SU0015801 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 Comparison of Comparison of Alternatives 5.4.1.17 Utilities and Service Systems The Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative would entail additional earthwork, requiring more water to manage construction dust. Generation of sanitary and solid waste would be similar to the Project. There would be no conflict with solid waste reduction statutes or regulations. The Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative would, therefore, have similar but slightly greater impacts related to utilities. 5.4.1.18 Wildfire The Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative would require more construction equipment operational hours due to the greater amount of earthwork, resulting in greater ignition risks during construction. The potential for ignition risks on-site during the operation and maintenance phase would be the same as for the Project. The impacts of the Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative would be slightly greater, although similar in nature to the Project. 5.4.2 Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives Compared to the Project, the Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative would potentially reduce the Project's impacts to aesthetics and noise due to the increased setback from existing residences. Though none of these Project impacts are significant after mitigation, the Three- Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative, by reducing the proximity of noise-emitting visible facilities to residences,would reduce the potential for aesthetic and noise impacts compared to the Project. The Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative would entail greater amounts of earthwork, generating more construction dust, increased construction and decommissioning emissions associated with earthwork equipment, and increased demand for water for dust suppression. Additionally, this alternative would have a greater potential to disturb cultural resources. The Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative would have greater impacts on air quality, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and tribal cultural resources. Compared to the Project, the Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative is anticipated to have similar impacts to agriculture due to the cancellation of the property's Williamson Act contract. The Three-Terrace Southeast Corner Alternative would meet the Project Objectives to provide 400 MW of energy storage in San Joaquin County in a cost-effective manner (Project Objective 1). It would be feasible and may reduce impacts to aesthetics and noise; however, it would result in greater impacts to air quality, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and tribal cultural resources such that it would not be the most efficient and environmentally beneficial use of the site's limited agricultural capacity (Project Objective 4). The generation tie (gen-tie) line to the Tesla Substation would also be approximately 800 feet longer, such that the alternative would not achieve Project Objective 5 to minimize gen-tie length. 5.5 NORTHERN SITE ALTERNATIVE The Northern Site Alternative would relocate the Project to a parcel north of the Project site and north of West Patterson Pass Road that is approximately 142 acres in size, shown in Figure 5-2. The Northern Site Alternative site size is approximately 36 acres larger than the Project site; however, it is anticipated that the same amount of acreage would be used for battery energy storage facilities as the Project to achieve 400 MW of energy storage. An ephemeral drainage bisects the site (USGS 2023), on which facilities would not be built to avoid impacts to biological Griffith Energy Storage Project 5-11 Tetra Tech/SCH 2022120675 Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2023