SECTION 2.0

INTRODUCTION

---

2.1   OVERVIEW

The City of Pittsburg has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) document on the Trans Bay Cable Project in order to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Draft EIR contains information from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), a not-for-profit public benefit corporation that acts as the impartial operator of the state's wholesale power grid, maintaining reliability and directing the electricity traffic on the transmission grid that connects energy suppliers with the energy providers that serve over 30,000,000 Californians. The City of Pittsburg is the lead agency under CEQA for the preparation of this EIR.

The proposed Trans Bay Cable (TBC) Project (Project) consists of installation of an approximately 57-mile-long High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cable in San Francisco Bay and connecting waterways, from a terminus near the City of Pittsburg in Contra Costa County to a terminus in the City and County of San Francisco in the vicinity of Potrero Point (refer to Figure 3-1). The Project is proposed to transmit electrical power from a converter station in Pittsburg to a converter station in San Francisco, providing a dedicated connection between a substation in the East Bay near Pittsburg, which is fed by sufficient generating and transmission capacity, and distribution facilities in San Francisco. This electrical power delivered to San Francisco would help meet the City of San Francisco's electrical demand projected for 2012 and beyond (e.g., at least 40 years). The Project is designed to be a cost-effective, energy-efficient solution addressing San Francisco's need for additional transmission capacity, while improving transmission reliability and load serving capability. The HVDC transmission line would provide San Francisco with a highly reliable, secure source of the electricity needed to service the load in San Francisco. The CAISO identified three transmission system reinforcements to meet the long–term reliable load-serving plan. The following are the three reinforcements with the TBC Project included as the third component to meet the CAISO objectives:

• Jefferson-to-Martin Transmission Line

• Construction and Operation of the City and County of San Francisco Electrical Reliability Project

• TBC HVDC Transmission Line from Pittsburg to San Francisco

The Project is proposed by Trans Bay Cable LLC, an affiliate of Babcock & Brown, a Sydney, Australia-based company, with its major overseas office based in San Francisco, in cooperation with the City of Pittsburg and Pittsburg Power Company, a municipal utility. A consortium of Siemens Power Transmission & Distribution, Inc. (Siemens) and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Energia S.r.L (Prysmian) would provide the converter station and cable technology. Siemens, using Prysmian (or comparable) cable and installation technology, would provide converter technology, engineering, and procurement and construction management.

Two converter stations would be constructed, one in the City of Pittsburg and one in the City and County of San Francisco near Potrero Point. The proposed converter stations would convert electrical power from Alternating Current (AC) to Direct Current (DC) in Pittsburg and from DC back to AC in San Francisco. The proposed Project also includes AC cable segments to interconnect the proposed converter stations with existing Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) from a terminus near the City of Pittsburg in Contra Costa County.

The primary goal of the Project is to deliver electricity to San Francisco to meet projected demand. The proposed Project would be expected to:

• Meet the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) planning and reliability standards

• Decrease transmission grid congestion in the East Bay

• Reduce transmission losses

• Increase the overall security and reliability of the electrical system

• Provide potential savings to ratepayers

The balance of this Section is organized as follows:

• 2.2 – Summary of the Proposed Project

• 2.3 – Purpose and Need for the Project

• 2.4 – Approvals to be Sought Through Use of this EIR

• 2.5 – Scope of the EIR and Public Participation

2.2    SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The proposed HVDC Transmission System is made up of the following components:

• Installation of approximately 57 miles of new HVDC cable (submarine and buried onshore)

• Construction of two new converter stations

• Installation of approximately 5.5 miles of new submarine, underground, and aboveground single-circuit 230 kV AC transmission cable/line in Pittsburg

• Installation of approximately 0.3 mile of underground double-circuit 115 kV AC transmission cable (or overhead line) in San Francisco

2.3    pURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

2.3.1    Introduction

The CAISO Management and Board of Governors have determined the Trans Bay Cable Project is required to ensure reliable operation of the transmission system serving the San Francisco Bay area.

2.3.2    Project Objectives

On September 8, 2005, the CAISO staff recommended and the Board of Governors approved the Trans Bay Cable Project as the preferred long term transmission alternative to address the identified reliability concerns in northern San Mateo County and San Francisco beginning in 2012. The CAISO staff and Board of Governors support the early implementation of the Project for operation in 2009.

Trans Bay Cable LLC identified the following Project objectives. These objectives are used to guide and evaluate the selection of the most feasible alternative in this EIR and to meet the CAISO's San Francisco Stakeholders Study Group (SFSSG) plan reliability project requirements dated September 2, 2005. The following web address provides the San Francisco Peninsula, Phase 2, Long-Term Electric Transmission Planning Technical Study, Final Report, November 14, 2005: http://www.caiso.com/14cd/14cd7bd415cb0ex.html

2.3.2.1    Project Location Objectives

2.3.2.1.1    Converter Stations. Locate the converter stations such that: 1) they are in close proximity to existing, high capacity PG&E substations; 2) the converter station site in the East Bay provides access to a substation that supports local generation as well as being reinforced by diverse generation from outside the local area; 3) the San Francisco converter station site allows for a substation connection at the northerly end of the San Francisco Peninsula nearest the load center; 4) connecting the two converter station sites with new transmission wires should create minimum short-term disruption to the areas and no long-term undesirable impacts; 5) they should not require the construction of significant overhead transmission lines on the San Francisco Peninsula or in the East Bay; 6) they can be expected to reduce the burden on the existing south-to-north Peninsular transmission system that currently supplies the large majority of San Francisco's electrical energy; and 7) they possess long-term financeable real estate rights.

2.3.2.1.2    Cable Routes. Select AC and DC cable routes such that: 1) the efficiency and economies of electric power transmission in the area are improved; 2) the routes involve minimal environmental impacts, as practical; 3) installation of new transmission cables is in compliance with the CAISO-approved reliability project that supports the early implementation of the Project for commercial operation no earlier than 2009; 4) access to and control of the land required to install the new cable should be obtainable through long-term financeable real estate rights; and 5) installation and the final location of the cable should result in minimal short-term disruption to the public, ensure public safety, and provide an appreciable measure of long-term security.

2.3.2.2    Transmission System Reliability Objectives

2.3.2.2.1    Objective: Create a More Diverse Transmission System in the Area. The objective is to increase transmission system reliability in the greater San Francisco Peninsula by providing a second independent major transmission route into the northerly end of the San Francisco Peninsula. This provides a long-term reliable access to a load-serving source of energy, provides access to more economically available energy in the East Bay, and decreases the San Francisco Peninsula's vulnerability and dependence over the single existing south-to-north transmission path.

2.3.2.2.2    Objective: Comply with Planning Criteria. The objective is to ensure that the transmission system serving the City of San Francisco will continue to provide both the capacity and flexibility necessary to meet the planning standards and criteria established by the CAISO and the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). In addition, compliance with the San Francisco Peninsula Long Term Transmission Planning Study Phase II prepared by the SFSSG will result in an integrated transmission system capable of supplying the City of San Francisco with the energy necessary to meet load demands beyond 2012 (see Appendix C of this EIR for certain CAISO documents related to this study).

2.3.2.2.3    Objective: New Generation and/or Transmission Facilities. With no new generation anticipated to be built north of the Martin Substation except the San Francisco Electrical Reliability Project, the CAISO plan to reliably serve the San Francisco load from 2012 and beyond requires a new transmission system to be installed. The singular and heavily loaded existing south-to-north transmission path serving San Francisco should be supported with the addition of new major transmission capacity. In addition, the installation of new transmission lines and pathways should be complementary to and compatible with allowing the San Francisco Peninsula access to available local generation as well as provide the CAISO the robust operating system necessary to effectively manage the area's transmission and generating systems.

2.3.2.2.4    Objective: Current Electric Supply and Demand. The objective is to supply northern San Mateo County and San Francisco County with a reliable, efficient, economic, and environmentally compatible source of energy from the East Bay. CAISO transmission studies estimate that the Project would allow the same load to be served with approximately 20 megawatts (MW) less generation because: 1) the Project would create a new, shorter transmission path into the northern San Francisco peninsula; 2) the DC transmission line losses are less than a typical AC transmission line; and 3) congestion would be relieved in the transmission grid. The current transmission infrastructure within the San Francisco Peninsula area is insufficient to accommodate the CAISO-anticipated area load projections.

2.4    APPROVALS TO BE SOUGHT THROUGH USE OF THIS EIR

Finalization of this EIR, which includes the governmental agency and public review and comment process, will constitute the basis for compliance with CEQA and for establishing the regulatory conditions that the Project shall adhere to. Authorization to construct the Project would require the issuance of permits by the various governmental agencies that have jurisdiction over the different component areas that the Project traverses and/or regulatory authorities over the environmental resources.

Generally, environmental permitting will fall into four categories, as follows:

• Coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Operations and Readiness Division, Dredged Materials Management Office (DMMO) for components of the Project pertaining to dredging bottom sediments in the bay for laying cable
  
  
• Coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding potential effects to species protected under the federal Endangered Species Act, marine mammals protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and potential adverse affects to Essential Fish Habitat
  
  
• Coordination through the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) process for components of the Project that take place in the Bay, including areas near or in wetlands or creeks that flow into the Bay
  
  
• All other discretionary federal, state, and local land use and construction permitting requirements
  
  

The filing of the majority of the required permit applications would follow certification of the EIR, which will be considered by the City of Pittsburg acting as lead agency. The City of Pittsburg has the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the Project as a whole. Pittsburg Power Company would determine after certification whether to exercise its option to acquire the Project's physical assets coincident with the commercial operation date (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15051). Depending upon the converter station site selected in Pittsburg, the City of Pittsburg is expected to consider any or all of the following discretionary approvals for the Project: development agreement (pursuant to Government Code sections 65864 to 65869.5), franchise agreement (pursuant to Public Utilities Code sections 6201 to 6302) and design review. In addition, for the two alternative Pittsburg West Tenth Street sites, a rezoning of the current overlay zoning district would be required to allow the converter station. If the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pittsburg were to acquire real property for Project purposes, such agency would utilize this EIR in connection with its consideration of all steps associated with acquisition. Pittsburg Power Company is expected to utilize this EIR as it considers whether to approve a Purchase and Sale Agreement as to the Project's physical assets. Finally, either the City of Pittsburg, its Redevelopment Agency or Pittsburg Power Company may consider the adoption of a resolution of necessity to initiate eminent domain proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1230.010 and following, as and if necessary to acquire real property interests for Project facilities. The acquiring agency would utilize this EIR in its consideration of the acquisition of any such interests in real property, and any disposition of those interests as required by Trans Bay Cable LLC during construction of Project facilities.

The specific approvals that have been identified as necessary or potentially necessary for authorizing construction of the Project, with the City of Pittsburg as the Lead Agency and the corresponding regulatory entities, acting as responsible agencies, are identified in
Table 2-1.

2.5    SCOPE OF THE EIR AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

2.5.1    Introduction

Consistent with the CEQA environmental review process, the scope of this EIR for the proposed Project includes a description of the Project design, location, environmental setting, and alternatives, and evaluates potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. The CEQA process also requires that the Project's governmental lead agency shall notify the public and shall make resources and opportunities available for public participation in developing the scope of the EIR, then reviewing and commenting on the EIR before its finalization and certification by the lead agency. The lead agency for the Trans Bay Cable Project is the City of Pittsburg Planning Department, 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg, CA 94565-3814.

Four of the basic purposes of CEQA are to: 1) inform governmental decision-makers and the public about potentially significant environmental impacts of proposed projects; 2) identify ways that environmental impacts can be avoided or significantly reduced; 3) prevent significant, avoidable impacts to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures; and 4) disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental lead agency approved the project if significant environmental impacts

TABLE 2-1
POTENTIALLY REQUIRED PERMITS AND
APPROVALS FOR THE TRANS BAY CABLE PROJECT

are identified. As stated in Section 15151 (Standards for Adequacy of an EIR) of the CEQA Guidelines:

An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible.

2.5.2    Consistency of EIR Scope with CEQA Requirements

The scope of this EIR was developed to be consistent with CEQA regulations, so that it can be used by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies and the public in their review of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project, its alternatives, and the recommended mitigation measures that are intended to minimize, avoid, or eliminate any environmental impacts. The sections below describe several relevant CEQA regulations that serve as guidance for the overall EIR development, notification, public review and comment, approval and certification, filing, and compliance monitoring and reporting process.

2.5.2.1    Impacts Analysis and Significance Determinations

To be consistent with CEQA, the scope of this EIR included qualitative and quantitative analysis of the potential environmental impacts that the proposed Project could have upon the surrounding area and its identified environmental resources. The analysis process also included determining the potential significance of identified impacts based upon significance criteria developed for each environmental resources category following the guidance provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 (Approval) require that a lead agency shall neither approve nor carry out a project as proposed unless it finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. In accordance with Section 21081.6 (Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting), the lead agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the Project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Furthermore, Section 21081 stipulates that where changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the lead agency, those changes have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency.

However, if there are no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to the project available that will substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project, then CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 (Statement of Overriding Considerations) does allow a lead agency to approve or carry out a project by adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. A Statement of Overriding Considerations may only be approved if the lead agency finds that the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The lead agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record, should be included in the record of the project approval, and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination.

2.5.2.2    Notice of Preparation

In accordance with CEQA Section 21080.4 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued by the City of Pittsburg on August 23, 2004 (refer to Appendix B of this EIR). Distribution of the NOP included:

• Posting on the City of Pittsburg website at http://www.ci.pittsburg.ca.us/Pittsburg/
  Government/Departments/Redevelopment+Agency/Trans+Bay+Cable+Project.htm
  
  
• Distribution to local, state, and federal agencies and other interested parties included on the NOP Distribution List maintained by the City of Pittsburg

The comment period was open for 30 days with a comment due date of September 22, 2004. The contact for comments was Mr. Randy Jerome, Planning and Building Director (now a consultant to the City of Pittsburg on the Project). An EIR scoping session was announced on the City of Pittsburg website and was held on Wednesday, October 19, 2005, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, at 65 Civic Avenue, Pittsburg. A second EIR scoping session was held on Thursday, November 3, 2005, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Potrero Hill Neighborhood House, 953 DeHaro Street, San Francisco. Comments received on the NOP and at the EIR scoping sessions have been considered, as appropriate, in the scope of this EIR. Refer to Appendix B for more information.

2.5.2.3    Public Participation Program

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15201 (Public Participation), Section 15202 (Public Hearings), and Section 15203 (Adequate Time for Review and Comment), this Draft EIR will be distributed to federal, state, and local regulatory agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals, for the purpose of soliciting comments on the Draft EIR. Commencement of this distribution will mark the beginning of a 45-day Public Review and Comment Period.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (Focus of Review) provides public and agency commentors basic guidance for conducting a focused review and comment on this Draft EIR, stated as follows:

In reviewing draft EIRs, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.

2.5.2.4    Review by State Agencies

As stipulated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15205 (Review by State Agencies), Draft EIRs to be reviewed by state agencies shall be submitted to the State Clearinghouse when a project is identified by the criteria set forth in Section 15206 as being of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. Copies of this Draft EIR were sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State Agencies.

2.5.2.5    Final EIR

Written and verbal public hearing comments received during the comment period in response to the Draft EIR will be addressed in a Final EIR. The Final EIR will contain responses to comments on the environmental issues raised during the Public Review and Comment Period, revisions that may be required to the Draft EIR based on comments received, and other information that may be added. The City of Pittsburg will review the Final EIR and will consider a resolution for the Final EIR certification. Certification must include a finding made at a noticed public meeting that Final EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA.

2.5.2.6    Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting

As stipulated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, the lead agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the Project and/or the mitigation measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. Furthermore, the lead agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed the lead agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.

2.6    ORGANIZATION OF EIR

The balance ofthis Draft EIR is organized as follows:

• 3.0 Project Description
  
  
• 4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation – Proposed Project
  
  
• 5.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation - Project Alternatives
  
  
• 6.0 Comparison of Alternatives
  
  
• 7.0 Cumulative Impacts
  
  
• 8.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts
  
  
• 9.0 Unavoidable Adverse Significant Impacts
  
  
• 10.0 EIR Preparers and Agency Consultation
  
  
• 11.0 List of Acronyms
  
  
• Appendices A - K
  
  

Sections 1.0 through 11.0 and Appendix A are presented in Volume 1 of this Draft EIR and Appendices B through K are presented in Volume 2.

This Project involves the installation of a submarine cable between the City of San Francisco and the City of Pittsburg. As previously discussed, the Project includes a converter station at each end of the cable. In Section 4.0, this EIR describes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed converter station sites in San Francisco (the HWC site) and Pittsburg (the Standard Oil site). In Section 5.0, this EIR describes the potential environmental impacts of two alternative converter station sites in San Francisco (the Mirant Potrero [three layouts] and Sheedy sites), and three alternative converter station sites in Pittsburg (West Tenth Street Alternatives 1 and 2, and the Mirant [Pittsburg Power Plant] site). This EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA and provides the environmental documentation necessary for the selection of either of the proposed sites or any of the alternative sites.