SU0015801 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 Environmental Analysis 4.11 Land Use and Planning Summary As discussed in the above policy consistency analysis for the Project within San Joaquin County and the gen-tie line within Alameda County, the Project would not conflict with either the County's Zoning Ordinance nor with the applicable policies in San Joaquin County's General Plan or Alameda County's ECAP. Therefore, the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. 4.11.5 PG&E Tesla Substation Improvements and Gen-Tie To accommodate the Project, PG&E would be responsible for siting, design and construction of the gen-tie transmission line from the POCO to its substation. Two options are available for the gen-tie line route from this point. The first option would be to connect via an aboveground line from the POCO to a point on the west side of the southwestern boundary of the substation. The second option is to enter the substation on the southwestern edge by way of a belowground line as shown in Figure 2-1 of Chapter 2, Project Description. Either ROW corridor is assumed to be up to 100 feet in width. Additionally, PG&E would upgrade the Tesla Substation, and the improvements would include the installation of a grounding system, disconnect switches, surge arresters, outdoor lighting and outlets, and fiber termination for the gen-tie line. All such improvements would be within the existing Tesla Substation footprint. Neither development of PG&E's portion of the gen-tie line nor the improvements within the Tesla substation would divide an established community or interfere with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. The above policy consistency analysis in Section 4.11.4 for development of the gen- tle line within Alameda County would also support PG&E's development of its portion of the gen- tle cable. The main difference between the two portions of the gen-tie, other than ownership, is that PG&E is considering an option to install its portion of the gen-tie belowground. The ECAP includes Policies 120 and 287,which require undergrounding of utility lines,where feasible. Thus, this option for PG&E's portion of the gen-tie would further support these ECAP policies. However, as previously discussed, the gen-tie line would be 230 kV and the undergrounding of utility lines is not required for electrical distribution facilities carrying voltage higher than 35 kV, pursuant to Alameda County Code Section 13.16.030. Therefore, the PG&E Tesla Substation improvements and development of its portion of the gen-tie line would result in less than significant impacts per significance criteria described for Impacts 4.11-1 or 4.11-2. No mitigation would be required. 4.11.6 Cumulative Impacts Because the Project would not have any significant impact on land use and planning, and because conflicts with land use plans, policies, or regulations are project-specific, the Project would not cause or contribute to any cumulative impact. Additionally, consistent with Alameda County Measure D, the gen-tie would have no growth-inducing effect on the East County area or elsewhere and would, therefore, not result in a cumulative impact related to excessive growth- inducing effects on the East County area. No mitigation would be required. Griffith Battery Energy Storage Project 4.11-26 Tetra Tech/SCH 2022120675 Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2023