #P-25072. 90. Ford, R.F., and D.D. Smith. 1978. Biological Studies of Portions of the Eastern Shoreline of Grand Caribe Isle, Coronado Cays, San Diego Bay. For Coronado Landmark, Inc. 91. Goforth, H.W., and T.J. Peeling. 1975. Eeelgrass (Zostera marina L.) Beds Along the Western Shore of North Island Naval Air Station, California. Naval Undersea Center, Marine Environmental Management Office. 92. Grantz, A., and A. Bartow. 1971. Active Faults of California, U.S. Department of the Interior, pp 422-837. 268 93. Hammond, R.R. 1976. Seabed Drifter Movement in San Diego Bay and Adjacent Waters. Master's Thesis, San Diego State University. 94, Hanson, D. 1978. Personal Communication. Property Manager. Southern Pacific Land Company, San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railroad. 95. Hatley, M.J. 1979. Culture History, Ln Impact Mitigation Report for Vista Del Lago Estates Unit 3 Property, Cultural Resource SDM-W- 1857 (CAL:E:8:16). RECON, Regional Environmental Consultants, Job No. 6862. 96. Hedges, K. 1979. Personal Communication. San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, California. 97. Hedges, K. 1979. Letter of January 18, 1979. Summary of recorded archaeological sites within and in the vicinity of the Port's Master Plan area. San Diego Museum of Man. 98. Hertlein, L.G., and U.S. Grant IV. 1944. The Geology and Paleontology of the Marine Pliocene of San Diego, California, Part I, Geology, pp 25-62. San Diego Society of Natural History. 99. Hirsch & Koptionak Consulting Engineers. 1974. Sewerage Planning Report for First Street Interceptor Sewer and Transbay Sewage Pump Station. Coronado, California. 100. Hood, L. 1975. Inventory of California Natural Areas, Volume 1. California Natural Areas Coordinating Council. 101. Inman, D., and J. Nordstrom. 1973. Shore Processes and Coastal Planning Criteria for San Diego County. 102. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1976. Trip Generation Manual. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Arl'ington, VA. 103. Intersea Research Corporation. 1973. An Inventory of Physical and. Biological Factors of Paradise Creek Marsh, National City, California. City of National City, Planning Department. 104. Johnson, M.J. 1979. Personal Communication. Cultural Resource Management Center, Anthropology Laboratory, San Diego State University. 105. Johnson, M.J. 1979. Letter of January 23, 1979. Summary of recorded archaeological sites within and in the vicinity of the Port's Master Plan area. Cultural Resource Management Center, Anthropology Labora- tory, San Diego State University. 106. Johnston, R.A., and R. Sculley. 1978. Key References and Data Sources for EIR/EIS Preparation in California. California EIR Monitor, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. 107. Joy, J.W. 1968. Tsunamis and Their Occurrence Along the San Diego Coast. Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory, for County of San Diego Civil Defense and Disaster Organization. 269 108. Jurek, R.M., R. Hein, S.R. Wilbur, T.J. Charmley, C.T. Collins, K.E. Bender, and M.U. Evans. 1977. California Least Tern Recovery Plan. California Least Tern Recovery Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; California Department of Fish and Game. 109. Kaldenberg, R.L., and R.V. May. 1975. Possible Environmental Stress Factors Which May Have Induced Culture Horizon Change in San Diego County, California. Archaeological Fellowship, San Diego, California. 110. Kenis, P., A. Zirino, and C. Clavell. 1978. Automated Anodic Stripping Voltammetry For The Analysis of Copper, Zinc, Lead and Cadmium for Environmental Monitoring. Research and Development Report: October 1975 - April 1977, Technical Report 243. Naval Ocean Systems Center, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 111. Kennedy, M.P., S.S. Tan, R.H. Chapman, and G.W. Chase. 1975. Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 123. 112. Kern, P. 1978. Personal Communication. Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University. 113. Kroeber, A.L. 1970. Handbook of the Indians of California. Third Edition. California Book Company, Berkeley, California. 114. Lackey, J.B., and K.A. Clendenning. 1965. Ecology of the Microbiota of San Diego Bay, California. Trans. of San Diego Society of Natural History, 14(2):9-40. 115. Leighton and Associates, Inc. 1978. Preliminary Review of Fault Locations and Activity, Proposed Marina Redevelopment Project, City of San Diego, California. CCDC, June 1978. 116. Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Inc. 1976. Coronado Traffic Study. City of Coronado,.Public Works Department. 117. Lockheed Center for Marine Research. 1977. South Bay Power Plant Re- ceiving Water Monitoring Program, for San Diego Gas and Electric Company. 118. Lockheed Center for Marine Research. 1979. Biological Reconnaissance of Selected Sites of San Diego Bay. SDUPD, Environmental Management. 119. Lockheed Corporation. 1967. Geological Survey of South San Diego Bay. Lockheed Ocean Laboratory Report 20867. SDUPD, Engineering Department. 120. Longley-Cook and Associates. 1973. Air, Water, and Noise EIR on Proposed Glorietta Bay Fuel Facility. City of Coronado, Planning Department. 121. Lukas, J.S. 1977. Measures of Noise Level: Their Relative Accuracy in Predicting Objective and Subjective Responses to Noise During Sleep. Environmental Health Effects Research Series, EPA-6001 1-77-010. 270 122. Marine Advisers, Inc. 1963. A Study of Diffusion in San Diego Bay. City of San Diego. 123. Massey, B.W. 1977. A Census of the Breeding Population of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow in California, 1977. Nongame Wildlife Investigations, California Department of Fish and Game. 124. Mathewson, J.H. 1971. Chemical Residue Dynamics in San Diego Bay. Report for CDR R.D. Fasig, Pollution Control Officer, Commandant, Ilth Naval District, San Diego, California. 125. Maxwell, W.D.' 1979. Commercial Fish Laws. California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Resources Branch. 126. May, R.V.' 1978. Personal Communication. County of San Diego, Environmental Analysis Division. 127. McEuen, R.B., and C.J. Pinckney. 1972. Seismic Risk in,San Diego. Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 17(3):62 P. 128. Metropolitan Transit Development Board. 1978a. Guideway Project, Centre City San Diego to San Ysidro, Supplemental Draft EIR. MTDB. 129. Metropolitan Transit Development Board. 1978b. Station.Site Planning. Bechtel, Inc.; MTDB, Task Report No. 12. 130. Miller, D.J., and R.N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish. Bull. 157:1-235. 131. Moore, G.W., and M.P. Kennedy. 1970. Coastal Geology of the California- Baja California Border Area, Fall 1970. Guidebook, San Diego, California. 132. Moore, G.W., and M.P. Kennedy. 1975. Quaternary Faults at San Diego Bay, California. Journal of Research of U.S. Geological Survey, Vol. 3, No. 5. 133. Mudie, P.J. 1970a. A Survey of the Coastal Wetland Vegetation of San Diego Bay. Part I: Description of the Environment and the Vegeta- tion Types, June 1970. California Department of Fish and Game, Contract No. W26 D25-51. 134. Mudie, P.J. 1970b. A Survey of the Coastal Wetland Vegetation of San Diego Bay. Part II.: Vegetation Analyses, October 1970. California Department of Fish and Game, Contract No. W26 D25-51. 135. Multi Systems Associates. 1977. E.J. Christman Business and Industrial Park Redevelopment Project Final EIR. City of National City. 136. Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1086 p. 271 137. Nasland Engineering. 1977. Dixieline Retail Lumber Facility EIR.- 138. National Research Council. 1965. Highway Capacity Manual. National Research Council, Special Report 87. 139. Newman, W.A. 1958. Sedimentary and Biological Characteristics of San Diego Bay Floor in 1958. State of California Water Pollution Control Board, Standard Agreement No. 12D-19 with Marine Advisers. 140. Nuffer/Smith Associates. 1975. Communications Survey for the San Diego Unified Port District, A Summary. Special Projects Division of Phillips Ramsey, Inc. 141. Parrish, L.P., and K.M. Mackenthun. 1968. San Diego Bay, An Evaluation of the Benthic Environment, October 1967. U.S. Department of the Interior, Technical Report. 142. Peeling, T.J. 1975. A Proximate Biological Survey of San Diego Bay, California. Naval Undersea Center, Biosystems Research Department. Report No. NUC TP 389. 143. Pignataro, L.J. 1973. Traffic Engineering Theory and Practice. Prentice- Hall. 144. Pinkas, L. 1977. California Marine Fish Landings for 1975. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 168. 145. Powell, W.R., ed. 1974. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Special Publication No. 2, CNPS. Berkeley, California. 146. Real, C.R., T.R. Toppozada, and D.L. Parke. 1978. Earthquake Epicenter Map of California, Showing Events from 1900 through 1974, Equal to or Greater Than Magnitude 4.0 or Intensity V. California Division of Mines and Geology. 147. Richter, C.F., J.M. Nordquist, V. Taylor, and C.R. Allen, Editor. 1967. Local Bulletin of Earthquakes in the Southern California Region. California Institute of Technology, Seismological Laboratory, Division of Geological Sciences, Pasadena, California. 148. Ricketts, E.F., and J. Calvin. 1968. Between Pacific Tides, Fourth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 149. Robilliard, G.A., and P.E. Porter. 1975. Short-Term Effects of a Dredging-Pipelaying-Backfilling Project on an Eelgrass Bed in San Diego Bay. Woodward-Clyde Consultants; Rick Engineering Company. 150. Robilliard, G.A., and P.E. Porter. 1976a. Transplantation of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) in San Diego Bay. Woodward-Clyde Consultants; Naval Undersea Center, NUC TN 1701. 272 151. Robilliard, G.A., and P.E. Porter. 1965b. Long-Term Effects of a Dredging-Pipelaying-Backfilling Project on an Eelgrass Bed in San Diego Bay after One Year. Woodward-Clyde Consultants; Rick Engineering Company. 152. Rogers, M. Ancient Hunters of the Far West. 1966. Edited by R.F. Pourado, San Diego, Copley Press. 153. Ross, A., and R.J. Dowlen, ed. 1973. Studies on the Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Greater San Diego Area, California. San Diego Associa- tion of Geologists, May 1973. 154. San Diego Air Pollution Control District. 1978. Air Quality in San Diego County, Annual Air Monitoring Report 1978. APCD, County of San Diego. 155. San Diego Regional Water Quality Cointrol Board. 1978. Water Quality Monitoring Station Data in San Diego Bay. San Diego, California. 156. San Diego Tidelands Task Force. 1978. Report and Recommendation to the California Legislature on Use of State Tide and Submerged Lands in South San Diego Bay Pursuant to Chapter 1114, South Bay Salt Ponds. California State Lands Commission. 157. San Diego Unified Port District. 1963. San Diego Unified Port District Code. Published Pursuant to San Diego Unified Port District Ordinance 19, Enacted March 14, 1963 - Amended Through November 7, 1978. 158. San Diego Unified Port District. 1972a. Natural Physical Factors of the San Diego Bay Tidelands, 88 p. January 1572. SDUPD, Planning Department. 159. San Diego Unified Port District. 1972b. Socio-Economic Factors, Section I: Social Characteristics; Section II: Economic Characteristics, Master Plan Revision program. May 1972. SDUPD, Planning Department. 160. San Diego Unified Port District. 1972c. Port District Appearance, Master Plan Revision Program. November 1972. SDUPD, Planning Department. 161. San Diego Unified Port District. 1972d. Master Plan, San Diego Unified Port District, as amended 1976, 46 p. December 1972. SDUPD, Planning Department. 162. San Diego Unified Port District. 1973a. NASSCO Outfitting Pier, San Diego Industrial Area, EIR. September 1973. Ferver Engineering Company; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 163. San Diego Unified Port District. 1973b. Van Camp Tuna Cannery, Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal, Final EIR. October 1973. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 273 164. San Diego Unified Port District. 1973c. NASSCO Shipways No. 1, San.Diego Industrial Area, Final EIR. December 1973. Ferver Engineering Company; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 165. San Diego Unified Port District. 1974a. Campbell Industries, Foot of Eighth Avenue, Final EIR. February 1974. Salerno & Associates; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 166. San Diego Unified Port District. 1974b. NASSCO Shipbuilding Dock, San Diego Industrial Area, Final EIR. March 1974. Ferver Engineer- ing Company; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 167. San Diego Unified Port District. 1974c. NASSCO Shipyard Expansion, San Diego Industrial Area, Final EIR. March 1974. WESTEC Services, Inc.; David D. Smith & Associates; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 168. San Diego Unified Port District. 1974d. Chula Vista Bayfront, Precise Plan Development Program, Background Report. May 1974. SDUPD, Planning Department. 169. San Diego Unified Port District. 1974e. Access Road Relocation, Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal, Final EIR. October 1974. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 170. San Diego Unified Port District. 1975a. Boatyard Relocation, National City Marine Terminal, Final EIR. Triple "A" Machine Shop, Inc. January 1975. L.E. Wilson, Triple "A" South; SDUPD, Environmental- Management. 171. San Diego Unified Port District. 1975b. West Terminal Project, Lindbergh Field, Final EIR. April 1975. WESTEC Services, Inc.; Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.; Wilbur Smith & Associates, Inc.; David D. Smith & Associates, Inc.; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 172. San Diego Unified Port District. 1975c. Kettenburg Marine, Shelter Island, Final EIR. July 1975. WESTEC Services, Inc.; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 173. San Diego Unified Port District. 1975d. Kelco Plant Expansion, San Diego Industrial Area, Final EIR. July 1975. Ferver Engineering Company; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 174. San Diego Unified Port District. 1975e. Berthing Pier, Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal, Final EIR. August 1975. Ferver Engineering Company; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 175. San Diego Unified Port District. 1975f. Side Launch Ramp, San Diego Industrial Area, Final EIR. August 1975. Philip L. Walling; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 176. San Diego Unified Port District. 1976a. Embarcadero Development Plan, Final EIR. January 1976. The SWA Group; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 274 177. San Diego Unified Port District. 1976b. Chula Vista Boat Basin/Wildlife Reserve, Final EIR. February 1976. David D. Smith & Associates; WESTEC Services, Inc.; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 178. San Diego Unified Port District. 1976c. San Diego Embarcadero Develop- ment Plan. May 1976. The SWA Group; Deems/Lewis & Partners; SDUPD, Planning Department. 179. San Diego Unified Port District. 1976d. Shelter Island Precise Plan. August 1976. SDUPD, Planning Department. 180. San Diego Unified Port District. 1976e. Shelter Island Precise Plan, Final EIR. August 1976. SDUPD, Environmental Management. 181. San Diego Unified Port District. 1976f. Port of San Diego/History and Development. October 1976. SDUPD, Community & Governmental affairs. 182. San Diego Unified Port District. 1977a. Ship Repair Facility, National City, California, Final EIR. Snipes and Salerno; Guy F. Atkinson Company. Sea Science Services; March 1977. SDUPD, Environmental Management. 183. San Diego Unified Port District. 1977b. Slip & Pier Diagram Legend, San Diego Bay Tidelands, June 1977. SDUPD, Planning Department. 184. San Diego Unified Port District. 1977c. Sea Port Village, San Diego Embarcadero, Final EIR. November 1977. WESTEC Services, Inc.; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 185. San Diego Unified Port District. 1978a. Ship Building Facility, National City, California, Final EIR. Rohr Marine, Inc. February 1978. WESTEC Services, Inc.; David D. Smith and Associates; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 186. San Diego Unified Port District. 1978b. Coronado Bayfront Precise Plan Development Program Background Report. February 1978. SDUPD, Planning Department. 187. San Diego Unified Port District. 1978c. Coronado Bayfront Prec ise Plan Development Program Plan Alternatives. February 1978. SDUPD, Planning Department. 188. San Diego Unified Port District. 1978d. Coronado Bayfront Develop- ment Plan Draft EIR. November 1978. SDUPD, Environmental Manage- ment. 189. San Diego Unified port District. 1978e. Preliminary Draft Master Plan. November 1978. SDUPD, Planning Department. 190. San Diego Unified Port District. 1978f. San Diego International Air- port - Lindbergh Field Noise Control Plan. December, 1978. SDUPD, Engineering Department. 275 191. San Diego Unified Port District. 1979. La Playa Beach Restoration, Shelter Island, Draft EIR, June 1979. Sea Science Services; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 192. Sartor, J.D., and G.B. Boyd. 1972. Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants. EPA - R2-72-081, Contract No. 14-12-921. 193. Scott, D.B., D. Norris, and T.L. Cass. 1975. Species List and Impact Statement for the "J" Street Marsh Area, South San Diego Bay. Environmental Studies Laboratory, University of San Diego. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles. 194. Smith, D.D. 1975a. Dredging and Spoil Disposal - Major Geologic Processes in San Diego Bay, California. Proceedings, Third Inter- national Estuarine Research Federation Conference, Galveston, Texas. 195. Smith, D.D., D.L. Mayer, and R.W. Amundson. 1975b. Biological Recon- naissance & Sediment Chemistry, Chula Vista Small Boat Basin. Environmental Quality Analysts, Inc.; Marine Biological Consultants, Inc.; SDUPD, Environmental Management. 196. Smith, D.D. 1976. Marsh Generation Program for Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve. San Diego Unified Port District. 197. Smith, E. 1972. Temperature Fluctuations in the San Diego Bay. Master's Thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 198. Smith, G.S., G.J. Bakus, and R.C.Y. Koh. 1973. Final Report, Basin Coastal Analysis for the San Diego Basin - #9. Tetra Tech, Inc.; J.M. Montgomery Engineers, Tetra Tech Contract No. TC 272. 199. Stephens, F. 1929. Notes on the Marine Pleistocene Deposits of San Diego County, California. San Diego Society of Natural History, Transactions, 5(16): 245-256. 200. Stoklosa, R. 1974. An Investigation of Water Mixing in North San Diego Bay. Lockheed Aircraft Service Co.; J.S. Bradshaw, San Diego, California. 201. Swickard, D.K. 1974. An Evaluation of Two Artificial Least Tern Nesting Sites. California Department of Fish and Game. 60(2):88-90. 202. Systems Control, Inc. 1978. A Study of Noise Control Alternatives for San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field). San Diego Unified Port District. 203. Thorne, R.F. 1976. The Vascular Plant Communities of California. In Symposium Proceedings: Plant Communities of Southern California. (CNPS Spec. Publ. No. 2) Berkeley, CA. 31 p. 204. Ultrasystems, Inc. 1977. Master Environmental Impact Report, City of Coronado, Coronado - 1990 The General Plan. 265 p., plus Appendices. City of Coronado, Planning Department. 276 205. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1970. Surface Current Patterns San Diego Bay Model. USACE, Los Angeles District. 206. U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers. 1974. San Diego Bay Model Study Technical Report H-74-12. USACE, Vicksburg, Miss. 207. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Final Environmental Statement, San Diego Harbor, San Diego County, California. USACE, Los Angeles District. 208. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1976a. Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material into Navigable Waters. Environmental Effects Laboratory, USACE, Vicksburg, Miss. 209. U.S-. Army Corps of Engineers. 1976b. San Diego Harbor Second Entrance - A Navigation Study. First Edition - Public Brochure. San Diego County, California. USACE, Los Angeles District. 210. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977a. Preliminary Environmental Assess- ment, Second Entrance to San Diego Harbor, San Diego County, California. USACE, Los Angeles District. 211. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977b. Draft Environmental Statement, Sweetwater Fiver Flood Control Channel, State Highway Route 54, Interstate Highway Route 5, Recreation Facilities and Conservation of Marshlands, San Diego County, California. USACE, Los Angeles District. 212. U.S. Coast Guard. 1978. Federal Marine Sanitation Device Regulations. CG-485, USCG. 213. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey San Diego Area, California, Parts I and II. USDA; University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. 214. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1978. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary With Comparative Data, San Diego, California. 215. U.S. Department of the Navy. 1975. Proposed New Ammunition Facility at the Naval Air Station, North Island, Final EIS. Project P-800, San Diego, California. Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineer- ing Command. 216. U.S. Department of the Navy. 1977a. Naval Station San Diego Master Plan, Naval Station, National City Bayfront, San Diego, California. 217. U.S. Department of the Navy. 1977b. Draft EIS Proposed New Berthing Repair Pier #2, Naval Station, San Diego, California, Naval Station, National City Bayfront. 218. U.S. Department of the Navy. 1977c. Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study, AICUZ, Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego, California. Western Divison, Naval FacilitiesEngineering Command. 277 219. U.S. Department of the Navy. 1978a. Naval Station San Diego Master Plan Final EIS. Naval Station, National City Bayfront, San Diego, California. Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.- 220. U.S. Department of the Navy. 1978b. Littoral Transport Study, North Island, San Diego Naval Air Station. Tetra Tech; Ferver Engineering Company. Supplement to Final EIS, P-800, Contract TC-3206. 221. U.S. Department of the Navy. 1978c. Draft Master Plan for a Water Oriented Recreation Facility, Naval Amphibious-Base, Coronado, California. Homer Delawie Associates; Wimmer Yamada Associates; Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 222. U.S. Department of the Navy. 1978d. Parking Analysis, Naval Station, San Diego. Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 223. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. The Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals. EPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 224. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Shipyard Report, San Diego Bay. EPA, Region IX, National Field Investigations Center - Denver; San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SCRWQCB), March 18 - April 5, 1974. 225. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. San Diego Metropolitan Facilities Plan Draft EIS for Wastewater Treatment, Reclamation and Disposal 1975-2000. EPA Region IX, Grant No. CA-06-1092. 226. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 135. 227. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Endangered Species Act Recovery Plan Guidelines. USFW Endangered Species Technical Bulletin, May, 1979, Vol. IV, No. 5. 228. Valentine, J.W. 1961. Paleoecologic Mulluscan Geography of the California Pleistocene. University of the California Pub. Geol. Sci., .34(7): 309-442. 229. Von Hake, C.A., and W.K. Cloud. 1966. United States Earthquakes 1964. U.S. Department of Commerce, Government Printing Office. 230. Warren, C.N. 1961. The San Dieguito Complex and its Place in San Diego County Prehistory. 1960-61 Annual Report, pp 246-291, University of California Archaeological Survey, Los Angeles. 231. Weber, F.H., Jr. 1963. Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, Calffornia. California Division of Mines and Geology, County Report 3. 232. WESTEC Services, Inc. 1978. NASSCO Parking Study. National Steel and Shipbuilding Company. 278 233. Wilbur, S.R., R.M. Jurek, R. Hein, and C.T. Colli'ns. 1976. Light- Footed Clapper Rail Recovery Plan. Light-Footed Clapper Rail Recovery Team. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; California Department of Fish and Game. 234. Williams, B.K., and J.P. Rieger. 1973. A Preliminary Inventory of the Terrestrial Vertebrates and Flora of the Salt Marsh Area of Paradise Creek in National City, California, National City Bayfront. Intersea Research Corporation, Inc. 235. Yamamoto, S., and W.H. Shipman. 1973. Zn, Cr, and Pb Contents of Sediments in the Vicinity of a NARF Outfall. U.S. Navy Environmental Protection Data Base Program, North Island NARF, San Diego. 236. Youd, T.L. 1973. Liquefaction, Flow and Associated Ground Failure. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 688. 237. Yousef, Y.A. 1974. Assessing Effects on Water Quality by Boating Activity. Environmental Protection Technology Series, EPA-670/ 2-74-072. 238. Zirino, A., S.H. Lieberman, and C. Clavell. 1978. Measurement of Cu and Zn in San Diego Bay by Automated Anodic Stripping Voltammetry. Environmental Science & Technology, Volume 12(l): 73-80. 279 XII. PUBLIC REVIEW Initial Distribution. The initial distribution of the Draft EIR was to the following public agencies which have jurisdiction by law, and/or to organizations and individuals with special environmental interests: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Engineer Environmental Quality Section Navigation Branch Engineering Division U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Portland, OR Sacramento, State Coordinator Laguna Niguel 11th Naval District Commandant Environmental Protection Coordinator Commander, North Island Naval Air Station Commander, Naval Amphibious Base Naval Undersea Center (Hal Goforth) Aircraft Environmental Support Office (AESO) San Diego (Raymond Glass) 11th Coast Guard District Long Beach San Diego Environmental Protection Agency San Francisco (Regional Administrator) National Marine Fisheries Service Terminal Island, CA (Regional Director) Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento State Clearinghouse (15 copies) California Coastal Commission San Francisco (Coastal Commissioners; 12 copies) San Francisco (Executive Director; 6 copies) San Francisco (Port Coordinator) State Lands Division, Sacramento California Department of Transportation San Diego (District Director) California Highway Patrol San Diego Area (Commander) California Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, Region 5 Long Beach'(Rolf E. Mall) San Diego (.John Duffy) Department of Boating and Waterways, Sacramento Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento Office of Historic Preservation Division of Mines and Geology Sacramento (Director) La Jolla (Michael Kennedy) 281 Comprehensive Planning Organization, San Diego Areawide Clearinghouse (2 copies) San Diego Coast Regional Commission Commissioners,(12 copies) Executive Director (6 copies) County of.San Diego Integrated Planning Office Environmental Analysis Division Department of Public Health Air Pollution Control District California Regional Water Quality Control Board Executive,Officer, San Diego Region Metropolitan Transit Development Board Executive Director Centre City Development Corporation San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage District San Diego Transit, Manager City of Coronado Mayor City Manager Planning Director City of Chula Vista Mayor City Manager Planning Director City of Imperial Beach Mayor City Manager Planning Director City of National City Mayor City Manager Planning Director City of San Diego Mayor City Manager Planning Director Environmental Quality Director Noise Abatement and Control Office San Diego State University Center for Marine Studies Archaeological Fellowship San Diego Museum of Man Ken Hedges San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. Tom Campbell San Diego Historical Society Intertribal Council Ecology Centre Sierra Club San Diego Chapter Citizens Coordinate for Century III 282 San Diego Audubon Society League.of Women Voters San Diego Assoc. of Envltl. Biologists and Wildlife Mgrs- San Diego Public Library (2 copies) City of Coronado Public Library (2 copies) City of Chula Vista Public Library (2 copies) City of Imperial Beach Public Library (2 copies) City of National City Public Library, (2 copies) San Diego County Library Governmental Reference Library San Diego State University Main Library (Bernice Barclay) Social Science Research Library Sa n Diego Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President/General Manager Planning Division Port Planni'ng Coronado Chamber of Commerce. Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Imperial Beach Chamber of Commerce National-City Chamber of Commerce South Bay Chamber of Commerce San Diego Convention and Visitors' Bureau Economic Development Corporation San Diegans', Inc. San Diego Building Contractors Association San Diego Construction Industry Coordinating Council San Diego Construction Industry Advancement Fund Phil Walling San Diego Gas and Electric Company Joe Dietz, Environmental Manager California Mariculture, Inc. Coronado Journal San Diego Daily Transcript San Diego Union San Diego Evening Tribune San Diego Log Los Angeles Times (San Diego Edition) Imperial Beach Star News National City Star News Chula Vista Star News The Sentinel Individuals; Special Requests Michael U. Evans,-County of San Diego Thomas J. Peeling, Navy John P. Rieger, CALTRANS, San Diego David D. Smith Associates 283 Additional Distribution on Request E. C. Fullerton, Director, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, 10/10/79 William Wrehse, Regional Director, Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles, 10/10/79 Arthur Pearsall, Operations Chief, Federal Aviation Administration, San Diego, 10/10/79 Dr. John Bradshaw, University of San Diego, 10/10/79 - Dr. Gerald Collier, San Diego State University, 10/10/79 Dr. Richard Ford, San Diego State University, 10/10/79 Dr. Joy Zedler, San Diego State University, 10/10/79 Larry Warren, Shapell Industries, 10/12/79 James Elliott, Lockheed Center for Marine Research, 10/23/79 Frank Kingery, Westec Services, Inc., 10/23/79 Lt. George Thompson, Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, 11/16/79 U.S. Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration, 11/29/79 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Management, 11/29/79 284 (Revised) Comments Received and Response The cover letter to the Draft EIR, givin?ipertinent information to the reviewers, and all comments received during the pub c and agency review period to the close of the public hearing.'have been reproduced and are included in this Final EIR. A legal notice announcing the availability of the Draft EIR and the public hearing was published on October 9, 1979. The review period was set for 45 days, ending on December 1, 1979. A total of 178 copies of the Draft EIR and the announcement of the Eublic hearing were sent to the Board, public agencies which have jurisdiction y law, and to organizations and individuals with special interest*. Of these, Ill went to federal. state, regional and local agencies; 26 to community and environmental groups; 16 to the business community; 10 to the news media; and 8 to other interested parties. Copies were sent to the Mayors, City Managers, Planning Directors and City Libraries of the five member cities of the Port District: San Diego, Coronado, National City, Chula Vista, and Imperial Beach. Copies were also sent-to the San Diego Main Public Library, and the Government Reference Library, and San Diego County. Copies were also available for public inspection at the Clerk's Office in the Port Administration Building. This Draft EIR was written based upon the Port District's Preliminary Draft Master Plan submitted to the State Coastal Commission on January 15, 1979, for informal discussion. Subsequent revisions to the Master Plan are also addressed in this Draft EIR. The objective of the environmental review process under CEQA is to provide decision makers, as well as the public, with information on the environmental consequences of the project. In this manner. they consider the impact on e environment as one aspect in their decision making process when taking action on the project. Comments on the merits or flaws, reaLl or imagined, of the project itself (in this case the proposed revisions to the Port Master Plan). are not relevant to the environmental assessment of the EIR. During the agency review period. which ended on December 1, 1979, letters concerning the Draft EIR were received from: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Western Division. San Bruno Naval Air Station, North Island National Marine Fisheries Service California State Clearinghouse California State Coastal Commission California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Health Services, Office of Noise Control Areawide Clearinghouse (CPO) Air Pollution Control District City of San Diego (EQD) Share Our Sentiments (SOS) David D. Smith and Associates A letter of comment (dated November 28, 1979) was received December 3, 1979 from the California State Lands Commission requesting an extension for submitting 4185 comments on the subject Draft EIR from December 1, 1979 to December 14, 1979. Subsequently on'December 19, 1979, comments an the Draft EIR were received from the California State Lands Commission. Also, letters of comment were received after the review period had ended December 1, 1979, on the dates indicated, from the following: California State Lands Commission (12/19/79), Assemblyman Peter Chacon,(12/3/79), Metropolitan'Transit Development Board (12/18/79). City of Coronado (12/3/79), City of San Diego Councilwoman Lucy Killea (12/4/79). Sierra Club (12/12/79), Mrs. Helen Tyler (12/4/79). For informational purposes and to complete the record, receipt of these letters after the review period had ende s noted and copies, together with corresponding District responseso are appended. The purpose of the public hearing on the Draft EIR is to give an additional opportunity for any one to address the Board of Port Commissioners about environmental impacts deemed inadequately presented. The public hearing on the Draft EIR for the proposed Port of San Diego Master Plan was held on December 4. 1979. The following persons and representatives of public agencies addressed the Board of Port Commissioners: Michael Dadasovich (California'State Coastal Commission Port's Coordinator) Edward Amador (Assemblyman Chacon Administrative Assistant) Keeta Kau htson (Community Energy Action Network) Salvador ?orez (Artist) Rachael Ortiz (Barrio Caucusi Jose Romez (Chicano Park Steeri n? Committee) Al Johnston (Bay Front Committee Rich Juarez (Barrio Caucus) James M. Carlberg (California Mariculture Incorporated) Written comments were also presented to the Board of Port Commissioners at the December 4, 1979, Public Hearing by the following: Michael Dadasovich (California State Coastal Commission) Tomasa Camarillo (Chicano Park Steering Committee) Daniel L. Guevara (Say Front Committee) James 14. Carlberg (California Mariculture lncorporated) Al Johnston.(Bay Front Committee) Summary of Public Hearing of December 4, 1979 Commissioner Cohen read into the record, the previously referenced letter of comment from the City of Coronado dated November 30, 1979, received by the District on December 3. 1979. Points raised by the California Coastal Commission staff to the Board were concerned with: The assertion that although the Draft EIR provided a good environmental data base, the impact analysis section in general should include more details on project specific proposals to reduce the need for greater detail In subsequent EIR's. Numerous comments were made in opposition to the Master Plan's continued designation of a waterfront area, south of the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal, as industrial rather than recreational. These comments were primarily concerned with: the issue of alternative sites for'boat repair facilities other than in the waterfront adjacent to the Barrio Logan area, such as Coronado and Chula Vista; additional industry such as boat building/repair facilities south of the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal may pollute and deteriorate the air and impact the adjacent residential neighborhood, and prevent public access to the bay; the distance to the Embarcadero Marina Park,, from Bario Logan is said to be too great for Barrio Logan residents, and Embarcadero Marina Park is said to have been designed more for tourists rather than local residents; alleged inadequate discussion of industrial development impacts on bayfront access adjacent to Barrio Logan; the issue of utilization of the area adjacent to Barrio Logan for industrial purposes since bay access has been a community desire for several years; the alleged inadequacy of the Port's proposal serving as bay access for Barrio Logan residents; the Embarcadero Marina Park's alleged shortcoming because it is 'too distant for Barrio senior citizens; aesthetic conditions of the bayfront adjacent to Barrio Logan are said to be deteriorated including lack of adequate landscaping, and the unsightliness of the marine terminal and industrial facilities, such as silos; and the supposed industrial pollution from NASSCO, canneries, and Junkyards in the Barrio Logan area. The Board sought clarification as to who was the authorized Barrio Logan representative to confer with the Port District staff regarding land use planning adjacent to the Barrio Logan area. This issue of a unified and authorized representative or planning group for Barrio Logan remains unre- solved, (1/80). Other public concerns were expressed regarding information to evaluate the potential of adverse impacts on traffic. noise,-air quality, and aesthetics in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan area with a request for site specific EIR's when actual projects are proposed. Concern was also expressed for continued maintenance of a high level of water quality in San Diego Bay, related to the potential for development of commer- cial mariculture facilities, primarily in the South San Diego Bay area. The Board questioned the request for a time extention by the State Lands Commission and the environmental relevance of the request. Evaluation of issues Nost*of the points brought to -the Board at the Public Hearing, particularly those dealing with the land use and bay access issues in the Barrio Logan area, and land use, circulation and other issues in the Coronado Bayfront area were also raised in written comments and are responded to in greater detail in the Conwnt Letters and-Response section. The issue of coastal access in the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Planning District and the adjacent Barrio Logan community has'received attention in the Port Master Plan and was discussed and analyzed in the Master Plan Draft EIR. Developments proposed in the Master Plan which have the potential to affect the Barrio Logan community were-analyzed with respect to the expressed desire regarding bay-access through an established heavy industrial marine terminal area. This-situation and related issues were described in some detailin the Draft.EIR on pages 8, 40,, and 74-76. The bay access shown in the Master Plan as a promenade and vista area extends west from Crosby Street. The Port District, however, considers this area, and especially the water- frontage,, to be more suitable for port related facilities as required by Section 30708(c) of the California Coastal Act of 1976, which states: "All port-related developments shall be located, designed, and con- structed so as to: (c) Give highest priority to the use of existing land space within harbors for port purposes, including, but not limited to, -navigational facilities, shipping industries, and necessary support and access facilities." Activities which would v ve significant land from industrial use in this area, such as a recreational park, are Incompatible with the existing and planned marine industrial uses. There is considerable demand for waterfront industrial land in the San Diego area. While the Raster Plan and Draft EIR recognize the desire of the nearby community for a park,,.and have analyzed the potential for significant environ- mental impacts which could result from Industrial use of the area south of the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal. the overriding provisions of Chapter 8 Of the Coastal Act prohibit such use to be proposed by -the Port. Active recreation uses proposed by various Barrio Logan planning groups, such as soccer, etc., and water contact activities such as swimming and fishing, would not be com- patible land uses in this existing heavy marine industrial area. Secondary and indirect environmental effects including noise, public safety, security, and various vehicle traffic and rail traffic hazards have been identified as potential effects. These problems and others have been analyzed in the Draft EIR. Recreational uses in such an area would have the potential for-signi- ficant environmental impacts which would preclude it from further considera- tion. Alternative public access points for recreation are available at the Embarca- dero Marina Park area and the Las Chollas Park proposed in the City of San Diego Local Coastal Program. These areas are far larger-and more suitable for recreational uses. The Crosby Street promenade access, which was recom- mended by the Board. is Intended to respond to the desire of nearby residents for close-by access to the bayfront for bay viewing and resting. Recreational facilities ever larger expanses are available at the Embarcadero Marina Park and in upland areas In the City of San Diego parks and school playgrounds. as stated earlier. It should also be note-d-that concerns expressed regarding aspects of pollu- tion associated with industrial uses in the area adjacent to the Barrio Logan community, such as air pollution, and aesthetic improvement needs, have been previously-addressed in the Master Plan and in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR indicates on.page 238 that the potential for air quality impacts from any proposal including industrial developments is strictly regulated by the application of Federal. state and local laws through the San Diego Air - Pollution Control District (APCD). In specific, industrial facilities men- tioned, suchas National Steel and Shipbuilding Company and seafood canneries, are all subject to "Authority to Construct" and "Permit to Operate" regula- tions from APCD prior to construction and operation of the facilities and are under control of that agency. It should also be noted that the Master Plan project list description for the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Planning District, on page 98, includes con- siderations of aesthetic improvements including screened fencing and land- scaping surrounding both the proposed new boatyard facilities and the public bay access promenade adjacent to the Crosby Street access area. The Draft EIR, in addition, provides reference to previous environmental analysis of alternative locations of marine industrial facilities in other areas, such as Coronado and Chula Vista, on pages 249-250. The area south of the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal,, an existing heavy marine industrial area, is from an environmental standpoint, more suitable than alternative locations. There is no question that substantial public support from residents of the Barrio Logan area exists for public improved bay access to the San Diego Bay waterfront. This has been evidenced by various letters of support presented during the public hearing and also by the presentation of a statement of sup- port signed by about 300 residents of the surrounding Barrio Logan area. It should be noted also that the Embarcadero Marina Park as described in the Master Plan includes no design concepts which are exclusionary of neighbor- hood use to the benefit of non-resident tourists. To the contrary, the Embarcadero Marina Park includes an active play area with a considerable potential for various recreational uses on-the southern peninsula. closest to the Barrio Logan area. The Embarcadero Marina Park is about one mile from the residential areas in the Barrio Logan community. The area of the Embar- cadero Marina Park will provide about four times the total acreage of park than would the area adjacent to the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal. The Draft EIR discussed the planning efforts of the Coronado/Port 'Ad Hoc" Committee and the concerns expressed by the City of Coronado regarding the potential for significant adverse impacts of traffic,, noise, air quality, and aesthetic-concerns related to Master Plan'development proposals for the Coronado Bayfront. These issues-were analyzed on pages 4, 8-9. 42-43, 76-78, 222-2239 228, 230 and 249; The analysis of potential environmental impacts for the Master Plan proposal and for additional alternatives was carried out in considerable detail in the previously written Coronado Bayfront Development Plan Draft EIR (UPD #78102-EIR-2). which included a public hearing on Febru- ary 6, 1979. At that hearing the Board agreed to reconsider the plan and hold further environmental evaluation 4n, abeyance until a joint decision could be reached-with the City-of Coronado. Project specific environmental docu- ments may be required to be written as appropriate for subsequent development plans within the Coronado Bayfront. .289 Coastal -staff requested additional -detailed Impact analysis. The reader is referred to the District's response to the California State Coastal ,Commission comment In the following Comment Letters and Response section. The major conclusions of the potential for-enviromental impacts as a result of the Port's Master Plan were summarized for 14 different environmentally related categories in the Draft EIR on pages 1-7. In addition. various issues of public controversy or concern over potential Master Plan related impacts were summarized-on-pages 7-10 of the Draft EIR. these summaries included a discussion.of the Barrio Logan bay access issues and the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan. among others. The Port Master Plan Draft EIR has been prepared according to the degree of specificity and the level of detail appropriate to the preparation of a master plan EIR as provided for in the EIR-guidelines, Section 15147, Degree of Specificity, which reads: "The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. (a) An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more de- tailed-in the specific effects of the project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning-ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy. (b) An EIR on projects such as the adoption or amendment of a com- prehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus ..en the secondaryeffects that can"be expected to follow from the adoption, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow." In addition to the analysis of the secondary effects, included in the Draft EIR pages 221-248, the Master Plan has included as Appendix 6 a coastal policy compliance analysis which provideTa section by section description of the Plan's project proposals and overallgoals, indicating the established con- formity with the California Coastal Act of.1976. Many of the goals of the sections referenced from the California Coastal Act deal with environmental issues related closely to the requirements for impact analysis of the CEQA EIR Guidelines. For more detailed information, the reader is referred to the following section on Comi, nt Letters with Response to written information submitted both during and following the review period of the Draft EIR and submitted during the public hearing on December 4. 1979. Overview of Comments Copies of the actual comment letters received are attached with the District's following each communication. The letters are arranged in the order given pre-viously. 4290 To focus on the principal issues raised In the letters,,.a synopsis follows; it is provided to identify the writer's concerns and is given here for information- al purposes only, without corresponding District comment. The full District response follows the copy of each comment letter as stated earlier. The Navy Facilities Engineering Command request-eid-i6-clu-si-oh-of informatfon- des6ribin - e Corps Recruit Depot-(MCRD) and Naval Training Center 9 the Mir-5 INTO populations and related school uses; objected to an alleged lack of recognition of the welfare of military personnel, particularly regarding the potential for aircraft noise impacts; and objected to a consideration of the .possibility of a Lindbergh Field runway realignment. The Naval Air Station (KAS) offered minor corrections to the Draft EIR descrip- tion of North-I-sT-and HAS facilities, their total annual aircraft operations, the number of operating squadrons, the number and duration of daily engine runups at the rework operation, and the placement of the CNEL-65 noise contour associated with flight operations at NAS. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) said that the biological re- sources information included in the Urift EIR was good, but that potential environmental impacts were not quantified in sufficient detail for some Master Plan projects such as the Chula Vista Boat Basin Second Peninsula, the Sweetwater Wharf Improvements, and the Rohr Boatyard Improvements. NMFS re- quested inclusion of acomprehensive habitat loss compensation plan in the final EIR. The California State Clearinghouse verified compliance with environmental review requirements under CEQA and attached comments from the state agencies listed, subject to the District responding to the comments in the Final EIR, with copies to the respondents. Staff of the California Coastal Commission commented that: Only a few adverse impacts were identified; appealable de-viTo-pment categories should be further discussed, particularly for the Chula Vista Boat Basin Second Peninsula and Rohr Fill areas; all development proposals should reference specific Coastal Act policies, particularly for Coronado, Barrio Logan. and Chula Vista; a safety*analysis of storage and transport of potentially hazardous materials should be added; and that the Draft EIR be provided to Federal interests in port planning such as the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) and the Maritime Administration (MARAD), and to additional public interest groups, particularly those which have appeared at Port District and/or Coastal Com- mission hearings. The California State Department of Fish and Game (CFG) indicated that written comments submitted to the-Disirict on January 4. 1979, on the preliminary draft of the Port's Master Plan were still relevant and should be applied to this Draft EIR as well. In addition, there were concerns expressed for the management and preservation of biological habitats and potential impacts on rare and endangered species including eelgrass beds, clambeds, light-footed clapper rails, California least terns, and green sea turtles. Concern was expressed regarding water contamination sources near the Naval-Training Center estuary. CFG also indicated that the South Bay Wildlife Reserve, as it is not yet finished, does not constitute an expansion and an enhancement of natural biological habitat. since a successful marsh is not yet established. -:291 The California Department.of Health Services, Office of Noise Control indi- catef-fWaR nois-e easements for airport noise control only mitigate the com- plaints without reducing the noise impact, and suggested additional vehicular traffic noise measurements. The Areawide Clearinghouse (CPO) indicated-that no regional issues were apparent; cmirWnted on-the desirability of further traffic circulation, air quality, and energy impact analysis for the Lindbergh Field/Harbor Island and Centre City/ Embarcadero Planning Districts; and suggested also a discussion of a Coronado cross-bay pedestrian ferry be included in the Draft EIR. The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) requested a quantitative analysis of potential air emissions resultT-ngfrom Master Plan implementation; and that the Draft EIR-demonstrate consistency of the proposed Port Master Plan with the existing Air Quality Maintenance.Plan (AQMP) developed jointly by APCD and CPO, with an explanation of any differences in air emission projections from those based on the Port's existing adopted 1972 Master Plan. The City of San Diego Environmental Quality Division (EQD) requested addi- tion-aT-a-n-alysis of potential traffic/circulation impacts of the airport north access road proposed and the Centre City/Embamadero area in general; and an historical site status update of the former Rowing Club facilities was offered and the suggestion made that they be discussed. Mrs. Sally Krummenacher and Mr. John Pruyn, representing a Coronad o citizen's organization, Share Our Sentiments (SOS), submitted the same objections to the Master Plan DraftTIR as were provided to the Board for the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan Draft EIR in November 1978; and requested that new information from the wAd Hoc Committee* be incorporated in the Master Plan Draft EIR. David D. Smith and Associates., an environmental consulting firm, comi, nted that the Port Master Plan EIR is exemplary due to both its comprehensive scope and detailed nature; concurrence was given with a reference to long-standing and highly effective pollution control programs that already provide adequate protection to biological and related resources; and suggested that additional descriptions of the Chula Vista Boat Basin Second Peninsula and Sweetwater Wharf Improvement projects-be provided. Comment Letters With Response Following is a copy of the transmitta I letter which appeared in front of the Draft EIR which presented to the reviewer the scope of the project, announced the review date and public hearing, and directed attention to the purpose of the review to center on -the environmental aspects of the proposal rather than on its writs as a project per se, Because of the volume of the material, this section. which includes the comment letters and corresponding responses* Is printed in a reduced format. -292 Of 54 0 F= C) FR 'r C> F: 4=w- C:>' ^No LiNcnaptam F:i F-Lo ^oR -rFERMINAL. (714) =14900 P.O. BOx MS. Son D1w 92112 September 1979 SUBJECT: *MASTER PLAN, San Diego Unified Port District" Draft Environmental Impact Report (UPD #78102-EIR-1; SCH #78030604) 'The attached Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Public Resources Code, Section 21151, of the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed Master Plan revision provides land and water use policies, as well as management guidance, for new developments and for the enhancement of exist- ing developments in the Port of San Diego's nine Planning Districts. It has been conceived to give flexible direction within stated overall goals and provisions for Implementation, The proposed Master Plan rev Isi on I ncludes enhancement of existing land and water activities as a basis for both Port and leasehold programs. It also plans new developments compatible with existing uses. The proposed land/water uses are preliminary and for discussion. The proposed revisions have not been approved by the Board of Port Commissioners but were submitted to the State Coastal Commission on January 15, 1979 for preliminary discussion. This Draft EIR evaluates the environmental conse- quences of adoption of the planning goals, objectives, and policiFs- of the proposed Master Plan. The proposed Plan uses some public works projects to illustrate its concepts where, for example, considerable emphasis is placed on creating an inviting environment for pedestrians and bicyclists by incor- porating landscaped, people-oriented spaces. Future site-specific improvements will be environmentally evaluated, using the Final EIR as a Master Environmental Assessment for reference. This EIR also constitutes environmental information for the Port's Coastal Plan under provisions of the California Coastal Act of 1976. This report is being distributed to all public agencies which have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental effect of the project, and to known organizations with conservation and environmental interest. Your comments regarding this draft report will be a matter of public record, avail- able to other agencies, organizations, and interested citizens, and will become a part of the final report. They will be available to the Board of Port * Commissioners for consideration in their Plan adoption. Please focus on the environmental aspects of the proposed Plan in discussing the sufficiency and/or accuracy of the Draft EIR and provide appropriate information where possible. Your written comments regarding this Draft EIR are requested by November 16, 1979. CoTmTiunications on the Plan itself should be directed to the Port's Director of Planning,,Mr. Frederick H. Trull. A public hearing regarding this EIR before the Board of Port Commissioners has been scheduled for December 4, 1979. The Board meeting will begin at 2:00 PM, and will be held in the Board Room located on the first floor, Room 106, of the Port Administration Building, 3165 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California 92112. Sincerely, TOMAS E. FIRLE, Coordinator Environmental Management -.293 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .294 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY WESTERN DIVISION NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND P.O. BOX 737 SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA 94066 IN REPLY TO 20C2:CM:SS 20C2:CM:SS P3-548 PE-548 The opportunity to review the Master Plan DEIR is appreciated, any any Nov 25, question or comments on this letter can be directed to Ms. Meyer at (415) 877-7573. Mr. Frederick N. Trull Sincerely, Director of Planning San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 488 J. H. Mildes San Diego, California 92112 Acting Director Installations Planning Division Dear Mr. Trull: This Command has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for "Master Plan, San Diego Unified Port District". The major environ- mental problem for the Navy and Marine Corps is noise generated by Lind- bargh Field operations. On 16 November 1979, Ms. Carol Meyer of my staff called you to refer you to a letter dated 8 November 1979 from the Comman- dent of the Eleventh Naval Districk to Mr. Tomas Firle of your staff. Although this letter Pertains to the DEIR for the study "New Airline Service, Linbergh Field," the comments are also applicable to the Master Plan DEIR. The following matters were not covered in the "Airline Service" DEIR but relate indirectly to environmental issues. The proposal on page 118 of the Master Plan DEIR for a new runway on the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) property is not physically feasible. It has been concluded from findings of a Department of Defense study to close MCRD that the facility will neither be abandoned nor relocated inthe foreseeable future. The proposal on page 58 to use military property for an access right-of-way is unacceptable because it would interfere with the missions of Naval Training Center and NCRD by causing a continuous, unacceptable noise level and loss of irreplaceable land area. The problem of discharge of raw sewage into San Diego Bay has been milt- gated to a large extent since 1977. On page 178 the "400,000 gallons" per day should be changed to approximately 160,000 gallons". The facilities for sewage collection "have been" (not "are currently being") installed at Naval Amphibious Base and elsewhere. As you explained to Ms. Meyer during the above telephone conversation on 16 November, most of the Navy's concerns, as discussed with you earlier thihs year by Mr. Robert Forsyth and Ms. Meyer, are to be incorporated into your forthcoming final Master Plan document. You indicated to her that the same changes will also be incorporated into the FEIR following your 4 December 1979 hearing and, therefore, it is not necessary to reltorate Mr. Forsyth's comments prior to your public hearing. COMMANDANT ELEVENTH NAVAL DISTRICT COMMANDER NAVAL BASE, SNA DIEGO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 11011 Ser 32/208 08 NOV 1979 Mr. Thomas R. Firle Coordinator, Environmental Management Port of San Diego RECEIVED P.O. Box 488 Nov 15 1970 San Diego, Claifornia 92112 Dear Mr. Firle: The Draft Environmental Impact Report, "Now Airline Service, Lindberg Field" (UPD 078102-EIr-SO) has been reviewed and comments of several major military commands are summarised in this letter. Throughout the report, land use of military controlled land namely, Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) and the Naval Training Center (NTC), is regarded to be commerical, public and open military. Those designations effectively eliminate any consideration of noise impact on the mission of these essential military bases. Land uses of both MCRD and NTC include significantly larage areas that are appropriately classified as residential and schools. Land use designations used in the report provide only for family residential areas and do not recognize residential areas for bachelor/unaccompanied personnel. Due to the nature of the missions of these Commands, the vast majority of military personnel assigned live on base but are excluded from consideration of impact simply because the are not "Family Residential". The result is an unacceptable mission of a large population from consideration of noise impact. Training functions are the major mission area of both bases. To elassity land use as public and open military is to ignore the actual use and the noise impact on the attendent population within these areas. The preponderence of land use at both bases should be classified as schools and impact appropriately identified and reported. Figure IVA2 appropriately recognises military family housing located adjacent to MCRD. However, on Page VII-2 the notation is made that military personnel are not included in "affected Population" figures within various CNBL contours. Since this housing is shown to be within the 75 CNBL contour on both Figures IVA3 and IVA4, clarification is required as to whether the military population of this "residential community" is included in the "affected Population" summaries. If not included in the present summary, this population must be addressed. The Commandant, Eleventh Naval District as Area Coordinator and as tasked by the Chief of Naval Operation to safeguard and promote the welfare of military personnel assigned throughout the Naval District, objects most strongly to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the reasons stated above. The report does not identify the impact on all populations within the impact area and any conclusion drawn, recommendations made or decisions rendered would be based on imcomplete and misleading information. In order to adequetely identify land uses and affected populations, the staff of the Commandant is available to work with the consultant. Sincerely, J. E. Langille, MI Rear Admiral U.S. Navy RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAN signed by J. H. Mildes Acting Director, Installations Planning Division Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (11/21/79; received 11/26/79) Response: The Public Works Office of the Eleventh Naval District states that there is currently (12/79) a total military population of 25,000-30,000 for both the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) and the Naval Training Center (MTC). Of these personnel approximately 22,200 reside, attned school, or work within the 1978 CNEL - 65 coutour. The following table lists the population by housing type and number of students impacted within the 1978 contours: Population 1978 CNEL Contour 75 70 65 Single Family Housing 1,200 1,700 1,700 Multiple Family Housing 4,300 10,200 16,200 Students 4,300 9,000 15,700 The Eleventh Naval District has projected total population of the tow bases for 1995 as being the same as in 1978. The following table summarizes the estimated impacted military population in 1995. Population 1995 CNEL Contour 75 70 65 Single Family Housing 700 1,700 1,700 Multiple Family Housing 3,500 9,000 15,400 Students 3,500 9,400 15,700 The possibility of a new funway on the Marine Corps Revruit Depot (MCRD) property as described on page 188 of the Master Plan Draft EIR is not in fact a project proposal of the Master Plan. The Master Plan Draft EIR included a reiteration of the Port District's Noise Control Plan as adopted by the Board of Port Commissioners on December 12, 1978. The Noise Control Plan, quoted in its entirety on pages 110-121 and in Appendix K, pages K-1 through K-12, in the Master Plan Draft EIR, ws included to describe in detail the existing status and alternatives that have been, or are being considered by the Board of Port Commissioners, regarding aircraft noise associated with Lindbergh Field. The concept of a new runway alignment is an alternative being considered in the Noise Control Plan. The construction of a new runway alignment as described, would provide substantial noise relief in the area west of Lindbergh Field, because it would redirect a significant portion of aricraft departures which now occur on Runway27. The Noise Control Plan reference on page 199 of the Master Plan Draft EIR stated that "...the land needed for the construction of Runway 30 is presently being used by the United States Marine Corps, and the Port District has no legal means, by eminent domain or otherwise, to acquire the property without the consent of the United States of America." The Port Master Plan assumes continuation of MCRD. The District's proposed airport peripheral road described generally in the text of the Master Plan on page 77 and illustrated in the Master Plan on Figure 9, page 73-74 is subject to negotiation with the Department of Defense. Most of the road would be located on land occupied by MCRD< however, the exact location, design and ownership of the road would be subject to consideration at a later date. Only the area for the physical location of the roadway would be proposed to be removed from MCRD use. No other areas of MCRD would be affected. The concerns of the Navy that the peripheral access road proposal may disrupt missions of the Naval Training Center (NTC) and MCRD would be interfered with, due to a continuous and unacceptable vehicular noise level and a loss of irreplaceable land area, could be dealt with in greater detail in subsequent environmental analysis. The specific details of project related impacts such as localized vehicle traffic noise and individual land use impacts are not the subject of this Draft EIR. On page 58 the Draft EIR reiterates the specific aviation policies as adopted in the San Diego Plan for Air Transportation (SANPAT) regarding the peripheral road access. SANPAT indicates that: "The City of San Diego shall coordinate the development of a Route Location Plan and an evaluation of other options for improving near term access to Lindbergh Field. This will require the joint efforts of the City of San Diego for improvement to the local arterial system. The California Depart- ment of Transportation for localized improvements to the interstate highway system, the San Diego Unified Port District for the development of improved access within the airport boundaries, the US Department of Defense for military real property right-of-way considerations, and other appropriate agencies." The statement in the Draft EIR on page 178 that, "About 400,000 gallons of raw sewage is discharged into San Diego Bay each day from ships berthed at North Island and the 32nd Street Naval Station..." is, according to the comment letter, "..approximately 160,000 gallons..." The actual discharge depends on the intensity of use and the interested reader can contact the San Diego Regional Water Control Board for up-to-date information. In addition, the text is hereby also corrected to reflect that the facilities for sewage col- lection "...have been..." as opposed to "...are currently being..." installed at the Naval Amphibious Base and elsewhere. IMPLEMENTATION OF AICUZ _________ IMPLEMENTATION OF AICUZ CONCEPT Nolce impact and accident potential are of mutual con- NAVAL AIR STATION cern tot he Navy, the public, and local government agencies. While the Navy has an obligation to operate in NORTH ISLAND a safe manner that also minimizes noise impact, local SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92125 IN REPLY REFER TO government has the responsibility to plan and zone for the protection of health, safety, and welfare of the pub- AICUZ 302/RDF: ASH lic. The successful implementation of compatible future Air Installation November 27. 1979 land use in the vicinity of NAS North Island will require COMPATIBLE USE ZONE efforts on the part of all concerned. The following STUDY Mr. Michael v. Needham cooperative actions are recommended. Assistant Environmental Management Coordinator Port of Ban Diego PO Box 488 San Diego. California 92112 Dear Mr. Needham: RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR THE I have reviewed the DEIR Master Plan, San Diego Unified Port District dated September 1979 and generally find no objection from the Airport Compatible Use Zones aspect. We do however, find some minor difficulty with the date as presented for MAS North Island (Pz 121-2). Our field operations, reported as averaging 145,000 per year (11,700) per month have fluctuated from nearly 170,000 ten years ago, to approximately 70,000 in 1973, and currently average 120,000. The Navy currently has 24 air squadrons working from North Island, plus a U.S. Customs Air Service Branch, a large flying club, 2 contract airlines and the test flights commensurate with the Naval Air Rework Facility. Speaking to the rework operation, the study states that "about 8 engine runups per day occur"... As figure IV-3, pg IV-12 of the 1979 ACIUZ study notes the accurate figures to be more on the order of 50-55 turnups, plus time duration differences, I suggest deletion of the entire engine runup paragraph as inconsequential to the EIR. Additionalyy, the 1979 study (figure VIII-I) pg VIII_2 graphically shows CNEL-65 as almost completely contained on Air Station property except a miniscule area near Sunset Park. Therefore, CNEL-65 no longer roughly follows "...Balboa Avenue in Coronado." As the EIR concludes that the Ports Master Plan area is not affected, I also recommen deletion of the 65 CNEL discussion. These relatively minor corrections are based on current operation oand noise reduction initiatives undertaken by NAS North Island. It is unfortunate that both your DEIR and our new AICUZ were simultaneously released, de- priving your planners of the most recent North Island information. I am forwarding a copy of the 1979 AICUZ under separate cover, as well as your loan copy of the draft. If i may be of further assistance, please feel free to call. (437-6906). Sincerely, Received Nov 30 1979 R. D. French Lt USN Community Liaison Officer Environmental Management RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR THE COMMUNITY Encourage future development in the AICUZ area to NAVAL AIR STATION be in keeping with the land use subitaibility guideline suggested inthe Land Use Compatibility Member. (NAS) The City of Coronado be encouraged to expand the Public Safety and Soloric Safety element of their NORTH ISLAND General Plan to consider the issue of airfield study. The City of Coronado should adopt noise insulation RECEIVED standards into the city building code. The planning should be used to locate noise generative land behind Nove 30 1979 physical noise bariers when possible. The City of San Diego should expand the application of California Noise Insulation Standards to single-family residential units in the airport vicinity. The San Diego Unified Port Districk should continue the type of development which is compatable with air operations. The City of Coronado authorities in corporation with the Department of the Navy, should discourage the development of people intensive buildings in accident potential zones. Persons or agencies seeking information about the naval air station of AICUZ should contact the com- munity Planning Liaison Officer for NAS North Island, telephone (714) 437-8908. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR THE NAVY Displace Runway 29 threshold by 650 feet and con- struct additional 650 feet on opposite end. Utilize accoustical enclourse during sensitive periods of the day and when maintenance scheduled permit. Educate and encourage pilots to continually use and reline cockpit techniques that can reduce singel event noise levels. ~0 LAND L~4qSE OBJECTIVES MATRIX WHAT ~q1~q9 AN A~qtC~2qW? The A~k I ~d~r Co~n~W~@~qf~qt~b U~s~e ~Z~qw~o~. the A~N~A~0qM WIN ~q=~0~8~q" ~Isd~e~f~t ~as~th~e~ar~e~s~w~i~th~k ~q~~11~0~0CI~U~S~S~0~0~1~1~1~1 Of s~or~qm ~l~or~qm are desirable ~1~0 ~en~qmu~qm~qp ~qW~W Uses~ Cam ~V~w~qA operations. An AICUZ Study, which ~~m~m p~o~l~l~qf~qt w~Nh So d~ord ~m No ~a~m~e of concern ~kw NAS North ~b~qW~0q4 ~v~qm ~qw~m~0q~ in F~ebr~im~i~r~y~, 19~7~9. The ~p ~F a of ~p~a~l~m~o~t~h ~onA~IC~U~Z~o~lud~y~i~s~lo~or~mu~c~e~r~m I ~qN ~d~0w~0k)~P~I~O~n~f~i~n high ~n~ai~qm ~e~q~m~qw~qm a~m~e~s~. ~l~o~m~M~k~d~qn public ~exp~o~u~qn ~4qF~0q7 ~to potential ~o~w~l~et~y h~a~qn~n~i~s associated with ~s~h~o I ~op~- ~e~m~O~m ~and~l~op ~a~t ~r~l~#~w~m~p ~"~m ~c~ep~abl~i~l~l~y~o~l~th~e ~s~k ~st~e~qf~qt. This ~n~qo IS I I d ~S~o acquaint load ME officials. ~o~qrw~4q@ I ill, ~cl~ov~el~op~o~qm ~0qm~a~l SAM b~rok~s~qm ~s~l~e~. with the A* ~a~nd ~n~o~qwn~in~end~u~qf~qt so ~qV~a~L through a ~coop~m ~d u~nd~e~r~s~t~o~wl~i~n~g. ~0 solution to Oft co~n~*~bx p~i~ab~l~o~r can be 11~, Lem W~2qW ~6q0 MERE A PROBLEM~q? I News ~ax~p~q@ %new Most ~mi~r~l I ~qf~qt-~s~lo~p~l~qo~g to ft low ~~1~01h~o~ns~o~od~f~or ~~i~f In a Some ~U~q" meow"" ~&~a~qm As a result~. ~k~q*~m~Ns~qf~qt~qm ~q~ ~w~qm~e bashed In U~nd~e~v w~e~q"wh~on~lr~ol~m ~qw~o~l ~qm~n~qm~ou~r~- ~m ~, b~y~s~ub~u~qf~qt~o~f I ~R~F~R~M~-~- %a ~'~0~0 ~I~n~th~o~o~m~mh~ol-~I -- ~c~' u~d~m~n~i~qu~qf~qt~n~.~f~n~qf~qt~m~b~o~s~n~qm~o~f ~co~n~o~m~m~m~i~s land use no ~ ~a~l ~m~qmo~ad n~o~m will ~f~m~c~- MINOR, ~qI~qSLAN~qDAIC~qI~0qM ~0qN~4q= IN ~S~8qM soft A ~U~qN of ~2~,~1~0~01~14 was Is located navy ~a~qm~r. The ~qW~d p~r~o~w~kn~a~qf~qt ~0 ft ~s~i~r~f~l~o~l~d Is ~a~k~f~P~- Th~~~"~l~a~qf~qt~b~Il~d~sp~i~ct~oftN~A~qSN~o~o~l~ql~i~0qN~w~qdA~0qC~0qM SUM ~q" b~o~u~l~p~i~g~i~s~l~i~o~; of HAS North A large~ W~i~sd~i~o high n~o~i~s~t~o ~l~o~v~e~l~e ~w~d ~s~h~ol ~qw~d~d~w~dp~qf~qtr~*d ~qInp ~u~s~in~g~O~wn~. and ~qf~qt~w nay ~n~o~t be ~&~d~qM~* In certain ~q41~q= of do- ~m~~qf~qt Now ~E~*~q*~dw~d ~L~q" ~q(C~NE~L~qJ ~w~al~u~qm This ~v~s~b~p ~qw~d C~E~~~e~mo~d~h~o~m~b~e~e~n 'no ~~b~y~e~n~S~qW~o~o~l~C~A~M~k~i~r~- Nis n p- ~0~1~7~r~w~qq~qw~t~qw~q-~l~o~r~o~p ~nN~I~A ~o~qw~er~a~t fill~, ~l~b~qa ONO for LAND USE OL~6qKCT~qr~0qM ~w~ ~~~e ~ar~ou~r~d ~@~a ~p~m is ~T~h~e am ~w~r~o~h~N so ~7~5 CNEL ~~n~our~b~i~ld~er~sIll~q0m~aNol~o~s~Z~on~e~l~lan~d ~p ~, NO ~Th~e~-~L~o~i~d~U~qW~O~qW~qK~*~qM~qM~I~qW~Oh~M~M~'~-~D ~1~11111~10~14~1 ~@ of I ~I~m~l - n~al~m~s ~qhp~a~d. Main Zone ~q& ft ~a~qm mining ~2qO~r~k but IS~' I I I ft 8 ~101~q9~4~01 land ~U~s~* INSTALLATION MISSION AND ROLE IN ~~o~o~f~t~e~e~l~o~qm~CN~E~L~e~m ~qW~, ~l~o~o~n~a~qm~e~f~o~8q*~d~qk car ~p~s~qa~qm~y ~gu~ld~s, by ~u~s~in~e ~m~qw~p~b was~, ~a~qm ~m~o~cl'~. LOCAL ECONOMY ~m~~~~w~' ~k~n~i~i~i P~a~bn~�~d~Z~w~qm~qf~A~qM~q)w~qm ~d~m~m~p~n ~* ~m tend ~q@ within to A~IC~UZ we A ~qO~m~mor~m~b~l~y dill ~o 11 1 A old land U~qf~qt ~O~N~D~M~M~V~v~qW SO The mission of ~NA~S N~o~qf~qt ~q%~qW~W ~6 ~ID ~W~A~N~11111~h ~a~r~ld of to ft slogan and D~@p~W~b~n~*~M ~a~t n ~j ~qJD~O~D~q) a Is ~m~qal~m~d~r~e~d~. The rns~l~qf~qt ~qf~qt~q*~W~qn ~0~q0 8 wide ~"I~n~g~d, ~o~f ~o~p ~h~m~qm~o~qn ~qw~d ~p ~@~W~V~N~qM ~w~w Met*" APZA p - - ~1 ~l~b~ea~r~e~m~ol~l~'~q0~1 ~so~o~ld~w~i~l~l~p 'I ~-~n ~~p ~e~m I land uses con be adds in ft are" ~s~u~p~p~o~n operations of aviation activities and units of ft APZ ~ end C ~p ~o ~i ~q@ ~a~t bow ~m~od~d~en~t PO~qW~I~- ~surr~oun~d~in~gNA~S~N~or~t~h- ~'Th~e~b~as~i~c~k~r~o~l~er~m~ent~s- ~O~qw~s~8qf~8qt Farm of ft Nay a well a ~O~#w ~qW~#~v~f~f~l~qw ~~M The AP~Z~s d~ow we ~b~o~o~s~c~l ~a~n ft shift In ft Nan ~o~q"~qw~e~q" #of ft North Island A~ICUZ is ft ~w~x~qm~w~- ~a~n~d units ~s~m, ~f~t - ~- ~, by ft am of ~H~av~all ~O~p~o~qw ~k~w~my ~211~1~1~-- d~h n ~I~m~esh~o~ld by ~0~50 ~I~qM ~q~ IS ~qw swim alto u~s~e~d~e~v~e~l~op~m~e~n~t~. ~a~nd~r~o~d~V~4~0~1~01)~"~O~n~t None~. North Is the horn~e bow for ~Na~r~v~y ~qf~qt~ed wing ~~~~~~nd~ed by go ~mu~&~f but rot ~y~e~t ~6 ~q0~*n~w A o~fp~o~l~v ~pop~i~m~l~y~i~n~w~a~y~sth~el~m~ec~o~n~V~I~NI~qN~Ow~i~f~f~I~qf~qt and rat" ~f~t ~qj~i~m~ilc~op~l~i~m~q! ~a~n~d-s~u~b~ma~dn~e ~w~qw~t~a~m ~~~O~ ~t~o ~c~on~d~ruc~t ft additional ~n~x~m~vy ~N~*~*~qW to n~o~ls~e ~0~0 h~qu~s~i~dp~o~l~on~f~ial~o~t ~a~lr~a~wl1~l~o~p~er~a~ll~q" ft Won~- ~S~*~O~d~r~a~n~a~w~h~i~d ~a~qm~c~@p~qW~@~o~l~d~op~byr~n~or~da~t~q@. NIS a oft ~w~o ~V~q* ~d~wng~e h~a~s boon placed In ~0~0 May ~I~f~l~ed In ft A~ICUZ Study. also ft h~orn~spo~rt of ~o~kc~a~f~t ~cl~i~f~f~i~qm ~W~O larger ~at~i~l~w ~~~~*u~c~qf~qtnp~i~og~o~i~m~v~m~* sy~ll~er~m am in ft S~a~n ~O~i~ag~a t~w~o~m~i~d Now. Over ~i~5~l) ~qW~qw~O ~w~W ~o~m~p~on~m ~act~i~v~i~d~e are ~1~4~1~m ~at NAS N~o~id ~qW hind. AM ZONES In addition ~t~o~l~h~@ ~qw~A~m~*~qw~o~b~qm~d at MOM -~11 -ft ~~W~~~=~i~o~d~e~b~qu~d~f~m~k~wk~d~o~o~l~a~f~qf~qt~q@~w~l~qM~qf~qt MORE INFORMATION ~it~i-Sub~madn~e Warfare~ Wing has ~~CNELc~o ~~m~-~, ~a~nd~s~o~o~l~th~eA~qK~I.~Th~e~s~s~o~or~n~b~in~i~i- ~qQ~0q*~.~r~q ~m~m~4qW points of On AICUZ we OU~1111~0~d in Oft ~s~c~h~ed~u~m~m~i~g ~co~n~t~qo over go Naval Aux" L~an~d~h Sam form 9 as stem on ~0~0 ~f~f~sP ~qi~qm~ph~i~s~t. The am study is ~ev~al~l~ab~l~e through local ~F~j~qW~. San ~C~W~"~qw~qf~qt Maid and the Outlying Field (OLF) Sim -~ The Wig area w~f~th~k the NAS North Island pu~bk ~qf~qta~r~t~a~g Nor those~ ~d~es~k~i~n~g "we ~infoff~nat~i~on. ~M~qW~d~e~l Beach. RAS North bland h~a~s ft ~m~qw~qm~qM~4qf~4qt for ~l~a~d~i~f~t~l~e~s administration ~l~d "oft two ~f~qW~qf~qt~. AICUZ AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE ZONE STUDY response to comment from: NAVAL AIR STATION, North Island signed by Lt. R. D. French Community Liaison Officer (11/27/79; received 11/30/79) Response: The revisions requested by the Naval Air Station (NAS) for data concerning field operations, rework operations, and CNEL contours, according to the 1979 Air Installation Compatible Use Zones Study (AICUZ) are hereby acknowledged in accordance with the new information as suggested in the NAS letter of comment. The 1979 AICU study was not completed at the time the Master Plan Draft EIR went to pres. Specifically, the Draft EIR, pages 121-123, are hereby revised as follows, The data are corrected to indicate theat field operationsl stated as averaging about 145,000 a year (about 11,700 per month) have fluctuated from nearly 170,000 annual operations then years ago, to approximately 70,000 in 1973, and currently average about 120,000. In addition, the Navy currently has 24 not 20, as was stated inthe Draft EIR< air squadrons working from NAS North Island, Also a US Customs Air Service Branch, a large flying club, two contract airlines, and test flights, com- mensurate with field operations, occur at the Naval Air Rework Facility (NARF). Page 121 of the Draft EIR is also hereby corrected to read that between 50 and 55 engine runups per day occur, and that additional runup duration differ- ences may occur as well. Finally, the revised noise contours of the 1979 AICUZ study indicate that the CNEL 65 contour is almost completely contained on NAS property, except for a very small area near Sunset Park. The correction, therefore, is hereby made to the statement on page 122 of the Draft EIR, based on the 1977 AICUZ Study which showed, "...a CNEL 65 contour line generally following Balboa Avenue in Coronado." This statement is hereby deleted. These minor revisions and correctiolns having been made, no further response to the NAS letter is required. The partinent sections, however, from the NAS North Island 1979 AICUZ Study have also been included as attachments to the letter of comment. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southewest Region 300 South Ferry Street Terminal Island, Calfornia 90731 November 26, 1979 P/SWR33:JJS Mr. Tomas B. Firle, Coordinator Received Environmental Management Port of San Diego Nov 28 1979 P.O. Box 488 San Diego, California 92112 Environmental Dear Tomas, Subject: Review of Draft Environmental impact Report (DEIR) - Master Plan San Diego Unified Port Distric, September, 1979 Our meeting with you and Mike Needham on October 19 was quite helpful in explaining the overall San Diego Master Plan/DEIR package. The most impressive aspects of the DEIR are the biological resource and water/sediment quality figures presented. The information provided throughout the section on Biological Setting appears to be accurate and leaves the reviewer with a good knowledge of the resources involved. The disappointing aspect of the DEIR is that the body of biological data developed is never used in the text to document specific damages expected fromt he imple- mentation of the various projects proposed in the Plan. In out letter of January 24, 1979 to your office it was suggested that without project specific estimates concerning the amount of dredging and/or filling predicted during Port development, an accurate assessment of environmental impacts could not be made. It was our assumption that the DEIR would address that issue and state a com- prehensive program for mitigating and/or compensating the projected environmental damages. Instead, the Master Plan DEIR indicates that expected impacts and mitigation necessary will be dealt with in separate enrironmental reviews and supplementary EIR's as appropriate. This sounds as though it may lead to further picemeal planningof habitat compen- sation on a project by project basis. The potential exists that significant cummulative environmental damages will occur from several of the projects planned for develop- ment (e.g. Chula Vists Boat Basin Peninsula "J" Street extension, the Sweetwater Wharf project, and the Rohr Boatyard improvements). To minimize the economic expenses of mitigation/compensation while November 26, 1979 2 maximizing resource benefits, a comprehensive plan should be de- veloped now to deal with expected impacts to the South Bay. The final environmental imkpact report (DEIR) for the Master Plan should lay the ground work for developing a comprehensive plan of compensatin. The FEIR should address the immediate need for such a program, indicate a schedule for program development, and list the agencies whose participation would be required during that develop- ment process. Either I or Bob Hoffman would be glad to give you what help we can in that regard. Sincerely yours, James J. Slawson Chief, Environmental Assessment Branch cc: CDF&G, Long Beach, R. Mall USFWS, Laguna Niguel, Ralph Pisapia CCC, San Francisco, Mike Dadasovich RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: NATIOINAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE signed by James J. Slawson Chief, Environmental Assessment Branch (11/26/79; received 11/28/79) Response: Regarding the biological resources and water/sediment quality information provided in the Draft EIR, it was not intended to document specific impacts anticipated from implementation of various projects proposed inthe Master Plan. Master Plan land/water use designations and various project concepts, within each of the nine Planning Districts, constiture the "Project" addressed by the Draft EIR. The project, therefore, is the entire Master Plan, not an individual construction project, but an areawide, comprehensive planning document. Since the details of design, location, and operation of possible future facilities are not known with certainty, such a detailed level of im- pact analysis as was aticipated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is inappropriate and infeasible. Specific estimates of the amount of dredging and/or filling anticipated to result from Master Plan implementation can only be identified by general location rather than by area coverage or actual volumne of material to be dredged or filled. Information on dredge/fill proposals is generally discussed on page 18 of the Master Plan, under the heading, Dredging. Filling and Shore- line Protectin. It indicates that acomprehensive program for shoreline erosion protection and enhancement has been integrated into the Master Plan. This program includes proposals for minor dredge/fill activity for maintenance and protection. Most of these were discussed and disseminated for comments earlier (UPD 78102-EIR-25, SCH #78110636). In addition, exclusive of shoreline erosion, stabilization and replenishment projects, locations which include Port District proposals for major dredge/fill projects, listed according to Port Planning Districts, are as follows: Planning Districts Dredge and/or fill Proposals Shelter Island - Beach Restoration. Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field - Small Aquatic Center: dredge to re- move silt discharged from City storm drain. Centre City/Embaracadero - Marine Equipment Site: dredge for access and adequate berthing. Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal - Marine Terminal Berths 7 and 8: dredge for adequate water depth for bulk vessels. - Boatyard: dredge for boat launch/re- trieval platform. National City Bayfront - Completion of Terminal Wharf: dredge for additional rock revetemnt for wharf expansion. Coronado Bayfron - No major dredge or fill proposals. Chula Vista Bayfron - D Street Wharf: dredge for deep water berthing clearance and sea wall construction. - Expansion Reserve: dredge and fill to create additional 35 acres. - Boat Basin: channel entrance dredge for completion of basin interior. - Peninsula Extension: fill be create 62 acre area. Silver Strand South - No Major dredge or fill proposals. South Bay Salt Lands - No major dredge of fill proposals. Additional detail on dredge/fill related proposals is provided inthe Master Plan throughout pages 57-140. The NHFS letter of comment indicated that adverse environmental impacts may result from implementation of some Port projects in South San Diego Ban. MNFS expressed particular concern for the Chula Vista Boat Basin Peninsula J. Street Extension, the Sweetwater Wharf (D Street Wharf) project, and the Rohr Boatyard improvements. The Draft EIR acknowledged the potential for environmental impacts from these proposals on pages 240-243, 245, 247-248, and 251-253. In addition, in response to a suggestion by NMFS, a comprehensive approach, for mitigation/compensation of potential biological habitat losses which may result from implementation of Master Plan proposals, has been begun by the Port District. The Port of San Diego is continuing to coordinate closely with various Federal and State resources agencies to develop a natural resource management approach to the South San Diego Bay area, in conjunction with those Port projects which have the potential for impact on identified sensitive biological resources. Such a comprehensive and coordinated approach has several advantages over habitat compensation sought out on a project by project basis. From a biological standpoint, habitat compensation on a project by project basis does not represent a sound approach to natural resource management. The habitat value of most South San Diego Bay areas exists in a continuous sense, not on a parcel by parcel basis. As an example, fishes and other marine life being mobile organisms often utilize many portions of South San Diego Bay within a given time frame. Project impacts and mitigation measures, therefore, have the potential to affect locations other than those specifically confined within the project boundaries. Providing mitigation/compensation measures over an entire area is consequently far preferable, from a resource management standpoint, to applying mitigation/compensation measures at many different locations within the same large area. A comprehensive compensation plan would also provide federal and state resources agencies with an overall opportunity to review and consider the potential areas wherein mitigation and compensation for habitat losses could be feasibly achieved. From an economic standpoint, the application of individual mitigation measures in conjunction with each propoal is more time consuming and consequently more costly than a comprehensive approach. Port District procedures and federal and state processes are more difficult to coordinate on an individual basis, and are often times repetitive. The District's development of a comprehensive compensation or natural re- source management plan has already included preliminary field visits to candidate compensation areas in South San Diego Bay. Representatives of the California State Department of Fish and Game have recently (12/79) accompanied District staff to South Bay areas adjacent to the County of San Diego MArine Biology Reserve, and the J Street Marsh area, adjacent tot he San diego Gas & Electric Company South Bay Generating Station. A compensation plan for physical habitat losses, primarily in South San Diego Bay, associated with certain Master Plan porposals could be mutually agreed upon by the District and federal and state resources agencies involved, prior to June 30, 1981, with subsequent implementation by the Port District within two years following such an agreement. Those agencies' participation which would be required during that development process could include at least the following: US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service National MArine Fisheries Services California State Department of Fish & Game San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board The Port of San Diego is prepared to consider such an approach to a compre- hensive compensation plan on a pilot basis for candidate areas, given some form of participation from the various agencies listed above. Such a program would necessarily include time limits for implementation and applicability, binding agency agreements for pre-mitigation for portions of anticipated projects, and specific site location and sompensation aspects proposed for candidate areas. Some compensation techniques currently being considered as possibly feasible by the District include: selgrass transplants, marsh habitat enhancemwnt, modifications such as minor dredging of intertidal or supratidal areas for shallow lagoon creation, minor filling and/or clearing of selected areas as site preparation for California least term nesting, and tidal marsh/salt flat area creation using marsh vegetation planting or trans- planting techniques. State Of California Governor's Office Received Office of Planning and Research Dec 19 1979 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento 95914 Environmental Management December 15, 1979 Tomas E. Firle San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 488 San Diego, Ca 92112 Subject: SCH# 78030604 "Port of San Diego Master Plan EIR" (UPD #78102-EIR-1) Dear Mr. Firle: State agencies have commented on your draft environmental document (see attached). If you would like to discuss the concerns and recommendations in their comments, contact the staff from the agencies whose names and addresses appear on the comments. You may formally respond to the agencies' comments by writing to them (including the State Clearinghouse number on all such correspondence). When filing the Final EIR, you must include all comments and responses (State EIR Guidelines, Section 15146). State review of your draft environmental document will then be complete. To aid in preparing environmental assessments on future projects, you should send to state agencies and the Office of Planning and Research your Notice of Preparation as prescribed by AB 894 and Section 15066 of the EIR Guidelines. If you would care for assistance or if the need arises, the office of Planning and Research is available to help identify responsible agencies, distribute Notices of Preparation, organize coordination meetings, mediate disputes, and hold consolidated hearing. Please contact Laura Ericson at (916) 443-0613 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephen Williamson State Clearinghouse Attachment cc: Ken Fellows, DWP ` RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE signed by Stephen Williamson (11/15/79; received 12/19/79) Response: The State Clearinghouse, part of the Governor's Office, verified compliance with the environmental review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), having received comments from the state agencies listed and attached as indicated previously. Accordingly, the collective responses to comments received, when appended to the Draft EIR constitute the Final EIR. Contained herein are the responses tothe agencies' comments in writing included as per State EIR guidelines. All respondents are provided copies of the responses which are also transmitted to the State Clearinghouse. The transmittal and inclusion of comments and responses concludes the State review process of the Draft EIR. State of California, Edmund G. Jr. Governor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor November 20, 1979 San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 543-8555 Received Mr. Tomas E. Firle Nov 28 1970 Environmental Management Port of San Diego Environmental P.O. Box 488 San Diego, CA 92112 Management Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report - Master Plan, San Diego Unified Port District Dear Tomas: The staffs of the State and San Diego Regional Coastal Commissions have reviewed the draft environmental impact report for the San Diego Unifed Port District Master Plan. The document serves well as an environmental data base or "master environ- mental settin" and the graphic materials are particularly well done. However, the value of the report as an "impact statement" is marginal. With so few adverse impacts identified it would appear that the port have considered a negative declaration on the Master Plan rather than an impact report. More attention should be paid to those categories of development listed in the Plan as appealable under Section 30715 of the CoastalAct. These projects include the hotel complexes suggested for a number of planning districts, new marinas and marina support facilities, the extensionof Tidelands Avenue which the State Commission has already suggested as having severe adverse impacts on coastal resources, the fill area proposed for both the Chula Vista peninsula and extension of "H" Avenue needs greater impact analysis. Developments affecting wetlands or recreation areas must conform to the more restrictive policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The DEIR indicates that adverse impacts may be associated with developments proposed for the Chula Vista planning district, but the impact analysis is incomplete. Socio-economic impacts include those planning area activities or project implenentations which are likely to generate public controversy. For example, developments proposed affecting Coronado or Barrio Logan should receive more than the brief attention paid to them in both the Master Plan and DEIR. The document is lacking analysis of hazardous material transport or storage. The Coastal Commission is increasinly concerned over activities or operations which pose risks to vulnerable resource areas. Concentrations of visitor and resident populations in close proximity to industrialized port activities around the bay need to be given greater safety analysis in the DEIR. In conclusion, the list of agencies and individuals contacted as well as the DEIR dis- tribution list is incomplete. Federal interests in port planning such as Marad and OCZM should be contacted. Public interest groups should receive copies of the DEIR particularly where such group have spoken at port or Coastal Commission hearing on Port of San Diego planning. We would recommend withholding adoption of the DEIR until such distribution and contact together with an extended review period are accorded to other parties. Sincerely, Michael Dadasovich Ports Coordinator MD:lr cc: Fred Trull RESPONSE ETO COMMENT FROM: CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL COMMISSION signed by Michael Dadasovich Port Coordinator (11/20/79; received 11/23/79) Response: The comments regarding the Draft EIR as an "impact statement" perhaps would be appropriate for a project specific Draft EIR but are not partinent to this Draft EIR written on the Port's entire Master Plan. It should be noted that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that ERI's be written at a level of detail and a degree of specificity commen- surate with that of the project being analyzed. In this case, the project is the entire Master Plan, not an individual construction project, but an areawide compreshensive planning document. In the case of project specific EIR's wherein details of location, design, and operation of possible future facilities are known with much greater certainty, such a levelof analysis is possible and appropriate. For any general plan, or in this case, the Port's Master Plan, such a detailed level of analysis is not only inappropriate, but is infeasible at this early planning stage. It should also be noted that the Port of San Diego's land/water use is considerably more diversified than those of, say, Long Beach or Los Angeles. For those ports the marine terminal areas and projects can indeed be more detailed. A Negative Declartation was considered inappropriate as there are planning issues which are considered controversial. Environmentally, pages 247-248 of the Draft EIR summarize several unavoidable short-term impacts. Seven un- avoidable short-term impacts and six unavoidable long-term impacts have been identified. Pages 221-245 of the Draft EIR discuss, in greater detail, en- vironmental impacts and mitigating measures of all 14 pertinent environmental assessment categories including: Land and Water Use, Open Space, Air Trans- portation, Circulation, Navigation, Public Services and Facilities, Socio- Economic Characteristics/Growth, Visual Quality, Noise Quality, Climate/Air Quality, Energy, Biology, Water and Sediment Quality, and Landform/Geology/arch- ceology. Potential impacts in these environmental categories have also been described in the summary and Major Conclusions section of the Draft EIR on pages 1-7. For some identified projects, particularly those further along in the conceptionalization and design stages of project planning, the degree of specificity in the impact analysis is greater than for those areas where specific projects have not yet been (or may not be) palnned or designed in any great detail. Examples of this are the proposed Chula Vista Boat Basin, J Street Second Peninsula Extension, and the Sweetwater Wharf (D Street Wharf) Improvements. Although the land and water areas for these proposals have been generally designated in the planning sense, no specific design or construction details have yet been formalized. As indicated on Table 19 on page 126 of the Master Plan, construction would not occur before 1989 and 1992, respectively. If either of these two projects were currently in the design stages, analysis of some or all of the following impacts might be included. The Peninsula Extension fill could result in the loss of about 62 acres of shallow subtidal habitat in an area in South San Diego Bay known to include sensitive biological resources. It is likely that disturbances or loss to selgrass beds, benthic (bottom dwelling) marine animals, and populations of several fishes, many with commerical and/or recreationsl importance, would occur. The habitat value of the site and adjacent areas as fish nursery grounds would likely be diministed. A subsequent deterioration in water quality, e.g., diminshed dissolved oxygen (DO) and nutrient exchange could occur as a result of decreased water circulation and tidal flushing. Ul- timate development of the area complete with marinas and boatyards would have the potential to affect water/sediment quality and biological habitat value. However, designs can be developed to minimize identified impacts, mitigate the project, and compensate appropriately. Obviously, specifics must await having a definite project proposal fro analysis. The Sweetwater Wharf (also called D Street Wharf) and D Street Expansion Reserve dredging and seawall construction would have the potential to dis- turb or eliminate about 24 acres of Tidal Marsh and Salt Flat Succulent terrestrial plant habitat and about 20 acres of eelgrass beds and mudflat habitat. The potential for adverse biological and water/sediment quality impacts which could result from such developments would be similar in nature to those identified for the Pensinsula Extension proposal. The impacts could, however, have greater importance, due to the close proximity of the project area to the Sweetwater/Paradise Creek Marsh Complex, and the nearby known habitats of three rare and endangered bird species, including the California least tern (Sterna albifrons browni), the light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), and the Belding's Savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwishensis beldingi). In addition, two species of rare and endangered terrestrial plants, the Palmer's franenia (frankenia palmari) and the salt marsh bird's beak (cordylanthus maritimus maritimus) are known to exist in the area, and could be impacted by the preposal. Again, design/mitigation/ compensation may well be feasible, particularly as utilization of the deep draft ship channel becomes necessary in some years ahead. The previous discussion is based on the resources inventory information pre- vided in the Draft EIR on pages 155-179, and pages 240-243. These proposals and others within or in close proximity to sensitive biological resources would likely receive subsequent environmental review and, as appropriate, EIR's. Attention should also be directed to pages 11-13 of the Draft EIR which describes it as a foundation document, not intended to be project specific in its impact assessment. Specific environmental documents would be prepared as appropriate for each development project when specific uses and locations are determined. An analysis of the Master Plan and conformance with the California Coasta Act of 1976 is provided in Appendix B of the Master Plan. A detailed section by section compliance analysis relates all of the applicable requirements of the Coastal Act (referenced by section) to the Port Master Plan. The comments summarize Master Plan compliance and reference by page number, where the in- formation may be found in the MAster Plan. Appealable and nonappealable projects (as defined in the Coastal Act) are treated alike in the Draft EIR, because environmental consequences arise from the type and location of development, not from the fact that they are appealable by law or not. For both cases possible impacts are analyzed in this Master Plan EIR without engaging in, at this early planning stage, in- conclusive studies. The following information summarizes the possible general impacts of various types of appealable developments, and indicates where such developments wouldoccur, i.e., within which Planning Disctict, under the Port Master Plan. Development Potential Impacts Hotels: Increased vehicular traffice with potential impacts relating to noise, air pollution, traffic congestion, visual impacts, and increased parking demands. Increased utility and fuel consumption. Increased use of public recreation resources. Increased employment and economic benefits. Possible view blockage. Marinas: Increased vehicle traffic with asociated impacts, sinilar to that for hotels. Possible degradatoin of water quality because of dredging, overboard discharge, toxic hull paint. Increased utility and fuel consumption. Economic and social benefits of additional recrea- tional facilities. Possible adverse effect on benthic (bottom dwelling) marine life and other marine resources. Commerical Fishing: Potential impacts similar to marinas. Shopping Facilities: Increased vehicle traffic with associated impacts, similar to that for hotels. Increase utility and fuel consumption. ` Increased employment and enconomic benefits. Possible view blockage. The following summariezes the location of proposed appealable projects (pur- suant to the Coastal Act) within the various Planning Districts under th Port Master Plan. Planning District Major Proposed Appealable Projects Shelter Island: None, only beach corrider improvements and restaurant renovations. Harbor Island/ Marina, aquatic center, airport access road, Hotel Lindbergh Field: complex. Centre City/ Marina, commerical fishing berthing/support, Embarcadero: shopping facilities, Harbor Drive Reroute, Hotels. Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal: None. National City Bayfront: Shopping facilities, Tidelands Avenue Extension. Coronado Bayfront: Hotel. Chula Vista Bayfront: Marina, commerical fishing, public park, restaurant, peninsula development. Silver Strand South: ` Marina, Shoreline park. South Bay Salt Lands: None. Again, it should be noted that future project proposals such as new marinas and marina support facilities and hotel complexes would be subject to sub- sequent environmental review and may require additional environmental documents. As indicated on pages 45-47 of the Draft EIR, the impact analysis on the extension of Tidelands Avenue has already been addressed in detail in the Chula Vista Bayfront Redevelopment Project EIR prepared by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency (1976). The findings were incorporated by reference in this Draft EIr. Possible circulation impacts of the proposed extension of Tidelands Avenue were also addressed on pages 228-230 of the Draft EIR. It is noted on page 230 of the Draft EIR that: "The Tidelands Avenue extension would mitigate traffic incease impacts associated with development in the G and H street areas." It is not anticipated that the Port District's link- up connection with the extension of Tidelands Avenue from the City of Chula Vista would contribute to the concerns over potential adverse impacts on coastal resources indicated by the State Coastal Commission. The extension of Tidelands Avenue from the National City Marine Terminal across the proposed bridge over the existing Sweetwater Channel, onto the barren D Street fill would not likely result in a potential for significant adverse environmental impacts on coastal resources. It would previde a link-up with a more south- easterly extension into the City of Chula Vista's Bayfront Redevelopment Plan area; it is in that area, namely the Sweetwater River/Paradise Creek Complex, that the majority of concerns have been expressed. Coastal resource impacts, particularly biological impacts, in this area have already been adequately addressed in the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency EIr, incorporated by re- ference on pages 45-47 of this Draft EIR. The master plan does not propose an extension of H Avenue. The area of the so- called H Street fill between G. Street and H Street shown in the Master Plan as Commerical Recreation would be connected to Tidelands Avenue by a short exten- sion of an access street which would follow the general east-west alignment of H Street, but would not constitute an actual connection or extension to H Street. The Draft EIr indicates that adverse impacts may be associated with proposals in the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District, but detailed impact analysis of such proposals cannot proceed to completion until such time as project speci- fic elements aredeveloped for those areas. At that time individual projects would be subject to environmental review under CEOA, and subsequent environ- mental documents focusing on the potential for individual environmental im- pacts could be written as appropriate. Socio-economic impacts, particularly those project implementations likely to generate controversy, were given more than "brief attention" in the preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR points out the work of the Coronado Bayfron "Ad How Committee and Coronado's concerns on at least the following pages: 4, 8-9, 42-43, 76-78, 222-223, 228, 230, and 249. Teh rationale for anlyzing land/water use plans for the Coronado Bayfront area, although rejected by the City of Coronado, was to obtain a base line of petential impacts. This was carried out in considerable detail in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan Draft EIR (UPD #78102-EIR-2; SCH #78112818), which included a public hearing before the Board of Port Commissioners on February 6, 1979. At that hearing the Board agreed to further review the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan, and hold further environmental avaluation in abeyane until a joint decision was reached with the City of Coronado. The existing land/water use porposals in the Master Plan represent that decision. The Board of Port Commissioners, on December 18, 1979, adpoted by Resolution 79-338 a memorandum of Understanding with the City of Coronado concerning tideland development; the City of Coronado adopted the Memorandum on December 19, 1979, by Resolution 5909. In similar fashion, proposed developments which may affect the Barrio Logan area were also given more than brief attention. The issue of the Barrio residents' desire for nearby bay access through an established heavy in- dustrial marine terminal area was described in the Draft EIr on pages 8, 40, and 74-76. This waterfront area has been in active industrial use for de- cades; statements to the contrary are incorrect. Teh regulation of the storage and transportation of hazardous materials with- in the San Diego Bay area is the responsibility of agencies other than the San Diego Unified Port District. The Federal Office of Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), various state safety inspections, including the Air Resources Board (ARB) through the local San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD), and local city fire inspectors and building departments regulale siting and construction of such facilities. In San Diego Bay, hazardous materials are limited to military munition. (US Defense Department responsibility), petroleum fuels, and miscellaneous chemicals. Storage of petroleum fuels occurs at Lindbergh Field (aviation and jet fuels) marine and land service stations (gasoline and diesel fuels), marine terminals (bunker fuels,), and the National City industrial area (fuel oil for electric generators). None of the major fuel storage areas are in close proximity to residential areas and only a few are near public recreation areas. No residential uses are permitted on Port tidelands, consequently, no existing nor proposed residential area would in the future be located in close prox- imity to areas of storage or transportation of hazardous materials. Hazar- dous chemicals are limited to industrial areas, primarily in the marine in- dustrial area, and the southern portionof the Tenth Avenue Marine Termianl Planning District. The transportation of hazardous material over waters is regulated by the US Coast Guard, which regularly inspects those fuel facilities capable of filling vessels with a capacity of 250 barrels or more. There are eight such facilities in San Diego Bay located within Port Planning Districts as follows: Shelter Island: Harbor Boat and Yacht Company Harbor Island: Marina Cortez Fuel Dock; San Diego Marine Service Embarcadero: Embarcadero Marine Services Tenth Avenue: Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal; Tuna Clipper Marine; Bumble Bee Sea Foods National City: San Diego Gas and Electric Company Since only low-volatility petroleum fuels are transported by ship, the danger opf major hazard is remote. In addition, the relatively low volume of ship traffic in San Diego Bay and the ample nameuvering space available lessens the chance of collision or grounding. Land transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by state and Federal laws. Truck and railroad freight routes generally pass through non-residen- tial areas, with the exception of some mixed residental/industrial areas in Barrio Logan near the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal. The City's zoning since the mid-1930's for this area has been primarily industria. Finally, it should be stressed that the Mster Plan proposes no major fuel storage or hazardous material handlin facilities. The fuel docks shown on the Planning District maps are intended to be small facilities which would only serve the needs of local boating or as support facilities for the marinas wherein they are designed. At the request of Coastal staff, copies of the Draft EIR were also sent to the federal office of Coastal Zone Management and to the Maritime Administration. Comments have not been received (2/80). A master distribution list for public interest groups and individuals including those iinterested in Coastal and port planning was obtained from the State Coastal staff and was used as the basis for public notification of the filling of the Final EIR and announcing the proposed date of Certification of the Master Plan EIR. The list contained more than 500 addresses. Additionally, newspaper notices were published. Regarding conformance of the Port Master Plan with the Coastal Act, refer- encing appealable projects for conformance is primarily a planning issue rather than an environmentally related issue. If ultimately project proposals are found not to be in conformance, the Master Plan could not be certified. Projects as presented in the Master Plan project lists for each Planning District are assumed to conform to the Coastal Act at the outset. This is indicated in detail in the compliance analysis in Appendix B of the Port's Master Plan. If the California State Coastal Commission proposes changes or imposes conditions during the Port Master Plan certification process, subsequent environmental analysis may be required to evaluate the environmental consequences of these revisions. The Resources Agency MEMORANDUM TO 1. Jim burns, Projects Coordinator DATE: November 21, 1979 Resources Agency 2. San Diego Unified Port District Received P.O. Box 488 Nov 20 1979 San Diego, California 92112 ENVIRONMENTAL FROM: Department of Fish and Game MANAGEMENT Subject: SCM 78030604L - Port of San Diego Port Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) We have reviewed subject document which provides an evaluationof the existing environmental conditions and an assessment of the impacts associated with the implementationof the proposed Port MAster Plan. We have previously reviewed the Preliminary Draft Port Master Plan and provided comments to the Port on January 4, 1979. These comments are still relevant and are appended for the Port Districts further consideration. With regard to the DEIR, first of all we commend the Port for their efforts and results in assimilating and portraying Biological Resources data as shown on Figues 17-24. We believe these figures will prove beneficial to future project reviews as they relate to habitat modifications. In addition we have the following specific comment: 1. Page 142 - The section titled Animal Life/Including Rare and Endangered should also include the green sea turtle as an endagered species. This species was so designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in January 1979. 2. Figures 17 and 20-24 should also designate California least tern foraging areas in addition to designated neating areas. The attached proposed critical habitat areas for the least term delineate both nesting and foraging areas for this species. In addition this species has been observed feeding within the Sweetwater Channel, the shallow subtidal area adjacent to the 24th Street Marine Terminal, the Coronado Bayfront, and Glorietta Bay shallow subtidal areas and adjacent to Crown Island and the U.S. Navy Am- phibious Base shallow subtidal areas. 3. Page 166 - Sea Turtle Habitat - This section states that the habitat for this species is limited to south San Diego Bay adjacent to the cooling water discharge of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company. We suggest that this is not the only area utilized by this species within the Bay. Rather, we would expect the animal to inhabit other locations particulary areas con- taining eelgrass beds. That plant serves as a primary food source and is considered as one of the principal ecological factors determining sea turtle distribution. 4. Page 172 - Unique Habitat Associations - The green sea turtle is known to feed directly on eelgrass and should be included in this section along with the least tern which feeds on juvenile fish associated with eelgrass beds. 1. Jim Burns -2- November 21, 1979 2. San Diego Unified Port District 5. Page 178 - Contamination Sources - This section should mention the Naval Training Center Estuary as a possible non-point source of water pollution. In past correspondence with the Department, this area has been identified by the Port District as a possible source of high coliform bacteria counts which exceed water contact limits as well as shellfish harvesting limits established by the State Health Department. This possible source of water pollution has been suggested as the principal impediment to establishment of a clam bed enhancement/mitigation project on the southeastern end of Shelter Island. 6. Page 240 - Biology-Impacts - We are in disagreement with the statement inparagraph five that portrays Master Plan proposals as not having the potential for having significant adverse environmental impacts upon rare and endangered animals. In particular, we believe our comments regarding least tern feeding areas ( see out Item 2 and Attachment #2) contradicts this comment. Further, the reference to "areas of maximum biological sensitivity" as having been identified elsewhere in the DEIR is unclear in its context here, particularly when the comment is offered that the Master Plan includes no proposals that would impact such resources. We believe that this comment is inconsistent with the thoughts expressed in paragraph four on the same page which portrays possible significant impacts from the Sweetwater Wharf and Chula Vista projects. We believe those sites contain areas of biological sensitivity. 7. Page 231 - Paragraph three - It is premature for the Port District to claim that it "has constructed the single largest artificial wildlife reserve of its kind in the Continental United State" (emphasis added). Unteil the island is completed, design elements implemented and its value clearly documented, it does not constitute and expansion and enhancement of natural biological habitat as claimed. The future may prove other- wise, but at present, it would seem difficult to characterize the area as being more than a large spoil island. If there are ny questions regarding our comments, please contact Mr. R. E. Mall, Environmental Services Supervisor, 350 Golden Shore, Long Beach, California 90802. The phone number is (213)590-5155. Director Attachment ATTACHMENT #1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY MEMORANDUM To 1. L. Frank goodson - Projects Coordinator DATE: January 4, 1979 Resources Agency 2. Mr. Frederick H. Trull, Planning Director RECEIVED San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 488 Nov 30 1979 San Diego, CA 92112 ENVIRONMENTAL From Department of Fish and Game MANAGEMENT Subject SCH 78030604 - Preliminary Draft Port Master Plan, San Diego Unified Port District We have reviewed the subject document which presents the Port District's planning goals and policies and a brief summarization of the precise plans for the nine planning districts within the Port District's jurisdiction. Our Marine Resources Region previously reviewed and provided comments to the District with regard to a Notice of Preparation for this Master Plan in a letter dated April 7, 1973, and again in a review of a document iden- tified as the 1972 Port Master Plan in a letter dated June 9, 1978. The Region's comments regarding those documents are still relevant and should not be considered as diminished in any manner by our present response to the subject document. As a result of this review, we have prepared comments on part of Section III - Master Plan Interpretation oand for Sectoin IV - Precise Plans. In response to Section III, we offer the following comments: 1. In the discussion of the 31.1 acre Expansion Reserve (page 20) there is no provision for consideration of fish and wildlife habitat protec- tion needs. We consider this one of the most important issues that should be recognized in future planning for this area. 2. In the discussionof Habitat Replacement (page 36), the concept is offered of providing replacement habitat for economically important species. While the langueage does not seem to preclude the considera- tion of living resources in general, the necessity for focusing on those of economic importance is unclear to us and perhaps needs expan- sion. We would also add here that while we recognize the potential benefits that may accure to certain fish and wildlife resources from the creation of the so-called habitat Replacement Area, we also believe that: (1) the primary reason for the constructionof the area was for spoil disposal in order to render the Chula Vista Marina project econo- mically feasible; (2) the project was ititially offered in the context of mitigating impacts from the constructionof the Chula Vista Marina; and (3) before too many claims are made by the Port that fish and wild- life habitat in San Diego Bay has been adequately replace via this mechanism, the project ought to be proven. We are certainly hopeful that this will occur. 1. L. Frank Goodson 2. Frederick H. Trull -2- January 3, 1979 With respect to the Precise Plans of Section IV, we have listed those areas which contain habitat and associated resources that are of particular interest to the Department. We recommend that the Port District focus upon these habi- tat types and associated resources in the Port Master Plan EIR in terms of environmental inventory, impact analyses, alternative planning modes, and miti- gation consideration. These areas are listed by Planning District and are as follows: Planning District 1 - Shelter Island The district is essentially fully developed but still retains clam beds located along the southeastern and southwestern ends of Shelter Island. These resources are presently utilized by recreational clam diggers. In addition, the southeastern clam bed is the site of a proposed enhancement project. Therefore, we believe that any dredging or fill projects, as well as other projects which would impact these areas, should be avoided or minimized. Planning District 2 - Harbor Island/Lindberg Field This area is completely developed except for the northeastern side of Harbor Island and is designated as recreational and specialized berthing within the marina zone. Our concerns for that site focus on the possbile degradationof water quality and any resultant impact on marine resources. Also of concern is the possible loss of marine habitat resulting from dredging and/or fill operations which may be necessary to provide the pro- posed facilities. Planning District 3 - Center City/Embarcadero Our interest within this planning district focuses on the proposed 400 berth marina at the Fifth Avenue Marina. Our concerns here are the same as those expressedfor the Harbor Island area. Planning District 4 - Tenth Avenue Marina Terminal Our concerns for this area are minor and relate to the limited amounts of dredging associated with the proposed channel and berth deepening to accommodate larger draft vessels. The impacts associated with this pro- ject would probably be short term loss of benthic organisms and possibly water quality degradation from the resuspension of contaminated sediments. Planning District 5 - National City Bayfront The reach along the Sweetwater Channel and the remaining undeveloped bay- front is this District and particularly as they relate to the undeveloped areas in District 7, are of major interest to the Department and develop- ment proposals that will impact these areas constitute a major concern For example, the proposed wharf completion would (1) eliminate the remain- ing shallow water subtidal and mudflat habitat within the immediate area thus impacting a feeding area of the California least tern adn (2) elimi- nate marine resources which utilize these habitat types. Activities asso- ciated with the development and use of this area could also impact adjacent (District 7) proposed critical habitat for the endangered light-footed clapper rail and least tern. 1. L. Frank Goodson 2. Frederick H. Trull -3- January 3, 1979 Planning District 6 - Coronado Bayfront The proposed revetment and marine facilities, which may require some dredg- ing and fill, could impact eelgrass and sandy inter and subtidal habitats and their associated resources. Planning District 7 - Chula Vista Bayfront The greatest ptoential for disagreements between the Department's interests and the Port District's planning efforts exist in proposals for District 7 and the immediately adjacent portions of District 5. The Sweetwater Marsh- Paradise Creek - D Stree fillcomplex and the adjacent inter and subtidla habitats are specific areas within the planning district that are of interest to the Department. These areas are generally within the proposed critical habitat for both the least tern and the clapper rail. As such, they are essential to the continued well being of those species as well as for other organisms that depend upon those habitats. This planning district is relatively undeveloped, except for the Chula Vista small boat basin and existing industrial area. Future developments, such as the extension of Tidelands Avenue, expansion of the esisting industrial area. constructionof the proposed peninsula, and extension of D Street fill all have the potential to significantly impact the existing terrestiral and aqua- tic habitats that are important to a variety of species. Planning District 8 - Silver Strand South Within this planning district, are the inter and subtidal marine habitat that could be impacted by dredging for proposed berthing along the southern side of North Island and the southern end of the Coronado Cays Company pro- perty. Dredging within these areas could significantly impact marine resources. In addition, any development on North Island could impact the endangered California least tern which successfully nested on this area during 1978. Planning District 9 - South Bay Salt Lands We concur with the conservation classification of this planning district. We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Preliminary Draft Port Master Plan. Should there be any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. Rolf E. MAll, Environmental Services Supervisor, 350 Golden Shore, Long Beach, California, 90802. His phone number is (213) 590-5140. Director Proposed California Least Tern Critical Habitat Area ATTACHMENT #2 North San Diego Bay, San Diego, California. Essential Habitat includes: 1. All land, excluding established, paved runways and taxiways, in an area bound by a line beginning at the intersection of the west edge of Runway 9 (ease as Runway 31) and the south edge of the north taxiway (paralleling Runway 27), extending 2,600 feet northwestwardly along the west edge of Runway 9, thense extending southwesterly along a line parallel with and 100 feet from the east boundary fence of U.S. Marine Corps Recreuit Depot a distance of approximately 2,400 feet to the north edge of the south taxiway (paralleling Runway 27), thence extending approximately 3,600 feet along the orth edge of the south taxiway to the wast edge of Runway 31, thence extending 750 feet southeast along the east edgge of Runway 31, thence extending northeastward along a line perpendicular to Runway 31 a distance of 750 feet, thence extending northward along a line perpendicular to Runway 27 a distance of approximately 750 feet to the south edge of the north taxiway, thence extending approximately 2,000 feet westward along the south edge of the north taxiway to its intersection with the west edge of Runway 9. Area includes approximately 80 acres. 2. All open, tidal waters of San Diego Bay bound on the west by longitude 117o13'co"W, on the south by latitude 32o 43'10"N, on the east by longitude 117o10"40"W and on the north by harbor Drive. Areas includes approximately 750 acres. U.S.G.S. map: Point Loma, Calif., [email protected]/7.5X9,1967. Refer to Map E. Proposed Calfornia Least Tern Critical Habitat Area South San Diego Bay, San Diego County, California. Essential habitat includes all land and water bodies in an area of approximately 4,300 acres bound by a line beginning at the intersection of Silver Strand Boulevard and latitude line 32o37'00"N, extending east along this latitude line approxi- mately 1,500 feet to longitude 117o07'47"W, thence extending north along this longitude line approximately 2,400 feet to Grande Caribe Causeway, Coronado Cays, thence extending eastward approximately 700 feet along Grand Caribe Causeway and its barard extension to longitude 117o07'40"W, thence extending north approximately 9,000 feet to latitude 32o39'00"N, thencie extending east approximately 2,700 feet along this latitude line to the mean high water line of the east shore of San Diego Bay, thence extending south- ward approximately 900 feet along the mean high water line to the north bank of Sweetwater Channel, national City, thence extending along the mean high water line of the north bank of Sweetwater Channel a distance of approximately 3,300 feet to the channel's eastern end, thence extending southward approxi- mately 200 feet along the mean high water line of the east end of Sweetwater Channel to a line parallel with and 1,200 feet south ot the centerline of 32nd Street, thence extending eastward along this line a distance of approxi- mately 500 feet to a line parallel with and 800 feet west of the centerline of the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railraod tracks, thence extending out- ward along this line a distance of approximately 1,800 feet to the intersection of this line with the south bank of the main channel of Sweetwater River, thence extending approximately 3,000 feet along the south bank of this channel to its mouth, thence extending sourthward along the mean high water line of the bay to the north dike of San Diego Gas and Electric cooling water intake, thence extending south 1,000 feet to the north dike of the northeasternmost salt pond of Western Salt Company to Palm Avenue, Imperial Beach, thence continuing west 900 feet along the salt pond dike adjacent to and parallel with Palm Avenue, thence extending northward approximately 900 feet along the 10 foot contour line to the Imperial Beach-San Diego city boundary, thence north and west approximately 5,600 feet along the city boundary to Silver Strand Boulevard, thence northward approximately 12,000 feet along Silver Strand Boulevard to latitude 32o37'00"N. Chart: Department of Commerce, United States-West Coast, San Diego Bay, Soundings in Feet at Mean Lower Low Water, Scale 1:20,000, undated )post-May1972). Refer to Map P. RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME signed by E. C. Fullerton, Director (11/21/79; received 11/29/79) Response: The California Department of Fish & Game (CFG offered comments of minor revisions to statements in the Draft EIR which are incorporated as follows. Various descriptions of the green sea turtle (Chelonia Mydas) and its habi- tat are hereby revised to state that the green sea turtle is also an endan- gered species. The section in the Draft EIR on page 142 is hereby revised to reflect this change. In addition, the statement of page 166 of the Draft EIR that idscusses sea turtle habitat is hereby revised toindicate that sea turtles would be expected to inhabit other locations in San Diego Bay, parti- cularly aereas containing eelgrass beds. On page 172 of the Draft EIR nunder the heading, Inique Habitat Associations, the discussion on eelgrass is here- by revised to state that the green sea turtle is known to feed directly on eelgrass. Regarding CFG concerns for California least tern froaging (fishing) areas, this species has been observed feeding in various portions of the bay in- cluding the Sweetwater Flood Control Channel, adjacent tot he National City Marine Terminal, Coronado Bayfront and Glorietta Bay, adjacent to Crown Is- land, in the Coronado Cays, and adjacent to the US Navy Amphibious Base. Preliminary maps of the habitat areas (proposed to be designated as cirtical habitat areas) which the California least tern recovery team considers both for nesting and foraging were attached to the CFG letter of comment. It is the position of the District not to include these proposed candidate areas in the Master Plan EIR. These areas have only a proposed status at the present time. The boundary delineations, the imkplicit limitations on land/water uses, and the biological appropriateness of the preliminary designations remains an unresolved issue for now. It is anticipated that, when the US Fish & Wildlife Service and other appropriate federal and state resources agencies have achieved the official critical habitat designations for rare and endangered species in the San Diego Bay area, the official maps would be transmitted fro inclusion at a subsequent plan amendment. The possibility of bay water pollution from tentatively high concentrations of coliform bacteria, adjacent to the Naval Training Center (NTC) estuary is presently (1/80) under investigation. The Comprehensive Planning Organi- zation (CPO), in cooperation with the Port of San Diego, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, the County of San Diego Department of Public Helath, and other appropriate federal and state agencies, is currently administering a consultant contract to survey, locate, and define the source(s) of water pollution. The study is being conducted under a Clean Water Grant pursuant to Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (1972). Page 178 of the Draft EIR discusses known contamination sources in existence in San Diego Bay, which could impact water quality and have potential for subsequent indirect imkpact on biological resources. That discussion is hereby amended to include the information presented describing the existing condition of the area and the studies being conducted. For more information the reader is referred to the CPO Clean Water Grant consultant contrat to Aquafarms, a subsidiary of California Mariculture, Inc. Contract completion date is July, 1980. CFG also expressed concerns regarding the potentialof Master Plan pro- posals to result in significant adverse impacts on the foraging (fishing) of California least terns. Water uses proposed in the Master Plan, such as recreational marinas, commerical fishing facilities, and navigational uses of bay waters, have not been demonstrated to constitute a potential for a significant imkpact on California least tern feeding activities. In many cases, the presence of artificial structures such as revetment, piling, marina docks and floats, etc., provide additonal attachment areas for marine organisms and additional shelter for marine fishes, upon which the California least tern ultimately depends for food material. With reference to areas of maxiumu biological sensitivity, as described on page 240 of the Draft EIR, the intent of the wording of the Draft EIR, as suggested by CFG, appears inconsistent. The statement in the Draft EIR that, "The Master Plan includes no proposals which would impact these sensitive resources," is hereby revised by the following addition, "...with the ex- ception of the proposed Sweetwater Wharf (D Street Wharf) project and the Chula Vista Boat Basin J Street Second Peninsual Extension. Regarding the value of the South Bay Wildlife Reserve as artificial habitat, the statement made in the Draft EIR on page 251 that "..the Port of San Diego has constructed the single largest artificial wildlife reserve of its kind in the Continental United States..." is hereby revised. It is replaced with, "Upon successful establishment of a h ealthy, stabilized tidal marsh, the Port of San Diego will have constructed the single largest artificial wildlife reserve of its kind in the Continental United States..". This accomplishment, to which the District is committed to extend its best effort, is, of course, also contingent on the District's ability to comoplete the Chula Vista Small Boat Basin as a viable, fully usable, small craft harbor. CFG also provided (january 4, 1979) as an attachment, comments on the Port's Preliminary Draft Master Plan. Although these comments also deal with environmental issues, they have application primarily to planning policies for each of the Port's nine Planning Districts. These comments were taken into account during the development of thePort Master lan and are addressed within the Precise Plan discussions of the Nine Planning Districts of the Port Master Plan, pages 54-140. Overall planning policies which incorporate conservation-oriented land use objective and criteria are included in the Master Plan on pages 39-41. State of California Department of Health MEMORANDUM Received SERVICES NOV 29 1979 TO Steve Williamson Date: Nov 14 1979 State Clearinghouse ENVIRONMENTAL 1400 - 10th Street, Room #121 MANAGEMENT Subject: SCH #78030604 Sacramento San Diego Unified Port District Master Plan FROM: Environmental Health Branch The Office of Noise Control within the California Department of Health Services has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Diego Unified Port District Master Plan (September 1979) and offers the following comments. The predominant source of noise within the Port Authority's jurisdiction is undoubtedly the flight operatoins from Lindbergh Field. Reference is made on pages 115-116 to "avigation (sic) easements". Furthermore, it is stated that in the opinion of the Port Authority, Lindbergh Field has a "noise im- pact area of zero". Regardless of whether or not there exists a prescriptive easement in this matter, it should be recognized that due to the unusually large number of residences and other imcompatible land usages within the CNEL 65 contour, significant adverse environmental consequences will result. This ranges frompaychological effects such as annoyance, sleep disturbance, etc. to possible hearing damage, depending on the single event levels and duration of flight operations. In the opinion of the Office of Noise Control, noise easements do not altigate the problem, they only mitigate some of the complaints. They should be con- sidered as a last resort only and even then in onjunction with measures de- signed to mitigate the problem of high noise levels. Inconsidering the effects of motor vehicle traffic on the noise environment several noise metrics are used - inparticular the A-wighted sound level, Ldn, L10, and L50. It is not always clear which metric is being used when a level is quoted. For example, the second paragraph from the bottom on page 125 refers to the use of noise estimates made using l50 at 100 feet. It is implicitly although not clearly stated that the noise levels which follow are reported using this measure. It should be noted that l50 alone is an inap- propriate for adequately assessing the nose environment due to traffic noise. It should be used in conjunction with another measure such as L10, Lmax, etc. In addition, the levels quoted should be arranged in cahular form for purposes of comparison. The nose contour maps referred to in the text should be in- cluded either within the body of the Report or as an appendix, so that the current and projected impact on the noise environment may be assessed. Steve Williamson -2- If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Mr. John Gilbert, Office of Noise Control, 2151 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, Cali- fornia 94704, (415) 540-2657. Kenneth Buell, Chief RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, OFFICE OF NOISE CONTROL signed by KEnneth Buell Chief of Environmental Health Branch (11/14/70; received 11/29/79) Response: The california Department of Health Services expressed concerns regarding noise impacts associated with aircraft operations from Lindbergh Field. It is recognized that a potential for significant environmental consequences regarding imcompatible land uses within the Lindbergh Field CNEL 65 contour exists. As stated in the Draft EIR on page 115, "..it is the position of the Port District that it has acquired all necessary navigation easements for noise by prescrition." As indicated inthe Draft EIR on page 110, "A discussion of ...noise reduc- tiona programs can be found in the Port's Nose Control Plan...attached as Appendix K." In response to the comment regarding the effects of motor vehicle traffic on the noise environment, the reference for noise estimates on page 125 of the Draft EIR, which indicates measurements using L50 at 100 feet, does apply to the noise levels which follow in the remainder of the paragraph. This in- formation ws incorporated by reference from the Port District's Embarcadero Development Plan EIR (1976). It is acknowledged that L50 alone is not the most precise means of assessing the noise environemnt due to traffice noise. It should be noted, however, that L50 does represent noise levels presented as a median (middle of the range of noise levels), as indicated on page 109 of the Draft EIR. No additional detailed vehicle traffic noise studies were conducted for the Master Plan Draft EIR. Given the level of detail and the degree of specifi- city required by CEQA EIR Guidelines for a Master Plan Draft EIR, as opposed to a project-specific Draft EIR, the incorporation by reference of noise assessment information from previous traffice noise studies of Port Planning Districts is appropriate. It is possible that additional, more detailed, information for assessing the noise environment due to traffice noise could be developed if the L50 measurements were used in conjunction with other measurements such as L10, Lmax, etc. Such detailed determinations would be provided in subsequent project-specific environmental documents as appro- priate. Noise associated with motor vehicle traffic has been described for the Master Plan area for selected locations. Tabular arrangement of the quoted noise levels for purposes of comparison would serve no useful purpose, since the dates of the various surveys, the methodologies involed, and the noise levels employed vary from study to study. It is for this reason that a general relationship between vehicle traffic noise and average daily traffic (ADT) was described on pages 122 and 125 of the Draft EIR. When this relation- ship is applied to th ose sample areas where existing ADT's are know, an approximation of the existing noise environment can be made. The Transportation Noise Contour maps referencedon page 122 of the Draft EIR include 1973 noise contour information from freeways, highways, rail- roads and aircraft for the San Diego Bay area, developed by theComprehen- sive Planning Organization (CPO). These maps have never been prepared in a reproducible format. They presently (1/80) exist as working mylar drawings on wall size maps, available for public inspection at CPO. Other detailed noise measurement information can readily be secured from the City of San Diego's Nose Abatement Office. SAN DIEGO REGION'S COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS November 2, 1979 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION Suite 524 Security Pacific Plaza 1200 Third Avenue ` San Diego, alifornia 92101 (714) 238-5300 Mr. Tomas E. Firle, Coordinator Received Environmental Management Nov 8 1979 San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 488 ENVIRONMENTAL San Diego, CA 92112 MANAGEMENT Subject: Executive Committee action on Notice on Intent RE: Mster Plan Draft EIR, San Diego Unified Port District Dear Mr. Firle: On November 2, 1979, the Executive Committee reviewed your Draft Environmental Impact Report of the Proposed Master Plan Revision. Based on CPO Investigation, of the proposed Draft EIR, theEx- ecutive Committee has determined that there are no unresolved regional issues regarding your application and that further re- view and comment by CPO is unnecessary. However, consistent with CPO's efforts to provide assistance in developing a complete and successful project, the Executive Committee recommends consideration of the comments in the attahced staff report. If you have any questions or if we can be of assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Michael S. Elliott, 236-5323. We wish you success in the final stages of your application process. Sincerely, Joan Katherine Martin Director, Areawide Clearinghouse JKM/MSE/bh NI-88 Enc. NI-33 Staff Report ~0 COMPREHENSIVE P~~ON OF ~ I REGION a ~pW~~ ~O~*~ ~~0~w Pro~1pf~ ~~ -~~~ son ~ ~0~1pe~N~W ~M ~m~p, Oman& ~~~"~W~ ~pe~W~n~1pW~ *ad ~~ ~f~~P~pW~~ Item No.: 9~1'~~.10~ ~~o~~ ~E Wig -~so" ~~ ~ ~ is ~ In a ~~ ~W~2p0 ~m~~ ~M1~~ Deft. ~ AMON Nov ~ ~ ~f~ ~~p* "I"" ~ ~ lot ~2pv~pi~ t~ MA~ ~ ~i~ ~~ ~c ~c~pA~to ~2pc~*~ October~ ~ ~ ~p@ a ~ am" to CPO ~ ~~ how of o~ ANON" (9~8~ plan Draft ~pin~1pb~ ~W H~ ~g~ port District &%@VAN" ~P~~~ dos, The ~pW~pR~sts ~n~ ~p ~ ~pW ~pW~d~ Who~~~ On Draft ~roposed mentor Plan by ~~ I ~1p"~ of 19~~v~ ~M and f Inds It Of A~m~ ~pa~ ~plY satisfactory for those items ~. ~, ~pold ON ~ staff feels that several ~should be transmitted to the Port District to assist It In preparing its final ~0 was. ~ ~j~m~pp~~1p~~ ~~boom he of ~t ~o~~ E~ ~~ no ~ a ~" to ~"~~p" ~~pW~~ ~pR~s The Faster Plan pr~ ~f~ ~~ ~~p"~o ~ ~ ~~ to to W~n ~&~1pW to the new West ~~ ~~~w A" ~~ ~~~ ~ea. it also p~1po~i~ot~ ~~.~ ~1pi of Ins~ ro~pO~o restaurants, ~ ~ ~~ ~2p1 ~ ~- ~st Harbor Island. ~~ ~~ ex~W~1pe~lp offset congestion ~pA~ ~n~~10 ~~ an Harbor Drive associated with ~ ~op~ Sir. WON. ~ ~m~ H~sland. ~per, no traf f ic projections were given for ~~ ~~~F~W~~ either the Washington Street extension or Harbor island . ~pe~p~W~o~ I"- ~pM~V~OW. d~pm~pn~1p)y and air quality ~~ Now. ~A~po~p. ~ ~ ~pm~2pA~m be ~s ~ not discussed. ~~p. ~Nk~ ~U~~ ~p"~6~o~ so" ~ a ~~ Centro C~b~e~ ~~ I' ~~1~~w~ ~an-~ ~2p- ~. ~w~ ~n~t MOW ~o ~m~~i~ ~his area calls for a major hotel complex with ~ IN" ~~~ I~ Of ~9 to ~1pe~pW~@ ~ 1,100 town, a SOD-berth ~ a 20~k. ~@~Ind ~~~pO~ ~~~ph~ The Faster Plan proposes that through traffic on Harbor ~pd~ of ~o~e ~~ ~1~p8~~ Own ~ Drive be~pe a~m~ to which ~p_ ~ ~ed him ~~pw~po~ crew" for ~a~~ I'm ~- ~9~~ Pacific Highway. From south of Market Street to Fifth Avenue, Harbor Drive would be relocated from the waterfront to west of the railroad tracks. Staff feels that the traffic, energy and air quality impacts of these proposals were not addressed in sufficient detail in the Draft EIR. For example, the Draft EIr states that Hawthorn and Grape Streets are probably the most critical locations due to high traffic volumes and short blocks. However, it does not describe the proposed redesign of the Grape/Hawthorn intersections and proposed improvement of Pacific Highway which are expected to accommodate the increased traffic. Cross-Bay Pedestrian Ferry: No mention has been made of potential cross-bay pedestrian ferry. The possibility should be evaluated as an alternative or additional solu- tion to the auto traffic congestion at the bridge toll gate. This could be accomplished upon retirement of bridge bonds. Staff feels tha taddressing the traffic, energy and air quality impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed master plan in greater detail would improve the final EIR, and that the above comments should be transmitted to the Port District. RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: AREAWIDE CLEARINGHOUSE COMPRESHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION (CPO) signed by Joan Catherine Martin Director, Areawide Clearinghouse (11/1/79; received 11/3/79) Response: Specific vehicle traffic, energy, and air quality impacts in the Lindbergh Field/harbor Island and Centre City/Embarcadero Planning Districts cannot be analyzed in more detail because specific traffic data for future proposals are, of course, not available. The Draft EIR provided general traffic projections for the type of developments wherein traffic generators are known (pages 227-230). Actual traffic projections of the proposed Washington Street extension through the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (<CRD) to the new West Terminal cannot be made. On page 63, the Draft EIR does, however, provide traffic volume data for the eastern portion of Washington Street and for the two connecting streets, Harbor Drive and Pacific Highway. 1979 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume on Pacific Highway near the area where Washington Street would provide peri- pheral access to Lindbergh Field has an existing traffic volume of 51,000 ADT. The traffic is through volume on an elevated highway with existing on and off ramps to Washington Street. Washington Street adjacent to Pacific Highway has an existing traffic volume of 23,900 ADT. Harbor Drive in the vicinity of the new West Terminal, the proposed terminus of the peripheral access road has 32,100 ADT. Additonal vehicle traffic generated by Master Plan developments on East harbor Island could equal 4,000 to 5,000 ADT. Specific details of the attendant energy and air quality impacts resulting from these developments are not the subject of the Master Plan Draft EIR. Such detailed impact analyses would be considered during subsequent environmental review of proposals for the East Harbor Island area. Master Plan porposals in the Centre City/Embarcadero Planning District affecting traffic, energy, and air quality have already been described, see below. It is anticipated that very localized projects such as the Harbor Drive relocation and overpass, and the intersection modifications atHawthorn and Grape Streets would receive subsequent environmental review as needed. Traffic impact analysis and mitigating measures for the Centre City/Embarca- dero have previously been provided on pages 59-70 in the Port District's Embarcadero Development Plan Final EIR (1976). That analysis included esti- mated trip generations, traffic projections, and trip distributions for all of the streets and intersections in question. Specifically, the Embarcadero Development Plan Final EIR stated on page 64: "As proposed, a new link would connect harbor Drive andPacific Highway in the vicintiy of Hawthorn and Grape Streets. Under existing physical constraints, this shift would probably have to be accomplished between Hawthorn and Grape Streets, conforming to the Pacific Highway at Grape Street. Although no design elements are included in this study, pre- liminary sketches indicate several intersection operational areas in which significant peak hour congestion could develop if the higher traffic projections are realized. Pacific Highway has exccess capacity under current traffic volumes, and that capacity should be sufficient to accommodate projected volumes at an acceptable level of service. A probable exception is the Grape Street - Hawthorn Street - Harbor Drive intersection area, which could experience peak hour congestion as noted in the preceding paragraph." Again, it is anticipated that more specific and updated traffic, energy, and air quality impacts of these proposals would be disclosed during subsequent environmental review when initial project designs are formalized. The passenger ferry proposal was not included in the Port Master Plan because a careful study of the proposal by CPO in 1975 concluded that (1) It was not legally possible to operate the ferry until the bridge bonds were retired, and (2) Operating costs would exceed revenues to such an extent that it would be financially infeasible. When the bonds are retired sometime in the 1990's the question could be re-studied and, if feasible, included in a Port Master Plan ervision. If CPO has further or different information or plans, con- sideration could be given to these at a furture Master Plan amendment. In the interim, the Bridge Authority has finally (1/80) implemented a one-way fare collectoin (westbound) with free-flowing eastbound traffic. This should materially reduce the peak afternoon traffic congestion which has affected residential areas of the City of Coronado. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO R. J. SOMMERVILLE 9150 Chesapeake Drive Air Pollution San Diego, Calif. 92123 Control Officer (714) 565-5901 (MS 0178) November 8, 1979 RECEIVED Tomas E. Firle Nov 19 1979 Port of San Diego P.O. Box 488 ENVIRONMENTAL San Diego, CA 92112 MANAGEMENT SUBJECT: "Master Plan, San Diego Unified Port District" Draft Environmental Impact Report (UPD #78102-EIR-1; SCH #78030604) The Air Pollution Control District has reviewed the above referenced draft Environmental Impact Report and ha sthe following comments with regards to the air quality section and Appendix C - Air Quality Information. The report does not include sufficient data to enable a comprehensive review of the Air Quality Section. The EIR simply states that the master plan is consistent with the Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AMP) but does not substantiate this claim. A Quantitative analysis should be included to demonstrate the plans consistency. While the EIR claims the Port's Master Plan is consistent with the AQMP, it indicates that changes in the plan have occurred since its original submittal as stated on page 129 of the EIR: "The intensity and distribution of various land uses designated in the Port's MAster Plan have only changed negligibly since the land use designation information has been submitted to CPO and, therefore, the various emmission products for proposed Port developments have already been incorporated into the AQMP." These "Negligible" changes have not been identified in the EIR, therefore a determination of their significance or insignificance cannot be made. The EIR should identify what changes have occurred since the Port's Master Plan was originally submitted to the Comprehensive Planning Organi- zation (CPO). It should also include an analysis of how emissions projec- tionss for the planning area differ from the original estimates contained in the AQMP. The EIR states (Page 129) that" "The Master Plan area is situated in the western portion of the San Diego Air Basin, which includes the western two-thirds of San Diego County. This area has been designated as an Air Quality Attainment Maintenance Area by the California Air Resources Board." Tomas E. Firle Port of San Diego -2- November 8, 1979 This statement, as written is incorrect. While said area has been designated as an attainment area for sulfur dioxide (SO2), it has also been designated as a nonattainment area for the pollutants carbon mono- xide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (3), and total suspended particulates (TSP). The EIR should be corredted to include the above information. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Report. If you have any questions, contact me at 565-5904. Raymond L. Weeks Environmental Management Specialist RLW:jo cc: John Wise, EPA William Lockett, ARB Lari Sheehan, Planning Dept. Dick Huff, CPO RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT signed by Raymond L. Weeks (11/8/79; received 11/19/79) Response: The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) requested a quantitative analysis of air quality impacts which could result from imple- mentation of the Port's Master Plan. In some cases the Master Plan provides details of individual projects on a site-specific basis. In most instances, however, specific land and water use proposals for areas within the Port's jurisdiction cannot proceed beyond the concept stage. It is primarily for this reason that a quantitative analysis of the air emissions which may result from implementation of the specific aspects of the Port Master Plan is infeasible at this stage of the planning process. Even if the design detials and the specifics of all individual project concepts were completed, the application of air emission projections for future Port development proposals would not be applicable in a comparative sense with the most rectn (10/78) Regional Emission Trends Projections for the San Diego AQMP/Non-Attainment Plan. Otherwise known as the Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AWMP), the report, developed by APCD and theComprehensive Planning Organization (CPO), is a summary of present and projected missions of major air contaminants for the entire San Diego Air Basin. The AQMP is the present and future forecasting baseline standard against which major land and water use proposals (such as the Port's Master Plan) within the San Diego Air Basin are to be compared. The AQMP was not, however, de- rived on the basis of a quantitative analysis of individual air emissions sources, but rather on their aggregate. It is an emissions inventory and forecast compiled by relating emission factors (source categories) with activity indicators (measures of urban development). Future air emissions have been calculated by forecasting the emission factors and the activity indicators. The bases of such calculations and forecasts wre not quanti- tatiave analyses of individual air emission sources, but rather the data were derived indirectly from various activity indicators which included: popu- lation projections, employment forecasts, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle trips, gasoline consumption, and electrical power generation. The Port Staff provided APCD/CPO with the necessary information. The assumption was made in the AQMP that the changes in air emissions pro- duction could be represented by the changes in properly chosen activity in- dicator levels, in the absence of more specific quantitative data. It is for these reasons, therefore, that a quantitative analysis of the air emissions anticipated from Master Plan implementation could not be used to demonstrate the consistency of the Master Plan with the AQMP. As referenced on page 129 of the Draft EIR, the AQMP accounted for air emis- sions for specific activities, anticipated to develop as allowed under various land use designations (such as those of the Port's Master Plan), using the Regional Emissions Trends Projections. Development assumptions included land/water uses in the 1972 Port Master Plan and in the proposed 1980 Port Master Plan. Using the emission projections, the AQMP identified five major emission source categories including: - Process losses - Fuel combustion - Air, water, rail transportation - Motor vehicles - Misscellaneous Activity indicator assignments in the AQMP were based upon: - CPO Series IVB, Employment and Population Data - Claifornia Department of Motor Vehicles Registration Projections (CALTRANS) - Transportation Models ADT (Average Daily Traffice) and VHT (Vehicle Miles Travelled) Data - CPO Regional Energy Plan gasoline Consumption Data - cPO SNAPAT (San Diego Plan for Air Transportation) Annual Operations - SDGAE Energy Source and Requirements Forecasts As indicated in the Draft EIR on page 129, the Port of San Diego submitted to the CPO the existing adopted 1972 Master Plan land/water use designations. Using the Regional Emission Trends Projections and the five major emission source categories, the various projected emission products for Port develop- ments of the 1972 Master Plan were incorporated by CPO/APCD into the AQMP. In support of the statement in the Draft EIR that only negligible changes have been made n land use designations, the following comparison was made between land area allocated for major use groups in the adopted Master Plan of 1972 and the proposed Master Plan of 1980: Land Use Designations Land Use in Acres 1972 1980 Commercial 448.8 418.5 Industrial 1,220.2 1,186.1 Public Recreation 376.3 276.6 Public Facilities (see text) ---- 245.2 Military 41.3 25.9 Specific detailed comparisons are difficult due primarily to changes made in use categories and land fill areas. For example: streets, which were previously included in whichever land use category they occurred, were separated out and placed in the Public Facilities category for the 1980 Master Plan. This par- tially explains the slight decrease in acreage in each category. The overall developments in the 1980 Master Plan are approximately the same or slightly less than indicated in the 1972 Master Plan. Therefore, the total antici- pated air emission projections from the various individualproject develop- ments throughout the Port's Master Plan area would hardly differ from the original base utilized by CPO/APCD in the derivation of information produced in the AQMP. The statement on page 129 of the Draft EIR is hereby revised, as suggested by APCD, to read, "The San Diego Air Basin is an area which has also been designated as a non-attainment area for the pollutants carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (HO2), ozone (03), and total suspended particulates (TSP. THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - 202 C STREET - SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92101 ENVIRONMENTAL RECEIVED RECEIVED QUALITY DIVISION PLANNING nOV 29 1979 nOV 19 1979 DEPARTMENT 236-6776 ENVIRONMENTAL SAN DIEGO UNIFIED NOVEMBER 19, 1979 MANAGEMENT PORT DISTRICT PLANNING Mr. Frederick H. Trull Director of Planning Port of San Diego P.O. Box 488 San Diego, California 92112 Dear Fred: The following comments are in response to the Draft EIR for the proposed Master Plan of the San Diego Unified Port District. There are several distinct areas of the Draft EIR that need more sufficient analysis. Circulation: Under the discussion of mitigating measures on Page 229, second paragraph, there is not sufficient analysis of the traffic/cir- culatoin impacts or existing conditions to warrant the conclusion that the construction of the West Terminal and associated parking lots has mitigated the problem. The "proposed airport peripheral road," Page 229, (extension of Washington Street) is not suffi- ciently discussed or analyzed in any section of the EIR. Generally, there is no real quantitative analysis of circulation impacts, ADT's existing parking available, anticipated increased demand, etc. For the Centre City/Embarcadero area, the previous statement also applies. Land Use: There is some question as to whether the discussion of the Port District's intention regarding the use or claim to vacated MCRD property is necessary. Historical Resources: The CCDC has recently concluded a Historical-106 Survey for HUD, the results of which should be included or referenced in the EIR. Also, the Rowing Club is a City of San Diego Historical Site. Mr. Frederick H. Trull November 19, 1979 Page 2 (#105) and was recently added to the National Register. There is no discussion of the Rowing Club or its physical site. Please feel free to contact us if clarification of any comments is needed. Sincerely, James F. Gleason Environmental Quality Division JFG:jlp RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: CITY OF SAN DIEGO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION signed by James F. Gleason (11/19/79; received 11/19/79) Response: The concerns expressed by the City of San Diego, Environmental Quality Division (EQD) were addressed in the Draft EIR on pages 62-80, 227- 230, and in the Circulation Analysis Summary, Appendix B of the Draft EIR. Parking spaces at Lindbergh Field subsequent to the construction of the West Terminal have been increased from about 1,500 to about 4,500. Earlier Airport related traffic congestion, long lines, and vehicles circulation throughout. the airport parking lots looking for available parking spaces had been due to construction activities, aggreviated by permit delays. These conditions have been eliminated witht he opening of the West Terminal (July 11, 1979) and many of the problems previously associated with vehicle traffic congestion at Lindbergh Field have been substantially mitigated. The proposed airport peripheral road is still a concept which requires further study and planning to achieve; therefore, the Draft EIR impact analaysis of the proposal can by definition only be preliminary. Detailed information cannot be provided at this time. It is, however, reasonable to infer that a portion of the vehicle traffic now entering Lindbergh Field from Harbor Drive could and would be carried on such a peripheral road, thereby easing existing peak congestion and vehicle traffic on Harbor Drive and Laurel Street. The potential for vehicle traffic congestion exists near the peripheral road ingress and egress points; however, such detailed information could only be provided in subsequent environmental documents, written as appropriate. For additional information, the reader is also referred to the response to the comment letter of the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO). The Port Master Plan assumes continuation of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD). The proposed airport peripheral road is subject to negotiation with the Department of Defense. No other areas of MCRD are proposed to be vacated. It should be noted again that the response letter from the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, November 21, 1979, states, "It has been concluded from findings of a Department of Defense study to close MCRD that the facility will neither be abandoned nor relocated in the forseeable future." In most cases, the Master Plan Draft EIR primarily provides general environ- mental baseline information for future reference of subsequent project- specific environmental documents. To avoid unnecessary repetition while still serving as a comprehensive source document, the Draft EIR has incorporated existing information by reference. The Draft EIR references and summarizes many previous environmental and techical documents written by various agencies, firms, and/or individuals. These studies have included the same general project areas, some provided more specific project assessment and analysis, some provided general overall background and data. For example, the District's Embarcadero Dewvelopment Plan and Final EIR (1976) on pages 59-70, as referenced in the Master Plan Draft EIR on pages 37 and 71- 74, provides a more detailed impact assessment of circulation, transportation, and parking. Detailed traffic and circulation data was provided for estimated trip generation rates and average daily traffic flows on several area streets Share Our Sentlments, Inc. P.O. Box 702 Coronado, Ca 92118 November 9, 1979 Mr. Frederick H. Trull Received Director of Planning Nov 29, 1979 Port of San Diego P.O. Box 488 ENVIRONMENTAL San Diego, CA 92112 MANAGEMENT Dear Sir, We are resident of Coronado and have recently completed examination and study of the Draft EIR for the Port's Master Plan (Sept. 1979). We have examined this draft EIR in detail, especially those sections that include the city of Coronado. We find the same objectins to this draft EIR as we did with the draft EIR on the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan (November 1978). We do not believe a duplicate and lengthy listing of possible deficiencies is necessary here, and that is why we are enclosing our comments of January 2 and February 6, 1979 addressed to the San Diego Port and the San Diego Port Commissioners respectively. In these documents we have listed very specificly the section of CEQA that we believe were not also addressed in preparation of the Draft EIR for the Port's Master Plan. We were hopeful that in the preparation of this new EIR that these sections of the law would be met and that new information on the ppossible adverse and nonreversable effects on the environment of Coronado would be dealt with (see minutes of Port-Coronado Ad-Hoc Committee on open space requirements, traffic Impact and circulation, etc.). This has not been done. We wre very disappointed to discover the Port continues to view its developmental proposals for Coronado as the "only and best" land uses worthy of cinsideration. In fact, you present us with an EIR that in every case of examination: land and water use, open space, traffice circulation, public services and facilities, growth, visual, noise and air quality, water supply and energy consumption--you state "no adverse environmental imkpacts h ave been identified, therefore no specific mitigating measures are proposed." This, Mr. Trull, is the crucial problem with this draft EIR for the Port's Master Plan. The port planners and administrators continue to see their proposed plans for Coronado Tidelands as "so well done" that no negative environmental impacts will occur when many adverse impacts have already been well documented by various Coronado Council persons, community leaders, and citizens organizations. This EIR falls to honestly address the environmental effects of the proposed Master Plan for the Coronado Bayfront. Sincerely, Mrs. Sally Neummenacher H. John Truyn cc: Mr. Michael Fisher Executive Director California State Coastal Commission February 6, 1979 TO: San Diego Port Commissioners FROM: Share Our Sentiments Organization, Inc. P.O. Box 702, Coronado, Ca 92118 SUBJECT: Sufficiency of Draft EIR for Coronado Bayfront Development Plan (Nov. 1978). Whereas the California legislature has declared in Title 14 Article 3 Section 15010 of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 that: a)Every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment and b)It is the intent of the legislation that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private individuals, corporations and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of teh environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, and whereas SHARE OUR SEDTIMENTS is a Coronado citizens' organization dedicated to preserving the unique residential envrionment of Coronado, we wish to submit the folliwng comments on the Draft EIr for Coronado Bayfront Development Plan (Nov. 1978). We find the Draft EIr for the Coronado Bayfront plan not acceptable and insufficient as required by sectoins 15012, 15140 (c), 15142, 15143.5, 15075, 15150, 15143 (c), 15082 (c) of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. 1. sectoin 15012 This section states an "EIR may not be used as an instrument to rationaliz approval of a porject." The whole direction and tenor of this Draft EIr is questionable. The proposed Plan C is examined, but Alternatives plans A & B are not given serious consideration as options not any combinations thereof. 2. Section 15140 (c) This section states and EIr shall contain summarized technical data, maps, diagrams, etc., and other relevant information to permit full assessment of significant environ- mental impact. This EIr falls far short of having sufficient expert data to examine Page 2, Share Our Sentiment - Draft EIR the impacts on open space necessary for a city of Coronado's size and population, the specific costs of public services required, the effects on air and noise quality (no local monitoring station report), and the increases to traffic and circulation (the Marsden Report indicates Port District figures on traffic generators have been found to be invalid and misleading in almost every case). Although much data is included in this EIR as required by Section 15142, much of it is dated, too general to apply, not relevant, and lacking in technical and scientific expertise required for intelligent decision making. 3. Secion 15142 This section also states that special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region. In that the San Diego Bay has been designated as an estuary, insufficient attention has been given to this unique environmental resource as it pretains to the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Throughout the whole of Section III (Environmental Impacts and Mitigating Measures), this EIR states no environmentally significant imkpacts have been assessed for land and water use for open space, for urgan support systems (including parking, street circulation and traffic), for public services and facilities, for visual, noise, climate and air quality, etc. A proposed development the magnitude of the Port's proposed Plan C is bound to have significant environmental impacts - be they negative or positive. 4. Section 15143.5 This section requires and EIR to explain why various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant. This EIR fails to substantiate its findings of no significant impact since the basis for such judgement is not clearly presented. Page 3, Share Our Sentiments - Draft EIR 5. Section 15075 This section states an EIr is to explain effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the project, and ways to minimize the adverse effects. This EIr appears to ignore the intent of this section completely. 6. Section 15150 Requires a sufficient degree of analysis for intelligent decision making. There is simply ot enough comparative analysis of proposed plans in this EIr in the major environmental areas under consideration. 7. Section 15143 (c) This section requires an examination of mitigating measures for each of the environmentally significant areas. The overwhelming lack of mitigating measures indicates a serious problem with this EIR and its viewpoint. Serious public controversy exists over the Port's proposed plan and mitigating measures are to well known by an intelligent citizenry not to be identified and included even in a draft EIr. For example, the serious traffice problem is well recognized in Coronado. Yet, the EIR states that in spite of a significant increase in motor vehicles, Plan C would generate "no significant increase in vehicle air emissions and therefore, no specific mitigation reasures are proposed." (Page 101) This is an absurd conclusion. This draft EIR, by making the conclusion that there are no environmentally significant impacts from the Port's proposed plans, sidesteps altogether the EIR responsibility of detailing mitigating measures. This is a serious drawback to the authenticity of the EIr findings. 8. Section 15082 (c) Mandatory Findings of Significance. This section states "a project shall be found to have a significant effect on the environment if (c) the project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable." This EIR fails to address the obvious cumulative effects of the overall proposal. Page 4, Share Our Sentiments - Draft EIR We urge the Port Commission to recognized its responsibility in committing a non-renewable and irreplaceable resource. We recommend that the Commission find this Draft EIR inadequate and insufficent. We would additionally urge the Port District to cooperate with the City of Coronado, with its Land Use Committee, and with its citisenry to achieve an equitable use of the Tidelands and a respectable position in regard to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and the California Coastal Act of 1976 and ultimately, "to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has in fact analysed and cinsidered the ecological implications of its action." (Section 15011.5d) Respectfully, submitted, John Pruyn for Share Our Sentiments, Inc. P.O. Box 702 Coronado, Ca. 92118 January 2, 1979 Port of San Diego P.O. Box 488 San Diego Recieved Subject: Coronado Bayfront Development Plan Nov 22, 1979 Draft EIR (UPD - #78102 - EIR2) San Diego Unified Port District ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Dear Sir: Time has not permitted more than a cursory examination of the Port District Draft EIR for the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan, but serious deficiencies are immediately apparent. We must question the premature quality of a Draft EIR prepared for a "Preliminary Plan" which has not yet been reviewed by the State Coastal Commission for consistency with the Coastal Act. It is also disturbing that the Draft does not properly assess the les- sor effects of alternate Plans A and B, raising the question of just how "[reliminary, unapproved, unofficial" Plan C really is. Additionally, the faliure of the Draft to address any site specific commerical development on Port land in Glorietta Bay or in the Coronado Cays renders the document incomplete, since the total impact of Port development on Coronado lands must be con- sidered accurulatively and not in a piecemeal fashion. It must be noted that the Port's proposed Coronado Bayfront Plan C authorizes the most intense, energy consuming, environment- ally destructive, growth inducing uses for the bayfront of any of the three plans originally presented. It is also more intense than the previously adopted Port Master Plan of 1974. The uses, as proposed, violate Coronado's General Plan desig- nations of civic use - open space, ignore Coronado's height limi- tation, and involve irreversible environmental changes committing non-renewable resources without sufficient examination of alter- natives available. The growth inducing aspects of the plan are disregarded and no mitigating measures are proposed. The irreversible long term effects on the residential com- munity bordering the Plan area are summarily dismissed and the recognized air pollution, to be expected from the vehicular on- slaught, is inadequately addressed since no air quality monitoring stations is located on the island to provide data for proper fore- casting. Traffic data as provided by Coronado's MEIR is also misleading -2- since two weeks after the MEIR was certified, Coronado's City Engineer refuted the findings by stating that many of the city streets had already reached peak capacity. The long term effects on the citizens of Coronado from such an intense development are not examined sufficiently, nor are proper alternatives proposed. The commitment for capital improv- ments involving public streets and pbulic services is assumed while growth inducement is ignored. The Drift makes the erroneous judgment that the alternative of "NO Project" would necessarily result in piecemeal development. This is absurd! Finally, the avowed goal of the Coronado General Plan is to preserve Coronado as a residential community and not to provide yet another Revenue Producer for the Port of San Diego. Yet the preservation of community edentity and the retention of Coronado's unique residential character are inadequately addressed, perhaps ignored, by the preparers of this document, since in no way can the proposed development be made compatible with these goals. The expressed objections of many Coronado residents to the proposed Plan C have been totally disregarded as was their reluc- tant selection of Plan A as the least offensive of the three plans presented. We urge the Port to realistically reexamine this project as planned, recognize the irreversible impacts it will have on a very special, irreplaceable Coastal Resource, and then return with an environmentally aware document offering aceptable alternative proposals which may then hopefully meet both the requirements as well as the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act. Respectfully, Sally Krummenacher - Chairman, S.O.S., "Share Our Sentiments," Inc., Box 702, Coronado, CA 92118 Coast Committee MEmber, San Diego Chapter, Sierra Club cc: Mr. Don Nay Mr. Ben Cohen California State Coastal Commission San Diego Regional Coastal Commission RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: SHARE OUR SENTIMENTS (sos) signed by Mrs. Sally Krummenacher and Mr. John Pruyn (11/9/79; received 11/12/79) Response: The comments of the Coronado citizens' group, Share Our Sentiments (SOS), essentially reiterated the same objections to the Port Master Plan and Draft EIr as were previously submitted by SOS in a November 1978 letter of comment to the Port Distruct regarding the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan Draft EIr (UPD #78102-EIR-2). The comments maintain that the Master Plan Draft EIr has not adequately addressed the environmental effects of land and water use, open space, traffic circulation, pbulic services and facilities, growth, visual, noise and air quality, and water supply and energy consumption. Before referencing sections in the Master Plan Draft EIr and in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan Draft EIr wherein these issues have been addressed, the following synopsis is provided of the evolution and progress of joint Port/Coronado planning efforts for the Coronado Bayfront Planning District. The Port District tidelands area of the Coronado Bayfront, north of the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge, has a long history of attempts by the Port of San Diego to resolve possible land use alternatives withthe City of Coronado (see Master Plan Appendix A). The City of Coronado has expressed concern over both the intensity and scale of development proposed and analyzed in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan and Draft EIr by the Port of San Diego in November, 1978. Prior to submission of the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan, the Coronado City Council appointed a Land Use Committee (May 4, 1978) to review the Port's alternative plan options and make recommendations back to the Coronado City Council. On March 30, 1979, a joint Ad Hoc Committee, including some members of the Coronado City Council and the Port of San Diego Board of Port commissioners, was formed to continue to work toward resolution of the concerns over various planning alternatives and other key land issues along the Coronado Bayfront. The Land Use Commttee was suspended by City Council action on August 9, 1979, and the Ad Hoc Committee continued to work toward further revision of design concepts of the Coronado Bayfront. The Ad Hoc Committee has met numerous times in publicly attended workshops and has received and reviewed written information from Coronado citizens. The Tidelands Park public recreatinal area and a shoreline park had been completed by the Port District through design phases (15 acres, 4/78) for the area immediately north of the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge. An agreement has recently been reached, as described on page 109 of the Master Plan, which provides the basis of a plan that divides the approximately 50 acres of un- developed area north of the San Diego/Coronado Bay Bridge into allocations for commerical development and park/recreational use. The total street right-of- way area located on tidelands, except for the loop road under the bridge, would be assigned to major use groups or subtracted from the total area. The proposal includes maintenance of the shoreline for pedestrian access where feasible; the provision of parks, recreational activities and facilities; the retention and expansion of marine related uses; the introduction of a wide array of visitor serving facilities; and encourages the integration of open space into all commerical developments. It further provides that direct traffic ingress/egress to the tidelands would be developed as necessary. The rationale for the Master Plan EIr analysis of the land and water use plan for the Coronado Bayfront Planning District is to provide a baseline of environmental information upon which subsequent impact assessment could be conducted. This was carried out in considerable detail in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan Draft EIr which was before the Board during a public hearing on February 6, 1979. At that time the Board agreed to re- evaluate the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan, and hold further environ- mental processing in abeyance until a joint decision was reached with the City of Coronado. On page 107 of the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan Draft EIr, the follow- ing unavoidable long-term impacts have been summarized and are hereby incor- porated by reference in this Master Plan EIR as follows: - Increases in traffic volume in identified areas throughout the City of Coronado and modification to existing traffic circulation patterns in response to anticipated future traffic demands. - Increases in vehicle traffic generated noise levels on some area streets resulting from increased traffic volume and operation in existing circu- lation pattern. - Potential changes in local and regional air quality primarily from addition to vehicle traffic commissions. - Increases in consumption of electrical energy and natural gas and an increased demand for public services, particularly waste water treat- ment. Given consideration of the increase in amount of recreational land and water use allocations and a decrease in commerical and shopping facilities allocations in the Coronado Bayfront, it is likely that the unavoidable im- pacts primarily related to vehicle traffic circulation, as identified in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan Draft EIR, would be less under the newly agreed upon planning alternative. The Draft EIr addressed the Coronado Bayfront Planning District ongoing joint planning process on pages 4, 8-9, 43-43, 76-78, 222-223, 228, 230, and 249. The Master Plan Draft EIR incorporated by reference the environ- mental impact analysis included in the Coronado Bayfront Development Plan Draft EIR, which addressed the following issues in that document: land and water use, pages 91-92; open space, page 93; traffic circulation, page 94; public services and facilities, page 96; growth, page 98; visual and noise, pages 99-100; air quality, page 101; water supply, pages 96 and 102; and energy consumption, page 103. DAVID D. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS ` November 19, 1979 Mr. Tomas E. Firle Received Environmental Management Coordinator Nov 25 1979 San Diego Unified Port District 3165 Pacific Highway ENVIRONMENTAL San Diego, CA 92112 MANAGEMENT Dear Mr. Firle: We have now completed our review of San Diego Unified Port District's Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, and this letter sets forth our comments thereon. We have focused our review in particular on those sections of the Environmental Impact Report dealing with the natural sciences, namely, bioilogy water and sediment quality, and earth sciences. These technical disciplines are the areas of specialization which we address in our consulting practice. The Port District is to be complimented on the comprehensive scope and detailed nature of this draft environmental impact re- port; the obvious throughness and care with which it has been prepared is exemplary. An important feature of this draft environmental impact report is the thorough way in which it identifies and outlines the envoronmentally protective role of existing State and Federal regulatory agencies (such as the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency) and their regulations (such as Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System Permit). All too commonly the impact assessment and mitigation sections of environmental reports tend to overlook long standing and highly effective pollution control programs that already provide adequate pro- tection for biological and related resources. Because of the potentially significant adverse imkpacts on the biological resources of the bay that may result from the proposed J Street Peninsula extension and the Sweetwater Wharf project, it would be helpful if a brief description of these proposed projects and figures illustrating their locations and dimensions were included in the draft EIR. BOXL 1118, LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92038 TELEPHONE (714) 453-2210 Mr. Tomas E. Firle November 19, 1979 Page 2 We appreciate this opportunity to review and comment on the Port District's Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Yours truly, David D. Smith, Ph.D EnvironmentalScientist DDS:jlr DAVID D. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: DAVID D. SMITH & ASSOCIATES signed by David D. Smith (11/19/79; received 11/23/79) Response: The comment from this environmental consulting firm offered concurrence with the Draft EIR's emphasis on the application of existing federal and state water quality and waste discharge regulations. Also requested were descriptions of individual Master Plan proposals, which are referenced as follow. The Master Plan described the Chula Vista Boat Basin J. Street Second Peninsula Extension and the Sweetwater Wharf project (D Street Wharf) in the Precise Plan section of the Master Plan for the Chula Vista Bayfront Planning District, on pages 117-26. The Second Penin- sula Extension was described in more detail on page 124; and the Sweetwater Whaft (D Street Wharf) was described on page 121. The location and dimensions of the projects are illustrated in Figure 19 on pages 199 and 120 in the Master Plan. James Burns, Assistant Secretary December 14, 1979 Resources Agency Tomas Firle, Coordinator RECEIVED Port of San Diego DEC 19 1979 P.O. Box 488 San Diego, CA 92112 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Report Master Plan, San Diego Unified Port District SCH #78030604 The staff of the State Lands Commission has reviewed the Draft EIR for the San Diego Unified Port District Master Plan and hereby submits the following comments for your consideration. We are concerned with the use of certain terms in the legends explaining themaps contained in the Draft EIR and in the text of the document itself. Terms such as "tidelands", "submerged lands", and "granted lands", are words of art having specific meanings in public land law. The use of these terms in the Draft EIr appear to be used inter- changeably and as such their meaning is vague, uncertain, and, at times, arroneous. These terms should be expressly defined in the document and should be used only where their specific meaning is intended. It also appears that the maps included in the Draft EIR are intended as approximate representations of the character of the lands in and around San Diego Bay. The staff of the Commission does not accept these mpas as accurately depicting the nature of said lands or the extent of sovereign interests therein held either by Federal, State or local agencies. We feel that it is imperative that the document include a statement ot that effect. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Jane S. Mochon or Curtis L. Fossum of our legal office. DANIEL CORFAIN Planning and Environmental Coordination JSM:CLF:DG:js bcc: J. Mochon C. Fossum RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION signed by Daniel Gorfain Planning and Environmental Corrdination (12/14/79; received 12/19/79) Response: The utilization of terms such as "tidelands", submerged lands". and "granted lands", in the legends explaining the maps contained in the Draft EIR and in the text of the Master Plan have been used as defined in the Port District Act of 1972. The maps included in the Draft EIR are intended as representations of the character of the lands in and around San Diego Bay; they are not to be con- strued to be survey or parcel maps. The boundaries shown on the maps of the Draft EIr and the Master Plan may not exactly depict the precise boundaries of the Port jurisdiction in all cases; however, for preliminary planning and environmental management purposes, the accuracy of the boundaries in the absence of attached lengthy legal descriptions is quite appropriate, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). committees elections and San California (714) 209-2148 Public Employees and Joe and Joan W. walon Retirement Administrative Assistants Ways and Means ASSEMBLY State Capitol CALOFORNIA LEGISLATURE Joint Committee on 449-7910 the State's Economy Commission of the California Equal Educational Opportunities Commission PETER R. CHACON Seventy-ninth district November 30 1979 OFFICE OF RECEIVED DEC 3 1979 Mr. Don Nay, Port Director THE PORT DIRECTOR San Diego Port Authority P.O. Box 488 San Diego, California 92112 Dear Mr. Nay: I am glad to see that the Port Authority has partially implemented the California Coastal Act of 1976, in regards to the Port District's Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report in regards to the Barrio Logan/Southeast San Diego area. However, in close analysis of the Port District's Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report, there is a lack of alternative viewpoints from the community residents and organizations in the Barrio Logan section of San Diego. May I take this time to present information consistent with "priorities" of the Coastal Act that citizens, business, professional and community organizations have approached a number of governmental bodies in relation to urban/ industrial planning for their community: 1) All of the Barrio LoganSan Diego area is landlocked and Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act specifically acknowledges the right for citizens to have "public access" to the bay- front. 2) Chapter 8 of the Coastal Act requires that the Port District use the facilities for beneficial use that fulfills the needs of "public access." Mr. Don Nay Port Director November 30, 1979 Page 2 3) Barrios Logan ersidents along with business and professional organizations have expressed a recreational need for a bayfront access. 4) In regards to boatyard facilities in the Barrio Logan area (mauricio and Sona) the Coastal Commission has indicated alternative sites for such industrial yacht service repair. Finally, the last piece of property that would be available to Barrio Logan San Diegans for a waterfront recreational facility is the 5.4 acres specifically designated by the Bay Front Park Committee (AB 47). I strongly urge the Commission to incorporate the 5.4 acres of bayfront property as expressed by the Bay Front Park Committee into the Environmental Impact Report and Master Plan. Sincerely yours, Peter R. Chacon PRC/js cc: Assemblyman Larry Kapiloff Senator Jim Mills Councilwoman Lucy Killea Michael Fisher, California Coastal Commission Mr. Dan Guevara, Chariman, Bay Front Park Commitee RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: ASSEMBLYMAN PETER CHACON signed by Peter R. Chacon (11/30/79; received 12/3/79) Response: The issue of coastal access in the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Planning District was addressed in the Port Master Plan and in the Draft EIR. Access, shown on the Precise Plan as a Promenade and Vista Area, ex- tends west from Crosby Street. The Port District considers this general waterfront area to be most suitable for Port related facilities as required by Section 30708(c) of the California Coastal Act of 1976. This issue is described on pages 8, 10, and 40 of the Draft EIR. The deman for waterfront industrial areas in San Diego is very great and is increasing. While the Master Plan recognizes the desire of the Barrio Logan residents for a waterfront park and nearby bay access, the overriding provisions of Chapter 8 of the Coastal Act give lower priority to such use. The type of active recreational uses proposed for such an area, which could also include water contact activities such as swimming and boating, could result in many potiential problems in this heavy marine industrial area. Safety and security, and vehicle traffice and reailroad crossing hazards are ever present in this area. The placement of recreational facilities nestled among existing heavy marine industrial activities would constitute an appli- cation of incompatible land use planning and could result in a potential for significant adverse environmental impacts upon future park users. Existing alternative bay access points are available at the Embarcadero Marina Park on Port tidelands, and at the Las Chollas Creek Park, proposed in the City of San Diego's Local Coastal Program (LCP). These parks are much larger and more suitable for use as a bayfront community park. The Embarcadero MarinaPark includes about four times as much park area as the Crosby Street waterfront area and is within about one mile from the Barrio Logan community. The Crosby Street bay access proposal contained in the Master Plan was pro- posed by the Board to provide for the desire of nearby residents for nearby access to the bay for viewing and resting. More active recreational facil- ities would remain available at the Embarcadero Marina Park and at various neighborhood park and school playgrounds within the City of San Diego. MTDB METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD 620 C Street, Syite 400 San Diego, California 92101 (714) 231-1400 December 14, 1979 RECEIVED DEC 18 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL Mr. Tomas E. Firle, Coordinator MANAGEMENT Environmental Management San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 488 San Diego, CA 92112 Dear Mr. Firle: We have reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Port District's Master Plan and suggest that information on the MTDB light-rail transit (LRT) project be updated as follows: 1. Page 62 - The LRT vehicles will operate from the east side of the Santa Fe Depot. 2. Page 228 - Covered passenger waiting areas will be constructed at Civic Center Drive (13th Street) and 24th Street. A stop at 8th Street has been deleted from the plan. 3. B-12 - The Civic Center Drive station location replaces the 8th Street designation on the map of the LRT route. These notations reflect project changes which have occurred since the final studies were completed. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the draft EIR and to provide you with the current information. Sincerely, Thomas F. Larwin General Manager TFL:JB:dg cc: Janet Britt Maurice Carter RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (mtdb) signed by Thomas F. Larwin, General Manager (12/14/79; received 12/18/79) Response: The three minor changes suggested as update information by MTDB are herein incprporated in the EIR as follows: 1. Page 62 of the Master Plan Draft EIR is hereby revised to indicate that Light Rail Transit (LRT) vechiles will operate from the east side of the Santa Fe Depot. 2. Page 228 of the Draft EIR is corrected to indicate that covered passenger waiting areas will be constructed at Civic Center Drive (13th Street) and at 24th Street, and that a stop at Eighth Street has been deleted from the MTDB Plan. 3. Appendix B, page B012 of the Master Plan Draft EIR, is corrected to include the statement that the Civic Center Drive station location replaces the Eighth Street designation on the map of the LRT route. CITY OF CORONADO RECEIVED DEC 3 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 1826 Strand way Coronoado, CA 92118 City hall (714) 435-2211 November 30, 1979 Mr. Tomas E. Firle, Coordinator Environmental Management Port of San Diego P.O. Box 488 San Diego, CA 92112 Dear Mr. Firle: At the meetin gof November 29, 1979 the Coronado City Council reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Port Master Plan. As a result of that review the Council decided that: 1. The Draft EIr on the Port Master Plan is inaccurate relative to district 6 in that it addresses a plan which has been rejected by the City of Coronado, and it does not reflect the work of the City/Port Ad Hoc Committee; and 2. The EIR on the Master Plan is not sufficient to evalu- ate particular potential significant adverse impacts (e.g. traffic, nosie, air quality, aesthetic concerns, etc.) relative tothe ultimate site specific devleop- ment of the Coronado Tidelands. Therefore, the City of Coronado requests that a further detailed EIR(s) ad- dressing all relevant potential significant adverse impacts be prepared for the tidelands when site specific detailed palns are completed. It is further requested that this letter be submitted to the Board of Port Commissioners at their meeting of December 4, 1979 for consideration, and that the City's position as outlined in this letter be responded to and incorporated for the record in the Fianl EIR on the Master Plan. Thank you for allowing the City the opportunity to respond to the Draft EIR. Sincerely, C. PatrickCallahan, Mayor City of Coronado, California CPC/cm RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: CITY OF CORONADO signed by C. Patrick Callahan, Mayor (11/30/79; received 12/3/79) Response: The Draft EIr has pointed out that the land/water use portion of Planning District 6 was under reconsideration and that a Port/City of Coronado Ad Hoc Committee was established to resolve the issues, see pages 4, 8-9, 42-43, 76-78, 222-23, 228, 230, and 249. It is further stated that the Draft EIr (similar to the earlier Coronado Bayfront Plan DEIR, UPD #78102-EIR-2; SCH #78112818) has valid environmental setting data and that a decrease of the intensity of development would most likely bring about a decrease of "impacts". After the circulation of the Master Plan Draft EIR had been concluded and the Public Hearing of December 4, 1979 was held, the Port/City Ad Hoc Committee has achieved a Memorandum of Understanding. The Board of Port Commissioners, at their meeting of December 18, 1979 approved the Memorandum of Understanding by Resolution 79-338; the City of Coronado approved the document on December 19, 1979 by REsolution 5909. As indicated in the Draft EIr, and requested by the City of Coronado, sita- specific project proposals would be subject to environmental review when the respective project proposals are activated. It has been the practice of the Port to include all written material re- ceived in connection with an EIR review, in the Fianl EIR; the Port sees no reason to change this and consequently has included the City's letter as specifically requested. The City of SAN DIEGO CITY ADIMINSTRATION BUILDING 202 C STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 PHONE (714) 236-6688 LUCY KILLEA DECEMBER 3, 1979 Councilwoman RECEIVED DEC 4, 1979 Mr. Miles D. Bowler Member, Unified Port District 212 Daisy Street ENVIRONMENTAL Imperial Beach, California 92032 MANAGEMENT Dear Mr. Bowler: In your review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Port District's Master Plan on December 4, I ruge you to reconsider the Port District's position regarding bayfront access for the Barrio Logan community's recreational and open space needs. This last remaining vacant parcel on the waterfront in the area is vitally needed for the residents and people who work within this communiyt. No other recreational facility has satisfied this need, and there are no current plans to do so, except as envisioned in a general way by the community plan. The Port District holds this land in the public trust and has a responsibility to the public to weigh the needs of the community in its land use decisions. In this case I believe the need for re- creastional use of the bayfront far exceeds the need for this last vacant parcel to be used exclusively for industrial purposes. Other sites can be used for shop repair facilities, as the Regional Coastal Commission staff has pointed out. The public access afforded by the Port District's compromise "walkway" is not adequate, a fact readily apparent when you consider that on the opposite side of the bay Coronado has 132 acres of Port property, of which 98 acres are utilized for a public golf course and recreational use. Perhaps a more equitable compromise could be attained with creative site planning and iomaginative engineering. Such a compromise might retain some industrial activity on this site while provideing a significant amount of area for recreational uses in a mutually compatible and interesting way. I would be happy to assist the Port District in any way in developing such a compromise. I believe it is in everyon's best interest to work towards this goal. Sincerely, LUCY KILLEA Councilwoman Eighth District RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: CITY OF SAN DIEGO COUNCILWOMAN LUCY KILLEA signed by Lucy Killea, Councilwoman 8th District (12/3/79; received 12/4/79) Response: The questins on planning policies reised by Councilwoman Killea have been brought before the Board of Port Commissioners earlier. Addi- tional staff imformation has been provided in the responses to the State Coastal Commmission, Assemblyman Chacon, the Chicano Park Steerin gCommittee, Daniel L. Guevara, Al Johnston, as well as in the ?Summary of the Public Hearing" section. For clarificationi purposes only, the area in question has been in industrial use for decades and the Port has, as leases terminated in the last few year, assembled a more viable parcel to support the limited water frontage. Further it has razed obsolete buildings and phased out uses such as a carcass rendering plant. Various interim, small boatyeard uses, but on a short-term basis, were accommodated while a more comprehensive porposal was being developed. The area was not a "last remaining parcel." It appears from Councilwoman Killea's communication that a different design solution could be developed, capable to achieve a bay access while accommo- dating the water dependent uses of, particularly, the water frontage. The schematic indication of bay access was the result of the Board of Port Com- missioners director, and, interpretation oas solely a "Walkway" (sidewalk) was not the intent. It is not the prerogative of the Environmental Management staff to engage in alternative land/water use planning or plicy directions. However, as part of theEIr review, the Board of Port Commissioners is apprised of all issues and suggestions to resolve problems of competing priorities such as expressed particularly in the last two paragraphs of Councilwoman Killea's letter. December 12, 1979 Tomas E. Firle Environemntal Management Port of San Diego RECEIVED #488 DEC 12 1979 San Diego, CA 92112 re: DEIR, Master Plan, San Diego Unified Port District ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Dear Sir: My comments on the above referenced Draft EIR follow. 1) The alternatives section should include a discussion of the oft-proposed Barrio Logan Water Front Park. All documents included by reference in this section should be summarized as required by the State EIr Guidelines 15149 sect. C. In general, the cursory treatment given to alternatives is inadequate. 2) The socioeconomic setting should discuss the characteristics and needs of major port dependent activities, including recreation and commerical fishing. Socioeconomic impact should discuss how the Master Plan would affect those activities. 3) To state, as the DERI does on page 232, that wach city around the Port has existing allotments of sewerage capacity is mis- leading, when the Metro System cannot physically accomodate those allocation committments. This misleading impression should be corrected in the impact section. 4) Specific mitigating measures to alleviate the potential sig- nificant environmental impact resulting from the Chula Vista Boat Basin Peninsula J Street Extension and the Sweetwater Wharf project should be examined before the EIr is considered complete. I am available to discuss these comments. Sincerely, Scott Griffiths San Diego Chapter, Sierra Club 1010 27th St. San Diego, CA 92102 239-8588 REPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: SIERRA CLUB signed by Scott Griffiths, San Diego Chapter (12/12/79; received 12/12/79) Response: The Altenatives section of the Draft EIr on Pages 249-250 is hereby amended to include the cinsoderation of the Barrio Logan bay Water- front Park alternative and related issues as described and incorporated by reference, in the Draft EIR on pages 8, 10, 40 and 53, and in the Master Plan on pages 97-98. The documents included by reference in the Alternatives sectiono f the Draft EIr were summarized as required by the State EIr guidelines, Section 15149 (c), on pages 27-52. In consideration of regional planning alternatives for the Port Master Plan, over 15 different city generalplans and community plans, as well s military plans for teh surrounding areas wre analyzed. In addition, Port Precise Plans and corresponding EIRS of Port Planning Districts for Shelter Island, Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field, Centre City/Embarcadero, CHula Vista Bayfront, and Coronado Bayfrton Development Plans were analyzed and described in detail in the provious documents cited. They were also incorporated by reference in the Draft EIr on pages 27-52. These previously written precise Plan docu- ments wre also referenced inthe Environmental Impacts and Mitigating MEasures section of the Draft EIr on pages 221-246. The Socio-economic setting the Master Plan Draft EIr did not include an additional discussion of the characteristics and needs of major Port dependent activities such as recreational and commerical fishing since these land uses together with their objectives and criteria were described in the Master Plan for recreation on pages 36-38; for commerical fishing on pages 23-25; and for various major Port dependent activities onpages 31-34. The statement in the Draft EIr on page 232 that, "Each of the cities sur- rounding the Master Paln area has an existing allotment of sewerage capacity purchased from the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System", is hereby qualified as follows> Although the presently existing unencumbered capacity of the San Diego Metro- politan Sewerage System (Metro) cannot physically accommodate all allocation commitements of the surrounding County and City area, it should be noted that each surrounding area purchases a contract allotment which assumes gradual, not instantaneous population growth increases over some future projected period. If the surrounding residential areas experienced instantaneous popu- lation growth increases, the existing physical capacity of the Metro System would in fact, not be able to accommodate such growth increases. Imkprovements to facilities and expansion of capacityof the Metro System as identified in the Draft EIr, are coordinated with the generalplans and the various growth projections requirements of teh surrounding areas which it servees. Additional available capacity therefore, is generally maintained for those surrounding service areas. In the absence of such coordination, carious decision making bodies such as the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors and the City Councils within the San Diego region have historically regulated residential development and population growth increases in surrounding areas by invoking priority connec- tion requirements and in some cases, building moratoriums. The Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) exercises planning control for infrastructure development directly, and indirectly via the A-95 process. It should be noted, further, that with regard to Port District development proposals, no residential uses are permitted on Port tidelands. Consequently, additional significant demands which may be placed upon the Metro System would result primarily from the population growth rate increases from the surrounding city and county areas. Specific mitigating measures regarding the potentials for significant environ- mental impacts which could result from the Chula Vista Boat Basin Peninusla J Street Extension and the Sweetwater Wharf (D Street Wharf) project cannon ffeasibly be proposed at this time. These projects and others in the same general vicinity would be subject to subsequent environmental review and may necessitate the preparation of environmental documents as appropriate. Esti- mates of the impacts which may be associated with these projects together with suggestions for approaches to biological habitat mitigation/compensation mea- sures are described in the Response letters to comments received from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Claifornia Department of Fish and Game (CFG) in the Comments Received and response Section of this EIR. December 3, 1979 Commissioners of the Board SanDiego Unified Port District Subject: Proliminary Draft Master Plan Environmental Impact Report The Preliminary Draft, Master Plan Environmental Impact report neglects to mention Shelter Island was build with federal funds which allows the corridor area to be one half commerical business and one half recreational facilities. This in itself allows the commerical fishermen the use of the corridor area for their fishing business interests. The EIr neglects to mention public opposition to the Shelter Island Bay Corridor Plan as proviously presented. The port district plan for re- moval of the Star Kist unloading facility which was used specifically for the use of commerical fishing vessels to unload their catch of fish was denied by the Regional Coastal Commission> This sole proposal was also denied to the port district by the State Coastal Commission. It is incon- ceivable that the port district is again planning on the implementation of the same project. The EIR neglects to mention oposition to the installationo f a low cost, fast food restaurant and park like setting of the corner of Laonorege Lane and Shelter Island Drive. Proviously this project was to be installed at the cost of the removal of present parking area of over 120 . A such needed parking area for the people using the corridor. This pro- posed project was denied to the port district by the Regional Coastal Com- mission and was also denied by the State Coastal Commission. The port dis- troit was instructed to look elsewhere on Shelter Island for the fast food restaurant. The port district officials, or staff, evidently disregards the wishes of the people who use Shelter Island and who have gone through the correct and necessary governmental procedures to make their wishes know. In fact, it appears the port district totally disregards the Regional Coastal com- mission and State Coastal Commission on their decisions. In the best interest of the fishing industry of San Diego the previous input should not be ignored by the San Diego Unified Port Diestrict. The port district is to promote the fishing industyr, as well as others. This should include the smaller commerical fishing vessels, as well as the soiners. The EIR also omits the fact that the Commerical Basin area was origi- nally designated as an anchorage for transient vessels. In the proposed 120 and storm anchorage facility, the port district should not use the 120 figure to permanent tie up sources for commerical fishing vessels. It should be noted, fishing vessels are working boats, not pleasure craft, and these same boats require shore side facilities, along with electricity and water. The proposed will serve as an emer- gency tie up. It is inconceivable that the port district would attempt to force the fishing boats to in the basin on a permenient basis. Respectfully submitted, LRS. Helen L. Tyler RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: MRS. hELEN TYLER Signed by Helen L. Tyler (12/3/79; received 12/4/79) Response: Concerns wre expressed regarding commerical fishing interest in the Shelter Island Planning District, the "Shelter Island Bay Corridor Plan", possible removal of the Star-Kist dock andunloading facility, and a proposed low-cost, fast-food restaurant at Anchorage Lane and Shelter Island Drive. No specific environmental issues however, were raised in conjunction with the expressed concerns, except for the issue of available parking spaces. It should be noted that the Master Plan indicates conver- sion of a nexisting parking area of 68 spaces, not 120. Additional parking is allocated across the street in the same area. The Port Master Plan has been revised to show retention of the so-called Star-Kist dock for commerical fishing uses. Proposals for a low-cost, fast- food restaurant and a small park on Anchorage Lane have been previously analyzed in the Shelter Island Precise Plan Final EIr, referenced in the Master Plan Draft EIr on pages 27-28. The discussionof proposals for imkprovements to the Commerical Basin area on page 65 of the Master Plan eescribes in some detail the proposed reno- vations to commerical fishing facilities. Included are shoreside support facilities, improvements to the pier and dock berthing areas for the commerical fishing fleet, and proposed improvements for the anchorage area. Further improvements for the commerical fishing fleet are proposed in the G-Street Mole area and in the Chula Vista Planning District. State of California, Edmund G. Br Jr., Governor California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 543-8555 December 4, 1979 RECEIVED DEC 4 1979 Mr. Tomas Firle ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental Coordinator MANAGEMENT Port of San Diego P.O. Box 488 San Diego CA 92112 SUBJECT: Additional Comments on Port Master Plan EIR (To be presented at December 4, 1979 public hearing) Dear Tomas; Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I am providing additional comments on the Port of San Diego Master Plan EIr to help clarify and/or expand upon the concerns referenced in our letter of November 20, 1979. As we discussed, the EIR prepared by the Port of Los Angeles for their Master Plan appears to us to meet the Coastal Act requirements and provide the level of detail we feel adequate for a Master Plan environmental impact report. Impacts of the Physical Environment 1. Geology and Topography. Several projects in the port master plan anticipate dredging and/or landfilling, which will result in significant terrain modifica- tions. Seismic impacts, including ground shaking, lequefaction, differential compaction, and landslides are considered possibilities due to the Port's location in a seismically active region. 2. Atmospheric Conditions. Motor vehicle traffic and vessel operations are generally associated with most land use categories and are considered to be significant sources of air pollutant emissions. Motor vehicle emmissions are probably more significant, particularly exhaust from trucks associated with cargo operations. 3. Acqustics. Receptor areas such as residential area, schools, hospitals, con- valescent homes, and business and related to offices are considered most sensitive to noise in the vicinity of the port. Assessments should be made of the density of these receptors and their distance from potentially noise-intensive areas of the port including areas where major construction activities such as pile driving would be expected to occur in implementing the plan. 4. Hydrology and Oceanography. The creation of additional landfills in the South Bay could affect circulation in the harbor. The potential reduction in the fetch by the creation of neew lanfill areas are likely to affect loclly generated wind Mr. Tomas Firle December 4, 1979 Page Two waves. These short period waves may also experience a reduction in energy as new piers and land areas, basins and slips may increase the number of possible resonant modes of oscillation for long-period waves. The irregular reflective surfaces of existing shorelines and new landfill areas combined with existing and proposed basins and channels will become more complex requiring detailed hydrographic analysis for the project EIR. 5. Water Quality. Landfill operations involve many of the same potiential impacts that are created during dredging procedures. Turbidity increases in B.O.D. and C.O.D., decreases in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and the release of nutrients into the water column as return water leaves the diked landfill areas. These impacts can usually be mainimsed through dike design, specific landfilling procedures, silta- tion curtains, and flocculants. Impacts on the Biotic Environment 1. Habitats. A summary of the impacts to marine habitats and benthic organisms (as represented by their biomass) of the development projects int he Master Plan should be presented in the final EIR. 2. Biota. Impacts to the biota will likely arise from the major development projects in the Port Master Plan. Short-term impacts from dredging activities and long-term impacts from channel deepening and land filling will occur. The use of hydraulic cutterhead dredges may minimze many of the impacts normally associated with dredging as this type of equipment causes the least turbidity and sediment resuspansion. 3. Endagered Species. The major impacts of the Port Master lan implementation on endagered species will result from the proposed activities in Planning District 7. Additional landfill in shallow waters of the South Bay may impact the California least tern since it provides a close feeding ground for least terns nesting on the Chula Vista Bayfront and D Street fill areas. Impacts on the Socio-Economic and Cultural Environment 1. Land and Water use. Implementation of the Port Master Plan will have a signifi- cant impact on land and water use in most undeveloped land and water areas of the bay. Land and water use priorities, as they are depicted in the Master Plan will shift the presently balanced commerical and recreational related land and water uses to one of predominatly recreation related. Because the ports of California area considered a significant economic and coastal resource the presumption of primary port or water dependent industrial uses by recreation may have significant impacts on the emonomy or the region. 2. Archaeological and Cultural Resources. The present master paln and EIr fail to identify sites in the port which have been identified as significant historical or cultural resources by virture of their being listed by the State Historic Preservation Officer of the National REgishter of Historic Places. Mr. Tomas Firle December 4, 1979 Page Three 3. Fire and Safety. Risk Management and Safety Planning deals withthe safety aspects of Port planning and operations. The design on new facilities should include fire prevention and safety features. Pilot service, Coast Guard regula- tions, anchorage area designations, vessel traffic safety systems, isolated fueling or hazardous cargo operations help to reduce the level of risk associated with normal port operations. I hope this information will be helpful in revising the draft EIR to better meet the requirements of the Coastal Act of 1976 and provide a useable framework for future port planning decisions. Sincerely, MICHAEL DADASOVICH Ports Coordinator MD:lr cc: Mike Kennedy RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL COMMISSION signed by Michael Dadasvich Ports Coordinator (12/4/79; submitted during 12/4/79 public hearing) Response: State Coastal Commision staff provided the following additional comments on the Port Master Plan Draft EIR. Responses corresponding to the categories listed are provided in the same order as follow: Impacts of the Physical Environment 1. Geology and Topography Landform modivication as a result of Master Plan emplementation, and aspects of seismicity and related geologic haards were addressed and described in the Draft EIR on pages 180-203, and 244. Project-specific information cannot be developed with regard to seismic and geological hazard issues since the majority of location and design detials necessary for such analysis are un- available, until the project is actually proposed. 2. Atmospheric Conditions Motor vehicle traffic and vessel operations associated with Master Plan land use catagories are only a potential source of significant air pollutant emissions. The existing air quality setting and the potential for air quality impacts were addressed in the Master Plan Draft EIR on pages 126-135, and 238. The reader is also directed to the response to the letter from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. 3. Acoustics It was acknowledged in the Draft EIR on page 247 that major con- struction activities such as pile driving would have the ptoential for noise impacts on adjacent areas. It must be noted, however, that such noise impacts would be short-term, limited tot he dura- tion of the construction activities. Further, the amount of water development which requires pile-driving is minimal. Generally speaking, as was noted in the Draft EIR on pages 106-125, and 236- 237, standard construction regulations generally limit construction, including activities such as pile-driving to normal working hours. Assessments of the density of receptor areas such as residential areas, schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, and business and related offices, would be appropriate if long-term significantly adverse noise impacts were anticipated from major construction activities resulting from implementation of the Port Master Plan. 4. Hydrology and Oceanography As indicated in the Master Plan Draft EIR, water circulation in San Diego Bay could be affected by additional land fills in the South Bay; however, such potential effects are primarily related to the effect of tidal flushing on water circulation, as dis- cussed in the Draft EIr sections on Hydorology on pages 204-213, and 244-245. The effects of wind or vessel generated waves on water circulation are minor. It is possible that following project- specific proposals involving fills, such as the Chula Vista Boat Basin J Street Second Peninusla Extension, hydrographic analyses may be required. However, for planning purposes, the Master Plan Draft EIR serves to highlight the general issues of concern over hydrologic modification in south San Diego Bay and as previously referenced, the Draft EIR has done so. Water Quality As indicated in the Draft EIR on pages 174-179, and 242-243, it is anticipated that a potential exists for environmental impacts upon water quality, particularly in South San Diego Bay where water circulation is relatively slow and water depths are shallow. It should be noted, however, that water quality impacts can usually be minimized through dike design, specific land filling procedures, and other measures such as siltation curtains flocculants. Such specific mitigating measures, however, cannot be proposed for land fill operations as shown in the Master Plan until such time as detailed designs are available. Subsequent environmental review may reveal the necesssity for EIR's focusing on issues such as circulation and water quality as appropriate. Impacts on the Biotic Environment 1. Habitats A summary of the impacts on marine habitats and benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms was provided in the Draft EIR on pages 240- 241. The request for representation of the biomass of marine habitats and benthic organisms as a means of assessing Master Plan devel- opment impacts is inappropriate. The term biomass refers to the actual physical weight of marine life existing in the San Diego Bay area. Even preliminary biomass estimates throughout San Diego Bay would be prohibitively expensive ($100,000 and up) and would not materially change the quality of information upon which to base impact assessments. The Draft EIR provided a summary of habitat types and acreage covered on page 141 and a general impact analysis on pages 240-241. For additonal infor- mation, the reader is referenced to the response to comments from the Natinal Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Because individual design and construction details for the majority of Master Plan proposals planned (which may have a potential for biological impacts) are out of necessity unavail- able until actually activated, specific details of impacts and mitigating/compensating measures cannot be presented at this time. Such information would become available during subsequent environmental review of those individual projects which have a potential for significant biological impact. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), impacts are only deemed significant if they are unmitigatable to a level beneath a threshold of substantial adverse as per There is no basis in fact for the assertion that primary port or water dependent industrial uses will be preempted by recreation uses and thereby result in significant impacts on the economy in the region. 2. Archeological and Cultural Resources The Draft EIR identified both in the text and in illustraive form, significant historical and cultural resources listed by the State Historic Preservation Officer and the National Register of Historic Places on pages 214-220. Additional histroic site descriptions of the San Diego Bay area, based on the California Inventory of Histroic Resources by the California Department of parks and Recreation (1976) area also included in their entirety in Appendix F, Historical Site Descriptions on pages F-1 and F-2 of the Draft EIR. Recorded archeological sites wre also described both in text and in illustrative form on pages 214-220 of the Draft EIR. Archeological site records and summaries of complete record searches and site information were also provided in Appendix G of the Draft EIR on pages G-1 through G-7. 3. Fire Prevention and Safety The ultimate design of specific facilities under Master Plan proposals will indeed include fire prevention and safety features. All aspects of fire prevention and safety measures including pilot service, Coast Guard regulations, anchorage areas designations, vessel traffic safety, and isolated fueling or hazardous cargo operations help to reduce the level of risks associated with normal port operations. These procedures are described in the Master Plan and Draft EIR. The reader is also referred to the response to the letter of comment (11/20/79) submitted during the public review period by the California State Coastal Commission on storage and transportation of hazardous materials. CHICANO PARK STEERING COMMITTEE 1960 NATIONAL AVE SAN DIEGO CALIF 92113 December 4, 1979 RECEIVED Dec 4 1979 Port of San Diego P.O. Box 488 ENVIRONMENTAL San Diego, California 92112 MANAGEMENT Gentlemen: It is the Position of the Chicano Park Steering Committee and the residents of Logan Heights to strive for bay-access by any means necessary. Historically, the Barrio Logan community has been ignored and neglected by different levels of government. The 1960's brought a freeway and bridge through the heart of this communiyt. It was because of the poor living conditions in the barrio and the "cement rape" of the communiyt, that forced residents to take action and the stop the construction of a CMP sub-station and establish the neighborhood's only park, Chicano Park. When Chicano Park was founded almost 10 years ago, the long-range goal of the park was to develop it to the waterfront. The Barrio Logan community and it's surrounding communities are growing and need open space on the coast. The Chicano Park Steering Committee has worked 10 years toward this goal and will continue to pursue this til the end. We have also worked in conjunction with the Barrio Logan; Harbor 101 Planning Association and the Planning Association Barrio Caucus to develop plans to extend Chicano Park to the bay. We clearly oppose any suggestions or ideas of a "pedestrian walk-way" by the bay. Our position is clear. The community needs aldn recreational use. This is greatly needed in this area and your cooperation will be appreciated. Sincerely, Tomasa Camarillo Consultant RS cc: Coastal Commission City Planning Dept. Barrio Caucus RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: CHICANO PARK STEERING COMMITTEE, Tomasa Camarillo signed by Tomasa Camarillo, Consultant (12/4/79; submitted 12/4/79 at public hearing) Response: Contents of this letter of comment are essentially the same as those of the letter of comment from California State Assemblyman Peter Chacon. The reader is referenced to the responses to those comments. DANIEL L GUEVARA ATTORNEY AT LAW 600 B Street, Suite 2250 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (714) 234-8113 December 4, 1979 RECEIVED DEC 4 1979 The Unified Port of San Diego 3165 Pacific Highway ENRIVONMENTAL San Diego, California 92101 MANAGEMENT Gentlemen: For over ten years, the Southeast San Diego Community has been voicing its need for recreational facilities on the bayfront. There remains one last remaining undeveloped parcel in the Barrio Logan bay frontage. Contrary tot he public's interest, this parcel has been dedicated by the San Diego Unified Port District for only marine industrial development. The employees and residents of Barrio Logan, including the Southeast San Diego communities, beleive that they, too, are legally entitled to the beneficial use of bay frontage for recreational development. The acreage is held in public trust and any other use is detrimental in that regard. The Bay Front Committee represents local and state-wide community organizations, social service agencies, environmental associations, along with professional and business groups interested inthe recre- ational fulfillment of the public trust concerning this small five and one-half acre port bay frontage. Briefly, let us present the Port's objections, followed by our response 1. Site is unsafe due to railroad tracks and industrial nature of area. Three separate areas in the port district are presently developed for recreational use that have railroad tracks nearby. In Chula Vista, National City and in the Embarcadero Marina, well-designed pedestrian walkways have solved that concern. Another proposal is the construction of a pedestrian overpass that will visually enhance this area. It will con- nect the new educational cultural complex to the bayfront scenery. This area is not industrial, but a unique half-and-half mix of industry and an historically-established residential community. Add to this community the 50,000 employees who will benefit from this recreational facility. 2. The Embarcadero-Marina development will satisfy the area's need for recreation. The Unified Fort of Son Diego -2- December 4. 1979 The Unified Port of Sao Diego -3- Dotemb;, *, 1979 The Marine to not a facility that will fulfill the S. Remaining sites on Ban Diego Day are not adequate for boat recreational saade of rho southeast San Diego Community. repair facilities. The area's residents do not own small crafts and yachts. The Regional Coastal Commission Staff Findings Report earlier The City of See Diego's study on transportation found lose this year Indicated alternstivo sites. The Port District thas one-third of the households in the Barrio Logan Cos- and State Coastal Commission have been unable to discuss munity own a car, and one-third of the population are senior any alternatives. The Part contends there to no need for citizens. When these facts &to combined. one understands discussion of alternatives because that site to designated the used for this recreational alto to be located within for that Industrial use.' the community. We do not want to be bussed out of our residential core; bosid*o, the rising cost of transporta- 6. Condemnation of property rights of existing tenants. tion represents a problem of accessibility. The Impact of not utilizing that small five-acre parcel for this purpose There are so permanent structures on the property becave* will adversely affect the public's opportunity to this the Coastal Commission has denied permits for industrial coastal resource. one, and therefore has avoided londlocking this area and precluded permanent lose to the community of recreational The City's LCP to planning to provide bike path@ and land- facilities on the bay front. scape pedestrian walkways eop*clslly guided to the bayfront I along Crosby Street where this park *111 be situated. 7. Recreational am*@ at* inconsistent with planning policies established by the Port District Act and Port-related The bay to only one block from the residential community. policies of the California Coastal Act. yet It Is entirely landlocked and this is the lost undeveloped Proport7. Chapter 8 of the Coastal Act stot*o-iu part that *deveLopmento #hall be located, designed and constructed so as to provide 3. Crosby load Is a now street. built by the Fort and is the for other beneficial us** consistent with the pubIle trust# solo gateway for the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal. It is Including. but not limited to, recreation and wildlife habital over this rout* that all truck traffic most pass to and uses. to the extent feasible." from the terminal. Since there are competing uses for the land, the other applic- The City's LCP Plan indicates that the more effective route able section of Chapter 8 of the Coastal Act to 30007.3 which to nedr Eighth Avenue end to planning to direct street truck given guidance for resolution of such conflictes traffic In that direction. Otherwise, tb* heavy trucking 11 crosses the residential community and poses a hazard with "the Legislature furthdr finds and roc@julsss that Its proximity to the now four-block educational cultural conflict* soy occur between on* or more policies of complex. the division. The Legislature th*reforsl declar*:Ios that In carrying out the provisions of this divi 4. Reduction of already audit Inventory of port-related indus- such conflicts be resolved in a manner Alch on balance trial sites to the region. Is the most protective of significant -ij dotal resources." The Port's utilization of property must also meet the rocre- A 4adicstion of the acreage by the Fort for reereational otional needs of the general public, not only the industrial. use would. "on balance". be "most protective of significant to planning for state tidelands, the Port ham the responsi- coastal resources. Any other proposal will preclude the bility to incorporate recreational use especially with re- recreational use and adversely Impact thin public's used. spect to the public's concern for this property for so many Remember. this Is the last vacant undeveloped parcel that years. will serve the southeast San Diego region*. It to Important to note that If the Port property In this bay Is so valuable, why Is so such in the Marine being planned do recreational? Carefully conceived planning would have proposed three acres near the Marina (north end of 10th Avenue Terminal) for the boat repair yard. The Unified Port of San Diego -4- December 4, 1979 Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act requires public access for every community located on the coastline. In reaction, the Port offered to landscape a 25-foot wide walkway and a new fishing pier. In review of this proposal, it is not ade- quate space to meet the demands of over 50,000 employees in this bay front, the Barrio residents and the southeast San Diego region that will utilize this recreational facility. In summary, the present Port District EIR in this land use issue is inadequate. An EIR must follow CEQA regulations, which call for disclosure of all impacts of a proposal. The Port Distruct staff knew about the public's need and interest, yet failed to adequately discuss the adverse impact of the boat repair proposal. No alternatives were indicated for the boatyard in violation of CEQA's policies for failure to disclose and describe alternatives. The EIR does not explain the impact of the loss of the opportunity for recreational facilities on that specific site. The Port Commissions are a public body charged with the responsibility of balancing industrial and recreational uses of significant coastal resources for the public welfare. In the balance, it must be concluded that the welfare of the community needs the complament of recreational facilities along bay frontage already heavily industrialized. The region historically had access and, now, has the momentum to regain some scenic value, vista area and new fishing pier. Thank you for this opportunity to present the public's interest. Very truly yours, DARREL L. GUEVARA DLG:tb cc: Mr. Michael Fischer, California Coastal Commission Mr. Steve Horn, California Coastal Commission Mr. Deni Greene, Office of Planning & Research Assemblyman Peter Chacone Councilwoman Lucy Killea, City of San Diego RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: DANIEL L. GUEVARA, ATTORNEY AT LAW signed by Daniel L. Guevara (12/4/79; submitted 12/4/79 during public hearing) Response: Contents of this letter of comment are essentially the same as those of the letter of comment from California State Assemblyman Peter Chacon. The reader is referenced to the responsees to those comments. CALIFORNIA RECEIVED MARICULTURE DEC 4 1979 INCORPORATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT December 4, 1979 Board of Commissioners San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 488 San Diego, CA 92112 Dear Sirs: We appreciate this opportunity to address the Commissioners of the Unified Port District. We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Port of San Diego master paln and are pleased to note a strong concern for maintaining and improving water quality in San Diego Bay. As a local corporation involved in aquaculture and marine biology, our interest in the bay concerns several related topics. We presently are under contract from the Conprehensive Planning Organ- ization to identify and locate sources of bacterial pollution in the northern end of San Diego Bay. Also, we are in the process of developing a major commerical fish and shrimp farm near the San Diego Gas & Electric Company's power plant in south San Diego Bay. We have considerable experience in the use of warm seawater effluent for accelerating the growth of several species of marine animals. Encouraging negotiations are underway with SDGAE for use of this water and with the Western Salt Company for use of a portion of their existing salt ponds. We have discussed our interest with the Environmental Management and Planning Departments of the Port District. Any actions by the Port to protect and improve the water quality of the bay will be of direct benefit to companies such as our. Aquaculture is an intelligent, ecologically-aware, non-exploitive use of our marine resources which helps to meet the increasing demands for high-quality seafood without causing further exploitation of fisheries stocks that already are under heavy fishing pressure. It also is very compatible with environmental concerns for preservation of ciritical wildlife habitat. We believe that San Diego is an excellent location for aquaculture and expect that as this new technology develops many new firms will choose to locate here. Again, we would like to thank the Commissioners for this opportunity to introduce our plans and interests in the future of San Diego Bay. We look forward to working with the Port District to achieve our objectives and will be happy to provide more detailed information if requested. Sincerely, Jon C. Van Olst James M. Carlberg 8167 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla California 92037 (714) 459-4595/(714) 454-6453 RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: CALIFORNIA MARICULTURE INCORPORATED signed by James M. Carlberg and Jon C. Van Olst (12/4/79; submitted 12/4/79 during public hearing) Response: The importance of maintaining and improving water quality in San Diego Bay, particularly as related to the potential for aquaculture activities, is acknowledged. The Master Plan's description of Marine Related Industry uses, on page 32, includes the potential of commerical mariculture activities in converted salt ponds in areas of South Bay, particularly wherein adjacent warm water discharge from electrical power plants is available. It is further acknowledged that such commerical activities may retain compatibility with biological habitat and other environmental concerns in the area. (REPRESENTATIVE SMAPLE OF NINEN PAGES SUBMITTED) RECEIVED DEC 4 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT November 29, 1979 TO: The Board of Commissioners, San Diego Port District We, the undersigned, wish to express the need for recreational bay front acreage in the southeast San Diego/Barrio Logan communities. We have been informed that the San Diego Port District's Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) have dedicated this last vacant property for marine industrial development We wish to inform the honorable commissioner of our dissatis- faction with the Master Plan, specifically the inadequate discussion of the impct that an industrial devlopment will have on the public's need for bay frontage. Furthermore, we urge the commissioners to adopt the Bay Front Committee's recommendation for recreational access in that last remaining 5.4 acres of Barrio Logan. Name: Address: Telephone No: RESPONSE TO COMMENT FROM: AL JOHNSTON, BAY FRONT COMMITTEE signed by Al Johnston (11/29/79; submitted together with attached signatures 12/4/79 at public hearing) Response: Contents of this letter of comment are essentially the same as those of the letter of comment from California State Assemblyman Peter Chacon. The reader is referenced to the responses to those comments. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 34.6 1 I I i i I I I I i I I APPENDIX A SAN DIEGO BAY/GLORIETTA BAY I ANCHORAGE LOCATIONS AND REGULATIONS I I I I I I I I I I A-i N'O T I C E N 0 T I C E N 0 T I C E THE REGULATORY ORDINANCES LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN REPRINTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY FROM THE CITY OF CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE AND SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT CODE FOR INFORMATION AND COMPLIANCE. THESE SECTIONS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED TO BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AND'IN CONSONANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL LAWS. 13.16.540 Water-skiing areas, etc. The following area is hereby designated a water-skiing area and shall be devoted exclu- sively to water-skiing, surfboard and use of similar devices: That portion of Glorietta Bay and San Diego Bay within the city limits lying easterly of a line drawn between a point one thousand twenty-five feet northerly of station 518 and station 500 of the United States Bulkhea d Line. (Prior code 7551). 13.16.550 Bathing, swimming and surfboarding. Except when participating in a public exhibition or meet conducted pursuant to a permit issued by the port director, no person shall bathe, swim, use or ride a surfboard, water skis or other device in t at portion of Glorietta Bay lying westerly of a line drawn between a point one thousand twenty-five feet northerly,of station 518 and station 500 of the established United States Bulkhead Line. (Prior code 7551.1). U.P.D. Code. Sec. 8.27 - Aquatic Activities Regulated (a) It shall be unlawful to fish, swim, surfboard, water-ski or engage in any other aquatic activity in any area within the harbor or on the tidelands or submerged lands of the District where any such activity is prohibited by order of the Board of Port Commissioners, or to engage in any such activity contrary to regulations adopted by the Board of Port Commissioners. Prohibited activities and regula- tions ordered by the Board of Port Commissioners shall be displayed by si ns posted in areas where such prohibitions or regulations apply. ?b) It shall be unlawful to swim, bathe, water-ski or use a surfboard or paddleboard in the marked channel of Shelter Island Yacht Harbor, the marked entrance channel to Shelter Island Yacht Harbor, the marked channel of the Commercial Basin, the marked entrance channel to'the Commercial Basin, the marked channel of Glorietta Bay, the marked entrance channel. to Glorietta Bay, the marked channel of the east and v-est lagoons of Harbor Island, the marked Chula Vista channel, the National City Launching Ramp Basin, or the marked Coronado Cays channel. l Enacted April 12, 1966 - Ordinance No. 224) Amended September 5, 1967 - Ordinance No. 321) Amended August 21, 1973 - Ordinance No. 635) A CHARTLET IS PROVIDED ON THE REVERSE SIDE FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION. ENFORCEMENT OF THESE REGULATIONS WILL COMMENCE FEBRUARY 17, 1978. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT HARBOR POLICE A-1 FIGURE A-1 36 jtj 30 0"N' 40 40' 40 0 r1* 30 37 Av" al, 34 37 ...... 41 37 35 InUAT TANK 33 4$ it 40 32 31 f 40 Pei. a..i I& r 31 35 FG 36 't \ 39 39 39 32 34 37 '.J - i 27 32 36 35 36 "-a IiA as 31 34 *%m 26 31 38 33 33 34 30Z--. ,/ .'. 36 32 31 31 N.0/ 4 32 32- so 0 39 31 32 32 a 31 31 31 31 37 _7 - - - - - _-33 Kom ct s,,. 32 31 VIRT C1M 32 -" 33 32 - 32 t:m_: 31- f A D 0 31 r4r-CORONADO CITY LIMIT LINE 3, 31 32 HORN oo @3 9100 CL 4 VI 32 33 VIST CL 195 FT W4 ". 31 --7 32R SAN DIEGO-CO :RONADO BAY BRIDGE NVIS. Jl_, P_. 11. A set of 3 fixed h.10 lichts is mounted wertsCally WATER SKI AREA 29 bove a green range fight on tho northwest side -ANCHORING PROHIBITED :I the center of the main inbound channel be- COR. MUNI. CODE tween V;ers 18 and 19 and also an the southeast 30 : ide at the c of the main oulbound channel .16.540 iir ,:nte, rid 31 el eon p; 19 a 20. IT 7) 46 BOUNDARY -@5 111PH 7 -7 LIMIT SIGN 7 @7/ cz 0 r 7 yalet S V. 12 114.6 ol 13 16 17 12 t3 1-4,41 A10 'o a 6 16 16 6 4M 12 STACK 16 -6- 12 a 6 15 4 IADO 18 A-5 6 IVIA?1(9 11 \ 11 5 66 16 ft, 13 6 lpt . 16 *it 9 10 17 10 J5 5 7 WATER SKIING PROHIBITED C.: .c C %16 OR. MUNI. CODE 13.16.550" C 11 17, 15 1-12- 9 a C2. x' ok F. G I h - f5 , 10 9 12 to 16 12 4 '4" 23 4 .4 % 20 10 & 1 % % 4 4 5* 10 it 24 3 Cam. 12 22 4 Area 12 313 26 26 23 to / 10 0 FROM '23AV CHART /677-' 28 25 Z.- 9- 7a .10 A-2 I I I I I 1, II I I APPENDIX B CIRCULATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY I I I I I I I I I I B-i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CIRCULATION ANALYSIS Introduction AN OVERVIEW The Circulation Analysis is to provide the San Diego Unified Port District with a report that includes an overview of circulation, traffic, and parking problem areas within and contiguous to the Port District's nine (UPD #78102-EIR-1 CA) planning districts. The Circulation Analysis was not meant to be an in-depth study, but a review and identification of problem areas with recommendations for correction or further study to determine actual problems and solutions. The information provided can be integrated into the District's Master Plan so that related environmental issues will be included within the Port's Coastal Plan. prepared for Project Organization The project was initiated in November 1978 and was conducted by the fi rm of SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT BERRYMAN AND STEPHENSON, INC., Consultants to Governmental Agencies. It was P.O. Box 488 San Diego, CA 92112 under the direction of the Port District's Environmental Management Department and coordinated with the Planning Department. Project Objectives The primary objective of the Circulation Analysis was to conduct site evaluations and prepare an overview report of a) vehicle traffic circulation and congestion areas, b) parking space availability, and c) street and road capacities within specific districts. The nine districts which were prepared by reviewed and analyzed include: Shelter Island BERRYMAN AND STEPHENSON, INC. Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field CONSULTANTS TO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Centre City/Embarcadero 200 North Ash Street Suite 100 Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal Escondido, CA 92026 National City Bayfront Coronado Bayfront April 1979 Chula Vista Bayfront Silver Strand South South Bay Saltlands i. The specific purpose of this project was to obtain, analyze, and evaluate Throughout this report the results of the Consultant's investigative work existing data, studies and reports pertaining to circulation, traffic, and evaluation of traffic circulation concerns are presented. It was parking, and transportation within the Port District's jurisdiction. found that there is an ongoing need for professional traffic engineering Project Approach assistance in determining solutions to the capacity and congestion problem occurring within and contiguous to the Port District's jurisdiction. The This project was approached by the Consultant as if he was a member of the rapid development within the Planning Districts need to be assessed for Port District's staff. Information regarding traffic problem areas and traffic impacts as a whole and not on a piecemeal fashion as obtained future traffic needs was obtained from the contiguous agencies through with individual environmental impact statements. Many of the traffic telephone discussions and personal interviews with people at the agencies. Studies, reports, and environmental documents that had been prepared for impact studies completed for the developments within the District have particular traffic and transportation related concerns were reviewed been adequate, but have not gone far enough to provide a Plan for Impact and analyzed for inclusion in this report. Field studies and site Mitigation. It is therefore suggested that the District consider the evaluations were conducted to authenticate the existing reports and provide development of a Plan for Traffic and Circulation Improvements. a basis for the Consultant's conclusions. Field studies included The review and evaluation of each Planning District for traffic automobile speed and delay in traffic to determine levels-of-service of circulation resulted in some significant findings and recommendations significant arterial streets within, and providing access to, the Port's for improvements or further study. Districts where additional planning jurisdiction. Parking availability was reviewed and analyzed, although for traffic improvements is needed and significant circulation deficiencies not inventoried, to identify space problems within the planning districts. are located include the Centre City/Embarcadero area, Coronado Bayfront Traffic circulation problem areas and specific problems were discussed with access, and Chula Vista Bayfront. The methodology, analysis, and - recommendations are included in the report. Following are some of the the appropriate agency involved and are included in the report. Conclusions and Recommendations significant findings and recommendations within each Planning District: During the conduct of this project, it was found by the Consultant that 1. Shelter Island closer coordination and communication is needed between the various The roadways that provide access to this District are in need-of regional and local agencies. Projects and studies are being conducted improvements to guide signing, striping, and traffic signal timing by the governmental agencies within the San Diego area which directly under the auspices of the City of San Diego. Specific recommendations affect each entity. It is suggested that a review of the coordination for the District include the installation of a Class III bikeway and and cooperation procedures between the Comprehensive Planning Organization. continuity of travel lane striping for Shelter Island Drive, providing Bay Cities, Metropolitan Transit Development Board, Regional Coastal either two or four travel lanes throughout. Commission, San Diego County, San Diego Port District, and other agencies be undertaken to develop closer relationships. The close cooperation 2. Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field should develop into a more comprehensive and worthwhile planning effort. Harbor Drive experiences severe congestion near the Crescent Zone Of the bay during peak hour travel periods. The roadway in this area of the City is also in need of repair due to the heavy traffic loads. ii. iii. The Port District should install warning signs and devices prior 5. Coronado Bayfront to the curve on the easterly end of Harbor Island Drive. The Coronado Bayfront District generated much discussion and analysis 3. Centre City/Embarcadero to determine actual roadway capacity problem and possible improvements. Short term peak hour congestion is occurring on the arterial Coronado will experience increasing capacity and traffic problems roadways providing the major access to the Centre City and during peak hours unless changes in City development and especially Embarcadero areas. The shifting of traffic from Harbor Drive to Military employment occur. The levels-of-service and high peak .Pacific Highway will relieve much of the congestion near the hour traffic on several of the streets within Coronado found that waterfront, but the traffic volumes are going to steadily increase the roadways are underutilized during much of the day. along these major routes due to generation from proposed The long queues of vehicles on Fourth Street at the Bay Bridge developments within the area. The feasibility and need for a major waiting to pay the toll charge cause much congestion for side street east-west corridor route connecting Harbor Drive with the 1-5 traffic, in addition to many traffic accidents and frustrated residents. Freeway within the South San Diego area (i.e. Imperial Avenue) It is proposed that Caltrans consider an experimental. progran to should be studied by the City or C.P.O. This route would provide remove the toll charge for outbound vehicles but retain the toll a "loop" system for traffic traveling through the Embarcadero, in charge for inbound vehicles. addition to a bypass route for trucks and the work force in the southerly area. To provide more efficient north-south circulation and lessen the traffic impact on Orange Avenue, a study to determine the feasibility The interface of light rail transit and overall parking needs of a roadway under the Bay Bridge on Coronado should be studied by with the future development in the District needs to be studied. the agencies involved. New developments should determine ways of getting their generated traffic to and from the proposed transit stations thus lessening 6. Chula Vista Bayfront traffic impacts on the heavily burdened street system. The development proposed within the Chula Vista Bayfront District will increase the traffic-impact and congestion within this area. 4. Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal The Tidelands Avenue extension into National City and the Route 54 There is need for structural repair and maintenance for Harbor Drive Freeway will serve to reduce these impacts considerably within the area. through this District due to the high volume of heavy vehicles utilizing the street. The Light Rail Transit Stations within the area conticuous to the District will generate higher volumes of pedestrian activity. Improvements to the roadways for the safety of pedestrians within the area should be undertaken by the City and Port District within their respective jurisdictions. This Boy include sidewalks, pedestrian overcrossings, and/or signalization. iv. V. FIGURE 8-1 Moll 0111101-IMM0001i OE 00000'OEPI DE U El Q00 0 OE 00 0 Peak Hour Congestion [3 Guide Signs Redesign Parking lwze-ssarily Port District jurisdiction 000h IcI WL"w/LA PLAYA TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CONCERNS FIGURE B-2 SPEED AND DELAY STUDIES GRAPHICS IN-DICATE AN A17FRA(-.T rRoFf RMS OF EACH DIRE7= W B .5 W/B S to 1-5 FRZEWAY W/B .5 MIDWAY BOULEVARD E/B .5 r E/B .5 E/B -.S W/ B .6 W/R @6 to MIDWAY BLVD. IN/ a .6 LYTTON STREET E/B .6 E/B .6 E/B .6 W/ B -2.0 II/B 12.0 to LYTTON STREET NMITZ L-IrD. m m E/B 12." m m m E/B 2.0 E/B 2.0 W/B .3 w 7/B .3 to NIMITZ BLVD. W/B .3 N. HARBOR DRIVE E/B -3 0 E/B .3 A A E/B .3 1 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 75 ro 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 k B B NB r/B EB E IVB LEGEND RUNMM TIME DELAY TIME SPEED R 0 S E C R A N S S T R E E T R-A FIGURE B-3 SPEED AND DELAY STUDIES GRAPHICS INDICATEAN AVERAGE FROM RUNS OF EACH DIRECTION If/B .3 Bill" W B .3 to HARBOR DRIVE W/B .3 SHELTER ISLAND DRIVE E/B .3 E/B .3 .L/ B .3 SIB .2 2 to ROSECRANS BLVD, SCOTT STREET N/ B .2 IZ/B .2 N/B .2 S" B S/B .5 to SCOTT STREET NLB a ISLAND DRIVE N B .5 N B .5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LEGEND RUINNIW TIME DELAY TIME SPEED I III S H E L T E R I S L A N D FIGURE B-4 0 Peak Hour Congestion (3 Signing and/or Striping needed Not necessarily within Port District jurisdiction. FFIC CIRCULATION CONCERNS A B-5 FIGURE B-5 SPEED AND DELAY STUDIES GRAPHICS INDICATE AN AVERACE FROM RUXS OF EACH DIRECT 2.0 E/B F" I I I , -L@--E - KWI E/B 2.0 ROSECRANS BLVD. E/B 2.0 to AIRPLANE DRIVE W/B 2.0 , W/B 2. 0 W/B 2. 0 E/B 1. E/B 1.1 to AIRPLANE DRIVE E/B 1.1 LAUREL ST EET W/B 1.1 W/B 1.1 W/B 1.1 2.0 /B 2. 0 to LAUREL -STREET /B 2.0 BROADWAY STREE-1 '/B 2.0 '/B 2.0 /B 2.0 /B .4 /B .4 to BROADWAY STREET /B .4 RARKET STREET B .4 V/B .4 .4 5 K) 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 MINAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 LEGEND RUNNIW3 TIME DELAY TIME SPEED H A-R B 0 R D R I V E FIGURE B-6 > > < Q ow 01 \@@ < < < - ------------- on mmme 0 Peak Hour Congestion 0 RxR Crossings of Major Streets (Congestion Areas) E/B Not necessarily within Port District jurisdiction. 111111an-di DI*b 3 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CONCERNS COME CITY EMBARCADERO p - r, FIGURE B-7 SPEED AND DELAY STUDIES GRAPHICS INDICATE AN AVERAGE FROM RUNS OF EACH DIRECTION -S / B 3.0 Al AJ A, S/B 1 3. 0 ww I I to I-S FREEWAY S/B 3.0 No m LAUREL STREET AB- 3.0 N/B 3.0 N/B 3.0 W/B -2 @WL/ B to LAUREL STREET W/B .2 HAR13OIZ DRIVE E/B .2 Blom -E/B- .2 E/B .2 mph 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 "Nut" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 tw; LEGEND RUNNING TIME DELAY TIME SPEED RONNIE! INNER P A C I F I C H I G H W A Y FIGURE B-8 SPEED AND DELAY STUDIES ZRAPHICS INDICATE AN AVERAGE FROM RUNS OF EACH DIRECTION 1111117 1 to PACIFIC HI GHWAY tUUKLt-i bLKt:ET- F/B .5 E/B .5 @E/ B s W/B 9 W/B -.9 to FOURTH STREET W/B TWELFTH STREET E/B c a E- / B -.9 E/B .9 W/B r W/ B to TWELFTH STREET W/B .5 1-5 FREEWAY. E/B s E/B E/B MPh 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 JAUWL RUNNING TIME DELAY TIME SPEED 0^*4# 11011 M A R K E T S T R E E T B-7 FIGURE B-9 V, 11 --------- ----- Parking 0 RxR Crossing Congestion Transit and Train Movements 0 Peak Hour Congestion S Not necessarily within Port District juridirtiQL6. .*W TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CONCERNS F @A FIGURE B-10 EIE19E9 0 Peak Hour Congestion 0 RR Cro@sing Congestion Transit and Trains necessarily within Port District's ftoft jurfsdiction pwmdft M2AM C"Y BA"WWr TRAFFI.C CIRCULATI N CONCERNS B-8 FIGURE B-11 0 Peak Hour Congestion Not necessarily within Port District jurisdiction 0 Intersection Improvements Needed 13 Parallel Parki ItI ------ Us hat.0 W. us Pmd.00bahm U. /Ak TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CONCERNS FIGURE B-1 2 SPEED AND DELAY STUDIES GRAPHICS INDICATE AN AVERAGE FROM RUNS OF EACH DIRE CTION W B 2.9 _ _ _ _ - - -- JA A BAY BRIDGE W B 2.9 V V - V - - to _I-5 FREEWAY W/B 2.9 IULL DUUM E B 2.9 oil I E B 2 .9 EJB 2.9 N/B .9 3RD STREET N/B .9 to TOLL BOOTH KU N/B .9 ORANGE AVE _E S/B S/B .9 S/B .9 B 1 -1. 8 ORANGE AVENUE W/B1 1.8 to -FOURTH AVENUE SILVER STRAND BLVD. F/B 1.8 E/B 1.8 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 LEGEND RUNNING TNAE DELAY TIME SPEED C 0 R 0 N A D 0 B-9 FIGURE B-13 SPEED AND DELAY STUDIES GRAPHICS INDICATE AN AVERAGE FROM RUNS OF EACH DIRECTION A --A Al.& A. to ORANGE AVENUE NIAlt FARK N B 4.6 (Coronado Cays) N/B 4.6 N/B 4.6 S/B 3. 0 STATE PARK S/B 3.0 to (PCAoLrMonAaV 0 Cays) S/B -3.-0 ENUE N/B 3.0 N/B 3.0 N/B 3.0 2 . 7 S/B 2. 7 to PALM AVENUE S/B 2.7 1-5 FRIE-EWAY N/B 2 . 7 N/E 2. N/B 2.7 mph 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 LEGEND ca _J RUNNING TIME DELAY TIME SPEED S I L V E R S T R A N D B L V D. FIGURE B-14 _J Rohr Industries Parking Lot Not necessarily within Port District jurisdiction Peak Hour Congestion 13 Parking Layout Inefficient *Necessary Circulation Improvements 1. Tidelands Avenue E.tension L-Sweetwater Freeway 7 T- TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CONCERNS =a- CHULA VISTA 8AYFRONT FIGURE B-15 soft aw mom OGBM W. M@ am goo 0 Peak Hour Congestion Not within Port District jurisdiction LlqF4=J TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CONCERNS T- @4 FIGURE B-16 '1000' mm'"MY ULTLAWS TRAFFIC CIRCULATION CONCERNS B-1 1 FIGURE B-17 EL CAJON LA MESA SPORTS AREN SAN DIEGO LEMON GROVE TA FIE DEPOT IMPERIAL CROSBY 28TH 32ND STH NATIONAL CITY 24TH -.*-"H" CHULA VISTA PACIF I C OCEAN --ww-PALOMAR IMPERIAL BEACH PALM IRIS/RTE 117 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ROUTE I .& SAN YSIDRO SAN YSI DR 0 woolow-", 0.0 low"mma 0 BORDER A LIGHT RAIL SERVICE YARD =r"zcx WITH PASSING TRACK MEXICO 0 STATIONS WITH PARKING PROVIDED0 2 4 6 0 STATIONS WITHOUT PARKING SCALE IN MILES NORTH LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ROUTE B-12 I , I I I I I I I ... I APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY INFORMATION I I I I .I. I I I I I I C-i TABLE C-1 PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG (OZONE) San OW90 County Day* andilloursExceedino 8 PPHM* 1978.1977 Dar Maximum 1-hr > pphm Hours 1-hour Date of FIGURE C-1 (160 Ug/M3) > 8 pphrn pphrn Maximum Year 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 OZONE TREND IN SAN DIEGO NUMBER OF DAYS IN VIOLATION Station FEDERAL OZONE STANDARD (.12ppm) - 90 El Cajon 52 42 169 109 is 13 7/15/78 Be Includes Chula Vista 51 52 170 179 20 21 9/26178 Alpine o I 7C Escondido 77 73 295 233 IS is 7/1 SRS 60. Alpine 148 164 945 770 24 is 7/15RS S.D. Downtown 39 38 108 104 21 16 5/12/78 Number Excluding of 50 Alpine Oceanside 71 87 272 394 35 25 9(23178 Days 4r. Kearny malue 60 64 211 240 is 18 5/8178 Brown Field a 3C 9 71 36 336 17 to 312SRS 2C. Solana Beachb 62 - 241 - 39 - 9/23/78_ Basinwide 181 190 1190 1162 1 39 25 9/23178 a) Monitoring discontinued at this site, March 27, 1978. b) Station opened January. 1978. 72 73 74 75@ 76 77 78 pphm - Parts per hundred million Year *See Table 3 for days and hours over new 12 pphm standard. 2 3 5 ' C' udi k xAI 'ir 72 2 2' 36 TABLE C-2 OZONE CLOAULATIVE ULMER OF CALENDAR DAYS ON WHICH THE UAXIMLM HOURLY AVERAGE EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED CHOSEN CONCENTRATION By indkidual Stations Sen DI"ic County 1977 Pollutant C;oncentratmm in parts 5 6 9 10 13 15 20 25 30 per hundred million Year 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1976 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1976 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 station I El Cajon 197 199 141 152 1 89 111 62 78 42 52 28 37 4 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chula Vista 201 224 144 i7o ga 119 70 78 52 51 39 37 13 7 5 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 C-) Escondido 236 226 lai- 189 136 1511 97 107 73 77 " 154 12 15 2 a 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 r 11) Downtown San Diego 200 200 128 139 89 95 63 59 38 39 26 24 7 8 2 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 Oceanside 271 216 213 173 160 133 124 97 67 71 61 51 22 2D 16 10 2 5 1 1 0 1 Kearny Mesa 211 220 161 168 116 lie 93 77 64 60 47 41 21 9 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alpine 201 254 253 220 210 la5 167 164 148 1 134 123 so 65 17 34 0 4 0 0 0 Solana Beach 219 173 130 62 17 to 2 2 1 BASIN DAYS 323 295 266 264 246 232 190 lot 168 151 85 as 40 49 3 10 1 2 @164 'go TABLE C-3 TABLE C-4 Annual Averages - San Diego County 1978,1977,1976 NITROGEN DIOXIDE NITROGEN DIOXIDE San 01090 County Days and Hours Exce"rig Sggndsrdg Annual Average - pphm - Standard Violation > 5 pphm (100 uglm3) 1976,1977 1978 1977 1976 1-hr Days maximum @ 25 pphm Hours I-hour Date of (470 uglm') > 25 pphm pphm Maximum El Cajon 5 6 6 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1976 Chula Vista 3 3 4 Station. Y-r Escondido 4 4 4 Ell Cajon 1 4 1 7 27 27 S.D. Downtown 5 6 6 Chula Vista 0 2 0 1 4 23 1 26 10/19/78 Oceanside 3b 3 3 Escondido 0 0 0 11 22 22 1/26f7s Kearny Mesa 4 4 3 S.D. Downtown 3 9 4 14 32 32 12/11/78 Brown Field za 2 2c Oceanside 2b 2 2b 2 32b 36 lollgnB a) Jan.-March, 1918 Kearny Mesa 0 5 0 9 23 30 9/2&178 b) No monitoring Sept,, 1978 c) Station opened May, 1976 Brown Field - 08 0 08 Ila 16 1/26/78 SULFUR DIOXIDE a) Jan.-March, 1978 Annual Average - pphm8 Standard Violation >3 pphm (80 ug/m3) b) No monitoring Sept.. 1978 or 1978 1977 1976 Station El Cajon ob 0 0 Chula Vista 0 oe 0 Escondido 0 0 0 S.D. Downtown 0 0 0 Oceanside od of 0 Kearny Mesa oc 09 0 a) Any value below 0.5 pphm is listed as zero (0). b) No monitoring mid-Sept. thru mid-Dec., 197a C) No monitoring Jan.-Aug. and Oct., 1978 d) No monitoring Jan. thru mid-Feb_ 1978 a) No monitoring July thru mid-Nov., 1977 1) No monitoring June thru Dec,, 1917 9) No monitoring May and July thru Dec., 1977 h.'. Vista E n rdd -co 0 SD Downtown Oceanside Kearny Mesa TABLE C-5 TABLE C-6 HYDROCARBONS SULFUR DIOXIDE 4corrected for Methane) San Diego County San Diego County Days Exceeding Standards Days Exceeding Standank 1978,1977 1978, IST? Days Days Days 24-hour Maximum 6_9 a Days Maximum "r. :2 50 hm 3-hou( '-Z 5 pphm 1-hour Date oi m > 24 pphm A-hour Date of (1305 W.P,') >So pph. (105 gVm@) >pphm Maximum 16oug/ml) pptm Maximum Station Year 1978 1977 ISTS 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 El Cajon oa 0 oil 0 OW 0 3a 3 5/08/78 El Cajon 268 280a 62 age 2121/78 Chula Vista 0 od 0 od 0 od 7 9d 8/06178 Chula Vista 232 311 20 34 12/18/78 Escondido 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 ii/oB/78 Escondido 306 256 46 44 2103/78 284a soa S.D. Downtown 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 11/06178 S.D. Downtown 292 54 1/27178 Oceanside oc oe oc 00 oc oe 11/08/78 Oceanside 211 c 243 40C 45 2/04/78 Kearny Mesa ob Of oq2l 0, 0, 3 o, 9/23178 Kearny Mesa 103 132 20 45 10/10/78 rl,o-n Field 15b 81 job C_') a) No monitoring Sept. 19 - Dec. 20,1978 in Oct., 1978 b) No monitoring Jan.-Aug. and no monitoring a) No monitoring November, 1977 c) No monitoring Jan. - Feb. 22, 1978 d) No monitoring July - mid Nov., 1971 b) Jan.-March, 1978 el No monktoriniqJune-Dec., 1977 C) No monitoring June, 1978 I) No monitoring May and July thru Dec., 1977 pptm - Parts per ten million = Year Swwn TABLE C-7 TABLE C-8 CARBON MONOXIDE TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE$ Son Diego County San Diego County Days Exceeding SwAards, 1978,1977 1978,1977 % Samples % Samples % Samples Maximum Date I >150 UgIM3 0 1 -Hour Avg, 8-Hour Avg. 12-Hour Avg, Maximum 100 ug/m, >260 ug/ms 24-Hour maximum (> 35 ppm 49 PPM (> 10 Ppm I -hour Date of 40 uWm') 10 uwm.) 11 Ug/M3) ppm Maximum 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 Station 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 El Cajon, 0 0 0 6 a 0 14 16 12114f7B El Cajon 38 25 0 2 0 0 141 152 1/26/78 Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 9 10/19/78 Chula Vista 0 2 0 0 0 0 97 106 10/23/78 Escondido 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 15 19 2/03/78 Escondido 29 41 2 7 0 0 167 165 12122178 S D. Downtown 0 ob 1 3b 0 ob 16 17b 1/27/78 S.D. Downtown 17 12 0 4 0 0 113 169 1/26/78 Oceanside 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 2104f78 Oceanside 40 21 3 2 0 0 219 173 915f78 Kearny Mesa 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 9/27/T6 Kearny Mesa 21 2 9 0 3 0, 345 100 10123/76 Brown Field 0a 0 0a 0 08 6 2& 3 1121178 Alpine 5 0 2 0 0 0 153 99 1/26/78 a) Jam-Mar., 1978 Brown Field 2 --- 0 --- 0 - 115 --- b) Only 3 days monitoring in Oct.-Nov.. 1977 a) Monitoring ended in 1977, n @ 0 00 AIR QUALITY INFORMATION PORT MASTER PLAN AREA TABLE C-9 AQMP REGIONAL EMISSIONS TRENDS PROJECTIONS AMBIENT AIR OLIALITY STANDARDS PORT PLAN LAND USES IN AOMP APPLICABLE IN CALIFORNIA The Comprehens ive Planning Organization (CPO) has developed a San Diego Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP) adopted by CPO, the County and San Diego area cities, to achieve and maintain federal and state air quality standards through- out the San Diego Air Basin. For the preparation of the AQMP the Port District California submitted to CPO the 1972 Port Master Plan land use designations. CPO utilized Averaging Standards- Federal Standards these land use designations from the Port and other jurisdictions, as well as Pollutant Time Concentration Primary Secondary population estimates from cities and the county, to determine activity centers Same as and related air emissions projections for the AQMP. The intensity and distribution Photochemical I Hour 0.1oppm 160 ug/m" Primary of the various land uses designated in the Port's proposed Master Plan have not Oxidants (200,ig/m3l (0-08 ppm) Standard substantially changed. The emissions projections for Port developments have Imeasured as ozone) therefore already been incorporated into the AQMP Emission Source Categories. The Carbon Monoxide 12 Hours to pprn ... Santa as mg/m3) AQMP is available at the CPO reference library: To mVmJ Primary (9 ppm) Comprehensive Planning Organization I Hour 40 ppm 40 mg/m3 Standard 1200 3rd Avenue (46 mg/m3l 135 ppm) San Diego, CA 92101 Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average loo ug/M3 Same as I mos PP-) Primary The proposed Port Master Plan is fully accounted for in the AQMP. Project Standard specific proposals need only be examined during subsequent environmental 1 Hour ... ... review, as appropriate, for "hot spots", or developments which are anticipated I 10i 20 1 1P IPMM3) to be considerably higher than the standard emissions assumptions expressed in Annual Average ... 80 ug/m3 the AQMP. Sulfur Dioxide (0.03 ppm) 24 Hours 05 ppm in comb. 365 ug,,rn3 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS IoppmOxor (0. 14 pprn) The AQMF-accounted for air emissions for specific activities anticipated to too glm3 TSP develop as generally allowed under various land use designations using the 3 Hours --- 1300 uVm3 Regional Emissions Trends Projections. These projections identify five major Emission Source Categories including: I Hour 0.5 pp ... (1310 uglm3) -Process Losses suspenctei Particulate Annual Geo- 60 ug@,n,3 75ugfm3 60 ug1m3 -Fuel Combustion Matter metric Mean -Air, Water, Rail Transportation 24 Hours 100 ug/m3 260 ug/m3 150 ug/-3 -Motor Vehicles Lead (Pa"iculate) 30, Day 1. 5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m, --- -Miscellaneous Sources Averaw Hydrogen Sulfide I Hour 0.03 pprn ... and corresponding Activity Indicator Assignments based upon: (42ug/m3) Hydrocarbons Same as i -CPO Series IVB employment and population data 160 ug/m3 Primary -California Department of Motor Vehicles registration projections (Corrected for Methane) 3 Hours ... 16-9 a.m., (0-24 ppm) -CALTRANS transportation models ADT and VMT data Ethylene 8 Hour 0.1 ppm ... -CPO Regional Energy Plan gasoline consumption data I Hour 0.5 ppm -CPO SANPAT annual operations data Visibi! i ty -Reducing I observation In sufficient -SDG&E energy sales and requirements forecasts Particles &mount to reduce The proposed Port Master Plan includes 39 different uses which could generate the prevailing visibility to 10 ... air emissions at various levels from a variety of sources. All have been miles voien the addressed for the San Diego Air Basin, in the five major Emission Source a egories relative humidity C t . and corresponding Activity Indicators of the AQWP specifi@calY is less than 70% in Table-C-10, as follows: Tederal standard changed in 1979 to 0.12 ppm. pp. - Parts per million ug/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter m mom m M m M' M M m M ON M-M Table C-10 Table C-10 Continued PORT 14ASTER PLAN AREA Emissions Source Ca e Activity Indicator g=,,) and AOMP Indicator Code) AQMP EMISSIONS SOURCE CATEGORIES (and AQMP Identification N AND ACTIVITY INDICATORS AIR, WATER, AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION AIRCRAFT Emissions Source Category Activity Indicator Commercial (35) Commerical Aircraft Annual (31) (and AQMP Identification Number) (and AOMP Indicator Code Operations General Aviation (36) General Aviation Annual (32) PROCESS LOSSES (Exhaust) Operations General Aviation (37) General Aviation Annual (32) ORGANIC LOSSES (Evaporative) Operations Industrical Surface Coating (01) Basic Employment (11) SHIPS/BOATS Architectural Surface Coating (02) Total Population (13) Ships/Boats (40) water Transportation (09) Marine Surface Coating (03) Shipbuilding (03) Employment Surface Cleaning (Halogenated) (04) Shipbuilding, Aircraft (03) Surface Cleaning MOTOR VEHICLES (N,n-Halogenated) (05) Shipbuilding, Aircraft (03) All Subcategories All Indicators for Motor Vehicles (41-62) for Motor Vehicles (11,13,14-28) INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES Commercial Manufacturing (11) Basic Employment (11) MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES StructurFl -Fires (65) Constant 30) MINERAL PRODUCTS Utility Equipment 66) Total Population 83) Abrasive Blasting Facility (18) Miscellaneous Non-Durables (05) Construction/Demolition Constant (30) Employment (Fugitive Dust) Paved Roads (69) Constant (30) C-) WOOD PRODUCTS (Fugitive Dust) Wood Products (20) Lumber (10) PETROLEUM PRODUCTS Fixed and Floating Roof Storage (21) Gasoline Consumption (29) . (gallons) Karketing/Transfer (22) Gasoline Consumption (29) (gallons) FUEL COMBUSTION ENERGY GENERATION Electric Generation (Steam) (23) Electric Generation-Fossil (34) Fuel Electric Generation (Gas Turbine) (24) Electric Generation-Fossil (34) Fuel Boilers (Industrial) (25) Non-Residential Fossil (35) Fuel Sales (Commercial/Institutional) (26) Non-Residential Fossil (35) Fuel Sales Engine Testing (Z7) Aircraft, Shipbuilding (03) I I I I i I I I I APPENDIX D I BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SUMMARY I I i I I I I I I D-i MMMMMMMMMMM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TECHNICAL REPORT A biological reconnaissance study was conducted at six selected sites in San Diego Bay during January and February 1979. Sampling was primarily dons with observations recorded by divers using SCUBA. Additional information was BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE OF SELECTED gathered an the biological organisms including fish, plankton (microscopic SITES OF SAN DIEGO BAY organisms living in the water), benthic organisms (organisms living on the bottom), and intertidal organisms (organisms living on the area exposed by low tides and covered by high tides) and on the physical characteristics including dissolved oxygen (amount of oxygen available for organisms in the water), PH (acidity or alkalinity of the water), temperature, salinity, turbidity (measured SUBMITTED TO by the distance an oceanographic Secchi disc can be seen from the surface of the water), current speed and direction, and general observations of the area using SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT appropriate sampling gear. The six study sites (Twenty-Fourth Street Marine ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Terminal, Chula Vista Boat Basin, Coronado Cays East Island, Coronado Bayfront, CD P. 0. Box 488 South San Diego Bay, and Commercial Basin) were selected by the Sain Diego Uni- SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA fied Port District as areas either sensitive to future development or where ATTENTION: MR. TOMAS FIRLE limited knowledge of the area exists. Within each site, sensitive resources such as fish populations, macrobiotic benthic communities, avifauaa, and habitat areas were examined. A total of 105 invertebrate, 13 algal, I marine flowering plant, 14 fish, BY 16 planktonic and 49 bird taxa were observed during this survey for all sites combined. The results for each specific site are summarized below following a LOCKHEED CENTER FOR MARINE RESEARCH general summarization of all sites. 6350 YARROW DRIVE, SUITE A CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 MARCH 1979 The biological reconnaissance identified several areas of thriving eel grass (7ostem mrina) beds which are used as feeding areas for avifauna and are potential fish nursery areas. The most extensive eel grass beds observed The physical water parameters recorded in each of the sites indicated that were found in the southern area at Coronado Bayfront (Figure 2) in the southern temperature increased from the northern areas of the bay to South Bay probably due to warming from the sun in the shallows with some additional thermal input area of San Diego Bay near the western and southern shores (Figure 1) , in the Sweetwater delta area south of the 24th Street Channel, and in the Crown Cove from the SDC&E power plant. Turbidity was variable throughout the bay. Dis- solved oxygen levels were fairly high with no evidence of oxygen deficient areas. area. Size ranges of fish caught in otter trawls and beach seines (Table 4) Salinity was low, undoubtedly due to the heavy rains in the area prior to and show the presence of few juvenile or small fish in any area, although the South during the survey. In general. these parameteres were not unusual for a bay study conducted during the weather conditions such as those experienced. Bay plankton tows showed that small fish larvae (gobiid) were present. These results are expected since this survey was conducted during winter when recruit- The Twenty-Fourth Street site (Site 1) was physically characterized by men to populations is usually at its lowest, although some fish such as gobies two different areas: the area adjacent to the marine terminal, north of the spawn throughout the year. For the most part, abundances of each species captured TwenLy-Fourth Street Channel, and the area south of the Twenty-Fourth Street were low with the exception of abundances for the round stingray (Urolophus Channel, including adjacent areas in the Bay. Biological study areas north of halleri) in two trawls, the slough anchovy (Anchoa delicatiasirm) in three trawls, the Channel were generally considered disturbed despite the presence of eelgrass CD and the topsmelt (Athernops affinis) in two beach seines. In general, the (Zostera Purina) beds in the area. These beds were limited to their present commercially important species encountered were the atherinids (Atherwpe affinis size by a steeply sloping bottom which reduces the acceptable habitat area. and Atherinopsis californiensis), the anchovies (Engraulia mord=, Anchoa Otter trawl species composition in the area was similar to that in other areas deZicatissima, and Anchoa compressa) , and the queenfish (Seriphus politus) as of San Diego Bay during this study. Few avifauna were noted in the northern baitfish. Recreationally favored species captured were the spotted sand bass area during the investigation. (PamZabrax maculatofasciatus), the barred sand bass (Paratabmx nebulifer) , the The area south of the Twenty-Fourth Street Channel was characterized by California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), and the California grunion intertidal and subtidal mudflats. It was considered a prime area for usage by (Leureathes tenuis), none in high abundances. waterfowl as a foraging and resting area. The Sweetwater River Delta area Several areas showed moderate to heavy use by avifauna. These were pri- appeared to be the only eastern bayshore area with extensive patches of eelgrass. marily found in the southern reaches of San Diego Bay. In general, the areas of Biological fauna were abundant in this area. Also observed were the potentially highest abundance of avifauna appeared to be associated with eelgrass beds. For disruptive influences of offroad vehicle activity in the upper intertidal areas. The Chula Vista Boat Basin site (Site II) was composed of soft mud bottom example, the southern San Diego Bay area had large areas of eelgrass and birds appeared to be associated with it. Similar observations were seen in the area intertidal and subtidal areas, except for the dredged channels and the existing dikes of the boat basin. Avifauna utilized the area in a manner similar to the south of the 24th Street channel and the Coronado Bayfront area immediately north of the Coronado Bridge. Sweetwater delta area near Twenty-Fourth Street Channel, but the observed numbers 3 2 were lower. Feeding activity was particularly evident in the eelgrass beds a sheltered resting location for a small number of ducks (Lesser scaup, west and south of the basin. Eelgrass was abundant at only one of the four Aytha affinis ). The otter trawl taken in South Bay in close proximity to benthic stations sampled. Reconnaissance of the site identified additional Site IV was similar to other trawls taken along the western side of South Bay patches of eelgrass. Otter trawls and beach seines captured species similar to with. respect to species composition and abundance. those collected elsewhere in South Bay. The overwhelming abundance of the round The South San Diego Bay site (Site V) was the largest of the sites studied. stingray (Urolophus halleri) in the trawl taken in the J Street channel was It included extensive tidal mudflats and large areas of shallow subtidal areas. different from the other South Bay trawls except the trawl conducted in the The physical characteristics were similar to those normally expected in this SDG&E intake channel. The cause of their high abundance is not known. . type of area when the weather is taken into account. Recent heavy rains undoubtedly The Coronado Bayfront site (Site III) also was composed of two different caused a drop in the salinity of the bay water and a higher than normal turbidity types of areas. The southern area consisted of shallow mudflats while the level during the survey period. Temperatures in the southernmost areas of the northern had an increased slope to deeper water. Only slight usage of the shore- bay were found to be higher than elsewhere in the bay. This was apparently line by avifauna was noted. Offshore, the southern area was characterized by caused by the thermal discharge from the SDG&E power plant. The discharge also large amounts of the eelgrass Zoatera mar-ina which were utilized by shorebirds causes an artificial current in the areas near the discharge channel mouth. and waterfowl. The northern area showed evidence of site disturbance by dredging Several navigational hazards were located during reconnaissance. The and habitat alteration by the addition of manmade debris such as submerged boat most visible was thepresenceof the tuna vessel "Renown," in the northern and pier wreckage. Fish caught by one beach seine and one otter trawl were w area of South Bay. Several derelict barges were present along the SDG&E dike. similar to those caught in the south San Diego Bay sampling. High abundances of These were submerged at tides higher than 0.0 MLLW. some species indicate that the southern area may be important as a feeding This site, in particular the south end of San Diego Bay, is extensively ground for fish. The importance of this area, with respect to value as a used for foraging and resting by large numbers of birds. of the areas surveyed, nursery, cannot be evaluated from this data alone. Sampling for plankton popu- this is regarded as the best available avifaunal habitat. Large areas of eel- lations, particularly during the spring, in conjunction with continued and in- grass are available for feeding. It is adjacent to the salt ponds immediately creased fish investigations would provide a better basis for such an evaluation. to the south, which serve as a protected area for retreat. Adjacent to the The Coronado Cays East Island.site (Site IV) had deeper nearshore water South Bay site are areas of recognized biological significance: the County of than other areas in South Bay. Consequently, little eelgrass was observed. The San Diego South Bay Marine Biology Study area nesting area for the endangered small areas of eelgrass present were used by avifauna for feeding, but overall Belding's Savannah Sparrow (Passemulus sandoichensis beldingii) and Western Salt the area was used by few species. The water in the marina was found to offer Company's evaporation ponds which include dikes used seasonally as habitat by the endangered California Least Tern, Sterna atbifrons browni. Neither of these 4 endangered birds was observed during the study. 5 The South San Diego Bay site encompassed a large number of eelgrass beds. broken concrete intertidal seawall and the pier pilings, exhibited some macro- Areas of particularly heavy eelgrass growth were the shallow subtidal areas biotic organisms. Among those observed were the gastropods (marine snails) around the Sweetwater River delta, the southernmost area of South Bay to the west which included the rough limpet Collisella scabra and a tube worm attached to of the Emory Channel, the Crown Cover area, the southern South Bay area near the rocks and pilings Serpulorbis squmnigerus, the brown alga Sargaa3um (Sargasswn County's South Bay Marine Biology study area, and an area north of Coronado Cays muticim), and a diatom film. Subtidal reconnaissance indicated that the bottom and east of the adjacent boat channel (Figure 1). areas were nearly devoid of surface macrofauna near the piers, but as the mouth The marine macrofauna (larger marine animals) was similar to that reported of the Commercial Basin was approached, a brown alga Pachydictyon sp. increased in previous studies (NBC 1976). No subtidal infaunal (marine animals living in abundance and size, and the bottom graded to sand/mud rather than mud, and within the bottom sediment) observations were made and thus the infaunal compo- additional species such as the whelk Keltetia kelletii and gobiid fish became sition is not known. This area has been extensively sampled in the past in more abundant. relation to the SDG&E power plant (Ford 1970, Ford 1973, LCHR 1977, LCMR 1978). The pier pilings investigated did not exhibit evidence of complete Fish species, sampled by otter trawl, were similar throughout South Bay. deterioration, although shipworm damage did appear on some of the older wooden The moat abundant species were the round stingray (Urolophus hatteri) and the pilings. It must be noted that only a small number of pilings were investigated slough anchovy (Anchoa delicatis8inaa) . several species of recreational interest for damage because the primary purpose of this study was to conduct a biological were caught in moderate to low abundances. These were the California halibut reconnaissance of the area. Avifaunal observations in the commercial basin (Pa.Zichthy. Zifo.ic.), the barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer), and indicate that the area habitat value for most species of birds is generally the spotted sand bass (Paralabr= maculatofasciatus). limited as the majority of species were gulls (Laurus spp.). Midwater plankton tows (fine mesh pulled behind) did not capture any fish eggs although some larval (just hatched) fish were caught. The most abundant icthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) was a complex of gobiid (tiny pencil shaped bottom fishes) fish larvae which included cheekspot goby (rlypnus gilberti), arrow goby (Clevelandia ios) , and shadow goby (Quietula y-cauda) . No larvae of recreationally and commercially important species were collected during this survey (January 1979). The Commercial Basin (Site VI) differs considerably from the other sites. It is characterized by piers used primarily for boat maintenance and construction. Macrofauna (larger marine animals) were present in low numbers in both the inter- tidal and the subtidal soft substrate areas. Solid substrate, such as the 6 7 TABLE D-1 Select physical parameters measured at each site for the San Diego Bay biological reconnaissance study. SURFACE SURFACE TURBIDITY CURRENT CURRENT TIDAL SftINjTY SITE STATION DATE TIME DEPTH (m) TEMP. (*C) DO - (Ppm) ppt SECCHI(m) SPEED KTS. DIRECTION *M STAGE 24th Street 24-2-B 1-24-79 1415 11 15.0 8.3 32.8 2.0 0.10 2500 rising Channel 24th Street 24-1-B 1-24-79 0840 5 15.4, 7.1 32.7 3.3 0.50 1600 falling Channel 24th Street 24-3-B 2-9-79 0903 2.2 14.3 8.4 31.0 1.5 0.32 3600 falling Chann:l 24th treet 24-4-B 2-9-79 0845 2.8 14.3 8.5 30.6 1.5 0.14 3600 falling Sweetwater Delta 24-5-B 2-9-79 0833 2.3 14.6 8.5 31.7 1.5 0.14 3600 falling Commercial CB-2-B 2-6-79 0800 3.5 12.8 8.8 31.6 4.5 0.12 2800 falling Basin Commercial CB-I-B 2-6-79 0835 1.2 12.8 8.4 31.7 2.0 0.30 700 falling Basin Chula Vista CV-I-B 1-22-79 1030 1.3 14.9 7.3 32.8 1.3 0.20 goo 1-23-79 1335 incoming Chula Vista CV-2-B 1-22-79 0800 2.5 14.9 7.6 33.3 1.6 0.10 1400 1-23-79 1345 incoming Chula Vista CV-3-B 1-22-79 0815 2.0 15.3 8.2 33.3 1.5 0.04 1800 1-23-79 1350 incoming Chula Vista CV-4-B 1-23-79 0845 1.6 15.1 7.3 33.3 1.3 0.15 1600 1400 hrs incoming Coronado CBF-3-B 2-6-79 0935 4.0 13.0 8.9 31.6 2.5 0.35 3050 falling Bay Front TABLE D-1 CONTINUED Select physical parameters measured 'at each site for the San Diego Bay biological reconnaissance study. (continued) SURFACE SURFACE TURBIDITY CURRENT CURRENT TIDAL SALINITY DIR ,@CTION SITE STATION DATE TIME DEPTH (m) TEMP. (*C) DO (ppm) (ppt) SECCHI(m) SPEED(KTS) ( M) STAGE Coronado CBF-2-B 2-6-79 1015 1.3 13.0 9.1 31.4 1.3 0.12 3050 falling Bay Front Coronado CBF-l-B 2-6-79 1040 1.3 13.1 8.8 31.5 1.3 0.06 1800 falling Bay Front Crown Point CR-I-B 2-9-79 0913 2.1 14.2 8.4 30.9 1.75 0.14 0300 falling Crown Point CR-2-B 2-9-79 0920 2.3 14.2 8.4 1.75 0.06 2900 falling Coronado Cays CC-1-B 1-23-79 1440 2.8 15.5 7.9 31.1 1.6 0.16 140'- rising Coronado Cays CC-2-B 1-24-79 1650 2.8 15.3 7.8 33.3 1.5 0.0 NA rising South Bay SB-West 2-9-79 0940 2.1 16.5 8.3 30.2 1.5 .08 3400 falling West South Bay SBM-l-B 2-9-79 1030 1.8 18.5 7.5 32.1 1.5 .17 3500 falling Mid-depth South Bay SBM-2-B 2-9-79 1015 2.2 18.3 7.5 32.0 1.5 .25 3350 falling Mid-depth SDG&E SDGE-I-B 2-7-79 0955 2.5 15.1 8.4 29.9 1.5 .20 2700 falling Intake SDG&E SDGE-D-2 2-7-79 1042 2.6 22.6 5.3 30.9 1.2 .60 2600 falling Discharge SDG&E SDGE-D-l 2-7-79 1030 3 23.0 5.2 30.8 1.5 .60 2500 falling Discharge D-5 TABLE D-2 Benthic macrofauna present in greater than 50% of the quadrats at each of the 15 m benLhic band transecLs. Site I Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 SDG&E Commercial TwenLy-Fourth Street Chula Vista Boat Basin Coronado Bayfront Coronado Cays Crown Cove South Bay Intake Basin TAXA 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Algae Chao tomorpha spp. + + + Gracilaria spp. + + + + + + + + Ifluticum + + U10a spp. + + + + + + + + Filamentous red. unident + + + + + + Parvosilvosa + 4arine Grasses zoalevcL flurina + + + + + + + 60dtdl'a Mal-lPla (drift) + Diatoms, unident + + + + + + + + + Cnidaria Diadwilane ? leuculdna + + + + + + + + + Cerianthid, uuident + Porifera Poriferan, unident + + Annelida Onuphid, unident + Sabellid, unident + + + + Serpulid. unident + Polychaete, unident + Arthropods ?Jasoa app. (tubes) + Caprellids. unident + + Mysids, unident + + Hollusca Adula dipyansis + + + + + Ihilla spp. + + cz-apidul" spp. + Alytilud edulis + Nadsaj-lus upp. + Urochordata styal" cluou + Unidentifiable Maintained holes + + + + + + + + + TABLE D-3 Species an their respective abundances and size ranges (mm captured in ottder trawls conducted in the Twenty-fourth Street Channe% Chula Vista Boat Basin, Coronado Bayfront, Coronado Cays and South Bay Sites. Area 2 2 4 3 1 Location CV-South CV-North SDG&E Emory Crown Coronado Coronado 24th Street Channel Channel Cove Cays Bayfront Channel Depth 2.5-3m .5m 3m 2.5-3m 5-7m lim Date 1-25-79 1-26-79 1-26-79 1-26-79 1-25-79 1-25-79 1-25-79 Time 1120 1253 0757 0720 0924 1013 0829 Atherinops 2(150-160) affinis topsmelt Anchoa 37(42-58) 244(34-57) 24(35-60) 11(33-50) 14(49-56) delicatiasimc -slough anchovy Anchoa 1(98) COm"Pasa- deep body anchovy Engraulis 1(62) mordax - northern anchovy Q-,atogaster 2(78-112) 204-111) 1(115) 10(80-120) aggregata - vj@lte surf- perch Seriphis 3(177-195) 2(187-190) 3(85-100) 2(85-90) pozitus - Queenfish PepriZus 9(85-100) 2(85-90) simizzimus Pacific Butterfish TABLE D-3 CONTINUED Area 2 2 5 5 5 4 3 1 Location CV-South CV-Nortb SDG&E Emory Crown Coronado Coronado 24th Street Channel Channel, Cove Cays Bayfront Channel Depth 2.5-3m 5m . 3m 2.5-3m 5-7m lim Date 1-25-79 1-26-79 1-26-79 1-25-79 1-25-79 1-25-79 1-25-79 Time 1120 1253 0757 0720 0924 1013 0829 QuietuZa 5(39-45) 3(28-31) 2(28-35) -cauda - Shadow Goby PorichtIv"s 5(30-49) .2(210-48) muriaster - slim midshipman- Chlorophyta + + green algae Rhodophyta + + + + red algae Porifera - + + sponges Annelids - + segmented worms Arthropods + + + + + + + Molluscs + + + + + + + Urochordata + L Tunicates I I I I I I 1 1 1 D-7 TABLE D-3 CONTINUED Area 2 2 5 5 5 4 3 1 Location CV-S outb CV-N orth SDG&E Emory Crown Coronado Coronado 24th Street Channel Channel Cove Cays Bayfront Channel Depth. 2.5-3m 5m 3m 2.5-3m 5-7m lim Date 1-25-79 1-25-79 1-26-79 1-26-79 1-25-79 1-25-79 1-25-79 Time 1120 1253 0757 10720 0924 1013 0829 Cheilotrema U285) b a rn 1 c - ;k.r :Uk cro Genyonemus 2(226-203) lineatus - white croaker ParaZabrax 4(185-290) 2(204-235) 3(157-175) 9(122-18Q 1(275) 2(180-220) 1(45) macuZatofasiatk -spotted sand bass Paralabrax 1(168) 2(105-205) 2(134-293) 3(53-155) 2(160-19(C 1(150) 3(65-180) n e bu Z ife 27- barred sand bass ParaZichthys 8(124-266) 5(75-185) 3(129-216) 3(155-200) 6(165-24cD 6(150-210) 1(240) (30-228) caZifornicus California halibut HyT"sopsetta 2(185-220) 7(141-195) 3(195-230: 1(225) 2(170-185) @-uttuZata- 6iamoad Turbot lZypnus 2(20-28) 11(21-34) giZberti- checkspot goby UroZaphus 208(120-403: 1(280) 126(131-3781 1(300) 0(130-325 5(190-270) 1(280) (110-153) halleri round stingray TABLE D-4 Species composition and abundance of avifauna observed at each of six sites in San Diego Bay (Site I - Twenty-Fourth Street Marine Terminal and areas adjacent to the Twenty-Fourth Streedt Channel, Site 2 - Chula Vista Boat Basin, Site 3 - Coronada Bay Front, Site 4 - Coronado Cays East Island, Site 5 - South San Diego Bay, Site 6 Commercial Basin). SPECIES AREA Common Name Scientific Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Common Loon -Gavia imner 2 Artic Loon -Gavia arctica I Horned Grebe -Podiceps auritus I I Eared Grebe -Podiceps nigrico4Zis 10 3 1 40 24 Western Grebe -Aechmophorus occidentaZis 8 150 2 Brown Pelican -Pelecanus occidentaZis 2 Double-crested -PhaZacrocorax auritua 5 2 10 2 Cormorant Great Blue Heron -Ardea herodias 1 1 Great Egret -Casmerodius albus I Snowy Egret -Egretta thula 2 2 1 1 Brant -Branta bernicla nigricans 125 75 Pintail -Anwacuta 10 60 Cinnamon Teal -Anas cyanoptera 10 6 Lesser Scaup -Aythya affinis 400 175 220 35 450 Common Goldeneye -Bucephala clangula 2 Bufflehead -Bucephala albeola 8 6 10 1 250 3 Surf Scoter -Melanitta perspicillata 1200 175 210 800 75 Ruddy Duck -oxyura jonaicensis 9 25 Red-breasted -MerguB aerrator 1 3 Merganser Osprey -Pandion haliaetus 1 1 American Coot -Fulica americana 25 12 140 v American Avocet -Recur irostra mnericana 10 Semi-palmated Plover -Charadrius semipalmatus 20 6 24 Snowy Plover -Charadrius aZexandrinus 37 Killdeer -Charadrius vociferus 18 3 12 Black-bellied Plover -Pluvialis squatar-ola 180 6 6 1 Marbled Godwit -Limosa haemastica 300 45 80 7 35 Whimbrel -Nwnenius phaeopus D-8 6 1 TABLE D-4 CONTINUED SPECIES AREA common Name Scientific Name 2 3 4 5 6 Long-billed Curlew -Numeniua =ericanuO 12 1 3 Greater Yellowlegs -Tringa melanoZeucu8 I Willet -Catoptrophorue 8emipalmatus 150 45 30 1 100 1 Ruddy Turnstone -Arenaria interpres, 6 1 Black Turnstone -Arendria melanocephaZa 30 1 1 30 Long-billed Dowitcher -Limnodrb-8 soolopaceui 450 120 75 Red Knot -CaZidris canutus 25 1 S nderling -caudris alba 60 35 60 30 W:stern Sandpiper -CaZidri8 Mauri 350 160 275 Least Sandpiper -CaZidr-is minutilZa 150 20 18 Dunlin -caudris alpina 60 12 23 Western Gull -Larus occidentalis 30 55 6 1 20 30 California Gull -Larus californious 60 10 Ring-billed Gull -Larus deZawarensis 475 230 18 3 140 2 Bonaparte's Gull -Larus phitadelphia 30 7 2 Forster's Tern -Sterna forateri 10 4 2 1 12 Royal Tern -ThaZaa8eus maximus 10 4 3 Caspian Tern -Hydroprogne ca8pia 1 3 1 Black Skimmer -Rynchops nigra 1 Belted Kingfisher _magac6ryle aZcyon 2 1 2 Savannah Sparrow -pas8erculue san&oichensis 8 TABLE D-5 Species of fish captured by beach seines and their abundances and size ranges within three sites: Chula Vista Boat Basin(2), Coronado Bayfront (3) , and South San Diego Bay (5) . Species Site 2 Site 2 Site 3 Site 5 Site 5 Co=on Chula Vista- Chula Vista- Coronado South Bay South Bay Name South North Bayfront Emory Channel Crown Cove Atherinops 130 13 370 8 10 affinis - (20-141 mm) (32-74 mm) (28-157 mm) (103-156 mm) (27-51 topsmelt 6 8 Atherinopsis (45-306 mm) (57-202 mm) caZifornie?isis - jacksmelt L"resthes 3 11 te.,. - (62-78 MM) (37-114 mm) California grunion Engraulis 1 mord= - (89 mm) northern anchovy Hypsopaetta (118 imm) guttulata - diamond turbot Syngnathus app, 2 1 1 pipefish (104-107 mm) all mm) (81 mm) MugiZ cephalus - 1 2 mullet (34 mm) (385-469 mm) Quiety74 3 3 t cauaa - (32-38 mm) (24-35 =m) hadow goby D-9 TABLE D-6 Icthyo- and zooplankton species and estimated abundances for three bongo tows taken in South San Diego Bay on January 26, 1979. CHUIA VISTA SOUTH BAY SOUTH BAY SOUTH HID WEST SIZE <5MM 5-10MM <5mm >5mm <5mm 5-10mm Icthyoplankton Gobiid species complex 544.0 16.0 3,248.0 557.0 510.0 134.0 Hypsoblennius spp. 4.0 GMichthys mirabilis 4.o 8.0 Genyonemus Zineatus 24.0 Clinid, unident. 8.0 SE X SE Zooplankton Acartia caZiforniensis 52,130.3 35,200.7 5,032.4 273.9 9,066.5 790.5 Acartia clausi 87.3 87.3 Labidocera trispinosa 60.9 24.4 copepodites Paracalanus parvus 12.0 12.0 Podon polyphemoides 12.0 12.0 Sagitta spp. 87.3 87.3 48.5 12.0 Tortanus discaudatus 175.7 100.6 60.9 32.1 Decapod zoea 13,101.0 559.8 1,887.2 22.4 216.5 44.0 Decapod larvae 616.7 352.0 3,063.2 44.9 616.5 44.0 Mysids, unident. 616.7 177.3 233.5 16.5 Amphipods, unident. 265.0 153.5 109.4 42.0 200.0 29.0 D-1 0 I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX E SPECIES LISTS I BIOLOGICAL HABITAT INFORMATION I I I - I I I I I I E-i TABLE E-1 LIST OF PLANTS AND MARINE ANIMALS SAN DIEGO BAY Source: A Proximate Biological Survey of San Diego Bay, Ca. T.J. Peeling, NUC TP 389, 1974, p. 52-54 A. Algae and Salt Marsh Plants Amblyapappus pusillus (coast weed) Oenotherea cheiranthifolla (beach evening primrose) Antithamnion sp. (red algae) Parafolis incurva (sickle grass) Artemisia californica (California sagebrush) Pluchea sericca (arrow weed) Atriplex cancscens (salt bush) Polygonum oviculare (common knot weed) A. kindleyl (salt bush) Polysiphonia pacifica (red algae) A. semibaccata (Australian salt bush) Rhizoclonium sp. (green algae) A. (nr) truncata (salt bush) Rhodymenia spp. (red algae) A. watsonii (Watson salt bush) Rumex crispus (curley dock) Baccharis sarothroides (chaparal broom) Ruppla maritima (ditch grass) B. viminea (mule fat) Salicornia bigelovii (animal pickleweed) Bassia hyssopifolia (bassia) S. eurapca (saltflat annual pickleweed) Batis maritimun (saltwart) S. subterminalis (glasswart) Bromus rubens (red brome) S. virginica (pickleweed) Cardionema ramossisima (tread lightly) Salix lasiolepis (arroyo willow) Centaurea MElitensis (star thistle) Salsola kali (Russian thistle) Ceramium catonian (red algae) Salvia mellifera (black sage) C spp (red algae) Saueda torreyana (torry seablite) Chaetomorpha sp. (green algae) S. californica (California seablite) Chrysanthemum (nr) carinatum Sargassum muticum (brown algae) (tricolar Chrysanthemum) S. agarhianum (brown algae) Cladophora sp. (green algae) Schinus molle (california pepper tree) Colpomenia sinusa (brown algae) Spertina foliosa (cordgrass) Cotulo coronopifolia (brass buttons) Spergularia marina (salt marsh sand spurry) Cressa truxillenis (alkali weed) Tamarix sp. (tamarisk) Cuscta salina (salt marsh dodder) Tillaeo erecta (pegmy weed) Dasya pacifica (red algae) Triglochin maritima (arrow grass) Derbesia marino (green algae) Typha latifolia (common cattail) Distichlis spicata (salt grass) Ulothrix sp. (green algae) Ectocarpus spp. (brown algae) Ulva latissima (sea lettuce) Egregia laevigata (brown algae) Yucca schidigera (mohave yucca) Enteromorpha spp. (filamentous green algae) Zostera marina (eelgrass) Eriogonum fasciculatum (coastal buckwheat) Foeniculum vulgare (sweet fennel) B. Marine Invertebrates Frankenia palmeri (yerba reuma Porifers F. grandifolia (alkali health) Terilla mutobilis (wandering sponge) Gigartina spp. (red algae) Coelenterates Graciloria verrucosa (red algae) Aglaophenia sp. (ostrich plume hydroid) Griffirhsia sp (red algae Cerianthus (nr) oestuari (birrowing anemone) Haplopappus vencius (golden bush) Corymorpha palma (white hydroid) Hardeum murinum (sterile barley) Edwardsiella californica (burrowing anemone) Heliotropium curassavicum (chinese parsley) Epiactis prolifera (anemone) Heterothcca grandiflora (telegraph weed) Obelia sp. (hydroid) Honanthochloe littoralis (salt cedar) Tubularia sp (nake hydroid) Hutchinsia procumbens Bryozoans Hypnea valentiae (red algae) Bugula nertina (bryozoan) Jaumea carnosa (jaumea) Zoobotryon verticillatum (bryozoan) Juncus acutis (spiny rush) Echinoderms Limonium californicum (sea lavender) ophiuroids Lohularia maritima (swee allypsum) Amphiodia (nr) occidentalis (brittle star) Lotus nuttallianus (beach lotus) Holothuroids Mesenbryanthenum chilense (sea fig) Leptosynapaia albicans (southern california sea M. crystallinum (ice plant) cucumber) M nodiflorum (little ice plant) Nemocaulis denudata (thread stem) Nicotlana glauca (tree tobacco) E-1 TABLE E-1 CONTINUED B. Marine Invertebrates (cont.) Isopods Annelids Allcaea sculpia (sphaeromid isopod) Armandla bloculata (polychaete) Serlolis carluata (isopod) capitata ambisela (polychaete) Decapods Glycera omericana (polychaete) Cancer anienmarlus (common rock crab) Haploscolopos elongatus (polychaete) C. anthonyl (rock crab) Lumbrineris californiensis (polychaete) Hemlgrapsus oregonensis (mudflat crab) L. zonata (polychaete) Hipployie californiensis (grass shrimp) Megalomma sp. (polychaete) Lophopanopeus sp. (xanthid crab) Neonthes caudata (polychaete) Panultrus inserruptus (california spiny lobster) Polydora sp (polychaete) Processa canaliculata (crangonid shrimp) Pugettia producta (kelp crab) Molluscs Pyromaia tuberculata (spider crab) Pelecypods Speocarelnus californiensis (mudflat crab) Adual diegensis (san diego peapod) Spirontocaris sp. (shrimp) Chlone californiensis (banded cockie) Stomatopods C. Fluetifraga (smooth cockle) Pseudosquilla sp (mantis shrimp) C undatella (wavy cockle) Squilla polita (mantis shrimp) Chionista sp Cirripeds Cyclocardia sp (cardita) Balanus amphitrite (acron barnacle) Diplodonai sp (diplodon) Chthamalus sp (barnacle) Laevicardium substriatum (eggshell clam) Tunicates Leptopecien sp (scallop) Botryllus sp (tunicate) Lyonsia californica (california lyonsia) Clon aintestinalis (tunicate) Macoma nasuta (bent-nosed clam) Stycla barnharti (tunicate) Mactra californica (california dish clam) s. pilcata (tunicate) Modiolus demissus (ribbed musel Mytilus edulis (bay mussel) C. Vertebrates Protothaca staminca (bommon littleneck) Sharks and Rays Solen rosaccus (rosy razor clam) Heterodontidae Tagelus californianus (jackknife clam) Heterodonium franciscl (horn shark) T. subteres (jackknife clam) Triakidae Tapes semidecussela (japanese littleneck) Triakis semifaciata (leopard shark) Tellina bodegensis (tellin) Rhinotriacis henlel (brown smoothhound) Tivela sp (venus clam) Mustelus californicus (gran smoothhound) Schizothaerus nuttalli (gaper) M. Iunulatus (sicklefin smoothhound) Gastropods Carcharhinidae Acteocina mazdaleenenis (glassy bubble) Galeorhinus zyopierus (soupfin shark) A. inculta (bubble shell) Prlonace glauca (blue shark) Barleela sp Sphyrnidae Bulla gouldiana (bould's bubble) Sphyrna zygaena (hammerhead shark) Caecum californicum(california caecum) Squalidae Cerithidea californica (califronia horn shell) Squalus aconthlas (dogfish) Crepidula onyx (onyx slipper shell) Squatidae Crucibulum spinosum (cup and saucer limpet) Squatino saqutina (angel shark) Fariulum occidentale (caecid) Rhinobatidae Haminaea vesicula (blister paper bubble) Rhinobatus productus (shovelnose guitarfish) Lacuria marmorata (chink shell) R. exasperatus (buitarfish) Mitrella carinata (dove shell) R. triscrlatus (guitarfish) Nassarius tegulus (mud-dog whelk) Dasyatidae Odostomia sp (odostome) Urolophus halleri (round stingray) Olivella sp. (olive shell) Teleost Fishes Ophlodermella ophioderma (penciled turret shell) Engraulidae Tachyrhynclus sp (turret shell) Anchoa compresso (deepbody anchovy) Vitrinella oldroydi (vitrinella) A. delicatissima (slough anchovy) Vitrinorbis deigensis (vitrinorbis) Belonidae Crustaceans Strongylura exllis (california needlefish) Amphipods Ericthonius brasiliensis (corophid amphipod) E-2 TABLE E-1 CONTINUED C. Vertebrates (cont) Scorpaenidae Cyprinodontidae Seorpaena guliala (sculpin) Fundutus parvipinnis (killfish) Cottidae Hemitainphidae Leptocottus armatus (staghorn sculpin) Hyporhamphus rosae (california halfbeak) Scorpacnichthys marmoratus (cabezon) Syngnathidae Bothidae Syngmathus auliscus (barred pipefish) Parallichrhys californicus (california halibut) S. griseolincatus (bay pipefish) Xystreurys liolepis (fantial sole) Sphyraenidae Pleuronectidae Sphyracna argenica (california barracuda) Hypsopsetta guttulate (diamond turbot) Mugilidae Batrachoididae Mugil cephalus (mullet) Porichtys myriaster (specklefin midshipman) Atherinidae Atherinops affints (topsmelt) Atherinopsis californiensis (jacksmelt) Leuresthes tenuls (grunion) Serranidae Paralabrax clathratus (kelp bass) P. maculatofasciatus (spotted bass) P. nebulifer (sand bass) Haemulidae Anisotremus davidsonil (sargo) Sciaenidae Cheilotrema saturnum (black croaker) Cynoscion nobilis (white seabass) Genyonemus linealus (white Croacker) Menticirrhus undulatus (california corbina) Roncador stearsii (spotted croaker) Seriphus polirus (queenfish) Umbrina roncado (yellowfin croaker) Kyphosidae Hermosilla azura (zebraperch) Girellidae Girella nigricans (opaleye) Scorpididae Medioluna calforniensis (halfmoon) Embiotocidae Cymatogaster aggregata (shiner surfperch) Embioroco jacksoni (black surfperch) Hyperprosopon argenleum (walleye surfperch) Phanerodon furcalus (white surfperch) Rhacochilus toxotes (rubberlip surfperch) R. vacca (pile surfperch) Carangidae Trachurus symmetricus (jack mackerel) Scombridae Sarda chiliensls (pacific bonito) Stomateidae Peprilus semillimus (pacific butterfish) Blenniidae Hypoblennius gentillis (bay blenny) Gobiidae clevelaudia ios (arrow goby) Gillichtrysmirabilis (longjaw mudsucker) hypnus gilberli (checkspot goby) Quictual y-caula (shadow goby) Clinidae Heterostichus rostratus (giant kelpfish) E-3 TABLE E-2 LIST OF BIRDS SM DIEGO BAY Source: A Proximate Biological Survey of San Diego Bay, Ca. T.J. Peeling, NUC TP 389, 1974, p. 55-60. Gavid linmer (common loon) M, WR. Uncommon. Feeds largely on fish in shallow to moderate depths. G. artica (Arctic loon) M, WR. Uncommon in bay, abundant off shore. Feeding habits similar to common loon. G. stellata (red-throated loon) M, WR. Occurs annually in small numbers but only at mouth of bay; prefers open ocean. Podiceps auritus (homed grebe) M, WR. Occurs annually in small numbers. Feeds on fish and invertebrates in shallow waters. P caspicus (eared grebe) M, WR. Abundant. Feeds on fish and invertebrates in shallow to moderat6ly deep waters. Largely dependent on sheltered waters, though some feeding may be done offshore. Aechmophorus occidentalis M, WR. Abundant offshore where it feeds, but (western grebe) uncommon in bay. Podflyinbus podiceps.(pied- M, WR. Uncommon in bay but totally dependent billed grebe) on shallow water habitats, where it feeds on inverte- brates. Prefers small ponds, creeks, marshes. Pelecanus erythrorhynchos (white M. Rare migrant and occasional winter resident, pelican) not occurring annually. P. occidentalis (brown pelican) R. Endangered. Feeds in north bay and in open sea; rests on sandbars in south bay. Phalacrocorax auritus (double- R. Breeds locally, found in bay throughout year, crested cormorant) particularly in winter. Feeds on fish in moderately deep water and restricted lar,,,cly to channel areas and mouth of bay. P penicillatus (Brandt's R. Breeds locally, found in bay throughout year, cormorant) particularly in winter. Feeds on fish in moderately deep water and restricted largely to channel areas and mouth of bay. Ardea herodias (great blue heron) Common t6 abundant all year, particularly in -winter.- Feeds on mudflats and in shallow water areas. Tot,-dly dependent on aquatic habitats. A few pairs may still breed in Point Loma area. NOTE: M = migrant, R = resident, W = winter, S = summer. E-4 TABLE E-2 CONTINUED Casmerodius albus (common egret) M, WR Totally dependent upon shallow water habitats. Occurs annually in small numbers, parti- cularly at south end of bay. Leucophoyx thual (snowy egret) M, WR Common to abundant in many areas of bay, Feeds largely on fish. Bubulcus ibis (cattle egret) M, WR This bird, although exotic to the area, has abeen observed in the south bay. It resembles the common egret in its habits. Branta nigricans (black brant) M Rare. Feeds on eel-grass in shallow, sheltered waters. Dabbling Ducks M WR. These "dabbling ducks" prefer fresh water Anas platyrhynchos (mallard) habitats and are generally uncommon or rare on the A. strepera (gadwall) bay. They appear to use the bay mainly as a refuge A. acuta (pintail) and do little feeding there. All may occur as A. carolininensis (green- migrants or winter residents. Winged teal) A. crecca (teal) A. discors (blie-winged teal) A. cyanoptera (cinnamon teal) Mareca americana (american widgeon) Spatual clypeata (shoveler) Diving Ducks M, WR. These "diving ducks" prefer shallow salt Aythya americana (redhead) water habitats, but all are rare locally because San A. valisineria (canvas-back) Diego is beyond their normal range. A marila (greater scaup) Clangula hyemalis (oldsquaw) Aythya affinis (lesser scaup) M, WR. Common to abundant. Feeds in shallow water areas. Bucephala clangula (common M, WR. Very uncommon in San Diego area. goldeneye) Rarely visits bay. NOTE: M=MIGRANT, R=RESIDENT, W=WINTER, S=SUMMER. E-5 TABLE E-2 CONTINUED Bucephala albeola (bufflehead) M, WR. Fairly common on bay. Dives for food in shallow to moderate deptlis. Melanitta deglandl (whitc-winged M, WR. Rare in San Diego area, which is beyond scoter), 01denzia nigra (common normal wintering range. Occasionally visits bay; 0 scoter) feeds on bottom fauna. Melanitta perspkillata (surf M, WR. Most common waterfowl on bay. Feeds in scoter) bay and along beaches. Oxyura jamaicensis (ruddy duck) M, WR. Breeds in some local lagoons, though not in bay area. Fairly common but seems to prefer more sheltered waters, such as San Diego River flood con- trol channel, lagoons, Mission Baj. Dives for food in shallow waters. Hergus serrator (red-breasted M, WR. Common fish-eating duck; can feed in merganser) shallow or deep water areas. Falco peregrinus (peregrine falcon) R. Endangered. Feeds in marshes, along cliffed shorelines, and in inland areas. P.allus longirostris (clapper rail) R and M. Endangered. Feeds in salt marshes and on mud flats. Laterallus jamaicensis (black rail) M. Rare. Feeds in salt marshes. Fullea americana (coot) M. Coots are not uncommon on the bay in winter and during migration. They feed in sliallow water areas and often gra-ze in parks. A few breed in marshes at the south end of the bay. Hintantopus mexicanus (black- Breeds commonly at south end of bay in sa It works. necked stilt) Feeds largely in salt ponds. Numbers increase in winter. Recun1rostra americana (avocet) M, WR. In fair numbers, Feeds in tidal creeks, shallow water areas, on small fish. May breed at south end of bay. Charadrius seinipahnatus (semi- M, WR. In fair numbers. Feeds on mudflats. palmated plover) C vociferus (killdeer) R. A resident species, brceding in rill areas along 0 bay. Numbers increase in winter. Prefers to feed in areasabove tidal influence, though does occur on mudflats. C alexandrinus (snowy plover) R. A resident species, breeding in small numbers along bay shore, particularly at salt works. Becom- rarer as undistrubed habitats decrease. NOTE: M = migmat, R = resident, W winter, S = summer. E-6 TABLE E-2 CONTINUED Pluvialis dominica (golden plover) M. Rare visitor to bay in migration; prefers upland habitats. Squatarola squalarold (black- W. Abundant in winter and during migration. The bellied plover) San Diego bay area is apparently a major wintering ground for this species. Feeds mainly on mudilats. Limosa fedoa (marbled godwit) W. Abundant in winter and during migration. Feeds on invertebrates on mudflats. Numenius phaeopus (Hudsonian Occasional in bay; prefers outer beaches. curlew, whimbrel) N. americanus (long-billed curlew M, WR. Fairly common migrant and winter resident. Feeds on soft mudflats. Totanus melanoleucus (greater M, WR. Both species of yellowlegs are fairly common yellowlegs), T flavipes (lesser during migration, less so in winter. 11ey require yellowlegs) mudflats and shallow water (ponds, pools) for feeding. Gatoptrophorus semipalinatus M, WR. Abundant on mudflats and also on sandy (willet) outer beaches. Arenaria interpres (ruddy turnstone) M, WR. Common, sometimes abundant migrant on mudflats, occasionally outer beaches. A. melanocephala (black turnstone) M, WR. Prefers rocky beaches, rarely straying to mudflats of the bay. Limnodromus griseus (short-billed , M, WR. 77hese closely similar species are difficult dowitcher), L scol&paceus to identify in the field. Ilie short-billed dowitcher (long-billed dowitcher) is common to abundant on the bay mudflats. Long-bills prefer pond habitats. C41idris canutus (knot) M, WR. Common on mudflats in migration. Crocethia alba (sanderling) M, WR. Common on mudflats but prefers outer beaches. Ereunetes nwuri (western sandpiper) M, WR. Abundant migrant and winter resident. Requires mudflat areas. Some individuals return to San Diego area each year in migration. Erolia alpina (dunlin) M, WR. Abundant from late fall through early spring. One of the most common shorebirds in the area, found almost exclusively on mudflats. E. minutilla (least sandpiper) M. WR. Common on mudflats but more likely to be found at edge of marsh vegetation. NOTE: M = migrant, R = resident, W winter, S summer. E-7 TABLE E-2 CONTINUED Sleganopus tricolor (Wilson's M. Common in migration, absent in winter. phalarope) Prefers salt ponds. Lobipes lobatus (northern M, WR. Virtually confined to salt ponds, where it is phalarope) often in great abundance. Phalaropusfulicarius (red plialarope) M, WR. Status varies greatly from year to year. When present, it is found with above species in salt works. Larus occidentalis, Iarus spp. Nine species of gulls frequent the bay waters. Only (western gull) one, the western gull, breeds locally; a I*cw birds nest in sheltered areas of the bay; thousands nest on Los Coronados. The remaining species are migrants and/or winter residents, arriving in late October and departing in March. Thousands of gulls of several species (glaucous, winged, western, herring, California, Thayer's, ring-billed) winter in the San Diego area, attracted by the availability of food at refuse dumps. These species use the bay area largely for roosting, and few individuals feed there to any great extent. Heermann's and Bonaparte's gulls do remain in the bay and in-shore areas, where they feed on small fish. Mew gulls, also, are rarely found far from open water, and they often occur near sewer outfalls. Sterna forsteri (Forster's tern) SR. This tern is largely a summer,resident of the bay, although some individuals do winter locally. It nests commonly on the salt works property and feeds to a large extent. on small fishes within the bay. S hirundo (common tern) M. Fairly common at times; feeds in bay and on open ocean. S. albifrons (least tern) SR. Endangered. Nests in south bay; feeds in sheltered bay waters. 77rala sseus maximus (royal tern) M. Fairly common offshore but uncommon in bay area. T elcgans (elegant tern) SIZ. Rare. Nests in south bay feeds in open sea. Hydroprogne caspia (Caspian tern) R. 'Breeds on salt works in south bay; many birds winter locally. Feeds on fresh water and bay fislics, less commonly offshore. NOTE: M = migrant, R = resident, W = winter, S = summer. E-8 TABLE E-2 CONTINUED Childonias niger(black tern) Occasional migrant; prefers lagoons, ponds. Passerculus sandwichensis (Savannah R. Common resident of salt marsh areas; numbers sparrow) increase in winter with additon of migrant birds. Totally dependent upon this habitat. NOTE: M= migrant, R= resident, W=winter, S=summer. I I I I I I i I I APPENDIX F HISTORICAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS I I I I I I I I I I F-i mm me" mmm APPENDIX F HISTORICAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS SAN DIEGO BAY AREA Source: California Inventory of Historic Resources. 1976. California Department of Parks and Recreation. IUARA TINE STATION (OLD LA PLAYA) Sa 4 sn ,ego. San Diego County. On this site stood 'Hide Park' (La Playa) trading SANTA FE DEPOT tation and hide storage depot for the Pacific coast. This also was the scene of Richard Henry Dana Jr.'s hide droghing operations as described in two years before 3-an--Mego, San Diego County. 1914. Bakewell and Brown, architects. Brick and the mast; and the hide house 'brookline,' where in 1829 the American flag was first hollow Tile, stuccoed, 1 high story, modified rectangle, tile gabled roof, unofficially raised in California. Calfornia historical landmark. Ownership: Federal. corner towers with polychrome domes and lanterns, enormous round arched center entrance into loggia, decorative panels on towers, arcaded side loggia 650 ft SAN DIEGO WHALING STATION SITE long, connecting to freight building, open interior with large round transverse 3a-n-M-ego, San Diego County. The packard brothers and Johnson brothers of New England arches, multicolor moorish tile designs, and original furnishings, orginal during the middle years of the 19th centruy maintained whaling companies here. To front exterior waiting room or courtyard and surrounding arcades removed. this spot they towed their catch, cut up the whales, tried out the blubber, coopered Spinish colonial revival. Large, well-preserved station built in style of the the oil, and shipped it. California historical landmark. Ownership: Federal. 191.5 Panama-California exposition buildings in San Diego. National Register. Ownership: Private. STAR OF INDIA San Die-go, San Diego County. 1863. Iron-hulled, 3-masted bark, restored 1959-1963. HOTEL DEL CORONADO Built at Ramsey, isle of man. as full-rigged ship named euterpe. sailed as general Coronado. San Die-go County. 1887-1890. James and Merritt Reid, architects. trader to India, then carried emigrants and cargo to New Zealand and Australia for Frame, grooved flush siding and shingling, 4-5 stories, modified hollow rectangle, 35 years. Name changed to Star of India, 1906, carried cannery employees and fisher- gabled roof sections, numerous dormers and projecting gables, large round corner men to and from Alaska, Museum since 1926. National historical landmark. Ownership: pavilion with pyramidal roof, cupola, surrounding shed loggia, and dormers. other Private. turrets and towers, verandas around inside of courtyard and facade, ornate spacious rooms, altered. Queen Anne elements. Extravagant late-19th C. resort hotel. BALLAST POINT whose guests have included 6 presidents, first electrically lighted hotel with San Diego, San Diego County. in 1542 Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo landed, discovered, and lighting stalled under direction of Thomas Edison. National register. Ownership: took prossession of upper California in the name of Spain. He applied the name San Private. Miguel to this port. in 1602 Sebastian Vizcaino landed, at which time the name of San Diego was first applied to this port. California historical landmark. Ownership: CABRILLIO NATIONAL MONUMENT (OLD POINT LOMA LIGHTHOUSE) Federal. San Diego, San Diego County. 1854. Stone@ painted, 1-1-@ stories, rectangular, gabled roof, interior end chimneys, central round light tower with balustraded PANTOJA PLAZA deck and glass enclosed lantern renovated, 1935. One of the first of 8 lighthouses San Diego, San Diego County. Established 1850, the first 'open space' set aside in New built on the Pacific coast, represents nation's initial effort to obtain naviga- Town, the forerunner of New San Diego. It was named for the pilot who first charted tio61l aids for newly acquired west coast. National register. Ownership: Federal. San Diego Bay. DERBY DIKE FIRST MILITARY FLYING SCHOOL IN AMERICA Tan-Diego County. The San Diego Herald. September 24, 18511: 'Improvement of Coronado, San Diego County. T_h_es_e_-fT`at lands have been a part of aviation history San Diego River. This work was commenced by lieutenant Derby, U.S. Corps of since Glenn Curtiss founded the First Military Flying School America on January 17, topographical engineers . . . . his orders were 'to excavate the former channel 1911. The Army operated Rockwell Field until January 31, 1939. The Navy commissioned of the river discharging into'flase bay and to build a levee . . . from a point the present airstation november 8, 1917. California historical landmark. Ownership: near the old town to the opposite high land . . . to counteract the action city. of subsequent freshet; , '. .' Derby Dike does not exist anymore because of land development. California historical landmark. Ownership: Federal. FORT GUIJARROS SITE EL DESEMBARCADERD SITE (@OLD LANDMAR San Diego, Saj@-Dieqo County, The plans for this Spanish fort were drawn by Alberto San Diego, San ffi-ego*County. The la g place used by small boats coming from De Cordoba in 1795. The actual work on Fort Guijarros was completed around 1800. Corporal Jose Velasquez was in command at the time of the battle of San Diego, when La Playa and other Point Loma places, which were able to penetrate at high tide American brig, Lelia Byrd, was fired upon March 22, 1803. California historical close to the residences at San Diego Viejo. California historical landmark. landmark. Ownership: Federal. Ownership: Federal. LINDBERGH FIELD FORT ROSECRANS NATIONAL CEMETERY San Diego County. This was Charles A. Lindbergh's departure point from San Diego San Diego, San Diego County. SFortly after the boundaries of Fort Rosecrans were en route to New York for his dramatic solo flight across the Atlantic to Paris in established at this site in 1852, this military cemetery. overlooking a number of May 1927. Ownership: City. earlier and wholly obliterated burial places of white man, was established. The name 'Bennington' commemorates, as does the obelisk, the death of about 60 men and boys on duty aboard the USS Gunboat-Bennington in San Diego Harbor July 21. 1905. Most of these victims were buried here. California historical landmark. Ownership: Feferal. 2 FORT ROSECRANS FORT GUIJARROS SITE San Diego, San Diego County. U.S. Military reservation established on Point Loma, Near base of Ball Tst Point, Point Loma, San Diego. Theme: Military. February 28, 1870. Named in honor of General William S. Rosecrans who visited San Diego in 1867. California historical landmark. Ownership: Federal. FORT ROSECRANS Point Loma, San Diego. Theme: Military. FORT STOCKTON San Dieg&',-San Diego County. This fortification dates from about 1838 when San *HOTEL DEL CORONADO Diegans threw up earthworks here in preparation for an offensive from Los Angeles. 1500 Orange Avi-.-,Coronado. Theme: Arts/Leisure. It was rebuilt in 1846 as an U.S. Army fortification. It was here on January 29, 1847, that the Mormon Battalion ended their march from council bluffs. California LA PUNTA DE LOS MUERTOS historical landmark. Ownership: City. U.S. Highway 101 anF-Market Street, San Diego. Theme: Military. LA PUNTA DE LOS MUERTOS LINDBERGH FIELD San Diego, San Diego County. Burial site of sailors and marines in 1872 when San San Diego InteFnational Airport. Theme: Economic/Industrial. Diego Bay was surveyed and ' charted by Don Juan Pantoja Y. Arriaga, pilot, and Don Jose Tovar, mate of the royal frigates La Princesa and La Favorita under command of 2UA_ 1jj:ct1TATION (OLD LA PLAYA) Don Augustin De Echeverria. California historical landmark. Ownership: Federal. T rn ic Laboratory. San Diego. Theme: Economic/Industrial. SAN DIEGO BARRACKS SAN DIEGO BARRACKS San Diego, San Diego County. New San Diego was established in 1850-51 as a quarter- Block bounded by Kettner Boulevard, California, G, and Market Street.. San Diego. master depot by Captain Nathaniel Lyon, 2d U.S. Infantry. for the supply of military Theme: Military. establishments in southern California. The name of the post was changed from New San Diego to San Diego Barracks by General orders No. 2, military division of the SAN DIEGO WHALING STATION SITE Pacific, San Francisco, April 5. 1879. San Diego Barracks continued to operate as Near Ballast PoiFt, San-Diego. Theme: Economic/Industrial. a subpost of Fort Rosecrans until abandoned December 15, 1921. California historical landmark. Ownership: Ci ty. *SANTA FE DEPOT 1050 Kettner, @an Diego. Theme: Architecture. ri *STAR OF INDIA *NATIONAL REGISTER SITE Diego Embarcadero, San Diego. Theme; Economic/Industrial. "LocatiEns and-many descriptions of archaelological sites are not given to protect these resources. County archaeological site counts based on the records on file with cultural resources section of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. SAN DIEGO COUNTY - 89 SITES (ALSO 2655 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES)" BALLAST POINT Fort Rosecrans Military Reservation, Point Loma, San Diego. Theme: Exploration/ Settlement. *CABRILLIO NATIONAL MONUMENT (OLD POINT LOMA LITHO vej!E1 End of CataTina Boulevard. (Cabrillo Memorial Dri San Diego. Theme: Economic/ Induttrial. DERBY DIKE San Diego River flood control channel. Theme: Economic/Industrial. EL DESEMBARCADERO SITE ( "I WNErll: U.S. Naval Training center, ego Theme: Economic/Industrial. FIRST MILITARY FLYING SCHOOL IN AMERICA Naval Air Station, North Island, Coronado. Theme: Military. 4 3 I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX G ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE I RECORDS AND SUMMARY I I I I I I I I I I G-i SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY may be reached at the Countyt lhvironmental Analysis Division. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92182 No pottery is mentioned in the descriptions of any of these sites. This D.m--t .1 A.Ih,@P.Iogy does not negate the possibility that these sites are recent. It only es- January 23, 1979 tablishes the necessity for further study in order to definitely place the materials in a chronological frame. We have no record of off shore sites in the project vicinity. Reference to Michae V. Needham "RV.%D San Diego Unified Port District Rolls (a r a ite ff the coast near Imperial Beach has been made, however, I have no 3165 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92112 JAN 2 :1, 19Y I further infori7.ation. Little work off the coast has been done. You might ENVIRONMENTAL try gettinG ahold of Dr. James Moriarty at the University of San Diego. He Dear Idr. Needhamq MANAGEMENT, is in the history department and has done some underwater studies. Of the sixteen archaeological sites located within and in the vicinity of the I hope this has been some help. If you have any questions please call. project area eight have no recordation date. These sitest SDI-50, 51, 55, 57, 58, 59, 65, and 66, were probably recorded previous to 1950, and it is very Sinc Ierely,, likely that they were recorded as early as the 1920's. The majority of these - tt, 14' sites-are located in highly impacted residential zones. Most of them were re- Melis3a J. corded as shell middeas with no artifactual remains which might aid in the Cultural Remou=e Management Center Anth.mpology Lab identification of cultural or chronological affiliation. C) These eight sites may conceivably be the remains of groups existing as early as 12,000 years ago or they may be very recent as the silver strand area is known to be a favorite site for historic aboriginal use and Native Americans continued to use the bay area until the early part of this century (Shipeck 1968:The Autobiography of Delfina Cuero). Three sites, SDI-5512, 5513, and 5514 are currently under investiZation by a San Diego State graduate atudentg Roy Pettus, for the California, Depart- ment of Transportation. Tlais study is an lieu of a proposed bikeway route and it is now in an extended phase I stage which entails limited testing. This report will be on file at San Diego State Anthropolo& Lab and at CALTHANS. I am not sure of the condition of site 3DI-5454. This site seems to extend from the La Jollan period and according to the site record thc midlen remains .tact despite such historic activities as ;.,iight occur during use by a United in States Cavalry unit and the United States !.4avy. blay, who recorded this site 1HE.CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGES ZEPARTWT VP ANTHROPOLOGY AXnW1 Op ANTHROPOLOGY San Diego Otate University 30 1 Diego Its%e University San Di o CA 92182 Son DIs 0 CA 92162 (71 ;8&-6300 -CORD SEARCH (7141 1286-6300 REPORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILES RE MORT 2N ARCiABOLOcICAL SITE PILES RECORD _sFARCH 77 _ ____11 _10111,@ - -7- - Source of Request it PORT OF SAN DIEGO -------- Date of Request Letter Teliphone ( In Person Durce of Requeg ( X) Letter Ttliphone ( ) I- Person Date Request Received Map Received ) Map Retu=ed ate of Request january 11, 1979 ( x) Map Received x ) Map Returned Same of Project ate Request Received JanuarYA2.@@ 8102-EIP-1 The San Diego State University files show no recorded mite for the project area. ame Of Project port Raster Plan EIR (UPD #7 The San Diego State University 1@leo show no recorded site for th ,0 project area. The San DieSo State University files show the following sites within Im X) The San Die.-o State University files Show the following sites within X in the v-iciriity of the project area. the Y3.clni ty of the Project &real Site No. SDI-65 Culture(s). 11@1-wn ite No. SDI@50 Cul ture ( a) : Unknown Description-. Shell heap, scattered irregularly for several re@ feet. De scrip tion:11TTaces )f a cam 1te. (Nelson, nd) (Welty,-nd) Site No. SDI-66 Culture(a): unknown ite No. _.LDI-11 Culture(s): Unknown Description: e deposit, small amount of shell and chamoal. Shell and refus "Traces o -site." (Nelson* nd) Description: (,Yelty, nd) Site No. 3DI-48ffi Culture(e), -Unknown @Ite No. SDI-55 Culture(s): Unknown Isolated 3craperv poksibly of chert. (Toren, 1977) (Nl.on,nd) Description; n Description: "Traces of a refuse heap containing ehell, cha=Oalt e Site No. SDI-5454 Culture(e). "Coastal La. Jollan" SDI-57 Unicnown Ca. 10 acr6s of Culture(e). m dden seems intact, also occupied by the US Navy and No. tempora@ cawP site-,, (Nelson, nd) Description: Description: "Faint indications of a former the US Cavalry. Scattered lithics-flakes and tools, shell and hearths. (TAW, 1978) ---------- Site No. SDI-5512 Culture(s): Unknown jil,e No. _ SDI@-58 Culture(s)- unknown marked by a quantity of thinly - scattered sea Description: Flakes, flake tQolsp core toolat and .some shell, largely disturbed, Description: (Corur "Traces of a cajap. sitep ca. 15m x 100;L. iq 1978 shells'.' (Nelsong nd) Site No. SDI-5513 Culture(s): Unknown ilte No. SDI-59 Culture(s): Unknown Description: Flakes and f14-,e'toola along Vae bank of the rivers a large cobble ohop- A shell and refuse mound, abundant on surface, no more tiian 3 to 4 inches Description' per found at edge of tomato field. (b6xwn, in depth. wrned stones and charcoal approx. 50 x 200 feet. (Welty, nd) _1978) p@rn the San Diego State Note: @rhic report incZudes only that inforWtio" allaiUtbZg from the San Diego State Note: This report includes only that 0107"atio" waitable other institutions . A University files and may not iwZude data on file at other institutions. A University files and may not iwzudg data On file a'as assurance of the absence tack of sites recorded in our files oann6s be taken as agsurance of the absence oa,wabt be taken rf it should occur that any oultural remains arc )f sites recorded in our files t any oultural rematne are of archaeological materials. J -lack '.haeoZogical materials. -If it should occur tha ified drCha00109ist should encountered during the 0ourse of o0netructiOn, a qualified archaeologist should of arc the aourse Of oons truOtionj a qua Z be notified. ountered during be notifted. Record ch.etk by Record cbecik by Z" Date Signed gned ~0 DEPARTMENT ~OP ANTHRO~qP ~D~E~P~A~RT~H3~2~1T OF ANTHROPOLOGY ~B~an Diego ~4t~ate U~n~qive ~B~a~n Diego ~4tate University San Di a CA 921 ~B~a~n Di~sp, CA 92182 (714~q@~0~q;86~-6300 (714) ~q28~6-6300 REPORT ON ARCHA~EOI~D~G~ICA~L SITE P~qI R~E~P~OR~T~,ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE PILES RECORD SEARCH Source of Request Source of Request Port of San Diego Date of Request Letter T~el~q@~phone in Person Date of Request January 11, 1979_ Date Request Received Jan. this is a contir~mati~qtn Date Request Received ~Ka~p Received gap Returned Name of Project Port Master plan EIR (UP~D #78102-EI ~~m~e.~f Project The San Diego State University f~4le~s show no The San Diego State University f~4l~es show no recorded site for the project are ~8~* ( ) The San Diego State University f~qtl~e~s show the The San Diego State University f~q4l~e~s show the following sites within ~i~m ~th evicinity of the project area. the vicinity of the project area. Site No. SDI-53 Culture(~s): Not recorded Site No. S~DI-5514 Culture(~e): Unknown "Southern Diegueno~" ~De~scription:~"Tr~ace~s of probable campsites" Description: Shell ~midden and scattered metavolc~anic flakes, disturbed by the construction and maintenance of HwY 75. (Corum, 1978) Site No. SDI-54 Cul~ture(~s): Not recorded Site No. ~SDI-5931~- Cul~ture(~s): Unknown Description: "Traces of a refuse heap." Description: Scat~cered artifacts, flakes, ~h~aL~mer~st~one p~o~i~k~nder and a blade ~fr~a~6~nent. ~ef~; Cultural Re~2~j~ur~ce. ~qf~qt~e~qo~-. f the ~S. D~. fixed Guidew~qV Project Center City to San Ysi~(~iro. Carrico, 1978. (Eckhardt, 1978) Site No. Culture~q(~s)~: Description: Description: site No. Culture~q(~s)~: to. ~DI-4958 Culture(~s)~. Unknown Description: A te~iaporary campsite containing stone tool~av manos and shellfish, Description: 61 x 60 meters in area. (Carrico, 1977) Size No. ~C~u~l~t~u~re~q(~s~q)~: Site No. SDI~@6025 ~C~ulture(~s). Unknown Description: Description: ~qj~qU~g~h~l~y disturbed shell midden, some scattered fel~site flakes, glazed potsherds, 4250 sq. meters in area. (~Pranklin, 1978) Site No. Cul~tur~e~q(~s)~: Site No. Cultur~e~q(~s)~: Description: Description: Note: This report includes only that information available from th~a San Diego State Note: ~rhi~s report includes only that information a University files and may ~not include data on file at other institutions. A "University files and may not include data on .lack of sites recorded in our files ~oa~nn~bt be taken as assurance of the absence tack of sites recorded in our files cannot b of archaeological materials. if it should occur that any cultural remains are of archaeological materials. ~Xf it should o encountered during the course of ~o~onstru~ctio~n, a qualified ar~cha~eo~l~4~gi~st should encountered during the course of construction be notified. be notified. A. Record check by Record check by ~qV~V~I~) ~1~3 Date Signed Date Signed ~0 SAN DIEGO MUSEUM OF MAN ~I~qT~qS~qC~~qE~qR~qV~qI SAN DIEGO MUSEUM OF .~1~4-~1 . ....... p~,~,~f~i, ............~J~I~M ~/~qW~ -1- 1350 El Prad~o~, Balboa Park. San Diego. California 92101, Te ~dd~,~,p~l h~, ~f~i~le-d h~,~,~,~,~,~, JAN ~q2~,~, ~q1~q9~qi: ~i REPORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILES RECORD SEARCH ENVIRONMENTAL Source of Request: 1~F January 1~079 MANAGEMENT Date of Request: Mr. Michael V. Needham Date Request Received: Assistant Environmental Management Coordinator San Diego Unified Fort District Name of Project: ~P. 0. Box 48~8 San Diego, California 92~1~3~2 The Museum of Man files show no recorded sites f~qo Dear Kike, The Museum of Man files show the following sites ~the project area. We have completed the Archaeological Site Files Record Search for your Fort Master Plan (U~FD #7~8~102-~FIR-1). The results of Site No. ~V~-~1~5~? Culture(s) ~: ~S~A~U ~7~P~*~. ~o~i~t~i~!~L~a ~T ~f~e ~La J that Record Search and the invoice are enclosed. Description: ~'~f~i~g~hl~a~i~a~l ~int~t-~i~mi~t~L~e~tit ~c~w.~q~)*~n~i~7~q; ~q3 P~f~'r your request, this letter provides a brief summary state- m~(nt, based solely an the Record Search results and information r~e~r~.ardin~F~r bay margin disturbance provided by you in our tele- r~h~o~ne conversation of 10 January. Site No. Culture(s): ~7~1~q~.-~s~it~o T~T L~iescr~ip~ti~o~u~; ~c~w~q~@~~*~'~1~1~6~; Cobb The Record Search results show a total of 25 recorded sites in ~u~l~l~e~l~] ~r~L~i~dd~e~ql~ql~qs~q. your area of interest. As can be seen from the maps, most of sit~. ~I~ii~g~l~il~a~,~id ~a~0qm~q-~qi~ql these sites are in locations which have been d~e~stroy~rd or ~en~,~J of ~7~t~r~u~ilL L~0~1~1~1~L ~o ~.~.~'~I~. ~7~r~d~l~ita~l seriously impacted. The absence of recorded sites in ~n~ich of the South Day area, in the vicinity of the Otay River, reflects Site ~N~.. 3 C~u~ltur~e(s): ~L~,~" Jolla II a lack of archaeological survey activity. Since this is also Description: ~R~"~Y margin ac~,~@~i~vt~lo~n m~id~den; c~qc~q!~q;~q' the area, according t~@~, i~mform~ation provided by y~ou, where the least dredge and fill disturbance h~as occurred, this would tend to reinforce your observation that the southeast bay area is a likely area for future archaeological discoveries, particularly Site No. Culture(~s): ~r~-~'~, J~0~11~3 TI with t~he presence of a major ethn~o~hi~stor~ical~ly-r~ecord~ed vil~la,,~r in the area. Of course, all of this would have to be confirmed Description: ~1~;~a~j Lori-ace i~nt~er~i~g~it~L~i~rit ~qky field investigation. I would also like to thank you for the information you provided on planned future south bay developments in arch~aeolo~gically Site No. ~!~*~-19~,~' ~cul~Lur~e(~s): D~1~,,~-~!~i~itc, ~r-~qr IT sensitive areas. We will be ha~qMy to provide input to the appropriate governmental bodies a~s these projects develop. Description: ~L~t~.~-r~n~a~c~e cobble lit I trust that the above comments will provide the necessary summary for your current project. If you ~@~.av~e further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sit, N~o. Culture(~s): ~T~;~, Jol~l~h ~S~incere~lyv Desc r~ipt ion: ~T~~ir~v~,~,~: ~T~-~-~;~d~d~en, Ken H~ed~res Please note: The project area may contain archaeolog Curator noted above. This report is made from ~@~hc~l~s: Maps and may not include data pertaining to Record Search in previous Museum of Man surveys or ga Invoice Individuals. Record check by: ~1~7 ~J~a~i~,~i~j~%ry ~l~r~;~,~" ~qS Date: M MOW M M= M M SAN DIEGO-MUSEUM OF MAN SAN DIEGO MUSEUM OF MAN 1350 El Prado. Balboa Park, Son Diego. California 92101. Telephone (714) 239-2001 Page of 1350 El Prado. Balboa Park, San Diego, California 92101, Telephone (714) 239-2001 Page 3 of REPORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILES RECORD SEARCH REPORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILES RECORD SEARCH Source of Request: 7@1,,-@ 'q:':Led Per'. Source of Request: -)rL @"'Jtl-lct Name of Project: -1D. Name of Project: 70-L "lall ":R (7775 Site No. T:-1 "I Culture(s):_ T-a-JoIlIa-7; rw:,eyu,y Site No. --11", Culture(s): PrPhj3L-,r-.*c Description: 00c"Flat'lon Hite; cob"Ie relsite. Description: @amp :i,',O; toolzi; r1anos; s%vil; harrd,,t-xitoj!u; srrd, !r.; co pf rps; '%Rogers @Y--ii:Lured rxick; rv,@toucljc!j tuols. '.?.rarrico 1977 Recorded by: 7.71,1,.@Evl:1 Recorded by:c'.:1@11_" 1977 Site No. Culture(s): La Jolla TT Site No. W-l':13 Culture(s): lhurnovn Description: S1011@;;' !ntu.-i:d-"tcnt !:,arthn; nid,jull. Description: rla'@1111' staticn vJL'i I@L;IjC q,-@atter; core; flakc-.s. Recorded by: 'T.Rol@enq Recorded by: F'-Bergatai@ Site No. '1-195 Culture(s): La Jollla -I; '@iviian TIT Site No. W-1593 Culture(s): Description: 1@1@1'10dic carrili;.i.G; cobble hezirt!,:i; rl.aleil'd; mid.i.!l;. Description* acauers. Recorded by: M.Pocci-q Recorded by: C.Droycr 1077 Site No. 2, 9 1 Culture(s): La Jolla I aid TT site No. W-1627 Culture(s) : 2r*(hLj uric Description: rh,l I midden; cobble hca-ths. Description: @',catter ur caltiiiui dcbz-iL;; flakes; 173-aking waste; hamrrer@itone-pounderil ma-JL fragment. Recorded by: Recorded by: L.Fcl-hardt 197C Site No.'* Culture(s): Site No.Y_16111 Culture(s): lh:;Loric; F-arly Milling Description: lcal,',er of flaking debris. Description: Camp mldd,n; cores; flakes/debitage; scrapers; bl,, en; Ueir:al ruck; @ihell. oc-upation replaced by Recorded by: JQ76 ;.7, rouixiations;.-I lck; ceramics, glass Recorded by: P.f'av 19719 r,_.1,1.aced uavali-y i' Fon. re(s): Site No. Culture(s): NO', nO Site No. Cultu W- 1 f) 5 3 tod Description. vf f*"L!A.?'L: @'(11;r-Ls. Description: Ae.ifact scatt( Ir; flakes; flake tools; core tocls; @ihell. Recorded by: -.Ai ":?6 Recorded by: i,oorw., 1c)73 Site No. Culture(s): @"Lple'-Uty Site No. IV- 1(' 4:1, Culture(s): Not notmJ of tre vil'aj,,e sit., uf Ta W! "; flakr, tc,1.9; cox@ Lool; cob@,), chopper. Le Description: 171a!@e U J. 118 :J I _1%orical. Jata (L111y@t not arenaeologically defli,@d. Recorded by: 7.!Ihipek 1'@7@ Recorded by: J.@ _L Cc, 'n Site No. W-1211 Culture(s): 'Unlk'nowvi Site No. Culture(s): Di(-,111110 Description: DV@cover!Y site of stigill nor-Lar. .Description: Shell, midden; rlakes. Recorded by: Y17 Recorded by:_,' f2Z.Uf Site No. Culture(s): III-Ilu arli Core Site No. 1-7-1W Culture(s): Description: Occupatloil site; corvz. Description: 517-11 Midd-l; flaken. Recorded byii-."in@:1'LL11 iq? Recorded by:_L-_.@Conm 19 @tl SAN DIEGO MUSEUM OF MAN 1350 El Prado. Balboa Park, Son Diego, California 92 101. Telephone (714) 239-2001 Page of REPORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FILES RECORD SEARCH Source of Request: :'c:t 73"*str@cL Name of Project: Site No. Culture(a): Description: f! "Ic(@4; Recorded by:- P.7,-@r&Un 1978 Site No.- Culture(s): Description: Recorded by: Site No.- Culture(s): Description: Recorded by: Site No.- Culture(s): M Description: Recorded by: Site No. Culture(a): Description: Recorded by: Site No.- Culture(a): Description: Recorded by: Site No.- Culture(s): Description: Recorded by: Site No. Culture(s): Description- Recorded by: Site No. Culture(s): Description: Recorded by: _3 Cl 0rn r, U) tA C'b^ V+ cr al m 0 m C+ Cy M 0 In :9 m m CT on 0 0 m t0 t0 1 CD Q M06 M -1 m 0 L't 3r rr u, c+ c mr+ to cm ul c+ fD or .55- N --jff- c" IA c+ w 7 7 0 fAm k< c+ m r+ =r 4z c+ at c: r fD 1+ CL 4A o =r im c+ (D Z* 47 Ln co 06 to to 9w V) C) 0 ral C+ :3 rr C+ :3 I'D 5 no C+ ct = t7 m :3 (D < cr m 0 2: c+ lu c+ u3 (D I I I I I I I I I i APPENDIX H I NOTICE OF PREPARATION I AND COMMENTS I I I I I I I I I H-i of, 0 p. 0 state of (galff"nia 6OVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95614 Fq -r F: !S I EE C- EDMUND G_ BROWN JR. (916) 445-0613 Ah.f,413 LIr408EFkcIH FIELO .1kIFt -r1ERMIr4,9kL 47141 291-3900 P.O. 80. 492, S- Dmq@ 92112 TO: California Coastal Commission NCTICE OF PREPARATION April 5, 1978 APR 10 j97C 631 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Mr. Thomas Firle SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Management PROJECT TITLE: "AMENDMENT OF SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT MASTER PLAN" Coordinator San Diego Unified Port UPD 78XY-EIR-1 District APPLICANT: San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 488 LOCATION: San Diego, CA- San Diego, CA 92112 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The San DI 'If4ed Port District will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an REPORT ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED i rn, -oject identified above. We need to kmow the PORT DISTRICT MASTER PLAN SCH 78030604 Un, impact reporL f5'F the pi views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information whi0 is germine tv y-,ur age-icy's statutory responsibilities in connection with the Dear Tom: proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your perm. it or other aprrcval for the project. On March 6, 1978, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) distributed the Port District's Notice of Preparation of an The pro ect description, location, and the probable environmental effects are con- Environmental impact Report (EIR) on amending the Port Master tained n the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study 0 is, (D is not, Plan. Per our understanding, OPR sent the Notice to the attached. following agencies and departments: the Department of Water Resources; the State Water Resources Control Board; CalTrans; Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response Must be sent at the the Air Resources Board; the Department of Navigation and ocean earliest possible date but not later than 45 days after receipt of this notice. Development; the State Lands Commission; and, the Department of Fish and Game. The review period is now complete, and Please send your response by Certified Mail to Mr. Toms E. Firle, Environmental these agencies should have notified you directly of their Management Coordinator, at the addre:.s shown above. Ile will need the name for a concerns. For your convenience, OPR has attached copies of the contact person in your agency. agencies concerns which we received. When complete, please submit 15 copies of the Draft EIR for Date: February 15, 1978 state agency review. Please refer to the State Clearinghouse number on all subsequent correspondence to this project. TO- S E. FIRLE, CoordGat6r Environmental Management Telephone: (714)291-3900 X238 If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact Judy TEF:pm Warburg of my staff at (916) 445wO613. Enclosure: I San DWO Unified Port District Master Plan Thank you for your cooperation. 21 Request to Determine Scope of EIR cc: State Clearinghouse, Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested Sincerely, Ge-,; CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Deni Greene Director Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14, Sections 15035.7, 15054.3, State Clearinghouse 15066. (em 02/15/7C) STATE OF CAtIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND 0. BROWN JR., G.--, STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD P.O. box 100 TKCI vArjoerw is Nor SACRAMENTO, CA 9501 -to i@Az ?knPair ar- MAR 2 71970 (916) 3224301 LIST OF INFORMATION SUBJECTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL March 22, 1978 MANAGEMENT, Description of Project IN REKY, nEASE REFER TO, 42o DD The description should provide sufficient information to allow an understanding of the relationships of the project to the Mr. Tomas E. Firle, Coordinator Environmental Management surrounding area, and to provide a clear background for Port of San Diego and W 2 71978 Lindbergh Field Air Terminal determining how the project affects the area. Specific items P. 0. Box 488 San Diego, Ca 92112 ENVIRONMENTAL to be included are as follows: MANAGEMENT. NOTICE OF PREPARATION - EIA 030278ol Amendment of San Diego A. Purpose of and need for the project (specific problem and Unified Port District Master Plan its significance related to development, health, and the Thank you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the biotic and social environment). subject project. In accordance with Your request for information, the B. Applications, permits required (name of agencies, status attached list contains the items germane to the State of permits). Water Resources Control Board's statutory responsibilities as a responsible agency or to other major water resources C. A detailed discussion of: control Concerns. A discussion of each listed Item should .0. be included in the draft environmental document. 1. Kinds and quantities of materials to be treated, 114 If you have any further questions Please contact transported, discharged, or released to the environment. Dave Deckman at (916) 322-4517. 2. Methods of treatment, transport, and disposal. 7% D. Maps, photographs, charts, or figures to show location and Thomas E. B.Iley interrelationships of project components. Assistant Chief E. Methods which will be incorporated in the project to conserve Attachment and reclaim water and to reduc e waste. For water supply projects, this section should contain an adequate description of the uses of the water in the place of use and the water supply and wastewater disposal systems, including a detailed descr@ption of the water rights that are being applied for by the applicant. Any prior water rights -2- that the project proponent holds should be discussed if they 3. Toporraphy (slopes, hills, creeks, marshes, swamps, are related to the project being proposed. A detailed drainage wayu). discussion of the method of diversiong conveyance, and 4. Climate (precipitation, winds, seasonal variation). storage'facilities should also be included in this section. B. Water 1. Waterf;hed area and phys ,iography (bays, estuaries, lakes, strearns, ocean). For wastewater treatment projects, this section should also include a description of the wastewater facilities, service 2. Hydrology--surface runoff and groundwater. area boundaries, the type of treatment, the facilities a. Quantities, seasonal variations, trends, uses, capacity, any bypasses and overflows, the sources and character recharge. of influent and effluent, source .controls, and the existing b. Status (e.g., water-short area? overdraft?) waste disposal method, including sludge. 3. Uses of the water (water supply, receiving water, recreation, and other instream uses), occurrence, Description'of Environmental Setting quantities, value or importance. The environmental description should provide sufficient 4. Quality of surface waters and groundwater, including information to allow an unaerstanding of the inter .a.ctions existing problems and oonstraints (chemical and between the area (both local and regional) and the project. physical condition). a. Domestic water sources--their quality, quantity, The description should include the present setting without the project, and the probable future setting if the project and per capita consumption including large water-using industries and amount of their is not built. Emphasis should be placed on those items related to potential effects of the project. Specific items consumption. to be included are as follows: b. Receiving waters--characterize, chemically and A. Physical setting physically, the existing receiving waters. Indicate 1. Location (map and description) including the whether the receiving waters are a bay, estuary, or immediate vicinity of the project and the regional the ocean. State how the present discharge complies setting. with or violates the SWRCB's Water Quality Control 2. Geology (soil type, erodability, permeability). Plan for Ocean Waters of California or Water Quality Control Polic7 for the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California. -4- C. Biota--aquatic and terrestrial (emphasis should be placed b. Water Q,,ality Control Policy for the Enclosed Bays on those items which may be affected by changes in the and Estuaries of California quantity or quality of water resulting from the project) c. Water Quality Control Plans for Ocean Waters of 1. Habitat types California a. Locations b. Quantities III. Impacts c. Condition (carrying capacity, stress, etc.) Impacts should be discussed in relation to those items included 2. Plant and animal species in the project and environmental description sections. Generally, a. Locations concerns of the State and Regional Boards relate to effects on b. Abundance and condition the quantity and quality of surface and groundwaters. Construction 3. Sensitive species or habitat activities, as well as the effects of the project, must be discussed. a. Rare and endangered plant or animal species (occurrence, Impact discussions should include description of direct and locations, abundance, condition). indirect effects of normal and worst case situations (e.g., project b. Sensitive or special use habitat (e.g., migration failures or accidents) and anticipated durations of impacts. routes, spawning or nursery areas, marsh land), Specific items to be included are as follows: occurrence, locations, abundance, and condition. A. Changes in surface and groundwater quantity (total quantities D. Social and changes in seasonal variations). 1. Land use patterns (agricultural, urban, industrial, etc.) 1. Effects on other users. 2. Zoning and other special requirements (e.g., coastal 2. Effects on surface water instream uses (fish.and zone, flood plain, wild and scenic rivers, watershed, wildlife, riparian vegetation, recreation, esthetics). local plans, ocean plan, bays and estuaries policy). 3. Effects on groundwater uses (water supply, saltwater 3. Population density and trends barrier, ground subsidence, phreatophytes). 4. Recreation, esthetic areas B. Changes in surface and groundwater quality (degree of change, 5. Housing and economy seasonal variations, and effects). 6. Relationships to State and Regional Board policies and 1. Physical changes plans, including but not limited to the following: a. Wastewater a. Basin Plans b. Drainage patterns No -M_ M MW AM No, IM 'M Wo -M am, So c. Temperature d. Turbidity C. Social and land use changes 2. Chemical changes (volumes, constituents, and 1. Effects on special use areas (flood plain, wild or concentrations) scenic rivers, prime agricultural land, and other a. Biostimulants special or protected areas) b. Toxic chemicals (acute and chronic) 2. Social effects (land use, cultural resources, energy$ c. Total dissolved solids zoning, and other social/political restrictions or d. Dissolved oxygen controls) e. Oxygen demanding substances 3. Conflicts with State or Regional Board policies or Potential impacts from accidental releases of chemicals plans (see I.D.6.) a. Identity and properties including any hazards 4. Population changes associated with chemicai or physical properties 5. Effects an regional and local services b. Proposed mode of transport a. Water supply c. Expected transport routes and destinations, with b. Waste disposal identification of locations of vulnerable areas c. Cumulative effects along route 6. Project related safety and health hazards d. Risk analysis for significant accidents during ?. Energy relationships of project transport 8. Effects on cultural resources e. Volume of material capable of being released into D'. Effects on aquatic and terrestrial biota the environment at each stage of loading and 1. Vegetation, invertebrates, fish, and wildlife transport 2. Sensitive habitats f. The forms of life or resources which might be Rare or endangered species affected by the release of materials 9- Countermeasures, including alternatives, which IV. Alternatives might be employed to prevent significant damage All project alternatives must be briefly described, including or reduce risk relationships to the environment, potential significant impacts, and reasons for rejecting each alternative. In addition, future options associated with each alternative should be discussed (e.g., reclamation, regionalization, etc.) STATE Of CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION EDMUND 0. BROWN JR., G.--- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11, P.O. SOX 01406, SAN DIEGO 92138 March 31, 1978 V. Mitigation measures for adverse impacts (methods to eliminate or 11-SD-75 minimize impacts, the levels to which impacts would be reduced, and the basis for selecting levels as acceptable). Where alternative mitigations are available, eac .hIshould be discussed SCEIVI and the basis for selection of a specific alternative should be Mr. Tomas E. FLrle APR R 1978 Environmental Management Coordinator ENVIRONMENTAL given. Water conservation measures and wastewater reclamation San Diego Unified Port District MANAGEMENT. P.O. Box 488 must.always be discussed. Contingency plans in the event of San Diego, CA 92112 accidents or project malfunctions should also be included, Dear Mr. Firle: especially if the project has a potential for accidental Notice of Preparation of Draft EIR On The San Diego Unified Port District's Master Plan (SCH #78030604) releases of chemicals. EIRs for projects with a significant potential for chemical spills shall include a spill prevention While we will continue to be interested in the Master Plan, we have concluded that CALTRANS District 11 probably does not have and control plan, to prevent or limit damage. In addition, a responsible-agency role in preparation of this EIR. CALTRANS could have discretionary approval power for subsequent projects mitigation should be discussed in relation to specific binding such as a possible second entrance bridge, but it seems unlikely measures to ensure their implementation as part of the project, that the Master Plan EIR would be used for those purposes. and reasons for not implementing proposed mitigation measures we are assuming that a Master Plan EIR will focus on broad con- cepts and that separate documents will be needed for specific should also be given. projects. CALTRANS will appreciate an opportunity to review the Master Plan EIR and may become a responsible agency for subsequent projects within the Unified Port District. Sincerely, Jacob Dekema District Director of Transportation Y_ ames T. Cheshire Chief, Environmental Planning Branch JTCtec y a-e i.1 @@Ch low, .1m; go M, @m M am go, M W, 00) @M *W:NK,M 00,00 MON STATE Of CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., G-- ITATIF 01 rAIL1101NIA-41SOURC11 AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN ift- C--- DEPARTMENT OF NAVIGATION AND OCEAN DEVELOPMENT 1416 NINTH $MEET DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 MARINE RESOURCES REGION 4'."81 350 Golden Shore Long Beach, CA 90802 04CEZY (213) 590-5140 % March 30, 1978 7 April 1978 APR 10 19X Mr,,T nas E. Firle, Port of San Diego 10 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 1J;CEXVJaTr1& MANAraEMENE En rormental Management Coordinator P. 0. Box 488 Mr. Thomas E. Firle, Coordinator APR Environmental Management San Diego , CA 92112 3 19M San Diego Unified Port District Dear Mr. Firle: P.O. Box 488 ENVIRONMENTAL San Diego, CA 92112 SCH No. 78030604 MANAGEMENT San Diego Port Master Plan Dear Mr. Firle: The Department of Navigation and Ocean Development is not a SCH 78030604 - Notice of Preparation San Diego regulatory agency and therefore does not issue permits of any Unified Port District (UPD) Master Plan Amendment kind. However, we do review and may comment upon U. S. Corps (UPD #78102-EIR-1) of Engineer public notices for proposed projects which are We have reviewed the 1972 UPD Port Master Plan and find that it is a subject to that federal agency's jurisdiction. We review and statement of objectives and guidelines for developing various segments of may comment on environmental documents which are submitted to us San Diego Bay that are under the jurisdiction of the Port District. by the State Clearinghouse. For review purposes on both environ- mental documents and Corps public notices, the department's We believe that preparation of the proposed Amendment to the Port Master interests lie in the following areas; Plan provides an opportunity for the Port District to document the biological resources and water quality parameters of San Diego Bay within 1. Potential for navigation hazards - to what extent might its jurisdiction a .nd thus serve as a baseline informational document for the proposed project affect safe navigation in California's the evaluation of future port projects. waterways? Of particular concern to the Department are those areas of habitat, 2. Reach erosion - to what extent might the proposed project especially those located in south San Diego Bay, which have remained affect the stability of coastal as well as inland beaches? relatively undisturbed by developments within and adjacent to the bay. 3. Boating and boating facilities - to what extent might the With that in mind, we offer the following informational outline which we proposed project affect existing or planned small craft would like to see developed for inclusion in your Port Master Plan: harbors, launching facilities, and other boating facilities? To what extent might recreational boating activities be I. Description of Environmental Setting affected? The environmental description should provide sufficient information to If you have further questions concerning our role in project review allow an understanding of the interactions between the area (both local processes, please contact the Environmental Unit (916/322-4165) of and regional) and the project. The description should include the present the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development. setting without the project, and the probable future setting if the project is not built. Emphasis should be placed on those items related to potential effects of the project on fish and wildlife. Specific items to be included are as follows: 1. Water a. Uses of the water (water supply, receiving water, recreation and other uses. cc: Office of Planning and Research b. Quality of the water, including existing problems and constraints. n Mr. Thomas E. Firle -2- 7 April 1978 Mr. Thomas E. Firle -3- 7 April 1978 With regard to water quality, parameters we believe should be (3) Aquatic bed (submergent vascular and algal) examined include the following: (b) Intertidal (1) Dissolved oxygen profile of the bay. (1) Aquatic bed (submergent vascular and algal) (2) Location and characteristic of present bay discharges. We are especially concerned with the following constitutents: (2) Flat (mud, sand, cobble/gravel) (a) Oil and grease (3) Rocky shore (boulder, bedrock, artificial) (b) Phenols - particularly PCB chlorinated benzenes and total (4) Beach/bar (sand, cobble/gravel) identifiable hydrocarbons. (c) Emergent wetland (c) Metals - particularly lead, chromium, zinc, copper and cadmium. (d) Scrub/shrub wetland (3) Current circulation patterns and tidal flushing rates within the b. Plant and animal species bay. 1. Geographical distribution (4) History of red tide problems and algal blooms within the bay. 2. Abundance and condition (5) Nutrient budget of the bay. C. Sensitive species and sensitive or critical habitat A thorough discussion of proposed port projects relative to the above items should prove valuable when considering; 1. Threatened and endangered animal species (occurrence, locations, abundance, condition). 00 (1) Dredging and landfill projects as they relate to circulation and tidal flushing. 2. Sensitive, critical, or special use habitat--e.g. spawning and nursery areas, wetlands, (occurrences, locations, (2) Nonpoint and point source discharges upon the water quality abundance, condition). of the bay in terms of incremental increases or decreases of those discharge parameters. d. A discussion of any habitat enhancement projects undertaken and the success of such projects. In addition, the relationship of the various port projects to the water quality aspects of the 208 planning program should also be 11. Impacts explored. Impacts should be discussed in relation to those items included in the 2. Biota - Aquatic and Terrestrial project and environmental description sections. Generally, concerns of the California Department of Fish and Game relate to effects on fish and a. Habitat types wildlife and associated aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Construction activities, as well as the effects of the project. must be discussed. 1. Locations Impact discussions should include descriptions of direct and indirect effects of normal and worst case situations (e.g. project failures or 2. Quantities (acres, lineal feet, etc.) accidents, impacts at full buildout) anticipated durations of impacts, cumulative impacts, and unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be We recommend the use of the following habitat classification mitigated. system: Ill. Alternatives (a) Subtidal All project alternatives including the no project alternative must be (1) Rock bottom (boulder or bedrock) described. Include such things as the relationship to the environment, potential significant Impacts, and reasons for rejecting or accepting (2) Unconsolidated bottom (organic mud, sand, cobble/ each alternative. In addition, future options associated with each gravel, excavated) alternative should be discussed (e.g., expansion, reclamation, regionalization , etc. MMMONIM190 so Mina @M' no, M STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND 0. BROWN JR,. Gftwmr CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 7 April 1978 631 HOWARD STREET, 4th FLOOR Mr. Thomas E. Firle -4- SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94105 IV. Mitigation Measures March 13, 1978 for adverse impacts (methods to eliminate or Mitigation measure minimize impacts, :he levels to which impacts would be reduced, and the ba:is for selecting levels as acceptable). Where alternative DO mitiga ions are available, each should be discussed and the basis for Tomas E. Firle MAR 16 1 :election of a specific alternative should be given. Mitigation Environmental Management Coordinator hould be discussed in relation to specific binding measures to ensure Port of San Diego ENVIRONMENTAL their implementation as part of the project, and reasons for not P.O. Box 488 MANAGEMENT implementing proposed mitigation measures should also be given. San Diego, CA 92112 If you have any questions please contact Mr. Rolf E. Hall, Environmental Dear Mr. Firle: Services Supervisor. He will be able to provide you with further consultation or assistance in regards to your plan amendment. His phone SUBJECT: Amendments to San Diego Unified Port District number is (213) 590-5140. Master Plan. Ref. No. 78)(Y-MR-1 Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our concerns and provide early This letter wil2 outline the Coastal Commission staff comments on the input into your planning process. scope and content of an amended Port of San Diego Master Plan.. The California. Coastal Act of 1976 as administered by the Coastal Commission, governs the Sincerely, preparation, submission, review and certification of port master plans and the procedures governing developments appealable to the Commission following implementation of a certified port master plan. PORT MASTER PIAN =r- Robert C. Kaneen We would suggest that an identification of coastal conservation and devel- Regional Manager opment issues be made as the first step in the preparation of an amended port ILI master plan. The purposes of the issue identification would be to: (1) deter- mine the extent to which the existi Port of San Diego Master Plan is adequate to meet Coastal Act requirements-, (21 determine the policies of the Coastal Act cc: State Clearinghouse (SCH 78030604) that apply in each Port planning district; and (3) delineate any potential con- office of Planning and Research flicts between existing plans and development proposals and policies of the 1400 Tenth St. Coastal Act. Sacramento, CA 95814 Following the identification of coastal planning issues, the Port should include the following In the scope of its Port Master Plan: (a) The policies of Chapters 3 and 8 of the California Coastal Act of 1976 that apply to specific coastal resources, hazard areas, coastal access concerns, and use priorities, including consideration of public access and recommended uses of more than local importancet relating to the area of San Diego Bay governed by the Port Master Plan should be applied to determine the kind, location and intensity of port_1and and water uses that would be in conformity with the policies of the Act. This determination should include an analysis of the potential signi- ficant adverse cumulative impacts on coastal resources and of existing and puten- tially allowable development proposed In the Port Master Plan. (b) The level and pattern of development by the Port should be reflected in land and water use plans, port tariff, zoning ordinances or zoning district maps and should include any ather implementing actions for areas that are designated. Tomas E. Firle March 13, 1978 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Port of San Diego Master Plan is intended to be a document providing guidance and objectives for future development of the Port. The purpose of an Eaviromental Impact Report for the Master Plan should be to indicate haw the Plan would result in beneficial, adverse, or negligible impacts on the envirorment. An additional purpose of an. EIR should be to suggest where modi- fications to the Plan be made to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts. The Port Master Plan EIR may be prepared as a separate document or inte- grated into the Plan. The EIR should provide information on the Port Master Plang a description of the environmental setting$ the environmental impacts of implementation of the Plan, mitigating measures to minimize adverse impacts, and an analysis of alternatives to the Plan. The document should also include technical appendices (i.e. species lists, flora, etc.) to support the analysist as well as the specific sections required by CEQA Guidelines. EVALUATION CRITERIA You have requested specific evaluation criteria to be used by the Coastal Commission in reviewing the Port Master Plan and EIR. The primary, criterion are the goals objectives and policies of the Coastal Act of 1976. In determining which of the Coastal Act policies should be given special C:) attention, the Port should first prepare an inventory of coastal resources within the Port jurisdiction. A comparison of which resources would be most impacted by developments proposed in the Port Master Plan should follow with application of the relevant policies of the Coastal Act to the significant impacts. The contact person for our agency on port planning matters is Michael Dadasovich (415) 543-8555, ext. 257. Please call if you desire clarification or need other Coastal Act interpretations. Very truly yours ))@" -@Zi_ MICHAEL DADASOVICH Ports Coordinator MD:lr cc: State Clearinghouse I I I I 01 I I I aI APPENDIX I COASTAL COMMENTS ON I PORT'S PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN .I I I I I I I I I I-i mmm Sta*e of Cablornia Edmund G. Brown Jr, Cowemor Callfw4a Coastal Commission 1 631 Howard Street, 4th floor Frederick H. Trull San FrainCisco, California 9410S May 10, 1978 1415J 543-8555 Page 2 May 10, 1978 EVE"?,yr (c) Roads or highways which are not principally for internal circulation ANY I I Z within the port boundaries. Frederick H. Trull 19,78 2 Planning Director SAIV I)IEGO (d) Office and residential buildings not principally devoted to adminis- Port of San Diego PORr UNIFIE tration of activities within the port: hotels, motelsp and shopping P.O. Box 488 ftA@IV1,VD IS rf? D facilities not principally devoted to the sale of commercial goods utilized San Diego, California 92112 G SER ICT for water oriental purposes: commercial fishing facilities and recreational "ICES small craft marina related facilities. Dear Fred: (e) Oil refineries. The purpose of this letter is to help clarify the application of Coastal Act policies to Port of San Diego planning and permit activities which we discussed. (f) Petrochemical production plants. It is our understanding that the special port planning provisions of the Coastal So oar "comon sense" interpretation of the Act is that Chapter 8 policies refer Act were drafted to help maintain# promote, and modernize transportationg commer- to and protect commercial port developments associated with moving and storing cial, industrial, and manufacturing uses in the established ports of the State. watertome cargoes and also.provide for other beneficial uses consistent with the public trust where feasible, with Chapter 3 policies protecting the other categories Chapter 8 policies were drafted to provide guidance for "port-related" develop- of development that also appear in LCP's such as marinas, hotels, parks, etc. ments, to protect such development from interference from non-port related develop- ment and to exempt port developments from Coastal Commission permit review after it might be helpful to create a hypothetical development proposal and apply the certification of a port master plan. appropriate Coastal Act policies. Our example would be development of the vacant land west of the'ITT Facility at the National City Marine Terminal. The development The Port of San Diego is unique from the other ports under jurisdiction of the could involve expansion of the existing container terminal located north of the site. Coastal Commission because large areas in the port are not generally associated Primary construction activities would involve paving, lighting, fencing, gentry with commercial port 'operations. These are areas which are not used to transport crane, and rails, new-wharf apron, and minor dredging adjacent to the site. or store primary port cargoes or to provide support for port industrialt commer- cial or manufacturing activities. "Port-related developments" generally include The shoreside portion of the site was not designated as an estuary, wetland or transport and storage of containers, dry bulk, and liquid-bulk petroleum and other recreation area when the port jurisdictional maps were adopted by the Commission cargoes. pursuant to Part IV of the Coastal Plan as provided for under Section 30700 of the Coastal Act. Chapter 8 policies of the Act would apply and in fact encourage pri- Chapter 8 of the Coastal Act excludes wetlands9 estuaries and recreation areas mary port development. and refers the planning for such resource areas to Chapter 3 of the Act for planning and permit policy guidance (Section 30700). The water area adjacent to the site is designated as estuarine on the port juris- dictional maps. Chapter 3 policies would be applied to the dredging and pile driving Also excluded from Chapter 8 review are appealable developments cited in Sect-ion activities associated with the project. The Marine Environment policies of Section 30715(a)-(f) and listed below: 30233 allow dredging of estuarine areas located in portst if no feasible alternatives exist and where mitigation measures have been included. (a) Developments for the storage, transmission, and processing of liquefied natural gas and crude oil in such quantities as would have a significant If a primary port development cannot meet the primary Chapter 3 policies, "coastal impact upon the oil and gas supply-of the State or nation or both the State dependent" industrial development may still be permitted under Section 30260 of the and nation. A development which has a significant impact shall be defined Act, again if alternatives are infeasible, public welfare is involved and mitigation in the master plans. measures have been included. This key section, has been used by the Commission to (b) Waste water treatment facilities, except for such facilities, which process approve projects such as the Sohio crude oil terminal in Long Beach. waste water dLscharged incidental to normal port activities or by vessels. The part master plan you are developing should carefully assess future primary port needs and designate those areas anticipated for use or intensification of use for port-related development. Section 30708(c) of the Act gives highest priority to the use of existing land space within harbors for port purposes. Where major conflicts exist between Chapter 3 and Chapter 8 policy application, those policies most protective of port-related development should take precedence. Frederick H. Trull Kay 10, 1978 Page 3 After the port master plan is certified by the Coastal Commission, port-related December 29, 1978 activities consistent with the certified plan may not be appealed to the Commission. Developments which may be appealed include (1) those listed under Section 30715 of the Coastal Act; and (2) any development approved by the port governing body not designated as the principal permitted use or uses in the certified port master TO: STATE COMM ISSIONERS plan. SAN DIEGO REGIONAL CCMMISSIONERS I hope this interpretation helps clarify the questions you have asked. T will be meeting with you shortly to discuss the port areas where Chapter 8 and Chap- FROM. MICHAEL FISCHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ter 3 policies apply. SUBJECT: INFORMAL REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY DRAFT MASTER PLAN FOR Very truly you THE SAN DIEG0 UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT (for Regional Commission review on January 12, 1979 and for State Commission review on January 16, 1979). MICHAEL DADASOVICH Ports Coordinator Purpose of the Review MD. lr The San Diego Unified Port District has submitted cc: Bruce Warren Master Plan to the Commission and has requested an Jim Goff as permitted under Section 13629 of the regulation the informal review, which is a noticed public hearing, is to provide the District with an opportunity to hear Commission and public ocmments on the draft document before revising the plan and formally submitting the master plan for certification. After the informal review, the port will conduct public hearings on the revised draft, prepare an environmental impact report on the plan and respond to comments received on the preliminary draft plan. Formal submittal of the Master Plan is expected to occur sometime in the summer of 1979. Between now and the formal submittal, all interested parties are encouraged to review the draft plan and to submit comments directly to the Port and to the Commission. The Coastal Act provides for submission of Port Master Plans directly to the State Commission for certification. Regional Commissioners may advise the State Commission on port plans. Briefings and public hearings will be held before the Regional Commission to make public participation easier and to help develop the Regional Commission recommendation to the State -2 - SYNOPSIS and other comments between this informal review of the preliminary draft plan and Final certification action by the State commission sometime this summer. Additional Plan Summary planning sessions and public hearings will be conducted by the port and the Commission over the next several months. This is a Preliminary draft master plan which the Port of San Diego intends to expand and revise over the next six months. The plan presents detailed intended uses of the land and water areas for nine planning areas of the Port. The SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT PLAN proposed projects include nine or ten new hotels and a doubling of San Diego Bay's recreational boating slips by adding about 4,000 slips. The plan also calls for extensive new public parks, access and vista points, promenades, fishing Purpose of the Master Plan places, and bike paths. There are not provisions for major new additions to marine related industrial activities in the port. The major work yet to be done The port states that the preliminary draft master plan is intended to provide, after is the environmental impact report on the plan analysis of conformance of the certification by the Commission and ADOPTION by the Board of Habor Commissioners, the plan Coastal Act policies. This preliminary draft does present intended land official planning policies consistent with statewide interest for the development and water uses in sufficient detail for Commission and public reaction and of the tide and submerged lands granted to the district as trustee of the State. The comment. planning policies are expressed graphically on the official Master Plan and Precise Plan Maps and in written form in the Preliminary Draft Master Plan. Eleven maps are Major Issues and Recommended Guidance to the Port. included: a map of the entire bay illustrating Land and Water use allocations with provisions for commerical, industrial, recreation, public facilities, conservation Staff recommends that the Commission provide the following guidance to the Port and military uses; a bay map showing Circulation and Navigation systems involving highways, regionally significant arterial roads, belt line railroads, bridges, ship for revising and expanding the preliminary plan: (1) address the issue of access navigation corridor and terminals, and air terminal facilities; and nine maps for to the Bay for residents of the Barrio Logan district of the City of San Diego; subareas of the bay illustrating Land and Water Use allocations as part of the precise (2) add specifics on proposed dredge and fill projects; (3) plan for increased plan for each district. More definitive planning policies are provided in those public transit to serve the planned cmmercial and recreation areas, (4) study sections of the plan that deal with each of the nine Planning Districts (Figure 1). transportation and recreational boating carrying capacities and assure provision of adequate parking for land and water users; (5) coordinate CoronadoBayfront Permitted Uses planning with the City; (6) justify or eliminate non-Bay related uses such as offices and non-marine related industrial uses; (7) consider boat launching ramps Permitted uses for all Port District tidelands are identified in the Master Plan for and dry boat storage as alternatives to added slip construction in open bay waters; all land and water areas. While specific uses are listed, the port's intent is to (8) provide a more detailed analysis on the need's of the commercial fishing provide for uses in compatible use groups and not to exclude by design any particular industry along with a program to satisfy those needs; and (9) provide a more use if similar in character and compatibility with other permitted uses. Permitted active outreach for public participation in plan development. uses are grouped under the following main categories: Commercial Uses, Industrial Uses, Public Recreation Uses, Publi Facilities, Circulation and Navigation System, and Conservation. INTRODUCTION The Master Plan interpretation for each of the broad use designations is as follows: The San Diego Unified Port District was created by the legislature in 1962 and is Commercial Uses: Airport related commercial, commercial fishing, hotels and governed by representatives of the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, restaurants, pleasure craft marinas, sportfishing, marine sales and service, boat sales, boat building and repair, and specialty shopping. National City and Imperial Beach. The jurisdiction of the District is the tidelands and submerged lands of San Diego Bay as well as the San Diego International Airport Industrial Uses: Marine related industry, aviation related industry, and complex. The Board of Commissioners governs the actions of the District and is industrial business park. comprised of representatives appointed by the city council of each of the participating cities. The City of San Diego has 3 representatives and each of the Public Recreation Uses: Parks, promenades, open space, golf course, open bay, other cities has one. launching ramps, public fishing piers, public accessways, vista areas. As part of the enabling legislation granting the State tidelands to the Port the port Public Facilities. Habor services, port administration, harbor police, fireboat district was required to prepare a master plan for port developments. The first stations, fire stations, maintenance yards, comfort stations, customs facilities. plan was adopted in 1964 and has been revised in 1972, 1975, and 1976. The passage of the Coastal Act of 1976 required further revisions to port master plans. This Circulation and Navigation Systems: Regional arterial roads, local streets and preliminary draft master plan is the latest refinement of the existing plan designed parking, railroads, public transit, pedestrian and bicycle routes, airport, to include the special provisions of the Coastal Act. heliports, ship navigation corridors, main ship channels, second entrance to bay, ship anchorage areas, boat navigation corridors, and derelict craft storage. The Coastal Commission review of the draft and final master plan is expected to extend over the next six to seven months (formal submittal of the plan is not anticipated before June of 1979). The public record will remain open for public -4- Conservation: Wetlands, estuary, salt ponds, habitat replacement island. Military: Navy fleet school, Navy small craft berthing, navy ship berthing. Staff Note: San Diego is unique from other ports under the Commission's jurisdiction because all of San Diego Bay was designated as an estuary in the 1975 Coastal Plan. Additionally the large number and extent of existing recreation developments and the highly sensitive south bay wetland areas cause most of the port jurisdiction to be governed by the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act rather than the special port planning provisions of Chapter 6. Appealable developments proposed in port master plans are also governed by the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Under Section 30715 of the Act Appealable classes of development include: major developments for the handling of petroleum or LNG, wastewater treatment plants, major roadways, offices, hotels, non-water oriented shopping facilities, oil refineries and petrochemical production plants, commercial fishing facilities and recreational marina related facilities. Because of the large number of appealable developments proposed in the preliminary draft plan, very little of the document is related to the port planning provisions of Chapter 8 of the Coastal Act. Planning Districts The preliminary draft plan includes a precise plan for each of the port's nine planning districts. The precise plans are more detailed than the master land use plan and cir- culation and navigation plan maps. Anticipated projects are described for each of the planning districts covering the next five to ten years. A summary of the major development proposals for each fo the planning districts is included in the following discussion. Shelter Island - District 1 The Shelter Island district has been developed over the past twenty-five years. The planned land and water uses for Shelter Island remain unchanged from existing uses which are predominately visitor serving commercial recreation. The major emphasis of the development program outlined in the precise plan is directed toward the relocation of non-compatible uses, the renovation of obsolete structures and improvement in the quality of landscaping. Appealable projects listed for the district include renovation of the Shelter Cove marina building and landscaping; construction of a public access pier and construction of a new mooring facility in the commercial basin to include comfort station, landscaping, parking and new mooring buoys. Figure 3 describes the sub-areas of the Shelter Island planning district and Figure 4 is a listing of the anticipated projects for the district. Harbor Island/Lindbergh Field - District 2 (Figure 5) Planning district 2 includes the San Diego International Airport transportation center with its industrial support activities and the Harbor Island recreation-commercial complex. The Precise plan retains Lindbergh Field in its present configuration with provision for improvements to parking and access. -5- Development on Harbor Island involves the expansion of an existing hotel and construction of a new hotel and marina complex in the east basin subarea. A new 600 room hotel, a 400-500 slip marina and a small aquatic center for use by the Sea Scouts are appealable developments listed in the precise plan. The East Basin Industrial area (subarea 24 Figure 5) is recommended for redevelopment into light industrial/business park uses to include scientific laboratories, office space, marine oriented business and light manufacturing plants. Figure 5 shows the planning subareas for this district and Figure 6 describes the anticipated projects. Center City Embarcadero - District 3 (Figure 7) The combined maritime activities of commercial fishing boats, merchant ships, Navy vessels and pleasure craft contribute to the dynamic fabric of the San Diego urban waterfront. The precise plan prepared for this district draws heavily on the Embarcadero Plan which was adopted by the City of San Diego and the Port District in 1976. Major development proposals for the district include renovation of existing marine terminal facilities to retain the active use of deep draft berthing and the functions of a working port. Improvements for the commercial fishing industry is given a major focus int he precise plan as well as provision for new visitor serving commercial recreation facilities overlooking the harbor and portions of the nearby downtown area. Appealable developments include expansion of commercial fishing fleet berthing and construction of two new hotels and completion of the Embarcadero marina (400 slips). Little provision for expansion or development of primary port operations is provided for in this district plan. Figure 8 lists the anticipated projects for this planning district. Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal - District 4 (Figure 9) The Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal is a developed marine related industrial area. Over 50,000 jobs are provided in the area, which is the major marine related industrial site in the County of San Diego. Channel depths of 40 feet provide access for large oceangoing vessels. The precise plan recognizes the severe lack of expansion area for marine related industry in this sector and the need to provide additional buffer areas between non-compatible uses on the perimeter of the district. A public viewing area is proposed to provide a new public access point to the industrial waterfront. Figure 10 describes the anticipated projects for the district, none of which are appealable. National City Bayfront - District 5 (Figure 11) The National City Bayfront is a developed and established marine related industrial area. Continued use and intensification of the marine related uses is projected for the planning period. Some commercial recreation is planned to cater to patrons of the industrial area. Bait and tackle shops, boat repair and equipment, water skiing and boating hardware are uses deemed appropriate. The Port states the market and development for this commercial area is dependent on the proposed extension of Tidelands Avenue and the construction of ramps connecting the area to Highway 54 and Interstate 5. Although not listed as such in the plan, the extension of Tidelands 6 - 7 - Avenue would be an appealable development under Section 30715(c) of the Coastal Act as it would be a roadway not principally devoted to internal circulation within Cay Company, and unleased land on East Island. Two islands represent nearly all of the port boundaries. the Port District administered land area, North Island has an area of 3.1.4 acres all designated for commercial recreation. East Island occupies 19-7 acres designated Anticipated projects are listed on Figure 12. for commercial recreation and park uses. Water areas adjacent to the islands are Coronado Bayfront - District 6 (Figure 13) set aside for recreational boat berthing. A second entrance to San Diego Bay is shown on the Navigation and Circulation element The plan identifies the following land use problems related to development of the of the preliminary plan. It would be constructed across the Naval M#dbioLxs Base remaining tidelands, on Coronado: the existing heavy traffic volumes and concern just north of this planning district. The Port District endorses and supports the that additional development will aggravate the problem; the highly visible aspects of second entrance but recognizes that it would be a federal project and that the the tidelands and the potential impacts of insensitive development on views and likelihood of its construction in the near future is remote. community appearance; and the competing demands on high-value land for commercial uses and for parks and community play fields. The plan describes development which Figure.LS depicts the anticipated developments for this planning district. would maintain significant vistasl create accessibility and linkages along the bay shoreline and continue uses which emphasize a low density development and an open space character. A dry storage marina and two hotels together with restaurants, South Bay Salt Lands - District 9 (Floire 19 speciality shopping, theater and landscaping are the major appealable developments in this planning area. Planning District 9 comprises the land and water areas at the extreme southerly end of San Diego Bay. The land is uniformly flat and the water ver-1 shallow. Most of A list of anticipated projects is included as Figure 14. the planning district was leased prior to the formation of the Fort District directly from the State of California by the @163teru Salt company. Existing State law provides Chula Vista Bayfront - District 7 (Figure 15) that the salt ponds will revert to State control in 1984. The Department of Fish and Historically, development of this planning district has lagged behind the north bay Game will be given management of the area for the creation of a wildlife preserve. because of the shallow water, distance from the harbor entrance and the sensitive The plan proposes no changes for this planning district in the interim. environmental attributes of the area. Eight planning subareas @Figure 15) have been delineated for the planning district. A 33 acre portion of the northwest corner of the City of Chula Vista lies within STAFF COMMONTS AND RECOMOENDED GUIDANCE TO THE PORT the Port District jurisdiction. Under the Bay-front Plan the uplands are to be developed with medium density residential uses and the tidelands are reserved for overview. The preliminary draft master plan for the San Diego Unified Port District, maritime uses including the future expansion of the existing D Street fill. gives heavy [email protected] to visitor serving commercial/recreation. developments, provides The draft plan proposes to preserve a 2 acre portion of the Sweetwater Marsh between for a doubling of the existing recreationall boating slips in the 2ay, and provides the D Street fill and the Rohr lease on G Street. About 52 acres in the planning for new -z"Iblic zarKs and access points together with public promonade5 and bikepaths. T district have been set aside for aviation related industry which includes the present 1he degree of detaJl provided for the majority of the anticipated developments is industrial leases. Three major uses ar-- projected for the H Street fill subarea to excellent. include a mar-Ine sales and service complex, a public park, and a hotel restaurant complex as the focal point of the developments. 7he pre-liminar-j draft plan does not anticipate large growth in the pr-lmax-j port or heavy industrial development categoriez. Mach of the pom related activity is The existing Chula Vista boat basin would be completed by adding approximately 1100 centered around marine related or marine support. uses. 11ne plan does depict growth slips, and a peninsula would be created extending from the existing basin to provide in the lIght industrial and general office use categories, which should be oo-,. for commercial recreation use% an additional 1200 boat slips and public parlway. related or water dependent to be justified under the port, plla-nning provisions of the The creation of the peninsula would require dredging a new small craft entrance Coastal Act. channel and filling approximately 60 acres of the south bay tidelands. 1he Port is pre-sently wor;cing on the plaPOE/envirorriertal !--.pact. report. and the The Port is presently constructing a 55 acre island adjacent to one of San Diego implamentation procedures and guidelines for the plan. 1hese will be provided ir Gas and Electric's power plant cooling water intake dikes to provide new habitat as subsequent drafis of the plan. a compensation for other projects which would cause adverse impacts on habi .tat areas. Coastal Act Conformance Figure 16 is the project list for the Chula Vista Bayfront planning district. To be consistent with the requirerrents of the Coastal Act a port master plan is Silver Strand South - District 8 (Figure 17) required to include the fall-owing elements: This planning district is comprised of three areas: unleased submerged tidelands (1) The proposed uses of land and water areas, where known. adjacent to Silver Strand State Beach, submerged tidelands leased to the Coronado (2) The projected design and location of port land areas, water r e areas, berthing wand navigation ways and systems inte-d d to serve commercial traffic within the area of juriSdiction of the port gover.-L-rig body. -8- (3) An estimate of the effect of development on habitat areas and the marine environment, a review of existing water quality, habitat areas, and quantitative and qualitative biological inventories and proposals to minimize and mitigate any sub- stantial adverse impact. (4) Proposed projects listed as appealable in Section 30715 in sufficient detail to be able to determine their consistency with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. (5) Provisions for adequate public hearings and public partic- ipation in port planning and development decisions. A port master plan is further required to present information in sufficient detail to allow the Commission to determine its adequacy and conformity with the applicable policies of the Coastal Act. Land and Water Area Uses Permitted uses for all Port administered tidelands are identified by land and water use designations in the Preliminary Master Plan. The level of detail provided is greater than that developed for the Port of Long Beach certified Master Plan. The Port states that "the evolution of the plan is based on a sequence of studies and activities that consider the physical, environmental, social and economic and political dterminents of land use." One of the primary studies that should be used in preparing a plan is the environ- mental impact report for the project. The Port has not completed the plan EIR and thus that crucial element to the evolution of the master plan is not included in the analysis. This is of particular concern when assessing the intensity of use or carrying capacity of the Bay given the projected buildout of commercal recreation and recreational boating activities depicted in the draft plan. The requirement for design and location of port land and water areas and systems needs further clarification in the plan. For example, the plan calls for additional dredging in navigation channels to accommodate the larger anticipated oceangoing vessels without mention of the water depths or amounts of dredge spoil or disposal sites. Recognizing that any major dredging activity would be initiated by the Corps of Engineers, the port should nevertheless define in the master plan the anticipated depth requirements and disposal areas if within the Bay. Port master plans are required under the provisions of Chapter 8 to "contain infor- mation in sufficient detail to allow the Commission to determine its adequacy and conformity with the applicable policies of [the Coastal Act]". San Diego is unique from the other ports under the Commission's jurisdiction because of the large commercial recreation areas and the estuarine and wetland qualities of the bay. Thus the majority of the port plan must show conformance with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Section 30711(b) implies that the burden is on the Commission to determine the adequacy and conformity of the plan to the applicable policies. Unlike the Port of Long Beach Plan certified by the Commission, the Preliminary Port of San Diego Plan does not contain analysis of Coastal Act policies. The Port states that the applicable policies of both chapter 3 and 2 of the Act have been analysed in reaching the land and water use designations for the updated plan although not specifically stated or referenced in the document. Effects of Development The Preliminary draft master plan has not had an environmental impact statement prepared. Such a document is requied under CEQA and must address Section 30711(3) of the Coastal Act requiring measures to minimize and mitigate substantial adverse impacts associated with implementation of the master plan. -9- Appealable Projects A project list including appealable developments is included in the draft plan for each specific planning district. The list describes the type of project and who will do the development, the port or a tenant. The project lists contain only a limited description of the development and no substantiation of conformance with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act is included in the draft plan. Such projects, which are for the most part hotels and marinas, need additional detail on conformance with the applicable policies of Chapter 3 and also performance standards developed for application by the Port to the development leases. Major Issues Preliminary staff review of the draft plan together with comments received from interested parties suggest that the following areas of the draft plan are either not adequately covered or unresolved with respect to the requirements of the Coastal Act: (1) Public access for the Barrio Logan district of the City of San Diego through primary port operations to the Bay; (2) lack of specifics on dredging and filling operations over the twenty year planning period; (3) provision for public transit or shuttle systems between existing transportation hubs and future commercial/recreation centers; (4) carrying capacity studies for the intensity of uses described in the plan; (5) resolution of development scenarios for the Coronado Bayfront using advice from the City coordinated with the LCP; (6) justification for non-port related or non-water-dependent uses, particularly office related uses as depicted in the present plan; (7) lack of consideration for additional small craft launching ramps or dry boat storage areas as an alternative to additional slip construction in open bay waters; (8) provide a mroe detailed analysis of the needs of the commercial fishing industry along with a program to satisfy those needs; and (9) provide a more active outreach for public partic- ipation in the plan development. 1. Public Access for Barrio Logan. To summarize a very complicated issue, the Barrio Logan residents, supported by the City of San Diego in their draft LCP, would like access to the waters of the Bay for recreation purposes, a use which they historically had, but which has been eliminated by industrial developments created between the community and the Bay. The Port claims that access will be provided (Page 79 plan). However, the access will be limited because of the industrial character of the area and the conflict between recreation and primary port uses which are considered hazardous and not compatible with intensive recreation uses. Liability and Port security issues are associated with the port's concerns. Legislation has been introduced (AB47 Chacon) to remove certain tidelands form the Port administration and return them to the City of San Diego for the purpose of providing public recreation facilities. Access for the Barrio area through the Port is one of the areas described in the Chacon bill. The Commission must determine what is "reasonable access" given the competing uses in the area and to what extent the risk problems cited by the port are overriding. 2. Dredging and Filling. Three major projects require the placement of fill material in shallow water wetlands habitat. These projects include the expansion of the Chula Vista Boat Basin, the proposed marina just north of the Chula Vista Boat Basin, and the expansion of the E Street fill. Several comments have been received including those of the Fish and Wildlife Service questioning the need for such additional fill areas. The south bay is the last area for bay-estuarine habitat in San Diego Bay, a fact recognized by Section 30233 (c) of the Coastal Act. The south bay environs contain valuable wetlands, important to both fish and wildlife resources. The extensive mudflat and shallow water habitats are nursery grounds -10- for sport fishes as well as ecologically important fishes that are forage food for both commercial and sport fisheries. When exposed during low tides, the mudflats are heavily used by shorebirds as foraging area, while migratory waterfowl use the open water for both resting and foraging. The preliminary draft master plan for the south bay environs would modify an existing bay estuarine habitat and may reduce the important nursery functions of San Diego Bay. The proposed second entrance to the bay would exacerbate the problem. The environmental impact report being prepared by the Port to support the planning concepts presented for the south bay area should devote considerable attention to the adverse impacts associated with the additional Bay filling proposed as well as to exploring alternatives to the intensive commercial/recreation developments described in the present draft. 3. Public Transportation and Parking. The plan projects up to ten new hotels and approximately 4000 new recreational boating slips without mention of transportation impacts and alternatives to deal with parking and access problems. Some have sug- gested that the Port develop a shuttle bus system to serve existing commercial recreation complexes and to tie these facilities with transportation hubs such as the airport. The Act does not call for a detailed transportation plan to accompany port land use plans, but some discussion of potential problems and solutions to development induced transportation problems needs mention. Existing industrial users in the port area are constrained by inadequate parking and public transportation facilities. The induced congestion from employee jockeying for the few available spaces creates impacts beyond the industries' normal sphere of influence. The problem is not one that can be solely solved by the Port. The City of San Diego in particular should, as part of the LCP program, work with the Port and industry to develop a traffic and parking management program. 4. Carrying Capacity. How much additional commercial recreation and marina devel- opment can San Diego Bay accommodate? The answer is not evident in the preliminary plan. Projections for an additional nine or ten hotels and some 4000 boat slips (approximately a doubling of the present number of slips) cannot be rationally discussed without some assessment of the carrying capacity of the infrastructure serving the Port District and the open water areas, given the competing uses of commercial fishing recreational boating and military traffic in the bay. The carrying capacity issue is key to the certification of the plan and is one which should be addressed in the EIR and the master plan document. 5. Coronado Bayfront Development. Letters have been received by the Commission on the issue of the development of the Coronado bayfront tidelands and concerns over both the intensity and scale of development as well as the opportunities for public participation in development of the precise plan for the bayfront. In April of 1978, the Port of San Diego presented three alternative land use plans to the City Council of Coronado in a public meeting. These alternative plans were pre- sented to elicit from the City Council comments on the development scenarios for an area which has been open for many years following the demolition of World War II temporary buildings. Following extensive discussion at the meeting, the Council appointed a Land Use Committee to review the Port's alternatives and to make recom- mendations to the Council by March 1979. This Committee has held a number of meetings and their views will be available for the second draft of the port master plan. -11- Staff does not intend to comment on the development scenarios for this planning sector of the Bay until the City's views are known and the environmental impact report for the Coronado Bayfront precise plan is completed. 6. Priority of Use. Section 30708 (c) of the Coasta Act requires that all port- related developments be located and designed to give highest priority to use of existing land space within harbors for port purposes including, but not limited to, navigational facilities, shipping industries and necessary support and access facil- ities. The preliminary draft plan would allow for the continues use of existing non-port related developments and provides for increases in general light industrial growth without commitments for primary port uses. In the Commission's certification of the Port of Long Beach Master Plan one of the ocnditions assigned withheld certification for all non-port related uses in the affected harbor district. The port should consider a time table for phasing out non-port related uses to give higher priority in the plan for uses which are either primary port in nature or are directly supportive of primary port or marine related activities. 7. Recreation. Opportunities for recreation in the port have expanded considerably since the original master plan was adopted and many of the planning concepts implemented. Expanded small craft marinas, public parks, fishing access and recrea- tional/commercial developmetns all provide for significant public enjoyment of the Bay environs. In revising the preliminary draft plan the Port should consider expanding other types of recreation opportunities such as recreational vehicle parking, dry boat storage and new public accessways wherever possible. The consideration of these additional recreational opportunities will help satisfy Section 30708 (d) of the Coastal Act requiring other beneficial uses consistent with the public trust in all port-related developments. 8. Commercial Fishing Industry. The plan provides four areas around the bay for use by the commercial fishing industry. These areas include: the Shelter Island Commercial Basin; berthing along the seawall in the crescent area adjacent to harbor Drive; aroung the "G" Street Mole where another breakwater pier is proposed to provide a protected fishing boat basin to the south; and in the long-range future in the proposed Chula Vista Marina area. The plan also contains an estimate that tuna seiners and baitboats are anticipated to maintain a need for approximately 7,000 lineal feet of berthing space daily, and that peak demands on berthing facil- ities for baitboats can be reasonably anticipated to triple or quadruple to about 5,000 lineal feet if the patterns of fish migration should shift southward toward San Diego. Finally, the plan estimates that the peak demand for berthing space is anticipated for tuna seiners at approximately 10,000 lineal feet daily. Given the emphasis in the Coastal Act on the protection adn enhancement of the commercial fishing industry, the plan should attempt to more closely relate demand to the provision of additional facilities in the Bay for commercial fishing. The Port District should address the potential problems of locating new commercial fishing facilities around the "G" Street mole area where there are problems with surge and its south eastern orientation, and should determine if there are other more appropriate locations. The plan should also include provision for the necessary ancillary facilities required by the commercial fishing industry including but not limited to unloading docks, maintenance facilities, and storage areas. Finally, given the environmental constraints of any major expansion of boating facilities in the Southbay area including the problems associated with a bay second entrance, the proposed commercial fishing facilities shown in the Chula Vista Bayfront area should be relocated into the northern portion of the Bay. -12- 9. Public Participation. One of the weakest areas in the preliminary plan is lack of evidence that public participation has been provided for in development of the updated master plan. The port has conducted sessions with the planning directors of the cities comprising the district for the purpose of coordinating the port plans with the LCPs. However, staff has noticed concern from local government and interest groups in the District about inadequate opportunities for discussion of the plan. The Port conducted a public hearing on the existing master plan June 13, 1978 for the purpose of gathering information on the plan's conformance or lack of conformance with the Coastal Act. Only three speakers presented testimony at that hearing. Reasons for the poor showing may be attributable to: (1) A lack of outreach beyond the strict public hearing notice requirements of the California Administrative Code on the part of the port; (2) feeling by the public that the formal atmosphere of a public hearing is intimidating public participation or; (3) disinterest on the part of the public in the San Diego Bay environs. Staff believes that additional outreach in the form of public port planning workshops should be conducted by the Port to meet the intent of Section 30711(a)(5) of the ports Chapter in the Coastal Act. 10. Other Issues. Portions of the Chula Vista Bayfront planning district may be suited for long-term expansion of primary port industrial growth. The preliminary draft plan projections for commercial/recreation uses in this district may compromise future primary port needs for new development. Key to the development of alternatives for each planning district in subsequent drafts of the master plan should be an evaluation of primary port growth needs and areas with open water frontage and undeveloped backland area in all areas of the bay. Erosion problems exist throughout much of the bay. Kellog Beach in the Shelter Island planning district is an area suffering particularly severe erosion problems. Rock revetments are being ocnsidered for many of the erosion prone areas, including Kellog Beach. Lon term solutions to the continuing problems of erosion in the bay are not adequately addressed in the draft plan. The Kellog Beach area also suggers from inhibited public access and apparently some unpermitted encroachments acrss port tidelands by adjacent property owners. Consideration should be given to eliminating these encroachements and creating new linkages to the main Shelter Island commercial/recreation use areas. I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX J COASTAL COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR CONTENT I I I I I . I I I I I I I J-i State of California, Edmund G. Or, Jr. GGW1nW California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor Mr. Frederick H. Trull San Francisco. California 94105 May 31, 1979 1 1 Page Two -8555 415 543 may 31, 1979 JLl,; SAN But if resolution is not possible, we suggest that the final plan fully discuss the application of Chapter 8 policies to this area, as you did In the "Port District PLAIV,mi'l, Staff Response to the State Coastal Commission Staff Report on the Preliminary Draft Mr. Frederick H. Trull Port Master Plan" and that you fully analyze the alternative of using part of the Planning Director area for access or a park in the EIR and in the plan. I have not taken a position Port of San Diego on this issue, and staff will develop a position to recommend to the Commission P.O. Box after formal plan submittal. C.2-l CA 92112 3. The other most controversial issue seems to be proposed uses for the Coronado Dear Fred: tidelands. The draft plan is very specific about the proposed uses and your "Port District Staff Response" outlines a long history of attempts to resolve possible I would like to discuss a number of points you raised at the May 10, 1979 meeting uses with the City of Coronado. Commissioners' comments clearly indicate they between our staffs on prospects for Coastal Commission certification of the Port expect efforts to reach agreement with the City to continue and hopefully to resolve of San Diego Master Plan. In general, we feel the Regional and State Commission issues prior to plan submittal. But if agreement cannot be reached in the next few informal reviews of your draft plan were very useful and that you have made sub- months we urge you to submit a plan for this planning district for certification. stantial progress in developing a plan that can be certified this year. I hope With well documented attempts to resolve issues with the City, the issue before the you will receive the following six suggestions in a cooperative spirit. We both Commission will be whether the plan conforms to the policies of Chapter 3 of the have the goal of placing a certifiable port plan before the Commission in the near Coastal Act. While total agreement at the local level is desirable, we cannot indef- future. initely prolong consideration of plans for certification until all parties are in agreement. C@ 1. The issues raised in the draft plan informal review process Indicate to us that you have nearly all the requirements for a plan that can be considered for certifi- 4. As discussed at the meeting, we suggest you add analysis in the plan on the future cation. The proposed land and water uses are in sufficient detail. As you know, need for commercial fishing facilities and consider the proposals for added facilities the two added components needed are the EIR and an implementation section indicating made by fisherman. The draft plan, of course, already does consider some added facil- hou the Port will process coastal development permits and make Coastal Act policy ities. findings after certification. Though you may have had a different impression, the Connissioner comments and public testimony were actually favorable to the plan 5. The D Street fill may well be a project that might be removed from the plan because there were few comments that your Plan's proposed land and water uses appear because of the probable difficulties in making findings that the project is consistent contrary to the policies of the Coastal Act. with Coastal Act policies, especially in light of the uncertainties with Corps of 1hgineers and City of Chula Vista plans for the area. The other major fill project A number of questions were asked that need answers. The Commission was concerned in the plan, the Chula Vista Marine arm, will, of course, need clear analysis in the about coordination with local. governments and interest groups. Comissioners asked EIR on its possible environmental impacts. We will ask the fish and wildlife agencies that the Port make a good faith effort to coordinate with local governments and to review this part of the plan closely. interest groups prior to plan submittal, but not to hold off submittal or delete planning districts pending total agreement by all parties an the few difficult 6. Your suggestion of developing a joint mailing list is an excellent one and we issues which relate to greater than local concerns, which should be resolved by the would like to do that. We all hope for broad public involvement as the plan nears Conimission. certification, and Commissioners clearly indicated in the informal review that they expect the affected cities to be given active opportunities to coordinate their LCPs 2. One of the most controversial issues is whether part of Planning District 4t the with the Port plan and to comment on the Port plan, However, If, after city involve- Terlh Avenue Marine Terminal, should be a park and/or Bay access to serve the Barrio ment, agreements are not reached on all issues, that is not grounds for the Port to Log,n area. Ibis is an issue because it has been raised by the City of San Di delay plan submittal. Any remaining disagreements can be aired before your Board of and community groups. As Mike Dadasovich wrote you on May 10t 1978, the Chapter 8 Harbor Commissioners and before the Coastal Commission. The coastal planning process Port Planning policies govern the certifiable permitted uses for this Planning is supposed to resolve issues, not prolong them. That is why there are deadlines in District. We ask that you try to resolve this issue with the City prior to submittal. the Coastal Act. As you can see, this is not as extensive list of suggestions. We would suggest that you include a revised and somewhat expanded version of the "Port District Staff Rea- ponse" with the final plan to address the issues raised in the informal review. Please Mr. Frederick H. Trull may 31, 1979 Page Three let us know how we can assist you in finalizing a Port of San Diego Master Plan for submittal to the Commission this summer. When the ninety day period for action starts after submittal, we anticipate publishing an early staff summary and recom- mendation to serve as a basis for a San IlLego Regional Coastal Commission public hearing and recommendation to the State Commission, a State Commission public hearing in the seq^d month of the review period, and State Commission action on certifica- t' in e 'third month. V y yours, MI EL L. Executive Direct lr C- I cc: Tom Crandall N) Mike Kennedy Tom Firley Port of San Diego Lois Eken Harriet Allen @'I @Ly' I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX K ' NOISE CONTROL PLAN I I I @ I I I I I I I K-i DEC 12 1978 Amended 1/16/79 San Diego International Airport - Lindbergh Field Noise Control Plan I. Introduction Pursuant to Public Utilities Code SS21669 et seq., the Department of Transportation of the State of California has adopted regulations known as the California Noise Standards ("Noise Standards"). Utilizing the Community Noise Equivalent Level ("CNEL") methodology to describe noise generated by jet aircraft operations, the Noise Standards establish phased criteria in respect of noise generated by aircraft operations at certain airports within the State of California, including Lindbergh Field. The ultimate regulatory objective of the Noise Standards is that, by January 1, 1986, certain land uses now affected by airport noise (primarily residential, school, churchs, etc.) will be subject to noise levels less than 65db CNEL. The rpesent criterion for airports such as Lindbergh Field is 75db CNEL. As the Department of Transportation has itself recognized, there is not at present, nor within the scope of foreseeable technology, any practical means by which Lindbergh Field can meet the criteria of the Noise Standards. Therefore, the San Diego Unified Port District has applied annually to the Department of Transportation for a variance from the Noise Standards criteria pursuant to the provisions of 21 Cal.Admin. Code S5075. On January 17, 1978, the Department of Transportation granted to Lindbergh Field a variance from the provisions of Section 5062 of the Noise Standards, subject to certain specified conditions ("Variance Decision"). Condition 3 of the Variance Decision provides: "Respondent San Diego Unified Port District shall promptly develop an (sic) implement to the extent possible. (sic) A comprehensive noise control plan for Lindbergh Field in accordance with the provisions fo the Federal Aviation Noise Abatement Policy. Said plan shall be prepared within six months from the effective date of this decision; provided, however, that upon good cause shown therefore the Department of Transportation may extend this time period for an additional six months. The comprehensive noise control plan shall set forth and discuss the various noise reduction programs that respondent has already established, those plans which it intends to establish or hopes to establish in the future and respondent shall further describe and discuss those noise abatement plans or programs which respondent has considered but rejected for any reason. The respondent's comprehensive noise control plan shall include but is not limited to the following items: 2 (1) Curfew representatives of the Federal Aviation Administration during (2) Restrictions to types of its analysis, and to seek continuously the views of FAA regard- aircraft ing any of the alternatives to be studied by SCI. SCI's report (3) Runway preferential use of their analysis of operational alternatives and limitations (4) Flight paths or tracks for Lindbergh Field was submitted on December 8, 1978. (5) operational techniques Based upon the information developed by SCI, as well (6) Land acquisition as other information available to the Port District through (7) Land use compatibility public comments and numerous bearings, studies and other (8) Airport design (9) Aircraft scheduling proceedings regarding Lindbergh Field which have occurred or been developed during the past 15 years, the Port District has (10) Location and time for engine run-up adopted the following noise plan for Lindbergh Field. The comprehensive noise control plan shall be prepared after allowing for consultation with II. Alternatives Affecting Aircraft Operational Procedures and Techniques FAA and the final plan is to be submitted to Three of the items which the Port District was to con- the FAA for its review and comment allowing r1o sider in the development of its plan were a preferential appropriate time for FAA action prior to the runway program, alteration o .f existing arrival and departure due date for adoption." paths, and changes in aircraft operational techniques (Items In response to these requirements, the Port District (3). (4) and (5) in Condition 3 of the Variance Decision). The SCI report evaluates each of these items. However, as retained Systems Control, Inc. (then Olson Laboratories, Inc.) noise abatement strategies, each of these matters also require ("SCI") to assist the Port District in the development of the consideration of safety issues since they involve the actual noise control plan described in Condition 3. Specifically, SCI flight of aircraft. Decisions regarding operational techniques was commissioned to evaluate the noise benefits or disbenefits whicIh would occur as a result of implementation of alternative and procedures utilized by aircraft in flight are under the sole regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Admin- aircraft operational procedures or restrictions at Lindbergh istration, and the proprietor of an airport is in no posi Field. Because.of the time limitations on this project and its tion to substitute its judgment for that of FAA regarding the implementation, SCI was directed to consult regularly with proper balance between noise abatement and safety'considerations 4 in evaluating any one of these items. In view of FAA's sole III. Alternatives Aff-ecting Land Use authori,ty and rerponsibility for regulatory action in this particular subject area, the plan of the San Diego Unified In litigation now pending in the San Diego Superior Port District in respect to these items is as follows: Court, certain owners of real property have alleged that the Port District has taken an interest in their property as a A. The Port Director is directed to forward a result of noise generated by jet aircraft using Lindbergh copy of tj),@ SCI Report to appropriate officers of the Field. Such an interest is commonly referred to as an aviga- Federal Aviation Administration specifically refer- tion easement. The Port District's response in the litigation has been, among other things, that if the operation of jet encing the information provided in that report regarding preferential runway, flight paths, and aircraft at Lindbergh Field has indeed resulted in the acquisi- operational techniques. In view of the obligations tion of an avigation easement for noise in respect of the which the Congress of the United States has imposed plaintiffs' properties, then the use constituting such an upon the Federal Aviation Administration through easement existed for a period more than five years prior to various amendments to the Federal Aviation Act Of the time that the plaintiffs first filed their action, and has continued since that time. Therefore, it is the position 1958, directing FAA to take such steps as it deems necessary or desirable to afford relief from noise in of the Port District that it has acquired all necessary respect to those matters under its regulatory authority avigation easements for noise by prescription. The Port District's position regarding its acquisition and control, the Port Director will request FAA to of a prescriptive easement for noise applies not only Ito those evaluate carefully the information provided in the particular parcels of real property involved in pending litiga- SCI report to determine what noise benefits FAA can tion, but applies equally to any and all parcels of real property provide to the San Diego community. which may be subject to noise genermtted by jet aircraft operations B. The Port Director is directed to advise FAA at Lindbergh Field. and appropriate representatives of the airline Because of its past acquisition of these easements, industry of the Port District's support for continued the Port District is in compliance with the California Noise Standards and has a "noise impact area", as defined in the research and experimentation regarding aircraft regulations, of zero. flowever, in previous variance proceedings, operational procedures which would be effective in the Port District has stated publicly its position that, despite reducing noise. 5 6 its acquisifion of Prescriptive easements, it was voluntarily significantly changing the character of some existing participating in the variance proceedings because the Port neighborhoods. The Port District has had many District had hoped that the variance proceedings might evolve indications from residents in adjacent areas that into a forum in which ideas regarding noise control at Lindbergh they do not presently favor such a program. Field could be responsibly discussed. It has been expressly agreed by the parties to the past variance proceedings, and coniirmed by the administrative law judge in each proceeding, B. Land Use Compatibility that the Port District's application for a variance was made To the extent that zoning or other land use without prejudice to its position regarding the acquisition of regulation could be used to convert land to uses its prescriptive easements. which the Noise Standards would deem compatible with the operation of Lindbergh Field - or to prevent A. Land Acquisition development of new and additional incompatible uses Additional land acquisition programs are at such regulatory authority rests primarily with the least theoretically possible, including acquisition City of San Diego. The Port District understands 7Z of fee interests rather than easements, and reloca- that, under compulsion of state law, the City is tion of persons now residing in a noise impacted seeking to enforce some measure of soundproofing for area. For the time being, the Port District new construction to meet a specified interior noise has considered and rejected any program involving criterion. However, the City has also continued to acquisition of a fee interest.in residential properties permit new high density residential development for a number of reasons: First, the expense of within the "noise impact area" of Lindbergh Field such a project would be substantial. It is clear even though the Port District has advised it of that, at least for the present, the citizens of the inconsistency of its actions with the objectives California are interested in reductions, not major of the Noise Standards, and despite objections by inc@reases, in government spending. Second, acquisition other interested persons and agencies. of fee interests in residential properties would The Port District therefore requests that the City of San Diego not make any further discretionary necessarily be accompanied by a conversion of the land land use decisions which would serve to increase to uses more compatible with airport operations, incompatable development within Lindbergh Field's 7 B 1986 criterion CNEL contour; and the staff is describe the impact or benefits to be realized from directed to continue to encourage the City of San a nighttime curfew. It has been approximately Diego to make land use decisions which are consistent three years since the present curfe, was adopted by with the operation of Lindbergh Field, and to object the Port District, and the Port District believes that to those decisions which are inconsistent with the it would be appropriate to Solicit public comment and operation of the airport. in addition, should the hold public hearings in the near future to permit the City make a firm commitment to pursue aggressively Port Commissioners to consider the effect of the the use of its land use regulatory authority in an existing curfew, and to consider whether or not there attempt to improve materially the existing situation, is any reason why the existing curfew should be the Port District remains willing to cooperate in expanded, contracted, or otherwise modified. the development and implementation of such a program. Therefore, the Port Director is directed to provide proper notice to the public and all other IV. Alternatives Affecting Airport Use interested parties, and to schedule a public hearing Certain items listed in Condition 3 of the Variance before the Commissioners to take place not later than Decision come within a general category of regulations commonly March 31, 1979, for the purpose of considering possible known as airport use restrictions, specifically, items: (1) modifications to the existing curfew. Further, ["curfew"], (2) 1"restrictions to types of aircraft"), (9) because of the complexities of the curfew issue, the ["aircraft scheduling"l, and (10) ["location and time for notice of hearing shall invite all interested parties engine run-up"]. The plan of the Port District with respect to submit written comments or proposals regarding to each of those items is as follows: modifications to the curfew in advance of the public hearing so that the Commissionersrmay have an oppor- A. Curfew tunity to review carefully any such submissions. The SCI study shows that expansion of the Port District's existing curfew to the hours of 11:00 p.m. B. TYPe_Restrictions to 7:00 a.m. would have virtually no effect on Lindbergh The landing permit agreements between the Port Field's existing C14EL contours. However, the CNEL District and most of the air carriers now serving methodology itself may or may not be adequate to Lindbergh Field expire in March of 1982. A few of 9 10 the landing permits expire prior to that date, but V. Other Matterj are renewable annually. The staff is directed to There are certain other steps which the Port District prepare an ordinance, to be effective in March of believes can be taken in respect of noise control at Lindbergh 1982 and upon expiration of the current landing Field which do not fall within the traditional categories of permit agreements, which will thereafter prohibit aircraft operational procedures, land use regulation, or any person from operating any aircraft at Lindbergh airport use restrictions. Those items are as follows: Field which is not certificated under the provisions of Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. A. Airport Design C. Aircraft Scheduling At the time the Port District retained Systems Other than the'matters discussed elsewhere in Control, Inc. to analyze various noise abatement this noise plan, the Port District does not presently alternatives which might be applicable to Lindbergh perceive any significant noise benefits which would Field, there had been some public indication that the be sufficient to justify further restricting the United States of America might be considering the flexibility of the air carriers in the scbeduling of abandonment of certain property to the north of Lindbergh, Field now used for military purposes (the their operations. Marine Corps Recruit Depot ["MCRD"]). For that reason, the Port District requested SCI to analyze D. Jet Aircraft maintenance Runu]2s generally the feasibility of constructing a new The Port District has regulated the time and runway through MCRD sufficient to serve air carrier location for jet engine maintenance runups at aircraft, and to evaluate what noise benefits, if Lindbergh Field for more than ten years. The SCI any, might be realized from the construction of such a report indicates that no meaningful noise benefit runway. The SCI report considers two such runways, would be realized by further restricting necessary both on a heading of 300*. One alternative is a runway maintenance operations at the airport. Therefore, with a length of 7200 feet, and the other is a 10,000 the Port District will maintain in full force and foot runway. in addition, SCI analyzed two different effect its current regulations and procedures departure profiles from those runways in order to regarding jet engine maintenance runups. determine their respective noise impacts. 11 12 It is apparent from the SCI report that the construction of a new Runway 30, either 7200 or 10,000 feet in length, could be used only for take-off purposes and would not be available for landings. Unfortunately, the land needed for the construc- Thus, the construction of the runway would have tion of Runway 30 is presently being used by the no effect on the noise impact to the east of United States Marine Corps, and the Port District Lindbergh Field presently caused by aircraft has no legal means,.by eminent domain or otherwise, landing on Runway 27. (Approximately 90% of the to acquire the property without the consent of the current landing operations occur on Runway 27.) Nor United States of America. would the construction of the new runway have any Therefore, the Port Director is directed to effect on the noise impact on the areas to the west advise appropriate local, state and federal officials of Lindbergh Field which presently occur when condi- of the results of the SCI study by providing tions require aircraft to land on Runway 9. (Approxi- them with a copy of the SCI report, together with matelv 10% of current landing operations occur on any additional information which might better Runway 9.) Further, during that period of time when @J explain the benefits to the public which would be conditions require aircraft to depart on Runway 9, realized by the construction of Runway 30; and the the construction of the new runway .would have no Port Director shall convey the Port District's effect on the noise impact which now occurs to the interest in acquiring this property should it become east of Lindbergh Field during those take-off available at any time in the future. operations. Nevertheless, it is clear that the construction of this new runway would provide substantial noise relief to the area west of Lindbergh Field, because B. Noise Abatement Advisory Committee it would redirect a significant portion of the As noted earlier, the Port District is currently take-offs which now occur on Runway 27. It appears a defendant in multi-million dollar litigation to the Port District that this noise benefit may be of sufficient magnitude to justify the expense of constructing a new Runway 30. 13 14 initiated by certain persons generally residing in Nevertheless, if further attempts to improve the the Loma Portal area of San Diego. The Port District noise environment around Lindbergh Field are to be has a public duty and responsibility to defend this effective, all of these competing interests must be litigation, and it has, and will continue to do so. involved in a forum where they can communicate Unfortunately, the existence of litigation substantially directly with each other. Obviously, such communica- inhibits free and open communication between the tion can be effective only if each of the interested parties. It now appears that a major segment of parties and entities participates in good faith, with these lawsuits will be tried early in 1979, and may a full recognition of the valid and substantial well be completed by July of 1979. nature of the concerns of each of the other parties, The Port District has previously expressed the and with a willingness to accept the reality that view, which it continues to hold, that litigation of compromise, rather than "total victory", is the only this type is not an effective means to achieve noise possible solution. control, nor is it a proper means to strike the It may be that the conflicts between these delicate balance between the San Diego's need for an competing interests are so great that they cannot 80 adequate commercial air transportation facility and work effectively together. Nevertheless, the poten- the desire of persons living around the airport for tial benefit to be realized from effective communica- a reduction of noise levels. Also, it is clear that tion between these interests is also great, and the proprietor of an airport has limited authority justifies an effort by the Port District to provide a to achieve a reduction of incompatible uses adversely forum in which those competing interests could work affected by airport operations, and that other together if they so choose. entities have the authority and responsibility for Therefore, and subject to any further advice taking many of the measures which might result in from the Port District's special counsel for liti- some noise reduction. gation, on July 1, 1979, the Port District will The Port District is, of course, fully aware establish a Noise Ab@tement Advisory Committee to be that there are substantial competing interests composed of representatives of all governmental involved in the operation of Lindbergh Field which agencies, commercial interests, the airline industry, often appear to be irreconcilably in conflict. 15 16 and citizens groups which have a direct interest in the operation of Lindbergh Field. -noise env-i-rmment.-ett-4ri-ndbe:-@3h Pie-1-d are also The statf is directed to prepare recommendations extremely difficult to ascertain at the present regarding the composition of this Advisory Committee, time, and it may well be that this federal decisi as well as any recommendations they may have regarding to deregulate will eventually require a substan *al its procedures. reevaluation by the Port District of its app ach to noise control at Lindbergh Field. e. Acceptance of Servi e By e . ....... ercidl Air Therefore, the Port District hereb declares a Carriers Not PresenZly Serving Lindbergh Field moratorium, effective through Decembe 31, 1979, on In recent months, the current administration and the use of Lindbergh Field for sch uled operations the United States Congress have taken action to by any commercia@l air carrier no presently serving begin a process of reducing regulatory restrictions the airport. This moratorium s intended to permit on the operation of the commercial air carri rs in the Port District sufficien time to evaluate the the United States, This process has bee commonly possible consequences of eregulation on the approach referred to as "deregulation." As a sult of one by the Port District, s proprietor, to noise of the initial steps in this proce of deregulation, control at Lindberg Field. It is anticipated that, certain air carriers, not prese ly serving Lindbergh upon formation of the Noise Abatement Advisory Field, have been granted aut ority by the federal Committee disc tsed above, procedures and policies government to commence se vice to San Diego. Those for regulati n of the use of Lindbergh Field by new air carriers have now or are expected shortly to and exist' g commercial air carriers will be a request the Port D' trict's permission to commence priori item for discussion, and that appropriate scheduled opera ons at Lindbergh Field. recoi, endations will be mad, by staff to the Port Deregul ion of the commercial air carriers is Co missioners for their consideration prior to the a signifi ant and substantial change in federal iorr-cf-th i@t-@atof4uffi@ L)elcted by Resolution 79-16, 1 Jantiary 16, 1979. polic Its effects on airport operations and air ort use cannot now be accurately predicted. The D. Periodic Review of the Noise Control Plan Striking a proper balance between the desire for 1ti-to _ff@- ine noise reduction and a-&suring adequate commercial air 17 transportation service to San Diego is an extremely existing noist, sitvation. Therefore, this noise control plan delicate process and involves numerous factors which cannot, and does not, constitute a promise for substantial are subject to change. Therefore, it is the intent future noise reduction. of the Port Commissioners to review this noise To the extent that the' Port District does have authority control plan annually, or more frequently in the to strike the delicate balance between adequate air transporta- event that special circumstances should so dictate. tion service and noise reduction, it has in the past, and will The staff is therefore directed to schedule a regular continue in the future to exercise that authority. This noise time and meeting for the purpose of the annual review plan, however, is intended also as an invitation to other of this noise control plan. In connection with the government agencies which have authority to take meaningful annual review by the Commissioners, the staff shall noise reduction action to accept their responsibility for the prepare and submit a report to the Commissioners consequences of their actions or inactions, and with that regarding the implementation and effects of the noise understanding, then to work together in a determined effort to control plan during the past year, together with its improve the existing situation. recommendations, if any, for modifications to the C:) plan. VI. Conclusion Under the existing institutional scheme of airport noise regulation, the authority of an ai@port proprietor to directly regulate airport and aircraft operations is limited. Much of the authority to take regulatory action which would have the effect of reducing noise belongs to other government agencies. The Federal Aviation Administration has sale authority and responsibility for actions affecting aircraft operation. in San Diego, the City of San Diego has the primary authority and responsibility to make and effect land use decisions designed to improve, rather than aggravatet the 19 20 P O R T O F S A N D I E G O AND LINDBERGH FIELD AIR TERMINAL (714) 291-3900 * P.O. Box 488, San Diego 92112 April 24, 1980 SUBJECT: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT "MASTER PLAN, San Diego Unified Port District" (UPD #78102-EIR-1; SCH #78030604) Enclosed is the Final Environmental Impact Report, "MASTER PLAN, San Diego Unified Port District: (UPD #78102-EIR-1; SCH #78030604), which was certified by the Board of Port Commissioners on March 18, 1980, Resolution 80-73. This Final EIR was filed with the District Clerk on February 8, 1980, Document #12590. Two appeals were filed (Documents #12634 and #12635) and considered by the Board on March 18, 1980, prior to Final EIR certification, and denied. The Port District's "Comments Received and Response" section (blue pages) had previously been sent directly to all who commented in writing by the close of the Public Hearing on the Draft EIR, held on December 4, 1979. This included communications received through the State Clearinghouse process, SCH #78030604. Respondents were notified at the Certification Hearing which was scheduled for and took place on March 11 and March 18, 1980. Sincerely, TOMAS E. FIRLE, Coordinator Environmental Management TEF/MVN/rc Enclosure: Final EIR (UPD #78102-EIR-1) File: UPD #78102-EIR-1 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 4/0 r., Re Master Plan Environmental Impact Report . . ... . . . . . . RESOLUTION 80-73 WHEREAS, the San Diego Unified Port District (Port District) is the trustee of all tidelands and submerged lands within the Port District's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Unified Port District proposes to further amend its adopted Master Plan of 1972, as amended, which is a conceptual development plan for the entire area of the Port District's jurisdiction, located in the member cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, National City, Imperial Beach and Coronado; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, State Resources Guidelines, and procedures adopted by the Port District, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared; and WHEREAS. the Final Environmental Impact Report has been filed and two (2) appeals regarding the adequacy of said report have been received in a timely manner and are on file in the office of the Port Dis- trict Clerk, Document Numbers 12634 and 12635; and WHEREAS, the appellants were notified in writing that the Board of Port Commissioners would act on the appeals; and WHEREAS, the Board, in open public session, considered the appeals, directed inclusion of the Staff Report with the Final EIR (Docu- ment 12590) and denied them; and WHEREAS. the Environmental Impact Report is before the Board of Port Commissioners, and Port District staff has concluded that it is adequate and recommends amending the Master Plan with certain specific conditions. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Port Commissioners of the San Diego Unified Port District, as follows: 1. The Board hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report concerning the Port District Master Plan amendments proposed by the Port District, on file in the office of the Port District Clerk, Document 12590, has been completed in compliance with law, the California Environmental Quality A ct of f 9 70, as amended, the State Be - sources Agency Guidelines, and Port District procedures for environ- mental document.% and that the Board and other Port District officials having final authority over approval of the project have reviewed and con- sidered the information in the Report. 2. The Board finds that the contents of the Report are an exercise of the independent judgment and'analysis of the Port District and are suf- ficient, accurate and objective. 3. Based on the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Board finds and determines: . a. The Port District proposes to adopt amendments to the Port District Master Plan to provide revised land and water use policies, designations and management guidance for Port District development, including cate- gories for Commercial, Industrial, Public Recreation, Public Facilities, Conservation and Military in nine (9) Planning Districts. b. Projects which are currently under way and in conceptual stages have been described and discussed extensively in both the Port District Master Plan, as amended, and the Environmental Impact Report, and individual projects which are known or contemplated are tabulated. -2- c. The amendments include specific land/water category use changes from more intensive io less in- tensive uses for a number of relatively small areas. An exception in size is.the reconfiguration of boating facilities adjacent to the Chula Vista Small Boat Basin; the 1972 Master Plan's conceptual configuration was schematically realigned to simplify the fill and dredge requirements. 4. The Board finds that there exists the potential for environ- mentally significant adverse specific project consequences which may result from implementation of a specific project for additional fill and development of the J Street Second Peninsula Extension. Because of this potential, an Environmental Impact Report shall be required prior to carry- ing out any such project. 5. Any subsequent specific project involving the former Rowing Club structure, which was placed on the National Register of Histori.c Places on August 30, 1979, according to the California State Historic Preservation 0fficer, shall,be subject to all applicable environmental and other particular regulati ons which may pertain to its status, irrespective of adjacent land or water use designations of the Port District Master Plan, as amended. 6. The Board recognizes the fact that all specific project pro- posals identified in the Master Plan, but not limited thereto, are subject to subsequent environmental review to determine, and, if necessary, mitigate and minimize specific project impacts, and that specific Environ- mental Impact Reports may be required as appropriate. Where significant impacts are determined, project specific mitigations will be required which are feasible and adequate to control the project's impact. 7. The Board finds 'and concludes that the Master Plan project, as amended, its Goals, Objectives and land/water use designations as pro- posed will not have a significant effect (substantial adverse impact) on the environment. -3- 8. The Board further finds, as an overriding consideration, that the "no-project" alternative is not available to the Port District as it would result in the inability of the Port District to satisfy the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976, for submittal of an appropriate Port District Master Plan, including an environmental inventory, and development plan information. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parcel of tide and submerged lands bounded by the mean high tide line on the northeast, Crosby Street and its extension into the Bay on the southeast, the pierhead line on the southwest, and a line parallel to and northwesterly of Beardsley Street on the northwest is hereby excluded from the certification action; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this action by the Board of Port Commissioners constitutes a final environmental approval and for that purpose only the Port District approves the proposed Master Plan pro- ject. subject to Paragraphs 4. 5 and 6. above, which are hereby required as part of the project. The Port Director or his authorized representative is authorized and directed to file, in accordance with law, a Notice of De- termination with the Secretary of Resources and the San Diego County Clerk. ADOPTED this 18th dayof March 1980. Presented By: DON L. NAY, Port Director BY SISTA11T Po@@RIXTOR Approved: JOSEPH D. PATELLO. Port Attorney -4- ow 3/13/80 WN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT Office of the Clerk CERTIFICATION OF VOTE Passed and adopted by the Board of Port Commissioners of the San Diego Unified Port District on 3-1 R-Ar) by the following vote: Commissioners TO" ways Examed Absent Abstained Wles D. Row1cr M Den Cohen 1:1 C3 Phil Creaser 1:1 1:2 CD Mernice Leyton Locrenz H. Ruchle Alois E. Smith L. M. Wolf'sheimer MYTHENTICA= BY: 'A'0 Chairman of The Board of Port Commissione[@-" WILLIAM R. HUNT Clerk of the San Diego Unified Port District BY puty Clerk (SEAL) Office of the Clerk of The San Diego Unified Port District 9n8aw/Resolution Number 430-73 Adopted a-Rn Publication date Effective dole Recorded on microfilm roll number LIDO FORN 022 (-z@. @"l Re Amendment of Noise Control ) ) Plan for San Diego International ) ) Airport, Lindbergh Field . . . . . ) RESOLUTION 79-16 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Port Commissioners of the San Diego Unified Port District, as follows: At the direction of the Federal Aviation Administration, the Board of Port Commissioners hereby amends the Noise Control Plan for San Diego International Airport, Lindbergh Field, adopted on 12 December 1978 and on file in the office of the District Clerk as Document No. 11531, be deleting Section V(c) of said Plan which established a moratorium on the admission of new air carriers to Lindbergh Field. ADOPTED this 16th day of January, 1979. Presented By: DON L. NAY, Port Director BY ASSISTANT PORT DIRECTOR Approved: JOSEPH D. PATELLO, Port Attorney sw 1/17/79 Re Adoption of Noise Control ) ) Plan for San Diego International ) ) Airport, Lindbergh Field . . . . . ) RESOLUTION 78-346 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Port Commissioners of the San Diego Unified Port District, as follows: That the Noise Control Plan for San Diego International Airport, Lindgergh Field, on file in the office of the District Clerk as Document No. 11531 is hereby adopted. ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 1978. Presented By: DON L. NAY, Port Driector By ASSISTANT PORT DIRECTOR Approved: JOSEPH D. PATELLO, Port Attorney sw 12/12/78 SAN MEMO UNII 11:1) IN -It'l IMSTRIV17 Wit- .1 '1-,- CI, Ik Paitsed wit! aticnArd tw the Ruard of I'M 14 M.I. &. pw't ary 16 In79 -- . w it.. 6M.-ft -11. crrrtrr,1.".,r- T... N.'. L.-4 Art-, mil'. D. Dtrk' c Ix E Den Cohen 0 c: Phil Creaser 0 Drink. Lry.- t L-n. H. R.M. CX A1.6 E. SInill, D.dI.y D. Willimarn. AUTHENTICATED BY: C1191-itit ',f It, 11-4 f P.ft C...1 C111k of the San Diego UntbM W,,t LAw- (SEAL) Ollic, of Lhe Clerk or lite Im"t, tt,,I.,d V,,rl lissa;w ammuz Re-1-tj t Nu.,.,-, --7 9- lj5-- Ad.pted 30imary 16, 1979 j Pubbe.wn dme Wfe@fj,,- dtr Ree.d,q - vid-fOrn I[ ...ne, .22 ....... @rw AM 3 6668 14109 6273