STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

PG&E
Proposed Jefferson-Martin 230 kV Transmission Project

(Application No. A-02-09-043, filed September 30, 2002)
   
 
   

Final Environmental Impact Report
These files are in Portable Document Format (PDF). To view them, you will need to download the free Adobe Acrobat Reader if it is not already installed on your PC. Note: For best results in displaying the largest files (see sizes shown in parentheses for files larger than 2.0 MB), right-click on the file's link, click "Save Target As" ("Save Link As" in Netscape) to download the file to your hard drive, then open it in Acrobat.
Volume 1 Contents
Notice of Availability
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
  1.  Introduction/Background
2.  Alternatives
3.  Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
4.  Summary Comparison of the Proposed Project and Alternatives
5.  Impact Summary Tables
A. Introduction/Overview
  A.1  History and Overview of Proposed Project
A.2  Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project
A.3  Agency Use of This Document
A.4  Reader's Guide to This EIR
B. Description of Proposed Project
  B.1  Introduction
B.2  Description of the Proposed Project
B.3  Project Construction
B.4 Operation and Maintenance Procedures
C. Alternatives
  C.1  Alternatives Development and Screening Process
C.2  Alternatives Screening Methodology
C.3  Summary of Screening Results
C.4  Alternatives Evaluated in this EIR
C.5  Alternatives Eliminated from Full EIR Evaluation
C.6  No Project Alternative
D. Environmental Analysis
 

D.1  Introduction to Environmental Analysis
D.2  Land Use
D.3  Visual Resources
D.3  Visual Resources Summary
D.4  Biological Resources
D.5  Cultural Resources
D.6  Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
D.7  Hydrology and Water Quality
D.8  Public Health and Safety
D.9  Recreation
D.10  Air Quality
D.11  Noise and Vibration
D.12  Transportation and Traffic
D.13  Socioeconomics
D.14  Public Services and Utilities
E. Comparison of Alternatives
  E.1  Comparison Methodology
E.2  Environmentally Superior Alternative
E.3  No Project Alternative vs. the Environmentally Superior Alternative
F. Other CEQA Considerations
  F.1  Growth Inducing Effects
F.2  Significant Irreversible Changes
F.3  Cumulative Scenario
F.4  Cumulative Impact Analysis
G. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
  G.1  Authority for the Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance, and Reporting Program
G.2  Organization of the Final Mitigation Monitoring Plan
G.3  Roles and Responsibilities
G.4  Enforcement Responsibility
G.5  Mitigation Compliance Responsibility
G.6  Dispute Resolution
G.7  General Monitoring Procedures
G.8  Condition Effectiveness Review
G.9  Mitigation Monitoring Program Tables
H. Public Participation
  H.1  Introduction
H.2  Public Participation Program
H.3  Draft EIR Public Review Period
H.4  Final EIR Release and CPUC General Proceeding
 
Volume 1 Figures
Certain figures are not included in the online version of the Final EIR due to security concerns. Maps may be viewed at the public repositories listed in the Notice of Availability or copies may be requested from the project e-mail account, jeffmartin@aspeneg.com.
 
Fig A-1.  Existing Transmission System within Vicinity of Project Area
Fig B-1.   Proposed Project - Regional Location
Fig B-4.  Typical Heavy-Angle Lattice Steel Tower
Fig B-5.  Typical Tangent Lattice Steel Tower
Fig B-6.  Typical Tangent Tubular Steel Pole
Fig B-7a.  Proposed Transition Station
Fig B-8.  Conceptual Landscape Design
Fig B-9.  Typical Duct Bank Installation of 230 kV Single-Circuit Solid Dielectric Cable
Fig B-10.  Typical Reduced-Height Duct Bank within Paved Streets
Fig B-11.  Typical Reduced-Width Duct Bank within Paved Streets
Fig B-12a.  Typical Underground Construction Process within Roadways
Fig B-13.  Jefferson Substation Proposed Modifications
Fig B-14.  Ralston Substation Modifications
Fig B-15.  Carolands Substation Modifications
Fig B-16.  Martin Substation Proposed Modifications
Fig B-17.  Hillsdale Junction Modifications
Fig B-18.  Crystal Springs Tap Modifications
Fig B-19.  Millbrae Tap Modifications
Fig B-20.  San Bruno Tap Modifications
Fig B-21.  Watershed Tap Modifications
Fig D.2-2a.  General Plan Land Use Designation (Southern Segment)
Fig D.2-2b.  General Plan Land Use Designation (Northern Segment) (revised)
 
Volume 2: Appendices
1

Alternatives Screening Report
2

Report Preparation
3A  

EMF Data for Proposed Project
3B  

EMF Data for Existing 60 kV Line
3C  

PG&E's Transmission Line EMF Guidelines, Part 1 (3.4MB) Part 2 (4.2MB)
3D  

PG&E's Substation EMF Guidelines, Part 1 (2.6MB)  Part 2 (2.6MB)
4A  

Land Use Policy Consistency
4B  

Scenic and Recreation Easements
5A  

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species
5B  

Biological Resources - Supporting Data
5C  

Sensitive and Special Status Species
6

Cultural Resources
 
Volume 3: Comments and Responses to Comments
Introductory Material
Information Provided During Draft EIR Comment Period
Copies of Information Provided
List of Commenters
General Responses to Major Comments 
Comments from Public Agencies
Comment Set A
Town of Colma
  Comment Set B
City of San Bruno, Part 1  Part 2
  Comment Sets C through H
City of Daly City; City of Burlingame; Burlingame School District; Senator Jackie Speier; Town of Hillsborough; City of South San Francisco
  Comment Sets I through N
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board; Caltrain; City of Millbrae; California Independent System Operator (ISO); Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; Golden Gate National Recreation Area
  Comment Sets O through Q
City and County of San Francisco; California Department of Transportation; City of Brisbane
  Comment Sets R through T
County of San Mateo; California Department of Fish and Game; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comments from Non-Profit Organizations and Community Groups
  Comment Sets CC1 through CC10
 Environmental Justice Advocacy; San Francisco Community Power Cooperative; The San Mateo Highlands Community Association; Sequoia Audubon Society; People for a Golden Gate National Recreation Area; Committee for Green Foothills; The Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter; For Future Generations; Brisbane Chamber of Commerce; South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
Comments from Private Companies
  Comment Sets CC11 through CC16
Cal-Rite Services; VWR International; Mills Peninsula Health Services; Park 'N Fly; Oyster Point Owners Association; Ross, Hackett, Dowling, Valencia & Walti (Golden Gate Produce Terminal)
Comments from the Public Participation Hearing, San Mateo, 8/12/03
  Ms. Chen; Mr. Cole; Mr. McFarland; Mr. Treonor; Mr. Pinney; Ms. Kemper; Mr. Friedman; Ms. Friedman; Ms. Nemschoff; Ms. Lighthouse; Ms. Prentiss; Ms. King; Mr. Kasten; Mr. Grech; Mr. Kobe; Dr. Lillo; Ms. Humphrey; Mr. Anderson; Ms. Carlin; Ms. Hayes; Mr. (Tony) Lee; Ms. Jadalo; Mr. Manky; Ms. Nadle; Ms. Thomas; Mr. Nachlis; Ms. Sure; Mr. Canning; Mr. Cuan; Mr. Goodman; Ms. Lighthouse; Mr. Masters-Gutierrez; Ms. Nemschoff; Mr. Thom; Ms. Williams; Mr. Cole; Ms. Oskamp; Mr. (Tony) Lee
Comments from the Public Participation Hearing, San Bruno, 8/14/03
  Ms. Giannini; Mr. Dudley; Ms. Anding; Ms. Baum; Mr. Zelnik; Mr. (Hanns) Lee; Ms. Wilson; Mr. Sparks; Ms. Williams; Ms. Leavengood; Mr. Franzella; Mr. Elias; Mr. Roberts; Mr. Buschman; Mr. (Tony) Lee; Ms. Loutzenheiser; Mr. Ricci
Comments from Private Individuals
  Comment Sets 1-8
William and Dorothy Goff; Irving and Karen Olson Stern; Karen Olson Stern; Irving and Karen Olson Stern; Don Billings; Dr. & Mrs. John L. Graham; Pokerized4@aol.com; David Krakower
  Comment Sets 9-13
Donald J. McFarland; Ed and Elsie Carlson; Letters Opposing the Proposed Project (PG&E Route Option 1A); Sarkis Sarkisian
  Comment Sets 14-20
 Dr. Cheol Hoon Lee; Cheol Hoon Lee and Tony Lee; Kathy Battat; Ron Small; Diane Hong; Barbara Pavis; Ruth E. Jacobs
  Comment Sets 21-26
Scott Buschman; Rosemarie Lashkoff; David & Diane Willoughby; Letter Opposing Option 1A; Letters Supporting the Watershed Restoration Alternative; Deanne Thomas
  Comment Sets 27-39
James Goodman; Glenn and Carrie Hout; Sandra Treanor; Gregory Stein; Jose F. Campos and 254 Petition Signatures; Mr. and Mrs. Paul Ratto; Calvin & Ellen Inori, Douglas & Kaeko Inori, David Inori, and Gladys & Jean Bartlett; Akira A. Eejima, Pharm D., BCP, and Carol W. Eejima, I.A.R.; Ann Poncelet, M.D.; David & Dale Loutzenheiser; Bennett Bibel; Burt Treanor; Kris M. O'Neil
  Comment Set 40
 Davis Wright Tremaine for the 280 Corridor Concerned Citizens Group
  Comment Sets 41-52
Michael Nagle and Jean Connolly; Richard Cole; Jacqui Moore Lopez; Dennis Tom, M.D.
Laura Nagle; Ralph and Doris Voice; Lee Cauble Lahoz; Edward and Susanne Li; Ronald Schaffner; Maureen Olson; Tom Roberts; Nuri Otus
  Comment Sets 53-66
Erika and Ivan Crockett; Richard and Barbara Kuersteiner and George T. Lenehan; Bettina and Stephen Holquist; Kurt Newick; Pamela S. Merkadeau; Les Kratter; Phillip Dixon; Esther Emergui Gillette; Brigitte and Pete Shearer; Harvey Schmit; Marilee Minkel; Richard S. Darling and Ann M. Darling; Brad Strutner; Gabrielle Crawford
Comments from PG&E (The Applicant)
  Part 1  Part 2  Part 3  Part 4  Part 5  Part 6 (2.3 MB)  Part 7  Part 8  Part 9  Part 10  Part 11
 

This page contains tables and is best viewed with Netscape or Internet Explorer. Please report any problems to the Energy Division web coordinator.