The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA Packet 2003/03/04 TUESDA Y, MARCH 4, 2003 4:00 P.M. (immediately following the City Council meeting) "I declare under penalty of perjury that' am , r ~J",lo"e~ b\I the City of Cl1u!a Vista in the ~'\1~nmun:ty Devo:o)iTl;.mt i:>e";:;:rtmc:nt and that I posted ,~"--IN A::.ew~8!Nc ~;'C~ (H1 "the bu:l :.)t;,n Bm:;!"d at the ~liC Services 8uilc.iin3 "nd at City Hall on CllY <.&='~SIGNED Yna.&.- CHUlA Vlsm COUNCIL CHAMBERS PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING .. .JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY J CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Agency/Council Members Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas; Chair/Mayor Padilla CONSENT CALENDAR The staff recommendations regarding the 1'ollowing item(s) listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Agency by one motion without discussion unless an Agency member, a member of the public or City staff requests that the item be pulled tor discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 1. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $154.832 FROM THE MERGED PROJECT AREA AS A LOAN REPAYMENT TO THE BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE I PROJECT AREA; AND APPROPRIATING THESE FUNDS IN THE BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE I FUND AND AN ADDITIONAL $118,427 FROM THE MERGED PROJECT AREA FOR THE 2002-2003 STATE EDUCATIONAL REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND (ERAF) SHIFT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES - The State's adopted budget for the current fiscal year includes a shift of Redevelopment Agency tax increment funds from local Redevelopment Agencies state-wide to help fund current school revenue shortfalls. A total of $75 million is being shifted from Agencies throughout the State. The amount transferred to the State is based on gross tax increment revenues and varies by jurisdiction. The shift from the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency has been determined by the State Department of Finance to be $273,259. This payment is a one-time transfer of funds. However, additional transfers may be forthcoming depending on the outcome of on- going State budget discussions for both this year and next. [Community Development Director] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency adopt the resolution. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject matter within the Agency's jurisdiction that is no! an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda,) If you wish to address the Agency on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, p~ease give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. PUBLIC HEARING The following item{s) have been advertised andlor posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 2. CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 75 FOR REMOVAL OF ABOVEGROUND FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS AT THE SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT - The project proposal involves the removal of aboveground fuel oil storage tanks at the South Bay Power Plant (SBPP). The project site is located at 990 Bay Boulevard, just south of Marina View Park and immediately west of Interstate 5. The project site is located within the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area and the Chula Vista Coastal Zone. Due to the scope and size of the proposed project, it has been determined that the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit is required pursuant to Section VII. E. (707) General Controls and Limitations of Land Uses of the Bayfront's Redevelopment Plan as well as pursuant to the definition of development, as found in Section 19.83.002 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. [Community Development Director] JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 75 FOR REMOVAL OF ABOVEGROUND FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS AT THE SOUTHBAY POWER PLANT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency/Council adopt the resolution. OTHER BUSINESS 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 4. CHAIR REPORT 5. AGENCY COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to a closed session and thence to a regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on March 18, 2003 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting in the City Council Chambers. Redevelopment Agency, March 4, 2003 Page 2 CLOSED SESSION Unless Agency Counsel, the Executive Din:'lctor, or the Redevelopment Agency states otherwise at this time, the Agency will discuss and deliberate on the following item(s) of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Agency is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in dosed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Agency's return from closed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made by Noon on Wednesday following the meeting at the City Clerk's office in accordance with the Ralph Brown Act (Govt. Code;; 54957.7) 6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING INITIATION OF L1TIGATlON--Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) One Case 7. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION -- Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Agency vs. Rados Bros. [Case No. GIC734557-1] AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodates to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at (619) 691-5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Redevelopment Agency, Marcl1 4, 2003 Page 3 PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: I MEETING DATE: 03/04/03 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $154,832 FROM THE MERGED PROJECT AREA AS A LOAN REPAYMENT TO THE BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE I PROJECT AREA; AND APPROPRIATING THESE FUNDS IN THE BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE I FUND AND AN ADDITIONAL $118,427 FROM THE MERGED PROJECT AREA FOR THE 2002-2003 STATE EDUCATIONAL REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND (ERAF) SHIFT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ~-\1n ~ / REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOIfJi 15c1 9'i' 4/5THS VOTE: YES ~ NO c=J BACKGROUND The State's adopted budget for the current fiscal year includes 0 shift of Redevelopment Agency tax increment funds from local Redevelopment Agencies state-wide to help fund current school revenue shortfalls. A total of $75 million is being shifted from Agencies throughout the State. The amount transferred to the State is based on gross tax increment revenues and varies by jurisdiction. The shift from the Chulo Vista Redevelopment Agency has been determined by the State Deportment of Finance to be $273,259. This payment is 0 one-time transfer of funds. However, additional transfers may be forthcoming depending on the outcome of on-going State budget discussions for both this year and next. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution appropriating $154,832 from the Merged Project Area os 0 loon repayment to the Bayfront/T own Centre I Project Area; and appropriating these funds in the Bayfront/T own Centre I Fund and on odditional $118,427 from the Merged Project Area for the 2002-2003 State Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) Shift of Tax Increment Revenues. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. 1- I PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 03/04/03 DISCUSSION The ERAF payment must be transferred to the Stote no later than Moy 10, 2003. The appropriation will authorize a transfor of the funds to the County Auditor, pursuant to Section 33681.8 of the State Health and Safety Code. The transfer of $273,259 represents a significant portion of the Agency's net avoilable tax increment revenue. This year, net tax increment receipts after mandatory pass-throughs to other taxing entities, low and moderate income housing set-aside and debt service is $1.86 million. Therefore, the $273,259 shift represents 14.6% of net available tox increment revenue that is used to fund Agency operations and administer the Redevelopment Agency Project Areas. For comparison purposes, the following list shows the ERAF payments being made by other local Agencies (all amounts based on gross and net tax increment revenues): City of San Diego (includes ceDC and SEDC): City of Poway City of San Marcos City of Escondido City of Vi sta City of Chula Vista City of Coronado City of EI Cajon City of Oceanside City of Sa ntee $1,352,055 $ 780,349 $ 536,331 $ 424,897 $ 280,557 $ 273,259 $ 244,928 $ 237,471 $ 142,362 $ 125,483 Additional ERAF payments result from ongoing budget negotiations in Sacramento. Significant additional cuts in redevelopment program funding, including the provision of low and moderate income housing and assistance for development of smart-growth mixed-use projects, may be considered for 2003-2004. Staff is working closely with our lobbyist, the League of California Cities, and the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) regarding ongoing State budget issues as they may affect the City and the Agency. Staff will keep the Council apprised through regular reports from the City Manager's office. FISCAL IMPACT The fund balance impact to the Men~ed Project Area will be $273,259. This accounts for the Merged Project share of the State Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) shift of $118,427 and the loan payment to BayfrontIT own Centre I of $154,832, which will fund their share of the ERAF shift. J:\COMMDEV\Estes\Agency Financial\ERAF\2003 ERAF Agenda Statement.doc I-~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $154,832 FROM THE MERGED PROJECT AREA AS A LOAN REPAYMENT TO THE BAYFRONTfTOWN CENTRE I PROJECT AREA; AND APPROPRIATING THESE FUNDS IN THE BAYFRONTfTOWN CENTRE I FUND AND AN ADDITIONAL $118,427 FROM THE MERGED PROJECT AREA FOR THE 2002-2003 STATE EDUCATIONAL REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND (ERAF) SHIFT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES WHEREAS, the State of California is working to close an extremely large budget deficit which is affecting school district funding throughout the State with potentially dramatic negative impacts to the State's long-term fiscal situation; and WHEREAS, in late 2002, Chapter 1127 of the State Statutes was adopted which requires a shift of $75 million in local Redevelopment Agency revenues to be transferred into the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) to help fund K-12 educational programs in California; and WHEREAS, the Agency is required to complete the transfer by May 15, 2003 to the County Auditor from available Agency funds based on a specified formula tied to both gross tax increment revenues and tax increment revenues net of pass-throughs to other taxing entities; and WHEREAS, the specified reductions have been calculated by the State for each Agency and the City's Finance Department has determined that the reductions will met by the specified amounts in the BayfrontITown Centre I and Merged Project Areas, and the ERAF shift will result in unspecified budget impacts during the current and future fiscal years affecting Agency projects and programs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does hereby appropriate $154,832 from the Merged Project Area as a loan repayment to the BayfrontITown Centre I Project Area; and appropriating these funds in the BayfrontITown center I fund and additional $118,427 from the Merged Project Area for the 2002-2003 State Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) Shift of Tax Increment Revenues. PRESENTED BY APPROVED AS TO FORM BY Laurie Madigan Director of Community Development _._~. , ("~ --- ~ .-- "" - M; Moore (' \ AgEll1eyAtlorney ..~ U J:ICOMMOEVlRESOSIERAF 2002-2003 roso.doc /- -3 PAGE 1, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: ;A 03/04/03 JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 75 FOR REMOVAL OF ABOVEGROUND FUEL Oil STORAGE TANKS AT THE SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT JOINT RESOLUTION ISSUING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NUMBER 75 FOR REMOVAL OF ABOVEGROUND FUEL Oil STORAGE TANKS AT THE SOUTHBAY POWER PLANT SUBMlnED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ~~ Uv\ ITEM TITLE: REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO 0 BACKGROUND The proiect proposal involves the removal of aboveground fuel oil storage tanks at the South Bay Power Plant (SBPP). The project site is locoted at 990 Bay Boulevard, just south of Marina View Park and immediately west of Interstate 5. The project site is located within the Bayfront Redevelopment Proiect Area and the Chula Vista Coastal Zone. Due to the scope and size of the proposed project, it has been determined that the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit is required pursuant to Section VII. E. (707) General Controls cmd Limitations of Land Uses of the Bayfront's Redevelopment Plan as well as pursuant to the definition of development, as found in Section 19.83.002 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The San Diego Unified Port District is responsible by law for all harbor and port improvement and for use of all tidelands and submerged lands. The Port District is therefore the lead agency with respect to administering the CEQA process for proiects undertaken within these areas. The Port District acknowledges the City of Chula Vista's role as Responsible Agency in reviewing and approving coastal development permit #75 subject to the setting of conditions of approval, such as obtaining appropriate permits for the demolition of the existing fuel tanks. A Negative Declaration and Findings of No Significant Impact has been prepared and adopted by the San Diego Unified Port District. The environmental document has determined that the overall project will have no substantially adverse effects to land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, or obiects of historic or aesthetic significance, nor will the project otherwise have a potentially significant adverse impact on the environment. d -I PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 03/04/03 RECOMMENDATION Thot the Agency/Council: (1) hold Ihe public hearing and consider public testimony, and (2) adopt the resolution issuing Coastal Development Permit No. 75 to remove aboveground fuel oil storage tanks at the South Bay Power Plant subject to conditions. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION The San Diego Unified Port District purchased the SBPP property fram San Diego Gas and Electric. The power plant and associated facilities are presently being leased to Duke Energy of North America (DENA). In keeping with the intent of the lease, DENA has determined that some of the abovegraund oil storage tanks at the SBPP site are no longer needed since the plant is now fueled by natural gas. The removal of the tanks would reduce the visual impacts of these to the surraunding community and the potential for oil spills and contamination. Duke Energy North America (DENA) plans to remove two abovegraund oil fuel storage tanks and appurtenant equipment on approximately 5 acres at the South Bay Power Plant (SBPP) in Chula Visto: Tank #3 (193 feet diameter, 45 feet high) and Tank #7 (175 feet diameter, 45 feet high). Above graund associated piping, fuel unloading station and related equipment will also be removed. In accordance with a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) determination, DENA cannot remove all of the existing oil storage t'Jnks at this time. The CPUC has determined that the power plant must have a readily available, alternate fuel source to power the plant in case the natural gas supply is interrupted. Previously, DENA has removed a cutter tank and three other fuel tanks. After the removal of these two tanks, two other somewhat smaller fuel tanks (124,000 barrel capacity per tank) will remain. These two tanks will allow Duke Energy to maintain in reserve, the fuel capacity to run the power plant in the eventuality that the supply of natural gas becomes limited or unavailable. Prior to tank removal, DENA proposes to remove 011 oil presently contained in the tonks, clean them and dispose of any asbestos-contaminated material. The tanks will be cut using torches or sheers, and the metal material will be carried away on trucks or railcars to be recycled. Waste concrete will be ground-up and used as roadbed material on-site. SDG&E will be responsible for ensuring that the soil and groundwater beneath each tank is free from contamination. DENA will grade the sites and maintain the current drainage potterns. The amount of ground disturbing activity will cover about 15 acres. c:2-.;).. PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 03/04/03 FINDINGS Based on the following findings, the proposed project has been found to be consistent with the policies of the Certified Chula Vista Coastal Program and Findings of the adopted Negative Declarotion. 1. The Certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program provides for improving the visual quality of the Bayfront by removing or mitigating through landscaping structures or conditions that have a blighting influence in the area. 2. The Bayfront, by virtue of its location the San Diego Bay, represents a visual resource for the City and the region. The proposed removal of the fuel oil storage tanks hastens the opportunity to develop the subject site with land uses that establish a harmonious relationship between the natural setting and the man-made environment and assist in defining a unique City image. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will not generate revenue to the City of Chula Vista but will enhance the aesthetic visual quality of the area and hasten the availability of the project site for future redevelopment activities. ATTACHMENTS 1 - Conditions of Approval 2 - Bayfront Specific Plan/Coastal Permit Application 3 - Negative DeclarationO J:\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\03-04-03\Storoge Tanks - Southbay power plant.doc ;2..-.3 COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. AND AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 75 FOR REMOVAL OF ABOVEGROUND FUEL Oil STORAGE TANKS AT THE SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT WHEREAS, Duke Energy North America (DENA) (Applicant) has submitted on January 10, 2003 to the City of Chula Vista a Coastal Development Permit Application (No. 75); and WHEREAS, The City of Chula Vista local Coastal Program (lCP) has been certified by the California Coastal Commission; and WHEREAS, said lCP includes Coastal Development procedures determined by the Commission to be legally adequate for the issuance of Coastal Development Permits and the City of Chula Vista has assumed permit authority of the Chula Vista Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed and conducted on March 4, 2003, in accordance with said procedures; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, as "approving authority", have reviewed the project proposal to remove two aboveground oil fuel storage tanks and appurtenant equipment at the South Bay Power Plant; and WHEREAS, the San Diego Unified Port District considered and adopted a Negative Declaration for the proposed project in accordance with CEQA; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista do hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: 1. The Negative Declaration/Finding of No significant Impact for the proposed project prepared and issued by the San Diego Unified Port District, dated February 2003 has been independently considered by the City of Chula Vista in its role as responsible agency, and is in conformance with the certified local Coastal Program. 2. The proposal will enhance the visual quality of the Bayfront and not impact coastal resources. 3. The proposal will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Bayfront Pian and Implementation Plan, which call for the "elimination of blight in the project area." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency hereby approves Coastal Development Permit No. 75 for the above described fuel oil storage tank removal project subject to attached conditions. Presented by Approved as to form by Laurie Madigan Director of Community Development ~Jf~1M Ann oore . y Attorney J:\COMMDEV\RESOS\75 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks.doc cl - '-f ATTACHMENT 1 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 75 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Applicant shall obtain the required demolition permit from the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department. 2. The Applicant may be required to obtain a grading permit as determined by the City of Chula Vista Engineering Division upon further review of Applicant's detailed work plan. 3. Applicant shall be responsible for the cleanup and proper disposal of any debris deposited on any city street, public right-of-way or public/private properties. 4. This Coastal Development Permit shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof. Failure to comply with any conditions of approval shall cause this permit to be reviewed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. 5. This permit shall be subject to any and all new, modified or deleted conditions imposed after approval of this permit to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which the City shall impose after advance written notice to the Permittee and after the City has given to the Permittee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Permittee of a substantial revenue source, which the Permittee cannot, in the normal operation of the use permitted, be expected to economically recover. 6. Applicant/operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorneys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Coast Development permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non- discretionary, in connection with the action contemplated herein. 7. All demolition work must occur in strict compliance with the proposed project as set forth in the application for the coastal development permit, subject to any J:\COMMDEV\RESOS\75 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks.doc c::2 _ S- special conditions required by the City of Chula Vista or the California Coastal Commission if the final action on the application is made by it on appeal. Any deviation from the approved application must be reviewed by the Director of Community Development and may require additional City approval or approval by the California Coastal Commission if final action on the permit application was made by it on appeal. 8. All demolition work will be subject to the issuance of a demolition permit from the City of Chula Vista Fire Department and a permit from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Management Division. J:ICOMMDEVlRESOSI75 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks.doc ;L-(P tf ; 5~ # ATTACHMENT 2 APPENDIX A C-f cf City of Chula Vista Bayfront Specific Plan/Coastal Pennit APPLICATION 1. Appl icant (Owner) Name: OUI<.t:" {;NFR.6---( Address 9 q 0 81+1 City C/-IUI.-A \AJ"rA- BLVh State CUA (Phone) 4- "18 -~-3J 9 Zip 91 '14-1 2. Applicant's Agent Name: Address (Phone) Ci ty S ta te Zip 3. Project Location: S"O<<TH R+t ?O,vEA P I-A.Jr 4. Assessors Book/Page/Parcel No. 5. Project Description: DcmouSrl l"Irh Rc~ovf hc.or'V\ J;' rT h... i:' L (),L --- I '^'-'k 5 3 AriD 7 6. Estimated Cost of Development (Excluding Land Cost):$ /.s-O, 000 , 7. Has any application for development on this site been submitted previously to the City of Chula Vista? NO ,Calif. Coastal Comission? tJD , or California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission? ~O 8. If "yes" to No.7 above, please indicate date and application no. - - - - - - - - - - - Required Processing - Office Use - - - - - - - - / / Envi r. Review Exer.lpt # / / Owner Participation # / / Envi r. Revi ew IS/ErR # / / Local Coastal Pmt CVCP # / / Design Review DRC # / / Specific Plan Amend # / / Variance # / / Genera 1 PI an Amend # / / Condo Use Pmt CUP # / / Other A-l .;2. - 7 J I I I I Section I. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY 1. Are there existing struc tures on the property? '/ ES If "yes", describe, including the number of residential units, or sq. ft. of floor area if conrnerc:ial, industrial or other use. F~\~L O,L ll\--I<S 3 ~. I 0((\.....('( Ittc J'~.:rH ~/<. FibeYh 01== lifE SD-tHH i34j IOu..L~ ;Z~. rv../?'L O,L TIlri=.J \ I '; l... V'" ILL RGhi AI ,--J 2. Will any existing structures be demolished? YeS If "yes", describe the type of development to be demolished or removed, including the relocation site, if applicable. h..~ 011. t 4J 5 ~") WilL 15c: REoMOvEb ~ Gn.A-~ t'- ~ ~/<. t=LOOIl.J' WilL "Rti="...,AIr' 1;-' IhL. S'/~E<. V-'ll<. BE R~ovd FXpW.,. J7Tc R.~IC.L/ rt- 0,<.. S'4Lvl46-E'. 3. Are there any residents on site? (If so, how many?) )VIa bo ~v.-' P"rh c:. h:( 4. Are there any current employment opportunities on site? (If so, how many and what type?) tJ D 5. Describe all structures and land uses currently property. North fC""-"'"1 existing on adjacent East T?~ r~ I\v- v.J?fI' i.'=fl-r- i3 Lv ~ o(~ i311-J f Uv.- ~~ S'AL ,. RA.rV" South tJ;Y West A-2 02 -f Section II. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1. Complete this section if project is RESIDENTIAL. 1. Estimated sale or rental price range 2. Complete this section if project is COMHERCIAl or INDUSTRIAL. a. Type(s) of land Use 1~~<tjlo'l..tt4L b. Square footage of floor area 1-'/ ll- I a. Type Development: / / Single-family / / Two-famil y / / Multi-family / / Townhouse / / Condominium Type Ownership: / / Owner-Occupied / / Rental / / Condominium / / Stock Cooperative / / Other b. c. Number of Structures Proposed minimum height . maximum height and d. Total number of floors in structure . subterranean floors lofts or mezzanines . at grade or above e. Number of units: 2 bedrooms 1 bedroom 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Total Units f. Square footage of floor area(s) g. Gross density (DU/total acres) h. Net density (OU/total acres minus dedicated land) i. Number of onsite parking spaces to be provided j. Number of boat slips to be provided k. Estimated project population c. Number of structures tv/A- , maximum height 1\1'/;;. . , and mi nimum hei ght r' J ll- I Total number of fl Clor1); structure iw J,q.... subterranean fl oors "'/11-. 1 ofts or mezzanines tv . at gr~ otabove ~. Type of construction to be used 11*I{ I ~ A- Dty,., 0 L",o.,.-l P/lC,i CC-T d. e. f. Desc ri be major acces s poi nts to the structure ~ and ori enta ti on to adjoining properties and streets At~ I~U.~ I~(: \)JIl.L ~c- V I A- ltf{- ,uk, ~ 6A-1l7; .s Ov..I~ BA-t ;9~ vJ~ /":,Avr Number of on-site parking spaces to be pr6vided )JJ~ . I A_3.;J-9 g. h. Estimated number of employees per shift-1& number of shifts .i Total 1. Estimated number of customers (per day) and basis of estimate ~(Ar Estimated range of service area and basis of estimate ;v/tr I J. k. Txpe/extent of operati ons not i n encl~ed bui 1 diJl,9s Dc;..., yLI/l_ 1k71v,.,/'H lulLL 6F t.,.....,1T-tJ ID mE ~.~ /ft..I<:. Fli-A.."1 Hours of operation 7:o~ A....., - ~ .'00 ~~ 1. m. Type of exterior 1 i ghti ng /oJ I A { 3. If project is other than residential, commercial or industrial complete this section. a. Type of project b. Type of facilities to be provided c. Square feet of enclosed structures d. Total number of floors in structure , subterranean floors lofts or mezzanines , at grade or above e. Height of structurei[sl - maximum f. Ultimate occupancy load of project g. Number of on-site parking spaces to be provided h. Square feet of road and paved surfaces 4. Lot Area (within property lines) sq. ft. 5. If development involves If. subdivision or parcel l?ts to be created ~ ' maximum size Sl ze . map, indicate number of , and minimum 6. If land area to be dedicated, indicate acreage and purpose. iV/it- 7. Indicate the amount ~ natural open ft. or acres) ,.... It: , space that is part of the project (sq. 8. Indicate the amount of landscape area that is part of this project (sq. ft.l tJc ",i7" A-4 02 -/ 0 9. Lot Coverage Building Paved Area Landscape Unimproved 10. Are util ity bl gas ~ If "yes" to Existing New/Proposed Total fr-/ft sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. extensions needed to proposed development? a) water ~v c) e 1 ec tri city ,..c d) sewe r ~ e 1 telephone ,..A . c) or e), is extenslon to be ~ground? 11. Is any type of grading or excavation of the property anticipated IUO (If yes, complete the following:) a. How much area (sq. ft. or acres) will be graded? b. Excluding trenches to be backfilled, how many cubic yards of earth ~lill be excavated? c. What will be the - Maxim~m depth of cut Average depth of cut Maximum height of cut slope Maximum depth of fill Average depth of fill Maximum height of fill slope d. How many cubic yards of fill will be placed? e. Location of borrow or disposal site location 12. Describe (if any) off-site improvements necessary to implement the project, and their points of access or proximity to the project site. Improvements include but not 1 imited to the following: new streets; street widening; extension of gas, electric, and sewer ~ines; cut and fill slopes; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. /Vd~~ A-5 oJ-If Section III. COASTAL/ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION The relationship of the proposed development to the appl !cable items below must be explained fully. Attach additional sheets if necessary. 1. If the proposed development is to be located between the first inland conti nuous pub 1 i c street and San Oi ego Bay (see map - Appendi x G l, is pUblic access to and along the shoreline currently available near the site? (I/O If "yes", indicate the location of the nearby access, including the distance from the site of the proposed development. 2. Does the development lnvolve dlklng, tllllng, dredglng, or placlng any structures in open coastal waters, sloughs, wetl ands, or on agricultural land designated as farmed or grazed wetlands? (a) diking ";0 (b) fill ing Nt (c) dredging fVQ (d) structures f'J1) If "yes" to {bl or (cl, indicate the amount of material to be dredged or filled: cu yds Location of dredged material disposal site Has an application been made for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit?____ 3. Will the development extend onto or adjoin any beach, tidelands, submerged lands, .or public trust lands? rJ7) 4. Will the development provide publ ic or private recreational opportunities? f-J 0 If "yes", explain: 5. Will the proposed development convert agricultural land to another use?}JD I f "yes", how many acres wi 11 be converted? acres 6. Is the proposed development in or near: a. sensitive environmental areas rJo b. lOO-year floodplain y&:! c. park or recreation area VV'D If "yes" to (a), a biological survey may be required. If "yes" to (bl, hydrologic mapping may be required. A-6 ..). _ I d- I I 7. Is the proposed development visible from: a. scenic vista points or designated scenic routes tJO b. park, beach, or other pub1 ic recreation area{s) 1-'0 c. harbor area ;JC 8. Does the si te contain any: a. hi stori c resources f,JO rJD r-lO b. archeological resources c. pal eonto1 ogi ca1 resources If "yes" to any of the above, please explain. 13. Describe all energy consuming devices which are part of the proposed project and the type of energy used (air conditioning, electrical appliance, heating equipment, etc.) j'Wc13lL. 7/-<J..<.j<;f ~ C:~ WI 1.'-- f!,E ulf'h. 14. Will highly flammable or' potentially explosive materials or substances be used or stored within the project site? rJO 15. If the project could result in the direct emission of any air pollutants, (hydrocarbons, su1 fur, dust, etc.) identify them. ('10 IJIL. tiqu./PNlr=->--r- IN\~L ~c ~&T1Flro ?e==R. J6Mc...b ~~LA-I'v>-f 16. If the project will result in any employment opportunities describe the na~ure and type of these jobs. T(".Nt.....JIlII-I) C~I,4..'-~ 'f'-1/?i= !l..IAj I~ A-- '2... Nlw.,"'-H {JiS</..trJh 17. How many project automobile trips (estimate), per day, will be generated by the / M-kzl~ c;:r;-l~~n=t\ r~l I~I:. T~\1f ?i"/l. ~ ~ " r1-+)..Ir<.-V- C't'i,,,....,4-,Ya ~ llLll4 fi....'^- b"l' : 10 g. Geology Has a geology study been conducted on the property? ~ (If yes, please attach.) Has a Soil s Report on the project si te been made? r:JJ (If yes, please attach.) A-7 .,;L- (3 10. Hydrology Are any of the fOllowing features present on or adjacent to the site? (If yes, please explain in detail.) a. Is there any surface evidence of a shallow ground water table? ~ b. Are there any watercourses or drainage improvements on or adjacent to the si te? r'O c. Does runoff from the project site drai n di rectly into or toward a domesti~_water supply, lake, reservoir or bay? 7th=- JI>VrH ~.c: ~ ~cn- bP..f'r'r-f 'f\l S/l.--- bt~ 'BH Could drainage from the site cause ~rosion or siltation to adjacent areas? Nf) d. e. 11. Noi se Desc ri be all -,\-,--,J4?t;t\. (~c"." IS ~Ilh-- ~ location. a. Will there be any noise generated from the proposed project site or from poi nts ~f access whi c~ m~ impac t the surro,:ndi ng o!.. adj~a ent land uses? ~t--OLI ,.."'" (Ve,ie- VUlt.. i?E L,~ (rf. I rfE_~_~ II ,E1.. 1'12.A-'.J'(i..~1 ,...... N~ 4 I.-J ~t" IN' rl- A<' .' 1.;/ ~ L:f ( ( I i:" (\.~L>4-" "'d ' 12. 810109Y a. Is the project site in a natural or partially natural state? "-'0 b. Indicate type, size and quantity of trees on the site and which (if any) will be removed by the project. /VCr4.- A-8 C).-ILJ Section IV: NOTICE TO APPLICANTS Under certain circumstances, additional material may be required prior to issuance of a coastal development permit. For example, where offers of publ ic access or open space dedication are required pursuant to the Local Coastal Program, preliminary title reports, land surveys, legal descriptions, subordination agreements, and other agreements may be required prior to issuance of the permit. Section V: AUTHORIZATION OF AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE I hereby authori ze rI ( ~ to act as my agent or representative and to bind me in a matters concerning this application. ~~ If r!iJ1J I p~ DU.kE /5.-,~G, I Co'4"tl 8"1 ~ignature of appllcant(s) Section VI: CERTIFICATION 1. I hereby certify that I have read this completed application and that, to the best of my knowledge, the information in this application and all attached appendices and exhibi ts are complete and correct. I understand that any willful misstatements or omissions of required information or of any infonnation sUbsequently requested by the City of Chula Vista may be grounds for denial of the permit application, for suspension or revocation of a pennit issued on the basis of these or subsequent representations, or for seeking of such further relief as may be proper for the City of Chula Vista. 2. I hereby certify that I have read and understand the Standard Condi ti ons for Approved Permits contained in Section IV.C of the Bayfront Specific Plan/Coastal Development Appl ication Pennit Procedures 1~anual. 3. I hereby authorize representatives of the 'City of Chula Vista to conduct site i nspec ti ons on my property. Un1 ess arranged otherwi se, these site inspections shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Slgnature of Agent _~~ 4 gJJ1 Sig tur of Applicant s . Signature of Applicant(sl WPC 1746/1748H c:2 -IS- A-9 .~PPEND IX B CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMt1ISSION AND ALL OTHER OFFICIAL BODIES. The following infonnation must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the app1 ication. _~.1 K E ~ tV M...~1I 11-.... (?'LI c.,f- List the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the proRerty involved. \ ;::>0"'- O~ [~ D, M~ 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 1m of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. .....(1+ 3. If any pe rson organization or a of the non-profit the trust. rIA identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit trust, list the names of any person serving as director organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes____ NO~ If yes, please indicate person(s) Person is defined as: "Any individual, finn, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver" syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acti ng as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pa'les as necessary.) WPC 0701 P /1748H A-110 c::2-(~ B S1gn J~JF{.l;t 6t-A-tfu Print or type name of applicant o Uti; C">- c=R err ) S ,...v.;rtf B '7' I I I I I APPENDIX H COASTAL PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ~ 1. The following items must be submitted with this application form. Copy(s) of project plans, drawn to scale, including site plans, floor plans, elevations, grading and drainage plans, and landscape plans (Number of plans indicated in Appendix of the Procedures Manual). In addition, ten copies of a reduced site plan, 8 '1/2 by 11 inches in size, must also be submitted. If the proposed project is located within 250 feet of any area designated in the Local Coastal Program as "Wetland Buffer" the project plans must so indicate. 6. A copy of any Final Negative Declaration, Final Environmental Impact Report, or Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the proposed development, if the document was prepared prior to thi s submittal. COl11TIents of all reviewers and responses to comments must be included. I I dfr 2. / 3. #4. t4J} 5. ** I I 1 1 Proof of the applicant's legal interest in the property. (A copy of any of the following is acceptable: current tax bill, recorded deed, si ned Offer to Purchase alon with a recei t of deposit, signe ina escrow document, or current po lCY 0 title insurance. Preliminary t~t1e reports will_ not be... accepted.) --l<SOv.:i~ 8':'1 Po...v..~ f/LA.1 t1 z.c:::,.nC7) l~ /Tt--t fMJ;f r,P' SA.-- DI ~ ~<H-I 200'1~. . Assessor's parcel map(s) showing the applicant's property and all other properties within 100 feet (excluding roads) of the property lines of the project site. (Available from County Assessor. ) Stamped envelopes addressed tof(;J) the San Diego Coast Di stri ct Director of the California Coastal Commission, 1333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 11.5, San Die~o, CA 9210B-3520, and (b) to each property owner' and occupant of property wi thi n 100 feet of the property lines of the project site (excluding roads), along with a 1 ist containing the names, addresses, and assessor's parcel numbers of the same. The envelopes must be plain (i.e., without a return address) and of regular business size (9 1/2 x 4 1/8 inches) and must have affixed to them a first class postage stamp. Use attached sheet for the listing of names and addresses. For residents or tenants of mul ti-unit structures such as apartment houses, condominiums, or shopping facilities, address each envelope to "Occupant" at that address. Stamped, addressed envelopes and a list of names and addresses of all other persons known to tl1e appl icant and the applicant's representative to have an interest in the proposed development. *,* E''''VIIUNY'1~ Ilne=tJ ~rr-::r is i3~,.e,.. t>t4~SE7j f);'l _ _ 7"lfE- {'(!!I!_! ItF SAr- ~,~ H WIlL f.,f: J'lA.e"... II;-'t-t. ,,-, '-"'-= e.,.. M OF. etkl.L.A- y"Ll (tr vvr-\F-. ~c.h~. I u 1.......- . I H-1 C2 -/7 ~?E ,~G) 7. -4t 8. WPC 1748H Verification of all other pennits, permissions, or approvals required, applied for, or granted by public agencies such as, but not limited to, the California Department of Fish and Game, State Lands Commission, U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, etc. ). For development proposed in any area of high geologic risk as identified and specified in the Local Coastal Program, a comprehensive site-specific geology and soils report. H-2 .:2-1'6 ATTACHMENT 3 FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (UPD #83356-ND-573) SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT ABOVEGROUND FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS REMOVAL CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA ~O"C~,Sq""'<>", o . It a...~I. 0 . . .. " ._" . ,,'"., . c' - -', " '-'::...f-, -; :-~ ~<''<>;;'." ,,,,,,,Q.' J>o Ri 0 San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 120488 San Diego. California 92112-0488 February 2003 ~ -( 9 FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT ABOVEGROUND FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS REMOVAL Chula Vista, California TABLE OF CONTENTS Draft Negative Declaration Summary PAGE 1 I. Introduction A. Purpose of a Negative Declaration B. Project Proponent C. Project Purpose and Need D. Project Location 2 2 2 2 3 II. Project Description 3 III. Environmental Setting 3 IV. Environmental Analysis 4 V. Finding 4 VI. Documentation 4 VII. Public Review of Draft Negative Declaration 4 VIII. Results of Public Review of Draft Negative Declaration 6 IX. Certification 6 ATTACHMENTS A. Initial Study B. Environmental Assessment C. Figures D. Comment Received to Draft ND E. District Responses Document Location: :ODMA\PCDOCS\SDlIP0\22868\ 1 cJ.-.J.O San Diego Unified Port District PO Box 1 20488 San Diego, California 92112-0488 UPD #83356-ND-573 FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT ABOVEGROUND FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS REMOVAL Chula Vista, California SUMMARY This Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for the removal of two aboveground fuel oil storage tanks, South Bay Power Plant in Chula Vista. The proposed project at the South Bay Power Plant is located at 990 Bay Boulevard in Chula Vista. just east of the Wildlife Reserve Planning Subarea of San Diego Unified Port District Planning District 7, Chula Vista Bayfront, and is currently within the land use jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. This document has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CAL.PUB.RES.CODE Section 2100, et seq.) and the implementing regulations, the "C EQA Guidelines" (14 CAL.CODE REGS. Section 15000, et seq.). Specifically, this document meets the requirements of Guidelines Section 15071. A. Project Description Duke Energy North America (DENA) plans to remove two aboveground oil fuel storage tanks and appurtenant equipment on approximately 5 acres at the South Bay Power Plant (SBPP) in Chula Vista: Tank #3 (193 feet diameter, 45 feet high) and Tank #7 (175 feet diameter, 45 feet high). Above ground associated piping, fuel unloading station and related equipment will also be removed. Prior to tank removal, DENA will have removed all oil from the tanks, cleaned them. and disposed of any asbestos-contaminated material. DENA plans to dismantle and remove the cleaned tanks and appurtenant equipment. DENA has no plans at this time for future development of the project site. B. Proposed Finding The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project found that project construction would not result in significant, adverse environmental impacts on: Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Earth or Geologic Problems, Water, Air Quality, Transportation/Circulation, Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Recreation, Cumulative Impact; nor any direct or indirect potentially significant, adverse effects on human beings or the environment. Further, the Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will have a de minimis impact on the environment. See the Initial Study in Attachment A. 1 r;:).-.;LI bllWuuuu= I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of a Negative Declaration The California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA), Section 21604, defines a "Neg ative Declaration" as a well written statement briefly describing the reasons that a proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report. CEQA section 21 080(c) provides that if a lead agency determines that a proposed project does not have a significant effect on the environment, such lead agency shall adopt a Negative Declaration to that effect. The Negative Declaration shall be prepared for the proposed project in either of the following circumstances: 1) There is not substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 2) An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the environment but: (i) revision in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur; and (ii) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. CEOA Section 21082.2(a) requires the lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record. See Attachment A for the Initial Study and Attachment B for the Environmental Assessment. B. Project Proponent The project proponent is Duke Energy North America. C. Project Purpose and Need The San Diego Unified Port District purchased the SBPP property from San Diego Gas and Electric in April 1999. The SBPP oil storage tank farm is leased to DENA for operation of the SBPP. The power plant and some associated facilities are located at the SPBB site. In keeping with the intent of the leases, DENA has determined that two of the aboveground fuel oil storage tanks (Tanks 3 and 7) at the SBPP site are no longer needed since the plant is now fueled by natural gas, not oil. Removal of the tanks would reduce the current visual impact caused by the tanks and the potential for oil contamination. However, DENA cannot remove all of the SBPP 2 02-.;1..;).... oil storage tanks at this time. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has determined that the SBPP must have a readily available, alternate fuel source to power the plant in case the natural gas supply is interrupted. Until the CPUC determines how much alternate fuel must be available on-site, DENA cannot remove all the oil storage tanks as part of this project. D. Project Location The proposed project is located at 990 Bay Boulevard, South Bay Power Plant in Chula Vista. The property is currently within the land use jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista, and is located just east of the Wildlife Reserve Planning Subarea of San Diego Unified Port District Planning District 7, Chula Vista Bayfront. See Attachment C for Figures. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project analyzed in the Initial Study and discussed in this Negative Declaration consists of the following elements: DENA plans to remove two aboveground oil fuel storage tanks and appurtenant equipment at the SBPP in Chula Vista: Tank #3 (193 feet diameter. 45 feet high) and Tank #7 (175 feet diameter, 45 feet high). Prior to tank removal, DENA will have removed all oil from the tanks. cleaned them, and disposed of any asbestos-contaminated material. DENA plans to dismantle and remove the cleaned tanks and appurtenant equipment. Above ground associated piping, fuel unloading station and related equipment will also be removed. The tanks will be cut using torches or sheers, and the material will be loaded on flatbed trucks_ All metal material will be sold to a third party for recycling. No subsurface structures will be removed and all concrete foundations will remain intact. DENA has no plans at this time for future development of the project site. All work will be done within the confines of SBPP, including lay down areas, temporary storage of equipment, and contractor employee parking. Tank removal activities are anticipated to be initiated between February and April 2003. III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site in Chula Vista is located within the roughly 11 6-acre SBPP, at 990 Bay Boulevard in Chula Vista, west of Interstate 5. The SBPP site contains four steam turbines, four boilers, one combustion turbine, a switchyard, control building. and fuel oil storage tanks. It is bound by commercial, industrial, park, and recreation uses to the north; commercial and industrial uses in a multi- building business park and the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad tracks to the east; light industrial/commercial uses to the south; and San Diego Bay to the west. The recently-created South San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge is located southwest of the project site in the area associated with the salt ponds of the former Western Salt Company. 3 02 _:2-.3 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed project for which this Negative Declaration has been prepared consists of the removal of two aboveground fuel oil storage tanks and associated piping and equipment at the SBBP in Chula Vista. DENA has no plans at this time for future development of the project site after demolition. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. DENA has incorporated into its project measures to prevent potential contamination of the soil and groundwater, and minimize dust, noise, and stormwater runoff. Because the tanks are no longer needed, their removal will result in positive aesthetic impacts, diminish the risk of oil contamination, and have no impact on the existing power plant operations. Therefore. the long-term benefits of the proposed project outweigh any short-term inconveniences, and no substantial adverse effects are expected. Any future development on the project site will be subject to CEQA analysis. The Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action (Attachment A). No significant environmental effects were identified for the proposed project. V. FINDINGS The overall project will have no substantially adverse effects to land, air. water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise. or objects of historic or aesthetic significence, nor will the project otherwise have a potentially significant adverse impact on the environment. VI. DOCUMENTATION The attached Initial Study and additional attachments document the reasons to support the above finding. VII. PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of the availability of the Draft Negative Declaration and proposed finding was published in the San Die!lo Union-Tribune, and in other newspapers of general and local community circulation. Draft copies of this Negative Declaration were distributed to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Ecological Services Refuge Division Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento State Clearinghouse (15 copies) Air Resources Board California Coastal Commission Executive Director. San Francisco 4 c;2._.J-+ South Coast District Director. San Diego Port Coordinator. San Diego Department of Fish and Game Environmental Services Division, Long Beach State Lands Commission, Sacramento State Public Utilities Commission California Department of Transportation SANDAG, Areawide Clearinghouse SD Air Pollution Control District, Executive Officer SO Regional Water Quality Control Board, Executive Officer Sweetwater Authority City of San Diego City Manager City of Chula Vista Mayor's Office City Manager Community Development Department City of Coronado City Manager City of ImP1lrial Beach City Manager City of National City City Manager County of San Diego County Clerk Department of Public Health Duke Energy North America Sempra Energy San Diego Baykeeper Save Our Bay, Inc. Environmental Health Coalition San Diego Audubon Society Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter Citizens Coordinate for Century III San Diego Port Tenants' Association San Diego Central Library, Government Documents City of Chula Vista Public Library Chula Vista Star News/National City Star News San Diego Union-Tribune Coronado ,Journal San Diego Daily Transcript Other Interested Parties 5 c2 -~ ~ VIII. RESULTS OF PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION (I No comments were received during the public review period. () Comments were received, but did not address the proposed Negative Declaration findings or the accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study. No response is necessary. The letters are attached. txl Comments addressing the proposed findings of the Dralt Negative Declaration and/or accuracy or completeness if the Initial Study were received during the public review period. Responses to these comments follow. and the letters of comment are attached. IX. CERTIFICATION The Draft Negative Declaration and supporting documents are on file with and may be reviewed during regular business hours in the Office of the Clerk of the San Diego Unified Port District, 3165 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California. 1>'1 DRAFT REPORT /'2./ 11~ I (fL ~~~,~J. , Date Mel ssa A. Mailander Environmental Review Coordinator ~ FINAL REPORT '/ 2-i~ ate Me' sa A. Mailander ironmental Review Coordinator Attachments: A. Initial Study B. Environmental Assessment C. Figures 6 02. - c:2. '" SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT ABOVEGROUND FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS REMOVAL CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA IUPD #83356-ND-5731 ATTACHMENT A INITIAL STUDY San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 120488 San Diego. ClIIifornia 92112-0488 State CEQA Guidelines Section 150631a) o'<-.J-7 INITIAL STUDY Port of San Diego and Lindbergh Field Air Terminal P. O. Box 120488, San Diego, Celifornie 92112-0488 Tel: 16191 686-6283 Fe" (6191 6B8-6506 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DEPARTMENT Project Title: South Bay Power Plant Aboveground Fuel Oil Storage Tanks Removal Project Location: Applicant: Date Submitted: 990 Bay Boulevard, Chula Visla Duke Energy North America December 5, 2002 Date Accepted: December 6. 2002 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT (SDUPDI MASTER PLAN DESIGNATIONS Planning District: NA Planning District Subarea: LandlWater Use: PROJECT AND PROCESSING PERMITS SDUPD Environmental Review File Number: State Clearinghouse (SC) Number: SDUPD Engineering File Number: SDUPD Property Plat Number: SDUPD Resolution Number of Adopted Negative Declaration (ND) or Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR): SDUPD Document Number of Adopted ND or Certified EIR: Coastal Development Permit Number: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice/Permit Number: Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate Number: Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number: 1 Numbers 83356-ND-573 Dates 12/05/02 CJ.-.;L~ INITIAL STUDY (To Be Completed by Lead Agency) PORT OF SAN DIEGO and Undbergh Field Air Tenninal P.O. Box 120488 San Diego, Califomia 92112-0488 (619) 686-6200 I. BACKGROUND A. NamaotFroponenl: Duke Energy North America B. Address and Telephone Number of Proponent: 990 Bay Boulevard, Chula Vista, CA 91911 (619) 409-7004 C. Contact Person and Phone Number: Don Weaver, Plant Manager, (619) 498-5317 D. Lead Agency Name and Address: Port of San Diego, 3165 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA 92101 E. Title of Project: South Bay Power Plant Aboveground Fuel Oil Tanks Removal F. Location of Project: 990 Bay Boulevard in Chula Vista, CA G. Description of Project: Duke Energy North America (DENA) plans to remove the following aboveground oil fuel storage tanks and appurtenant equipment at the South Bay Power Plant (SBffl in Chula Vista: tanks 3 (193 feet diameter, 45 feet high) and Tank 7 (175 feet diameter, 45 feet high. Above ground associated piping, fUal unloading station and raJated equipment will also be removed. Prior to tank removal, DENA will have removed all oil from the tanks, cleaned them, and disposed of any asbestos-contaminated material. The tanks will be cut using torches or sheers, and the meterial will be loaded on trucks or railcars. All metal material will be sold to a third party for recycling. No subsurface structures will be removed and all concrete foundations will remain intact. All work will be done within the confines of SBPP. including lay down areas, temporary storage of equipment, and contractor employee parking. No existing landscaping will be removed. Tank removal activities are anticipated to begin in February and conclude April 2003. H. San Diego Unified Port District Master Plan or Other Plan Designation and Zoning (including a discussion of project consistency with the plans and zoning): The project site in Chula Vista is owned by the Port of San Diego, but is still under the land use jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. The project site is designated General Industrial in the Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and City of Chula Vista Beyfront Land Use Plan. The power plant operation is consistent with this land use designation, and the proposed project will not result in a change in use. Therefore, the project is consistent with the City of Chula Vista's General Plan and Bayfront Land Use Plan. 2 r::2 -:l. 'j I. Surrounding~land Uses and Setting: The roughly 116-acre SBPP is located at 990 Bay Boulevard in Chula Vista, west of Interstate 5, and consists of four steam turbines, four boilers, one combustion turbine, a switchyard, control building, and fuel oil storage tanks. It is bound by commercial, industrial, park, and recreation uses to the north; commercial end industrial uses in a multi-building business park and the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad tracks to the east; light industrial/commercial uses to the south; and San Diego Bay to the west. The recently-created South San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge is located sout hw ast of t he project sit e. J. Other Agencies Whose Approval is Required: The City of Chula Vista for building and coastal permits. K. Discussion of Ways to Mitigate Significant Effects Identified, if any: N1A L. The Name of the Person(s) who Prepared or Participated in the Initial Study: Melissa Mailander, Environm9fltal ReView Coordinator M. Environmental Assessment Analysis: Specific questions were raised on the following EA entries: !!ml...! Question ExDlanatlon I.A Are the subject oil tanks at SBPP currently being used? No. At SBPP. very little oil product remains in the tanks-fllst enouah to prevent the lids from col/apsina. Duke has been cleanina the tanks to remove fuel oil and asbestos containina materials in preparation for the tank removal. I.A What has chanaed since DBVA took over SBPP? Have there been anv operational chanaes (i. e.. increased electricitv generation) or any construction of physical improvemants? There have been no sianificant chanaes. The plant currentlv operates to meet market demand within its existlna capacitv. I.A. How will proiect completion impact the existinq SBPP operation? Will there be an increase, decrease, or no change? The plant will continue to operate to meet market demand within its existing capacity. I.A. When did DBVA take over April 1999. SDG&Es South Bay Power Rant? 3 c2-&o N. Attachments: Site Plan Draft Coastal Application Draft Army Corps Application Other ./ O. Additional Information: Construction Contract Documents II. GUIDB..INES A. Does the proposed activity qualify as a project as defined in Guidelines Section 1537B? Yes X No B. Does the project qualify as: 1. Ministerial? Yes No x 2. Emergency? Yes No x 3. A feasibility or planning study? Yes No x 4. Categorically exempt pursuant to the State Guidelines? Yes No X 5. Involves another agency which constitutes the lead agency? Yes No X If yes, identify lead agency: NfA (If "Yes" has been checked for any of the above, an Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration need not be prepared. ) 4 c2 -3-1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follow ing pages. o o o o o o o o Land Use and Aanning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources IV. EVAWATlON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS o o o o o o o o Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance A. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A" No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A" No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general sl andards. B. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. C. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more" Potentially Significant Impact' entries w hen the determination is made, an 8R is required. D. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less than Significant Impact.' The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. E Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program 8R, or other CEClA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier 8R or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. F. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts. References to a previously prepared or outside document should, w here appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 5 c2 - 3~ V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Land Use and Planning. Would the proposal: I} Result in substantial alteration of the existing or planned land use of an area? o o o f21 The proposed project in Chula Vista will consist of the dismantling and removal of two of the four fuel oil storage tanks that are no longer needed, since the power plant is primarily fueled by natural gas rather than oil. The existing storage tanks contain oil that is used to fuel the plant in the event natural gas is unavailtlble or economictllly infeasible to use. The existing plant operations wilt continue throughout the term of the lease and, therefore. no substantial alteration of the existing or planned use will result. (Refer to EA item I.AI 21 Conflict with the SDUPD Master Plan? o o o f21 The South Bay Power Plant (SBPP) is located in Chula Vista and is owned by the Port of San Diego, but still lies under the land use jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. No new uses for the site are proposed at this time. Therefore, no conflict with the Port Master Plan will result. 3) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? o o o f21 The City of Chula Vista currently has land use jurisdiction over the project site. The project site is designated General Industrial in the Chule Vista General Plan and Bayfront Land Use Plan. The power plant operation is allowable under this land use designation, and the project will rasult in the continued operation of the plant. Therefore, the proposed project will not connict with the City of Chula Vista's General Plan and Bayfront Land Use Plan. [Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 4.1-11J. 41 Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? o o o f21 Land uses surrounding the SBPP include industrial. commercial, and recreational uses such as a business park, public parks, marinas, a recreational vehicle park, and their associated facilities. which ara compatible uses under the City's General Industrial land use designation. (MND,4.1-10). Tha project will result in the dismantling and removal of two fuel oil storage tanks, which are currently allowable uses within the Port of San Diego's Port Master Plan and the City of Chula Vista's General Plan and Bayfront Land Use Plan. The dismantling project will result in continued operation of the power plant. Therefore. the proposed project will not be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. 51 Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible uses? o o o ~ c2 - 3.3 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unlese Mitigation Incorporated l.esa Than Significant Impact No Impact None of the Chula Vista project area has been used for agriculture since development of the power plant in 1957. Therefore, the project will not affect agricultural resources or operations. (MND, 4.1- 27) 6) Disrupt or divide the phvsical arrangement of an established community lincludinQ a low-income or minoritv community}? o o 181 o The proposed project, which is the dismantling and removal of two above ground fuel oil storege tanks at the SBBP, will not disropt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. (MND, 4.1-28) 1) Result in substantial chanQes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or chanQes in siltation. deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or st ream. or t he bed of t he ocean or San Diego Bay, or San Diego Bay Channel? The land area within the project site is relatively flat. Furlhermore, the construction contractor will implement erosion control and spill prevention methods to minimize stormwater runoff. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed project will not result in substantial chanaes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. (Refer to lEA item 11I.8.16) (MND, 4.3-14) a Earth C. Population and Housing. Would the proposal: 1) SiQnificantly alter the location, distribution. densitv. or Qrowth rate of the human population of an area? o o 181 o o o o 181 It is anticipated that during dismantling, the number of employees needed for the project will increase from about 1 to about 20. However, this temporary increase in employees will not significantly alter the location, distribution, density, or growtll rate of the human POPulation of tile subject areas. (Refer to EA item iliA 15) 2) Cumulativelv exceed official rellional or local population projections? See response to C(1). 3) Induce substantial IIrowth in an area either directlv or indirectlv (e. II. , throuQh o o o 181 o o o 181 7 e2-~cf Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact proiects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? See response to C(1). 4) Result in siQnificant effects to existinQ housinQ, or create a demand for additional housing? o o o t8J It is anticipated that the temporary increase in employees will be taken from the local work force, and therefore, from the existing housing supply. Thus, no significant effects to existing housing or demand for additional housing will result. 5) Displace eXistinQ housinQ, especiallv affordable housing? See response to C(4). o o o t8J D. Geologic Problems. Would the prOpOsal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 1) Fault rupture? o o t8J o The project site is not located in the immediate vicinity of any known earthquake faults. The nearest known potential fault is located about 0.5 to 1.5 miles away in downtown Chula Vista. The potentially active La Nacion fault is located about thf9(J miles east of tha site and the active Rose Canyon fault is located about nine miles north. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed project will not result in or expose people to potential impacts involving fault rupture. (MND, 4.3-7, 4.3-9) 2) Seismic ground shaking? o o t8J o Because most of Southem California is subject to seismic activity, the project site lies in an area of strong groundshaking. However, the proposed project, in and of itself, will not increase the potential for resulting in or exposing people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or liquefaction. (MND, 4.3-9, 4.3-11) 3) Seismic Qround failure, liquefaction? includinQ o o t8J o See response to 0(2). 4) Seiche, Tsunami, or volcanic hazard? o o t8J o Tsunami hazards exist along the PacifIC coast and seiche hazards exist around enclosed water bodies in the western citias. However, the proposed project, in and of itself, will not increase the 8 C/ - 3S- Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact potential for resulting in or exposing people to potential impacts involving seiche or tsunami hazards. Furthermore, volcanic hazards are not expected at either site. (MND,4.3-12) 5) Landslides or mudflow s? o ~ o o The project site is not located in the vicinity of any known landslides or mudflow s. No evidence of slope instability has been identified on the site. Therefore, it is anticipated that the pOtential for the proposed projects to result in or eXpOse people to potential impacts involvinl7 landslides or mudflows will be minimal. (MND, 4.3-13, 4.3-14) 6) o o o ~ Erosion. challlles in topooraphy or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading~ or fill? The land area within the project site is relatively "at. Furthermore, the construction contrector will implement erosion control and spill prevention methods. Therefore, it is anticipated that the potential for the proposed projects to result in or expose people to potential impacts involvinl7 erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill will be minimal. (Refer to EA item II.A) (MND, 4.3-14) 7) Subsidence of the land? o o o ~ No regional ground subsidence in the vicinity of both project sites are known to exist. Therefore, it is anticipated that the potential for the proposed projects to result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land will be minimal. (MND, 4.3-14, 4.3-15) 8) Expansive soils? o o ~ o It is anticipated that expansive soils do exist within the project areas. Due to the tempora/Y nature of the projects, however, it is further anticipated that any impacts involvinl7 expansive soils will be minimal. (MND, 4.3-15) 9) Unique geologic or physical features? o o ~ o No uniaue qeoloqic or phvsical features are known to exist at the project sites. Therefore, no related impacts are anticipated. (MND, 4.3-15) E Water. Would the proposal result in: 1) Sionificant chanoes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? o o o fSl The project site in is located approximately 1,000 feet away from San Diego Bay. The project, which involves the dismantling and removal of two existing above ground storage tanks, will not involve in-water activity. Therefore, no changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 9 c::J - 3-{p Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Un_ Impact Mitigation IncOlJlOl8ted movements. are anticipated. 2) Chanqes in absorption rates, drainaQe 0 0 0 181 patterns. or the rate and amount of surface runoff? The proiect. which involves the removal of two fuel oil storaQe tanks, will not result in a decrease in impermeable surface. compared to the existinq amount. No subsurface structures will be removed and all concrete foundations will remain intact. Therefore, it in anticipated that there will be no chanQe in absorption rates. drainBQe patterns, or the rate and amount of surf ace runoff. 3) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? o o o ~ Althouqh the proiect site is located near San Dieqo Bav and could be subiect to coastal floodinq. the proiect will involve the dismantlinq and removal of two fuel oil storaae tanks. No chanQes in hvdroloqic conditions are expected. Therefore. the propOsed proiects will not result in exposure of people or properly to water related hazards such as flooding. (MND, 4.4-14) 4) OischarQe into surface waters, includinQ San Oieqo Bay, or other alteration of surface water Quality (e.Q. temperature, dissolved OXYQen or turbidity)? o o ~ o The proiect involves the dismantlinq and removal of two above qround fuel oil storaae tanks. The construction contractor will be required to comfJlv with DENA's Storm Water Pollution Ftevention Plan and use erosion control and Sf)ill prevention measures to minimize the amount of any existinq discharQe into surface waters or other alteration of surface water. Therefore, the discharqe into surface waters, includinq San Dieqo Bav. or other alteration of surface water quality, will be minimal. 5) ChanQes in the amount of surface water in any water body. includinQ the San Diego Bay waters? o o o o The project involves the dismantling and removal of two above ground fuel oil storage tanks. which will not increase the amount of surface water in San Diego Bay or any other water body. See response to E(4). 6) ChanQes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? o o o o The project involves the dismantling and removal of two fuel oil storage tanks, which will not result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements. See response to E(1). 10 c:J-37 7) Chanlle in the quantity of llround waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals. or throuqh interception of an aQuifer by cuts or excavations, or throuqh substantial loss of qroundwater recharqe capability? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unle.. Mitigation Incorponlted Less Than Significant Impact No Impact o o ~ o No subsurface structures will be removed and all concrete foundations will remain intact. Therefore, no sirmificent chanqes to the quantity or quality of qroundwater within tha proiect sites are anticipated. (Refer to EA items 111. B. 8 and IV. F) 8) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? See response to E(7). g) Significant alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters? See response to E(7). 10) Impacts to groundwater quality? See response to E(7). 11) Substantial reduction in the amount of llroundwater otherw ise available for public water supplies? See response to E(7). F. Air Quality. Would the proposal: 1) Result in substantial additional air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality, beyond Rellional Air Quality Maintenance Plan projections? o o o ~ o o o ~ o o o I8l o o I8l o o o o ~ The proposed proiect consists of removinq two axistinq fuel oil storaQa tanks. Fuel oil has been used less freQuently and has been used primarilv to facilitate start-up of the steam boiler units and durinq periods of natural qas curtailment. The existinq power plant operation will continue and the remaininq two tanks (1 and 2) will be used for fuel oil storaqe. Therefore, the proposed proiect will not result in substantial additional air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality. beyond Reaional Air Quality Maintenance Plan proiections. compared to the 11 e:2-3-8" Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporaled existina SBPP operation. (MND, 4.5-30) Furthermore. any air quality impacts will be temporary in nature. resultino in fuaitive dust from heavy equipment usaae. However, the construction contrector will be required to complv with all dust control measures prescribed bv CALTRANS and APCD regulations. (Refer to EA item IV.E) Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 2) Result in possible interference wilh emergency response plan? o o ~ o The proposed project consists of disman/lino and removal of two fuel oil storaoe tanks. All work will be conducted within the confines of the leaseholds. Therefore. no possible interference with any emergency response plan is anticipated. (Refer to EA item I.A) 3) Violale any air Quality standard or contribute to an axistinll or proiected air quality violalion? o o !2:l o See response to F(1). 4) Expose sensitive receptors to pOllutants? o o ~ o In Chuta Vista, the closest residential population is about 1.000 feet south of the SBPP boundary. just east of Interstate 5. (MND. 4.5-25) Aiblic pari< ereas. merinas and associated facilities. and a recreational vehicle pari< exist northwest of the SBPP. The proposed proiect involves the disman/lino and removal of two of the fuel oil storaQe tanks. which are no lonoer needed because the plant is primarily fueled by natural oas. Short-term fuoifive dust mav result. However, the construction contractor will be required to adhere to CALTRANS' dust control specifications. (Refer to EA item V.Ai In tha lona-term, there will be no increase in air ouality impacts compared to that resultino from the existinll SBPP operation. Therefore, the exposure of sensitive receptors to pOllutants will be minimal. 5) Alter air movemenl, moisture, or temperature, or cause any chanlle in climate? o o o IZl The proposed proiect involves the disman/lina and removal of two existino fuel oil storaQe tanks. No construction of new structures is proposed. Therefore, the project will not alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate. 6) Creale objectionable odors? o o o o The proposed proiect will consist of the disman/lina and removal of two fuel oil storaoe tanks. sapp will continue to be fueled bv natural oas. which qenerates neqliq;ble odors. Therefore, the project will not create objectionable odors. (MND, 4.5-47) G. Transportation/Circulation. Would the proposal result in: 12 0:2-.3 '1 Potentially Potentially Lea Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1) Increased vehicle trips or traffic 0 0 [2J 0 congestion? The proiect will consist of the dismantfinQ and removal of two fuel oil storaQe tanks durinQ a three month construction period. The number of employees durinQ this period will increase temporarily by ebout 15 contract employees. Thereafter. the number of employees at the sites will be reduced to about two. Approximately 6 flat bed trucks a day will transport metal for recyclinQ. Therefore. the increase in vehicle trips or traffic conQestion will be less than significant. (Refer to EA item 1II.A.14) 2) SiQnificant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people andlor goods? o o [2J o The project consists of the dismantlinQ and removal of two fuel oil storllfle tanks. There will be no significant alternation to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. 3) Hazards to safety from desian 0 0 0 [2J features (e.a.. sharp curves or danQerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.Q.. farm equipment)? The proiect will involve the dismantJinQ and removal of two fuel oil storaQe tanks. No new construction or roadways are proposed at this time, and all work will be done within tha confines of the properly boundaries. Therefore, no hazards to sefety from desiQn feetures or incompatible uses will result. 4) Inadequate emerQency access or access to nearby uses? All work will be done within the confines of the existing property boundaries of the South Bay Power Plant. Therefore, there will be no impact to ememency access or access to neerbY uses. (Refer to EA item I.A) o o o [2J 5) SiQnificant effects on existinQ parkinQ facilities, or substantial demand for new parking? o o [2J o DurinQ dismantlinQ. about 15 contract employees will be needed. Therefore. the demand for parkina will increase temporarily. However. after proiect completion, that demand will diminish. Furthermore. any parkina demand will be provided within the confines of the project site. Thus. the effects on existing parkina facilities or substantial demand for new parking will be less than significant. (Refer to EA item III.A.20) 13 c:2 -40 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 6) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians. bicyclists, or motor vehicles? o D [8l o The proiect site is located in an industrial area with little pedestrian or bicycle activity. The site is secured with fencina. which will remain after proiect completion. Therefore. no hazards or barriers for pedestrians, bicyclists, or motor vehicles exist. 7) Substantial impacts upon existinq transportation systems? D o o ~ The proposed proiect consists of the dismantlina and removal of two fuel oil storaae tanks. Durino dismantlino, about 15 employees will be reauired. Any increase upon existina transportation systems will only be temporary. and sufficient parkina will be provided on-site. Therefore, there will be no substantial impacts to existing transportation systems. 8) D ~ o D Conflicts with adopted policies supportinq alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? All work will be conducted within the confines of the property boundaries. Therefore. no conflicts with adopted policies supportina alternative transportation are expected. See response to G(7). 9) D D [8l D Substantial impacts to waterborne or air traffic? rail, The proposed proiect consists of the dismantlina and removal of two fuel oil storaoe tanks. There will be no substantial impacts to rail, waterbome, or air traffic. (Refer to EA item I.A) H. Biological Resources. Would the proposal result in: -- 1 ) Siqnificant chanqe in diversity of species of plants or animals (includinq trees. shrubs. qrass. and aquatic plants. or mammals, birds. reptiles, amphibians, fish, or invertebrates)? D D ~ D The proposed proiect consists of dismantlina and removal of the two fuel oil storaae tanks. The proiect site is in an industrial are". and little veaetation exists. Furthermore. the proiect will be completed within the property boundaries of the S8PP. No chanae in or impact to the diversity of plant or animal species is anticipated. (Refer to EA items II.A, 111.8.4, and IV H) 2) Impact to endanqered. threatened. or rare species of plants or animals or their habitats (includinq but not limited to plants. fish. insects, o o o ~ 14 ~ -~/ Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact animals, and birds)? The Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve located west of SBPP, the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Reserve north of SBPP, and the salt pond dikes south of SBPP (South San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge) are known nesting sites for the Celifomia least tem and other sensitive avian species. Past construction activity to remove the northern tanks did not result in any known noise and vibration impacts to the Califomia least tem. Because the tanks were demolished utilizing blowtorches, no signifICant noise or vibrations were datected that impacted nesting sensitive avian species in the project vicinity. Additionally a colony of green sea turtles have been noted as foraging within the wann water discharga channel of the power plant. Removal of the tanks would not effect the discharge channel or the turtleS. This project will be similar in nature to the previous project; therefore, no impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species of plant and animals or their habitat would occur. 3) Introduction of new special of piants D D D ~ or animals into an area? See response to H(1). 4) Impact to locally desillnated species D D D ~ (e.g., heritage trees)? No known locally designated species exist at the project sites. (MND, 4.7-17) 5) Impact to locally desillnated natural D D ~ D communities (e.ll., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? The proposed project, which consists of the dismantling and removal of two fuel oil storage will not impact the adiacent sensitive watland habitat found at the Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve, or the salt ponds that are part of the South San Diego Bay National Wildlife Reserve. 6) Impact to wetland habitat (e.ll., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? The proposed project at SBPP, which consists of the dismantling and removal of the two fuel oil storage tanks, will be short-tenn in nature and will be completed within the property boundaries. The construction contractor will implement erosion control and spill prevention measures to minimize runoff impacts to adjacent wetlands. It is therefore anticipated that any impact to nearby wetland habitat will be less than significant. D D ~ D 7) Impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? D o D ~ The proposed project consist of the dismantlinq and removal of two fuel oil storaqe tanks. and no uses are planned for the site at this time. Therefore, no impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors are expected. (MND, 4.7-18) 15 c:L-<-/-;;...., Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unl_ Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the proposal: 1) Conflict with adopted enerlOlV 0 0 0 ~ conservation plans? SBPP is primarily fueled by natural aas. The Galifomia Public Utilities Commission (CPUCJ has determined that the SBPP must have a readily available. alternate fuel source to power the plant in case the natural qas supply is interrupted. Until GPUC has determIned how much alternate fuel must be retained on-site, DENA cannot remove all of the oil storaQe tanks as part of this proieet. Tanks 1 and 2 will remain onsite. The propOsed proieets consist of the dismant/inq and removal of two fuel oil stof8Qe tanks. Therefore. the proieet will not impact the axistinq operation at SBPP. and furthermore. will not conflict with any edopted enerqy conservation plans. (Refer to EA item I.A) 2) Use substantial additional amounts of fuel or energy? o o ~ o See response to 1(1). Also. any increased amount in fuel or enerqy use will occur durina dismantlinq and will be temporarv. Therefore, the impact will be less than sianificant. (Refer to EA items ///.B.10 and IV. C) 3) Use non-renew able resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? o o ~ o See responses to 1(1) and 1(2). 4) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral rasource that would be of future value to the rllQion and the residents of the State? o o o ~ See response to 1(1). J. Hazards. Would the proposal involva: 1) A risk of accident al ex plosion or release of hazardous substances (includinlOl. but not limited to: oil. pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? o o ~ o The proposed proieet involves the dismant/inq and removal of two fuel oil stor8Qe tanks. The contractor will complv with all worl<er and public safety laws and requlations. Existina fuel will be removed prior to construction. Prior to dismantling the tanks, all fuel product and asbestos- contaminated material will be removed. It is therefore anticipated that any risk of accidental 16 e:J -~.3 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unle8s Mlllgetlon Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact explosion or release of hazardous substances will be less than siqnificant. (Refer to EA items /I/.B.9 and V) 2) Possible interference with an emerQency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? o o ~ o The proposed pro/eet will be completed within the property's boundaries. The projeet consists of dismant/inq and removal of above qround storaqe tanks. Anv &nerqencv ResfJonse Plan; SfJiII Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan: and Accident and Fire Prevention Manual plans will continue. (MND, 4.9-15) Tharefore, the pro/eet will not interfere with anv emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 3) The creation of anv health hazard or potential health hazard? o o o ~ See response to J(1). 4) Exposure of people to existinQ sources of potential health hazards? o o o ~ The proposed pro/ect involves the dismantlinq and removal of two fuel 0;1 storaQe tanks, which will not Increase the exposure of people to any existinq sources of potential health hazards. Therefore, the impact will be less than significant. See response to J(1). 5) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? o o ~ o The projeet site is located in an industrialized area where little v9getation exists, and the projeet involves dismantlinq and removal of two fuel oil stOraqe tanks. Therefore, no increased fire hazard w ill result. K. Noise. Would the proposal result in: 1) Increases in existing noise levels? o o ~ o The proposed proieet consists of dismantlinq and removal of two fuel oil storaqe tanks. The proiect is anticipated to be completed within a three-month period. The tanks will be dismantled utilizinq blowtorches and stacked in pieces upon a flat bed truck for recvclinq. Noise would be generated from the crane and trucks. Any minor increase in noise levels will be short-term and consistent with existinq surroundinq noise levels. The proieet site is located in an industrial area and will be restricted to the hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm. Therefore, the impact will be less than significant. (Refer to EA items IV.G and V) 2) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? o o o ~ 17 <::2-<-1'-1 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unleu Mitigation IncOlpOrated Lese Than Significant Impact No Impact The proposed project consists of dismantlinq and removal of two fuel oil storaqe tanks and will not be a severe noise level-genera/ing activity. Therefore. no impact will result. L Public Services. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered ~ovemment services in any of the following areas: 1) Fire protection? o o o [gI The proposed proiect will be short-term in duration (three months). and result in dismantlinq and removal of two exis/inll fuel oil storBlle tanks. No new construction for SBPP is proposed at this time. and SBPP ooerations will continue. Furthennore. any utility services required throullhout the duration of the project, such as water, communication systems. and electrical power, will be provided on-site by either the construction contractor or DENA. Therefore. no increase in 1I0vernment services such as fire and pOlice protection. schools. maintenance of public facilities. or any other governmentel services will occur. (Refer to EA item 1II.B. 7) 2) Police protection? o o o [gI 3) See response to L(1). Schools? o o o [gI See response to L(1). 4) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? o o o [gI The proposed project consists of the dismantlinll and removal of two fuel oil storBlle tanks. No new uses are planned at this time. and no new public facilities or roads will be built. Therefore, the project will not require maintenance of public facilities. 5) Other governmental services? o o o [gI See response to L(1). M. Utilities and Service System& Would t he proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies. or substantial alternations 10 the following utilities: 18 _IS- r:::J-'1 Potentially Potentially - -- Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1) Power or natural gas? D D ~ D The proposed proiects consist of the dismantlin!1 and removal of two fuel oil stora!1e tanks at the SBPP. which are no lonaer needed because the plant is primarilv fueled bv natural ass. The CPUC has determined that the SBPP must have a readilv available. alternate fuel source to power the plant in case the natural aas supplv is interrupted. Until CPUC has determined how much alternate fuel must ba retained on-site. DENA cannot remove the remalnina two storaae tanks as part of this proiect. Anv increased demand for utilities could occur durina the dismanttina period. which would be a short-term. three-month period. Therefore. the impact to utilities will be less than sianificant. (Refer to EA items I.A. /II.A.22. /II.A.23. /II.B.10 and IV. B). 2) Communications systems? D o ~ o The prowsed proiect will take about three months, and the construction contractor will provide any communications systems. See response to M(1). 3) Local or reQional water treatment or distribution facilities? o o o ~ No water consumption is anticipated, and thus, no impact will occur. (Refer to EA item /II.A.21) 4) Sew er or septic tanks? D o D ~ No material will be discharaed into the sewer system, and thus. no impact will occur. (Refer to EA item /II.A.B) 5) Storm water drainage? o o ~ o The construction contractor will be required to complv with DENA's Storm Weter Pollution A"evention Plan. Furthermore, the contractor will implement erosion control and spill prevention methods to minimize stormwater pollution. Also, off-site drainaae patterns will be meintained. Therefore, the impect will be less than Significant. (Refer to EA item III.A.B) 6) Solid waste disposal? o o o ~ All waste metal will be sold to a third party and recvcled off-site. No spoil area will be created. (Refer to EA items III.A. 7 and /II.B.B) 7) Local or regional water supplies? o o o IZJ No change in water consumption is anticipated. (Refer to EA item /II.A.21) N. Aesthetics. Would the proposal: 19 ~_c./(P Potentially Significant Impact 1 ) Affect a scenic vista. view, or scenic highway open to the public? o Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 ~ 0 The proposed project consists of the dismantlinq and removal of two fuel oil storaqe tanks that are in an industrial area. SBPP is visible from the public parks and marinas, Interstate 5, and Bav Boulevard. Structures at SBPP are a maximum of about 160 feet hiqh; the tanks to be demolished are about 45 feet hiqh. Therefore. the dismanllinq of the SBPP tanks will actuallv im/Jrova any scenic vista, view, or scenic hiqhway o/Joo to the /Jubtic. (Refer to EA item 111.8.11) 2) Have a demonstrable nElllative aesthetic effect? o o o 181 The dismanllinq and removal of tha two tanks will not hava a demonstreble n&qative aesthetic effect, especially at SBPP. See response to N(1). 3) Creat e light or glare? o o o 181 The /Jro/JOsed /Jroiect involves the dismenllinq end removal of two fuel oil stor8!Je tanks. No new structures will be built at this time. No qlass structures are adiacent to the /Jroiect sites. Furlhermore. the /Jroiect will be completed durinq davliQht hours. Therefore. creation of liqht or glare is not anticipat ed. O. Cultural Rssources. Would the proposal: 1) Disturb paleontological resources? o o o 181 No known /Jaleontoloqical resources exist at either /Jroiect site. Therefore, no im/Jacts will occur. (MND, 4.14-5) 2) Dist urb archaeolocical resources. includinc the alteration or destruction of prehistoric or historic archaeological site? o o 181 o Archaeo/oqical resources have been recorded in the vicinity of SBPP. but not on-site. The /Jrior MitiQated N&qative Declaration fflQuires that a qualified archaeoloQist be on-site durinQ env earlhmovinQ activity. However. this /Jroiect will not be removinQ the concrete /Jads for the tooks; therefore, no substantial earthmovinQ activity will occur. Thus. no im/Jacts to archaeological resources are anticipated. 3) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? o o IZI o 20 ~-" 7 Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated See response to 0(2). 4) Have the potential to cause a physical 0 0 0 ~ chanQe which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? The oroieet site is not located in an area that contains unique ethnic cultural values. Therefore. the oroiect will not cause a ohvsical chanae that would affect unique ethnic cultural values. (MND. 4.14-8) 5) Restrict existinQ reliQious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? o o o [8] No reliaious or sacred uses are known to exist within the oroieet site. Therefore, the orooosed projects will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses. (MND. 4.14-8) P. Recreation. Would the proposal: 1) Increase the demand for neighborhood or reQional parks or other recreational facilities? o o o ~ The proposed project consists of the dismantling and removal of two fuel oil storage tanks. Atthis time, no uses are proposed for the site following project completion. The project will not attract more people into the project area. since it is located in an industrial area. Sufficient public parks and recreational facilities already exist near the project site at the Chula Vista J Street Park. Therefore, no increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities is anticipated. 2) Affect existinQ recreat ional 0 0 0 181 opportunities? See response to P(1). Q. Mandatory Findings of Significance, 1) Does the proiect have the potential to 0 0 0 181 des:lrade the Quality of the environment. substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaininQ levels. threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or rest rict the ranQe of a rare or 21 ~_ 4tz Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unleas Mitigation Incorporated Lese Than Significant Impact No Impact endanQered plant or animal. or eliminate important examples of the maior periodS of California history or prehistory? The proposed project consist of the dismanlling and removal of two fuel oil storage tanks. The project will be completed within a three-month period, and no new uses are planned for the project site at this time, and SBPP will continue its current operation. The construction contractor will implement measures to prevent the contamination of the soil and groundwater, and minimize dust, noise, and storm water runoff. Therefore, the Initial study found that-the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially raduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 2) Does the proiect have impacts that are individuallv limited" but cumUlatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past proiects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) o o ~ o The proposed project consists of the dismanlling and removal of two fuel oil storage tanks. The project will be completed within a three-month period, no new uses are planned for the project site at this time, and SBPP will continue its current operation. Because the project is short-term, will not result in a new use or construction of new facilities, end will not impact the existing power plant operation, the Initial Study found that the project does not have cumulatively considerable impacts. In fact, the dismanfling and removal of the two fuel oil storage tanks at SBPP will have positive aesthetic impacts. 3) o ~ o o Does the proiect have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beinQs. either directly or indirectly? The proposed project consists of the dismanlling and removal of two fuel oil storage tanks. The project will be completed within a three-month period, no new uses are planned for the project site at this time, and SBPP will continue its current operation. The construction contractor will implement measures to prevent the contamination of the soil and groundwater, and minimize dust, noise, and stormwater runoff. Therefore, the Initial Study found that the proposed project does not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. 22 .,:}-41 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Un.... Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4) Does the proiect have the potential to achieve short-term. to the disadvantll!le of lon!:l-term, environmental !:loals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relativelv brief. definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the fut ure.) D D D ~ The proposed project consists of the dismantling and removal of two fuel oil storage tanks. The project will be completed within a three-month period. no new uses are planned for the project sites at this time, and SBPP will continue its current operation. Because the project is short-term. will not result in a new use or construction of new facilities, and will not impact the existing power plant operation, the Initial Study found that the project does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term goals. In fact, the dismantling and removal of the two fuel oil storage tanks at SBPP will have positive aesthetic impacts, and is compatible with the long-term goal of removing the remainder of the facilities prior to lease expiration. 23 c2 -~(). V. EARUER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program BR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier 8R or negative declaration GUideline Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review . California Public Utilities Commission's Mitigated Negative Declaration, Response to Comments on the October 13, 1998 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for San Diego Gas and Electric Company's Application No. 97-12-039 Proposal for Divestiture, available for review at the Office of the District Clerk of the Pon of San Diego. "Removal of Aboveground Fuel Oil Storage Tanks, South Bay Power Plant and 24"' Street Terminal Refueling Facility, Chula Vista and national City, Final Negative Declaration." Adopted in November 1999, and available for public review at the Office of the District Clerk of the Port of San Diego. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. California Public Utilities Commission's Mitigated Negative Declaration and 'nitiel Study for San Diego Gas and Electric Company's Application No. 97-12-039 Proposal for Divestiture provided background information on the South Bay Power Plant and 24'" Street Terminal Refueling Facility. Effects from the checklist which were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in this document include: land Use and Planning, Geologic Problems. Water, Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Cultural Resources. The Cultural Resources topic was addressed by mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. 24 ~-~/ VI. DETERMINATION The ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DEPARTMENT of the San Diego Unified Port District on December 13. 2002 reviewed and considered the proposal entitled South Bav Power Plant Abovearound Fuel Oil Storaae Tanks Removal (UPD # 8335B-ND-573J. On the basis of the Initial Study, the Environmental Review Department found: o The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and a CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION will be prepared under Class which reads in part: ~ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o Although the proposed COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures proposed in the Initial study have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION with mitigation conditions will be prepared. o The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REFORT will be prepared. D The proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards. and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier 8R pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier 8R, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ,.fir Preparer of Initial Study Assistant Environmental Planner Date ~. Date I~ 'Z.JOO"2- , 25 c::J-ScX. SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT ABOVEGROUND FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS REMOVAL CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA (UPD #83356-ND-573)) ATTACHMENT B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 120488 San Diego. California 92112-0488 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(e) o.? - S3 I; ~ WORKING PROJECT TITLE: APPLICANTS REFERENCE NUMBER (if applicable): ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Completed by Duke Eoe'1Y Nortb Ameri",,) Aoolicant Preoarer of EA Don Weaver (Name) Joe Otahal (Name) Plant Manager (Tide) Project Manager (Title) Duke Energy Generation Services (Organization) Duke Energy Generation Services (Organization) 990 Bay Boulevard (Add<.ss) 990 Bay Boulevard (Address) Chula Vista, California 91911 (S'ate, Zip Code) Chula Vista, Cal~omia,91911 (Slale, Zip Code) (619) 498-5317 (Telephone) (619) 498.5339 (Telephone) J. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Describe the type of development proposed, including all phases of project construction and operation. in a self-e~lanatory and comprehensive fashion. Discuss the need for the project and include site size. square footage, building footprint. number of floors, on.site park.ing, employment. phased development, and associated projects. If the project involves a variance, indicate the reason and any related information. Ouke Energy North America (DENA) leases the South Bay Pow... Plant (SBPPI from the Port 01 San Diogo (Port). The South Tank Fa"" is part 01 the SBPP, and houses fuel oil storage facil~i.., The South Tank Farm is comprised of four fuel oil storage tanks and associated pumping and process equipment. DENA has certain demolition and remediation obligations when South Bay Power Plant is eventually decommissioned. Decommissioning responsibilities include the demoIiUon 01 all the South Tank Farm tanks and asaocialed equipment. DENA has determined that the aboveground oil storage tanks 3 and 7 in the South Tank Farm arene longer required. South Bay will rely on South Tank Farm tanks 1 and 2 for 'uel oil storage, Removal of the tanks will reduce the potential for oil contaminaUon and mi1igate the current visual impact. 2 e;) -~--Y DENA proposes to remove the followinglrom the SBPP site: _Tank 3(193 ft. diameter, 4S It. high) and tank 7 (175 ft. diameter, 4S f1. high) in the South Tank Farm, which have approximate maximum capacities of 237,000 and 195,000 barrels respectively and have been used to store NO.6 oil. .Above ground associated piping. fuel unloading station, and associated equipment. Removal of these tanks and associated equipment will leave OENA with two fuel oil storage tanks at the S8PP site to meet the requirement for alternate fuel. Prior to demotition. DENA will have removed all o~ product from the tanks, cleaned them, and disposed of any asbestos-contamlnated material. A detailed plan and profikt drawings of the SBPP have been previously submitted to the Port. DENA will dismantle and remove the cleaned tanks and appurtenant equipment. The tanks will be cut into small sections with torches or sheers. loaded onto trucks, and sold to a third party for recycling. The tanks will not be collapsed in a wholesale fashion. Tank demolition wUl be conducted in a manner that limits environmental Impacts, such as noise and dust, to the immediate work area. Tank removal is expected to occur from February 2003 through April 2003. No subsurface structures wiU be removed and all concrete foundations will remain intact. DENA understands that this work requires a Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Pennit DENA intends that all Project work will be performed in accordance with California Department at Occupational Health and Safety (CaI-OSHA) qualified workers using approvocVpormitted equipment. All work will be performed within the confines of the SBPP, including laydown areas, temporary storage of equipment, and contractor employee parking. The amount of ground disturbing activity at lhe SBPP is expected to be approximately live (5) acres. DENA e>epacls tho Project will require approximateiy one shift of 15 contractor workers for three (3) months. B. Describe project appearance. and proposed signs. and how the design of the project would be coordinated with the surroundings. Currently, Ihe SBPP is an industrial site. The most prominent features at the SBPP site are the stacks, power plant building, and the oil storage tanks. The removal of the oil storage tanks, as described herein, will reduce the plant's visual impact on the surrounding. Prior to commencing the Project, DENA proposes, in consultation wilh the Port, to design and install sign(s) that wiD notify passersby of the work io.progress. The signs will be located at the front entrance to the SBPP site. c. Describe how the public would be affected by the project. The S8PP no kmger requires tanks 3 and 7 to support fuel oil burn requiremenls. Emptying the lanks and associated pipelines reduces ~he poIemiat risk of oil release 10 the environment, and reduces the plenfs visual impact. Decommissioning and removal of the oil storage tanks are in the best interest of the pubiic, DENA. and the Port. During demolition there will be 8 temporary increase of plant activity and truck traffic from the plant. The long-term benefits of tank removal far outweigh the short.term inconveniBflCes to the publtc during tank removal. D. Describe how the project could attract more people to the area or enable additional people to use the area, and what additional service business would be required. Outside of the work-crews invotved. the pro;ect will not attract more people to the area, or enable additional people to use the area. There are no additional services required eilher short-term or long-term. 3 cJ-:)S II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. Describe the Clllsting project site and surrounding area including: the type and intensity of land/water use; structures, including height~ landscaping a.nd naturally occurring land plants and animals. and marine life; land and water traffic patterns. including peak. traffic and congestion~ and any cultural. historical. or scenic aspects. The SBPPsJte is an industrial site that is closed Co the P'Jb'ic. The site is entirely enclosed by 8 security lence. No water use other than lor lire protection equipment occurs at the ProieCllocation. Utt!e vegetation Of habitat is present within the SBPP South Tank Farm site since the area is maintained as an iodustrialsite. The only traffic that occurs is for SBPP support and maintenance. This pro)ect wnl not impact cuttural or historic sites or the scenic quality of the surrounding area. The area surrounting the site is z.oned industrial/commercial and the closest known environmentaNy sensitive area is the Chula Vista Wildtife Refuge. located about a mlIe west of the SBPP. Other potenUalty environmentally sensitive areas near the site are residentlal and recreational in nature. such as the marina lOCated near the SBPP. Ill. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Compare thc existin2 projec:t arca. improvcments. and activities with what would exist aftcr implementation of the proposed project. Dala concerning the present condition should be entered before the slash e/); those after the project is completed should be given after the slash (I). (1) Existing/proposed land area: water area: 435,600 o 435.600 o I I (2) Existing/proposed land area for: structures: landscape: pavement: undeveloped: 55.000 o o 380,600 I I / 55,000 o o 380,600 I NA Oft. (3) Number of existing/proposed floors of construction: (4) Principle height of existing/proposed structures: (5) For land development. ind~ate ex.tend of grading: excavation: See below cu. yds.. fill: see below cu. yds., Describe method., sowce of fill. and location of spoil disposal: NA 48 ft. See below see below Since no excavations will occur. this project wiU create no spoil. (6) For water development. indicate extent of dredging and fill: dredging; 0 cu.yds., fill: 0 cu. yd.., o o sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. Describe method. source of fiU. and location of spoil disposal: None proposed for this project. (7) Describe existing/proposed method of solid waste disposal and amounts involved. All metal wm be sold to a third party and recycled off.sile. (8) Describe existing/proposed drainage system improvements and whal materials other than domestic wastes. are/would be discharged into the sewer system: DENA wilt make no chanQ9s to th9 existing off-site drainage panerns. 4 c;) - S-(p (9) Describe the e~istinglproposed tire protection needs of the site and proposed project. and the nature and location of existing/proposed facilities: Fire Protection and prevention are provided on-site. The existing system is adequate durina lank demolition. (lO)Describe existing/proposed public access to San Diego Say through the project site, including any controlled access: The SBPP Is an industrial sile that is not accessible to the public for safety reasons. Currently, no public access to San Diego Bav exists through this site, nor is any proposed. (II )Existing/proposed slips, piers: docks or marine ways: (12) Existing/projected employees per day: (13) Existing/projected customers or visitors per day: (14) Explain the projections for (12) and (13): o o 2 o / o o 2 o Currently, about 2 employees visit the SBPP South Tank Farm site each day lor routine maintenance Inspections. This project will not change tho frequency of omployee Inspection Intorvals. Noto thottho octuol demolftlon work will require access 10 the site by demolition workers. Currently, DENA anticipates that one shift of approximatefy 15 peopIo por day win be neodod for throe (3) months to clean and osman"" the lanks and piping. Ouoto safOly issues. OENA does not permit the public to visit this site area. (15) Existing/projected daily motor vehicle round trips associated with the site and the proposed prnject: 2 / 2 (16) Existing/projected mileage for daily motor vehicle round trips associated with the site and the prnposed project: ~ee 18 below / See 18 below. (17) Existing/projected total round trip daily motor vehicle miles traveled associated with the site and the prnposed project: See 18 below / See 18 below (18) Explain the projections for (15), (16) and (11): Currently, an empkJyee visits the site area about twice daily for routine maintenance inspections, Bnd lhis will not change after the proiect is completed. During DemoliUon work. DENA anticipates that on8 shift of approximately 15 peopIo win be required each day for throe (3) months. In addilion, approximately six (6) flatbed hoavy hauler trucks will be required each day to haul away the dismantled materials. DENA oxpects that most of the ompIoyoos will find lodging locally, or are already housad locally. Tho romovol ot the material by truck will temporarily contribute to increased motor vernele mileage associated with the Project. However. mileage projections cannot be calculated due to the unknown destination(s) of the materials. No significant increase in round trip mik!s is expected, except during tank demolition activities (See 14 above). (19) Existing/proposed parking spaces: On Site: Other is used by project: o o / o o Specify location(s): There will be no long-term need for a change in parking spaces. During tank demolition, parkino spaces for contractor emoloYe" will be available on.site. (20) Ex.plain the parking space requirements lInd compare with applicable standards: Currently, the SBP? protect area does not have designated parking areas. though ample parking exists on-site. There will be a parking need for approximately 15 vehicles during the demolition work. but none, thereafter. (21) Existing/projected water consumption: (22) E~isting/projected electrical JXJwer consumption: (23) Existing/projected ga&'oil consumption: o o o o o o gal./day kwhrJmonth 'herms/day or gal./day 5 c:2- :37 B. lndicute whether llt nol the following mny result from or may apply to the proposed project or its enects. m NO (1) Substantial change in the existing land/water use of the site. Currently. the existing land use surrounding the SBPP is industrial. This will nOl change after the tanks have been dismantled and removed. though, visual quality of the area will be improved. (2) Incompatibility with approved Port Master Plan. (3) Pan of a larger project or series of projects. Removal of the tankS is consistent with the overau understanding between the Port and DENA lhat all existing SBPP facil_ will be dismantled end removed by the of the current lease term (See tAl. x x -L. (4) Involve the demolition or removal of existing improvements. including landscaping. Aa de8cribed above. the projact is tho removal at obovoground fuol oil storage tanks and appunenant equipmenl at the SBPP. No existing landscaping will be removed. (5) Substanlial change in the existing fealures of San Diego Bay. tidelands. or beaches. Removal 01 the tanks will not pose . .ignillconl eflOCl on tho visual quality of the are8. The area is an industrial site with tall structures. While the pubtlc may notice the removal activity. it is not expected to reduce the quality of the oxisting Iandacape in eny wft'f. In and'" its"", the Projoct will not substantially change existing features of San Diego Bay, tidelands. or beaches. x x (6) Significant increase in demands on parking or transportation facilities. During the Proiect. demolition contractors will be provided parking on-she at the SBPP. RemCNal of waste ma1erial and material to be recycted will occur by lruck. The amount of traffic that will be added during the thAKt- month (3) long Protect will not be noliceable, gIven the amount of industrial traffic that occurs in the area now (See 1./\ and III.A.t9). x (7) Substantial increase in demand for municipal services (police. fire. elc.). The Project will not require a substantial lncreBSEld demand for muniCipal setvices. x (8) Significant increase(s) in amount of solid waste or litter. All waste metal will be sold to a third party and recycled off-site. No spoil areas will be crea'led on-site. Other non-recyclable solid waste generated as 8 consequence of this project will be disposed as a non-hazardous waste, or hazardous weste as appropriate. x 6 c:J - :r;g 9) Involvement with potentially hazardous materials. such as toxic substances. flammables. or explosives. Prior to tank demolition activities. all fuel oil will be removed from the tanks and associated equipment. Tanks 3 and 7 will be certified gas tree prior to demolition activities. (lO)Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas. etc.) or in water consumption. (11 )Intcrfercnce with scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or from adjacent uplands. Removal 01 the tanks wUl. in fact. improve the view and vistas in the local area{,). (12)Decreased acceSS to public facilities or recreational resources. (13)Subslantial change in the employment base of the community. (14)Substantial increase in dust. ash. smoke. fumes. or odors in project vicinity. In the short-term during tank dismantling and removal. there Is a potential for an increase in dust, due to demolition traffic. DENA will employ dust control measures consistent with industry standards and specifications for dust control. (lS)Significant change in San Diego Bay water quality or alteration of existing drainage patterns into San Diego Bay. Once the tanks are removed. the potential for fuel oil to ent8l" San Diego Bay will be reduced. (l6)Increase the possibility of erosion of tidelands or siltation of San Diego Bay. (17)Substantial increase in existing noise or vibrational levels in the vicinity. Since the tanks will be demoliShed and removed from the site in a piecemeal manner, the predominate locally generaled noise and vibrations will be due 10 truck and crane engines. Noise emissions at the pJant boundary will comply with locel ordinances. laws. and regulalions. (18)Require any variance from existing environmenlal standards (air. water. noise. etc.). (19)Involve soil stability or geological hazards. {20)Substantial decrease in the habitat of any land plants or animals. or marine life. The Project area is a f1aded industrial site and is roulinely used for maintenance activities as well 8S being within an existing oil spill containment area. 7 02 -:5'1 YES NO x x x x X X X -L X X X X IV. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Des<.:ribe environmental effects that could result from Ihe projecl: A. Physiographic changes to San Diego Bay. tidelands. or beaches: The Project will cause no phySiographic changos to San Oiego Bay, tidelands, or beaches. All wool< will be conta;noo within the existing SBPP site. and QIOund~dlsturbjng activities will be minor. B. Increased demands on urban support syslems, including: parking.. streets. sewers, utilities. and transportation: The Pro;ect wilt cause minimal increased demands on support systems (e.g. ttuck traffic). The SBPP site can easily accommodate the minor amount of demotition WQJ\(er parking needed for construction workers. All project impacts are temporary, and there will be no permanent impacts on urban support systems. C. Increased energy consumption due to operation of the project: The Project will not result in additional or new energy consumption. O. Changes in appearance of the project sile and views from/to the site which could be affected by the project: The tank clOSest to the plant _ry is roughly 700 feet trom the tenceline. Ouring demolition of the tanks. the local public will be able to see the cutting of the tanks and the equipment used to lift/remove piscea of the taf"ka. However, this work is consistent with the overall views in this industrial area and will not in any way degrade the visual quality of public v19W8heds. Low impact visual affects will be short-term and consistent wUh the overall industrial actMties in and around the Project ske. In the long-term. removal of the tanka wNI be an improvement in the visual quality of the area. since the tanks will no longer be in the vista. E. Changes in air quality from both stationary and mobile sourtes. including eny dust, odors, fumes, chemical vapors. water sprays. etc.: Tank demontian will not r98ull to any significant air quality impacts other than possibly dust. due to the use of heavy equipment. DEN" will r&quW8 the demolition contractor to adhere to dust control measures consistent with industry standards and specifications. Mobil equipment sources will be properly permitted. F. Changes in the bay water quality. including those that could result from the removal and/or construction of structures in the water: The Project win not result in any short.term or Jong.term changes in water quality. All demolmon wijl occur within the SBPP site and exisring drainage patterns wiU be matntained.. G. Changes in the sound environment that could occur on or off-site, both from construction and operational noise generated by the project: Road noise from nearby highway 5. and the existing power plant is the dominate noise in the project 8198. Also. there is occasional truck traffic adjacen\ to the tankS for fuel oil cWiveries. During cutting of the tanks. sound will increase slightly al the work site. However. the noise impact wiU be short-term during ciaylight hours and consistent with the current overall noise level in this industrial area. As the tanks are disrnanUed and the metal stacked. there will be transient noise associated with truck traffic and crane operation. Again. this increase will be for a very short duration during daylight hours and is consistent with the industrial noise leve4s in the area. H. Describe any change to plant Dr animal life, including landscaping: No change in plant and anima! life IS expected. The S8?? site is industrial and provides marginal wildlife habitat. A similar tank demolition project was accomphshed in 2001 at the nearby South Bay Power Plant North Tank Farm. Effects of that pro;ect on the Chula Vista Wildlife Retuge were monitored by (he Port of San Diego. and no impacts were detected. 8 c:;)-t-o V. MITIGATING MEASURES A. Describe all proposed mitigating measures, or those already incorporated in the project to mitigate potentially significant environmental effects. if any: To fully mitigate any potentially significant negative impacts from the Pro;ect on local air quality, DENA will require that the demolition contractor implement measures consistent with industry standards and practices for dust control. and to have the necessary equipment such as water lruCks on site prior to any ground-- disturbing activity. B. Specify how and when the mitigating measures will be carried out: See section V.A above. C. Explain the extent and effectiveness of mitigation expected and how this was determined: The proposed mitigating measures in Section V.A above are industry standards. the effectiveness of wh;ch has been proven on numerous and similar projects. D. Describe other mitigation measures considered and indicate why they were discarded: As no other potentially signirlcan1 environmental effects are known, no other mitigating measures were considered. VI. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Pre-ADDlicatJon Proiect Processina- (I) Indicate if lhe conceplual plans have been presented 10 the Board of Port Commissioners or Port Staff. If so. describe in whal form, and gi ve date and result: DENA has discussed its plans with Port slaff as described below: July 3,2002 Don Weaver (SBPP Plent Mgr.) and Bill Hays (Port District staff) discussed OENA's plan to remove Tanks 3 and 7 at the SBPP and Ihe need lor a new Negative Declaration and Coastal Development Permit for that scope of work. Sept. 13, 2002 Meeting between DENA and Clinl Kinser Melissa Mailander. Bill Hays, and Oaniele Spoor of the Port to discuss the permitting and authorization process to execute the project. Sept 16,2002 Letter sent to Mr. Winchell of the Port concerning the Conceptual Protect ptan for the tank decommissioning work. Proiect site drawings were provided. (2) Indicate if project plans have heen submitted 10 Port Staff. If so, describe in whal form; to whom submitted. give date and result: While DENA has discussed the Protect in detail with Port District slaff (as referenced in Section VI.A 1 above). a demolition permit appliCation has not been submitted at this time. DENA is in the process 01 selecting a contractor to perform the work and plans to submit its application to the Port District after it has entered into a contract lor demolition. This is expected to occur by the end of October, 2002. 9 =?-Ca I (3) List all environmental consultations and processing contacls with other agencies. firms or individuals in connection with thi!1. project. Give agency name. phone, date. subject. and result of consultation: July 10, 2002 Randy Plunkett. Atif QtM'sshi, & Josh Fleischer (Framatome ANP staff) met with Bill Hays and Melis.. Mailander (Port staff) at the SBPP to initially pres.nt DENA's plans for tank removal. July 18, 2002 Josh Flelscher with Framatome ANP discussed the Project with elfnt Kisner of the Pon, and established requirements associated with this Environmental Assessment. Aug. 15, 2002 Randy P1unk.tt of Fromalome ANP talked wi'" Joan Swanson of "'. San Diego County Environmental Health Department. HazMat Division. Ms. Swanson requested DENA notify her ~ment dotaillng "'e Project (i... oil disposal, stoe! disposal. the Port's role in issuing this Negative Declaration. etc.) Aug. 20, 2002 Randy P1unkol1 0/ Framatomo ANP talked wkh James Cooksey of tho San Diego County APr Potlution Control District. Mr. Cooksey indtcated that DENA is required to provide a ten (10) day notification to the SOAPeD prior to demolition or asbestos disturbing BCtlvitkts. Aug. 22. 2002 Randy Plunked of Framatome ANP to/ked wkh Justin Gibson 0/ tho Chula Vista Fire Department. Mr. Gibson indicated OENA is required to notify his department prior to demolition activities. Aug. 22, 2002 Randy Plunkett of Framatome ANP talked with Joan Bonnol1 01 tho San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Oepactment, Industrial Wastewater Control Program. Ms. Bennett indicated that the onty requirements for her organization would revolve around notifications and permitting for any batch discharge of wastewater. Aug. 22, 2002 Randy Plunkett of Fram8tome ANP talked with Brian Hunter at Chula Vista Building and Planning Department. Mr. HuMer indicated that DENA is required to provide his department with the Protect plans. Mr. Hunter's department wiN issue the Coastal Development Permit for the Project. Aug. 22. 2002 Randy Plunkett of Framatome ANP talked with Kelly Dorsey 01 the California Regional Wa'er OUallty Control Board. Ms. Dorsey indICated DENA is not required to obtain any specJflc permit of make any notification to her department regarding the project. since thefe wilt be no excavation aclivities, all concrete foundations will remain in place. and the Project will not change the distribution or quantity of any soils corrtammatlon that may exist. Aug. 22. 2002 Randy Plunkett of Framatome ANP talked with LaVomo Josoy 01 lI1e California Department of Fish and Game. Office of Spill Prevention and Response. Mr. Josey indicated that DENA is not required to notify his department. due to the Pro;ect being located away from the water. Oct. 8, 2002 Randy Plunkett of Framatome ANP talked with Petty Officer First Class Jeff Brown of the U.S. Coast Guard's Marine Safety Office. Petty Officer Brown indicated that there are not any Coast Guard concerns retared to OENA's cleaning and dismantling of South Tank Farm fuel oil tanks. He did, however, recommend that fuel ail lines and tankS be gas-free prior to demolition. No permits or notifications are required. Oct. 8, 2002 Randy Plunkett of Framarorne ANP talked with William Glasgow of the California State Lands Commission's Marine Safety Department. Mr. Glasgow indicated that the State Lands Commission did not have any concerns related to DENA's cleaning and dismantling South Tank Farm f~ oil tanks. No permit or notifications are required. Oct. 8. 2002 Randy Plunkelt of Framatome ANP contacted the oHice of Dale Hoverman of the California OTSC. Region 1 oCfice. Mr. HO'lIerman suggested that DENA contact 10 ~ -c..~ Michael Dorsey of the Department of Environmental Health (DEH). He indicated that DEH is responsible for enforcing OTSC regulattons and could elaborate on any requirements for nOlilications or permits. However, no specific notification or permits are required lor DTSC. Oct. 8, 2002 Randy Plunkett of Framatome ANP talked with John Kolb of the Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Supervisor, Hazardous Materials Division. South Bay Area. Mr. Kolb stated that DEH Is a Certified UnifJOd Program Agancy (CUPA) and that they notify other agencies of area work activities. He indicated that DENA should complete and return a Hazardous Waste Tank Closure Certificate form for each tank scheduled to be demolished (he will mail those forms to OENA). Additionally, DENA should revise the Business Plan, Site Map, and Site Inventory once dernclIition is complete to show that the tanks no longer exist: and notify the Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Diego Region if it appears that oil has leaked bekJw a tank flOOC'. No alher notifications or permits are required for DEH. Nov. 14,2002 Joe Otahel, of Duke Energy. discussed with John KoIb the nead for submitting a 'Hazardous Waste Tank Closure Certffication" to the SO County Department 01 Environmental Health. It was concluded that th;s certificated does nol apptv to the demolition of tanks 3 and 7, and submittal of that certification is not required. Oct. 8, 2002 Randy Plunkett of Framatome ANP contacted the office of Steve Calanog of the USEPA, and has not received any feed back at this time. (4) Last project plans or working drawings approved by the Port at this site: Title: None Date: Not Applicable Port Engineering File Number: Not Applicable B. Permit Bacbrround (1) List all other public agencies that have approval or permit authority related to this project and indicate type required, e.g., City building permits. Coastal permit, WQCB, APCD. Army Corps. EP A. FAA, Coast Guard, etc.: City of Chula Vista ---- Building Permit City of Chula Vista ....Coaslai Development Permit (2) Pending permits or variances as this site: The South Bay NPDES Permit renewal is pending, but the issues under consideration will not impact this project. (3) Indicate any permits or variances applied for. Agency, type, file number. date. phone number. and name of person who is processing the permit application or variance request must be included: While OENA has discussed the project in detail with the Cjty of Chuta Vista staH, a building permit application haS not been submitted. DENA anticipates that thia permit application will be submitted in Dscember 2002. The contact for permit application will be: City of Chula Visla Building and Planning Department Atln: Robert Leiter, Director 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5101 11 ~ _ ~.3 VII. CERTIFICATION A. Cerlification: This Environmental Assessment was prepared by me forlas lhe applicant and I hereby certify that the statements furnished in the above and in the attilChed exhibits disclose relevant information to determine environmentally significant effects. as required for the San Diego Unified Port District Initial Study. It has been prepared to the best of my ability. and the facts. statements, and information presented arc true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ~si~(2JJl Joe Otahal (Print Name) Duke Energy Generation Services (Organization) 990 Bay Boulevard (Address) Chula Vista. California. 91911 (City, Slate, Zip Code) B. ADolicant Certification: I hereby certify that the project.related. facts. statement. and information furnished above and in the attached exhibits. and in any other form to the prepucr of this Environmental Assessment or to the San Diego Unified Pon District are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am duly authorized to and do hereby accept aod commit the applicant to the implementation of all mitigation measures listed in this Environmental Assessment and of the project as herein described. I understand that non-compliance with any of the mitigation measures. or changes in the project as herein described. shall be grounds to invalidate any or all project approvals or permits regardless of the stage of project deveJopment or operation. ] will notify the San Diego Unified Port District immediately in writing of any changes in the proposed project. and ] acknowledge that project changes may require additional environmental evaluation. 1 shall hold the San Diego Unified Port Olstricl harmless of any cost or damages resulting from consequences of non. comPtia~r un;;V;d;;=ges. ~W.v- 'z/"L"t.- (Signature of Applicant) I ( ate) I"Z - J- ~ 0 l..... (Date) Project Manager (Title) (6t 9) 498-5339 (Telephone) Donald Weaver. III (Print Name} Duke Energv North America (Organiution) 990 Bay Boulevard (Address) Chula Vista. California, 91911 (City. State. Zip Code) Plant Manager (Title) (619) 498-53t 7 (Telephone) 12 c:.2 - Go c./ SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT ABOVEGROUND FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS REMOVAL CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA IUPD #B3356-ND-5731 ATTACHMENT C LIST OF FIGURES 1. Regional Map 2. Location Map (SBPPI 3. Site Plan San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 120488 San Diego. California 92112-0488 e:?-~S- j / --- / -.-J Pacffic Ocean PRo.Ect.SrrE I . - - .":" -=- -=-- , I I i I I " Figure t Regional Map : '-..., c. I 1m' .' I ) . <:::2 - " '" ;;, <>~/ ~ .~ .. , .<. "'~;'::>:':'" :~' ~;:~':;;';-;..:\ .$' :J'~"'/" ~ ~ n"::' . INIon .. ". ~~,( \ ~ \~ .. ....' . ~ . ". -",.,.. .\. . ~',.,.. ;...>- . ',.t":" ".. ,,~tJ.. '. ,~"".,.",....r~ . ", t,~,~~'-\:"'" .1 '-',~\ .' . DIEGO (' ,){. ..... r." \ \S;1J ,<~ . ~,,-, .. Y, _ - ,- .~5::'" '-.- ~,. . .." 11 A -y...~- .....-_ ,,,,,:tl~,?'?\'; ,,-'~.~';;..t ''':~it ~ .~. ' ,. ., c: ,~ ~ ... '! ;,~::~::.::' . .,'. ~.',.,' " ."'." .11.',.-::0" ,":;'.:j"- . ...,,';;'-' --.-.,. . I .2CIOO' 17 FEET $Af..T , ..", ,.., ~ Figure 2: Location Map (SBPP) ~-c..7 Ie!: ~~ ~~ t I ,p~ " ~ I \ 'TI C/l 0 -. c:: CO ;0 (') z c: m -r C/l t CD c G) (N Ill> ;:0 . . m (I) en .... 3 It> It> -. It> 0 r+ CD '" < ::0 (I) ~ c. "tI - ::- - '" ~ Q) '" 0 - :::s \:l 0 0 '" "" c ~i t>:l ~ '" I!: ~" '" m~ en o c: r+ :T OJ Q) '< "tI o ~ ., "tI - Q) :::s r+ f " cJ-'-8 REMOVAL OF ABOVEGROUND FUEL OIL STORAGE TANKS. SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT AND 24TH STREET TERMINAL REFUELING FACILITY CHULA VISTA AND NATIONAL CITY. CALIFORNIA (UPD #83356.ND-449) ATTACHMENT 0 COMMENTS RECEIVED TO THE DRAFT NO San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 120488 San Diego. California 92112-0488 State CECA Guidelines Section 15074lbl OJ-40c} ~i~1.~:::'.!:7'~..\ k" ~ . '.' 'Z \" ..;!it; /7 "4':~~~,R"_0\1,A (;ray OaVI:'i (;un:rnnf S TAT E OF C A L I FOR N I A Governor's Offil.:c of Planning and Rcs":~lrch Statt: Clcaringhotlsl: January 22. 2003 .~ . ~~cI" _ Q.l4/' ;; .:. ~ ~".l4' '\( >~........ -',J ......_---.~-- Melissa Mailaodor San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 1204gg San Diego. CA 92112-0488 Subject: South Bay Power Plant Aboveground Fuel Oil Storage Tanks Removal SCH#: 2002121102 Dear Melissa Mailander: l~ I * · ~.,~.J ".....,..':;.. Tal Finnc~ Inh:rint Dirc~tl)r The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected stale agencies for review. The review period closed on January 21. 2003. and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges ~at you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents. pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 jf you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to (he ten-digit State Clearinghouse number wh.en contacting this office. Sincerely. ;!:::;:t ~ DireclOr. State Clearinghouse 141l\1 n~;..nlsrRU:T 1'.11 11O.\:/I.....j S.H R.\\ILNTC1.('\1.1H1R:'>.I.\ 'HSI~_:(I.j.j I'll ~H.j~.-I)h I.. F-\.\('lI (,u~-,. :111 ~ \\\\ \\"pr";;I,.':"~ " e;)-70 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCHII 2002121102 PrDj<<t ntle South Bay Power Plant Aboveground Fuel Oil Storage Tanks Removal Lead Agency San Olego Unified Port Distnct ryp. Nag Negalive Oeclarallon Description Duke Energy North Arnarica wants to remove two aboveground fuel oil storage tanks and appurtenant equipment at the South Bay Power Plant, located in Chura Vista. Tanks No. 3 and No.7 are no longer needed for fuel o~ storage, since the plant is fueled by natural ges. Lead Agency Contact _ Me>>s.. Meilander Agency San Diego Un"ied Poll Dislrict p_ 619-686-6283 emall Add,.... P.O. Box 120488 City San DIego Project Location County San Diego CIty Chula V'18la Region CrDa _fa Bay BoulevardlJ Stroel Parcel No. To_lp Range Fax Stale CA Zip 92112-0488 - - Proximity to: Highway. 5 Air-pon. Brown Field R.llway. AT & SF W.terwlr}'$ San Diego Bay School. Land V.. GenerallndU8lnel Project I...,.. Reviewing Resources A~ncy; California Coastal Commission; Department of Conservation; Department at Fish Af1*ICIaa and Game. Region 5; Olliee of Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and RecreatiOn; Calt'ans. District 11 ; Department of Health Services; Stale Water Resources Control Board, Division ot Wale' Quafily: Regional Waler Quality Control Board, Region 9; Native Arnarican Heritage Commission; Public UtiHties Commission; State Lands Commission Date R_ 12/2012002 SllJrf of Review 1212012002 End of Review 01/21/2003 Note: Blanks in data rl~ds reswt 'rom insufficient information prol/ided by lead agency. c2-"7( STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY OAVIS, Governor CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 100 Howe Avenue, Suile l00-South Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 PAUL D. THAYER, Executive Officer (916) 574-1800 FAX (916) 574-1810 Cafil'omta Relay Service from TOO Phone 1-8DO~735-2922 from Voice Phone 1-800-735-2929 Contact Phone: (91S1574-11234 Contact FAX: (91S) 574-1324 January 16. 2003 __on File Ref: G10-08 SCH# 2002121102 (~, Ms. Melissa Mailander '::: ~ ~\.~ ,.- Environmental Review CoordinatoC' ~\.(;,\.~\.~,. C~ San Diego Unified Port District _' ~..i/i).::,'3~ .C:i P.O. Box 120488 S:, ~ ."-., San Diego, CA 92112-0488<~ /,$ i '''':''{'-~'~.7' >. RE: Draft Negative Declaration fciril"~'sOGfh Bay Power Plant Aboveground Fuel Oil Storage Tanks Removal, Chula Vista, California (UPD #83356-ND- 573) Dear Ms. Mailander: Staff of the California State lands Commission (CSLC) has reviewed the subject document. Under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the San Diego Unified Port District (Port) is the lead agency and the CSlC is a Responsible andl or Trustee Agency for any and all projects that could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands, their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses, and the public easement in navigable waters. The Draft Negative Declaration analyzes the proposed removal of two aboveground oil fuel storage tanks and appurtenant equipment at the South Bay' Power Plant (SBPP) in Chula Vista, including Tank #3 and Tank #7. The CSlC has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable rivers, sloughs. lakes, etc. The CSLC has certain residual and review authority for tide and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Public Resources Code ~6301 and ~6306). All tide and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable rivers, sloughs, etc., are impressed with the Common Law Public Trust. In January 1999, the CSLC approved the acquisition by the Port of the SBPP from San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) to be held as Public Trust lands. The Port's acquisition of the property, and concurrent lease to Duke Energy South Bay, LLC (Duke), was with the intent of decommissioning and demolishing the plant for the 02-7;;;'" Ms. Melissa Milander January 16, 2003 Page 2 of 2 betterment of the San Diego region, and to make these bayfront lands in South San Diego Bay available for Public Trust purposes as authorized by Chapter 67, Statutes of 1962, 1 sl Executive Session, as amended. It appears that the removal of the aboveground fuel oil storage tanks is consistent with the overall intent for the decommissioning and demolishing of the power plant. The Port, as a Trustee of these public trust lands, must ensure that the specific activities proposed in the plan are consistent with the provisions ofthe relevant granting statutes and the Public Trust. According to the document, page 3, section II, Project Description, "Duke Energy North America has no plans for future development of the project site." At such time as a specific project is proposed, CSLC staff should be consulted in order to determine the legality of the proposed land uses and its consistency with the granting statutes. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 574- 0234. Sincerely, ~~ t::::::LuCChesi Public Land Management Specialist cc: Lorena Gonzalez, Lt. Governor's Office Paul Thayer, Executive Officer Bruce Hollingsworth, Executive Director, SDUPD Dwight Sanders, Chief, Environmental Planning and Management Curtis Fossum, Senior Staff Counsel <::Q- 73 REMOVAL OF ABOVEGROUND FUEL Oil STORAGE TANKS. SOUTH BAY POWER PLANT AND 24TH STREET TERMINAL REFUELING FACILITY CHULA VISTA AND NATIONAL CITY. CALIFORNIA (UPD #83356-ND-4491 ATTACHMENT E DISTRICT RESPONSES San Diego Unified Port District P.O. Box 120488 San Diego. California 92112-0488 State CEOA Guidelines Section 15074lbl ~ -7~ Final Negative Declaration UPD #B3356-ND-573 SCH#2002121102 PREFACE TO COMMENTS The District appreciates the time and effort those individuals, organizations, and public agencies have expended in providing comments on this Negative Declaration (NO). Unlike the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report, fonnal written responses to comments are not required for a NO. CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 (b) states: [pjriorto approving the project, the decision- making body shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall approve the Negative Declaration if it finds on the basis of the Initial study and any comments received that there is "no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.' The comment letters and responses have been provided to the Board of Port Commissioners for their consideration prior to making a decision with respect to adoption of the NO. The attached responses are provided so those commentors have a better understanding ofthe proposed project. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, SIGNED BY TERRY ROBERTS, DATED JANUARY 22, 2003 The District acknowledges the State Clearinghouse's verification that the district has complied with the environmental review requirements under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. A list of state agencies that received a copy of the NO for their review and comment from the State Clearinghouse is attached to the State comment letter. RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER FROM CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION, SIGNED BY JENNIFER LUCCCHESI, DATED January 16, 2002 The letter acknowledges that removal of the aboveground fuel oil storage tanks is consistent with the overall intent for the decommissioning and demolishing of the power plant. At such time as a specific redevelopment project is proposed for the power plant site, Califomia State lands Commission staff will be consulted in order to determine legality of the proposed land uses and consistency with granting statutes and the Public Trust. \. - c:::) - 7 !::.