SECTION 4.0

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION

---

PROPOSED PROJECT

4.8    Land Use and Recreation

This section describes land and recreational uses adjacent to the proposed converter stations and associated ancillary facilities as well as within the 500‑meter-wide submarine cable study corridor. Existing uses within each applicable jurisdiction (local, state, and federal) were identified for potential Project impacts. Available existing plans, policies, laws, and regulations along with future planned development and land use trends in the area of the proposed converter stations and cable study corridor were reviewed. A goal of this analysis is to determine the potential for nonconformance of the proposed Project with local and state plans and regulations in order to estimate compatibility with land and recreational uses in the vicinity. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential Project-related impacts on land and recreational uses to acceptable levels.

Recreational activities in the vicinity of the proposed Project are identified, including land recreation near the proposed converter stations and water-oriented recreation along the cable route. Land recreation includes biking, hiking, and sightseeing opportunities. Water-oriented recreation includes recreational boating, recreational fishing, windsurfing, swimming, canoeing/kayaking, etc. Additional water activities in the form of vessel traffic that occur along the cable route, including commercial fishing and commercial fleet traffic, are discussed in Section 4.9, Marine Transportation and Commercial Fishing.

Land and recreational use issues for the proposed Project site were identified based on the following:

• Site reconnaissance surveys

• Review of current U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5‑minute topographic quadrangle maps

• Aerial photography

• Communication with city, county, and public agency personnel

• Review of local land use ordinances and general plans

In particular, the San Francisco General and Area Plans and the City of Pittsburg General Plan were closely examined.

4.8.1    Environmental Setting

Based on the distinct land use settings of the two proposed converter stations and the submarine cable route, the following are presented for each of these three primary Project components:

• Existing Land and Recreational Uses

• Potentially Sensitive Land and Recreational Uses

• Zoning and General Plan Designations

• Projected New Development Activities

Existing Land Uses and Potentially Sensitive Land Uses of the converter station sites and surrounding area are shown on Figure 4.8-1 for San Francisco and Figure 4.8-3 for Pittsburg. Potentially sensitive land uses include residential areas, schools, parks, churches and libraries. Zoning designations of the San Francisco HWC Converter Station site and surrounding area are shown on Figure 4.8-2. Zoning designations of the Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station site and surrounding area are shown on Figure 4.8-4.

4.8.1.1    San Francisco HWC Converter Station

The proposed San Francisco HWC Converter Station, onshore AC/DC cable routes, and proposed laydown area (Western Pacific) are collectively called "HWC site" herein, unless otherwise noted. The alternative laydown area (Pier 94/96) is discussed independently because it is located within a different planning area of San Francisco than the HWC site.

4.8.1.1.1    Existing Land Uses. The HWC site is located along San Francisco's southeastern waterfront in an area known as the Central Waterfront. The Central Waterfront is dominated by light and heavy industry and commercial business. Residential and commercial uses are located to the west of the industrial area that parallels the waterfront. Businesses in the vicinity include shipping piers and dry dock facilities along the waterfront, vehicle storage and impoundment yards, gas stations, warehouses, factories, small commercial businesses, and railroad yard and trucking companies.

The San Francisco HWC Converter Station site is located within the southeastern block of the 23^rd Street and Illinois Street intersection. The site is currently occupied by existing businesses. The site is bounded to the north, west, and southwest by industrial properties. The Mirant Potrero Power Plant and adjacent PG&E substation are directly north of Illinois Street and lie northwest of the proposed converter station site. The proposed AC cable would traverse the Mirant Potrero Power Plant site to the PG&E Potrero substation and the DC cable would run east-west along 23^rd Street. The site is bounded on the east by San Francisco Bay and on the southeast by a water inlet and Warm Water Cove Park. Warm Water Cove Park is located at the terminus of 24^th Street and is surrounded by industrial uses on the north, west, and south. Pier 70 to the north of the HWC site is used as a dry dock facility. Pier 80 to the south is used as a container terminal.

The San Francisco Bay Trail is situated west of the proposed site along Illinois Street. The Bay Trail is a planned recreational corridor that, when complete, will encircle San Francisco and San Pablo Bays with a continuous 400-mile network of bicycling and hiking trails. It will connect the shoreline of all nine Bay Area counties, link 47 cities, and cross the major toll bridges in the region. To date, approximately 240 miles of the alignment—over half the Bay Trail's ultimate length—have been completed.

In 2000, the Central Waterfront consisted of a population of approximately 850 people and approximately 457 housing units. These figures are expected to be slightly higher now based on projects completed since 2000. Residential areas within the Central Waterfront area are primarily located on Tennessee and Minnesota Streets and consist of houses built in the 1900s. A number of production, distribution, and repair businesses are intermingled with the residences. Other mixed use development has infilled in the area including recent live/work housing units (San Francisco Planning Department [SFPD], 2002).

The alternative San Francisco construction laydown area is located south of Islais Creek at Pier 94/96 within the South Bay shore area of San Francisco. The site is situated northeast of Cargo Way and 100 feet west of San Francisco Bay. The site is bounded by industrial properties to the north, west, and south. The site is paved and used for waterfront/industrial-commerce uses.

4.8.1.1.2   Potentially Sensitive Land Uses. Warm Water Cove Park is located directly southeast of the HWC site. The nearest residences are located approximately 900 feet west of the edge of the San Francisco HWC Converter Station site. A church is located about 1,200 feet northwest of the San Francisco HWC Converter Station site. Additional potentially sensitive land uses within the area include four schools, six churches, eight parks, and a library. These land uses are shown on Figure 4.8-1 and listed in Table 4.8-1. Recreational areas in the Central Waterfront area include China Basin Channel, Warm Water Cove Park, Aqua Vista Park, and Islais Creek located on the shoreline where public access points to the Bay have been established.

The nearest potentially sensitive land use to the alternative construction laydown area is India Basin Shoreline Park located 800 feet to the south. Additional potentially sensitive land uses near this alternative laydown area are shown on Figure 4.8-1 and listed in Table 4.8-1.

4.8.1.1.3    Zoning Designations. The HWC site and the alternative construction laydown area are zoned "M-2" Heavy Industrial. A utility installation is a permitted use in an area zoned Heavy Industrial provided that operating requirements necessitate location within the zoning district (SF Planning Code, Article 2 Section 227). In addition to regulating land use types, the San Francisco Planning Code also regulates the intensity of development in each district. A Floor Area Ratio of 5.0:1 is permitted in zones designated Heavy Industrial. The Project site is in a 40-foot height and unlimited bulk district. The proposed Project is exempted from the height requirement by Section 260(b) of the Planning Code, which

TABLE 4.8-1
POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE LAND USES NEAR
THE SAN FRANCISCO HWC CONVERTER STATION

exempts structures and equipment necessary for industrial plants and public utilities where such structures and equipment do not contain separate floors (Badiner, 2005).

4.8.1.1.4    Land Use Trends. San Francisco's population is expected to increase by an estimated one percent between 2000 and 2020 (ABAG, 2000). A deficit of housing in the city has led to increased development pressure in traditionally industrial sectors. However, businesses located on industrially zoned land are acknowledged for contributing an important part of the local economy. With anticipated growth of the production, distribution, and repair (PDR) sector, the City has proposed to rezone much of the Central Waterfront. The new zoning would replace the existing M-1 and M-2 designations to ensure an adequate amount of space for PDR services.

Ongoing redevelopment near the HWC site includes the Mission Bay and Hunters Point Redevelopment areas. A few hundred residential units are currently being constructed on Indiana Street near 25^th Street. Additional residential units have also been proposed along 3^rd Street between Mariposa and 21^st Street (Rubin, 2005). In addition, San Francisco Municipal Railway's (Muni) Third Street Light Rail is being constructed and will run along 3^rd Street through Mission Bay, the Central Waterfront, Bayview/Hunters Point and farther south (SFPD, 2002). Muni is also constructing their Metro East Facility at 25^th Street and Illinois Street. This facility will be used as a maintenance and storage yard serving light rail. Additional planned projects near the HWC site are discussed in Section 7.0, Cumulative Impacts.

The alternative temporary construction laydown area is within the Port of San Francisco's Southern Waterfront area and subject to the Port's Land Use Plan. The plan indicates that the Southern Waterfront will remain home to most of the Port's cargo and ship repair operations, and the plan promotes expansion of cargo and maritime support uses. The plan states that until further long-term maritime uses have been expanded, interim uses are allowed to generate revenues needed to subsidize Port operations until the sites are needed for expansion of cargo operations (Port of SF, 2005).

4.8.1.2    Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station

The proposed Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station, laydown area, proposed and alternative access road, and AC/DC cable route to the converter station are collectively called "Standard Oil site herein, unless otherwise noted. This name reflects the site's proximity to the former Standard Oil Avenue; no portion of this site was connected with previous oil processing or storage. The onshore AC cable route to the PG&E substation on the Mirant Pittsburg Power Plant site is discussed independently from these components, where appropriate, based on the distance and different land use setting from the Standard Oil site.

4.8.1.2.1    Existing Land Uses. Pittsburg is known for its steel and chemical industries. Industrial uses are primarily situated along the waterfront based on proximity to New York Slough. The Mirant Pittsburg Power Plant dominates the western waterfront, while major manufacturing operations are located along the eastern waterfront, including USS-POSCO, Dow Chemical, and the Delta Diablo Wastewater Treatment Plant. Wetlands comprise a small portion of the northeastern corner where Kirker Creek meets New York Slough. Browns Island is a Regional Shoreline Preserve, which encompasses parks and open space acreage in Pittsburg's planning area. The proposed Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station site is situated at the northeastern corner of the Loveridge planning subarea in the City's General Plan. The majority of uses in this subarea consist of large industrial and vacant sites (CPPD, 2004).

The Standard Oil site is located northeast of the intersection of Loveridge Road and the Pittsburg-Antioch Highway. The site currently contains two abandoned concrete wastewater storage tanks and a small dilapidated building, and the remaining areas of the site are vacant. Currently, there is road access to the site from Loveridge Road about 1,700 feet west of the site. The proposed Project includes construction of a new access road to the Pittsburg-Antioch Highway to the south. The proposed access road would cross over Kirker Creek just north of the Pittsburg-Antioch Highway. The site is bounded by industrial properties, vacant land, the BNSF railroad line, and the Delta Energy Center. The Dow Chemical property is located directly north of the railroad tracks.

The alternative Standard Oil construction laydown area is located northwest of the Arcy Lane and Pittsburg-Antioch Highway intersection. The site is currently vacant and lies adjacent to the Delta Energy Center. This alternative construction laydown area was previously used for laydown when the Delta Energy Center was built. The site is bounded by industrial properties to the north and east and vacant land to the south and west.

The alternative access road provides the existing access to Standard Oil site. The land use setting for this access road is generally consistent with the proposed access road, with the noteworthy distinction that the alternative access road would not cross over Kirker Creek, as would the proposed access road.

4.8.1.2.2    Potentially Sensitive Land Uses. No potentially sensitive land uses exist within 3,050 feet of the Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station site. The nearest residential development to the site is 3,050 feet to the southwest (across from State Route 4 [SR 4]). A park and school are located approximately 1,000 feet and 1,600 feet, respectively, east of the onshore cable route to New York Slough. The nearest residential development to the alternative construction laydown area is approximately 3,680 feet to the southwest (across SR 4). Potentially sensitive land uses nearest to the site are listed in Table 4.8-2.

4.8.1.2.3    Zoning and General Plan Designations. The Pittsburg General Plan designation for the Standard Oil site and proposed and alternative construction laydown areas is Industrial. The onshore AC/DC cable route to the Standard Oil site transects both the Industrial designated area and an Open Space designated area. The Standard Oil site, proposed and alternative construction laydown areas, and the entire onshore AC/DC route to New York Slough are zoned IG (General Industrial) in the City of Pittsburg. This IG district includes the area designated as Open Space in the General Plan. Major Utility is a permitted use in the IG district.

Development standards for the IG district are outlined in Section 18.54.025 of the Pittsburg Zoning Ordinance. The maximum height allowance in the IG zoning district is 50 feet. However, under Section 18.54.100, additional height is allowed equivalent to the number of additional feet the structure is set back beyond minimum yard (setback) requirements, up to 25 additional feet (for a maximum of 75 feet). To be entitled to additional height, the building or structure setback must exceed the minimum on all sides. Further, Section 18.80.020 allows for height limit exceptions for transmission towers and similar structures, but only if they encompass no more than 10 percent of the ground area covered by the

TABLE 4.8-2
POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE LAND USES NEAR THE
PITTSBURG STANDARD OIL CONVERTER STATION

structure to which they are accessory. Such structures may exceed the district height limit by 20 feet; this would allow towers up to 95 feet high if the setbacks as cited in Section 18.54.100 are met. The Floor Area Ratio in IG districts is 0.75 and the maximum lot coverage is 75 percent.

The onshore cable to the Mirant Pittsburg Power Plant is located within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. This area is within the City of Pittsburg's Sphere of Influence and is included in the Planning Area of the City's General Plan. The General Plan designation of the onshore AC/DC cable on the Mirant Pittsburg property is Industrial. This portion of the cable route is zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) by Contra Costa County. The Pittsburg City Council has initiated the process to pre-zone an area which includes this segment of the onshore cable route. This new zoning would be consistent with the current General Plan designation of Industrial for that area. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is in preparation for the pre-zoning and an application for annexation has been submitted to the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Upon annexation, the Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS) of the City of Pittsburg would be applicable to this portion of the onshore cable route as well.

4.8.1.2.4    Land Use Trends. In 2004, the City of Pittsburg had an estimated population of 57,710 and 19,600 housing units. Nearly 11,450 housing units are currently proposed within the city limits in addition to 1,300 units approved as of 1999. Buildout of the Pittsburg General Plan would include a total of 31,690 housing units and an estimated population of 93,340 within the city limits (CPPD, 2004).

Pittsburg currently has approximately 3,735,620 square feet of industrial space. Up to 491,180 square feet have been approved and another 2,193,060 square feet have been proposed for industrial uses. Buildout would include 14.9 million square feet of commercial space and 6.4 million square feet of industrial space. Heavy industry and business commercial parks are planned between the BNSF railroad tracks and SR 4 (CPPD, 2004). No housing is proposed near the Standard Oil site (Strelo, 2005).

4.8.1.3    Offshore DC Cable Route

4.8.1.3.1    Existing Uses. San Francisco Bay is used for recreational purposes, as well as transportation (e.g., ferries and Bay Area Rapid Transit tunnel), commercial, and military uses. Eight ports and 21 marine terminals are located along the Bay shoreline, as well as facilities at Concord Naval Weapons Station and Moffett Field. Bay Area residents also enjoy using the Bay for numerous waterborne recreational activities and water contact sports, including windsurfing, canoeing, recreational boating, and recreational fishing.

Figure 4.8-5 shows the locations of marinas along the San Francisco Bay shoreline in Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, and Sonoma Counties. All of these marinas have permanent berths, and many also have trailered boat storage facilities and public ramps that can be used to launch small sailboats, kayaks, rowboats, personal watercraft, jet skis, etc. Once these vessels are launched, they can be used to travel virtually anywhere in San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, or even the Sacramento River delta depending on the capabilities of the vessel and operator. Table 4.8-3 lists the number of berths at each of the 52 marinas identified. These marinas have a total of more than 16,000 berths, with approximately half of the berths located on each side of the Bay (URS Corporation, 2003).

Popular areas for offshore recreational fishing in the Bay include Richmond, Berkeley, Alameda, Sausalito, and the northern part of San Francisco. Fish typically caught in the Bay include sturgeon, striped bass, salmon, halibut, rockfish, or occasionally shark. Many fish types come into the Bay through the Golden Gate, congregate around Alcatraz or Angel islands, and then move up through San Pablo Bay and the delta. Although there are popular fishing areas, recreational fishing occurs throughout all parts of the Bay. Recreational fishing within the Bay also occurs at various times of the year, depending on fish type. For example, winter months and early spring are typical sturgeon and striped bass fishing season, while

TABLE 4.8-3
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA MARINAS

*        No Data Available.

May to September is typical halibut fishing season, and late fall to November is typical salmon season. In addition, recreational boats for salmon fishing may also be active within the Bay as early as April, while in transit to the ocean. Most of other fishing in the Bay is done off land, piers, and jetties (Phillips, 2005).

Recreational interest groups in the Bay Area include the Yacht Racing Association of San Francisco Bay, United Anglers, San Francisco Bay Swimming Association, Bay Area Sea Kayakers, and the San Francisco Boardsailing Association. Many dive clubs also exist in the Bay Area, but they do not normally dive in San Francisco Bay because the Bay's turbidity inhibits visibility. Many of these groups organize specific events such as races on the Bay or festivals. Organized events are required to obtain a permit from the U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco Waterways Safety Branch. More than 950 permitted events occurred in the Bay in 2005, including sailing, swimming, rowing, waterskiing, kayaking, canoeing, fishing, and firework events (USCG, 2005).

Along the shore of the Bay, recreational activities also include picnicking, nature walks, and waterfowl hunting. In particular, Suisun Marsh is well known for waterfowl hunting, which occurs from late October until late January each year (BCDC, 1976). Windsurfing launch sites are also located along the shore of the Bay, separate from the marinas because of the need for particular site amenities for that sport, such as shore accessibility, parking, and particular wind and water conditions. The desire to avoid conflicts with other user groups also plays a role in the selection of launch sites. Table 4.8-4 presents currently used launch sites, their locations, the season with best conditions, and the rating level of their users. Figure 4.8-6 shows the approximate locations of the launch sites.

TABLE 4.8-4
BAY AREA WINDSURF LAUNCH SITES

4.8.1.3.2    Potentially Sensitive Land Uses. Potentially sensitive land uses near the offshore cable route would include Brown's Island Regional Shoreline Preserve, Angel Island State Park, and nearshore tidal marshes and wetlands. Potentially sensitive biological resources near the cable route are discussed in Sections 4.5 and 4.6.

4.8.1.3.3    Zoning and General Plan Designations. The submarine cable route transects numerous jurisdictions. Table 4.8-5 lists Zoning and General Plan designations of the proposed cable route along the various jurisdictions. The proposed offshore cable route between Browns Island and Winter Island is partially within the City of Pittsburg and partially within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. The town of Tiburon, City of San Rafael, Contra Costa County, City of Martinez, and Solano County have zoned the

TABLE 4.8-5
ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS

area of the proposed offshore cable route. The remaining jurisdictions have not zoned areas transected by the offshore cable route.

The town of Tiburon, City of San Rafael, and Contra Costa County do not require a permit for cable installation. However, Contra Costa County has indicated that they act as the Local Sponsor for navigation projects, and in this capacity, they "would incur some level of responsibility and could require relocation of utilities where necessary" (Osborne, 2005). The City of Martinez would require a Conditional Use Permit. In Solano County, the cable route (mileposts 38.6 to 40; refer to Map A.2-1, Sheet 8 of 10 in Appendix A) is within the Marsh Preservation zone. The Marsh Preservation zone has primary and secondary management areas. The entire cable route in the Marsh Preservation zone falls within the primary management area. A permit from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) is required for cable installation in the primary management area. A Marsh Development Permit is also required from Solano County for areas within the secondary management area. However, since no part of the cable route falls within the secondary management area, a permit by the County is not required (Englebright, 2006).

4.8.1.3.4    Land and Marine Use Trends. The San Francisco Bay Area consists of nine counties that cover roughly 4.5 million acres. Approximately 17 percent of this total acreage was developed by the year 2000. Most of the Bay Area's population and economy is situated along the perimeter of the Bay in the older, larger cities such as San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. However, the majority of new residential and commercial land use development is occurring in more peripheral cities such as Santa Rosa, Fairfield, and Livermore (ABAG, 2001).

The communities in the Bay Area situated along the waterfront, such as those that could be involved with the proposed Project, were historically focused on industrial and commercial land use. Many of the rail lines that serviced these areas still run along large stretches of Bay shoreline, and large areas of cities still have active industrial areas on the waterfront. More recently, portions of the Bay shoreline have been the focus of redevelopment projects and recreational projects to renew people's connection to the Bay. Several agencies are working on the San Francisco Bay Trail, intended to one day provide a continuous recreational trail around the Bay. Industrial and commercial land uses have also continued to develop, but in more select areas around the Bay.

The San Francisco Bay Plan states that as the population of the Bay region increases, more people are expected to use their leisure time in water-oriented recreational activities. The Bay Plan predicts that many more water-oriented recreational facilities will be needed to accommodate the needs of Bay Area residents and visitors.

4.8.2    Regulatory Setting

4.8.2.1    Federal

Some of the proposed Project activities would occur in the Bay and would involve the use of construction vessels such as a cable ship (C/S) Giulio Verne and a barge with tugboats. Use of these vessels would require informing and coordinating with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and would be accomplished on a regular basis through publication of the U.S. Coast Guard's Local Notice to Mariners. Applicable navigation rules would be enforced including the Cable Act of 1992 (47 CFR Section 76), which states that other vessels must maintain a 1.15-mile (1-nautical mile [nm]) separation from a vessel laying or repairing an undersea cable.

No other applicable federal plans or policies are anticipated to have an effect on land use and recreation.

4.8.2.2    State

The State Lands Commission (SLC) has authority over part of San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay. The cable route would be situated on property leased by the SLC, but still within the jurisdiction of local cities, counties, and other organizations such as the Port of San Francisco and the BCDC. The primary applicable state regulation is CEQA, Public Resources Code (Sections 21000-211781) and CEQA Guidelines Code of Regulations (Sections 15000-15387). No other applicable state land use plans or policies have been identified.

4.8.2.3    Local

4.8.2.3.1    City and County Zoning and General Plan Designations. The California State Legislature, pursuant to Government Code Section 65300, requires each city and county jurisdiction in the state to prepare a local general plan. The general plan is the primary planning document that establishes policies to regulate the development, function, and use of land within the boundaries and planning area of each city or county. General plans are required to contain the following seven elements or chapters: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. Although all elements carry equal weight, the land use element designates the pattern and scope of development. Land use designations are one of the primary tools cities and counties use to establish a comprehensive plan for guiding development. Typical land use designations are Residential, Commercial, Agricultural, Industrial, and Open Space, with subcategories based on densities or uses. Land use designations are supported by general plan policies that generally define how land can and cannot be used.

General plan policies are supported by local ordinances, such as zoning, which describe the specific requirements for developing a parcel within an identified land use designation. Zoning ordinances define the specific allowable uses for each type of land use designation. Land uses may be classified in the zoning ordinance as principally permitted, conditionally permitted, or permitted under other special circumstances. Under most zoning ordinances, principally permitted land uses require a simplified land use permitting process, whereas Conditional Use Permits and other special-circumstance use permits have additional criteria for being considered allowable.

Table 4.8-5 lists the Zoning and General Plan designations of each county, city and town that involves a project component. In some cases, a Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Marsh Development Permit, and/or Design Review would be required to implement the Project. San Francisco does not have General Plan designations (Rubin, 2005).

4.8.2.3.2    San Francisco General Plan. The San Francisco General Plan is designed as a guide to attain specified general goals. The method by which these general goals are to be achieved is identified through a statement of objectives and policies within a series of elements, each dealing with a particular issue. The General Plan currently contains the following elements:

• Air Quality

• Arts

• Commerce and Industry

• Community Facilities

• Community Safety

• Environmental Protection

• Housing

• Recreation and Open Space

• Transportation

• Urban Design

Each element outlines goals, objectives and policies within the respective category. A Land Use index provides an inventory of the land use–related policies presented throughout the General Plan. Pertinent policies outlined in the San Francisco General Plan are listed in Table 4.8-6.

TABLE 4.8-6
LAND USE AND RECREATION POLICIES PERTINENT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO CONVERTER STATION (PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE SITES)

4.8.2.3.3    Central Waterfront Area Plan. The San Francisco General Plan also contains Area Plans that cover geographic areas of the city. Area Plans apply more precise policies as they relate to specific areas. The Area Plan pertinent to the proposed Project is the Central Waterfront Area Plan. The Central Waterfront Area Plan's primary goal is to "create a physical and economic environment conducive to the retention and expansion of San Francisco's industrial and maritime activities." The Area Plan's policies are designed to increase employment opportunities, enhance the working environment to stimulate business growth, and improve the area's appearance and attractiveness. Pertinent policies outlined in the Central Waterfront Area Plan are listed in Table 4.8-6.

4.8.2.3.4    Central Waterfront Neighborhood Plan (Draft). The Draft Central Waterfront Neighborhood Plan (SFPD, 2002) was released for public review in January 2003 and has not yet been formally adopted. This plan will be an implementing document of the General Plan, and it provides a policy framework that will be the basis of new zoning and planning code controls for the area. Once the plan is reviewed and refined, the Planning Commission will be asked to adopt the plan and the Board of Supervisors to approve it. Specific proposals for rezoning, planning code changes, and public improvements will follow the plan's adoption. The Neighborhood Plan includes chapters on Land Use and Parks and Open Spaces.

Goals and land use objectives outlined in the Neighborhood Plan include the following:

• Encourage development that builds on the Central Waterfront's established character as a mixed use, working neighborhood

• Foster the Central Waterfront's role in the city's economy by supporting existing and future production, distribution, repair, and maritime activities

• Increase housing in the Central Waterfront without impinging on or creating conflicts with identified existing or planned areas of production, distribution, and repair activities

• Establish a land use pattern that supports and encourages transit use, walking, and biking

• Better integrate the Central Waterfront with the surrounding neighborhoods and improve its connections to Port land and the water's edge

The Draft Plan proposes to change the existing M-2 zoning of the proposed and alternative San Francisco Converter Station sites as follows:

• Proposed San Francisco HWC Converter Station and alternative San Francisco Sheedy Converter Station sites from M-2 (Heavy Industrial) to PDR (Production, Distribution, and Repair)

• Alternative San Francisco Mirant Converter Station site from M-2 to Heavy PDR

The PDR district would be designed to protect existing activities and encourage new production, distribution, and repair activities. The PDR district would not allow the wide range of activities in the current M-2 district, and would prohibit new housing (even as a conditional use, including planned unit developments) and offices other than as an accessory use. The PDR district would not allow "heavier and more noxious activities" and would serve as a buffer between more intensive industrial uses. The Heavy PDR district would encompass the areas that contain the most intensive industrial use. Pertinent policies outlined in the Draft Central Waterfront Neighborhood Plan are listed in Table 4.8-6.

The Draft Plan does not propose any housing east of Illinois Street, but indicates that this area, including the proposed and alternative converter station sites, may eventually support new residential units if the existing Potrero Power Plant was ever phased out and replaced.

4.8.2.3.5    City of Pittsburg General Plan. Pittsburg's General Plan outlines a vision of a long-range physical and economic development as well as conservation. The General Plan describes Pittsburg's land use pattern as reflective of its history as an industrial center of Contra Costa County. The General Plan currently contains the following elements:

• Land Use

• Growth Management

• Urban Design

• Downtown

• Economic Development

• Transportation

• Youth and Recreation

• Resource Conservation

• Health and Safety

• Public Facilities

• Noise

• Housing

The General Plan identifies policies specific to designated areas within the city. The Land Use policies are categorized according to subarea. Relevant subareas for the project are the Northeast River subarea (proposed Standard Oil site), West Central subarea (alternative Pittsburg West Tenth Street site), and the Northwest River subarea (alternative Pittsburg Mirant site). Pertinent policies outlined in the Pittsburg General Plan for these three subareas are listed in Table 4.8‑7.

4.8.2.3.6    San Francisco Bay Plan. The California Legislature of 1965 created BCDC. BCDC has overlapping jurisdiction with the cities and counties for specific areas of the project. BCDC has jurisdiction over open water, marshes and mudflats of greater San Francisco Bay, including Suisun and San Pablo Bays and Carquinez Strait. BCDC also has jurisdiction over the first 100 feet inland from the shoreline around San Francisco Bay. BCDC's responsibilities include: 1) regulating all filling and dredging in San Francisco Bay; 2) protecting the Suisun Marsh by administering the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act; and 3) regulating new development within the first 100 feet inland from the Bay to ensure that maximum feasible public access to the Bay is provided (BCDC, 2001).

The goals and policies of BCDC are described in the San Francisco Bay Plan, which was adopted in 1968 and incorporated by the California Legislature into the McAteer-Petris Act in 1969 (BCDC, 2003). The Bay Plan contains findings about the value of the Bay, policies to guide future uses of the Bay, and maps that apply these policies to the Bay and its shoreline. Part Four of the Bay Plan contains findings and policies pertinent to development of the Bay and shoreline. Policies from "Recreation" and "Public Access" are described below.

TABLE 4.8-7
LAND USE AND RECREATION POLICIES PERTINENT TO THE PITTSBURG CONVERTER STATION (PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE SITES)

Recreation. The Bay Plan includes 5,800 acres of potential new parks along the approximately 1,000-mile shoreline, as well as 4,400 acres of parkland that could be created if military use of the properties ceases. The Bay Plan states that water-oriented recreational facilities should be well distributed around the shores of the Bay, to the extent consistent with criteria specified elsewhere in the Bay Plan. The Bay Plan states that recreational facilities should not, however, preempt sites needed for ports, waterfront industry, or airports, though efforts should be made to integrate recreational uses into these facilities to the extent that they may be compatible.

The Bay Plan discusses expanding the San Francisco Bay Trail and linking this regional trail system to allow better access to the Bay and to parks along the Bay shoreline. The Bay Plan states that trails that can be used as components of the San Francisco Bay Trail, the Bay Area Ridge Trail, or links between them should be developed in waterfront parks. San Francisco Bay Trail sections should be located near the shoreline unless that alignment would have significant effects on Bay resources; in this case, an alignment as near to the shore as possible should be provided consistent with Bay resource protection. The BayPlan also advises that waterfront land needed for parks and beaches by the year 2020 should be reserved now to preserve them from being used for other purposes.

Public Access. This section of the Bay Plan states that although public access to the Bay shoreline has increased since the plan was adopted in 1968, additional public access is still needed. Public agencies have limited funds for providing or improving shoreline access, but private capital can provide public access in association with a wide variety of shoreline developments. Any proposed fill project should enhance public access to the Bay to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with Bay Plan policies. In addition to the public access provided by waterfront parks, beaches, marinas, and fishing piers, maximum feasible access to and along the waterfront and on any permitted fills should be provided in and through every new development in the Bay or on the shoreline, including industry and public facility development. In those cases where public access is inconsistent with a project because of public safety considerations or significant use conflicts (such as significant adverse effects on wildlife), in-lieu public access should be provided, preferably near a project site.

The Bay Plan indicates that public access as a condition of development should be permanently guaranteed and should be consistent with the development project, as well as with the physical environment of the Bay and shoreline. Access to and along the waterfront should be provided by walkways or trails and should be convenient to parking and/or public transit. In addition, BCDC, special district, federal, state, regional, and local jurisdictions should cooperate to provide new public access areas, especially to link the entire series of shoreline parks, regional trail systems, and existing public access areas to the extent feasible, without additional Bay filling or adversely affecting natural resources. BCDC's Public Access Design Guidelines (BCDC, 2001) should be used in siting and designing public access associated with a proposed Project. The Design Review Board should advise the BCDC on the adequacy of the public access proposed.

4.8.2.3.7    Suisun Marsh Protection Plan. BCDC also published Special Area Plans to apply Bay Plan policies in greater detail to specific shoreline areas. Special Area Plans exist for sections of the San Francisco Bay, including the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan (1976). The Suisun Marsh encompasses approximately 85,000 acres of tidal marsh, managed wetlands, and waterways in southern Solano County. Areas of Solano County transected by the offshore cable which are zoned "Marsh Preservation" are subject to the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan. BCDC serves as the land use-permitting agency for major projects in the primary management area, which also includes portions of the proposed offshore cable route.

The Suisun Marsh Protection Plan stipulates that urban utilities should be allowed to extend into the Suisun Marsh and the adjacent upland area necessary to protect the marsh, only to serve existing uses and other uses consistent with protection of the marsh. Within the marsh, the Plan states that new electric lines for local distribution should be installed underground unless underground placement would have a greater adverse environmental effect on the marsh than aboveground construction, or the cost of underground installation would be so expensive as to preclude service. The Plan also states that underground pipelines, wires, and cables should be permitted in the Suisun Marsh if no alternative route is feasible and they are designed and constructed to meet specified standards outlined in the Plan, such as minimizing trenching when installing cables.

4.8.2.3.8    Port of San Francisco Waterfront Land Use Plan. In 1968 the Burton Act transferred public lands along the San Francisco Bay waterfront from the state to the city. These lands include current and former tidelands that were filled to form the city's edge. The Port of San Francisco, as trustee, is required under the Burton Act to manage and develop these lands in conformance with "the public trust doctrine" to benefit the citizens of California. The basic principle of the public trust doctrine is that public trust lands are to be used to promote navigation, fisheries, waterborne commerce, natural resource protection, and uses that attract the public to use and appreciate the waterfront, including recreation and assembly. The Port determines whether a given lease or development is consistent with the public trust.

In 1997, the Port Commission adopted San Francisco's Waterfront Land Use Plan, which governs land use policy for waterfront lands under the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco. The Port has jurisdiction over much of the shoreline of the proposed Project area, including Pier 70 to the north of the Mirant Power Plant, Warm Water Cove Park situated adjacent to both the proposed HWC site and the alternative Sheedy site, and including the proposed and alternative construction laydown areas. Waterfront Land Use goals include: 1) providing access along the waterfront; 2) urban design worthy of waterfront setting; 3) revitalizing of the waterfront; and 4) an evolving waterfront that is mindful of its past and future.

4.8.3    Environmental Impacts

Environmental impacts are discussed in this section relative to the areas adjacent to the converter station sites and within the 500‑meter-wide cable study corridor. Potential land use and recreational impacts relate to construction and operation of the converter stations, AC/DC cable lines, submarine cable route, offsite pipelines (e.g., water and sewer interconnections, as applicable), and vehicle access routes.

Potential short-term construction impacts are discussed with respect to each Project component, in terms of the land and recreational use characteristics in the area of disturbance. Potential long-term land and recreational use impacts relate to such issues as compatibility of the proposed facilities with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area (e.g., changes in land use, land use conflicts, and effects on potentially sensitive land uses) and conformity with governmental land use and recreation plans, policies, and regulations.

4.8.3.1    Thresholds of Significance

This impact analysis uses the significance criteria identified in CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Appendix G) as well as those established by the City of Pittsburg and City and County of San Francisco. Impacts are considered potentially significant if the project would:

• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project

• Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community

• Conflict with established or proposed land uses, including potentially sensitive land uses

4.8.3.2    San Francisco HWC Converter Station

4.8.3.2.1    Construction-related Impacts. Construction activities would be designed and undertaken to minimize interference with surrounding land uses. Once grading of the converter station site commenced, development of the site itself would disturb currently developed land. Although some short-term construction-related impacts on adjacent land uses are anticipated, these impacts are not expected to be significant because of the distance between the HWC site and the nearest residential or other sensitive receptor. Overall, the impact of construction activities would be less than significant, due to compatibility with existing land uses that are closest to the site and the temporary onsite construction period.

4.8.3.2.2    Operations-related Impacts. The San Francisco HWC Converter Station site is currently used and surrounded by primarily industrial uses, with the exception of Warm Water Cove Park situated directly south of the site. The San Francisco HWC Converter Station represents further development of an area committed to industrial use rather than the introduction of industry to a non-industrial area.

Consistency with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations. Land use plans and regulations applicable to the HWC site include the San Francisco General Plan, Central Waterfront Area Plan, San Francisco Planning Code and Zoning Maps, and San Francisco Bay Plan. In the event that the Draft Central Waterfront Neighborhood Plan is completed and adopted, it may also be applicable. San Francisco land use plans emphasize public access to the shoreline and public open space. The Bay Trail is located approximately 400 feet west of the HWC site along Illinois Street. Public access to the shoreline is provided by Warm Water Cove Park situated directly south of the HWC site. During operations, the proposed Project would not affect public access to Warm Water Cove Park or lessen recreational opportunities along the Bay Trail.

The Central Waterfront Area Plan (Policy 17.1) stipulates that existing recreational improvements at Warm Water Cove should be maintained and improved, and expanded to the north side of the Cove as opportunities arise. The policy also stipulates that public access should be provided along the north side of the Cove and a fishing quay should be constructed at the Bay. The proposed San Francisco HWC Converter Station site is located on a site designated for possible park development. However, the site is currently zoned Heavy Industrial and the San Francisco HWC Converter Station is consistent with permitted uses within this district. The HWC site is located adjacent to the existing Potrero Power Plant and proposed future development plans outlined in the Draft Central Waterfront Neighborhood Plan would specifically prohibit residential development adjacent to this power plant (Policy 2.11 Draft Neighborhood Plan). The HWC site is surrounded by industrial properties to the north and west and is situated in a section of San Francisco dominated historically and currently by industrial uses.

Overall, the impact of operations-related impacts on existing land uses would not be significant. However, Project implementation may conflict with San Francisco and BCDC policies for future uses, which stress the importance of public access to the Bay.

Impact LU-1: Potential Conflict with Public Access Improvements. San Francisco and BCDC policies stress the importance of public access to the Bay. The proposed San Francisco HWC Converter Station site would be located directly adjacent to the waterfront and would not improve public access to the Bay. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure LU-1: Public Access. The Project proponent shall obtain any necessary permits from applicable agencies, including BCDC, and meet requisite conditions of approval including any conditions to provide Bay access in the vicinity of the Project site.

Implementation Responsibility:  Project proponent

Requirements and Timing:         Approval by BCDC and San Francisco Planning Department prior to issuance of a BCDC permit

Monitoring Requirements:          City of Pittsburg to monitor and ensure compliance

Resulting Level of Significance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-1 would reduce Impact LU-1 to a less-than-significant level.

Physically Disrupt or Divide a Community. The San Francisco HWC Converter Station and proposed and alternative laydown areas would not require displacement of housing and would not have significant land use impacts on the community. The HWC Converter Station would be consistent with the existing uses of the site and surrounding area. The nearest residential development near the HWC site is approximately 900 feet to the west.

Consistency with Established or Proposed Land Uses. Established uses surrounding the HWC site as well as the proposed and alternative construction laydown areas are primarily industrial, with the exception of San Francisco Bay to the east and Warm Water Cove Park.. Additional potentially sensitive land uses in the area include a church located approximately 1,200 feet from the HWC site and residential units located about 900 feet from the site. The Potrero Power Plant and PG&E substation are within 180 feet of the HWC site. Pier 70 to the north and Pier 80 to the south are actively used for dry dock and container terminals.

Operation of the San Francisco HWC Converter Station would be consistent with uses within the existing M-2 district. The San Francisco Planning Department has proposed to rezone the site from M-2 to PDR. The PDR zoning would prohibit residential and most office developments. Utilities are described as a core use within the PDR district (SFPD, 2005). Although the allowed uses within the PDR district are still being refined, City staff have indicated that they plan on adding a broad range of industrial uses within the PDR district and that the proposed converter station would be consistent with what they intend to propose.

4.8.3.3    Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station

4.8.3.3.1    Construction-related Impacts. Construction activities would be designed and undertaken to minimize interference with surrounding land uses. Once grading of the Project site commenced, development of the site itself would disturb currently developed land. Although some temporary, short-term construction-related impacts on adjacent land uses are anticipated, these impacts are not expected to be significant because of the distance between the Standard Oil site and the nearest residential or other sensitive receptor. Overall, the impact of construction activities would be less than significant, due to compatibility with existing land uses that are closest to the site and the temporary construction period.

4.8.3.3.2    Operations-related Impacts. The Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station site is currently used and surrounded by primarily industrial and vacant properties. The Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station represents further development of an area committed to industrial use rather than the introduction of industry to a non-industrial area. The proposed access road to the Standard Oil site would be constructed over Kirker Creek.

Consistency with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations. Land use plans and regulations applicable to the Standard Oil site include the Pittsburg General Plan and the Pittsburg Municipal Code. Portions of the proposed onshore cable routes to the PG&E substation on the Mirant Pittsburg property also currently fall under the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance.

The Standard Oil site is located approximately 3,300 feet south of the shoreline along New York Slough. The Standard Oil site is situated in the Northeast River subarea of Pittsburg. General Plan Policy 2-P-37 stipulates that development in the Northeast River is limited to industrial activities and supporting business and service.

The Standard Oil site is currently zoned IG (General Industrial) and the Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station is consistent with permitted uses within this district. The Standard Oil site would include a 64-foot-tall control building and up to 80-foot-high poles that make up part of the static electricity grounding grid. Development standards for IG District stipulate a maximum height allowance of 50 feet. Additional height is allowed equivalent to the number of additional feet the structure is set back beyond minimum requirements, up to 25 additional feet (for a total maximum of 75 feet). The structure setback must exceed the minimum on all sides to be entitled to additional height. The Pittsburg Planning Department has indicated that this additional setback is applicable to all sides of the property (Strelo, 2005). Section 18.80.020 allows for height limit exceptions for the grounding poles, but only if they encompass no more than 10 percent of the ground area covered by the structure to which they are accessory. If the poles that make up part of the grounding grid comply with the additional setbacks required, they would be permitted to exceed the 75-foot maximum height by 20 feet. The proposed Project would require approval of a design review application for the construction of the Standard Oil Converter Station.

Impact LU-2: Exceedance of Height Allowance. The Project structures exceed height allowances in the City of Pittsburg. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure LU-2: Height Allowance. The Project proponent shall either: 1) apply for and be granted a height variance from the current zoning to allow for height requirements of the Project; or 2) ensure that the 64-foot-tall structure is located beyond a 14-foot setback from all sides of the property, and also ensure that the poles that make up part of the static electricity grounding grid are no more than 10 percent of the ground area covered by the structure to which they are accessory.

Implementation Responsibility: Project proponent

Requirements and Timing:         Approval by Pittsburg Planning Commission prior to issuance of a Building Permit

Monitoring Requirements:          City of Pittsburg to ensure that either: 1) a height variance is approved; or 2) Project improvements are constructed to comply with appropriate setbacks

Resulting Level of Significance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-2 would reduce Impact LU-2 to a less-than-significant level.

The proposed access road to the Standard Oil site would be constructed over Kirker Creek. The Open Space, Youth and Recreation Element of the General Plan identifies Kirker Creek easement as a potential creekside trail. The construction of the access road could potentially conflict with this General Plan policy by precluding or minimizing trail development in this specific area.

Impact LU-3: Potential Conflict with Kirker Creek Policy. The proposed access road to the Standard Oil site could be inconsistent with the General Plan policy to use Kirker Creek easement as a creekside trail. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure LU-3: Kirker Creek Policy. The Project proponent shall coordinate with the City of Pittsburg to ensure that the construction of the proposed access road is consistent with future planned development of Kirker Creek creekside trail, to the extent feasible.

Implementation Responsibility:  Project proponent

Requirements and Timing:         Approval by Pittsburg Engineering Department prior to issuance of grading permit for new road

Monitoring Requirements:          City of Pittsburg to monitor and ensure compliance

Resulting Level of Significance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-3 would reduce Impact LU-3 to a less-than-significant level.

The proposed onshore cable routes on the Mirant Pittsburg property are located within an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. This portion of the cable route is currently zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) by Contra Costa County. The Pittsburg City Council has initiated pre-zoning an area which includes this segment of the onshore cable route. This new zoning would be consistent with the current General Plan designation of Industrial for that area and, therefore, cable installation would not conflict with current or proposed land use designations.

Physically Disrupt or Divide a Community. The Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station would be consistent with the existing uses of the site and surrounding area. The residential development nearest the Standard Oil site is approximately 3,050 feet to the southwest. The Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station would not require displacement of housing and would not have significant impacts on the community.

Consistency with Established or Proposed Land Uses. Established uses surrounding the Standard Oil site are primarily industrial, excluding adjacent vacant lots. The nearest potentially sensitive land uses are residences located south of SR 4. Heavy industry and business commercial parks are planned between the BNSF railroad tracks and SR 4. No residential housing is proposed near the Standard Oil site. The nearest potentially sensitive land use is approximately 3,000 feet from the site. The Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station would be consistent with established and proposed land uses of the area.

The alternative access road would not cross over Kirker Creek, and thus, would avoid Impact LU-4. The alternative access road alignment is zoned Industrial. Using this area for an access road to the Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station would be consistent with current and planned land uses and would not disrupt or divide a community.

The alternative Standard Oil laydown area is located in an area of Pittsburg primarily used and zoned for industrial purposes. The use of the site as a construction laydown area would be consistent with current and planned land uses and would not disrupt or divide a community. No land use or recreational impacts associated with operations would occur as a result of using this site for construction laydown.

4.8.3.4    Offshore DC Cable Route

4.8.3.4.1    Construction-related Impacts. Construction-related impacts associated with marine uses could occur by increased risk of incidents, such as collision and near misses between construction vessels and recreational water users (e.g., windsurfers or recreational boaters).

Table 4.8-4 presents the location of existing windsurfing launch sites in the Bay and the season during which these locations are likely to be most heavily used. The windsurfing launch site closest to the proposed cable route is in Benicia. Depending on wind and tide conditions, windsurfers generally sail within a 1- to 2-mile radius from their launch sites. Windsurfers require a minimum wind speed of 9 knots, and typically sail with winds ranging from 15 to 30 knots. Consequently, windsurfers may be traveling at higher speeds than the construction vessel.

Table 4.8-3 presents the locations of marinas along the San Francisco Bay shoreline, where local recreational water users berth or store their vessels. The marinas closest to the proposed cable route are in Benicia and Pittsburg. While most marinas are concentrated in the Central Bay, many vessels can travel virtually anywhere in San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, depending on the capability of the vessel and the operator. Boating activities in the Bay Area are well organized. Sail races are scheduled and planned well in advance of the events. USCG, the California Department of Boating and Waterways, marina associations, yacht clubs, and community-based entities such as Boat U.S. Foundation have collaborated extensively in matters of boating education and improving recreational navigation safety in northern California. Despite these precautionary measures, however, there is still a potential for interaction between the construction vessel and recreational boaters along the proposed cable route, especially for unorganized recreational events.

Impact LU-4: Increased Vessel Traffic. Project construction activities would temporarily increase vessel traffic in the Bay. Recreational users of the Bay could experience a temporary increased risk from additional vessel traffic. This impact is considered to be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure LU-4a: Vessel Crew Procedures. Marine crews shall watch for navigational hazards (i.e., during periods of high use by recreational boaters including windsurfers within the vicinity of selected terminal locations; during periods of high recreational use, such as weekends or race events; or when weather hazards exist) to reduce the risk of incidents involving construction vessels and recreational users in the Bay.

Implementation Responsibility:  Project proponent/construction contractor

Requirements and Timing:         Crew members shall follow standard navigational procedures during cable installation activities on the Bay

Monitoring Requirements:          City of Pittsburg to monitor and ensure compliance

Mitigation LU-4b: Coast Guard Coordination. Construction crew management shall coordinate construction activities with the USCG Safety Branch to ensure that no marine recreational events conflicts arise. The Project coordinator would include information to the USCG which would issue a Local Notice to Mariners. In addition, each affected harbor district will be made aware of the timing of water-based Project activities such as the cable laying operations. Applicable navigation rules will be enforced including the Cable Act of 1992 (47 CFR §76) which states that other vessels must maintain a 1.15‑mile (1-nm) separation from a vessel laying or repairing an undersea cable.

Implementation Responsibility:  Project proponent/construction contractor

Requirements and Timing:         Contact USCG prior to construction; USCG would submit Daily Notice to Mariners during construction-related vessel movement in the Bay

Monitoring Requirements:          City of Pittsburg to monitor and ensure compliance

Resulting Level of Significance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure LU-4a and LU-4b would reduce Impact LU-4 to a less-than-significant level.

4.8.3.4.2    Operations-related Impacts. The cable would typically be located 3 to 6 feet below the Bay floor in areas of the Bay containing soft sediments. Depths are expected to vary in response to the geophysical makeup of the Bay floor sediments. After construction activities cease, the cable would remain buried and would not be expected to disrupt existing uses of the Bay.

Consistency with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations. Applicable land use plans for the offshore cable include the San Francisco Bay Plan. In addition, the offshore cable transects more than 10 different jurisdictions, including the counties and cities listed in Table 4.8-5. Each jurisdiction has distinct zoning and general plan designations within their applicable areas. City and County General Plans for many of the affected city and counties do not address Bay uses as far offshore as the cable route.

The town of Tiburon, City of San Rafael, Contra Costa County, City of Martinez, and Solano County have zoned the Bay in their respective regulations, including the applicable areas traversed by the proposed submarine cable route. The remaining jurisdictions do not have zoning for the applicable portions of the proposed offshore cable route.

The town of Tiburon, City of San Rafael, and Contra Costa County do not require a permit for cable installation. However, Contra Costa County has indicated that they act as the Local Sponsor for navigation projects, and in this capacity, they would include some level of responsibility and could require relocation of utilities where necessary. The City of Martinez requires a Conditional Use Permit. In Solano County, the cable route is within the Marsh Preservation zone. The Marsh Preservation zone has primary and secondary management areas. The entire cable route in the Marsh Preservation zone falls within the primary management area. A permit from the BCDC is required for cable installation in the primary management area.

Based on review of zoning designations and consultations with City and County personnel, there are no conflicts between land use plans or policies for installation of the proposed submarine cable. However, further coordination is required to ensure that no potential significant conflicts with local plans and policies occur from cable installation, particularly City of Martinez and Contra Costa County.

Impact LU-5: Potential Conflict with Local Plans and Policies. Cable installation is not expected to conflict with local jurisdictions plans or policies. Based on available feedback, no apparent conflict in land use plans or policies would occur with installation of the submarine cable. However, Contra Costa County has indicated that their agency would incur some level of responsibility and could require relocation of utilities where necessary. In addition, the City of Martinez requires a Conditional Use Permit for installation of the offshore cable. Not obtaining appropriate planning permits or coordinating with local agencies would be considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure LU-5: Local Plans and Policies Coordination. The Project proponent shall coordinate with the City of Martinez and Contra Costa County to provide adequate notification and gain the appropriate permits and authorization required for installation of the submarine cable.

Implementation Responsibility:  Project proponent

Requirements and Timing:         Approval from all local jurisdictions prior to issuance of a BCDC permit

Monitoring Requirements:          City of Pittsburg to monitor and ensure compliance

Resulting Level of Significance. Mitigation Measure LU-5 would reduce Impact LU-5 to a less-than-significant level.

Physically Disrupt or Divide a Community. The submarine cable would be buried under San Francisco Bay and the cable is expected to require no scheduled maintenance for the life of the Project. The condition of the cable would be monitored offsite by computer. If significant damage occurred, the repair may require a new section of cable to be added to the cable by splicing. Repair vessels could impact recreational users in the Bay for a short period, as with construction vessels. However, this vessel activity would be limited to special circumstances if the cable needed unplanned repairs and, thus, would have negligible impacts on recreational users.

Consistency with Established or Proposed Land and Marine Uses. A portion of the offshore cable route is subject to the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan (1976). The Suisun Marsh Protection Plan states that underground cables should be permitted in the Suisun Marsh if no alternative route is feasible and they are designed and constructed to meet specified standards outlined in the Plan. As indicated in Mitigation Measure LU-1, the Project proponent would be required to obtain any necessary permits from BCDC and meet requisite conditions of approval prior to Project initiation. Obtaining the BCDC permit for the Project would ensure compliance with the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan and no additional mitigation is required to ensure consistency with established land use plans for the offshore cable.

Recreational water users may be temporarily interrupted on the Bay during installation of the offshore cable. However, operation of the cable would not interfere with existing or proposed marine uses since the cable would for the most part be buried under Bay sediments. The potential for the cable to impact existing submarine utilities crossed by the proposed cable route is discussed in Section 4.12, Public Services and Utilities.

4.8.4    References

ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2000. Population Projections. May.

2001. Projections 2002. Oakland, California. December.

Badiner, Larry. 2005. San Francisco Zoning Administrator. Personal communication with K. Rushmore, URS Corporation. November 15.

BCDC (San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission). 1976. The Suisun Marsh Protection Plan.

2001. www.bcdc.ca.gov.

2001. Public Access Design Guidelines.

2003. The San Francisco Bay Plan. June.

CPPD (City of Pittsburg Planning Department). 2004. General Plan.

Englebright, Harry. 2006. Solano County Planning Department. Personal communication with K. Rushmore, URS Corporation. March 30.

Osborne, John. 2005. Letter Regarding Trans Bay Cable Project. County File. #Z105-11054.

Phillips, Todd. 2005. Monterey Office, California Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication with K. Rushmore, URS Corporation. November 29.

Port of SF (Port of San Francisco). 2005. Strategic Plan.

Website on Southern Waterfront. http://www.sfport.com/site/sfport_index.asp?id=23742.

Rubin, Jasper. 2005. Area Planner, San Francisco Planning Department. Personal communication with K. Rushmore, URS Corporation. November 1 and 29.

SFPD (San Francisco Planning Department). 1998a. General Plan. January.

1998b.The Central Waterfront Area Plan.

2002. The Central Waterfront Neighborhood Plan. Draft for Public Review.

2005. Webpage http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=27434.

Simon, Corey. 2005. Planner. City of Martinez. Personal communication with K. Rushmore, URS Corporation. November 21.

Strelo, Ken. 2005. Associate Planner, Pittsburg Planning Department. Personal communication with K. Rushmore, URS Corporation. November 3.

URS Corporation. 2003. Expansion of Ferry Transit Service in the San Francisco Bay Area. Final Program Environmental Impact Report. June.

USCG (U.S. Coast Guard). 2005. San Francisco Waterways Safety Branch. List of Permitted Marine Events.