Environmental Matters

PG&E's PEA contains a detailed description of the proposed project, and concludes that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The Commission conducted an independent review of the potential environmental impacts of the project pursuant to the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA).⁷ On August 31, 2004, it released an Initial Study of the project for public review and comment. The Initial Study identified the potential effects on the environment from the construction and operation of the proposed project in order to evaluate the environmental significance of these effects. The Initial Study was based on information presented in PG&E's PEA, site inspection by the Commission's environmental team, and independent environmental analysis by the Commission's environmental consultants.

On October 15, 2004, the Commission published a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND).⁸

The DMND found that there could be temporary and permanent environmental impacts in the following areas, but concluded that all such impacts could be mitigated so that the impact on the environment would be less than significant. In response to a comment letter from Catherine Doyle, the DMND proposed changing the route to lessen adverse impacts from construction for residents on Minnesota Street.⁹ PG&E accepted this mitigation, and no one opposed the route change. We approve the route proposed in the DMND. The approved route will not include Minnesota Street, but will instead include a segment along Tennessee Street.

· Air quality - the DMND found there would be a temporary impact due to construction activity.

· Cultural resources - the DMND found that project construction could result in disturbance of unknown cultural resources.

· Geology, soils and seismicity - the DMND found that the proposed project could sustain structural damage, cause erosion or suffer earthquake damage.

· Hazards and hazardous materials - the DMND found that excavation for the project could expose hazardous materials.

· Hydrology - the DMND found that the proposed project could result in adverse impacts to groundwater quality.

· Noise - the DMND found that project construction would intermittently and temporarily generate noise levels above existing ambient levels in the project vicinity.

· Population and housing - the DMND found that project construction could temporarily result in the displacement of homeless people.

· Public services - the DMND found that project construction would result in the temporary closure of some parks, and that the proposed facilities could be subject to vandalism and/or terrorism.

· Transportation and traffic - the DMND found that project construction would result in temporary disruption of traffic flows and an increase in traffic congestion.

· Mandatory findings of significance - the DMND found that the project had impacts that were individually limited but cumulatively considerable.

After release of the DMND, the Commission took comments for a period of 30 days. Two parties submitted comments: PG&E and John Carney.¹⁰ Neither comment alters the conclusion in the DMND that all potentially significant environmental impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level with appropriate mitigation measures.¹¹

Therefore, on November 19, 2004, the Commission issued its FMND, containing responses to all comments received on the DMND. We admit the FMND into evidence in the record of this proceeding as Exhibit 1 as of November 19, 2004 for the Commission to consider in determining whether to approve the project.

PG&E has agreed to implementation of all recommended mitigation measures including the recommended mitigation measures that will move the project from one block of Minnesota Street to one block of Tennessee Street. Implementation of this mitigation measure will lessen adverse impacts on residents.

A Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan has been prepared to ensure that the mitigation measures are property implemented. The Monitoring Plan describes specific actions required to implement each mitigation measure, including information on the timing of implementation and monitoring requirements.

Consistent with CEQA's requirements, we find that the Initial Study, the DMND and the FMND together provide a detailed and competent informational document and reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the Commission. In addition, we find that the project, with implementation of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, we adopt the FMND including the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared for this project.

⁷ Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., California Code of Regulations, Title 14 CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002 & 15063. ⁸ Under CEQA, an agency shall prepare an MND when the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or the Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects but the project as agreed to by the applicant prior to public review has been revised to avoid significant effects or the effects have been mitigated to a less than significant level. CEQA Guideline § 15070. ⁹ All property owners on the new route were notified of the proposed change-in-route mitigation, and no party objected. ¹⁰ Both of the comment letters and the Commission's response are contained in the FMND, which is available on the Commission's web site.

¹¹ PG&E suggested changes to the DMND and the proposed mitigation measures to clarify how PG&E intended to meet the requirements of CEQA. Carney's letter questioned whether the proposed project was the best way to meet San Francisco's power needs given other pending or proposed projects. The Commission believes that PG&E's application and PEA adequately address the purpose of and need for the project given the requirements for issuing a PTC. Carney complained that the proposed project, along with other pending upgrades, required PG&E to dig up streets more than once. PG&E provided information stating that although its plans were preliminary, only a short section of Evans Avenue would be impacted by both the HPPP project and another transmission upgrade. Carney's letter pointed out one error with the EMF calculations in the DMND, which is resolved in the FMND. Carney's letter also faulted PG&E for not providing information about the location of other utility infrastructure. PG&E does not release information about the precise location of utility infrastructure for security reasons.